Chapter VI: Part 6

_Codex Bezae_ (Cambridge Univ. Nu. 2, 41), Greg. D, von Soden [delta]
5; 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 [eta] 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 Bezae_
(Cambridge, 1864); J. Rendel Harris, "A Study of _Cod. Bezae_," _Texts
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 a Lyon, &c.," _Revue Benedictine_, xxxiii. 1, 1906.]

Alexandrinus.

_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 presentation 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
"Alexandrian" element. [Cod. A was published in photographic facsimile
in 1879-1880.]

Ephraemi Syri.

_Codex Ephraemi Syri Rescriptus_ (Paris Nat. Gr. 9), Greg. C, von
Soden [delta] 3; an uncial palimpsest (the top writing being that of
Ephraem) of the 5th century. It was formerly the property of Catherine
de' Medici, and was probably brought from the east to Italy in the
16th century. Hort (_Introduction_, 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.]

Claromontanus.

_Codex Claromontanus_ (Paris Nat. Gr. 107), Greg. D^{paul}, von Soden
[alpha] 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
_lacunae_, 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. E^{paul}, von Soden [alpha] 1027; _cod. Augiensis_
(Cambridge, Trin. Coll. B xvii. i), Greg. F^{paul}, von Soden [alpha]
1029; and _cod. Boernerianus_ (Dresden K Bibl.), Greg. G^{paul}, von
Soden [alpha] 1028. [The text is published in Tischendorf's _Codex
Claromontanus_ (1852). Its relations to EFG are best discussed in
Westcott and Hort's _Introduction_, Sec.Sec. 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 [epsilon] 56, containing the Gospels; _cod.
Laudianus_ of the 7th century at Oxford, Greg. E, von Soden [alpha]
1001, a Latino-Greek MS. containing the Acts; _cod. Coislinianus_ of
the 6th century in Paris, Turin, Kiev, Moscow and Mt. Atohs, Greg.
H^{paul}, von Soden [alpha] 1022, containing fragments of žhe Pauline
epistles; and _cod. Augiensis_ of the 9th century in Trinity College,
Cambridge, Greg. F^{paul}, von Soden [alpha] 1029, a 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 _N.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
[epsilon] 368, [delta] 505, [epsilon] 1211, [epsilon] 226, [epsilon]
257, [epsilon] 1033, [epsilon] 218, [epsilon] 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 [Phi] (which, however, properly is
the symbol for _Codex Beratinus_ of the Gospels), and sometimes as
_fam.¹ cubed_.

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 [delta] 50,
[epsilon] 346, [delta] 467 and [delta] 457. The dating implied by the
latter notation is wrong, as 1 certainly belongs to the 12th, not to
the 10th century, and 118 is probably later than 209. It is sometimes
quoted as _fam.¹. Fam.¹_ and _fam.¹ cubed_ probably have a common archetype
in Mark which is also represented by codd. 28 ([epsilon] 168), 565
([epsilon] 93, quoted by Tischendorf and others as 2^pe) and 700
([epsilon] 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 ([delta] 48) at Paris, which
often agrees with [Hebrew: alef] BL and is the best minuscule
representative of the "Neutral" and "Alexandrian" types of text in the
gospels; cod. 137 ([alpha] 364) at Milan, a valuable "Western" text of
the Acts; [alpha] 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 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.¹_ with a discussion of its textual
relations is given in K. Lake's "Codex 1 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; [alpha] 78 is edited by E. von der Goltz in _Texte und
Untersuchungen_, N.F. ii. 4.]

(B) _The Versions._--These are generally divided into ([alpha]) _primary_ and ([beta]) _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 Greek texts.

([alpha]) The _primary_ versions are three--Latin, Syriac and
Egyptian.

Old Latin.

_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 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_ (f or 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.

[Editions 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
Roensch'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 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.]

Vulgate

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 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,
and by the quotations in _Ambrosiaster_, to which _cod. Brixianus_ (f)
of the 6th century would be added if it were not probable that it is
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 earliest of a critical nature were those of Robert Etienne 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,
1893), in which a good bibliography is given on pp. xxxii.-xxxiv. The
section in Kenyon's handbook to the _Textual Criticism of the New
Testament_ is particularly clear and full.]

