British Museum (1879), and by the express testimony of Dr. Vance Smith and of Dr. Sanday, who says, "The point is clearly marked, and it is evidently by the first hand.” (The Expositor, Sept., 1879, x. 235.) This fact has been overlooked both by Tischendorf and by Westcott and Hort. There is, moreover, a point after cápka in the Vatican MS. (B), which, though it does not appear in the Roman edition, is amply attested by Dr. Vance Smith from personal inspection (The Expositor, May, 1879, ix. 399, comp. his The Spirit and the Word of Christ, London, 1874, p. 138), and by others. This point also, from the description of it, seems to be probably by the first hand, though more careful examination and comparison may be required to settle the question.* The Clermont MS. (D) ends a stichometric line at cápka, but this does not determine the construction of what follows. The Sinaitic MS. has only a single point (after ouros, Rom. ix. 20) in the whole page containing the passage, 4 cols. of 48 lines each, from Rom. viii. 38 ούτε ενεστώτα το αγνοούντες, Χ. 3, inclusive. It is therefore neutral. The same is true for a different reason of F and G, in which the numerous points are distributed in the most arbitrary manner, so that, although they each have a point after σápka, it counts for nothing. We have no report of K, collated by Matthaei, who does not record the punctuation of MSS. L, the remaining uncial, has a point after σápka according to Tischendorf. There is no break between o wv and aum in A, B, C.

As to the cursive MSS., their punctuation has been very rarely noted by collators. The sweeping statement of Mr. Burgon is made

The facts as to the Vatican MS. are these. Tischendorf, who has given the most careful attention to its palæography, states that "ipsam primam manum passim, in nonnullis libris haud raro interpunxisse, sine ulla dubitatione asseverandum est. (V. T. Vat. p. xx.; comp. p. xxi.) The later hand, of the tenth or eleventh century, has but rarely supplied points. (Ibid.) The original scribe indicates a pause, sometimes by a small space simply; sometimes by such a space with a point, and sometimes by a point with a very small space between the letters or none at all. Of the latter there are two unquestionable examples by the first hand in Tischendorf's fac-similes, made from parts of the MS. which, having been accidentally repeated, were wholly untouched by the corrector and freshener of the ink; namely, after the word opɛinua in Rom. iv. 4 (cod. p. 1448), where there is no space, and after KELTαι in 2 Cor. iii. 15 (cod. p. 1479), where the space is exceedingly small. Tischendorf was unable to examine carefully the punctuation of the MS. beyond the end of the Gospel of Luke, but he observed that punctuation was much more frequent in the Epistles than in the Gospels. I notice that in the Roman edition there are twelve points on the page (p. 1453) that contains Rom. ix. 5, extending from Rom. viii. 23 (exov)TEC to μηπω yap, ix. 11, inclusive. There is no extra space after σápka, but perhaps that does not diminish the probability that the point is by the first hand. There is no extra space, as we have seen, after opɛinua in Rom. iv. 4; and Tischendorf observes (Nov. Test. Sin. p. xix.) that there are points with no space in the Sinaitic MS. after the words Tovnpia· Kakia' Thɛovežia · Rom. i. 29. On the page of B (1453) which contains Rom. ix. 5 there is no extra space in the printed edition with the point after anɛкdε xoμɛla, col. 1, 1. 12, or after TɛKvα, col. 3, 1. 28. It will be observed that all the words which have been mentioned end with the letter A, which on account of its peculiar form in the uncial MSS. did not need any extra space for the insertion of a point after it at the top of the line, the shape of the letter necessarily leaving a space there. But the absence of extra space after the letter would render it less likely that the late corrector would insert a point after it.

It is expressly stated by a gentleman who recently examined the MS., and whose letter from Rome I have been permitted to see, that the point after cupka "is of lighter color than the

entirely at random. But a point after cápяa is found in at least six cursives, namely: No. 5 (collated by Scholz), 47 (by Griesbach), 71, 77, 80, and 89 (by Birch); also in the beautiful Greek Praxapostolos or Lectionary of the twelfth century belonging to the Library of Harvard College (pp. 150, 151), and the fine Lectionary in the Astor Library (p. 117), assigned to the eleventh century (?), formerly in the possession of the Duke of Sussex. In the Harvard Lectionary there is also a point after ɛós, which is not the case in the Astor Library MS.* A point has also been noted after ɛóc in 17 (Griesb.), and after ávrov in 71 (Birch).†

Incorrect statements are often made in regard to the extreme rarity of punctuation in our oldest New Testament MSS. I therefore note the fact that, on the page of the Alexandrian MS. (A) which contains our passage, extending from Rom. viii. 21 akhа dia tоν vñoražavṛa to пpobegic to the μev... ix. 11, there are sixty-four points in Woide's edition; in the Ephraem MS. (C) from Rom. viii. 27 o de ɛpevrov to aμm ix. 5 in Tischendorf's edition there are forty-five points; for B see above. In the three pages of Paul's Epistles in B published by Tischendorf line for line in his Appendix codd. celeb. Sin. Vat. Alex. (1867), p. 1445 (Rom. i. 1–26) has fifteen points which he regards as a prima manu; p. 1460 (Rom. xv. 24-xvi. 17) has thirty-five; p. 1506 (Col. iv. 8-1, Thess. i. 8), with more than half a column blank, has seventeen. These pages, however, were selected partly on account of their exceptional frequency of punctuation.

