(1) (S. -36) is a MS containing Gregory the Great's Commen-
tarj' on Ezekiel. Of this 102 leaves(l of which is illegible and 6 blank) belong to a Gothic MS (in which a note at 2 Co 41'* s.'iys, liber sancti Cotumbani de bobio) con- taining fragnionts of Rora., 1 and 2 Cor., Eph., Gal., Phil., Col., 1 and 2 Thess., 1 and 2 Tim., Titus, and Philem., in that order, and a fragment of a Gothic calendar.
(2) (S. 45) is said to be written in an older character than
(1), and cont-ains on 78 leaves 2 Cor., and fragments of 1 Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., Col., 1 and 2 Thess., 2 Tim., and Titus.
(3) (I. 61 sup.) contains t on 2 leaves Mt 2533-263, and 26SS>-
271.
(4) (G. 82) contains on 8 leaves fragments of Ezra and
Nehomiah.§ (6) (G. 14) contains on 5 leaves fragroents of a commentary on St. .lohn. 4. Codex Vaticanus (MS 5750) contains on 3 leaves fragments of the same Commentao' on St. John as the 5th Milan fragment. 6. Codex Taurinensis consists of 4 leaves belonging to the same MS as the first Milan fragment, found in the binding of a MS at Turin. || These leaves contain Gal 61*-18 Col 2ia-20 413-18. 6. Codex Viiulobonensis. — This MS. ascribed to the 9th cent., came from Salzburg (MS 140, olim 71), and contains, under runes, fragments of On 6, and, on the margin, two half- verses of Ps 621 ».
In these MSS we have preserved to us the follow- ing passages of the OT : — Gn 5»-^- =»"=« '»• '», Ps 5'2-- »,1[ Neh 5'--'8 6"-7»- '»"<"•, and fragments more
•See also Wright, Primer, etc p. 144: 'The fragments of the New Testament all point to one and the same translator, but the two small fragments of the Books of Ezra and Neheniiah differ so much in stjie from those of the New Testament that Bcliolars BOW regard them as being the work of a later trans- lator.'
t This information is largely taken from Stamm-Heyne's Utjilat (ed. 9). Paderborn, 1890. The figures enclosed in brackets give the press-mark of the MS in the library to which It belongs.
X See Berger, Uittoirt de la Vulgate, p. 68.
5 Kauffmann (Z. /. d. PhUol., 1896) says the supposed frag- ment of Ezr 2is-"a is really Neh 1X*«.
I See Germania, xiii. 271 fL
II See note 5, above.
or less extensive of all the books * of the NT ex- cept the Acts, Catholic Epistles, and Apocalypse of which we have nothing in this Version.
iii. Character of the Text. — The next point to determine in regard to the Version is the char- acter of the text preserved in it.
For the OT the amount preserved is very scanty indeed, but the fragments consist largely of names (as in the lists from Neliemiah), or numbers (as in the Genesis passages), and therefore the nature of the materials is some slight compensation for the deficiency in quantity.
The most careful examination of the Version in its relation to the text from which it was translated is in an article by Kauffmann, t who points out the very close agreement with Lucian's recension of the LXX te.\t. Thus in Neh V^'** (to take two instances only) the Gothic Version agrees with two MSS (HP 93, 108) of this recension in the names 'Affo-o^i, "Hipaii, and this form is found in no other MSS of the LXX. The same close relationship of the Gothic and Lucian meets us in the Genesis frag- ments, where we find agreement between the numerals of the Gothic Version and those found in HP 44, another MS of the Lucian recension. But there are differences as well as resemblances, and Kauffmann collects instances in which the Gothic departs from Lucian and agrees with the B-text of the LXX. The Gothic does not preserve ' the original Lucianic text, but one derived from it,' or perhaps we may rather say it preserves one of the strains incorporated in the Luc. text.
In regard to tlie NT, Kauffmann, in a later series of articles in the periodical quoted below, entitled ' Beitrage zur Quellcnkritik der Gottischen Bibel- Ubersetzung,' examines the Version in regard to the sources from which it is drawn. He comes to the conclusion (ib. xxxi. 180) that 'the Goth, to whom we owe Matthew, used the Greek text current in the diocese of Constantinople,' and that for St. John there is evidence of 'no other recension than that demonstrated for St. Matthew.' Whether the Version was made from MSS obtained in Moesia, or from MSS brought by Ullilas' parents from Cappa- docia, we should expect, a priori, that this would be the type of text used. W estcott and Hort ( Vcmj Testament, i. p. 158) thus sum up the position : ' The Gothic has very much the same combination as the Italian revision of the Old Latin, bein" largely Syrian and largely Western, with a small admix- ture of non- Western readings.' A few instances of the readings of this Version in noteworthy passages from the first ten chapters of St. Luke may be given: — Lk 1^ eiXoyqixivT] ai> iv ynvai^ly ; 2'^ eiidoKlas ; 4'^ Idtraadai r. a. tt]v Kapoiav ; 4** Ta\t- Xoias ; 6' oeiTepoTrpuTCjj ; 6^ xeffcjUcXiorro, k.t.X. ; 8^ raSaprivdv ; 9^ d7a7r7)T<is ; 9** lis Kal 'HX/os iiroiriat ; 9" Kal etrey oix otSare, k.t.X. ; 10' ipSo/i-QKoyra. In all these passages save 2" and 4" it supports a reading rejected by Westcott and Hort. On tha other hand, in Mk P, Mt 7" ll-"" 27'' it has read- ings accepted by the same editors.