GREEK
VERSIONS
OF
OT
two-thirds
of
Gen.,
and
said
to
be
of
the
4th
or
5th
cent.,
is
not
yet
published.
The
principal
vellum
uncial
MSS,
which
are
of
course
the
main
foundation
of
our
textual
knowledge,
are
as
follows.
See
also
Text
of
NT.
N
or
S.
Codex
Sinaiticits,
4th
cent.,
43
leaves
at
Leipzig,
156(besidesthewholeNT)atSt.Peteraburg,contaimngfrag-ments
of
Gen.
and
Num.,
1
Ch
9"-19>7,
2
Es
9^
to
end,
Esth.,
Tob.,
Judith,
1
and
4
Mac,
Is.,
Jer..
La
1^-220,
Joel,
Obad.,
Jon.,
Nah.-Mal.,
and
the
noetical
books.
Its
text
ia
of
a
veiy'
mixed
character.
It
has
a
strong
element
in
common
with
B,
and
yet
is
often
independent
of
it.
In
Tob,
it
has
a
quite
different
text
from
that
of
A
and
B,
and
is
perhaps
nearer
to
the
original
Heb.
Its
origin
is
probably
composite,
so
that
it
is
not
possible
to
assign
it
to
any
one
school.
Its
most
important
correctors
areC*
andC^'.both
of
the
7th
cent.,
the
former
of
whom
states,
in
a
note
appended
to
Esth.,
that
he
collated
the
MS
with
a
very
early
copy,
which
itself
had
been
corrected
by
the
hand
of
Pamphilus.
A.
Codex
Alexandrinus,
5th
cent.,
in
the
British
Museum;
complete
except
in
Ps
49^^-79^''
and
smaller
lacunge,
chiefly
in
Gen.;
3
and
4
Mac.
are
included.
The
Psalter
is
liturgical,
and
is
preceded
by
theEpistle
of
Athanasius
on
thePsalter.and
the
Hypotheseis
of
Eusebius;
theCanticles
are
appended
to
it.
T?he
text
is
written
by
at
least
two
scribes;
the
principal
corrections
are
by
the
original
scribes
and
a
reviser
of
not
much
later
date.
It
is
almost
certainly
of
Egyptian
origin,
and
has
sometimes
been
supposed
to
represent
the
edition
of
Hesychius,
but
this
is
by
no
means
certain
yet.
In
Judges
it
has
a
text
wholly
different
from
that
of
B
,
and
in
general
the
two
MSS
represent
different
types
of
text;
the
quotations
from
the
LXX
in
the
NT
tend
to
support
A
rather
than
B.
B.
Codex
Vaticanus,
4th
cent.,
in
the
Vatican;
complete,
except
for
the
loss
of
Gn
li^6=8
2
K
25-7-
lo-ia,
Pa
10527-137^
and
the
omission
of
1—4
Maccabees.
Its
character
appears
to
differ
in
different
books,
but
in
general
Hort's
description
seems
sound,
that
it
is
closely
akin
to
the
text
which
Origen
had
before
him
when
he
set
about
his
Hexapla.
It
is
thus
of
Egyptian
origin,
and
is
very
frequently
m
accord
with
the
Bohairic
version.
Recently
Rahlfs
has
argued
that
in
Ps.
it
represents
the
edition
of
Hesychius,
but
his_
proof
is
very
incomplete;
for
since
he
admits
that
Hesychius
must
have
made
but
few
alterations
in
the
pre-Ori^enian
Psalter,
and
that
the
text
of
B
is
not
quite
identical
with
that
which
he
takes
as
the
standard
of
Hesychius
(namely,
the
quotations
In
Cyril
of
Alexandria),
his
hypothesis
does
not
seem
to
cover
the
phenomena
so
well
as
Horfc's.
The
true
character
of
B,
however.still
requires
investigation,
and
each
of
the
principal
groups
of
boola
must
be
examined
separately.
C.
Codex
EphrcBmi
rescriptus,
bth.
cent.,at
Paris;
64
leaves
palimpsest,
containing
parts
of
the
poetical
books.
D.
The
Cotton
Genesis,
5th
cent.,
in
the
British
Museum;
an
illustrated
copy
of
Gen.,
almost
wholly
destroyed
by
fire
in
1
73
1
,
but
partially
known
from
collations
made
previously.
G.
