Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.
|
MINUSCULES .—Very few of these are of real importance . The most valuable are the following: I . The See also:Ferrar See also:Group; a group of eight See also:MSS. known in See also:Gregory's notation as 13, 69, 124, 346, 543, 788, 826, 828, or in von See also:Soden's as a 368, S 505, a I211, a 226, e 257, e 1033, a 218, e 219, all which, except 69, in spite of the dating implied by von Soden's notation were probably written in the 12th See also:century in See also:Calabria . They have a most See also:peculiar See also:text of a mainly " Western " type, with some See also:special See also:affinities to the Old See also:Syriac and perhaps to the Diatessaron . They are known as the Ferrar group in memory of the See also:scholar who first published their text, and are sometimes quoted as <h (which, however, properly is the See also:symbol for Codex Beratinus of the Gospels), and sometimes as fam.13 . 2 . See also:Cod. i and its See also:Allies; a group of four MSS. known in Gregory's notation as I, 118, 131, 209, and in von Soden's as S 50, e 346, S 467 and S 457 . The dating implied by the latter notation is wrong, as I certainly belongs to the 12th, not to the loth century, and 118 is probably later than 209 . It is sometimes quoted as fam.' See also:Fain.' and fam.13 probably have a See also:common archetype in See also:Mark which is also represented by codd . 28 (e 168), 565 (e 93, quoted by See also:Tischendorf and others as 2P') and 700 (e 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 (S 48) at See also:Paris, which often agrees with x BL and is the best minuscule representative of the " Neutral " and " Alexandrian " types of text in the gospels; cod . 137 (a 364) at See also:Milan, a valuable ' Western" text of the Acts; a 78 (not in Gregory) in the Laura on Mt . See also:Athos, a MS. of the Acts and epistles, with an See also:early (mixed) type of text and . textual comments and notes from See also:Origen . [The text of the Ferrar group was published after Ferrar's See also:death by T . K . See also:Abbott, A See also:Collation of Four Important MSS. of the Gospels (See also:Dublin, 1877) . It is best discussed by Rendel See also:Harris's books, The Origin of the See also:Leicester Codex (1887), The Origin of the Ferrar Group (1893), and The Ferrar Group (1900), all published at See also:Cam-See also:bridge; the text of fam.1 with a discussion of its textual relations is given in K . See also:Lake's " Codex 1 and its Allies " (Texts and Studies, vii . 3, 1902) ; 565 was edited by J . Belsheim in See also:Des Evang. des See also:Marcus nach d. griech . Cod . Theodorae, &c . (See also: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, See also:London, 189o; a 78 is edited by E. von der See also:Goltz in Texte and Untersuchungen, N.F. ii . 4.] (B) The Versions.—These are generally divided into (a) See also:primary and (0) secondary; the former being those which represent See also:translation made at an early See also:period directly from See also:Greek originals, and the latter being those which were made either from other versions or from See also:late and unimportant Greek texts . (a) The primary versions are three—Latin, Syriac and See also:Egyptian . Latin Versions.—1 . The Old Latin . According to See also:Jerome's See also:letter to See also:Pope See also:Damasus in A.D . 384, there was in the 4th century Old Latin. a See also:great variety of text in the Latin version, " Tot enim exemplaria gene quot codices." This See also:verdict is confirmed by examination of the MSS. which have pre-Hierorymian texts . It is customary to quote these by small letters of the Latin See also:alphabet, but there is a regrettable See also:absence of unanimity in the details of the notation . We can distinguish two See also:main types, See also:African and See also:European . The African version is best represented in the gospels by cod . Bobiensis (k) of the 5th (some say 6th) century at See also:Turin, and cod . Palatinus (e) of the 5th century at See also:Vienna, both of which are imperfect, especially k, which, however, is far the See also:superior in quality; in the Acts and See also:Catholic epistles by cod . Floriacensis (f, h. or reg.) of the 6th century, a See also:palimpsest which once belonged to the monks of See also:Fleury, and by the so-called See also:speculum (m) or collection of quotations formerly attributed to See also:Augustine but probably connected with See also:Spain . This scanty See also:evidence is dated and localized as African by the quotations of See also:Cyprian, of Augustine (not from the gospels), and of Primasius, See also:bishop of See also:Hadrumetum (d. c . 56o), from the See also:Apocalypse . It is still a disputed point whether See also:Tertullian's quotations may be regarded as evidence for a Latin version or as See also:independent See also:translations from the Greek, nor is it certain that this version is African in an exclusive sense; it was undoubtedly used in See also:Africa and there is no evidence that it was known elsewhere originally, but on the other See also:hand there is no See also: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 . Ivlonacensis (q) of the 7th century, and cod . Brixianus (f) of the 6th century, and this used to be called the See also: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 See also:Vulgate . In the Acts the European text is found in cod . Gigas (g or See also:gig) of the 13th century at See also:Stockholm, in a See also:Perpignan MS. of the 12th century (p), published by S . Berger, and probably in cod . Laudianus (e) of the 7th century at See also:Oxford . In the Catholic epistles it is found in cod .
