« PreviousContinue »
Gracco-Coptic papyri, partly on the order of the Pauline epistles. At present, both in and B, Hebrews is placed after 2 Thess., but in B there is also a continuous numeration of sections throughout the epistles, according to which 1 to 58 cover Romans to Galatians, but Ephesians, the next epistle, begins with 70 instead of 59, and the omitted section numbers are found in Hebrews. Obviously, the archetype placed Hebrews between Galatians and Ephesians, but the scribe altered the order and put it between 2 Thess. and 1 Tim., though without changing the section numbers. This older order of the epistles is only found elsewhere in the Sahidic version of the New Testament, and it was probably therefore the old Egyptian or Alexandrian order. Moreover, we know from the Festal letter of A.D. 367 (according to the Greek and Syriac texts, but not the Sahidic), that Athanasius then introduced the order of the epistles which is now given in B. This is strong evidence for the view that the archetype of B came from Alexandria or the neighbourhood, and was older than the time of Athanasius, but it scarcely proves that B itself is Alexandrian, for the order of epistles which it gives is also that adopted by the council of Laodicea in A.D. 363, and may have been introduced elsewhere, perhaps in Caesarea. A further argument, sometimes based upon and sometimes in turn used to support the foregoing, is that the text of & B represents that of Hesychius; but this is extremely doubtful (see the section Textual Criticism below).
[The question of the provenance of & and B may best be studied in J. Rendel Harris, Stichometry (Cambridge, 1893), pp. 71-89; J. Armitage Robinson, Euthaliana," Texts and Studies, iii. 3 (Cambridge, 1895), esp. pp. 34-43 (these more especially for the connexion with Caesarea); A. Rahfls, Alter und Heimat der vatikanischer Bibelhandschrift," in the Nachrichten der Gesell. der Wiss. zu Göttingen (1899), vol. i. pp. 72-79; and O. von Gebhardt in a review of the last named in the Theologische Literaturzeitung (1899), col. 556.1
Codex Bezae (Cambridge Univ. Nu. 2, 41), Greg. D, von Soden 85; an uncial Graeco-Latin MS. not later than the 6th century and probably considerably earlier. The text is written in one column to a page, the Greek on the left hand page and the Latin on the right. It was given to the university of Cambridge in 1581, but its early history is doubtful. Beza stated that it came from Lyons and had been always preserved in the monastery of St Irenaeus there. There is no reason to question Beza's bona fides, or that the MS. was obtained by him after the sack of Lyons in 1562 by des Adrets, but there is room for doubt as to the accuracy of his belief that it had been for a long time in the same monastery. His information on this point would necessarily be derived from Protestant sources, which would not be of the highest value, and there are two pieces of evidence which show that just previously the MS. was in Italy. In the first place it is certainly identical with the MS. called which is quoted in the margin of the 1550 edition of Robert Stephanus' Greek Testament; this MS. according to Stephanus' preface was collated for him by friends in Italy. In the second place it was probably used at the council of Trent in 1546 by Gul. a Prato, bishop of Clermont in Auvergne, and in the last edition of the Annotationes Beza quotes his MS. as Claromontanus, and not as Lugdunensis. These points suggest that the MS. had only been a short time at Lyons when Beza obtained it. The still earlier history of the MS. is equally doubtful. H. Quentin has produced some interesting but not convincing evidence to show that the MS. was used in Lyons in the 12th century, and Rendel Harris at one time thought that there were traces of Gallicism in the Latin, but the latter's more recent researches go to show that the corrections and annotations varying in date between the 7th and 12th centuries point to a district which was at first predominantly Greek and afterwards became Latin. This would suit South Italy, but not Lyons. The text of this MS. is important as the oldest and best witness in a Greek MS. to the so-called " Western text. (See the section Textual Criticism below.)
