• D« rxTit. Si/r. indole (ed. Semler, 17«6), p. 3S4.
f See pp. 2S4, 291. t De doctr. ChriH. 11. 11.
{ Walton's Polyglot, ProUg. } 6. 3.
II Hyvernat, f^tude ntr let versions Copies de la Bible, p. 10 fl., lives a list of MSS here referred to, with dates.
% See below on * Revisions.'
** Scrivener, Introd. iL 44 ; aod ut. Old Latix Vbrsiohb In Tol. iii.
tt Bept. Partis poster, versio e eod. Lugd. p, zxvil S.
aLjreement with the Quotations of Lucifer of C'agliari, and its dillerences from those of Ambrose and Augustine. — Another argument in regard to the date and origin of Versions is furnished by the order in which the books of the Bible are given, or the Canon of Scripture which is implied.* This arjrument has been used to refer the Peshitta to a date prior to that at which all the Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse were included in the Canon.
Other arguments in regard to origin are derived from linguistic considerations, and from notes by scribes and others in the margin of the text or else- where in the MSS. At the same time, in regard to all these it has to be remembered that data which seem at first sight to be coeval with the Version, and to throw light on its origin, may have been either carried over from the text on which the Version was based, or introduced later by some scribe, t Instances of these possibilities are afforded by liturgical notes, text divisions, dialectical pecu- liarities of spelling, etc. etc.
2. Revisions. — The constant use of the Versions from the date at which they were made onwards required the multiplication of copies. This neces- sarily involved the introduction of numerous un- intentional errors, and gave occasion for linguistic or grammatical changes, and led also to a com- parison of the text contained in the Version with that of other authorities. The best-known instances are afforded by the work of Origen on the LXX, and Jerome on the Old Latin. As to such re- visions we have the evidence of direct statements, and that of the MSS themselves. We have the well-known passage in Jerome's letter to Damasus, in which he refers to errors introduced not only by vitiosi interpreter, but also by prcesumtores imperiti and librani dormitantes. This led him to his work of revision, of which the Vulgate was the result. Later on in the history of the same Version, the recurrence of the same kind of cor- ruptions, and growing uncertainty as to the right text, led to such revisions as those of Alcuin at the end of the 8th cent, and those of the Biblia Correctoria in the 13th. Such formal revisions as those mentioned in connexion with the Latin Version find parallels in many other languages.
They involved the removal of copyists' errors of various kinds, and also changes in the Version itself, such as the translation of words which had been in the first instance merely transliterated, the substitution of current and approved words for those which were obsolete or provincial, a greater consideration for grammar and usage, which had been perhaps sacrificed to secure greater f delity, as it was thought, to the words and sense of the original. J
Again, in the revisions, reference was sometimes made to the text contained in MSS on the autho- rity of which the Version was based, and to other Versions. That this was so we know from definite statements such as that made by Thomas of Harkel, who tells us that in his revision of the Pliiloxenian Syriac, in A.D. 616, he used ' two or three accurate Greek MSS in the Enaton of Alexandria,' and the readings derived from that source make the marginal readings of the Version of great value. Similar statements as to tlie use of (ireek MSS for revision are made in regard to several other Versions, and it would be an obvious thing for a critical reviser to do.
But the influence of other authorities besides the original text in these revisions has to be remembered. The influence of the Vulgate will
• See below, p. 854 f. t Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate, p. 53.
X In some cases the later Versions were more literal thao th« earlier, e.g. that of Aquila and the Philoxenian Syriac
VERSIONS
VERSIONS
K,l
be a case in point. And in dealing with pheiw- mena which suggest such influence it must not he forgotten, as is sometimes done, that the true explanation of the resemblances of two Versions may often be, not tliat they are derived one from the other, but tliat lioth are independently trace- able to MSS of the Greek, which have a similar tyiie of text.
Tliese revisions differed greatly both in extent and in character, and occasionally it is matter for argument which is the revised and which the un- revised text. Sometimes, as in the case of Origen's revision of the LXX, they liave created a chasm in the history of tlie text which it is well-nigli im- possible to bridge over. Sometimes — and in con- sidering the temper in which these revisions would be conducted this is important — we meet witli great reluctance to change what was old and familiar even though it was wrong.* The old was therefore retained in part. Thus, in the case of the Latin Version, the Old Latin renderings sur^'iFed side by side with those of the Vulgate foi souie cen- turies. Bergert notices that the use of OL sur- vived in Bohemia as late as the 15th cent. Gregory the Great in his Preface to Job says, -;' comproba- tionis rau.ia exir/it nunc novani nunc vetercm per testimonia nssumo. Walafrid Strabo [Pre/, ad Gloss, Ord. ) speaks of it as something recent, that the Ver- sion of Jerome was in general use when he wrote