|| F. H. Chase comes to the same conclusion regarding the birthplace of the ‘Western’ text from a totally different point of view, namely, the attempt to prove that behind the ‘ Western’ text there existed certain Gr-Syr. bilin, MSS, in which the Syr. exercised a powerful influence on the Greek. In summing up, he also quotes the review above mentioned in support of his conclusions. See Syriac Element in Cod. Beze, pp. 132-149; Syro-Lat. Text of Gospels, Pp. 138-142. The arguments he ae td forward do not depend on the validity of his general
heory.
‘| Guardian, May 25, 1892, p. 787.
** This is the theory of Rendel Harris, Cod. Beza, Ὁ. 226 sq. Resch believes that the archetype of Cod. Bez., Syr., and Οἱ was a redaction of the ecclesiastical -Oanon made about A.D. 140. See ‘ Aussercanonische -Texte,’ T.u.0.x. Ἱ, esp. pp. 35, 47.
| LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD 55
vinces?’ Valuable evidence is adduced to show that the OL was the work of some one possessing a special acquaintance with the administrative arrangements of Palestine.* Further, it is pointed out that the author or authors of the ‘ Western’ text had a knowledge of Heb. and Aramaic. And finally, the numerous interpolations which appear in this text, as derived either from oral tradition or from some early fragmentary written source, could have no more sprobenie birthplace than the ΤΟΥ πος of Syria. As to the relations of the Syr. S, Sanday thinks that it ‘took its rise in the very midst of the development of the Lat. Version.’ Of course this is only theory; but a theory which seems adequate to account for the phenomena in question is the only basis on which successful investigation can be reared.
We come, however, to actual facts when we make inquiry as to the first certain traces of the OL Version. How far back can it be traced? We can speak with absolute certainty of Cyprian. His works (especially the Zestimonia) abound in biblical quotations. What is of greater import- ance, Cyp. usually [perhaps always] adheres to one
articular type of text. This provides us with a
xed date and a standard. We can affirm that in the year 250 A.D. a Lat. tr™ of the Bible, whose characteristics we are able to determine, circulated at Carthage. But this is virtually identical with the OL Version of the Gospp. preserved in Cod. k, with Cod. ἃ of Acts, a text used by Aug. in the Acta cum Felice Manicheo and Contra Epist. Manich., and that of the Comment. on the Apoca- ee by Primasius.+ It stands also in a close relation with Cod. e, though a certain distance separates them.t It is found in the biblical quotations of Lactantius, Firmicus Maternus, Op- tatus, Commodian, Auctor libri de Promissioni- bus, and, to a certain extent, Lucifer.§ These facts may quite reasonably suggest that in Cyprian’s time there was some oflicial, ecclesiastical recognition of a particular type of text.|| But is it possible to go behind the days of Cyprian? Certainly, in the earlier Father, Tertullian, whom Cyp. called ‘magister,’1 there are some expressions bearing on this point which have to be reckoned with.
Adv. Mare. v. 4 (Gal 423): Hec sunt enim duo testamenta, siue, ‘duw ostensiones,’ sicut inuenimus interpretatum. C. Praz. δ: ideoque jam in usu est nostrorum, per simplicitatem interpretationis, ‘sermonem’ dicere in primordio apud deum fuisse cum magis ‘rationem’ competat antiquiorem haberi. De Monog. 11: sciamus plane non sic esse in Greco authentico, quomodo in usum exiit per duarum syllabarum, aut callidam aut Elmplicen euersionem: ‘si autem dormierit uir ejus’ (1 Co 739), Adv. Marc. iv. 1: ‘alterius instrumenti uel quod magis usui est dicere testamenti.’
These passages seem to show clearly that some definite usage already existed ; that there was already some standard of tr® to follow. But there \s more marked evidence than this. Z.g. Gal 3% is thus quoted by Tert.** (Adv. Mare. v. 3) : " Omnes enim filli estis fidei.’ Here, plainly, ‘/idei’ must be a variant of the Lat. ‘dei’ and not of Greek θεοῦ. Tert. had a Lat. text before him, and evidently he
* Guardian, May 25, 1892, p. 787.
+ See Sanday in OL Bibl. Tezts, ii. pp. xlii-cxxviii ; Oorssen, Der Cyp. Text der Acta Apost., Berlin, 1892. It is of interest to note that the text nearest to A of Acts is the margin of the Philox. Syr., which has a most intimate relation with the OL. On the text of the Testimonia, which is a most important ques- tion for the OL Version, see Sanday, op. cit. p. 45 ἢ, and Appendix II. p. 123. Also his essay in Stud. Bibl. iii. ‘The Cheltenham List,’ ete. Dombart, Zw7h. 1879, p. 379 ff.
t Cod. e, which has certainly an ‘ African’ base, has suffered from the intrusion of other elements. See Sanday, loc. cit.
§ Mr. F. Ο. Burkitt, however, who has kindly read this article in proof, holds that the biblical quotations in these writers are solely from the 7'estimonia.
Ι ΑΝ Watson's remarks on Oyprian’s low estimate of the OL Version, to which, nevertheless, he rigidly adhered. This suggests that the text he used had some official sanction. Stud, Bibl. iv. pp. 194-195.
4 Hieron. de Vir, illustr. 53.
** See Zimmer, SK, 1889, ii. p. 339,