Old Syriac.

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 MSS. are known as the
Curetonian and Sinaitic. The 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 Syr^cur 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
Mesren city in the district of Antioch." This town is 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 quotations 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).]

Peshito.

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 containing 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, _Tetraevangelium
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.]

Philoxenian.

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 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 fuer
Assyriologie_, xii. and xiii. (series of articles by Merx); in Gwynn's
_The Apocalypse of St John in a Syriac Version_ (Dublin, 1897).]

Harklean.

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 freedom 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 Hc* or Syr H^mg) and by Tischendorf
as Syr^p (= Syra posterior). It should be noted that when Tischendorf
speaks of Syr^utr 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
_Abendlaendische Text der Apostelgesch._ (Leipzig, 1900).]

Palestinian.

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 Syr^hier.

[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_, in. esp. pp. 60-63.]

Tatian's "Diatessaron."

7. Tatian's _Diatessaron._ This is something more than a version. It
was originally a harmony of the four goepels 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. Fuldensis_) 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.

[The Diatessaron may be studied in Zahn, "Evangelien-harmonie,"
article in the _Protestantische Realencyklopaedie_ (1898); J.H. Hill,
_The Earliest Life of Christ_ (Edinburgh, 1893); J. Rendel Harris,
_Fragments of the Commentary of Ephraim the Syrian_ (London, 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 Philoxenian,
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 Diatessaron 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 Diatessaron 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
_Evangelion da Mepharreshe._]

Coptic.

_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 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, Akhmimic 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 [Hebrew: alef]BL, 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. Homer'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.
which suggest that the native church and native literature had their
strength at first chiefly in the southern parts of the country. It
must be noted that Westcott and Hort called the Bohairic Memphitic,
and the Sahidic Thebaic, and Tischendorf called the Bohairic Coptic.

[See G. Horner's _The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the
Northern Dialect_ (Oxford); Scrivener's _Introduction_ (ed. Miller),
vol. ii. pp. 91-144; and especially an article on "Egyptian Versions"
in Hastings' _Dictionary of the Bible_, vol. i. by Forbes Robinson.]

([beta]) Among the _secondary_ versions the only one of real
importance is the Armenian.

Armenian.

The Armenian Version.--The early history of this version is obscure,
but it seems probable that there were two translations made in the 4th
century: (1) by Mesrop with the help of Hrofanos (Rufinus?) based on a
Greek text; (2) by Sahak, based on Syriac. After the council of
Ephesus (A.D. 430) Mesrop and Sahak compared and revised their work
with the help of MSS. from Constantinople. The general character of
the version is late, but there are many places in which the Old Syriac
basis can be recognized, and in the Acts and Epistles, where the Old
Syriac is no longer extant, this is sometimes very valuable evidence.

[See Scrivener (ed. Miller) vol. ii. pp. 148-154; Hastings'
_Dictionary of the Bible_, article on "The Armenian Versions of the
New Testament," by F.C. Conybeare; J.A. Robinson, "Euthaliana" (_Texts
and Studies_, iii. 3), cap. 5; on the supposed connexion of Mark xvi.
8 ff. with Aristion mentioned in this version, see esp. Swete's _The
Gospel according to St Mark_ (London, 1902), p. cxi.]

Other secondary versions which are sometimes quoted are the Gothic,
Ethiopic, Georgian, Arabic, Anglo-Saxon, Frankish and Persic. None has
any real critical importance; details are given in Gregory's
_Prolegomena_ and in Scrivener's _Introduction_.

(C) _Quotations in Patristic Writings._--The value of this source of evidence lies in the power which it gives us to date and localize texts. Its limitations are found in the inaccuracy of quotation of the writers, and often in the corrupt condition of their text. This latter point especially affects quotations which later scribes frequently forced into accord with the text they preferred.

