FIG. 12.--First Edition of the Authorized Version, 1611. (_British
Museum._)]
+------------------+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+-----+------+
| Century | IV.| V. | VI.|VII.|VIII.| IX.| X. | XI.|XII.|XIII.|XIV.| XV.|XVIf.|Total.|
+------------------+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+-----+------+
| New Testaments | 2 | 2 | 1 | .. | 1 | 2 | 2 | 16 | 24 | 44 | 47 | 19 | 7 | 167 |
| Gospels | 3 | 10 | 26 | 10 | 19 | 26 | 82 |188 |282 | 260 |218 |107 | 46 | 1277 |
| Act and Epistles | 1 | 1 | .. | 1 | 1 | 4 | 19 | 55 | 49 | 52 | 56 | 31 | 8 | 278 |
| Acts and | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Catholic Epp. | .. | .. | 1 | 4 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2 | .. | 3 | 2 | 5 | 25 |
| Pauline Epp. | .. | 4 | 7 | 1 | .. | 5 | 4 | .. | 1 | .. | 4 | 3 | 3 | 32 |
| Apocalypse | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 21 | 6 | 43 |
+------------------+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+-----+------+
This table says nothing about style of writing or material, but it may
be taken as a general rule that MSS. earlier than the 13th century are
on vellum and later than the 14th century are on paper, and that MSS.
earlier than the 9th century are uncial and later than the 10th are
minuscule. There are said to be 129 uncial MSS. of the New Testament
(Kenyon, _Textual Criticism of the New Testament_, p. 45), but it is not
easy to be quite accurate on the point.
Besides the MSS. mentioned in the table above, there are 281 MSS.
containing commentaries on the Gospels, 169 on Acts and Epistles, 66 on
the Apocalypse, 1072 lectionaries of the Gospels and 287 of Acts and
Epistles, making a grand total of 3698 MSS. It must be remembered that
the dating of the MSS., especially of minuscules, is by no means
certain: Greek Palaeography is a difficult subject, and not all the MSS.
have been investigated by competent palaeographers.
The notation of this mass of MSS. is very complicated. There are at
present two main systems: (1) Since the time of Wetstein it has been
customary to employ capital letters, at first of the Latin and latterly
also of the Greek and Hebrew alphabets, to designate the uncials, and
Arabic figures to designate the minuscules. Of this system there are two
chief representatives, Gregory and Scrivener. These agree in the main,
but differ for the more recently discovered minuscules. Gregory's
notation is more generally used, and Scrivener's, though still followed
by a few English scholars, is likely to become obsolete. This method of
notation has various disadvantages. There are not enough letters to
cover the uncials, the same letter has to serve for various fragments
which are quite unconnected except by the accident of simultaneous
discovery, and no information is given about the MS. referred to. (2) To
remedy these drawbacks an entirely new system was introduced in 1902 by
von Soden in his _Die Schriften des neuen Testaments_, Bd. 1, Abt. 1,
pp. 33-40. He abandons the practice of making a distinction between
uncial and minuscule, on the ground that for textual criticism the style
of writing is less important than the date and contents of a MS. To
indicate these he divided MSS. into three classes, (1) New Testaments
(the Apocalypse being not regarded as a necessary part), (2) Gospels,
and (3) Acts, Epistles and Apocalypse (the latter again being loosely
regarded). These three classes he distinguished as [delta] (= [Greek:
diathaekae]), [epsilon] (= [Greek: enaggelion]) and [alpha] (= [Greek:
apostolos]). To these letters he attaches numbers arranged on a
principle showing the century to which the MS. belongs and defining its
contents more precisely. The number is determined thus:--MSS. of the
[delta] and [alpha] classes from the earliest period to the 9th century
inclusive are numbered 1 to 49; those of the 10th century 50 to 99; for
the later centuries numbers of three figures are used, and the choice is
made so that the figure in the hundreds' place indicates the century, 1
meaning 11th century, 2 meaning 12th century, and so on; to all these
numbers the appropriate letter, if it be [delta] or [alpha], must be
always prefixed, but if it be [epsilon], only when there is any chance
of ambiguity. In [delta] MSS. a distinction is made for those of the
11th and subsequent centuries by reserving 1 to 49 in each hundred for
MSS. containing the Apocalypse, 50 to 99 for those which omit it.
