§ 5. The character of the Versions. -- The versions differ {clxvii} greatly from the Greek MSS in regard to the character of their testimony. Each Greek MSS of Jap possesses a certain character of trustworthiness, and this character it maintains on the whole throughout. But this is not so in the case of most of the versions. In the chief Latin versions we find side by side the best and worst readings. The following examples drawn from what survives of fl(1) and the parallel sections in the other versions and Greek MSS will suffice to prove this.Thus in 14 avpo. o` w;n (AaC 025) is supported by fl gig vg (s1.2) arm bo eth, while Pr supports 046 avpo. qeou/ o` w;n (and Tyc a further development of this reading). In 15 lu,santi (AaC) is supported by Pr gig vg (s1.2) arm, while Tyc vg bo eth support 025. 046 lou,santi) In 16 basilei,an i`erei/j Aa*C 046 is supported by Tyc (fl) vg-d, but the corrected text acbasilei,an kai. i`erei/j by Pr gig vgd arm1.3.4: 025 arm2.3.a read basilei/j kai. i`erei/j: 046 basi,leion i`erei/j, while s1.2 bo = basilei,an i`eratikh,n, and eth = basil) a`gni,an) In 18 the addition h` avrch. kai. $to.% te,loja* is supported by Tyc gig vg bo against AacC 025. 046 Pr fl (s1.2) arm eth. In 19 VIhsou/ Cristou/ acc 046 is supported by Tyc Pr vga s1.2 arm2.3.a against VIhsou/ Aa*C 025 fl gig vg-d arm4 bo eth. In 113 tw/n lucniw/n AC 025 is supported by Tyc Cyp Pr fl s1.2 arm1.2.4.a bo eth against tw/n evpta. lucniw/n a 046 gig vg arm3. In 116 w`j o` h[lioj fai,nei AC 025. 046 Tyc gig vg s1.2 arm1.2.3.a eth against fai,nei w`j o` h[lioj a Pr Cyr fl arm4 (?) bo. In 21 tw/| avgge,lw| tw/| AC Pr [in Comm.] (fl?) s1 arm4 against tw/| avgg) th/ja 025. 046 Tyc gig vg arm1.2.3.a bo eth. In 87 o` prw/to, Aa 025. 046 s1.2 arm4 against o` prw/toj a;ggeloj 2020 al Tyc Pr gig vg arm1.2.3.a bo eth. In 89 to. tri,ton A 025. 046 s1.2 against t) tri,ton me,roj a Tyc Pr fl gig vg arm bo sa eth. In 812 all the uncials and cursives are wrong. The true sense is either preserved or recovered in bo eth and partially in Pr fl. In 92 kami,nou mega,lhj Aa 025 Tyc Pr fl vg arm1.2.a bo eth against kam) kaiome,nhj 046 s2 and kam) meg) kaiome,nhj 2020 gig s1 arm4 (?). In 94 evpi. tw/n metw,pwn Aa 025 gig vga.c.d against evpi. t) metw,pwn auvtw/n 046 Tyc Pr fl vgf.g.v s1.2 arm (bo) eth. In 96 feu,gei A(a) 025 against feu,xetai 046 Tyc Pr fl gig vg s1.2 arm bo eth. In 1116 tou/ qeou/ AaC 025 Tyc Pr fl gig vg s1 arm1.2.4.a bo eth against t) qro,nou t) qeou/ 046 s2 arm3. In 1119 o` evn t) ouvranw/| AC gig fl arm bo eth against evn t) ouvr) a 025. 046 Tyc Pr vg s1.2 and th/j diaqh,khj auvtou/ (> Tyc bo) AC 025 Tyc gig vg s1.2 arm1.2.3.4 bo against t) diaqh,khj tou/ qeou/ a fl eth: t) diaqh,khj kuri,ou 046. In 123 me,gaj purro,j A 025 Tyc vg s1 sa eth against purro.j me,gaj aC 046 Pr fl gig s2 arm bo. In 126 evkei/{clxviii} Aa 025. 046 s1 arm3.4: > C Tyc Pr fl vg s2 arm1.2.a (bo?) eth. In 1416 evqeri,sqh h` gh/ all Greek MSS and Versions (-- vgf.v fl arm1.2.3.a) against evqe,risen t) gh/n vgf.v fl arm1.2.3.a: > bo. In 1418 o` e;cwn AC Tyc gig vg s1.2 arm eth against e;cwna 025. 046 Pr fl bo: fwnh/| Aa 046 Tyc fl gig vg s1 arm1.2.3.a eth against kraugh/| C 025 s2 bo: h;kmasan ai` stafulai, A(a) 025 fl gig vg s1.2 against h;kmasen h` stafulh, 046 arm eth: > bo. In 152 evk t) qhr) kai. evk t) eivko,noj auvtou/ AC 025 s1.2 arm1.2.a against a Pr fl, which > evk2. Tyc gig vg bo eth give a different construction. In 153 a;|dousin AC 025. 046 against a;|dontaja Tyc Pr fl vg bo eth: tw/n evqnw/n Aac 025. 046 (Pr) fl gig bo eth against tw/n aivw,nwna*C Tyc vg s1.2. Here arm 2.3.4.a is conflate. In 154 fobhqh/| AC 025. 046 Pr fl gig arm bo against fob) se a 051 Tyc vg s1.2 eth. In 156 oi` e;contej AC s1.2 arm bo eth against e;conteja 025. 046 (Tyc Pr fl gig vg): evk tou/ naou/ AaC 025 Tyc fl gig vg s(1.)2 arm4 bo eth against 046 Pr arm1.2 which omit: // li,qon // AC vg-d against li,non $-ou/n% 025. 046 Tyc (Pr) gig vgd and linou/ja fl bo: > eth. In 161mega,lhj fwnh/j AC 046 (arm4) bo sa against fwnh/j meg) a 025 Pr fl gig vg s1.2 arm2.3.a: fwnh/j eth. evk tou/ naou/ AaC 025 Tyc Pr fl gig vg s1.2 arma against 046 arm3 which omit: while arm4 bo sa eth = evk tou/ ouvranou/ and arm1.2.4 = evn t) naw/|: e`pta,2 AaC 046 Tyc Pr gig vg s1.2 arm against 025 fl bo eth which omit. In 163 deu,teroj Aac 025. Tyc Pr fl gig vg arm4 eth against deu,t) a;ggeloj 046 s1.2 arm1.2.3.a bo. In 164 ta.j phga,j AaC 025 Tyc Pr fl gig arm bo against eivj t) phga,j 046 s1.2 eth.