Codex
Sarramanus,
5th
cent.,
130
leaves
at
Leyden,
22
at
Paris,
and
one
at
St.
Petersburg;
contains
portions
of
the
Octateuch
in
a
Hexaplar
text,
with
Origen's
apparatus
{incompletely
reproduced,
however)
of
asterisks
and
obeli.
L.
TheVienna
Genesis,
6th
cent.,
in
silverlettera
on
purple
vellum,
with
illustrations;
contains
Gen.
incomplete.
N-V.
Codex
Basiliano-Venetus,
8th
or
9th
cent.,
partly
in
the
Vatican
and
partly
at
Venice;
contains
portions
of
the
OT,
from
Lv
13^^-4
Mac.
Of
importance
chiefly
as
haying
been
used
(in
conjunction
with
B)
for
the
standard
edition
of
the
LXX
printed
at
Rome
in
1587.
Q.Codex
marchalianus,
6th
cent.,
in
theVatican;
contains
the
Prophets,
complete.
Written
in
Egypt;
its
text
is
believea
to
be
Hesychian,
and
it
contains
a
large
number
of
Hexaplaric
signs
and
readings
from
the
Hexapla
in
its
margins,
which
are
of
great
importance.
R.
Codex
Veronensis,
6th
cent.,
at^
Verona;
contains
Psalter,
in
Greek
and
Latin,
with
Canticles.
T.
Zurich
Psalter,
7th
cent.,
written
in
silver
letters.with
gold
initials,
on
purple
vellum,;
the
Canticles
are
included.
R
and
T
represent
the
Western
text
of
the
Psalms,
as
the
LeipzigandLondon
papyrus
Psalters
do
the
Upper
Egyptian
text,
and
B
the
Lower
Egyptian.
A
MS
of
Dent,
and
Jos.,
of
the
6th
cent.,
found
in
Egypt
and
now
at
the
Universityof
Michigan,
is
to
be
published
shortly.
The
other
uncial
MSS
are
fragmentary
and
of
lesser
importance.
Of
minuscule
MSS
over
300
are
known,
and
some
of
them
are
of
considerable
importance
in
establishing
the
texts
of
the
various
recensions
of
the
LXX.
Most
of
them
are
known
mainly
from
the
collations
of
Holmes
and
Parsons,
which
are
often
imperfect;
the
Cambridge
Septua-gint,
now
in
progress,
will
give
more
exact
information
with
regard
to
selected
representatives
of
them.
GREEK
VERSIONS
OF
OT
11.
The
Versions
of
the
LXX
do
not
occupy
so
promi-nent
a
position
in
its
textual
criticism
as
is
the
case
in
the
NT,
but
still
are
of
considerable
importance
for
identify-ing
the
various
local
texts.
The
following
are
the
most
important
—
(a)
The
Bohairic
version
of
Lower
Egypt,
the
latest
of
the
Coptic
versions,
and
the
only
one
which
is
complete.
The
analysis
of
its
character
is
still
imperfect.
It
is
natural
to
look
to
it
for
the
Hesychian
text,
but
it
is
doubtful
how
far
this
can
be
assumed,
and
in
the
case
of
the
Minor
Prophets
it
has
been
denied
by
Deissmann
as
the
result
of
his
exami-nation
of
the
Heidelberg
papyrus.
In
the
Psalms
it
agrees
closely
with
B,
in
the
Major
Prophets
rather
with
AQ.
(fe)
The
Sahidic
version
of
Upper
Egypt;
Job
and
Ps.
are
extant
complete,
and
there
are
considerable
fragments
of
other
books.
In
Ps.
the
text
agrees
substantially
with
that
of
the
papyrus
Psalters,
and
is
said
to
be
pre-Origenian,
but
considerably
corrupted.
In
Job
also
it
is
pre-Origenian,
and
its
text
is
shorter
by
one-sixth
than
the
received
text;
scholars
still
differ
as
to
which
is
the
truer
representation
of
the
original
book.
The
fragments
of
the
other
books
need
fuller
examination.
A
MS
of
Prov.
in
a
third
Coptic
dialectCMiddleEgyptian)hasquite
recently
t)een
discovered,
and
is
now
in
BerUn;
but
no
details
as
to
its
character
have
been
published.
(c)
The
Syriac
versions.
The
Old
Syriac,
so
important
for
the
NT,
is
not
Imown
to
have
existed
for
the
OT.