Similarly, in [alpha] MSS. a distinction is made according to their
contents; the three-figure numbers are reserved for MSS. which contain
Acts, Catholic Epistles and Pauline Epistles with or without the
Apocalypse, the presence or absence of which is indicated as in the
[delta] MSS.; but when a MS. consists of only one part a "1" is
prefixed, thus making a four-figure number, and the precise part is
indicated by the two last of the four figures; 00-19 means Acts and
Catholic Epistles, 20-69 means Pauline Epistles and 70-99 means
Apocalypse. In the case of [epsilon] MSS. 1-99 is used for the earliest
MSS. up to the 9th century, and as this is insufficient, the available
numbers are increased by prefixing a 0, and reckoning a second hundred
from 01 to 099; 1000 to 1099 are MSS. of the 10th century; 100 to 199
are MSS. of the 11th century, 200-299 of the 12th century, and so on; as
this is insufficient, the range of numbers is increased by prefixing a
1, and so obtaining another hundred, e.g. 1100 to 1199, and in the 12th
and subsequent centuries, where even this is not enough, by passing on
to the thousands and using 2000-2999 for the 12th century, 3000-3999 for
the 13th and so on. In each case [epsilon] is prefixed whenever there is
any chance of ambiguity. It is claimed that this system gives the
maximum of information about a MS., and that it leaves room for the
addition of any number of MSS. which are likely to be discovered. At
present it has not seriously threatened the hold of Gregory's notation
on the critical world, but it will probably have to be adopted, at least
to a large extent, when von Soden's text is published.
[The full details of this subject can be found in E. Miller's edition
of Scrivener's _Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament_
(George Bell, 1894); C.R. Gregory's _Prolegomena_ to Tischendorf's
_Novum Testamentum Graece, Ed. VIII. critica major_ (Leipzig, 1894);
C.R. Gregory's _Textkritik_ (Leipzig, 1900); H. von Soden's _Die
Schriften des neuen Testaments_ (Berlin, Band i., 1902-1907); F.G.
Kenyon's _Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament_
(London, 1901), especially valuable for a clear account of the Papyri
fragments.]
It is neither possible nor desirable to give any description of most of
these MSS., but the following are, critically, the most important.
Codex Vaticanus.
UNCIALS.--_Codex Vaticanus_ (Vat. Gr, 1209), Greg. B, v. Soden
[delta]1; an uncial MS. of the 4th century. It is written in three
columns and has forty-two lines to the column. It originally contained
the whole Bible, but in the New Testament Heb. ix. 14, xiii. 25, 1 and
2 Tim., Tit., Philemon, Apoc., are now missing. It was written by
three scribes of whom the writer of the New Testament was identified
by Tischendorf as the scribe D of [Hebrew: alef] (_cod. Sinaiticus_).
The text has been corrected by two scribes, one (the [Greek:
diorthotaes]) contemporary with the original writer, the other
belonging to the 10th or 11th century. The latter probably also
re-inked the whole of the MS. and introduced a few changes in the
text, though some critics think that this was done by a monk of the
15th century who supplied the text of the lacuna in Heb. and of the
Apocalypse from a MS. belonging to Bessarion. The text is the best
example of the so-called Neutral Text, except in the Pauline epistles,
where it has a strong "Western" element. How this MS. came to be in
the Vatican is not known. It first appears in the catalogue of 1481
(Bibl. Vat. MS. Lat. 3952 f. 50), and is not in the catalogue of 1475,
as is often erroneously stated on the authority of Vercellone. It was,
therefore, probably acquired between the years 1475 and 1481. The
problem of its earlier history is so entangled with the similar
questions raised by [chi] that the two cannot well be discussed
separately. [Phototypic editions have been issued in Rome in 1889-1890
and in 1905.]