Now, taking the Latin and Syriac versions in the above thirty-three passages (812 1416 153a not being included) we arrive at the following results:

14 (16)
13 (12)

We are not to conclude that these numbers indicate the proportion of right to wrong readings throughout Jap, though they may be in some cases approximately true. They establish the fact, however, that the Latin versions contain an astonishing mixture of good and bad readings. Thus in these sections gig is the best of the Latin, being right twice as often as it is wrong: next come fl Tyc vg, which are oftener wrong than right, though, as we have already seen, it preserves more original reading in chaps. 2-3 {clxix} than all the other Latin versions together. s1.2 compare favour ably with the Latin, s1 being right more than twice as many times as it is wrong, and s2 being oftener right than wrong. Unfortunately there is no critical edition of s2.

A further and very important fact emerges from this study of the Latin versions, and this is that a text akin to 046 and its allies (often a and less often 025) was well established between 200 and 350 A.D. and possibly earlier.

Let us now compare the above results regarding the versions and the readings in AaC 025. 046 for the same sections. We find

. . .

These results confirm on the whole the conclusions reached at the close of § 3. A stands by itself; next comes C as a good second; then 025; and closing the list at a long interval a and 046.

From the above study, therefore, we conclude that all the versions may in a given case support a reading that is wholly wrong.

In the order of general trustworthyiness they stand as follows: s1 gig s2 Tyc fl vg Pr. But in the case of certain peculiarly difficult readings (§ 1 (a) ad fin. above) the verson that is here last, i.e. Pr, is equal to the first, s2 comes next, fl and vg in third place, and gig Tyc(3) last.

We have not as yet taken account of the respective values of arm bo sa eth.

§ 6. The Armenian, Bohairic, and Ethiopic Versions. -- The Armenian version is difficult to compare with the other versions. In Mr. Conybeare's edition five texts are distinguished, arm1.2.3.4 and arma. The last is a recension of the 12th century. The four first represent various forms of the Old Armenian. Of these arm4 stands apart from arm1.2.3. Conybeare describes arm4 as a recension of the 8th century, and arm1.2.3.a in supporting the true text. In the sections which we have used for purposes of comparison, i.e. the sixty-one verses which alone survive of fl, there are two conflate {clxx} readings in arm. Thus arm4 (together with 2020 gig s1) reads kami,nou mega,lhj kaiome,nhj in 92, and arm2.3.a read tw/n aivw,nwn kai. basileu.j pa,ntwn tw/n evqnw/n in 153.