All writers earlier than the 5th century are valuable, but
particularly important are the following groups:--(1) Greek writers in
the West, especially Justin Martyr, Tatian, Marcion, Irenaeus and
Hippolytus; (2) Latin writers in Italy, especially Novatian, the
author of the _de Rebaptismate_ and Ambrosiaster; (3) Latin writers in
Africa, especially Tertullian and Cyprian; (4) Greek writers in
Alexandria, especially Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Athanasius and
Cyril; (5) Greek writers in the East, especially Methodius of Lycia
and Eusebius of Caesarea; (6) Syriac writers, especially Aphraates and
Ephraem; it is doubtful whether the Diatessaron of Tatian ought to be
reckoned in this group or in (1). None of these groups bears witness
to quite the same text, nor can all of them be identified with the
texts found in existing MSS. or versions, but it may be said with some
truth that group 2 used the European Latin version, group 3 the
African Latin, and group 6 the Diatessaron in the gospels and the Old
Syriac elsewhere, while group I has much in common with _cod. Bezae_,
though the difference is here somewhat greater. In group 4 the
situation is more complex; Clement used a text which has most in
common with _cod. Bezae_, but is clearly far from identical; Origen in
the main has the text of [Hebrew: alef] B; Athanasius a somewhat later
variety of the same type, while Cyril has the so-called Alexandrian
text found especially in L. Group 4 has a peculiar text which cannot
be identified with any definite group of MSS. For further treatment of
the importance of this evidence see the section _Textual Criticism_
below.

[There is as yet but little satisfactory literature on this subject.
Outstanding work is P.M. Barnard's "Clement of Alexandria's Biblical
Text" (_Texts and Studies_, v. 5), 1899; Harnack's "Eine Schrift
Novatians," in _Texte und Untersuchungen_, xiii. 4; Souter's
"Ambrosiaster" in _Texts and Studies_, vii. 4; the Society of
Historical Theology's _New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers_; an
article by Kostschau, "Bibelcitate bei Origenes," in the _Zeitschrift
f. wissenschaftliche Theologie_ (1900), pp. 321-378; and on the
general subject especially Nestle's _Einfuehrung in das griechische
Neue Testament_ (Goettingen, 1909), pp. 159-167.] (K. L.)

3. _Textual Criticism._

The problem which faces the textual critic of the New Testament is to reconstruct the original text from the materials supplied by the MSS., versions, and quotations in early writers, which have been described in the preceding section on the _apparatus criticus_. His object, therefore, is to discover and remove the various corruptions which have crept into the text, by the usual methods of the textual critic--the collection of material, the grouping of MSS. and other authorities, the reconstruction of archetypes, and the consideration of transcriptional and intrinsic probability. No book, however, presents such a complicated problem or such a wealth of material for the textual critic.

In a certain wide sense the textual criticism of the New Testament began as soon as men consciously made recensions and versions, and in this sense Origen, Jerome, Augustine and many other ecclesiastical writers might be regarded as textual critics. But in practice it is general, and certainly convenient, to regard their work rather as material for criticism, and to begin the history of textual criticism with the earliest printed editions which sought to establish a standard Greek Text. It is, of course, impossible here to give an account of all these, but the following may fairly be regarded as the epoch-making books from the beginning to the present time.

The _Complutensian._--The first printed text of the Greek Testament is
known as the Complutensian, because it was made under the direction of
Cardinal Ximenes of Alcala (Lat. _Complutum_). It was printed in 1514,
and is thus the first printed text, but is not the first published, as
it was not issued until 1522. It is not known what MSS. Ximenes used,
but it is plain from the character of the text that they were not of
great value. His text was reprinted in 1569 by Chr. Plantin at
Antwerp.

_Erasmus._--The first _published_ text was that of Erasmus. It was
undertaken at the request of Joannes Froben (Frobenius), the printer
of Basel, who had heard of Cardinal Ximenes' project and wished to
forestall it. In this he was successful, as it was issued in 1516. It
was based chiefly on MSS. at Basel, of which the only really good one
(_cod. Evan. 1_) was seldom followed. Erasmus issued new editions in
1519, 1522, 1527 and 1535, and the Aldine Greek Testament, printed at
Venice in 1518, is a reproduction of the first edition.