Corbeiensis (f or ff) of the loth century at St See also: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 See also:history of the African and European versions is whether they were originally one or two
.
As they stand at See also:present they are undoubtedly two, and can be distinguished both by the readings which they imply in the under-lying 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 See also: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 See also: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 See also:style both in See also:reading and rendering seems purer
.
The See also:chief See also:argument against this is that it seems paradoxical to think of Africa rather than See also:Rome as the See also:home of the first Latin version; but it must be remembered that See also:Roman See also:Christianity was originally Greek, and that the beginnings of a Latin See also:
C
.
Burkitt's " Old Latin and the Itala " (Texts and Studies, iv
.
3), as well as in all books dealing with Textual See also:Criticism generally; other important books are Ronsch's Itala and Vulgata (1875) ; See also:Corssen's Der cyprianische Text der Acta Apostolorum (See also:Berlin, 1892); See also:Wordsworth and Sanday on the " Corbey S
.
See also:
He seems to have taken as the basis of his See also: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 See also: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 800o MSS., of which the earliest may be divided (in the gospels at all events) into See also:groups connected with various countries; the most important are the Northumbrian, Irish, Anglo-Irish and See also:Spanish, but the first named might also be called the See also:Italian, as it represents the text of See also:good MSS. brought from See also:Italy in the 7th century and copied in the great See also:schools of Wearmouth and See also:Jarrow
.
One of the most important, cod
.
Amiatinus, was copied in this way in the time of Ceolfrid, See also: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 See also:process of transcription, and several attempts at a revision were made before the invention of See also:printing
.
Of these the earliest of See also:note were under-taken in See also:France in the 9th century by See also:Alcuin in 8o,, and almost at the same time by See also:Theodulf, bishop of See also:
But these were not successful, and in the 13th century, instead of revisions, attempts were made to See also:fix the text by providing correctoria, or lists of correct readings, which were the See also:equivalent of See also:critical editions; of these the chief are the Parisian, the Dominican (prepared under See also:Hugo de S
.
See also: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 See also:Mazarin or " 42-See also:line;' Bible), but the earliest of a critical nature were those of See also:Robert See also:Etienne in 1528 and 1538–1540
.
In 1546 the See also:council of See also:Trent decided that the Vulgate should be held as authentica, and in 1590 Pope See also:Sixtus V. published a new and authoritative edition, which was, probably at the instigation of the See also:Jesuits, recalled by Pope See also:Clement VIII. in 1592
.
In the same See also:year, however, the same pope published another edition under the name of Sixtus
.
This is, according to the See also: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 See also:Salisbury) and H
.
J
.
See also: 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 See also:Kenyon's handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament is particularly clear and full.] Syriac Versions.—, . The Old Syriac . This is only known to us at present through two MSS. of the gospels, containing the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, or separated See also:gospel, probably Old so called in distinction to See also:Tatian's Diatessaron . These MSS. are known as the Curetonian and Sinaitic . The ' Syriac . Curetonian is a MS. of the 5th century . The fragments of it which we possess are MS . Brit . See also:Mus. addit . 14,451, which was brought in 1842 from the monastery of St See also:Mary in the Nitrian See also:desert, and was edited by See also:Cureton in 1858; and three leaves in Berlin (MS . Orient . Quart . 528) which were bought in See also:Egypt by H . See also:Brugsch and published by A . Roediger in 1872 . It was given to the monastery of St Mary in the loth century, but its earlier history is unknown . It contained originally the four gospels in the See also:order Mt., Mk., Jo., Lc . It is generally quoted as Syr°"r or Syr C . The Sinaitic was discovered in 1892 by Mrs See also:Lewis and Mrs See also:Gibson in the library of St See also:Catherine's monastery on Mt . See also: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 See also:writing (lives of See also:saints), dated A.D
.
