« НазадПродовжити »
chapter of St. Luke's Gospel to the end of the twentieth verse. The manuscripts selected are the following: No. 20 of the Burneian collection in the British Museum, written by Theophilus in 1285; No. 21 of the same collection, written in the year 1292 by Theodorus ; No. 18 of the same, written in 1366 by Joasaph. I have chosen these manuscripts on account of their bearing the exact dates at which they were written. The marks in them have the appearance of being written at the same time with the words, and I think it may be fairly assumed that they were so. With respect to some of the more ancient manuscripts, this point might not perhaps be so easily conceded. When we find only one manuscript marked out of many, we may doubt whether it may not owe its marks to the accident of its having fallen into the hands of some one, who marked it in a later age : but as it is universally agreed that the use of the marks had become very general before the thirteenth century, there is little probability that a copier would allow a manuscript unmarked to go out of his hands; and I should think, in general, a writer who had made up his mind that the manuscript should be marked, would mark the words as fast as he wrote them.
The following is a copy of the first twenty verses of the first chapter of Saint Luke's Gospel, as they stand in the manuscript of Theophilus ; I have divided the text into verses for the con
venience of reference, though it is not so divided in the original. I have also enclosed in brackets, thus [καθώς], many words which are illegible in No. 21.
Ver. 1. Επειδήπερ πολλοί επεχείρησαν ανατάξασθαι διήγησιν περί των πεπληροφορημένων εν ημίν πραγμάτων" ν. 2. [καθώς) παρέδοσαν ημίν οι απ’ [άρχης] αυτόπται και υπηρέται γενόμενοι του λόγου, ν. 3. έδοξε καμοί παρηκολουθηκότι άνωθεν πασιν ακριβώς, καθεξής σου γράψαι κράτιστε θεόφιλε ν. 4. ίνα επιγνώς περί ων κατηχήθης λόγων, την ασφάλειαν· ν. 5. εγένετο εν ταις ημέραις ηρώδου του βασιλέως της Ιουδαίας, ιερεύς τις ονόματι ζαχαρίας εξ εφημερίας άβια και η γυνή αυτού, εκ των θυγατέρων ααρών και το όνομα αυτής, Ελισάβετ: ν. 6. ήσαν δε δίκαιοι αμφότεροι ενώπιον του θυ· πορευόμενοι εν πάσαις ταις εντολαίς και δικαιώμασι του κύ άμεμπτοι· ν. 7. και ουκ ήν αυτοίς τέκνον" καθότι η Ελισάβετ ην στείρα, και αμφότεροι, προβεβηκότες εν ταις ημέραις αυτών ήσαν" ν. 8. [έγένετο] δε εν τω ιερατεύειν αυτόν εν [τη τάξει της εφημερίας αυτού, έναντι [θυ· ν. 9. κατά το έτος της ιερατείας, έλαχε του [θυμιάσαι, εισελθών εις τον ναόν του κύ· ν. 10. και πάν το πλήθος ήν του λαού) προσευχόμενον έξω [τη ώρα του θυμιάματος: ν. 11. ώφθη [δε αυτώ] άγγελος κύ, εστώς εκ δεξιών του θυσιαστηρίου του θυμιάματος: ν. 12. και εταράχθη ζαχαρίας ιδών και φόβος επέπεσεν επ' αυτόν· ν. 13. είπε δε προς αυτόν ο άγγελος" μη φοβου ζαχαρία: διότι εισηκούσθη ή δέησίς σου και η γυνή σου έλισάβετ γεννήσει υιόν σου και καλέσεις το όνομα αυτού, ιώ· ν. 14. και έσται χαρά σου και αγαλλίασις και πολλοί επί τη γεννήσει αυτού χαρήσονται ν. 15. έσται γάρ μέγας ενώπιον του κύ· και οίνον και σίκερα ου μη" πίη και πνσ' αγίου πλησθήσεται έτι εκ κοιλίας μρίς αυτού ν. 16. και πολλούς των υιών Ιηλ επιστρέψει επί κύ των θν αυτών ν. 17. και αυτός προελέυσεται ενώπιον αυτού εν πνία και δυνάμει ηλίου, επιστρέψαι καρδιάς πρών, επί τέκνα και [απειθείς,] εν φρονήσει δικαίων [έτοιμάσαι κώ λαών] κατασκευασμένον· ν. 18. [Και είπε ζαχαρίας προς] τον άγγελ: κατά τη γνώσομαι [τούτο εγώ] γάρ ειμι πρεσβύτης και η γυνή μου προβεβηκυία εν ταις
ημέραις αυτής· ν. 19. και αποκριθείς ο άγγελος είπεν αυτώ εγώ είμι γαβριήλ ο παρεστηκώς ενώπιον του θύ και απεστάλης λαλήσαι προς σε, και ευαγγελίσασθαί σοι ταύτα: ν. 20. και ίδου, έση σιωπή και μη δυνάμενος λαλήσαι, άχρι ης ημέρας, révyrai taūra åra Wv our eniorevoas rois lóyous uov, orures πληρωθήσονται εις τον καιρόν αυτών.