_Stephanus._--Perhaps the most important of all early editions were
those of Robert Etienne, or Stephanus, of Paris and afterwards of
Geneva. His two first editions (1546, 1549) were based on Erasmus, the
Complutensian, and collations of fifteen Greek MSS. These are 16mo
volumes, but the third and most important edition (1550) was a folio
with a revised text. It is this edition which is usually referred to
as _the_ text of Stephanus. A fourth edition (in 16mo) published at
Geneva in 1551 is remarkable for giving the division of the text into
verses which has since been generally adopted.

_Beza._--Stephanus' work was continued by Theodore Beza, who published
ten editions between 1565 and 1611. They did not greatly differ from
the 1550 edition of Stephanus, but historically are important for the
great part they played in spreading a knowledge of the Greek text, and
as supplying the text which the Elzevirs made the standard on the
continent.

_Elzevir._--The two brothers, Bonaventura and Abraham Elzevir,
published two editions at Leiden in 1624 and 1633, based chiefly on
Beza's text. In the preface to the second edition the first is
referred to as "textum... nunc ab omnibus receptum," and this is the
origin of the name "Textus Receptus" (or T.R.) often given to the
ordinary Greek Text. The Elzevir text has formed the basis of all
non-critical editions on the continent, but in England the 1550
edition of Stephanus has been more generally followed. The importance
of both the Stephanus and Elzevir editions is that they formed a
definite text for the purposes of comparison, and so prepared the way
for the next stage, in which scholars busied themselves with the
investigation and collation of other MSS.

_Walton's Polyglot._--The first to begin this work was Brian Walton,
bishop of Chester, who published in 1657 in the 5th and 6th volumes of
his "polyglot" Bible the text of Stephanus (1550) with the readings of
fifteen new MSS. besides those employed by Stephanus himself. The
collations were made for him by Archbishop Ussher.

_John Fell._--In 1675 John Fell, dean of Christ Church, published the
Elzevir text with an enlarged apparatus, but even more important was
the help and advice which he gave to the next important editor--Mill.

_John Mill_, of Queen's College, Oxford, influenced by the advice, and
supported by the purse of John Fell until the latter's death,
published in 1707 a critical edition of the New Testament which has
still a considerable value for the scholar. It gives the text of
Stephanus (1550) with collations of 78 MSS., besides those of
Stephanus, the readings of the Old Latin, so far as was then known,
the Vulgate and Peshito, together with full and valuable prolegomena.

_Bentley._--A little later Richard Bentley conceived the idea that it
would be possible to reconstruct the original text of the New
Testament by a comparison of the earliest Greek and Latin sources; he
began to collect material for this purpose, and issued a scheme
entitled "Proposals for Printing" in 1720, but though he amassed many
notes nothing was ever printed.

_W. Mace._--Fairness forbids us to omit the name of William (or
Daniel?) Mace, a Presbyterian minister who published _The New
Testament in Greek and English_, in 2 vols. in 1729, and really
anticipated many of the verdicts of later critics. He was, however,
not in a position to obtain recognition, and his work has been
generally overlooked.

_J.J. Wetstein_, one of Bentley's assistants, when living in Basel in
1730, published "Prolegomena" to the Text, and in 1751-1752 (at
Amsterdam) the text of Stephanus with enlarged Prolegomena and
apparatus criticus. His textual views were peculiar; he preferred to
follow late MSS. on the ground that all the earlier copies had been
contaminated by the Latin--almost reversing the teaching of Bentley.
His edition is historically very important as it introduced the system
of notation which, in the amplified form given to it by Gregory, is
still in general use.

_J.A. Bengel_, abbot of Alpirspach (a Lutheran community), published
in 1734, at Tuebingen, an edition of the New Testament which marks the
beginning of a new era. For the first time an attempt was made to
group the MSS., which were divided into African and Asiatic. The
former group contained the few old MSS., the latter the many late
MSS., and preference was given to the African. This innovation has
been followed by almost all critics since Bengel's time, and it was
developed by Griesbach.

