I. TIMOTHY.

Chap. i. ver. 1. Kupiov is omitted by Griesbach et rel. and Vulgate.

i. 2. uv is omitted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Vulgate.

i. 4. oixodopíav. Nearly all Mss., several versions, most early editions and fathers read oixovoμíav, which has been preferred by Grotius, Hammond, Mill, and almost every editor from Wetstein to Bloomfield.

i. 17. oop, which is not found in some ancient versions and fathers, has been cancelled by Griesbach et rel., but Bloomfield thinks wrongly.

ii. 7. The words év Xplor are omitted by Griesbach et rel. and Vulgate.

iii. 3. μn aloxрокерon. These words are cancelled by Griesbach et rel., though defended by Matthæi, not being extant in very many of the most ancient Mss., several Museum copies, nearly all versions, and numerous Greek fathers. See Titus i. 7.

iv. 12. év πνeúμari are omitted by Griesbach et rel. and Vulgate, but Bloomfield considers without adequate cause, being found in the majority of Mss., all the Lambeth and Museum copies.

v. 4. ěkyova is here translated "nephews," answering to the Latin nepotes. It ought to be rendered "grandchildren," as in the marginal reference of Judges xii. 14. So reads Dean Trench. Scholefield has "descendants."

ν. 4. καὶ ἀποδεκτόν are not found in many uncial and cursive Mss., most ancient versions, and some fathers. They have been rejected by Griesbach et rel., but Bloomfield judges doubtfully.

v. 21. Kupíov is here cancelled by Griesbach et rel.; but improperly in the opinion of Bloomfield, being extant in the Peschito Syriac, Arabic, and Gothic versions, Chrysostom, three uncial, nearly all the cursive Mss., with all the Lambeth and Museum copies. See 2 Tim. iv. 1.

v. 25. eorí is cancelled by Lachmann and Tischendorf, and for δύναται they read δύνανται.

vi. 5. ἀφίστασο ἀπὸ τῶν τοιούτων. These words are omitted by Lachmann and Tischendorf, Messrs. Conybeare and Howson; but are retained with more reason by Matthæi, Scholz, and Bloomfield, being consonant to the style of classical writers. They are found in the majority of Mss., the Syriac version, and some ancient fathers.

vi. 8. σкежáoμara, "raiment." Liddell and Scott rather interpret this Greek substantive by "covering," the same as σkéπŋ, including the protection of a house as well as clothing. So Hippocrates, σкÉπη тоû νóтον, "a shelter from the south-west wind." The Vulgate has quibus tega. mur; and so reads Dean Trench.

vi. 11. πρаóτητa. Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf read πраüπá@elav, but from slight authority.

vi. 13. (woжоloÛVTOS. Lachmann and Tischendorf read ζωογονοῦντος.

vi. 19. aiwvíov. Griesbach et rel. read ovтws, with nearly all the most ancient Mss., versions, and fathers.

II. TIMOTHY.

Chap. i. ver. 14. таракатаðýкηv. Wetstein, Matthæi, Griesbach et rel. and Bloomfield read πаpalýкηy, with all the uncial, many cursive Mss., nearly all the Lambeth and Museum copies. See 1 Tim. vi. 20.

ii. 3. κакожáłnoov, " endure hardness;" rather, endure affliction." So Scholefield.

ii. 19. XρiσToû. Almost all the uncial, very many cursive Mss., all the Lambeth and Museum copies, the Peschito Syriac, and other versions, have Kupíov, which is edited by Matthæi, Griesbach et rel., and Bloomfield.

ii. 26. καὶ ἀνανήψωσιν ἐκ τῆς τοῦ διαβόλου παγίδος, ἐζωγρημένοι ὑπ ̓ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ ἐκείνου θέλημα, “ and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will." Scholefield has thus altered this translation: "and having been led captive by the devil, they may recover themselves out of his snare, to do the will of God." The exeivov refers to o Oeós of the preceding verse.

iii. 6. aixuaλwтeúovтes. Griesbach et rel. and Bloomfield read aixuaλwτíčovτes, with six uncial, twenty-five cursive Mss., two Lambeth and two Museum copies; also Tá is omitted before γυναικάρια.

iv. 1. The words oův éyó are omitted by Griesbach et rel. and Vulgate.

iv. 13. φαινόλην. Curcellæus has φαιλώνην. Bishop Fell, Griesbach et rel. and Bloomfield edit peλóvny. The Vulgate has penulam.

iv. 20. Miλýry is here translated "Miletum" instead of "Miletus."

iv. 21. It may be inferred from the Annals of Tacitus, that about the middle of the first century Christianity was known in Britain. Aulus Gellius, the governor of our own island, had a wife named Pomponia Græcina, who is accused by the Roman historian of having been "externæ superstitionis rea." Mr. C. Taylor, the editor of Calmet's Dictionary, imagines that Claudia, enumerated by the apostle Paul among the salutations in the verse above cited, was the daughter of Caractacus, king of the Britons, who together with his wife and family were reserved for the triumph of the emperor Claudius, and is the leading hero of a dramatic poem written by Mason. She is also

identified with a British lady flattered in an epigram of Martial, and the wife of Pudens. The fact, however, of her lineage is a lucubration devoid of proof, and even likelihood, if its possibility be allowed; for Caractacus died after his liberation and return home, A.D. 54, and the apostolic epistle to Timothy was written A.D. 66. There is not any demonstrableness of this chieftain having left a daughter of that name at Rome, neither that she was the individual mentioned by the epigrammatist, nor that either one or the other was the Christian convert with whom Timothy had become acquainted. If she were born in Italy during the captivity of Caractacus there, and so named from complimentary gratitude to the emperor, which Mr. Taylor conjecturally suggests, she would have

been only twelve or fourteen years of age when Paul was there himself, and Caractacus lived to enjoy his liberty only about two years. Claudia, no doubt, was a female Roman patronymic. The order of names mentioned by the apostle at the conclusion of this epistle is Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, and Claudia. The insertion of another name between Pudens and Claudia would indicate that they were not man and wife, nor is there any evidence from manuscripts which would warrant an alteration of the received reading. Mr. Taylor evades this difficulty by the more fanciful idea that at this time they were only betrothed, and afterwards became the subjects of another epigram from the same Latin poet. At any rate this suspicious and romantic tale is more worthy of its anecdotical niche in a Spectator, Athenæum, or among the Notes and Queries of literary fame.