whether in Acts there is any distinction between ‘European’ | and ‘Italian’ texts. We are inclined to think that the same | question might be relevant as regards the Pauline Epp.
δ8
ΒΙ1]5," and Cod. e (Laudianus) of ‘ Acts,’ i.e. to the ‘ European’ group.
For NT authorities, Hort’s learning and judg- ment have laid a sound basis of classification. In the case of OT MSS such a grouping does not yet exist. And any attempt at furnishing principles of genealogical relationship seems beset on every side with no ordinary difficulties. The reasons are
lain. Only in rare instances have we a variety of ocuments covering the same ground. Even when this is the case, their fragmentary nature renders it unsafe or impossible to generalize. In OT the quotations of the Fathers are, as a rule, specially Sees because, by this time, the text of the
XX had reached an almost hopeless state of con- fusion. It is only when a thorough examination of the principal cursives of the LXX has been made that order can be brought into the chaos. We do not propose, therefore, to attempt a classification. All we can do is to give the results of a more or less minute comparison of the leading witnesses for OT. Let us follow the order in the list of MSS above.
Hexateuch.—We have here our best opportunity for comparing various texts, as there are four authorities which cover, toa great extent, the same ground. These are Cod. Lugdunensis, Cod. Wirce- burg., Cod. Monacens., and the Fragg. of Cod. Ottobon. A comparison of the four texts reveals, at first sight, some strange phenomena. In Gn there is a close agreement between Cod. Ottob. and Cod. Lugd. In 2a, Cod. Lugd. and Cod. Wirceb. epparently belong to the same tr., while the Munich MS seems to stand by itself. Cod. Ottob., which appears to have suffered grievously by cor- ruption, has a possible resemblance to the two first- named MSS. In Lv there is a good deal of varia- tion between the three chief texts (Ottob. not extant). In Nu and Dé we find that Cod. Lugd. and Cod. Monac. have, without question, the same source, while the relation to them of Cod. Wirceb. is difficult to determine. When we compare patristic quotations with the texts, it is striking to dis- zover that those of Lucifer have a remarkable re- semblance both to Cod. Lugd. and to Cod. Wirceb. What can be said of such complex results? We believe the solution lies in taking into account the underlying Gr. text. Accepting the classifications made by Ceriani + and Lagardet in reference to the Lucianie, Hesychian, and Palestinian recensions of the LXX, we find phenomena such as the following. In a section of Gn in which we have compared Cod. Wirceb. with the chief Gr. authorities, the result shows the most extraordinary mixture. On the whole, Cod. Wirceb. comes closest to the ‘ Cotton’ Genesis (D), but the Bodleian E also finds a place. There are distinct traces, in addition, of ‘ Lucianic’ readings, and the Pal. recension is not wanting. A similar collocation in £z confirms the mingling of elements in the text. Here, Cod. Wirceb. shows an intimate relation with AF and Hesychius, but there is also a Lucianicstrain throughout. Follow- ing the same method with Cod. Lugd. in Lv, we reach a like result. From the definite facts already stated, and the total impression left by repeated comparison of texts, we are led to believe that in this group of writings the extant documents probably go back to an original tr® of which they are recensions. Only, the extraordinary variety of LXX texts prevalent in the age when the MSS were transcribed caused an unusual amount of correction and mixture of readings in the various documents.§
* See Berger, Hist. de la Vulg. pp. 24, 25.
t See A. M. Ceriani, Le recens. dei LYX e la vers. lat. detta
/tala (Rendiconti del R. Istituto Lombardo, Feb. 18, 1886), and the numerous references to his other works given there. ..4 See Lagarde, Ankiindigung einer neuen Ausy. der griech. Ubersetz. des AT’, Gotting. 1882, esp. pp. 25-30. A 3 Vet. Test. Canonic. Vars Pri 6tting. 1883,
§ See Wellhausen, Bleek’s Vinieit. indas A
LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD
Also his Libr. . lii-xvi. » pp. 586-594.
ee
LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD
This is quite suflicient to account for the manitold differences. And it is to be observed that soie portions suffered from this process far more severely than others. Probably, we might not be wrong in lacing the above-mentioned MSS parallel to the ee ‘European’ texts* of NT, if not to the ‘Italian.’ They have something in common both with the quotations in Ambrose and those of the ‘Speculum’ (m). The Fragg. of Gn pub. by Cony- beare come closest to Cod. Lugd. and 8S. Ambrose.
Historical Books.—According to our list, these consist of Ruth, Fragg. of Samuel and Kings, and Esther. Apparently, the text of Ru, which is ‘Spanish,’ agrees almost exactly with the quota- tions of brose, and so may be designated ‘Italian.’ The Fragg. of Samuel and Kings, while having their origin in different countries, are linked together in various ways. They all seem to have an intimate connexion with the re- cension of Lucian,t while they have the closest resemblance to the quotations of Lucifer, Ambrose, and Claudius of Turin. Accordingly, they may be classed, perhaps, as early ‘Italian.’§ In “st much confusion is found among the extant texts, perhaps arising from the fact that only a ‘résumé,’ as Berger calls it, and not a complete version, existed in the OL Bible. We have compared Sabatier’s text, which is from a Corbey MS No. 7 (at Paris), with that of the Munich MS pub. by Belsheim, the Vallicellian text (in Sabatier), and the extracts given by Berger from a Lyons MS. _ Probably, this last is the best. t resembles close y the Vallicellian text and that of Belsh. (whic appear to us to be almost identical), while the Corb. text in Sabat., owing to mutilations and corruptions,|| seems a long way inferior to all the others. Here, again, we may perhaps go the length of saying that one tr® seems tole at the foundation, but it has undergone much revision and corruption from a comparison with Gr. texts which had been subject to an exceptional amount of mixture. From an almost entire lack of quotations in the Fathers it is impossible to attempt to localize the text. There are frequent traces of the ‘ Lucianic’ recension,