TESTAMENT
533
TESTAMENT
Gospels. Later, in the fifth century, it was revised
after the Greek text. The most widespread of these
revisions, which became almost the official version, is
called the Fesiltd (Peshitto, simple, vulgate); the
others are called Philoxenian (sixth cent.), Heraclean
(seventh cent.), and Syro-Palestinian (sixth cent.).
(3) Egyptian Version. — The best-known type is that
called Bohairic (used in the Delta from Alexandria to
Memphis) and also Coptic from the generic name
Copt, which is a corruption of the Greek atyvrrrot
Egyptian. It is the version of Lower Egypt; and
dates from the fifth century. A greater interest is
attached to the version of Upper Egypt, called the
.Sahidic, or Theban, which is a work of the third cen-
tury, perhaps even of the second. Unfortunately it
is only incompletely known as yet.
These ancient versions will be considered precise and firm witnesses of the Greek text of the first three centuries only when we have critical editions of them; for they themselves are rejjresonted by copies that differ from one another. The work has been under- taken and is already fairly advanced. The primitive Latin version had been already reconstituted by the Benedictine D. Sabatier ("Bibliorum Sacrorum lat- ins; versiones antique seu Vetusltalica", Reims, 1743, 3 vols.); the work has been taken up again and com- pleted in the EngUsh collection "Old-Latin Bibhcal Texts" (18S3-1911), still in. course of publication. The critical edition of the Latin Vulgate published at Oxford by the Anglicans Wordsworth and White, from 1S89 to 190.5, gives the Gospels and the Acts. In 1907 the Benedictines received from Pius X the commission to jjrepare a critical edition of the Latin Bible of St. Jerome (Old and New Testament). The " Diatessaron" of Tatian is known to us by the Arabic version edited in 1888 by Mgr. Ciasca, and by the Armenian version of a commentary of St. Ephraem (which is founded on the Syriac of Tatian) translated into Latin, in 1S7C, by the Mechitarists Auchar and Moesinger. The recent publications of II. Von Soden have contributed to make the work of Tatian better known. Mrs. A. S. Lewis has just published a com- parative edition of the Syriac palimpsest of Sinai (1910); this had been already done by F. C. Burkitt for the Cureton codex, in 1904. There exists also a critical edition of the Peshitto by G. H. Gwilliam ( 1901) . As regards the Egyptian versions of the Gos- pels, the recent edition of G.Horner (1901-1911, 5 vols.) has put them at the disposition of all those who read Coptic and Sahidic. The EngUsh translation, that accompanies them, is meant for a wider circle of readers.
(3) Citations of Ecclesiastical Authors. — The text of the whole New Testament could be reconstituted by putting together all the citations found in the Fathers. It would be particularly easy for the Gos- pels and the important Epistles of St. Paul. From a purely critical point of view, the text of the Fathers of the first three centuries is particularly important, expecially Irena-us, Justin, Origen, Clement of Alex- andria, Tertullian, C^^^rian, and later on Ephraem, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Jerome, and Augus- tine. Here again a preliminary step must be taken by the critic. Before pronouncing that a Father read and quoted the New Testament in this or that way, we must first be sure that the text as in its pres- ent form had not been harmonized with the reading commonly received at the time and in the country where the Father's works were edited (in print or in MS.S.). The recent editions of Berlin for the Greek Fathers and of Vienna for the Latin leathers, and especially the monographs on the citations of the New Testament in the .4postolic Fathers (Oxford Society for Historical Theology-, 190.5), in St. Justin (Bousset, 1891), in Tertullian (Ronsch, 1871), in Clement of Alexandria (Barnard, 1899), in St. Cvprian (von Sodon, 1909), in Origen (Hautsch, 1909), in St.
Ephraem (Burkett, 1901), in Marcion (Zahn, 1890),
are a valuable help in this work.
C. Method followed. — (1) The different readings at- tested for the same word were first noted, then they were classed according to their causes; involuntary variants: lapsus, homoioteleuton, itacisnius, scriptio continua; voluntary variants, harmonizing of the texts, exegesis, dogmatical controversies, liturgical adaptations. This however was only an accumula- tion of matter for critical discussion. (2) At first, the process employed was that called individual examination. This consists in examining each case by itself, and it nearly always had as result that the reading found in most documents was considered the right one. In a few cases only the greater antiq- uity of certain readings prevailed over numerical superiority. Yet one witness might be right rather than a hundred others, who often depend on com- mon sources. Even the oldest text we have, if not itself the original, may be corrupt, or derived from an unfaithful reproduction. To avoid as far as po.ssible these occasions of error, critics were not long before giving preference to the quality rather tlian to the number of the documents. The guarantees of the fidelity of a copy are known by the history of the intermediate ones connecting it with the original, that is bj' its genealogy. The genealogical ])rocess was brought into vogue especially by two great Cambridge scholars, Westcott and Ilort. By dividing the texts, versions, and Patristic citations into families, they arrived at the following conclusions:
(a) The documents of the New Testament are grouped in three families that may be called Alexan- drian, Syrian, and Western. None of thcsr is entirely free from alterations, (i) The text called Western, best represented by D, is the most altcrc<l altlidugh it was widely spread in the second and thiiil cinturies, not only in the West (primitive Latin X'ersion, St. IrensEus, St. Hippolitus, Tertullian, St. Cyprian), but also in the East (])rimitive Syriac Version, Tatian, and even Clement of Alexandria). However, we find in it a certain number of original readings which it alone has preserved, (ii) The Alexandrian text is the best, this was the received text in Egypt and, to a certain extent, in Palestine. It is to be found, but adulter- ated, in C (at least as regards the Gospels) . It is more pure in the Bohairic Version and in St. Cyril of Alex- andria. The current Alexandrian text, however is not primitive. It appears to be a sub-type derived from an older and bet ter preserved text which we have almost pure in B and N. It is this text that Westcott and Hort call neutral, because it has been kept, not absolutely, but much more than all the others, free from the deforming influences which have systemati- cally created the different types of text. The neutral text which is superior to all the others, although not perfect, is attested by Origen. Before him we have no positive testimony, but historical analogies and especially the data of internal criticism show that it must be primitive, (iii) Between the Western text and the Alexandrian text is the place of the Syrian, which was that used at .^ntioch in Cajipadocia and at Constantinople in the time of St. John ("liry.sostom. It is the result of a methodical "confiucncc" of the Western text with that received in Egypt and Pales- tine towards the middle of the third century. The Syrian text must have been edited between the years 2.50 and 3.50. This type has no value for the recon- struction of the original text, a-s all the readings which are peculiar to it are sim])ly alterations. As regards the Gospels, the Syrian text is found in A and E, F, G, H, K, and also in most of the Peschitto MSS., Armenian Version, and especially in St. John Chryso- stom. The "received text" is the modern descend- ant of this SjTian text.
(b) The Latin Vulgate cannot be classed in any of these groups. It evidently depends on an eclectic
