2. The Vulgate or Hieronymian version. To remedy the confusion
produced by the variations of the Latin text Pope Damasus asked Jerome
to undertake a revision, and the latter published a new text of the
New Testament in A.D. 384 and the rest of the Bible probably within
two years. This version gradually became accepted as the standard
text, and after a time was called the "Vulgata," the first to use this
name as a title being, it is said, Roger Bacon. In the Old Testament
Jerome made a new translation directly from the Hebrew, as the Old
Latin was based on the LXX., but in the New Testament he revised the
existing version. He did this fully and carefully in the gospels, but
somewhat superficially in the epistles. He seems to have taken as the
basis of his work the European version as it existed in his time,
perhaps best represented by _cod. Monacensis_ (q) of the 7th century,
and by the quotations in _Ambrosiaster_, to which _cod. Brixianus_ (f)
of the 6th century would be added if it were not probable that it is
merely a Vulgate MS. with intrusive elements. This type of text he
revised with the help of Greek MSS. of a type which does not seem to
correspond exactly to any now extant, but to resemble B more closely
than any others.
Of Jerome's revision we possess at least 8000 MSS., of which the
earliest may be divided (in the gospels at all events) into groups
connected with various countries; the most important are the
Northumbrian, Irish, Anglo-Irish and Spanish, but the first named
might also be called the Italian, as it represents the text of good
MSS. brought from Italy in the 7th century and copied in the great
schools of Wearmouth and Jarrow. One of the most important, _cod.
Amiatinus_, was copied in this way in the time of Ceolfrid, Benedict
Biscop's successor, as a present for Pope Gregory in 716. From these
MSS. the original Hieronymian text may be reconstructed with
considerable certainty. The later history of the version is
complicated, but fairly well known. The text soon began to deteriorate
by admixture with the Old Latin, as well from the process of
transcription, and several attempts at a revision were made before the
invention of printing. Of these the earliest of note were undertaken
in France in the 9th century by Alcuin in 801, and almost at the same
time by Theodulf, bishop of Orleans (787-821). In the 11th century a
similar task was undertaken by Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury
(1069-1089); in the 12th century by Stephen Harding (1109), third
abbot of Citeaux, and by Cardinal Nicolaus Maniacoria (1150), whose
corrected Bible is preserved in the public library at Dijon. But these
were not successful, and in the 13th century, instead of revisions,
attempts were made to fix the text by providing _correctoria_, or
lists of correct readings, which were the equivalent of critical
editions; of these the chief are the Parisian, the Dominican (prepared
under Hugo de S. Caro about 1240), and the Vatican. In the 15th
century the history of the printed Vulgates begins. The earliest is
the Mentz edition of 1452-1456 (the _Mazarin_ or "42-line" Bible), but
the earliest of a critical nature were those of Robert Etienne in 1528
and 1538-1540. In 1546 the council of Trent decided that the Vulgate
should be held as _authentica_, and in 1590 Pope Sixtus V. published a
new and authoritative edition, which was, probably at the instigation
of the Jesuits, recalled by Pope Clement VIII. in 1592. In the same
year, however, the same pope published another edition under the name
of Sixtus. This is, according to the Bull of 1592, the authoritative
edition, and has since then been accepted as such in the Latin Church.
The critical edition by J. Wordsworth (bishop of Salisbury) and H.J.
White probably restores the text almost to the state in which Jerome
left it.
[The text of the Vulgate may be studied in Wordsworth and White,
_Novum Testamentum Latine_; Corssen, _Epistula ad Galatas_. Its
history is best given in S. Berger's _Histoire de la Vulgate_ (Paris,
1893), in which a good bibliography is given on pp. xxxii.-xxxiv. The
section in Kenyon's handbook to the _Textual Criticism of the New
Testament_ is particularly clear and full.]
Old Syriac.
Syriac Versions.--1. The Old Syriac. This is only known to us at
present through two MSS. of the gospels, containing the _Evangelion
da-Mepharreshe_, or separated gospel, probably so called in
distinction to Tatian's _Diatessaron_. These MSS. are known as the
Curetonian and Sinaitic. The Curetonian is a MS. of the 5th century.
The fragments of it which we possess are MS. Brit. Mus. addit. 14.451,
which was brought in 1842 from the monastery of St. Mary in the
Nitrian desert, and was edited by Cureton in 1858; and three leaves in
Berlin (MS. Orient. Quart. 528) which were bought in Egypt by H.
Brugsch and published by A. Roediger in 1872. It was given to the
monastery of St. Mary in the 10th century, but its earlier history is
unknown. It contained originally the four gospels in the order Mt.,
Mk., Jo., Lc. It is generally quoted as Syr^cur or Syr C. The Sinaitic
was discovered in 1892 by Mrs Lewis and Mrs Gibson in the library of
St. Catherine's monastery on Mt. Sinai, where it still remains, and
was published in 1894 by R.L. Bensly, J. Rendel Harris and F.C.
