2. The minuscule or cursive manuscripts are very numerous, and only a few of special interest are occasionally cited in the critical apparatus. 17, the “queen of cursives” (ssc. ix.), is at Paris; 37 (636. xv.) is the well-known Leicester Codex = Ev. 69; and 73 (szec. xi.) is at Upsala.
3. Versions. Of these the Latin claims special attention. The versions d, e, f, g have been described above. We have also of the Old Latin the fragmentary Codex Frisingensis (r) of the sixth (?) century, containing of our Epistle chaps. i. 1-ii. 10, iii, 17-v. 1, vii. 10-vili. 12, ix. 10-xi. 21, xii. 14-21, xiii, 2-10. The symbol ΠῚ marks the readings found in the Speculum, which represents the text of the Spaniard Priscillian. The Vulgate (vg) of the Pauline Epistles differs but little from the pre-Hieronymian Latin.
In Syriac we have the Peshitto (szc. iii.?) and the Harclean version (szc. vii.) The margin of the latter often preserves better readings than are found in its text.
Of Egyptian versions we have the Bohairic or the North Coptic, and the Sahidic or South Coptic, the language of Upper Egypt. These versions are to be dated probably about the third century.
It has not come within the scope of this edition to cite the patristic authorities for the variants recorded; for a full conspectus the student must be referred to Tischendorfs Novum Testamentum Grece (8th edit.), on which the following apparatus criticus is based.
4. In accordance with the general plan of the Expositor’s Greek Testament the ‘received text’’ (see vol. i., p. 52) is printed at the head of the pages but the commentary follows the reading, which has appeared to the editor to be, on the whole, most probably original,
Among the Patristic Commentaries on the Epistle perhaps the most important are those of Chrysostom, Ambrosiaster and Primasius. Modern commentaries are very numerous. Stanley’s notes are often illuminating and picturesque; Alford is careful and thorough, as usual; and Waite (in the Speaker’s Commentary) provides a useful discussion of the main questions which the Epistle suggests. Of German commentaries Schmiedel’s (in the Hand Kommentar) is by far the most complete. It is a brilliant and scholarly piece of work, and is indispensable to the student who wishes to have detailed information as to the various schemes by which St. Paul’s history has been reconstructed for the years 53-55 A.D. Schmiedel’s general view (see p. 19 above) that chaps. x.-xiii. con- stitute part of a letter distinct from and later than chaps. i.-ix. has not commended itself to the present editor; but his notes are full of