[The following books and articles are important for the history, as apart from the text of the MS. Codex Bezae.. phototypice repraesentatus (Cambridge, 1899); Scrivener, Codex Bezac (Cambridge, 1864); J. Rendel Harris, "A Study of Cod. Bezae," Tezts and Studies, i. 1 (Cambridge, 1891); J. Rendel Harris, The Annotators of Cod. Bezae (London, 1901); F. E. Brightman and K. Lake, "The Italian Origin of Codex Bezae," in Journal of Theol. Studies, April 1900, pp. 441 ff.; F. C. Burkitt, "The Date of Codex Bezae," in the Journal of Theol. Studies, July 1902, pp. 501 ff.; D. H. Quentin, "Le Codex Bezae à Lyon, &c,," Revue Bénédictine, xxxiii. 1, 1906.J Codex Alexandrinus (G. M. reg. ID v.-viii.), Greg. A, von Soden 84; an uncial MS. of the 5th century. It was given by Cyril Lucar, patriarch of Constantinople, to Charles I. in 1621. It appears probable that Cyril Lucar had brought it with him from Alexandria, of which he had formerly been patriarch. A note by Cyril Lucar states that it was written by Thecla, a noble lady of Egypt, but this is probably merely his interpretation of an Arabic note of the 14th century which states that the MS. was written by Thecla, the martyr, an obviously absurd legend; another Arabic note by Athanasius (probably Athanasius III., patriarch c. 1308) states that it was given to the patriarchate of Alexandria, and a Latin note of a later period dates the presenta
tion in 1098. So far back as it can be traced it is, therefore, an Alexandrian MS., and palaeographical arguments point in the same direction. Originally, the MS. contained the whole of the Old and New Testaments, including the Psalms of Solomon in the former and 1 and 2 Clement in the latter. It has, however, suffered mutilation in a few places. Its text in the Old Testament is thought by some scholars to show signs of representing the Hesychian recension, but this view seems latterly to have lost favour with students of the Septuagint. If it be true, it falls in with the palaeographic indications and suggests an Alexandrian provenance. In the New Testament it has in the gospels a late text of Westcott and Hort's Syrian" type, but in the epistles there is a strongly marked " Alex andrian element. [Cod. A was published in photographic facsimile in 1879-1880.]
Codex Ephraemi Syri Rescriptus (Paris Nat. Gr. 9), Greg. C, von Soden & 3; an uncial palimpsest (the top writing being that of Ephraem) of the 5th century. It was formerly the proEphraemi perty of Catherine de' Medici, and was probably brought Syri from the east to Italy in the 16th century. Hort (Inireduction, p. 268) has shown from a consideration of displacements in the text of the Apocalypse that it was copied from a very small MS, but this, of course, only holds good of the Apocalypse. It is usually said that this MS., like A, came originally from Egypt, but this is merely a palaeographical guess, for which there is no real evidence. Originally, it contained the whole Bible, but only sixty-four leaves of the Old Testament remain, and 145 (giving about two-thirds of the whole) of the New Testament. The character of the text is mixed with a strong" Alexandrian element. [Published in facsimile by Tischendorf (1843). Discussed by Lagarde in his Ges. Abhandlungen, p. 94.]
Codex Claromontanus (Paris Nat. Gr. 107), Greg. Dal, von Soden a 1026; an uncial Graeco-Latin MS. of the 6th century. This MS. also belonged to Beza, who "acquired " it from the monastery of Clermont, near Beauvais. After his death it passed through various private hands and was finally bought for the French royal library before 1656. It contains the whole of the Pauline epistles with a few lacunce, and has a famous stichometric list of books prefixed in another hand to Hebrews. It is probably the best extant witness to the type of Greek text which was in use in Italy at an early time. It is closely connected with cod. Sangermanensis (a direct copy) at St Petersburg, Greg. Ea von Soden a 1027; cod. Augiensis (Cambridge, Trin. Coll. B xvii. 1). Greg. Faul, von Soden a 1029; and cod. Boernerianus (Dresden K Bibl.), Greg. Gaul, von Soden a 1028. [The text is published in Tischendorf's Codex Claromontanus (1852). Its relations to EFG are best discussed in Westcott and Hort's Introduction, $8 335-337-]
There are no other uncials equal in importance to the above. The next most valuable are probably cod. Regius of the 8th century at Paris, Greg, L, von Soden e 56, containing the Gospels; cod. Laudianus of the 7th century at Oxford, Greg. E, von Soden a 1001, a Latino-Greek MS. containing the Acts; cod. Coislinianus of the 6th century in Paris, Turin, Kiev, Moscow and Mt. Athos, Greg. Haul von Soden a 1022, containing fragments of the Pauline epistles; and cod. Augiensis of the 9th century in Trinity College, Cambridge, Greg. Faul, von Soden a 1029, á Graeco-Latin MS. closely related to cod. Claromontanus. [Further details as to these MSS. with bibliographies can be found in Gregory's Prolegomena to Tischendorf's Ñ.T. ed. maj. viii.] MINUSCULES. Very few of these are of real importance. The most valuable are the following:
1. The Ferrar Group; a group of eight MSS. known in Gregory's notation as 13, 69, 124, 346, 543, 788, 826, 828, or in von Soden's as e 368, 8 505, 1211, e 226, 257, e 1033, 218, e 219, all which except 69, in spite of the dating implied by von Soden's notation were probably written in the 12th century in Calabria. They have a most peculiar text of a mainly "Western" type, with some special affinities to the Old Syriac and perhaps to the Diatessaron. They are known as the Ferrar group in memory of the scholar who first published their text, and are sometimes quoted as (which, however, properly is the symbol for Codex Beratinus of the Gospels), and sometimes as fam. 13.
