Speculum ’ (m) and Priscillian is very clear.
§ Jahrbiicher f. prot. Theol. 1881, pp. 510-512.
bh See pp. 326-328, ] See Ceriani, ‘iconti, etc. 1886, pp. 4,5.
ἊΝ -Latin and Itala, pp. 55-65. The suggestion had been
reviously made by Reuss in the 2 and 8 edd. of his History of the
T, that the ‘Italia’ of Aug. might be Jerome's first tr of the Bible from the LXX. See alsoC. A. Breyther, Diss. de vi, quam antig. Verss. .. . lat. in crisin evang. iv. habeant, Merseb. 1824.
tt Would not the fact, which Burkitt adduces, that the Vulg. Gospels were published under the auspices of Pope Damasus, have suggested, almost inevitably, the epithet ‘Romana’? But 80 weighty an authority as Berger is inclined to believe that the aolu‘ion of the “uestion may be found in the direction
_ This ‘Italian’ revision has regard both to read- ings and renderings. It isan attempt to soften the harsher Lat. tr™, while, at the same time, the Lat. text 15 corrected according to a non-Western and late group of Gr. MSS.*
The leading representative is f. g is also usually assigned to this family; but, as Mr. White+ has shown, ‘if it be Italian in its readings, it is European in its renderings.’ Indeed g shows a mixture of various elements,t having close relations tok, ὃ, f,g,, and a. The other most important representative of this group is to be found in the Freisingen Fragg. of the Epistles. These exhibit a remarkable resemblance to the quotations of Aug. and Capreolus, Bp. of Carthage. Perhaps we ought to mention here an interesting type of text found chiefly in the Catholic Epp. [Ὁ is the Late- African of the epoch of the Vandal supremacy.|| It is found in ἀ of Cath. Epp. ; apparently in 14 of the Freisingen Fragg., and in Fulgentius, Bp. of Ruspe. It was probably derived from the ‘Italian’ type, but greatly modified by its transference to Atrica. The important text of the ‘Speculum’ (m) probably belongs to this group,** and, though not entirely of the same type, we may assign to it the Fleury Apocalypse (i). Berger would place the text of Priscillian as the transition between the ‘Italian’ family and this ‘ Late-African’ group.
There still remains a large number of texts which have not been classified. These are the Gr.-Lat. MSS, in which the Gr. text must, of course, have had a powerful influence upon the Latin.t++ There is Cod. Colbertinus (c), a MS of Languedoc, which has ‘ African,’ ‘European,’ and Vulg. elements. 9, 3+ seems to be distinctly ‘European’ in St. Matthew, although ‘Italian’ and, at times, Vulg. readings appear. ὦ has apparently a Vulg. base with numerous OL readings intermixed.§§ The Lat. interlinear version of Cod. Sangallensis (δ) is shown to contain, at least, a very important OL element, which sometimes goes back to the earlier stages of the ‘ European’ text.|||| The latest OL text of Acts discovered by Berger in a MS of Perpignan occupies ‘a central position in the midst of the various re- censions.’ {1 It seems to have a Spanish colouring, but yet to belong to the same general family as the Gigas (g), s (Bobb. Frag.), the Frag. in the Rosas
indicated by Burkitt. See Bulletin Critique, Sept. 5, 1896. So also Zahn in Theolog. Lit.-Bl. xvii. No. 31, and Corssen, Bericht uber die latein. Bibeliibersetzungen, p. 5.
* ‘The “‘ Western” MSS DG (in the Epp.) are usually found on the side of those readings which the “Italian” MSS have rejected.’ See Zimmer, SK, 1889, ii. p. 354.
+ OL Bibl. Tezts, iii. p. xxi. { ‘Ein sehr buntes Ding’ (Corssen).
§ Perhaps this text had an official sanction, as is assumed with reason for the version of Cyprian.
|| See Berger, Le Palimpseste de Fleury, pp. 15-18.
| This text seems almost identical with the ‘Speculum.’
** But see an import. article in Classical Review, iv. pp. 414- 417, by Sanday, in which he suggests that ‘the Speculum was put together somewhere in the circle in which Priscillian mored, and from a copy of the Bible which, if not exactly his, was yet closely related to it’ (p. 416). This is certainly borne out by & comparison of OT passages in Priscill. and the ‘Speculum.’
++ But is not Hort’s estimate of the value of the Lat. texts too low ?(Introduction, p. 82). There isa very close agreement in the Epp. between the Lat. of Cod. Clarom. and Cod. Borner. and the quotations in Victorinus and Ambrosiaster. On the basis of this, Zimmer has made out, at least, a strong case for three types of text in the Epp. (1) ‘Princeps’=text found in Tert. and Cyp. (2)‘Communis’=text of Clarom.—Bern.—Victorin.—Ambros'**, being a revision of (1), with closer adherence to Gr. original. (8) Bible of Aug., Freis., and Gottweig Fragg. A typical example of the ‘Italian’ revision. See SK, 1889, τ. p. 3311. Also, Der Galater-Brief im alt. latein. Text, Kénigsberg, 1887.
tt Thus, e.g., in Mt 2, a minute collation of authorities shows that a ὃ 4 respectively are closer to g, than to each other or any of the remaining Lat. authorities. _ ᾿ 1
§§ (‘ Vulg. in Mt and Mk, OL in Lk, mixed (but chiefly Vulg.) in Jn’—Burkitt).
| See Harris, Cod. Sangall. p. 19. | {J See Berger, Un ancien texte Latin, pp. 11-18. He asks