489. (Act. 325.)
490. Dublin, Trin. Coll. D. i. 28 [xiv], 8-½ × 5-½, ff. 8, Rom. viii. 23 (ἑαυτούς) ... xiv. 10 κρι | νεις. Inked over in places by another hand [xvi]. Κεφ. Collated by Dr. T. K. Abbott (Hermathena, xviii. 233, 1892).
491. (Act. 107.)
Chapter XII. Cursive Manuscripts Of The Apocalypse.
1. Mayhingen, Oettingen-Wallerstein [xii], 9-1/8 × 5-7/8, ff. 90 (15 last chart.), the only one used in 1516 by Erasmus (who calls it “exemplar vetustissimum”) and long lost, contains the commentary of Andreas of Caesarea, in which the text is so completely imbedded that great care is needed to separate the one from the other. Mut. ch. xxii. 16-21, ending with τοῦ δαδ. This manuscript was happily re-discovered in 1861 by Professor F. Delitzsch at Mayhingen in Bavaria in the library of the Prince of Oettingen-Wallerstein, and a critical account of it published by him (illustrated by a facsimile) in the first part of his “Handschriftliche Funde” (1861). Tregelles also, in the second part of the same work, published an independent collation of his own (with valuable 'Notes' prefixed), which he had made at Erlangen in 1862. The identity of Apoc. 1 with the recovered copy is manifest from such monstra as ἐβάπτισας ch. ii. 3, which is found in both; from the reading συνάγει ch. xiii. 10, and from the clauses put wrong by Erasmus, as being lost in the commentary, e.g. ch. ii. 17; iii. 5, 12, 15; vi. 11, 15. Of this copy Dr. Hort says (Introd. p. 263) that “it is by no means an average cursive of the common sort. On the one hand it has many individualisms and readings with small and evidently unimportant attestation: on the other it has a large and good ancient element,... and ought certainly (with the somewhat similar 38) to stand high among secondary documents.”
2. (Act. 10, Stephen's ιε᾽.)
3. Codex Stephani ιϛ᾽, unknown; cited only 77 times throughout the Apocalypse in Stephen's edition of 1550, and that very irregularly; only once (ch. xx. 3) after ch. xvii. 8. It was not one of the copies in the King's Library, and the four citations noticed by Mill (N. T., prol. § 1176) from Luke xxii. 30; 67; 2 Cor. xii. 11; 1 Tim. iii. 3, are probably mere errors of Stephen's press.
4. (Act. 12.)