2. Cod. 1 and its Allies; a group of four MSS. known in Gregory's notation as 1, 118, 131, 209, and in von Soden's as 8 50, € 346, 8 467 and 8 457. The dating implied by the latter notation is wrong, as I certainly belongs to the 12th, not to the 10th century, and 118 is probably later than 209. It is sometimes quoted as fam1 Fam and fam. probably have a common archetype in Mark which is also represented by codd. 28 (e 168), 565 (e 93, quoted by Tischendorf and others as 2 and 700 ( 133, quoted by Scrivener and others as 604). It seems to have had many points of agreement with the Old Syriac, but it is impossible to identify the locality to which it belonged. Other minuscules of importance are cod. 33 (348) at Paris, which often agrees with BL and is the best minuscule repre sentative of the Neutral and Alexandrian types of text in the gospels; cod. 137 (a 364) at Milan, a valuable Western text of the Acts; a 78 (not in Gregory) in the Laura on Mt. Athos, a MS. of the Acts and epistles, with an early (mixed) type of text and textual comments and notes from Origen.
[The text of the Ferrar group was published after Ferrar's death
Fig. 2.-Codex Sinaiticus. (From fac-
Ad PRACHENDENsq,abiapallion SUUMNOUUM QUO COOPERTUS ERAT SCIDIT INDUODECIM PARTES ETArrobeROBOAMTOLLETIBI
ECCE ECO SCINDAD REC NUM DEMANUSALOMONIS ETDABOTIBIDE∞) RIBUS
PORRO UNATRIB, RC (DANEBITCI
Fig. 4. From a probable Northumbrian Copy of the Codex Amialinus. (British Museum.)
VIII mulaminu aurem carifmata melt ora:& adhuc excellentiorem uiam uobis demonstro. $1 lingur hominum loquar & angeloy caritatem aŭ non habeam? factus fum uelut es fonanl aut cymba lum rimiens. It fi habuero #herigen & nouerim omrua mysara.& omnem
Fig. 6.-Vulgate. (From MS. written for the monastery of Ste Marie de Parco, Louvain, A.D. 1148. British Museum.)
i linguis hoim logrz āgelorű: caritate aut no habra:fad fum velut es fonas aut ambalū tînniens. Etli habuero pteriā-1 noueri mißteriJa oïa er omnē fäētā z habuero omnē fidē ita ut mōtes trāfferā-caritatē aut nõ habuero: nichil sum. E si dîßribuero ī cibos pauperū om̃es facultates meas.fiœradidero corp? meũ îta ut ardeā:carîtatē aūt nō habuero:nichil michi pdelt. Laritas paties elt: beni
Fig. 9.-The 42-Line Bible. (Printed at Mainz, 1452-6. British Museum.)
Though piophecienges fayle, or tunges ceaffe, or knowlege per she, yet lone falleth neuer awaye. For oure Enon lege is onparfecte, and oure prophecienge is vnparfecte. But n hathat which is perfecte, commeth, then shal the vnparfecte be done awaye. Whan I was a childe, I spake as a childe, Jvnderstede as a childe, ymagined as a childe. But as soone as I was a man, I put awaye childishnes. low we se thorow a glasse in a darte speakynge,but the shalwe Je face to face.low Jenowe vnperfectly: but the shal knowe cue as Jamknowne. Tovabydeth faith, hope, loue,these thre: but the greatest of these is loue. The XIII. Chapter. Fig. 11. First printed English Bible, 1535. (British Museum.)