In the next place, an adequate comparison of the Bohairic and Ethiopic is difficult. In Horner's edition of the former the translation of only one MS is given. The readings of the other MSS are given in the Appar. Criticus, but not translated. Mr. Horner has, however, translated the variants for me and I append the results below. The Ethiopic versions which I have used is that of Platt. It is wholly uncritical. Hence the results given here are to be regarded as only approximately right. Despite such disadvantages, bo and eth show clearly that they have a character of their own.

arm4 alone against one, two, or more members of arm1.2.3.a).

Where arm4 and one or more of arm1.2.3.a agree, their evidence is recorded in the first column. Where arm4 is right over against arm1.2.3.a it stands in the second column. arm4 is only twice wrong against the combinations of arm1.2.3.a.

It is now possible to arrange the versions in the order of their merit in the sections preserved in fl, i.e. 11-21, 87-912, 1116-1214, 1415-165.

In this arrangement, according to the number of the right readings which they attest, it must be borne in mind that s2 eth and Tyc are wholly uncritical texts. They may be better or worse than they appear here. Furthermore, while it is true that s1 arm are foremost both in regard to the quality and the number of their right readings, Pr, which has the fewest right readings, has preserved most important readings lost in nearly every other Latin authority, and also in bo eth. This holds true of bo in 812, which in this passage has alone preserved the original or else restored it.

Versions of order -- S1 arm gig s2 eth Tyc fl vg bo Pr.

If we arrange these versions in classes in relation to each other and not to the Greek MSS, we should arrive at the following result:

Class i. arm4 s1 gig arm1.2.3.a.
Class ii. eth s2 Tyc vg.
Class iii. bo Pr.

{clxxi} I have not taken account of sa in the above classification, as I do not possess a continuous collation of its text. For some hundreds of its readings I am indebted to Rev. George Horner. Judging from these, I should be inclined to place it in the second class. The reader will observe that in 212 it enjoys the hnour of attesting the original text together with 2050 s1 arm4.a against all the uncials and all the remaining versions.

§ 7. Relations of bo sa eth to each other. -- These versions form one group over against the rest. (a) bo eth continually support each other throughout Jap generally in agreement with some other authorities, but at times they stand alone. As an instance of the former, cf. 1910 where with Pr they add o[ti before su,ndouloj: of the latter, 181 evk + tou/ prosw,pou auvtou/ kai,: 214d + kai. $> bo) ivdou. pa,nta poihqh,sontai $evpoih,qhsan, eth) kaina,: 2118 (crit. note ad fin.): 223 (crit. note ad fin.).

(b) bo sa agree against eth and all else in 2011 me,gan qro,non (rest): in 2218 + o[ti before eva,n tij bo sa agree with certain authorities against eth and others: 199 kai. le,gei moi2 with Aa etc.: > a etc.: 2011h` gh/ kai. o` ouvrano,j with Aa etc. (instead of o` ouvr) k) h` gh/ with 35. 432 Pr eth).

(c) bo sa eth stand alone in 182 hv mega,lh + h` po,lij: 201 in transposing order of a[lusin mega,lhn: 215b poih,sw pa,nta kaina,) bo sa eth agree with some other authorities in 161 tou/ ouvranou/ 42. 367 arm (for tou/ naou/): 166: 196: 213 ouvranou 025. 046 etc. (for qro,nou)

(d) sa eth agree with certain authorities against bo: 1819 ouvai,2 with AC etc.: > bo with a etc. 199 tou/ ga,mou with Aac etc.: > bo with a* etc. 2214plu,nontej t) stola.j auvtw/n with Aa etc. against poiou/ntej t) evntola.j auvtou/ bo with gig 046 Cyp etc.

(e) bo eth agree against sa: 1919 auvtw/n bo eth a etc. against auvtou/ sa A etc.

(f) bo stands against eth: 186 pothri,w| eth AC etc. against pot) auvth/j bo a etc. 1812xu,lou bo aC etc. against li,qou eth A etc.

The above are a few examples from chaps. 16-22.

1. There are only 61 verses in fl (Codex Floriacensis), i.e. 11-21, 87-912, 1116-1214, 1415-165. fl does not show such remarkable faithfulness to the primitive text in the later sections as in 11-21.
2. C is defective in some of these sections.
3. It must be borne in mind that there is no critical text of Tyc. Tyc may appear in better company when this is published.


Scanned and edited by Brad Johnson