^{page 73 note 1} The scholarly interest of the translators is shown in a number of ways. In the Old Testament, for example, a point was made in returning to a more precise spelling of proper names, and even in accenting them in accordance with the original Hebrew. In the New Testament marginal notes identify the origin of the several quotations from pagan authors (namely the quotations at Acts xvii. 28; I Cor., xv. 33; and Titus i. 12).Google Scholar The Geneva translators were ahead of their times in observing that the Epistle to the Hebrews is probably not by Paul, and in printing the title simply ‘The Epistle to the Ebrewes’. For other examples of the scholarship reflected in this version, see the present writer's article ‘The Geneva Bible of 1560’, in Theology Today, XVII (1960), 339–52.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 2} Nicholas Pocock called attention to several of these in his article, ‘Some Notices of the Genevan Bible’, published in the little-known journal, The Bibliographer, VI (1884), 105–7.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 3} This is true of all the variants except that at I Cor., xv. 51, where apparently the space in the margin was deemed to be too much crowded by other comments to permit the use of the larger type for the variant reading.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 1} In Bibles current today what is given in the margin of the Geneva version is assigned to verse 36, and the Genevan verse 36 is renumbered verse 37.

^{page 75 note 1} In an explanatory, handwritten statement prefixed to the codex, Beza indicates that he obtained the manuscript during the civil war of 1562, doubtless at the sack of Lyons by the Huguenot army under the infamous Des Adrets: ‘Est hoc exemplar venerandae vetustatis ex Graecia, ut apparet ex barbaris graecis quibisdam ad marginem adscriptis, olim exportatum, et in Sancti Irenaei monasterio, Lugduni, ita ut hic cernitur, mutilatum, postquam ibi in pulvere diu jacuisset, repertum oriente ibi Civili bello, anno Domini 1562’ (cited by Scrivener, F. H. [A.], Bezae Codex Cantabrigiensis [Cambridge, 1864], p. viii).Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 2} See Harris, J. R., Codex Bezae (Cambridge, 1891), pp. 36–8.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 3} Estienne's statement in his ‘Epistle to the Reader’ regarding the manuscript is τό δέ β' έστί τό έν 'ταλία ύπό τῷν έμετέρων άντβληθέν ϕίλων. For the identity of the other fourteen manuscripts, all of them minuscules, see Gregory, C. R., Textkritik des Neuen Testamentes (Leipzig, 1902), 11,934.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 4} See Elizabeth, Armstrong, Robert Estienne, Royal Printer; an Historical Study of the Elder Stephanus (Cambridge University Press, 1954), pp. 211 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 1} A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (4th ed., 1884), 11,191.Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 2} op. cit. II, 935.Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 3} op. cit. p. 6.Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 4} Hug, J. L., Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, 4te Ausg. (Tübingen, 1847), § 58.Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 5} This is one of the fourteen passages in Beza's 1559 edition which differ from the text of Stephanus 1550 (so Eduard, Reuss, Bibliotheca Novi Testamenti Graeci [Brunsvigae, 1872], p. 73);Google Scholar another passage is Luke, xvii. 35–6 (see the first item in the list of Genevan variants).Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 6} Bezae no doubt refers to Erasmus'sAnnotationes, ed. 1527, p. 238; ed. 1546, p.24.Google Scholar