Charite fally not wou hep whe aes lehulu be void cy taugagis fchulu cele e facuæ fchal ve Maruped forlope of party we hau kuowben: of ptic we phe aeu ffozlove whêne y*íchal ai to par is pat pat yuig pris of ptve tchal be auoydid whenne I was almal childe: I (pake as a utilchuld.vudlode as alitii chuld.
poute as a lital chuld-flortope
Who inae mardama.. ed a nai. Fig. 8. Early Wycliffite Version. (From copy belonging to Thomas of Woodstock, duke of Gloucester, written towards the end of 14th century. British Museum.)
The fyfth Chapter.
iɔen he sawe the people, he
went op into a mountaine/andren he was sett bys disciples cam ento him/and he opened his mouth and taughtthem faringe: Elessed are the povic insp:ere: for thers is the kyngdom of beven. Blessed are they that mourne:fo:tbey (balbe comforted. Blessed are the meke:fo: thersball inberet the erthe. Blessed are they which huger and thurst fo:rightewesnes: forbey (balbefels led. Blessed are the mercyfull:fo:they hall obteyne mercy. Blessed are the pure in bert:for they shall se god. Blef fed are the maynteyners of peace: for they shalbe called the chyldren of god. Blessed are they which suffre persecucin fo:rightewesnes sale:fo:thers is the kingdom of Seven. Blessed are ye whe mens half revyle you/and perfecute you/ and shal falfly faye all manner of evle saying? agarnfi yen for my fake.Kcioyce ad be gladde/for greate is youre reware Fig. 10.-Tyndale's Quarto Edition of New Testament. (Printed by P. Quentel, Cologne, 1525, from the only remaining fragment, in British Museum.)
on the "Old Latin Version," in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible. For the textual character and importance of these versions see the section Textual Criticism below.)
2. The Vulgate or Hieronymian version. To remedy the confusion produced by the variations of the Latin text Pope Damasus asked Jerome to undertake a revision, and the latter published a new text of the New Testament in A.D. 384 Vulgate. and the rest of the Bible probably within two years. This version gradually became accepted as the standard text, and after a time was called the "Vulgata," the first to use this name as a title being, it is said, Roger Bacon. In the Old Testament Jerome made a new translation directly from the Hebrew, as the Old Latin was based on the LXX., but in the New Testament he revised the existing version. He did this fully and carefully in the gospels, but somewhat superficially in the epistles. He seems to have taken as the basis of his work the European version as it existed in his time, perhaps best represented by cod. Monacensis (q) of the 7th century, of the 6th century would be added if it were not probable that it is and by the quotations in Ambrosiaster, to which cod. Brixianus (f) merely a Vulgate MS. with intrusive elements. This type of text he revised with the help of Greek MSS. of a type which does not seem to correspond exactly to any now extant, but to resemble B more closely than any others.
Of Jerome's revision we possess at least 8000 MSS., of which the earliest may be divided (in the gospels at all events) into groups connected with various countries; the most important are the Northumbrian, Irish, Anglo-Irish and Spanish, but the first named might also be called the Italian, as it represents the text of good MSS. brought from Italy in the 7th century and copied in the great schools of Wearmouth and Jarrow. One of the most important, cod. Amiatinus, was copied in this way in the time of Ceolfrid, Benedict Biscop's successor, as a present for Pope Gregory in 716. From these MSS. the original Hieronymian text may be reconstructed with considerable certainty. The later history of the version is complicated, but fairly well known. The text soon began to deteriorate by admixture with the Old Latin, as well from the process of transcription, and several attempts at a revision were made before the invention of printing. Of these the earliest of note were undertaken in France in the 9th century by Alcuin in 801, and almost at the same time by Theodulf, bishop of Orleans (787-821). In the 11th century a similar task was undertaken by Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury (1069-1089); in the 12th century by Stephen Harding (1109), third abbot of Citeaux, and by Cardinal Nicolaus Maniacoria (1150), whose corrected Bible is preserved in the public library at Dijon. But these were not successful, and in the 13th century, instead of revisions, attempts were made to fix the text by providing correctoria, or lists of correct readings, which were the equivalent of critical editions; of these the chief are the Parisian, the Dominican (prepared under Hugo de S. Caro about 1240), and the Vatican. In the 15th century the history of the printed Vulgates begins. The earliest is the Mentz edition of 1452-1456 (the Mazarin or 42-line" Bible), but the carliest of a critical nature were those of Robert Étienne in 1528 and 1538-1540. In 1546 the council of Trent decided that the Vulgate should be held as authentica, and in 1590 Pope Sixtus V. published a new and authoritative edition, which was, probably at the instigation of the Jesuits, recalled by Pope Clement VIII. in 1592. In the same year, however, the same pope published another edition under the name of Sixtus. This is, according to the Bull of 1592, the authoritative edition, and has since then been accepted as such in the Latin Church. The critical edition by J. Wordsworth (bishop of Salisbury) and H. J. White probably restores the text almost to the state in which Jerome left it.
