In the Historical books it can, at least, be affirmed that the recension of Lucian is one of the prominent elements lying at the basis of the text.§ This is specially noticeable in the Vienna Fragg. of Samuel and the Leon Fragg. of Kings. Ceriani kad observed the agreement of ‘Lucianic’ MSS with the text of Ambrose and the ‘Speculum.’ And thus he is led to believe that the ‘Italian’ revision of OT (which perhaps includes the ‘ Euro- pean’) had, partly at least, for its standard, some MSS of the same type as those used by Lucian in his recension. At the same time, A and B cannot be ignored. Indeed, as Lagarde has pointed out,|| Cod. A has a specially close connexion with the OL text of OT which asserts itself here and there.{1_ When the Prophetic books are examined, this becomes more evident. In Ezk, e.g., Cornill has shown that the text both of h and w has close relations with A, although these are sometimes obscured by Hexaplaric omis- sions and insertions, or confused by later cor- rections and corruptions.** The same holds of other books, e.g. the OL of Job.t+ It is a note- worthy fact, and suggests a real connexion between the OL of OT and NT at a certain stage, as we have already seen the prominent place A occupies in all but the oldest NT texts. Considerations of space prevent us from lingering on this most important but complicated department of our subject. We cannot do better than close with a quotation from Burkitt’s summary of conclusions
* Anmerkungen zur griech. Uebersetz. der Proverb. p. 3.
+ Thus, e.g., Vogel's Fragg. of Proverbs, which are plainly ‘ African,’ agree 18 times with A rather than B, 17 times with B rather than A; they have 18 readings only found in cursives, while 110 are peculiar to themselves.
t Cornill connects Cod. A closely with the Hesychian recen- sion (see Ezechiel, p. 67). Silberstein (ZA W xiv. p. 26), after an elaborate investigation, comes to the conclusion that the origin of the form of text in A must be referred to the recension of Origen. He agrees, on the whole, with Cornill as to B.
§ See Vercellone, Vari Lectiones, ii. p. 436. Driver, Notes on Samuel, pp. Ixxvii-lxxxii. Ceriani, Recensioni dei LYX, etc., p. 4. It is now generally admitted that MSS 19, 82, 93, and 108 (in Holmes and Parson’s ed. of LXX), agreeing, as they do, with the quotations of Theodoret and Chrysostom, represent the recension of Lucian. See also Lagarde, Vet. Test. Grace, Pars Prior, Gott. 1883, Preface.
|| Septuaginta-Studien, i. pp. 71, 72.
4 A question which still awaits investigation is the relation of Ato Lucian. This would shed much light on the OL. It is of interest to find that the prevailing type of text in quotations from the LXX in the Gospels is that of Aand Lucian. B is scarcely observable. See Staerk, Zw/’h. 1898, i. p. 97 ff.
** Cornill would connect A with the recension of Hesychius (Ezchiel, pp. 67, 71). Unquestionably, those cursives which contain in all likelihood this latter text are an important element for the criticism of the OL of the Prophets along with the kindred Cod. Marchalianus (Q), which has copious marginal notes from a Hexaplar copy. See Ceriani’s most important dissertation, De Codice Marchaliano Commentatio, Rome, 189. He compares the various texts of the LXX from sections of the
Prophets, both mutually and in relation to the OL. +t See Berger, Notice, p. 23
62 LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD
as to the relation of the OL to the Gr. text in the Prophets.* or, in all probability, similar pro- cesses and results would appear in the other groups of writings. ‘The OL brings us the best independent proof we have that the Hexaplar signs introduced by Origen can be relied on for the reconstruction of the LXX.... Together with the Hexaplar text,’ it ‘often agrees as to omissions with the text of B. . . . Yet the same authorities convict B here and there of interpola- tions. . . . When we turn from questions of in- sertion and omission to questions of rendering of the Heb. and the substitution of one Gr. word for another, we find that the OL in the Prophets sometimes supports ‘‘ Lucianic ” readings.’ And finally, ‘there are renderings found in the OL representing Gr. readings which have disappeared from every known Greek MS, but which, by com- parison with the Hebrew, are shown to preserve the genuine text of the LXX from which the readings of our present Greek MSS are corrup- tions. In these passages the OL is sometimes, but not always, supported by one or both Egyptian versions.’
One subordinate department of our subject has not been touched, as, to a great extent, lying out- side the scope of the present article, and also as requiring far more space than could be afforded. We refer to the Zatinity of the OL versions. It seems advisable, however, to give references to some of the leading authorities.
A large collection of material is to be found in Itala und Vulgata, by H. Rénsch, ed. 2, Marburg, 1875. This work deals with peculiarities of forma- tion, inflexion, grammatical structure, and mean- ing. See a penetrating criticism of it by J. N. Ott (Fleckeisen’s Jahrb. f. Philologie, etc. 1874, p. 778 ff., 833 ἢ). Rénsch also contributed a great number of articles to various journals. See especi- ally his ‘Sprachliche Parallelen’ and ‘Itala-Studien’ in ZwTh. 1868, 1881-82: ‘Zur yulgaren und bibli- schen Latinitat,’ in Zeitsch. f. die osterreich. Gym- nasien, 1879, No. 11. There are further studies on this ae as in his Semasiologische Beitrdge, 1887-89, and Collectanea philologa, 1890. Of great import- ance is the unfinished work of é& Koftmane, Geschichte des Kirchenlateins, Breslau, 1879-81 (only 2 parts of vol. i. have appeared). It devotes special attention to the Christianizing of Late- Latin, and the moulding of it to biblical use. H. Schuchardt’s elaborate Vokalismus des Vulqir- Lateins, Leipz. 1866-67, contains much that is suggestive for the language of the version. More directly bearing on our subject is K. Sittl’s Die lokalen Verschiedenheiten der latein. Sprache, Erlan- gen, 1882. It deals largely with ‘ African’ Latin, with special reference to the Bible. The Handbuch zur Vulgata, by F. Kaulen, Mainz, 1870, also pro- vides material for study. Valuable collections of linguistic facts are to be found in some of the edd. of the MSS. See, especially, that of the Lyons Pentateuch, by U. Robert, pp. xli-Ixxxv, exxili-exxviii, which contain an examination of the grammar and orthography of the text, as well as giving tables of Hellenisms and new words; E. Ranke’s Par Palimpsestorum Wirceburgensium,