Gnesbach, at the beginning of the 19th cent., is important in connexion with the use of Versions, not only because of his q^uotations of the Gotliic, Armenian, and Philoxenian, but also, and more especially, because he was the first to assign them a place in the families of text which Bengel had introduced. Thus to the Alexandrian recension he assigned the Egyptian and some other Versions, to the Western the Old Latin and Vulgate, and to the Byzantine the vast majority of the Versions. Lachmann (1793-1851) 'restored the Latin Versions to their proper rank in the criticism of the NT,' t but did not use the Syrian and Egyptian Versions. In Westcott and Hort's summary of the history of the Greek text of the NT the Versions, of course, find a place. Thus the Bohairic and, with some exceptional readings, the Sahidic are included among authorities for the neutral text, the Old Latin and Old Syriac among tliose for the Western text some readings of the Bohairic and Sahidic are Alexandrian, while the vast majority belong to the group of authorities which contain a ' Syrian ' or revised text. But one of the important points which recent examination of the Egyptian Versions has tended to establish, is, that the Bohairic does not represent the primitive form of the Egyptian Version so well as the Sahidic. This would involve a weakening of their theory that the neutral text is invariably right.
At the present time it would be agreed by textual critics that all the Versions, just as even the latest cursive MSS, have to be examined at any rate to see whether they have any contribution to make to textual criticism ; but the main energy of scholars is being devoted to the collection, and proper arrangement, of the materials available and necessary for a proper estimate of the history and text of eacli Version. When this has been satis- factorily done, and good critical editions are available, but not till then, it will be possible to give each Version its due weight in the scale of evidence, after making allowance for the changes it has undergone in the course of its history, and taking account of the disagreement between dill'erent MSS of the same Version.
The notation adopted for Ike Versions, as for the other autliorities for tlie text of the NT, is that used by Tischendorf in tlie 8th ed. of his Novum Testamentum, and described fully by him, and by other authorities since. Some modifications have been made owing to further study, as, for exanijile, in regard to the names now generally given to the Egyptian Versions, and some additions have to be made for reference to material wliich has become available since the publication of his edition, such
• See Wordsworth and White's Vulgate, L xvfl. t Scrivener, ii. 236.
as the Sinaitic MS of the Syiiac. But the general outlines of the notation will probably remain tha same. In the case of separate M.SS of the Versions, that notation used by the editors of the standard editions which have already appeared or are in pra paration — e.g. Wordsworth and White's Vulgate, Brooke and Maclean's Septuagiiit, Homer's Bo- hairic, Gwilliam's Peshitta, etc. — will, it is hoped, be adopted to prevent confusion and double nomen- clature, such as is necessary in the cases of many cursive MSS of the Greek Testament owing to the diii'erent notation of Scrivener and Gregory.
(b) The most striking instance of the exegetical value of a Version is to be found in the LXX, and the light it throws on the NT. Bishop Pearson ^vrote as follows on this point : —
LXX viralis versio ad Notnim Testamentum recti intelHfjen-
dum et accurate expticandum perquain jiecessaria cut. This judfjTiient is quoted by Dr. Swete* as ' juslilled' by the facts.! In rejjard also to the meaning of the Hebrew, * it is never safe to neglect their interpretations even if in the harder contexts it ia seldom to be trusted. Indirectly, at least, much may be learned from them, and their wildest exegesis belongs to the history of henneneutics and has influencea thought and language to a remarkable degree.' On the other hand, 'transliterations, doublets, confused and scarcely intelligible renderings reveal the fact that in difficult passages they were often reduced to mere conjecture.'
The Latin Version, again, has a very important place in the history of biblical exegesis in the West. The opinion of Dr. Kouth, endorsed by Dean Burgon,J that tlie Vulgate oilers the best commentary on the NT, can iiardly be justified. There are, indeed, many passages where the Vul- gate has erred, and has influenced the English Bible of 1611 through the medium of earlier renderings, e.g. Lk 21"', Mt 16-"-^, Ko 2'8 etc. It is not, however, possible to exaggerate its general influence on the formation of theological language, and indirectly on the exegesis of the many Versions which were made from it during the Middle Ages. These two Versions stand, however, in an excep- tional position. Of most of the others the exegetical value IS not great. § In the OT they were, for the most part, secondary, and derived from the LXX ; while for the NT we are as well able as the trans- lators to ascertain the meaning of the Greek. Nor do the Versions give much help in regard to difficult words or constructions, such as iTrioiaioi, vdpdoi rtffTiK-fi, TTvyfiy, ^-jrt^aXujv ^/cXatc, and the like ; indeed they sometimes omit the difficulty alto- gether. || I'hey are, however, even in these ca-ses interesting, because they preserve for us an early traditional rendering.