The truth is that this whole matter of punctuation in the ancient MSS. is of exceedingly small importance, which might be shown more fully, had not this paper already extended to an excessive length. In the first place, we cannot infer with confidence the construction given to the passage by the punctuator, the distribution of points even in the oldest MSS. is so abnormal; in the second place, if we could, to how much would his authority amount?

All that I have argued from the point after cápкa in A, B, C, L, etc., is that a pause after that word was felt by ancient scribes to be natural.

adjoining letters," and that it was certainly much fainter than a point in the space after nuv on the same page, "which was as black as the touched letters."

Since the above was printed, the point after cáрkа has been very carefully examined by Professor Ubaldo Ubaldi, of the Collegio Romano, and Father Cozza, one of the editors of the Vatican MS. They compared it, at my suggestion, with the twelve points represented in the printed edition of the MS. on the same page (1453), and also with the points, unquestionably a prima manu, after ooɛinua, Rom. iv. 4, and after kɛITαι, 2 Cor. iii. 15. The result is that the point after sapka is undoubtedly by the first hand, the pale ink of the original being only partially covered, as in other cases on the same page, by the black ink of the late scribe who retouched the ancient writing throughout the MS.

*For a careful copy of that part of the Astor Library MS. which contains Rom. ix. 4, 5, I am indebted to the kindness of the Rev. S. M. Jackson.

↑ It may be added, that out of six cursive MSS. examined for me by Dr. C. R. Gregory, viz., Brit. Mus. Add. 5116, 7142, 11837, 17469, Curzon 71. 6, and Act. 20 (Paul. 25), all but the last have a colon after σópka, and the last MS. is almost illegible in this place. [See p. 432 below.]

NOTE B. (See p. 363.)

On the Distinction between εύλογητός and ευλογημένος.

The distinction between εὐλογητός and εὐλογημένος is dwelt upon by Philo, De Migr. Abrah. c. 19, Opp. i. 453, in his remarks on Gen. xii. 2. The former word, according to him, describes one who by nature or character is worthy of praise or blessing, evoyíaç ağtos; the latter, one who is in fact praised or blessed, whether rightfully or otherwise. In other words, evλoynrós, in doxologies, would be laudandus or laude dignus; evĥoynμévoç laudatus. So Theodore of Mopsuestia on Eph. i. 3 explains ευλογητός as τοῦ ἐπαινεῖσθαι καὶ θαυμάζεσθαι άξιος. (Migne, Patrol. Gr. lxvi. 912.) It is true that in classical Greek verbals in Tóc, like the Latin participles in -tus, have generally a simply passive signification; but we find exceptions, particularly in the later Greek, and especially in the case of words analogous in meaning to evλoynrós. See in the Lexicons αἰνετός, ἐπαινετός, ὑπεραινετός, ἐγκωμιαστός, ζηλωτός, θαυμαστός, μακαριστός (2 Μacc. vii. 24), μεμπτός, ψεκτός, μισητός, στυγητός, ὑμνητός, ὑπε ρυμνητός. Οι επαινετός and ψεκτός, see Philo, ubi supra. (See also Kühner, Ausführl. Gram., 2te Aufl., i. 716.) This view is confirmed by the fact that we never find ευλογητός used like εὐλογημένος with εἴη or έστω; wherever the verb is expressed with εύλογητός it is always in the indicative. For example, in Rom. i. 25, τὸν κτίσαντα, ὃς ἐστιν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, it is surely more natural to take ευλογητός as signifying " to be praised," laudandus, than actually "praised," laudatus. See Fritzsche and Van Hengel in loc., the latter of whom cites the passage of Philo referred to above. So in other doxologies we find the indicative, εvλoynτóç el, Ps. cxviii. (cxix.) 12; Judith xiii. 17; Tob. iii. 11; viii. 5, 15, 16, 17; xi. 13; Orat. Azar. 2; Cant. trium puer. (Fritzsche), 28, 30-33; 1 Esdr. iv. 60; 1 Macc. iv. 20; Const. Apost. vii. 34, 49; Act. Phil. c. 26; Lit. S. Jac. in Hammond's Antient Liturgies (Oxford, 1878), pp. 25, 26, 28, 31, 33, 38, 39, 53, 54; Lit. Const. (Anaph. S. Chrys.), p. 119; (Anaph. S. Basil.) p. 128; Lit. S. Marci, p. 179; and so ó ův ɛizoyntóc, 2 Cor. xi. 31; Lit. S. Marci, pp. 176, 192. This is the view of many excellent scholars besides Fritzsche and Van Hengel; as Erasmus, Beza (on Mark xiv. 61), Crell on Rom. ix. 5, Tholuck, Rückert, and the lexicographers Schleusner, Wahl, Bretschneider, and Robinson. On the other side there are indeed very eminent names, as Grimm in his Lex., Meyer, De Wette and Philippi on Rom. i. 25, and Harless on Eph. i. 3; but I find no argument in any of them except Harless, and his arguments seem to me of little weight. They rest mainly on the assumption that evoynrós is taken to mean "one who must be praised" instead of "one to whom praise is due." That the latter conception of God may naturally be expressed in a doxology is shown by Rev. iv. 11, ἄξιος εἶ, ὁ κύριος καὶ θεὸς ἡμῶν, λαβεῖν τὴν δόξαν, κ. τ. λ. ; comp. Rev. v. 12. See also Ruinart, Acta Martyrum, ed. Galura, ii.