The text of the Vulgate may be studied in Wordsworth and White, Novum Testamentum Latine; Corssen, Epistula ad Galatas. Its history is best given in S. Berger's Histoire de la Vulgate (Paris, xxxii.-xxxiv.
1893), in which a good bibliography is given on Criticism of the
The section in Kenyon's handbook to the Textual
Syriac Versions.-1. The Old Syriac. This is only known to us at present through two MSS. of the gospels, containing the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, or separated gospel, probably so called in distinction to Tatian's Diatessaron. These Old MSS. are known as the Curetonian and Sinaitic. The Syriac. Curetonian is a MS. of the 5th century. The fragments of it which we possess are MS. Brit. Mus. addit. 14.451, which was brought in 1842 from the monastery of St Mary in the Nitrian desert, and was edited by Cureton in 1858; and three leaves in Berlin (MS. Orient. Quart. 528) which were bought in Egypt by H. Brugsch and published by A. Roediger in 1872. It was given to the monastery of St Mary in the 10th century, but its earlier history is unknown. It contained originally the four gospels in the order Mt.. Mk.. Jo., Lc. It is generally quoted as Syreur or Syr C. The Sinaitic was discovered in 1892 by Mrs Lewis and Mrs Gibson in the library of St Catherine's monastery on Mt. Sinai, where it still remains, and was published in 1894 by R. L. Bensly, J. Rendel Harris and F. C. Burkitt, with an introduction by Mrs Lewis. It is a palimpsest MS., and the upper writing (lives of saints), dated A.D. 778. is the work of "John, the anchorite of Beth Mari Qanon, a monastery of Ma'arrath Meşrên city in the district of Antioch." This town is
by T. K. Abbott, A Collation of Four Important MSS. of the Gospels (Dublin, 1877). It is best discussed by Rendel Harris's books, The Origin of the Leicester Codex (1887), The Origin of the Ferrar Group (1893), and The Ferrar Group (1900), all published at Cambridge; the text of fam. with a discussion of its textual relations is given in K. Lake's "Codex I and its Allies (Texts and Studies, vii. 3, 1902): 565 was edited by J. Belsheim in Das Evang. des Marcus nach d. griech. Cod. Theodorae, &c. (Christiania, 1885), many corrections to which are published in the appendix to H. S. Cronin's "Codex Purpureus," Texts and Studies, v. 4: 700 was published by H. C. Hoskier in his collation of cod. Evan. 604, London, 1890; a 78 is edited by E. von der Goltz in Texte und Untersuchungen, N.F. ii. 4.)
(B) The Versions.-These are generally divided into (a) primary and (B) secondary; the former being those which represent translation made at an early period directly from Greek originals, and the latter being those which were made either from other versions or from late and unimportant Greck texts.