Sinaiticus.
_Codex Sinaiticus_ (St Petersburg, Imperial library), Greg. [Hebrew:
alef], von Soden [delta]2; an uncial MS. of the 4th century. It was
found in 1844 by C. Tischendorf (q.v.) in the monastery of St
Catherine on Mt. Sinai, and finally acquired by the tsar in 1869. It
is written on thin vellum in four columns of forty-eight lines each to
a page. It contained originally the whole Bible, and the New Testament
is still complete. At the end it also contains the Ep. of Barnabas and
the _Shepherd_ of Ilermas, unfortunately incomplete, and there was
probably originally some other document between these two. The text
was written, according to Tischendorf, by four scribes, of whom he
identified one as also the scribe of _cod. Vaticanus_. It was
corrected many times, especially in the 6th century, by a scribe known
as [Hebrew: alef]^a and in the 7th by [Hebrew: alef]^c. It has, in the
main, a Neutral text, less mixed in the Epistles than that of B, but
not so pure in the Gospels. The corrections of [Hebrew: alef]^c are
important, as they are based (according to a note by that scribe, at
the end of Esther) on an early copy which had been corrected by
Pamphilus, the disciple of Origen, friend of Eusebius and founder of a
library at Caesarea.
[The text of [Hebrew: alef] was published in Tischendorf's _Bibliorum
codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus_ (vol. iv.,1862), and separately in
his _Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum_ (1863); in 1909 it was published in
collotype by the Clarendon Press, Oxford. The relations of [Hebrew:
alef]^c to Pamphilus are studied by Bousset in "Textkritische Studien
zum N.T." (in _Texte u. Untersuchungen_, xi. 4).]
If Tischendorf was right in identifying the scribe of B with that of
part of [Hebrew: alef], it is obvious that these MSS. probably come
from the same place. He was probably wrong, but there are some
indications of relationship to justify the same view. The two most
probable places seem to be Caesarea and Alexandria. The case for
Caesarea is that the colophon written by [Hebrew: alef]^c at the end
of Esther, and also of Ezra, shows that [Hebrew: alef] was then in the
library of Caesarea, and that a chapter division in Acts found both in
[Hebrew: alef] and B can also be traced to the same library. This is a
fairly strong case, but it falls short of demonstration because it
cannot be shown that the MS. corrected by Pamphilus was still at
Caesarea when it was used by [Hebrew: alef], and because it is not
certain either that the chapter divisions in Acts were added by the
original scribes, or that [Hebrew: alef] and B were at that time in
their original home, or that the chapter divisions were necessarily
only to be found at Caesarea. The case for Alexandria depends partly
on the orthography of B, which resembles Graeco-Coptic papyri, partly
on the order of the Pauline epistles. At present, both in [Hebrew:
alef] and B, Hebrews is placed after 2 Thess., but in B there is also
a continuous numeration of sections throughout the epistles, according
to which 1 to 58 cover Romans to Galatians, but Ephesians, the next
epistle, begins with 70 instead of 59, and the omitted section numbers
are found in Hebrews. Obviously, the archetype placed Hebrews between
Galatians and Ephesians, but the scribe altered the order and put it
between 2 Thess. and 1 Tim., though without changing the section
numbers. This older order of the epistles is only found elsewhere in
the Sahidic version of the New Testament, and it was probably
therefore the old Egyptian or Alexandrian order. Moreover, we know
from the Festal letter of A.D. 367 (according to the Greek and Syriac
texts, but not the Sahidic), that Athanasius then introduced the order
of the epistles which is now given in [Hebrew: alef] B. This is strong
evidence for the view that the archetype of B came from Alexandria or
the neighbourhood, and was older than the time of Athanasius, but it
scarcely proves that B itself is Alexandrian, for the order of
epistles which it gives is also that adopted by the council of
Laodicea in A.D. 363, and may have been introduced elsewhere, perhaps
in Caesarea. A further argument, sometimes based upon and sometimes in
turn used to support the foregoing, is that the text of [Hebrew: alef]
B represents that of Hesychius; but this is extremely doubtful (see
the section _Textual Criticism_ below).
