Baruch.—Two main types of text, so far as we can judge from the publis 1ed MSS, are extant in this oats The one is the Vulg., which agrees with the quotations of Cyp., Vigilius, and, as a rule, Fulgentius. The other, which is not far removed, is represented by Paris MS 11951, Rheims MS No. 1, and Vallicell. B. 7 (all in Sab.). We cannot say much as to patristic evidence, but at times, at least, it is corroborated by the quotations of Hilary and Augustine.§
Maccabees.—In 1 Mac two forms of text can be traced. The one is the Vulg. The other, which in many passages is identical with the Vulg. and then disagrees to a great extent, is found in Paris MS lat. 11553, pub. by Sabat. It agrees uniformly with the quotations of Lucifer, which are very numerous in this book. Berger points out that this latter rests on the same tradition as that of Cod. Complut., while there are readings in the Leon Palimpsest (Chapter Lib. No. 15) which seem to lie behind the St. Germain text in Sab. || mixed text, according to Berger, is found in the Lyons MS No. 356.
In 2 Mac we find several versions more or less distinct. The Vulg. stands by itself. A mixed text is that of Lyons MS 356.1 The text of Cod. Complut. is of a different type from the Vulg. We have not been able to see the text from Ambrosian MS E. 26 infer., pub. by A. Peyron.** Berger (Hist. de la Vulg. p. 138) says of it: ‘ The version . . . preserved by our MS is not found elsewhere, and is of extreme importance.’ ++
A few words ought to be said, before we conclude this article, upon the Gr. text which underlies the OL version. For, after all, its primary importance consists in the evidence it furnishes for the original Gr. text of both OT and NT. Obviously, the in- quiry is very wide in its range. We can only
* Scholz in Comm. tiber das Buch Judith (Wiirzburg, 1896), p. xxiiif., considers that Paris MS 11549 (Cod. Corb. in Sab.) is a private tr®, though closely related to the other. He would also assign importance to Cod. Pechianus (in Sab.), which he believes to be directly transl. from a Greek text with the help of the OL. It stands closest to Paris MS 11553 and agrees with the quotations of Lucifer. The quotations of Fulgentius most re- semble the text of Sabat. which is a ‘Gallic’ text. Perhaps the Munich MS may be ‘African.’ See also Fritzsche, Hdbuch. ii. p. 119, and Thielmann, Beitr. z. Text-Krit. d. Vulgata, Speier, 1883. Thielm. is to pub. OL of Tob, Jud, Sap, and Sir.
+ See Thielmann, Archiv, viii. 2, p. 235 ff.
t Archiv, ix. 2, p. 247 ff. A most important and valuable article. But see a noteworthy criticism by Geyer in Bursian’s Jahresbericht, xcviii. p. 83.
§ See also Kneucker, Das Buch Baruch, Leipz. 1879.
(See Berger, Notice, pp. 33-38.
4 Its base is Vulgate.
** Asan Appendix to his M7’ Ciceronis Orationum pro Scauro
. . fragm. inedd., Stuttgart, 1824.
tt On OL of Apocr. see also Schirer’s valuable art. ‘ Apokry- phen’ in PRE, and the introductions to Kautzsch’s ‘Die Apokryphen u. Pseudepigraphen d. AT.’
give the barest outline; and even this, in the present condition of the investigation, is incom- plete and provisional. Two most important and suggestive statements are made by Hort as to the type of Gr. text circulating at the period with which we are here concerned. ‘The text of D presents a truer image of the form in which the Gospels and Acts were most widely read in the” 3rd and probably a great part of the 2nd cent. than any other extant Gr. MS.’ And again: ‘A, both in the Gospels and elsewhere, may serve as ἃ fair example of the MSS that, to judge by patristic quotations, were commonest in the 4th cent.’ (/n- trod. pp. 149, 152). These words, in our view, have a very significant bearing on the question before us. For it has become sufficiently clear that the period from the middle of the 2nd cent. to the ane of the 4th is the most important for the OL version. Keeping them in mind, let us come to the actual facts, in so far as we are able to present them.
The NT must be our starting-point. What can be said as to the earliest group of texts, presum- ably the ‘ African’ family ? Cod. k, which, as we have seen, agrees with Cyp., is the most important witness. Fortunately, Sanday, in the work so often quoted, has a valuable Appendix on ‘ the Gr. text implied by Δ. Elaborate lists showing the relation of ἃ to the leading Gr. authorities plainly declare that the main elements in its text are the ‘Western’ (as represented by D) and the ‘ Neutral’ (x B in particular). The ‘ Western’ strain slightiy predominates. As regards the kindred Cod. e, a collation we have attempted of several long sec- tions from the Gospp. reveals a close relation with B and one almost as intimate with Ὁ, x, and A. The one fact which strikes us in comparing the twa sets of results is that A has become an important factor in Cod. e. When the ‘ European’ group is investigated, it is interesting to note the changing of places by the MSS. We have taken a and ὁ as typical texts, and the results for both are, on the whole, congruous, except that x seems to have a much more important place in ὁ than in a. In both, B loses the prominent position which it occupied in the ‘ African’ group. D has, of course, a predominating influence, but it is closely fol- lowed by A. Indeed it looks as if, in the Gospp. at least, the influence of A were among the chief forces in differentiating the ‘European’ from the ‘African’ group. And this seems to coincide remarkably with Hort’s hypothesis of a Syrian recension, perhaps made at Antioch, about the beginning or a little before the beginning of the 4th cent., whose influence spread in all directions. For, in the Gospp., ‘A has a fundamentally Syrian text.’ In any case, the great increase in the A element is plainly no accidental cir- cumstance, but, as we shall End in the OT, a fact intimately bound up with a certain stage of the OL version.