V. Tue Apparatus Criticus.—The following are the authorities, together with their abbreviations, which have been utilised :—
1. UNCcIALS :---
Ν Cod. Sinaiticus (iv. cen.).
1 Cod. Patiriensis (v. cen.), containing only iv. 14-v. 20.
A Cod. Alexandrinus (v. cen.).
B Cod. Vaticanus (iv. cen.).
C Cod. Ephraemi (v. cen.), wanting from Jas. iv. 3 to the end.
K, Cod. Mosquensis (ix. cen.), cited as K.
L, Cod. Angelicus Romanus (ix. cen.), cited as Τ..
P, Cod. Porfirianus (ix. cen.), cited as P; much illegible in Jas. ii. 13-21.
2, CURSIVES :— Cited by their numbers, but only when they offer readings of interest; curss=the consensus of a number of cursives.
3. VERSIONS :— The Old Latin :—
πι the pseudo-Augustinian Speculum (viii. or ix. cen.).
if Cod. Corbeiensis (vi. cen.).
s Frag. Vindobonensia (vi. cen.); wanting in v. 11-20.
The Vulgate :— The two most important MSS. are :— Vulg* Cod. Amiatinus (viii. cen.). Vulg® Cod. Fuldensis (vi. cen.). Latt =the consensus of the Latin versions,
The Syriac Versions :—
Pesh=Peshitta (belongs to the first half of the Vs θθη.].
Syr'*=A Syriac Lectionary written in the dialect most probably used by our Lord (vi. cen.). Of Jas. it contains only i. 1-12.
Syr™ =The Harklean Syriac (vii. cen.).
Syrr =the consensus of the Syriac versions.
The Armenian Version (v. cen.).*
The Coptic (Bohairic) Verszon (vi.-vii. cen.).* The Ethiopie Version (iv. cen.).*
The Sahidic Version (iii. cen.).*
4. ΟΗύΒΟΗ FATHERS :— Cyr=Cyril of Alexandria (v. cen.). Dam=John Damascene (vili. cen.). Did= Didymus of Alexandria (iv. cen.) Oec = Oecumenius (xi. cen.). Orig = Origen (iii. cen.). Thl=Theophylact (xi. cen.).
5. PrinTED EDITIONS :—
rec=Textus Receptus. Ti=Tischendorf.
Treg = Tregelles.
WH = Westcott and Hort. W = Weiss.
The Greek text used in the following pages is that published by Nestle, 1907.
VI. LirzraturE.—The following selected list of Commentaries, etc., only takes account of the more recent works; for a full biblio- graphy recourse must be had to Mayor’s enumeration :—
Pfleiderer, Urchristenthum, 1887. Beyschlag, Der Brief des $acobus, 1888. Plummer, St. fames, in the ‘‘ Expositor’s Bible,” 1891. Weiss, Die Katholischen Briefe . . . 1892. Spitta, Der Brief des Fakobus, 1898. » Zur Geschichte und Litteratur des Urchristenthums,
Π,, 1896. Von Soden, Hand-Commentar . . . 1899. Parry, A Discussion of the General Epistle of St. ames,
1908.
Grafe, Die Stellung und Bedeutung des $akobusbriefes in der Entwickelung des Urchristenthums, 1904.
Knowling, The Epistle of St. fames, in the ‘‘ Westminster Commentaries,” 1904.
Carr, The Epistle of St. James, in the “Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges,” 1905.
*These dates refer to the century in which the versions were probably first made, not to any extant MSS. of them.