Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1879-10-02
their opinion Of the age Of this
manuscript Is the existence in Il Of
the reference marks of the Ammo.

manuscript is the existence in Il AZ
the reference marks of the Ammo
ian sections and Eusebian csnons.
although it isfrns that the text IL.
eli does not follow this arrange.
nent Of sections. Tiscbendorf
maip aims that those references Are
not written in by the first hand:
but they are at any rate so nearly.
II not quite, contemporaneous with
the text, that their presence muss
qualify any idea of a more remote
ago than the latter part of the
fourth century. Ammonius of Al
exaudria early in the third century
attempted to form concordance Of
the gospels, by taking the Gospel
of st. Matthew as his standard and
arranging in parallel columns the
corresponding passages of the other
three evangelists. To assist him ia
this work, it hss been thought that
The division of The text into the
sections termed kephalaia, or chap.
ters, Was made by him, and hence
they have received the name of
Armenian sections. Eusebius.
bishop Of C@sares, made use of the
numbers of these sections to form q
series oftahles or canons of parallel
passages in the gospels. He died
in the year $40. Ii is fair argu-
ment, then, that manuscript
which contains the marginal refer.
ences 10 these sections and eanops
Is not likely to be Of equal age
with ono which does not have them;
and thus their presence in the CO.
dex Sinsitiens. apart from other
reasons, helps Us TO decide upon the
date of the volume. Il may very
properly be placed midway between
the V tlean and Alexand,ian manu-
scripts. that is to say, at about tho
end of the fourth, or beginning Of
the fifth, century.
While touching on the date of
this codex, we may recall to our
readers the impudent claim set MP
By Constantine Simouides, whose
foIgeries of Greer manuscripts
haze made his name so notorious, ~
it's real scribe. lie declared that
he had written with his own hand
the whole of the manuscripts as late
a. the years 1889 and 1910. But as
is was proved that the writing was
clearl y executed by more than one
hand, his statement did not go tor
much. although it had the good re.
suit Of causing a more thorough ex-
animation of the volume TO be IN.
dertaken than might have been. To
any o. e who has had any expert
ence OF manuscripts such a claim 10
simply ridiculous, for he knows
that TO initiate a manuscript of this
age and avoid detection is impossi.
BILE
Hbo remarks which have been al,
ready made upon the palmogTa phi.
cal peenliArities of the Vatican co.
dex generally apply to this manu-.
script also The same style of writ.
ing, punctuation, and contraction,
the same simplicity of Ornamental
ton. Is followed in both volumes.
But the letters OF The Codex Sinai.
ticue are not so elegantly formed
and are altogether on larger scale
than those 10 the other manuscript.
We would add few words on the
use ri the apos.rophe in early man.
nscfipts, which ia IN come respects
a little perplexing. In the present
volume it occurs pretty frequently.
lts most ordinary plscc is at the
end of proper name not having .
Greek termination, such as Israel,
ieroasdlcm. Here its position is APP
proptiate, a. it served as Division
between such a name and a follow>
ing word, Ii was also employed,
probably with the same view of
marking off a word moro precisely,
after words ending in certain let
ters, snch as the double letters a.
and Oh. and notably r. Traces of
these uses OF the apostrophe linger-
ed on in manuscripts of compare
lively late date, long after words
were regularly divided, and when
its original meaning as mark of
dieision was forgotten.
Like the Vatican manuscript this
C 'dex also omits the disputed pas
sage at the end of the Gospel of st.
Marx.