(CODEX CANTABRIGIENSIS), one of the five most important Greek New Testament manuscripts, and the most interesting of all on account of its peculiar readings; scholars designate it by the letter D (see BIBLICAL CRITICISM, sub-title Textual). （CODEX CANTABRIGIENSIS）的五個最重要的希臘文新約聖經手稿，最有趣的，其特有的讀數上的所有帳戶;學者指定它由字母D（見聖經的批評，分題目考）。 It receives its name from Theodore Beza, the friend and successor of Calvin, and from the University of Cambridge, which obtained it as a gift from Beza in 1581 and still possesses it.它接受它的名字從西奧多beza，朋友和接班人的卡爾文，從英國劍橋大學，得到了它作為禮物送給Beza於1581年，仍然擁有。 The text is bilingual, Greek and Latin.這個文本是英文，希臘文和拉丁文。 The manuscript, written in uncial characters, forms a quarto volume, of excellent vellum, 10 x 8 inches, with one column to a page, the Greek being on the left page (considered the place of honour), the parallel Latin facing it on the right page.寫在uncial字的手稿，四開，形成了一個體積，優秀的羊皮紙，10×8英寸，與一列的頁面，希臘左頁（考慮到地方的榮譽），平行拉丁語，它面臨的正確的頁面。 It has been reproduced in an excellent photographic facsimile, published (1899) by the University of Cambridge.已轉載於一個優秀的攝影傳真，出版（1899年）由英國劍橋大學。
| BELIEVE Religious Information Source web-site相信宗教信息來源 |
| Our List of 2,300 Religious Subjects我們所列出的2300名宗教科目 |
| E-mail電子郵件 |
It has commonly been held that the manuscript originated in Southern France around the beginning of the sixth century.它已普遍被認為手稿起源於法國南部的第六個世紀左右開始。 No one places it at a later dare, chiefly on the evidence of the handwriting.沒有人的地方，它在以後不敢，主要是對證據的筆跡。 France was chosen, partly because the manuscript was found there, partly because churches in Lyons and the South were of Greek foundation and for a long time continued the use of Greek in the Liturgy, while Latin was the vernacular- for some such community, at any rate, this bilingual codex was produced- and partly because the text of D bears a remarkable resemblance to the text quoted by St. Irenæus, even, says Nestle, in the matter of clerical mistakes, so that it is possibly derived from his very copy.法國選擇了，部分原因是因為手稿被發現存在，部分是由於教會在里昂和南部的希臘基礎和持續很長一段時間，在禮儀中，使用希臘語，拉丁語是白話一些諸如社區，無論如何，這個雙語法典產生，部分原因是因為文本的D熊顯著相似的案文所引用的聖irenæus，甚至說，雀巢公司，在這個問題上的文書錯誤，因此，它可能是來自他很複製。 During the past five years, however, the opinion of the best English textual critics has been veering to Southern Italy as the original home of D. It is pointed out that the manuscript was used by a church practising the Greek Rite, as the liturgical annotations concern the Greek text alone; that these annotations date from the ninth to the eleventh century, exactly the period of the Greek Rite in Southern Italy, while it had died out elsewhere in Latin Christendom, and show that the Byzantine Mass-lections were in use, which cannot have been the case in Southern France.然而，在過去的五年裡，一直認為最好的英語詞句批評轉向以意大利南部的D.因為原來的家，據指出，這份手稿所使用的一所教堂執業希臘的成年禮，作為禮儀說明關注希臘文單，這些說明的日期是從第九至十一世紀，正是時期的希臘成年禮在意大利南部，而它已經死了，其他部分在拉丁語基督教，並顯示了拜占庭大眾集合在，這是不能的情況下，在法國南部。 The corrections, too, which concern the Greek text but rarely the Latin, the spelling, and the calendar all point to Southern Italy.改正的，也涉及希臘文，但很少是拉丁語，拼寫，和日曆都指向意大利南部。 These arguments, however, touch only the home of the manuscript, not its birthplace, and manuscripts have travelled from one end of Europe to the other.這些論點，但是，觸摸家庭的手稿，而不是它的發源地，手稿，從另一端的歐洲遊到另一邊。 Ravenna and Sardinia, where Greek and Latin influences also met, have likewise been suggested.拉文納和撒丁島，還會見了希臘文和拉丁文的影響，也同樣被提出。 It can only be said that the certainty with which till recently it was ascribed to Southern France has been shaken, and the probabilities now favour Southern Italy.它只能說是確定性，其中，直至最近，它被歸因於法國南部已經動搖，並概率現在贊成意大利南部。