[The question of the provenance of [Hebrew: alef] and B may best be
studied in J. Rendel Harris, _Stichometry_ (Cambridge, 1893), pp.
71-89; J. Armitage Robinson, "Euthaliana," _Texts and Studies_, iii. 3
(Cambridge, 1895), esp. pp. 34-43 (these more especially for the
connexion with Caesarea); A. Rahfls, "Alter und Heimat der
vatikanischer Bibelhandschrift," in the _Nachrichten der Gesell. der
Wiss. zu Goettingen_ (1899), vol. i. pp. 72-79; and O. von Gebhardt in
a review of the last named in the _Theologische Literaturzeitung_
(1899), col. 556.]
Bezae.
_Codex Bezae_ (Cambridge Univ. Nu. 2, 41), Greg. D, von Soden [delta]
5; an uncial Graeco-Latin MS. not later than the 6th century and
probably considerably earlier. The text is written in one column to a
page, the Greek on the left hand page and the Latin on the right. It
was given to the university of Cambridge in 1581, but its early
history is doubtful. Beza stated that it came from Lyons and had been
always preserved in the monastery of St Irenaeus there. There is no
reason to question Beza's _bona fides_, or that the MS. was obtained
by him after the sack of Lyons in 1562 by des Adrets, but there is
room for doubt as to the accuracy of his belief that it had been for a
long time in the same monastery. His information on this point would
necessarily be derived from Protestant sources, which would not be of
the highest value, and there are two pieces of evidence which show
that just previously the MS. was in Italy. In the first place it is
certainly identical with the MS. called [eta] which is quoted in the
margin of the 1550 edition of Robert Stephanus' Greek Testament; this
MS. according to Stephanus' preface was collated for him by friends in
Italy. In the second place it was probably used at the council of
Trent in 1546 by Gul. a Prato, bishop of Clermont in Auvergne, and in
the last edition of the _Annotationes_ Beza quotes his MS. as
_Claromontanus_, and not as _Lugdunensis_. These points suggest that
the MS. had only been a short time at Lyons when Beza obtained it. The
still earlier history of the MS. is equally doubtful. H. Quentin has
produced some interesting but not convincing evidence to show that the
MS. was used in Lyons in the 12th century, and Rendel Harris at one
time thought that there were traces of Gallicism in the Latin, but the
latter's more recent researches go to show that the corrections and
annotations varying in date between the 7th and 12th centuries point
to a district which was at first predominantly Greek and afterwards
became Latin. This would suit South Italy, but not Lyons. The text of
this MS. is important as the oldest and best witness in a Greek MS. to
the so-called "Western" text. (See the section _Textual Criticism_
below.)
[The following books and articles are important for the history, as
apart from the text of the MS. _Codex Bezae ... phototypice
repraesentatus_ (Cambridge, 1899); Scrivener, _Codex Bezae_
(Cambridge, 1864); J. Rendel Harris, "A Study of _Cod. Bezae_," _Texts
and Studies_, i. 1 (Cambridge, 1891); J. Rendel Harris, _The
Annotators of Cod. Bezae_ (London, 1901); F.E. Brightman and K. Lake,
"The Italian Origin of Codex Bezae," in _Journal of Theol. Studies_,
April 1900, pp. 441 ff.; F.C. Burkitt, "The Date of _Codex Bezae_," in
the _Journal of Theol. Studies_, July 1902, pp. 501 ff.; D.H. Quentin,
"Le Codex Bezae a Lyon, &c.," _Revue Benedictine_, xxxiii. 1, 1906.]
Alexandrinus.