The
Peshitta
appears
to
have
been
made
from
the
Hebrew,
but
to
have
been
subsequently
affected
by
the
influence
of
the
LXX,
and
consequently
is
not
wholly
trustworthy
for
either.
The
most
important
Syriac
version
of
the
OT
is
the
trans-lation
made
from
the
LXX
column
of
the
Hexapla
by
Paul
of
Telia
in
a.d.
616-617,
in
which
Origen's
critical
signs
were
carefully
preserved;
an
8th
cent.
MS
at
Milan
contains
the
Prophets
and
the
poetical
books,
while
Ex.
and
Ruth
are
extant
complete
in
other
MSS,
with
parts
of
Gen.,
Numb.,
Josh.,
Judg.,
and
3
and
4
Kings.
The
other
historical
books
were
edited
in
the
16th
cent,
from
a
MS
which
has
since
disappeared.
This
is
9ne
of
the
most
important
sources
of
our
knowledge
of
Origen's
work.
(d)
The
Latin
versions.
These
were
two
in
number,
the
Old
Latin
and
the
Vulgate.
On
the
origin
of
the
OL,
see
Text
of
the
NT.
The
greater
part
of
the
Heptateuch
(Gn
16^-Jg
2031,
but
with
mutilations)
is
extant
in
a
MS
at
Lyons
of
the
5th-6th
cent.
The
non-Massoretic
books
(our
Apocr,),
except
Judith
and
Tob.,
were
not
translated
by
Jerome,
and
consequently
were
incorporated
in
the
Vulg.
from
the
OL;
Ruth
survives
in
one
MS,
the
Psalms
in
two,
and
Esther
in
several;
and
considerable
fragments
of
most
of
the
other
books
are
extant
in
palimpsests
and
other
in-complete
MSS.
In
addition
we
have
the
quotations
of
Cyprian
and
other
early
Latin
Fathers.
The
importance
of
the
OL
lies
in
the
fact
that
its
origin
goes
back
to
the
2nd
cent.,
and
it
is
consequently
pre-Hexaplar.
Also,
since
its
affinities
are
rather
with
Antioch
than
with
Alex-
andria,
it
preserves
readings
from
a
type
of
text
prevalent
in
Syria,
that,
namely,
on
which
Lucian
subsequently
based
his
edition.
This
type
of
text
may
not
be
superior
to
the
Alexandrian,
but
at
least
it
deserves
consideration.
On
the
OL,
see
Kennedy
in
Hastings'
DB,
and
Burkitt's
The
Old
Latin
and
the
Itala
(1896).
Onthe
Vulgate.seeart.s.v.
Since
it
was,'in
the
main,
a
re-translation
from
the
Hebrew,
it
does
not
(except
in
the
Psalter)
come
into
consideration
in
con-nexion
with
the
LXX.
The
remaining
versions
—
Ethiopic,
Armenian,
Georgian,
Arabic,
Gothic,
Slavonic
—
are
of
minor
importance,
and
need
not
be
described
here,
12.
The
evidence
of
the
Fathers
has
been
less
fully
used
for
the
LXX
than-
for
the
NT,
but
its
importance
in
distinguishing
and
localizing
types
of
text
is
increas-ingly
recognized.
_
Origen
is
of
particular
importance
for
his
express
state-ments
on
textual
matters,
though
his
declared
acceptance
of
the
Hebrew
as
the
standard
of
truth
has
to
be
remembered
in
weighing
his
evidence.
Much
the
same
may
be
said
of
Jerome.
Fathers
who
had
no
interest
in
textual
criticism
are
often
more
valuable
as
witnesses
to
the
type
of
text
in
use
in
their
age
and
country.
Thus
Cyril
of
Alexandria
gives
us
an
Egyptian
text,
which
may
probably
be
that
of
Hesychius.
Theodoret
and
Chrysostom,
who
belong
to
Antioch,
represent
the
Syrian
text,
i.e.the
edition
of
Lucian.
Cyprian
is
a
principal
witness
for
the
African
Old
Latin.
The
ApostolicFathers
,nota.h\yCleTnent
of
Rome
axidBarnabas,
carryus
farther
back,
and
contribute
some
evidence
towards
a
decision
between
the
rival
texts
represented
by
A
and
B,
their
tendency
on
the
whole
being
in
favour
of
the
former;
and
the
same
is
the
case
with
Irenceus,
Justin,
and
Clement
