Footnotes

[1.]See Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, ii. “Evidence of Early Versions and Patristic Quotations, &c.,” by the Rev. Ll. J. M. Bebb, M.A., p. 211. In this chapter, which from press reasons has been curtailed, I am glad to refer to Mr. Bebb's careful and thoughtful essay.[2.]

I cannot help expressing my strong opinion that there were a great many distinct Latin versions, and that they had a great many sources of origin:—briefly speaking,

(a) Because of the testimony of Augustine and Jerome;

(b) Because Latin translations from the first must have been wanted everywhere, and must have been constantly supplied. On the one hand the bilingualism prevalent in the Roman Empire would ensure a large number of translators: and on the other the want of accurate Greek scholarship would account for the numerous errors found in and propagated by the old Latin manuscripts. Copies of one translation could not in those days have been supplied in every place adequately to the want;

(d) Because on almost all disputed passages Old Latin evidence can be quoted on both sides;

(e) Because the various MSS. differ so thoroughly that each MS. is quoted as resting upon its own authority, and no one standard has been reached or is in view, the utmost that has been done in this respect being to group them.

But see next chapter: this is an undecided question.—Ed.

Since the discovery of the Curetonian version in Syriac by Archdeacon Tattam in 1842 and Canon Cureton, some Textualists have maintained that it was older than the Peshitto on these main grounds:—

1. Internal evidence proves that the Peshitto cannot have been the original text.

2. The Curetonian is just such a text as may have been so, and would have demanded revision.

3. The parallels of the Latin texts which were revised in the Vulgate suggests an authoritative revision between a.d. 250 and 350.

These arguments depend upon a supposed historical parallel, and internal evidence.

The parallel upon examination turns out to be illusory:—

1. There was a definite recorded revision of the Latin Texts, but none of the Syrian. If there had been, it must have left a trace in history.

2. There was an “infinita varietas” (August. De Doctr. Christ., ii. 11) of discordant Latin texts, but only one Syriac, so far as is known.

3. Badness in Latin texts is just what we should expect amongst people who were poor Greek scholars, and lived at a distance. The Syrians on the contrary were close to Judea, and Greek had been known among them for centuries. It was not likely that within reach of the Apostles and almost within their lifetime a version should be made so bad as to require to be thrown off afterwards.

As to internal evidence, the opinion of some experts is balanced by the opinion of other experts (see Abbé Martin, Des Versions Syriennes, Fasc. 4). The position of the Peshitto as universally received by Syrian Christians, and believed to date back to the earliest times, is not to be moved by mere conjecture, and a single copy of another version [or indeed by two copies]. Textual Guide, Miller, 1885, p. 74, note 1.

The critical notes of Lucas Brugensis himself appear to be found in three forms:—

(1) The “Notationes,” published in 1580, and incorporated in the Hentenian Bible of 1583.

(2) The “Variae Lectiones,” printed in Walton's Polyglott, and taken from the Louvain Bible of 1584. These are simply a list of various readings to the Vulgate, with MS. authorities; he frequently adds the letters Q. N., i.e. “quaere notationes,” where he has treated the subject more fully in (1).

(3) The “Notae ad Varias Lectiones,” also printed (for the Gospels) in Walton's Polyglott; a delectus of them is given in Sabatier at the end of each book of the New Testament, under the title “Roman. Correctionum auctore Fr. L. Br. delectus.”

The volume, *Parham 102, described in the printed Catalogue (no. 1, vellum, p. 27) as a MS. of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, is really a selection of passages taken in order from the four Gospels, with a patristic catena attached to each. The leaves, however, are much displaced in the binding, and many are wanting. The title to the first Gospel is ϯ ⲉⲣⲙⲏⲛⲓⲁ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲙⲁⲑⲉⲟⲛ ⲉⲃⲟⲗϩⲓⲧⲉⲛ ϩⲁⲛⲙⲏϣ ⲛⲥⲁϧ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲛⲫⲱⲥⲧⲏⲣ ⲛⲧⲉ ϯ ⲉⲕⲕⲗⲏⲥⲓⲁ, &c. “The interpretation of the Holy Gospel according to Matthew from numerous doctors and luminaries of the Church.” Among the Fathers quoted I observed Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom, Clement, the two Cyrils (of Jerusalem and of Alexandria), Didymus, Epiphanius, Eusebius, Evagrius, the three Gregories (Thaumaturgus, Nazianzen, and Nyssen), Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Severianus of Gabala, Severus of Antioch (often styled simply the Patriarch), Symeon Stylites, Timotheus, and Titus.