186 (S. Bonifatius, § 12), or σN прÉTEL TYй, K. T. 2., and iii. 62 (SS. Tarachus, Probus, etc., §11), ôrɩ avrò̟ πpéñeɩ dóža, k, T. 2.; Const. Ap. vii. 48; Act. Barn. c. 26; Act. Joh. c. 22; Protev. Jac. c. 25, § 2, MSS.; Act. Pil. A. c. 16, § 8, MSS.; Narr. Jos. c. 5, § 4. I accordingly agree with Buttmann, N. T. Gram., p. 120 (137 Thayer), that in doxologies with ευλογητός we are to supply ἐστίν rather than εin or ἔστω. The sentence is therefore, in these cases, grammatically considered, declarative, not optative, though the whole effect of the original is perhaps better given by rendering "be blessed" than "is to be praised." Compare further I Pet. iv. 11; Matt. vi. 13 (Text. Rec.); Clem. Rom. Ep. ad Cor. c. 58 (new addit.; contra, c. 32); and see Lightfoot's note on Gal. i. 5. We must notice the difference in meaning, not affecting however the position of the words, between evoynróg in the Septuagint when applied to men, as in Gen. (xii. 2, variante lectione) xxiv. 31 (v. l.); xxvi. 29 (v. 1.); Deut. vii. 14; (xxviii. 6, v. 1.; xxxiii. 24, v. 1.); Judges xvii. 2 (v. 1.); Ruth ii. 20; 1 Sam. xv. 13 (v. l.); Judith xiii. 18 (v. 1.); Tobit xi. 16 (in cne text), xiii. 12 (in one text), 18 (do.), and when applied to God. In the former case, it is used in the sense of "prospered," "blessed" (namely, by God), and is to be taken, probably, in a simply passive sense; εὐλογημένος often occurs as a various reading. As applied to God, I believe Philo's distinction holds good. In the particular case, however, to which he refers, Gen. xii. 2, where he reads εvoynós (so many other authorities, see Holmes), applied to Abraham, his exposition is fanciful. In several cases the terms may seem to be intentionally distinguished; see Gen. xiv. 19, 20; 1 Sam. xxv. 32, 33; Tobit xi. 16, Sin.; contra, Judith xiii. 18.

One other remark may be made. In speaking of evλoynrós and similar words in "exclamatory doxologies" (see Dr. Dwight as above, pp. 31-39), we must guard against a fallacy. "Exclamatory" as applied to sentences denotes a characteristic which exists in very different degrees in different cases; where one printer would use a mark of exclamation, another would often put a period. Because the placing of such a predicate as evλoynrós first in the sentence gives or tends to give it an exclamatory character, we cannot straightway draw the inference that in all doxologies in which the verb is omitted evλoyŋróç, if used, must have the first place. One may admit that in exclamatory doxologies εvλoyŋró always stands first, and deny that the doxology in Rom. ix. 5 is exclamatory. The elliptical word I suppose to be iori, as in most at least of the clauses immediately preceding.

XVII.

RECENT DISCUSSIONS OF ROMANS IX. 5.

[From the Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis for 1883.]

SINCE the publication of the articles on Rom. ix. 5 in the Journal of our Society for 1881, there have been several discussions of the passage which seem worthy of notice, especially as in some of them those articles have been quoted with approval or criticised. The venerable pastor and Professor of Theology in the University of Geneva, Hugues Oltramare, has a long and able note upon it in his recent elaborate and valuable Commentaire sur l'Épître aux Romains (2 vols., Geneva and Paris, 1881-82). He adopts the doxological construction, placing a period after σápka. In England, the marginal note of the Revisers appears to have given great offence in certain quarters. "I must press upon. every reader," says Canon Cook, "the duty- I use the word 'duty' emphatically of reading the admirable note of Dr. Gifford [on this passage] in the 'Speaker's Commentary.' I should scarcely have thought it credible, in face of the unanswered and unanswerable arguments there urged, that English divines would venture to have given their sanction to one of the most pernicious and indefensible innovations of rationalistic criticism." (The Revised Version of the First Three Gospels, London, 1882, p. 167, note.) Elsewhere he speaks of "the very painful and offensive note on Romans ix. 5, in the margin of the Revised Version" (ibid., p. 194).

It appears that Canon Cook sent a challenge to Canon Kennedy, Regius Professor of Greek in the University of Cambridge, to meet the arguments of Dr. Gifford, and that this led to the publication of the first pamphlet to be