(a) The primary versions are three-Latin, Syriac and Egyptian. Latin Versions.-1. The Old Latin. According to Jerome's letter to Pope Damasus in A.D. 384, there was in the 4th century a great variety of text in the Latin version, "Tot enim Old Latin. exemplaria pene quot codices." This verdict is confirmed by examination of the MSS. which have pre-Hieronymian texts. It is customary to quote these by small letters of the Latin alphabet, but there is a regrettable absence of unanimity in the details of the notation. We can distinguish two main types, African and European. The African version is best represented in the gospels by cod. Bobiensis (k) of the 5th (some say 6th) century at Turin, and cod. Palatinus (e) of the 5th century at Vienna, both of which are imperfect, especially k, which, however, is far the superior in quality; in the Acts and Catholic epistles by cod. Floriacensis (f, h. or reg.) of the 6th century, a palimpsest which once belonged to the monks of Fleury, and by the so-called speculum (m) or collection of quotations formerly attributed to Augustine but probably connected with Spain. This scanty evidence is dated and localized as African by the quotations of Cyprian, of Augustine (not from the gospels), and of Primasius, bishop of Hadrumetum (d. c. 560), from the Apocalypse. It is still a disputed point whether Tertullian's quotations may be regarded as evidence for a Latin version or as independent translations from the Greek, nor is it certain that this version is African in an exclusive sense; it was undoubtedly used in Africa and there is no evidence that it was known elsewhere originally, but on the other hand there is no proof that it was not. The European version is best represented in the gospels by cod. Vercellensis (a) of the 5th century and cod. Veronensis (b) of the same date (the latter being the better), and by others of less importance. It is possible that a later variety of it is found in cod. Monacensis (q) of the 7th century, and cod. Brixianus (f) of the 6th century, and this used to be called the Italic version, owing (as F. C. Burkitt has shown) to a misunderstanding of a remark of Augustine about the "Itala " which really refers to the Vulgate. In the Acts the European text is found in cod. Gigas (g or gig) of the 13th century at Stockholm, in a Perpignan MS. of the 12th century (p), published by S. Berger, and probably in cod. Laudianus (e) of the 7th century at Oxford. In the Catholic epistles it is found in cod. Corbeiensis (for ff) of the 10th century at St Petersburg. In the Pauline epistles it is doubtful whether it is extant at all, though some have found it in the cod. Claromontanus (d) and its allies. In the Apocalypse it is found in cod. Gigas.
The main problem in connexion with the history of the African and European versions is whether they were originally one or two. As they stand at present they are undoubtedly two, and can be distinguished both by the readings which they imply in the underlying Greek, and by the renderings which they have adopted. But there is also a greater degree of similarity between them than can be explained by accidental coincidence, and there is thus an a priori case for the theory that one of the two is a revision of the other, or that there was an older version, now lost, which was the original of both. If one of the two is the original it is probably the African, for which there is older evidence, and of which the style both in reading and rendering seems purer. The chief argument against this is that it seems paradoxical to think of Africa rather than Rome as the home of the first Latin version; but it must be remembered that Roman Christianity was originally Greek, and that the beginnings of a Latin church in Rome seem to be surprisingly late. Éditions of Old Latin MSS. are to be found in Old Latin Biblical Texts, i-iv. (Oxford); in Migne's Patrologia Latina, tom. xii.; and their history is treated especially in F. C. Burkitt's Old Latin and the Itala (Texts and Studies, iv. 3), as well as in all books dealing with Textual Criticism generally; other important books are Ronsch's Itala und Vulgata (1875); Corssen's Der cyprianische Text der Acta Apostolorum (Berlin, 1892); Wordsworth and Sanday on the "Corbey S. James " in Studia Biblica, i. (1885); the article
between Antioch and Aleppo; though the monastery is otherwise unknown, it seems probable that it was the source of many of the MSS. now at Sinai. The under writing seems to be a little earlier than that of the Curetonian; it contains the gospels in the order Mt., Mc., Lc., Jo. with a few lacunae. There is no evidence that this version was ever used in the Church services: the Diatessaron was always the normal Syriac text of the gospels until the introduction of the Peshito. But the and references in Aphraates, Ephraem and the Acts of Judas Thomas show that it was known, even if not often used. It seems certain that the Old Syriac version also contained the Acts and Pauline epistles, as Aphraates and Ephraem agree in quoting a text which differs from the Peshito, but no MSS. containing this text are at present known to exist. [The text of this version is best given, with a literal English translation, in F.C. Burkitt's Evangelion da Mepharreshe (Cambridge, 1904).]
2. The Peshito (Simple) Version. This is represented by many MSS. dating from the 5th century. It has been proved almost to demonstration by F. C. Burkitt that the portion containPeshito. ing the gospels was made by Rabbula, bishop of Edessa (411), to take the place of the Diatessaron, and was based on the Greek text which was at that time in current use at Antioch. The Old Testament Peshito is a much older and quite separate version. The exact limits of Rabbula's work are difficult to define. It seems probable that the Old Syriac version did not contain the Catholic epistles, and as these are found in the Peshito they were presumably added by Rabbula. But he never added 2 Peter, Jude, 2 and 3 John, or the Apocalypse, and the text of these books, which is sometimes bound up with the Peshito, really is that of the Philoxenian or of the Harklean version. A comparison of the Peshito with quotations in Aphraates and Ephraem shows that Rabbula revised the text of the Acts and Pauline epistles, but in the absence of MSS. of the Old Syriac for these books, it is difficult to define the extent or character of his work. The Peshito is quoted as Syr P, Pesh., and Syrsch (because Tischendorf followed the edition of Schaaf).