_J.J. Griesbach_, a pupil at Halle of J.S. Semler (who in 1764
reprinted Wetstein's Prolegomena, and in comments of his own took over
and expounded Bengel's views), collated many MSS., and distinguished
three main groups:--the Alexandrian or Origenian (which roughly
corresponded to Bengel's African), found in ABCL, the Egyptian version
and Origen; the Western, found in D and Latin authorities; and the
Constantinopolitan (Bengel's Asiatic), found in the later MSS. and in
Byzantine writers. His view was that the last group was the least
valuable; but, except when internal evidence forbade (and he thought
that it frequently did so), he followed the text found in any two
groups against the third. His first edition was published in
1774-1775, his second and improved edition in 1796 (vol. i.) and 1806.
For the second edition he had the advantage not merely of his own
collection of material (published chiefly in his _Symbolae Criticae_,
1785-1793), but also of many collations by Birch, Matthaei and Adler,
and an edition with new collations by F.K. Alter.

_J.L. Hug_, Roman Catholic professor of theology at Freiburg,
published (Stuttgart and Tuebingen) his _Einleitung in die Schriften
des N. T._ (1808); he is chiefly remarkable for the curious way in
which he introduced many critical ideas which were not appreciated at
the time but have since been revived. He accepted Griesbach's views as
a whole, but starting from the known recensions of the LXX. he
identified Griesbach's Alexandrian text with the work of Hesychius,
and the Constantinopolitan with that of Lucian, while he described
Griesbach's Western text as the [Greek: koinae ekdosis].

_J.M.A. Scholz_, a pupil of Hug, inspected and partially collated
nearly a thousand MSS. and assigned numbers to them which have since
been generally adopted. His work is for this reason important, but is
unfortunately inaccurate.

_K. Lachmann_, the famous classical scholar, opened a new era in
textual criticism in 1842-1850, in his _N.T. Graece et Latine_. In
this great book a break was made for the first time with the
traditional text and the evidence of the late MSS., and an attempt was
made to reconstruct the text according to the oldest authorities. This
was a great step forward, but unfortunately it was accompanied by a
retrogression to the pre-Griesbachian (or rather pre-Bengelian) days;
for Lachmann rejected the idea of grouping MSS., and having selected a
small number of the oldest authorities undertook always to follow the
reading of the majority.

_C. Tischendorf_, the most famous follower of Lachmann, besides
editions of many MSS. and the collation of many more, published
between 1841 and 1869-1872 eight editions of the New Testament with
full critical notes. The eighth edition, which for the first time
contained the readings of [Hebrew: alef], has not yet been equalled,
and together with the Prolegomena, supplied by C.R. Gregory after
Tischendorf's death, is the standard critical edition which is used by
scholars all over the world. At the same time it must be admitted that
it gradually became antiquated. Fresh collations of MSS., and
especially fresh discoveries and investigations into the text of the
versions and Fathers, have given much new information which entirely
changed the character of the evidence for many readings, and rendered
a new edition necessary (see SODEN, H. VON). As a collector and
publisher of evidence Tischendorf was marvellous, but as an editor of
the text he added little to the principles of Lachmann, and like
Lachmann does not seem to have appreciated the value of the
Griesbachian system of grouping MSS.

_S.P. Tregelles_, an English scholar, like Tischendorf, spent almost
his whole life in the collection of material, and published a critical
edition, based on the earliest authorities, at intervals between 1857
and 1872. His work was eclipsed by Tischendorf's, and his critical
principles were almost the same as the German scholar's, so that his
work has obtained less recognition than would otherwise have been the
case. Tischendorf and Tregelles finished the work which Lachmann
began. They finally exploded the pretensions of the _Textus Receptus_
to be the original text; but neither of them gave any explanation of
the relations of the later text to the earlier, nor developed
Griesbach's system of dealing with groups of MSS. rather than with
single copies.