Following Scrivener, scholars universally dated it from the beginning of the sixth century, but there is a tendency now to place it a hundred years earlier..斯科維娜，學者普遍過時的，它從一開始的第六個世紀，但現在有一種傾向，把它放在百年前.. Scrivener himself admitted that the handwriting was not inconsistent with this early date, and only assigned it a later date by reason of the Latinity of the annotations.斯科維娜自己承認，這筆跡是不得違反本月初為止，只有賦予它由原因的註釋Latinity的以後的日子。 But the corrupt Latin is not itself incompatible with an earlier date, while the freedom with which the Latin NT text is handled indicates a time when the Old Latin version was still current.但腐敗拉丁語本身不符合一個較早的日期，而自由拉丁語新台幣文本處理顯示的時候，老拉丁語版本仍然是當前。 It probably belongs to the fifth century.它可能屬於第五世紀。 Nothing necessitates a later date.沒有必要稍後的日期。
The type of text found in D is very ancient, yet it has survived in this one Greek manuscript alone, though it is found also in the Old Latin, the Old Syriac, and the Old Armenian versions.該類型的文本中發現D是很古老，但它存活在這一個希臘手稿單，雖然還發現，在舊拉丁語，古敘利亞文，與舊亞美尼亞版本。 It is the so-called Western Text, or one type of the Western Text.這是所謂的西方文字，或一種類型的西方文字。 All the Fathers before the end of the third century used a similar text and it can be traced back to sub-Apostolic times.所有的父親的第三個世紀結束之前使用了類似的文本，並可以追溯到使徒時代。 Its value is discussed elsewhere.它的價值是在別處討論。 D departs more widely than any other Greek codex from the ordinary text, compared with which as a standard, it is characterized by numerous additions, paraphrastic renderings, inversions, and some omissions. ð背離了更廣泛的，比任何其他的希臘法典，從普通的文本相比，它作為一種標準，它的特點是大量增加，paraphrastic透視圖，倒和一些遺漏。 (For collation of text, see Scrivener, Bezae Codex, pp. xlix-lxiii; Nestle, Novi Test. Graeci Supplementum, Gebhardt and Tischendorf ed., Leipzig, 1896.) One interpolation is worth noting here. （整理全文見斯克里夫納，bezae食品法典委員會，第XLIX-63，雀巢，諾維測試。Graeci Supplementum，格巴爾和蒂申多夫版，萊比錫，1896年）。一個插補這裡值得注意的是。 After Luke, vi, 5, we read :B3On the same day seeing some one working on the Sabbath, He said to him:8CO man, if you know what you do, blessed are you; but if you do not know, you are cursed and a transgressor of the law'." The most important omission, probably, is the second mention of the cup in Luke's account of the Last Supper.盧克，六，5之後，我們讀到：B3On同一天看到一些人在安息日工作，他說，對他說：8CO的男人，如果你知道你做了什麼，祝福你，但如果你不知道，你是詛咒，是犯罪的法律'。“最重要的遺漏，可能是第二次提到美洲杯在路加的敘述”最後的晚餐“。
The Latin text is not the Vulgate, nor yet the Old Latin, which it resembles more closely.拉丁文字是不是該vulgate，也不是舊的拉丁語，它類似於更加緊密。 It seems to be an independent translation of the Greek that faces it, though the fact that it contains two thousand variations from its accompanying Greek text have led some to doubt this.這似乎是一個獨立的翻譯，希臘面臨它，但事實上，它包含2000從它的陪同希臘文的變化，導致一些人懷疑這一點。 Of this number, however, only seven hundred and sixteen are said to be real variant readings, and some of these are derived from the Vulgate.然而，在這個數字中，只有七十萬和16個被認為是真正的變讀，其中一些是從拉丁文衍生。 If the translation be independent, both the Vulgate and Old Latin have influenced it greatly; as time went on, the influence of the Vulgate grew and probably extended even to modifications of the Greek text.如果翻譯是獨立的，無論是vulgate和老拉丁語的影響是很大的，隨著時間的推移，影響了vulgate增長，並有可能延長甚至希臘文的修改。 Chase, however, traces many of the variants to an original Syriac influence.大通，但痕跡，有許多變種，以原始敘利亞文的影響。 The text, which was in so great honour in the Early Church, possesses a fascination for certain scholars, who occasionally prefer its readings; but none professes to have really solved the mystery of its origin.的文字，這是在那麼大的榮譽，在早期教會，擁有魅力為某些學者，偶爾喜歡它的讀數，但沒有自稱已真正解決它的起源之謎。
Publication information Written by John Francis Fenlon.出版書面約翰·弗朗西斯Fenlon的信息。 Transcribed by Sean Hyland.轉錄由Sean海崙賓館。 The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IV.天主教百科全書，第四卷。 Published 1908.發布時間1908年。 New York: Robert Appleton Company.紐約：羅伯特·阿普爾頓公司。 Nihil Obstat. Nihil Obstat。 Remy Lafort, Censor.人頭馬lafort，檢查員。 Imprimatur.的認可。 +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York +約翰M法利，大主教紐約
This subject presentation in the original English language本主題介紹在原來的英文
Send an e-mail question or comment to us: E-mail發送電子郵件的問題或意見給我們：電子郵箱
The main BELIEVE web-page (and the index to subjects) is at主要相信網頁（和索引科目），是在