[The best text of the Peshito is by G. H. Gwilliam, Tetracvan gelium Sanctum (Oxford, 1901); its relations to Rabbula's revision are shown by F. C. Burkitt, S. Ephraim's quotations from the Gospel" (Texts and Studies, vii. 2, Cambridge, 1901), which renders out of date F. H. Woods's article on the same subject in Studia Biblica, iii. pp. 105-138]
3. The Philoxenian Version. This is known, from a note extant in MSS. of the Harklean version, to have been made in A.D. 508 for Philoxenus, bishop of Hierapolis, by Polycarpus, a chorepiscopus. No MSS. of it have survived except in enian. 2 Peter, Jude, 2 and 3 John and the Apocalypse. The four former are found in some MSS. of the Peshito, as the Philoxenian was used to supply these epistles which were not in the older version, and the Apocalypse was published in 1892 by Dr Gwynn from a MS. belonging to Lord Crawford.
This version may be studied in Isaac H. Hall's Williams MS. (Baltimore, 1886); in the European editions of the Syriac Bible so far as the minor Catholic epistles are concerned; in Hermathena, vol. vii. (1890), pp. 281-314 (article by Gwynn); in Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, xii. and xiii. (series of articles by Merx); in Gwynn's The Apocalypse of St John in a Syriac Version (Dublin, 1897).]
4. The Harklean Version. This is a revision of the Philoxenian made in 616 by Thomas of Harkel (Heraclea), bishop of Hierapolis. It was apparently an attempt to replace the literary freeHarklean. dom of the Philoxenian by an extreme literalness. It represents in the main the text of the later Greek MSS., but it has important textual notes, and has adopted a system of asterisks and obeli from the Hexaplar LXX. The source of these notes seems to have been old MSS. from the library of the Enaton near Alexandria. The marginal readings are therefore valuable evidence for the Old Alexandrian text. This version is quoted as Syr H (and when necessary Syr He or Syr Hm) and by Tischendorf as Syrp (=Syra posterior). It should be noted that when Tischendorf speaks of Syrut he means the Peshito and the Harklean.
(There is no satisfactory critical edition of this version, nor have the Philoxenian and the Harklean been disentangled from each other. The printed text is that published in 1778-1803 by J. White at Oxford under the title Versio Philoxenia; for the marginal notes see esp. Westcott and Hort, Introduction, and for Acts, Pott's Abendlandische Text der Apostelgesch. (Leipzig, 1900).]
5. The Palestinian or Jerusalem Version. This is a lectionary which was once thought to have come from the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, but has been shown by Burkitt to come from that of Antioch. It was probably made in the 6th century in connexion with the attempts of Justinian to abolish Judaism. Usually quoted as SyrPa and by Tischendorf as Syrbier, [The text may be found in Lewis and Gibson's The Palestinian Syriac Lectionary (London, 1899), (Gospels), and in Studia Sinaitica, part vi. (Acts and Epistles): its origin is discussed best by F. C. Burkitt in the Journal of Theological Studies, vol. ii. (1901), pp. 174-183.] 6. The Karkaphensian. This is not a version, but a Syriac "Massorah" of the New Testament, i.e. a collection of notes on the texts. Probably emanates from the monastery of the Skull. Little is known of it and it is unimportant.
[See Gwilliam's" Materials for the Criticism of the Peshito N.T." in Studia Biblica, iii. esp. pp. 60-63.]
7. Tatian's Dialessaron. This is something more than a version. It was originally a harmony of the four gospels made by Tatian, the pupil of Justin Martyr, towards the end of the 2nd century. In its original form it is no longer extant, but it exists in Arabic (published by Ciasca) and Latin (cod. translations, in both of which the text has unfortunately been almost entirely conformed to the ordinary type. These authorities are, therefore, only available for the reconstruction of the order of the selections from the gospels, not for textual criticism properly so called. For the latter purpose, however, we can use an Armenian translation of a commentary on the Diatessaron by Ephraem, and the quotations in Aphraates. The Diatessaron appears to have been the usual form in which the gospels were read until the beginning of the 5th century, when the Peshito was put in its place, and a systematic destruction of copies of the Diatessaron was undertaken.
