|| May it be that the infusion of this element into OT texte corresponds to the ‘Antiochene’ revision of NT? Since this was written, we are interested to see that Sanday is inclined to assign the above-named revision to Lucian (Ozf. Debate, p. 29).
4 Streane, Double Text of Jeremiah, p. 870, shows that for Jer A is non-African and prob. Italian. His searching in- vestigation goes to confirm our hypothesis.
τὶ ke shows that τ has points of contact with Arnobius, Lucifer, Ambrose, and Hesychius (a Dalmatian bishop). See
"‘ragmenta . . . Antehieron, fasc. 2, pp. 122,123. This would suggest a very wide diffusion. An attempt to trace points of
It is interesting to note that Tyce. has a text essentially the same in the Prophets as anothe Donatist, Habetdeus, whose quotations can be assigned to the year A.D. 411. And to make the coincidence still more important, it is found that the St. Gall Frag. of Jeremiah has remarkable oints of connexion with the biblical text used by a Donatist in the pseudo-Augustinian Contra ulgentiwum Donatistam. This goes some way to establish a Donatist tradition of the OL version.*
A comparison of Tye. with the ‘Speculum’ re- veals a far greater amount of difference than be- tween the former and Cyprian. But there is so much important resemblance that the variation is probably due to a gradual revision of the language inm. This, as Burkitt points out, greatly enhances the value of the ‘ Speculum,’ though a late text, for the criticism of the LXX.+
In some passages the ‘Spec.’ has a very close connexion with 4, while in others it is entirely different. In comparing the quotations of Tertull. and Cyp., with reference to the Gr., for another purpose, the writer was surprised to find that in the Book of Daniel, while Cyp. sometimes used Theodotion’s version and at others the LXX, Tert. seemed invariably to follow the latter. The whole subject has been thoroughly investigated by Burkitt,+ who proves beyond question, that while Theodotion was followed as early as the 3rd cent. by Auctor de Pascha Computus, and thenceforward throughout the Lat. Church (alsoin A and w of Prophets), Tertull. adhered to the LXX, as also, to some extent, did Cyp., whose text is mixed.§ This shows the varying histories of the several books of Scripture, a fact which has been already noticed in regard to NT.
APOCRYPHA. Fourth [Second] Esdras.—The texts of this book have been accurately studied, with the result that the leading authorities fall into two groups. Two MSS, Cod. Sangermanensis (pub. by Sab.) at Paris (Bibl. nat. lat. 11504-5) and Cod. Ambianensis (Amiens, Bibl. Communale 10) have a ‘French’ text; the other two, Cod. Complut. (Madrid Univ. 31) and Cod. Mazarinzeus (Paris), present a ‘Spanish’ type of text. The other extant texts are Se to these two families.||
Third (First) Esdras.—Here, again, we possess two types of text, both of which are represented in Sab., and one of which isthe Vulg. Both texts are evidently of great antiquity, presenting many of the most ape characteristics of the ‘ African’ group. Probably, Vulg. is an emended form of the other version.
Tobit.—As appears from our list, there are many MSS extant of the OL version of Tobit. So far as we can judge, they all go back to one tr*, though considerable differences exist. A rough comparison leads us to believe that the leading texts are re- lated somewhat as follows : Sabatier’s text (derived from MSS lat. 93 and 11505 at Paris) seems closest to the quotations of Lucifer. Slightly different from it are Paris MS lat. 11553 and Munich 6239, which agree closely. Cod. Regio-Vat. No. 7 is more independent of the other texts, and may be, perhaps, a separate translation. It contains only chs. i-vi. The rest is Vulgate. The quotations in Speculum seem to show a third recension.
agreement and differences between the two texts (tw and /) and the Fathers has led, on the whole, only to confusing results. Clearly, we have much bpd to learn the OL versicn (or versions) of the Prophe'
* Of. Rendel Harris on the Montanist character of Ood. Bezm (Study of Cod. Bez. p. 148 ff. + Rules of Tycon.
Ixiv. 1 Old Latin and Teata, pp. 18-31. § This mixed
Maternus. 1 See Fourth Book of Ezra, by Benaly and James, pp. xil-xxil. 4 See Fritzsche, Hdbuch zu. ἃ. γε δεξιὰς iL pp. 5, 11.
$0 LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD
LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD
pm τ ςτςὔἠοσο.σσοΟι.ττΤ΄ΡῸ »ὡὠὡπαὔαπςς
Judith.—As in To, the OL οὗ Jth appears in a variety of MSS. While one original lies, appar- ently, behind all the texts, it appears to us that Mun. MS 6239 has the oldest type of text. A some- what longer and perhaps later form is found in the text of Sabatier (Paris MSS lat. 93, 11505). The Paris MS 11553 seems to have a mixed text, now agreeing with Mun. MS, now with Sabat. MS lat. 11549 (at Paris), while somewhat mixed, agrees perhaps more often with Mun. MS.*
Wisdom of Solomon.—As already pointed out, this is proved to be an ‘ African’ text. It seems to be fully as old as Cyp.t
Sirach. —The Vulg. text of this book is also ‘ African’ Latin. Curiously enough, however, chs. 44-50 are shown by Thielmann Φ to have been tr*. later than chs. 1-43, 51, and ae A belong to the ‘European’ type of text. The Prologue is also ‘European.’ The Frag. ed. by Douais is appar- ently a ‘Spanish’ text, being a revision of the primitive ‘ African’ version.