had not compared it with the Gr. original. Now Tert.’s quotations from the Bible are numerous. What can be said of their relation to the Bible of Cyp.? The most rapid survey of Tert.’s quotations muts us on our guard against hasty inferences.
orhis method of quoting is most fickle.* Often his words are a mere paraphrase ; often a more or less distinct reminiscence of the text : while constantly the same passage is cited in the most varying forms. The general impression which his biblicas extracts leave is that ora tr® which he uses, but does not regard as in any sense authoritative: which, perhaps, has only been for a short time known in Africa and is only gradually coming into use. This would find an adequate explanation if official sanction only ratified the version either a little before or in the days of Cyp. And yet the existence of such a tr® is almost necessary to explain the richness and fulness of Tert.’s theo- logical vocabula We have endeavoured to make a somewhat full collation of Tert.’s quotations with those in the Testimonia of Cyp.,+ using mainly that part of Tert.’s works mines has appeared in the Vienna Corpus of the Latin Fathers (vol. xx. pars 1), ed. A. Reifferscheid and G. Wissowa, and in addition Rénsch’s Das NT Tertullian’s. The results are rather vague and confusing. Evidently, in the Epp. Tert. and Cyp. use the same Lat. text. For the Gospp. the case is different. There is, indeed, a frequent agreement of Tert. with Cyp. and &, and, again, a frequent disagreement. In the latter instance, Tert. coincides pretty often with a, ὁ against Cyp., 1.8 In OT Tert. has some important points of contact with Cyp.’s text of Psalms. As regards the Pent. and the Prophetic books, it is not easy to speak definitely. In the former (in which the range of our collation has been very narrow), the differences seem mostly to consist in the use of synonyms. In the latter, the quotations come fairly close to each other, except in Dn, where Tert. uses the LXX, while Cyp. usually follows Theodotion.§
Even before a thorough investigation of the subject had been made, Hort, with his wonted grasp and insight, had undertaken a classification of the extant NT documents. The earliest grou he named African, consisting of texts ehidh agreed, on the whole, with the quotations of Tert. and Cyp. To this he assigns &, e, and h of Ac and Apoe. The second class he designates Zuropean, to embrace a type of text which may be either a revision of the ‘ African’ or a separate tr®, but which circulated at all events in North Ital and the West of Europe generally. Under this heading he would probably place a, @., ὃ, ¢, ff, A, 4, 1, 7) Bae of Gospels; g, go, and s of Ac;
erhaps 77 of Ja and g of Apoc. The third family He names ‘Italian.’ The name is derived from the famous passage of Aug. (de Doct. Christ. ii. 15), in which Rs recommends a tr® (interpretatio), which he calls ‘/¢ala,’ and which is presumably the text which he usually follows. Now this is tound often|| to be a revision of the ‘European’ text.
* An excellent example is his citation of 1 Co 1547, which appears in three of his separate treatises in three distinct forms. One of these is identical with Oyprian’s text.
+ Vol. iii, of CSEL, ed. Hartel. The Vienna Corpus furnishes by far the most trustworthy texts for the Lat. Fathers, and has been used for this article where available. But see on the text of the Vestimonia in Hartel’s ed. the references under
n. ¢ in preceding column. ‘
t Perhaps Tert. may have become acquainted with a * Euro- pean’ form of text at Rome.
§ For a full discussion of this last point, see F. O. Burkitt, Old Latin and IJtala, p. 18 sq. Corssen, Zacei neue Fra mente ἃ. Weing. Propheten-MS, Berlin, 1899, pp. 45-47, believes that not only did Tert. use various texts, but texts which already had mixed elements.
{ Not always. The Bible of Aug. is a most variable quantity See Corssen, Der Cyp. Text, etc. p. 25; Zycha, CSEL, rol. xxvilb sec. 3, pars 3, pp. v-vil.
LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD
LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD
Le ΄ἷἝἷἝὝ͵Ὗ ΄΄΄΄ὖὮἝὮὯὲ΄ἕ΄ ᾺῪῚ.΄΄΄ῦῸῦὋΦο΄΄΄΄᾿ῇῃ΄ῇ΄θΘθσῸ659σττἐτ“ρο΄΄ ᾽ τ ““ῆῆ΄ τ --- - . } ---.-
To this class he refers f and ῳ of Gospels; ᾳ (3), r, 7%, Τὰ of the Epp. This enumeration omits many of the texts given in our list, some of which he hesitates to classify, while others, such as the Lat. texts of the bilingual MSS (Cod. Bez, Claromont. etc. etc.), he does not regard as strict evidence for OL Bible.* Let us briefly examine this classifica- rion in the light of recent investigations. As we have already seen, the earliest traces of the OL Bible are found in Africa. Perhaps the tr® came there by way of Rome, whose connexion with Africa and Carthage at this time was as intimate ts can be conceived.+ Perhaps it travelled west- ward through Upper Egypt. Indeed, certain phenomena bearing upon the underlying Gr. text might seem to favour this hypothesis, notably a remarkable aflinity here and there in OT with the recension of Hesychius, and in both OT and NT with Cod. Alex.= In any case we are quite justified in giving the name ‘ African’ to the group of texts mentioned above in connexion with Cyp., although this makes no assumption as to their origin.§ It is at this point that we enter on more uncertain ground. re the ‘European’ texts a separate family from the ‘African’? We believe that Sanday’s suggestion quoted above, that a ‘ work- shop’ of MSS existed at the origin of the OL, is the most adequate yet put forward to account for the facts. For this is very much the impression made on an unbiassed mind. There are, assuredly, marked differences between the ‘African’ and ‘European’ texts, but they are not separated b