Tatian's "Diates saren."
[The Diatessaron may be studied in Zahn, "Evangelienharmonie," article in the Protestantische Realencyklopädie (1898); J. H. Hill, The Earliest Life of Christ (Edinburgh, 1893); J. Rendel Harris, Fragments of the Commentary of Ephraim the Syrian (Lordia, 1895); F. C. Burkitt, Evangelion da Mepharreshe (Cambridge, 1904, vol. ii.).]
Inter-relation of Syriac Versions.-The relations which subsist between the various Syriac versions remain to be discussed. There is little room for doubt that the Harklean was based on the Poxenian, and the Philoxenian was based on the Peshito, the revision being made in each case by the help of the Greek MSS. of the day, but the relations which subsist between the Old Syriac, the Diatessaron and the Peshito are a more difficult question. There are now but few, if any, scholars who think that the Peshito is an entirely separate version, and the majority have been convinced by Burkitt and recognize (1) that the Peshito is based on a knowledge of the Old Syriac and the Diatessaron; (2) that it was made by Rabbula with the help of the contemporary Greek text of the Antiochene Church. But there is not yet the same degree of consensus as to the relations between the Old Syriac and the Diatessaron. Here it is necessary to distinguish between the original text of the Old Syriac and the existing MSS. of it-Cur. and Sin. There is no question that many passages in these show signs of Diatessaron influence, but this is only to be expected if we consider that from the end of the 2nd to the beginning of the 5th century the Diatessaron was the popular form of the gospels. A large discount has therefore to be made from the agreements between Diatessaron and Syr. S and C. Still, it is improbable that this will explain everything, and it is generally conceded that the original Diatessaron and the original Old Syriac were in some way connected. The connexion is variously explained, and efforts have been made to show on which side the dependence is to be found. The most probable theory is that of Burkitt. He thinks that the first Syriac translation was that of Tatian (c. A.D. 175), who brought the Datessaron from Rome and translated it into Syriac. There, in the last days of the 2nd century, when Serapion was bishop of Antioch (A.D. 190-203), a new start was made, and a translation of the separated Gospels" (Evangelion da Mepharreshe) was made from the MSS. which was in use at Antioch. Probably the maker of this version was partly guided, especially in his choice of renderings, by his knowledge of the Diatessaron. Nevertheless, the Diatessaton remained the more popular and was only driven out by Theodoret and Rabbula in the 5th century, when it was replaced by the Peshito. If this theory be correct the Syriac versions represent three distinct Greek texts: (1) the 2nd-century Greek text from Rome, used by Tatian; (2) the 2nd-century Greek text from Antioch, used for the Old Syriac; (3) the 2nd-century Greek text from Antioch, used by Rabbula for the Peshito.
The best discussion of this point is in vol. ii. of Burkitt's Erongelion da Mepharṛeshe.]
Egyptian Versions.-Much less is known at present about the history of the Egyptian versions. They are found in various dialects of Coptic, the mutual relations of which are not Coptic yet certain, but the only ones which are preserved with any completeness are the Bohairic, or Lower Egyptian, and Sahidic. or Upper Egyptian, though it is certain that fragments of intermediate dialects such as Middle Egyptian, Fayumic, Akhminic and Memphitic also exist. The Bohairic has been edited by G. Horner. It is well represented, as it became the official version of the Coptic Church; its history is unknown, but from internal evidence it seems to have been made from good Greek MSS. of the type of NBL, but the date to which this points depends largely on the general view taken of the history of the text of the New Testament It need not, but may, be earlier than the 4th century. The Sahidic is not so well preserved. G. Horner's researches tend to show that the Greek text on which it was based was different from that represented by the Bohairic, and probably was akin to the "Western text, perhaps of the type used by Clement of Alexandria. Unfortunately none of the MSS. seems to be good, and at present it is impossible to make very definite use of the version. It is possible that this is the oldest Coptic version, and this view is supported by the general probabilities of the spread of Christianity in Egypt