_B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort_ (commonly quoted as WH), the Cambridge
scholars, supplied the deficiencies of Lachmann, and without giving up
the advantages of his system, and its development by Tischendorf,
brought back the study of the text of the New Testament to the methods
of Griesbach. Their great work was published in 1881 under the title
of _The New Testament in the Original Greek_. Their view of the
history of the text is that a comparison of the evidence shows that,
while we can distinguish more than one type of text, the most clearly
discernible of all the varieties is first recognizable in the
quotations of Chrysostom, and is preserved in almost all the later
MSS. Though found in so great a number of witnesses, this type of text
is shown not to be the earliest or best by the evidence of all the
oldest MS. versions and Fathers, as well as by internal evidence.
Moreover, a comparison with the earlier sources of evidence shows that
it was built up out of previously existing texts. This is proved by
the "conflations" which are found in it. For instance in Mark ix. 38
the later MSS. read [Greek: os ouk akolouthei haemin, kai ekolusamen
auton oti ouk akolouthei haemin], a clumsy sentence which is clearly
made up out of two earlier readings, [Greek: kai ekoluomen auton oti
ouk aekolouthei haemin], found in [Hebrew: alef] BCL boh., and [Greek:
os ouk akolouthei meth' haemon, kai ekoluomen auton], found in DX
_fam._^1, _fam._^13 28 latt. It is impossible, in face of the fact
that the evidence of the oldest witnesses of all sorts is constantly
opposed to the longer readings, to doubt that WH were right in arguing
that these phenomena prove that the later text was made up by a
process of revision and conflation of the earlier forms. Influenced by
the use of the later text by Chrysostom, WH called it the Syrian or
Antiochene text, and refer to the revision which produced it as the
Syrian revision. They suggested that it might perhaps be attributed to
Lucian, who is known to have made a revision of the text of the LXX.
The earlier texts which were used for the Syrian revision may,
according to WH, be divided into three:--(1) the Western text, used
especially by Latin writers, and found also in _cod. Bezae_ and in Syr
C; (2) the Alexandrine text used by Cyril of Alexandria and found
especially in CL [Xi] 33; and (3) a text which differs from both the
above mentioned and is therefore called by WH the Neutral text, found
especially in [Hebrew: alef] B and the quotations of Origen. Of these
three types WH thought that the Neutral was decidedly the best. The
Alexandrian was clearly a literary recension of it, and WH strove to
show that the Western was merely due to the non-literary efforts of
scribes in other parts to improve the narrative. The only exception
which they allowed to this general rule was in the case of certain
passages, especially in the last chapters of Luke, where the "Western"
authorities omit words which are found in the Neutral and Alexandrian
texts. Their reason was that omission seems to be contrary to the
genius of the Western text, and that it is therefore probable that
these passages represent interpolations made in the text on the
Neutral side after the division between it and the Western. They might
be called Neutral interpolations, but WH preferred the rather clumsy
expression "Western non-interpolations." Having thus decided that the
Neutral text was almost always right, it only remained for WH to
choose between the various authorities which preserved this type. They
decided that the two best authorities were [Hebrew: alef] and B, and
that when these differed the reading of B, except when obviously an
accidental blunder, was probably right. The great importance of this
work of WH lies in the facts that it not merely condemns but explains
the late Antiochene text, and that it attempts to consider in an
objective manner all the existing evidence and to explain it
historically and genealogically. Opinions differ as to the correctness
of the results reached by WH, but there is scarcely room for doubt
that as an example of method their work is quite unrivalled at present
and is the necessary starting-point for all modern investigations.

Since Westcott and Hort no work of the same importance appeared up
till 1909. Various useful texts have been issued, among which those of
Nestle (_Novum Testamentum Graece_, Stuttgart, 1904), based on a
comparison of the texts of Tischendorf, WH and Weiss, and of Baljon
(_Novum Testamentum Graece_, Groningen, 1898), are the best. The only
serious attempt as yet published to print a complete text
independently of other editors is that of B. Weiss (_Das Neue
Testament_, Leipzig, 1894-1900), but the method followed in this is so
subjective and pays so little attention to the evidence of the
versions that it is not likely to be permanently important. The text
reached is not widely different from that of WH. The new work in
course of preparation by von Soden at Berlin, which promises to take
the place of Tischendorf's edition, must certainly do this so far as
Greek MSS. are concerned, for the whole field has been reinvestigated
by a band of assistants who have grouped and collated specimens of all
known MSS.