Burkitt, with an introduction by Mrs Lewis. It is a palimpsest MS.,
and the upper writing (lives of saints), dated A.D. 778, is the work
of "John, the anchorite of Beth Mari Qanon, a monastery of Ma'arrath
Mesren city in the district of Antioch." This town is between Antioch
and Aleppo; though the monastery is otherwise unknown, it seems
probable that it was the source of many of the MSS. now at Sinai. The
under writing seems to be a little earlier than that of the
Curetonian; it contains the gospels in the order Mt., Mc., Lc., Jo.
with a few _lacunae_. There is no evidence that this version was ever
used in the Church services: the Diatessaron was always the normal
Syriac text of the gospels until the introduction of the Peshito. But
the quotations and references in Aphraates, Ephraem and the Acts of
Judas Thomas show that it was known, even if not often used. It seems
certain that the Old Syriac version also contained the Acts and
Pauline epistles, as Aphraates and Ephraem agree in quoting a text
which differs from the Peshito, but no MSS. containing this text are
at present known to exist.
[The text of this version is best given, with a literal English
translation, in F.C. Burkitt's _Evangelion da Mepharreshe_ (Cambridge,
1904).]
Peshito.
2. The Peshito (Simple) Version. This is represented by many MSS.
dating from the 5th century. It has been proved almost to
demonstration by F.C. Burkitt that the portion containing the gospels
was made by Rabbula, bishop of Edessa (411), to take the place of the
Diatessaron, and was based on the Greek text which was at that time in
current use at Antioch. The Old Testament Peshito is a much older and
quite separate version. The exact limits of Rabbula's work are
difficult to define. It seems probable that the Old Syriac version did
not contain the Catholic epistles, and as these are found in the
Peshito they were presumably added by Rabbula. But he never added 2
Peter, Jude, 2 and 3 John, or the Apocalypse, and the text of these
books, which is sometimes bound up with the Peshito, really is that of
the Philoxenian or of the Harklean version. A comparison of the
Peshito with quotations in Aphraates and Ephraem shows that Rabbula
revised the text of the Acts and Pauline epistles, but in the absence
of MSS. of the Old Syriac for these books, it is difficult to define
the extent or character of his work. The Peshito is quoted as Syr P,
Pesh., and Syrsch (because Tischendorf followed the edition of
Schaaf).
[The best text of the Peshito is by G.H. Gwilliam, _Tetraevangelium
Sanctum_ (Oxford, 1901); its relations to Rabbula's revision are shown
by F.C. Burkitt, "S. Ephraim's quotations from the Gospel" (_Texts and
Studies_, vii. 2, Cambridge, 1901), which renders out of date F.H.
Woods's article on the same subject in _Studia Biblica_, iii. pp.
105-138.]
Philoxenian.
3. The Philoxenian Version. This is known, from a note extant in MSS.
of the Harklean version, to have been made in A.D. 508 for Philoxenus,
bishop of Hierapolis, by Polycarpus, a chorepiscopus. No MSS. of it
have survived except in 2 Peter, Jude, 2 and 3 John and the
Apocalypse. The four former are found in some MSS. of the Peshito, as
the Philoxenian was used to supply these epistles which were not in
the older version, and the Apocalypse was published in 1892 by Dr
Gwynn from a MS. belonging to Lord Crawford.
[This version may be studied in Isaac H. Hall's _Williams MS._
(Baltimore, 1886); in the European editions of the Syriac Bible so far
as the minor Catholic epistles are concerned; in _Hermathena_, vol.
vii. (1890), pp. 281-314 (article by Gwynn); in _Zeitschrift fuer
Assyriologie_, xii. and xiii. (series of articles by Merx); in Gwynn's
_The Apocalypse of St John in a Syriac Version_ (Dublin, 1897).]
Harklean.
4. The Harklean Version. This is a revision of the Philoxenian made in
616 by Thomas of Harkel (Heraclea), bishop of Hierapolis. It was
apparently an attempt to replace the literary freedom of the
Philoxenian by an extreme literalness. It represents in the main the
text of the later Greek MSS., but it has important textual notes, and
has adopted a system of asterisks and obeli from the Hexaplar LXX. The
source of these notes seems to have been old MSS. from the library of
the Enaton near Alexandria. The marginal readings are therefore
valuable evidence for the Old Alexandrian text. This version is quoted
as Syr H (and when necessary Syr Hc* or Syr H^mg) and by Tischendorf
as Syr^p (= Syra posterior). It should be noted that when Tischendorf
speaks of Syr^utr he means the Peshito and the Harklean.
[There is no satisfactory critical edition of this version, nor have
the Philoxenian and the Harklean been disentangled from each other.
The printed text is that published in 1778-1803 by J. White at Oxford
under the title _Versio Philoxenia_; for the marginal notes see esp.
Westcott and Hort, _Introduction_, and for Acts, Pott's
_Abendlaendische Text der Apostelgesch._ (Leipzig, 1900).]
Palestinian.
5. The Palestinian or Jerusalem Version. This is a lectionary which
was once thought to have come from the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, but
has been shown by Burkitt to come from that of Antioch. It was
probably made in the 6th century in connexion with the attempts of
Justinian to abolish Judaism. Usually quoted as SyrPa and by
Tischendorf as Syr^hier.
[The text may be found in Lewis and Gibson's _The Palestinian Syriac
Lectionary_ (London, 1899), (Gospels), and in _Studia Sinaitica_, part
vi. (Acts and Epistles); its origin is discussed best by F.C. Burkitt
in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, vol. ii. (1901), pp.
174-183.]
6. The Karkaphensian. This is not a version, but a Syriac "Massorah"
of the New Testament, i.e. a collection of notes on the texts.
Probably emanates from the monastery of the Skull. Little is known of
it and it is unimportant.
[See Gwilliam's "Materials for the Criticism of the Peshito N.T." in
_Studia Biblica_, in. esp. pp. 60-63.]