_Codex Alexandrinus_ (G. M. reg. ID v.-viii.), Greg. A. von Soden 84;
an uncial MS. of the 5th century. It was given by Cyril Lucar,
patriarch of Constantinople, to Charles I. in 1621. It appears
probable that Cyril Lucar had brought it with him from Alexandria, of
which he had formerly been patriarch. A note by Cyril Lucar states
that it was written by Thecla, a noble lady of Egypt, but this is
probably merely his interpretation of an Arabic note of the 14th
century which states that the MS. was written by Thecla, the martyr,
an obviously absurd legend; another Arabic note by Athanasius
(probably Athanasius III., patriarch c. 1308) states that it was given
to the patriarchate of Alexandria, and a Latin note of a later period
dates the presentation in 1098. So far back as it can be traced it is,
therefore, an Alexandrian MS., and palaeographical arguments point in
the same direction. Originally, the MS. contained the whole of the Old
and New Testaments, including the Psalms of Solomon in the former and
1 and 2 Clement in the latter. It has, however, suffered mutilation in
a few places. Its text in the Old Testament is thought by some
scholars to show signs of representing the Hesychian recension, but
this view seems latterly to have lost favour with students of the
Septuagint. If it be true, it falls in with the palaeographic
indications and suggests an Alexandrian provenance. In the New
Testament it has in the gospels a late text of Westcott and Hort's
"Syrian" type, but in the epistles there is a strongly marked
"Alexandrian" element. [Cod. A was published in photographic facsimile
in 1879-1880.]
Ephraemi Syri.
_Codex Ephraemi Syri Rescriptus_ (Paris Nat. Gr. 9), Greg. C, von
Soden [delta] 3; an uncial palimpsest (the top writing being that of
Ephraem) of the 5th century. It was formerly the property of Catherine
de' Medici, and was probably brought from the east to Italy in the
16th century. Hort (_Introduction_, p. 268) has shown from a
consideration of displacements in the text of the Apocalypse that it
was copied from a very small MS., but this, of course, only holds good
of the Apocalypse. It is usually said that this MS., like A, came
originally from Egypt, but this is merely a palaeographical guess, for
which there is no real evidence. Originally, it contained the whole
Bible, but only sixty-four leaves of the Old Testament remain, and 145
(giving about two-thirds of the whole) of the New Testament. The
character of the text is mixed with a strong "Alexandrian" element.
[Published in facsimile by Tischendorf (1843). Discussed by Lagarde in
his _Ges. Abhandlungen_, p. 94.]
Claromontanus.
_Codex Claromontanus_ (Paris Nat. Gr. 107), Greg. D^{paul}, von Soden
[alpha] 1026; an uncial Graeco-Latin MS. of the 6th century. This MS.
also belonged to Beza, who "acquired" it from the monastery of
Clermont, near Beauvais. After his death it passed through various
private hands and was finally bought for the French royal library
before 1656. It contains the whole of the Pauline epistles with a few
_lacunae_, and has a famous stichometric list of books prefixed in
another hand to Hebrews. It is probably the best extant witness to the
type of Greek text which was in use in Italy at an early time. It is
closely connected with _cod. Sangermanensis_ (a direct copy) at St
Petersburg, Greg. E^{paul}, von Soden [alpha] 1027; _cod. Augiensis_
(Cambridge, Trin. Coll. B xvii. i), Greg. F^{paul}, von Soden [alpha]
1029; and _cod. Boernerianus_ (Dresden K Bibl.), Greg. G^{paul}, von
Soden [alpha] 1028. [The text is published in Tischendorf's _Codex
Claromontanus_ (1852). Its relations to EFG are best discussed in
Westcott and Hort's _Introduction_, Sec.Sec. 335-337.]
There are no other uncials equal in importance to the above. The next
most valuable are probably _cod. Regius_ of the 8th century at Paris,
Greg. L, von Soden [epsilon] 56, containing the Gospels; _cod.
Laudianus_ of the 7th century at Oxford, Greg. E, von Soden [alpha]
1001, a Latino-Greek MS. containing the Acts; _cod. Coislinianus_ of
the 6th century in Paris, Turin, Kiev, Moscow and Mt. Atohs, Greg.