778. is the work of " See also: This is represented by many MSS. dating from the 5th century . It has been proved almost to F shito. demonstration by F . C . Burkitt that the portion contain- See also:ing the gospels was made by See also:Rabbula, bishop of See also:Edessa (411), to take the See also:place of the Diatessaron, and was based on the Greek text which was at that time in current use at Antioch . The Old Testament Peshifo is a much older and quite See also: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 See also:Peter, See also:Jude, 2 and 3 John, or the Apocalypse, and the text of these books, which is sometimes See also: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 hooks, 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 . See also:Ephraim's quotations from the Gospel " (Texts and Studies, vii . 2, Cambridge, 1901), which renders out of date F . H . See also:Woods's See also:article on the same subject in Studia Biblica, iii. pp . 105-138.] 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 Philox- for See also:Philoxenus, bishop of See also:Hierapolis, by Polycarpus, a enJan. 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 See also: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 See also:Lord See also:Crawford
.
[This version may be studied in See also:Isaac H
.
See also: The source of these notes seems to have been old MSS. from the library of the Enaton near See also: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'°6) and by Tischendorf as Syrp (=See also:Syra posterior) . It should be noted that when Tischendorf speaks of Syr°tr 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 . See also:Westcott and See also:Hort, Introduction, and for Acts, See also:Pott's Abendlandische Text der Apostelgesch . (See also:Leipzig, 1900).] 5 . The Palestinian or See also:Jerusalem Version . This is a lectionary which was once thought to have come from the neighbourhood of See also:Pales- Jerusalem, but has been shown by Burkitt to come from See also:damn. 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 SyrL1Q1 [The text may be found in Lewis and Gibson's The Palestinian Syriac Lectionary (London, 1899), (Gospels), and in Studia Sinaitica, See also:part vi . (Acts and Epistles) ; its origin is discussed best by F . C . Burkitt in the See also:Journal of Theological Studies, vol. ii . (1901), pp . 174183.] 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 See also: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, iii. esp. pp . 60-63.] 7 .
Tatian's Diatessaron
.
This is something more than a version
.
It was originally a See also:harmony of the four gospels made by Tatian, the See also:pupil of See also:Justin See also:Martyr, towards the end of the 2nd cen- See also:Titian's tury
.
In its original See also:form it is no longer extant, but it „Diatesexists in Arabic (published by Ciasca) and Latin (cod. saron.” Fuldensis) translations, in both of which the text has unfortunately been almost entirely conformed to the See also:ordinary type
.
These authorities are, therefore, only available for the reconstruction of the order of the selections from the gospels, not for textual criticism properly so called
.
For the latter purpose, however, we can use an Armenian translation of a commentary on the Diatessaron by Ephraem, and the quotations in Aphraates
.
The Diatessaron appears to have been the usual form in which the gospels were read until the beginning of the 5th century, when the Peshito was put in its place, and a systematic destruction of copies of the Diatessaron was undertaken
.
[The Diatessaron may be studied in Zahn, " Evangelienharmonie," article in the Protestantische Realencyklopadie (1898) ; J
.
H
.
See also: Burkitt, Evangelion da Mepharreshe (Cambridge, 1904, vol. ii.).] Inter-relation of Syriac Versions.—The relations which subsist between the various Syriac versions remain to be discussed . There is little See also:room for doubt that the Harklean was based on the Philoxenian, and the Philoxenian was based on the Peshito, the revision being made in each case by the help of the Greek MSS. of the See also:day, but the relations which subsist between the Old Syriac, the Diatessaron and the Peshito are a more difficult question . There are now but few, if any, scholars who think that the Peshito is an entirely separate version, and the See also:majority have been convinced by Burkitt and recognize (i) that the Peshito is based on a knowledge of the Old Syriac and the Diatessaron; (2) that it was made by Rabbula with the help of the contemporary Greek text of the Antiochene Church . But there is not yet the same degree of consensus as to the relations between the Old Syriac and the Diatessaron . Here it is necessary to distinguish between the original text of the Old Syriac and the existing MSS. of it—Cur. and See also:Sin . There is no question that many passages in these show signs of Diatessaron See also:influence, but this is only to be expected if we consider that from the end of the 2nd to the beginning of the 5th century the Diatessaron was the popular form of the gospels . A large See also:discount has therefore to be made from the agreements between Diatessaron and Syr . S and C . Still, it is improbable that this will explain everything, and it is generally conceded that the original Diatessaron and the original Old Syriac were in some way connected . The connexion is variously explained, and efforts have been made to show on which See also:side the dependence is to be found . 