llie study of this long history is a fascinating subject. It presents problems of all kinds, and for their solution draws on the stores which have been accumulated by the students of language and literature, of art, of pahtography, of liturgical usage, of history.t and many other br.anches of knowledge, while in return tlie MSS of the Versions contribute to all these studies material which is often of the greatest value, and can be found nowhere else. Hence the student of the Versions will lind materials in books and periodicals dealing with almost every subject, ana the literature is almost boundless.
1. Origin and early History. — The first point to try to make clear is at what date and place, and in what circumstances, the Versions in each lan- guage were made. We find general and somewhat rhetorical statements, like that of Chrysostom, in which he says, in his lirst Homily on St. John, that the Syrians, Indians, Persians, Ethiojiians, and numberless other nations, have translations into their own languages. But it is only in regard to some of the later ones, that is, those made in and after the 4tli cent., that we have delinite historical statements on these points : as, for ex- ample, in the case of the Gothic, Armenian, and Slavonic ; and even these apparently delinite state- ments will not always stand cross-examination, and need explanation or qualilication. In some cases they are so much later than the event to which they refer as to be untrustworthy in detail, while in other cases they lack perspective, and ascribe to one person or date work which probably pa.ssed through several hands and extended over a long period. Besides such historical statements, which have to be carefully examined before we use them, we have arguments of an inferential kind, based on the evidence allorded by the MSS of the Version itself.
The lirst question which we naturally ask is whether the Versions were ant/mritative, the work of translators chosen for their knowledge of the two languages involved, and from MSS carefully .selected of a collection of books regarded as canonical, or whether they were made by private and irresiion- sible persons independently, in dill'erent districts, and from chance M.SS of sep.arate books as they became known or were required for use. Obviously, the answer to such questions is of great imjiort- ance, but delinite answers can rarely be given.
• For a list of these see (1 ) In tmr Toniiwti : a popular hamlh'vtk to the translation work of the lirilisli and l''oreiK'n Uible Soeiuty, by O. A. King ; 2nd issue, comprising the worlt of the lost (juarter of ■ century, lS'&-ltiU9 ; also (2) Uible Uotue I'apert, i.-v.
t The use of fam/imf/d may be illustrated from the discussion of the Afri(?an oriifin of the <lld Latin ; of arf, from the uso nia^le of dilferent kinds of decoration found in .MSS, such as the Celtic, to identify the place of origin ; of paUvotjrajiliy, (rom the evidence based on dilTeront national bands, Irish, Lum* banlic, etc. : of Uturificat tuaije, from the use made of the notes in Codex Beiaj (JThSt,\. 4641, or in connexion with the Linilisrarnc Gospels (Borger, llutuire de la V\UgaU, p. tl9); of hislury. from tbe article on Codex Amialinut io Studia Biblica, IL
850
VERSIONS
VERSIONS
There can be little doubt that the earlier the Version the more likely the second alternative is to be true. Thus Kidley says : ptures a plurihus interprctibus in viilgus effiisiB sunt explicatius quce trtndem collecta; et nonnunquam re/iclm in unum Cvdiccm vel editionem relatoe sunt ; * and else- where,t in the same treatise, that the Versions were at first a sort of Targiim, derive<l from copies circumforancis et vulgatioribus, from which the glosses were gradually removed. Similarly Augus- tine, in a well-known passage,! writes in regard to the Latin : ut cuique priinis fidci temporibus in manus vcnit Codex Grwctis et aliquantuium facul- talis sihi utriusque lingitie hnbsre videbatur, ausus est interpretari. This hj-pothesis, while it does not destroy the value of tiie Versions as evidence often older than our MSS of the Greek text of the NT, certainly lessens the authority we should, on the first hy])Othesis, have to give them as made from the best MSS of the time, and exhibiting non unius alteriusve hominis sed totius ecclesiiE inteipretationcm et judiciuin.% — In regard to some of the later Versions we are told, and may well believe, that they were made by carefully chosen persons from specially selected MSS. But even then the area of selection must have been limited by circumstances of place and time and oppor- tunity. So that, in the last resort, our estimate of the critical value of a Version and its text must be formed entirely from that text as contained in the MSS of the Version, or rather as it can be restored to Ita original form by the removal of errors which have come in during the centuries. For it has to be remembered that in some cases a considerable intenal has elapsed between the date at which the Version was first made and that of the earliest MS of it. It is true that in no case is the interval as great as the thousand years or more which separate the last Heb. book of the OT from the earliest MS in which it is preserved to us. Of the more important Versions the Bohairic may be taken as the most striking instance in which the MSS of the Version, with very few- exceptions, belong to a date very much later than that of the Version itself. II AVe nearly always have to measure the interval by centuries, and in that time much often happened H to alter the original characteristics of the Versions, both in regard to the text which underlay them and the language in which that text was expressed, and so to obscure or distort the light thrown by tlie MSS of a Version on its origin. But, even when we have made all necessary allowances, much evidence remains which may be used to date and localize the origin of a Version. First and foremost comes a comparison with the quotations found in Patristic writers using the same language. Thus the value of the writings of Tatian, Ephraem, and Aphraates has been generally recognized in regard to the Syriac Versions and their relation to each other, though there is divergence of opinion as to tlie actual conclusions to be drawn. Again, a com- parison of the Old Latin with the Latin Fathers, especially Cyprian and Tertullian, gave Wiseman the first clue, which has, however, to be used with caution,** to the grouping of tlie MSS of that Version into families. The Patristic quotations often help us to date, as well as to localize, the text found in a Version. Thus Robert tt dates the Version contained in the Lyons Heptateuch by its