The differences which appear between the ac. centual marks as above set out in the manuscript No. 20, and those which appear in the two other manuscripts No. 18 and No. 21, are the following:
V. 5. iepeúc Tic. No. 18 has epeug ría, which is an error in disregarding the enclitic: and even admitting rig not to be an enclitic, it should have been marked ric, to distinguish it from the interrogative rig.
V. 5. áßiâ. No. 18 has aßiá, No. 21 aßià. This difference between No. 18 and No. 21 is merely whether the word should be considered as standing at the end of a sentence ; if it be, it should be marked (); if not, it should have the 0), which, as we have seen, has been erroneously called in such cases the mark of the grave accent: both writers consider the word as an oxytone, that is, a word whose last syllable is to be raised in the pronunciation; so that this difference of the marks is really to be referred to a disagreement, not upon accentuation, but punctuation. Theophilus agrees with the other two in thinking the last syllable should be raised, because he fixes the mark of a circumflex accent, which, as we have seen, contains an acute; only he would raise it with a particular inflexion of the voice, whatever that inflexion was. The following differences turn on the same point:
V. 3. kaleña. No. 21 has kaletha.
V. 9. Ovuiâoat. No. 18 has Quuiáoal. The accent is not legible in No. 21.
V. 17. årelleic. No. 18 has áreideic. The accent in No. 21 is illegible. These pumerous discrepancies between the acute and the circumflex marks make it probable that the distinction between those accents in speaking was not very broad, that it was often overlooked, and perhaps fell into disuse before these manuscripts were written.
V. 6. Sekatupaoi. No. 18 has dikaiwhaoi. If this were the only word of a similar formation in that manuscript, we might suppose the writer to have ignorantly transferred the mark of the nominative dikalwua to an oblique case consisting of one syllable more; but as he has affixed the proper mark to ονόματι and to θυμιάματος, it is much more probable that it is a mere oversight.
V. 9. vaùy. The accent in No. 21 is illegible. No. 18 has vaóv, which is an error, for it is impossible to consider that word as standing at the end of a sentence: neither can the following tov be an enclitic, nor indeed does the writer so consider it, having marked it coû.
V. 12. ajtóv: the two others have aúróv.
V. 15. un'. I am unable to account for this double mark, which appears also in No. 18: the
word un has the ordinary single mark in two other instances in this manuscript, as it has here in No. 21.
V. 17. vidioù : No. 18 has ñdcov. V. 19. após ge: No. 18 has oé. Both these differences, as we have seen in the word åßia, are to be referred to the punctuation. The twenty verses in the manuscript of Theophilus contain, after deducting the abbreviated words, two hundred and eightyone accentual marks. From these must be deducted thirty-three, being the number of corresponding marks which are illegible in No. 21; of the remaining two hundred and forty-eight marks, eleven are different in one or both of the other two manuscripts, leaving two hundred and thirty-seven marks, being rather more than eleven-twelfths, in which the three manuscripts agree.
Of the eleven discrepancies, one is occasioned by the omission of an enclitic : in four the writers agree that the accent ought to be the acute, but they disagree as to their manner of marking it ; in four others they agree that the syllable ought to be raised, but they disagree as to the particular inflexion of voice in so raising it: one is occasioned by a double acute, which, for whatever purpose introduced, shows at any rate that the syllable is to be raised; and the only word in which we could possibly be left in doubt, as to the syllable which ought to be raised, would be dikaiwuaol ; and here we are enabled to speak