In the account of this MS. in the Catalogue it is stated that “the name of the scribe who wrote it is Sapita Leporos, a monk of the monastery, or monastic rule, of Laura under the sway of the great abbot Macarius,” and the inference is thence drawn that it must have been written before 395, when Macarius died. This early date, however, is at once set aside by the fact that writers who lived in the sixth century are quoted. Professor Wright (Journal of Sacred Literature, vii. p. 218), observing the name of Severus in the facsimile, points out the error of date, and suggests as an explanation that the colophon (which he had not seen) does not speak of the great Macarius, but of “an abbot Macarius.” The fact is, that though the great Macarius is certainly meant, there is nothing which implies that he was then living. The scribe describes himself as ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ϧⲁ ⲡⲓ ⲧⲁⲗⲉⲡⲱⲣⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲁϥⲥϧⲁⲓ, “I the unhappy one (ταλαιπωρος) who wrote it” (which has been wrongly read and interpreted as a proper name Sapita Leporos). He then gives his name ⲑⲉⲟⲗ ⲡⲟⲩⲥⲓⲣⲓ (Theodorus of Busiris?) and adds, ⲡⲓⲁⲧⲙⲡϣⲁ ⲙⲙⲟⲛⲁⲭⲟⲥ ⲛⲧⲉ ϯⲗⲁⲩⲣⲁ ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲛⲓϣϯ ⲁⲃⲃⲁ ⲙⲁⲕⲁⲣⲓ, “the unworthy monk of the holy laura of the great abbot Macarius.” He was merely an inmate of the monastery of St. Macarius; see the expression quoted from the Vat. MS. lxi in Tattam's Lexicon, p. 842. This magnificent MS. is dated a.m. 604 = a.d. 888 and has been published by Professor De Lagarde; but its value may not be very great for the Bohairic Version, as it is perhaps translated from the Greek.

The *Parham MS. 106 (no. 5, p. 28) is wrongly described as containing the Gospel of St. John. The error is doubtless to be explained by the fact that the name ⲓⲱⲁⲛⲛⲟⲩ occurs at the bottom of one of the pages; but the manuscript is not Biblical. Another MS. (no. 13, p. 29) is described as “St. Matthew with an Arabic translation, very large folio: a modern MS. copied at Cairo from an antient one in the library of the Coptic Patriarch.” I was not able to find this, when through the courtesy of Lord Zouche I had access to the Parham collection.

In the interval between Woide and Zoega, Griesbach (1806) appears to have obtained a few readings of this version from the Borgian MSS., e.g. Acts xxiv. 22, 23; xxv. 6; xxvii. 14; Col. ii. 2. At least I have not succeeded in tracing them to any printed source of information.

Of the use which Schwartze has made of the published portions of the Sahidic text in his edition of the Bohairic Gospels, I have already spoken (p. 108). He has added no unpublished materials.

Among the chief authorities on the Slavonic version are the following:—

(i) Горскій и Невоструевъ, описаніе славянскихъ рукописей Московской Синодальной Библіотеки. Москва, 1855.

(ii) Астафьевъ, Опьітъ исторіи библіи въ Россіи въ связи съ просвѣщеніемъ и нравами. С. Петербургъ, 1892.

(iii) Voskresenski, Характеристческія чертъі гиавнъіхъ редакцій славянскаго перевода Евангелія.

(iv) Voskresenski, Древній славянскій переводъ Апостола и его судьбы до xv вѣка.

(v) Oblak, Die Kirchenslavische Uebersetzung der Apocalypse [in the “Archiv für Slavische Philologie,” xiii. pp. 321-361].

(vi) Prolegomena to the editions of the Codex Marianus and the Codex Zographensis, &c., by Jagić.

(vii) Kaluzniacki, Monumenta Linguae Palaeoslavonicae, vol. i.

Of these, two copies are in Greek, three in Latin Elegiacs. I subjoin those of the native Greek editor, Demetrius Ducas, as a rather favourable specimen of verse composition in that age: the fantastic mode of accentuation described above was clearly not his work.

Ειπράξεις ὅσιαι ἀρετήτε βροτοὺς ἐς ὅλυμπον,
ἐσμακάρων χῶρον καὶ βίον οἶδεν ἄγειν,
ἀρχιερεὺς ξιμένης θεῖος πέλει. ἔργα γὰρ αὐτοῦ
ἤδε βίβλος. θνητοῖς ἄξια δῶρα τάδε.

Dr. Hort will hardly find many friends for his division (Notes, p. 56),

Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς,
Εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας.

It is not meant that these terms occur as titles. Apostolos (ܫܥܝܐ or ܐܝܥܫ) as applied to a book means the fourteen Epp. of St. Paul. Evangeliom, in the sense of Evangelistary in a title, is quoted in “Thesaurus Syriacus.”

But many liturgical terms were borrowed from the Greeks, especially by the Maronites. For a succinct account of Greek and Latin Service Books, see Pelliccia's “Polity” (tr. Bellett, 1883), pp. 183-8: for the Syriac system, see Etheridge's “Syrian Churches,” pp. 112-6.