H^{paul}, von Soden [alpha] 1022, containing fragments of žhe Pauline
epistles; and _cod. Augiensis_ of the 9th century in Trinity College,
Cambridge, Greg. F^{paul}, von Soden [alpha] 1029, a Graeco-Latin MS.
closely related to _cod. Claromontanus_. [Further details as to these
MSS. with bibliographies can be found in Gregory's _Prolegomena_ to
Tischendorf's _N.T._ ed. maj. viii.]
MINUSCULES.--Very few of these are of real importance. The most
valuable are the following:--
1. _The Ferrar Group_; a group of eight MSS. known in Gregory's
notation as 13, 69, 124, 346, 543, 788, 826, 828, or in von Soden's as
[epsilon] 368, [delta] 505, [epsilon] 1211, [epsilon] 226, [epsilon]
257, [epsilon] 1033, [epsilon] 218, [epsilon] 219, all which, except
69, in spite of the dating implied by von Soden's notation were
probably written in the 12th century in Calabria. They have a most
peculiar text of a mainly "Western" type, with some special affinities
to the Old Syriac and perhaps to the Diatessaron. They are known as
the Ferrar group in memory of the scholar who first published their
text, and are sometimes quoted as [Phi] (which, however, properly is
the symbol for _Codex Beratinus_ of the Gospels), and sometimes as
_fam.¹ cubed_.
2. _Cod. 1 and its Allies_; a group of four MSS. known in Gregory's
notation as 1, 118, 131, 209, and in von Soden's as [delta] 50,
[epsilon] 346, [delta] 467 and [delta] 457. The dating implied by the
latter notation is wrong, as 1 certainly belongs to the 12th, not to
the 10th century, and 118 is probably later than 209. It is sometimes
quoted as _fam.¹. Fam.¹_ and _fam.¹ cubed_ probably have a common archetype
in Mark which is also represented by codd. 28 ([epsilon] 168), 565
([epsilon] 93, quoted by Tischendorf and others as 2^pe) and 700
([epsilon] 133, quoted by Scrivener and others as 604). It seems to
have had many points of agreement with the Old Syriac, but it is
impossible to identify the locality to which it belonged. Other
minuscules of importance are cod. 33 ([delta] 48) at Paris, which
often agrees with [Hebrew: alef] BL and is the best minuscule
representative of the "Neutral" and "Alexandrian" types of text in the
gospels; cod. 137 ([alpha] 364) at Milan, a valuable "Western" text of
the Acts; [alpha] 78 (not in Gregory) in the Laura on Mt. Athos, a MS.
of the Acts and epistles, with an early (mixed) type of text and
textual comments and notes from Origen.
[The text of the Ferrar group was published after Ferrar's death by
T.K. Abbott, _A Collation of Four Important MSS. of the Gospels_
(Dublin, 1877). It is best discussed by Rendel Harris's books, _The
Origin of the Leicester Codex_ (1887), _The Origin of the Ferrar
Group_ (1893), and _The Ferrar Group_ (1900), all published at
Cambridge; the text of _fam.¹_ with a discussion of its textual
relations is given in K. Lake's "Codex 1 and its Allies" (_Texts and
Studies_, vii. 3, 1902); 565 was edited by J. Belsheim in _Das Evang.
des Marcus nach d. griech. Cod. Theodorae_, &c. (Christiania, 1885),
many corrections to which are published in the appendix to H.S.
Cronin's "Codex Purpureus," _Texts and Studies_, v. 4; 700 was
published by H.C. Hoskier in his collation of cod. Evan. 604, London,
1890; [alpha] 78 is edited by E. von der Goltz in _Texte und
Untersuchungen_, N.F. ii. 4.]
(B) _The Versions._--These are generally divided into ([alpha])
_primary_ and ([beta]) _secondary_; the former being those which
represent translation made at an early period directly from Greek
originals, and the latter being those which were made either from other
versions or from late and unimportant Greek texts.
([alpha]) The _primary_ versions are three--Latin, Syriac and
Egyptian.
Old Latin.