'The most probable theory is that of Burkitt . He thinks that the first Syriac translation was that of Tatian (c . A.D . 175), who brought the Diatessaron from Rome and translated it into Syriac . There, in the last days of the 2nd century, when See also:Serapion was bishop of Antioch (A.D . 190-203), a new start was made, and a translation of the " separated Gospels " (Evangelion da Mepharreshe) was made from the MSS. which was in use at Antioch . Probably the maker of this version was partly guided, especially in his choice of renderings, by his knowledge of the Diatessaron . Nevertheless, the Diatessaron remained the more popular and was only driven out by See also:Theodoret and Rabbula in the 5th century, when it was replaced by the Peshito . If this theory be correct the Syriac versions represent three distinct Greek texts:—(I) the 2nd-century Greek text from Rome, used by Tatian ; (2) the 2nd-century Greek text from Antioch, used for the Old Syriac; (3) the 2nd-century Greek text from Antioch, used by Rabbula for the Peshito . [The best discussion of this point is in vol. ii. of Burkitt's Evangelion da Mepharreshe.] Egyptian Versions,—Much less is known at present about the history of the Egyptian versions . They are found in various dialects of Coptic, the mutual relations of which are not copti, yet certain, but the only ones which are preserved with any completeness are the Bohairic, or See also:Lower Egyptian, and Sahidic, or Upper Egyptian, though it is certain that fragments of inter-mediate dialects such as See also:Middle Egyptian, Fayumic, Akhmimic and Memphitic also exist . The Bohairic has been edited by G . See also:Horner . It is well represented, as it became the See also:official version of the Coptic Church; its history is unknown, but from See also:internal evidence it seems to have been made from good Greek MSS. of the type of NBL, but the date to which this points depends largely on the See also:general view taken of the history of the text of the New Testament . It need not, but may, be earlier than the 4th century . The Sahidic is not so well preserved . G . Horner's researches tend to show that the Greek text on which it was based was different from that represented by the Bohairic, and probably was akin to the " Western " text, perhaps of the type used by Clement of Alexandria . Unfortunately none of the MSS. seems to be good, and at present it is impossible to make very definite use of the version . It is possible that this is the See also:oldest Coptic version, and this view is supported by the general probabilities of the spread of Christianity in Egypt . which suggest that the native church and native literature had their strength at first chiefly in the See also:southern parts of the See also:country . It must be noted that Westcott and Hort called the Bohairic Memphitic, and the Sahidic Thebaic, and Tischendorf called the Bohairic Coptic . [See G . Horner's The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the See also:Northern See also:Dialect (Oxford); Scrivener's Introduction (ed . See also:Miller), vol. ii. pp . 91-144; and especially an article on " Egyptian Versions " in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, vol. i. by See also:Forbes See also:Robinson.] (0) Among the secondary versions the only one of real importance is the Armenian . The Armenian Version.—The early history of this version is obscure, but it seems probable that there were two translations Armenian. made in the 4th century: (1) by Mesrop with the help of Hrofanos (See also:Rufinus?) based on a Greek text; (2) by Sahak, based on Syriac . After the council of See also:Ephesus (A . D . 430) Mesrop and Sahak compared and revised their work with the help of MSS. from See also:Constantinople . The general character of the version is late, but there are many places in which the Old Syriac basis can be recognized, and in the Acts and Epistles, where the Old Syriac is no longer extant, this is sometimes very valuable evidence . [See Scrivener (ed . Miller) vol. ii. pp . 148-154; Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, article on " The Armenian Versions of the New Testament," by F . C . See also:Conybeare; J . A . Robinson, " Euthaliana " (Texts and Studies, iii . 3), cap . 5; on the supposed connexion of Mark xvi . 8 if. with Aristion mentioned in this version, see esp . Swete's The Gospel according to St Mark (London, 1902), p. exi.] Other secondary versions which are sometimes quoted are the See also:Gothic, Ethiopic, Georgian, Arabic, Anglo-Saxon, Frankish and Persic . None has any real critical importance; details are given in Gregory's Prolegomena and in Scrivener's Introduction . (C) Quotations in Patristic Writings.—The value of this source of evidence lies in the See also:power which it gives us to date and localize texts . Its limitations are found in the inaccuracy of See also:quotation of the writers, and often in the corrupt See also:condition of their text . This latter point especially affects quotations which later See also:scribes frequently forced into See also:accord with the text they preferred . All writers earlier than the 5th century are valuable, but particularly important are the following groups:--(1) Greek writers in the See also:West, especially Justin Martyr, Tatian, See also:Marcion, See also:Irenaeus and See also: |