_Latin Versions._--1. The Old Latin. According to Jerome's letter to
Pope Damasus in A.D. 384, there was in the 4th century a great variety
of text in the Latin version, "_Tot enim exemplaria pene quot
codices._" This verdict is confirmed by examination of the MSS. which
have pre-Hieronymian texts. It is customary to quote these by small
letters of the Latin alphabet, but there is a regrettable absence of
unanimity in the details of the notation. We can distinguish two main
types, African and European. The African version is best represented
in the gospels by _cod. Bobiensis_ (k) of the 5th (some say 6th)
century at Turin, and _cod. Palatinus_ (e) of the 5th century at
Vienna, both of which are imperfect, especially k, which, however, is
far the superior in quality; in the Acts and Catholic epistles by
_cod. Floriacensis_ (f, h. or reg.) of the 6th century, a palimpsest
which once belonged to the monks of Fleury, and by the so-called
_speculum_ (m) or collection of quotations formerly attributed to
Augustine but probably connected with Spain. This scanty evidence is
dated and localized as African by the quotations of Cyprian, of
Augustine (not from the gospels), and of Primasius, bishop of
Hadrumetum (d. c. 560), from the Apocalypse. It is still a disputed
point whether Tertullian's quotations may be regarded as evidence for
a Latin version or as independent translations from the Greek, nor is
it certain that this version is African in an exclusive sense; it was
undoubtedly used in Africa and there is no evidence that it was known
elsewhere originally, but on the other hand there is no proof that it
was not. The European version is best represented in the gospels by
_cod. Vercellensis_ (a) of the 5th century and _cod. Veronensis_ (b)
of the same date (the latter being the better), and by others of less
importance. It is possible that a later variety of it is found in
_cod. Monacensis_ (q) of the 7th century, and _cod. Brixianus_ (f) of
the 6th century, and this used to be called the Italic version, owing
(as F.C. Burkitt has shown) to a misunderstanding of a remark of
Augustine about the "Itala" which really refers to the Vulgate. In the
Acts the European text is found in _cod. Gigas_ (g or gig) of the 13th
century at Stockholm, in a Perpignan MS. of the 12th century (p),
published by S. Berger, and probably in _cod. Laudianus_ (e) of the
7th century at Oxford. In the Catholic epistles it is found in _cod.
Corbeiensis_ (f or ff) of the 10th century at St Petersburg. In the
Pauline epistles it is doubtful whether it is extant at all, though
some have found it in the _cod. Claromontanus_ (d) and its allies. In
the Apocalypse it is found in _cod. Gigas._
The main problem in connexion with the history of the African and
European versions is whether they were originally one or two. As they
stand at present they are undoubtedly two, and can be distinguished
both by the readings which they imply in the underlying Greek, and by
the renderings which they have adopted. But there is also a greater
degree of similarity between them than can be explained by accidental
coincidence, and there is thus an _a priori_ case for the theory that
one of the two is a revision of the other, or that there was an older
version, now lost, which was the original of both. If one of the two
is the original it is probably the African, for which there is older
evidence, and of which the style both in reading and rendering seems
purer. The chief argument against this is that it seems paradoxical to
think of Africa rather than Rome as the home of the first Latin
version; but it must be remembered that Roman Christianity was
originally Greek, and that the beginnings of a Latin church in Rome
seem to be surprisingly late.
[Editions of Old Latin MSS. are to be found in _Old Latin Biblical
Texts_, i.-iv. (Oxford); in Migne's _Patrologia Latina_, tom. xii.;
and their history is treated especially in F.C. Burkitt's "Old Latin
and the Itala" (_Texts and Studies_, iv. 3), as well as in all books
dealing with Textual Criticism generally; other important books are
Roensch's _Itala und Vulgata_ (1875); Corssen's _Der cyprianische Text
der Acta Apostolorum_ (Berlin, 1892); Wordsworth and Sanday on the
"Corbey S. James" in _Studia Biblica_, i. (1885); the article on the
"Old Latin Version," in Hastings' _Dictionary of the Bible_. For the
textual character and importance of these versions see the section
_Textual Criticism_ below.]