¹ This view, suggested earlier by Ceillier, , Fleury, , De, Broglie, and Oikonomos, , has been revived by Balanos, D. S. in VII (1932), 306–11,Google Scholar and by Gustave, Bardy, Recherches sur saint Lucien dˇAntioche et son école (Paris, 1936).Google Scholar

² So, for example, Albert, Ehrhard, Die Kirche der Märtyrer (Munich, 1932), pp. 304f.,Google Scholar and Adhémar, dˇAlès, ‘Autour de Lucien dˇAntioche’, Mélanges de l'Université Saint Joseph (Beyrouth), XII (1937), 185–99, who point out that it is extremely unlikely that two persons of the same name of Lucian should have played important roles at Antioch at the same time without leaving in the sources a trace of their differentiation from each other.Google Scholar

³ For discussions of Lucian from a doctrinal point of view, reference may be made to Buonaiti, E., ‘Luciano martire, la sua dottrina e la sua scuola’, Rivista storico-critica delle scienze teologiche (1908), pp. 830–6, 909–23; (1909), pp. 104–18;Google ScholarFriedrich, Loofs, Das Bekenntnis Lucians, des Martyrs (Sitzungsberichte der königlich preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin, 1915), pp. 576–603;Google ScholarAdolf, von Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, 5te Aufl., II (Tübingen, 1931), pp. 187–90; and, especially, Bardy, op. cit.Google Scholar

¹ Praetermitto eos codices quos a Luciano et Hesychio nuncupatos paucorum hominum adserit peruersa contentio: quibus utique nec in ueteri instrumento post septuaginta interpretes emendare quid licuit nec in nouo profuit emendasse, cum multarum gentium linguis scriptura ante translata doceat falsa esse quae addita sunt (edita sunt, ms. E), John, Wordsworth and White, H. J., Nouum Testamentum Domini Nostri lesu Christi Latine, I [Oxford, 1889], 2.Google Scholar There has been a curious reluctance among many scholars to admit that Jerome here refers to any more than the Lucianic text of the Old Testament. But, as Streeter, B. H. pointed out, ‘seeing that Jerome is writing a careful and considered Preface to a revised version of the Four Gospels, and that he only mentions the Lucianic and Hesychian versions in order to contrast their inferior text with that of the “ancient codices” he himself has used, I simply cannot understand why some scholars have raised doubts as to whether the Lucianic and Hesychian recensions included the New Testament as well as the Old’ (The Four Gospels [London, 1936], p. 591).Google Scholar As regards the much more nebulous figure of Hesychius, whom no Greek author mentions, the situation is different. Despite the popularity of Wilhelm Bousset's suggestion that the so-called ‘Neutral’ text is to be attributed to Hesychius, most scholars today are inclined to agree with SirFrederick, G. Kenyon, who concludes his study of ‘Hesychius and the Text of the New Testament’ (Mémorial Lagrange [Paris, 1940], pp. 245–50) with the words: ‘The title of “Hesychius” rests in fact upon what is little more than a shadow of a shade.’Google Scholar

² Alexandria et Aegyptus in LXX suis Hesychium laudat auctorem; Constantinopolis usque Antiochiam Luciani martyris exemplaria probat; mediae inter has provinciae Palaestinos codices legunt, quos ab Origene elaboratos Eusebius et Pamphilus vulgaverunt (Migne, , P.L. XXVIII, 1392 A,Google Scholar and Friedrich, Stummer, Einführung in die lateinische Bibel [Paderborn, 1928], p. 239).Google Scholar

¹ Lucianus, vir disertissimus, Antiochenae ecclesiae presbyter, tantum in Scripturarum studio laborat, ut usque nunc quaedam exemplaria Scripturarum Lucianea nuncupentur (de Viris lustribus, 77 [T.U. XIV, pp. 41f., ed. Richardson, E. C.]).Google Scholar

² Illud breuiter admoneo, ut sciatis aliam esse editionem, quam Origenes et Caesariensis Eusebius omnesque Graeciae tractatores —id est communem—appellant atque uulgatam et a plerisque nunc dicitur, aliam septuaginta interpretum, quae et in codicibus repperitur et a nobis in Latinum sermonem fideliter uersa est (Epist. 106, §2, 2 [C.S. E.L. LV, p. 248, ed. Hilberg, ]).Google Scholar

³ Both Suidas and Simeon, who here agree (except in inconsequential details) in their accounts of Lucian, depend upon earlier hagiographical sources. The variant which Adler adopts into her text of Suidas, is clearly the easier reading; and either Simeon's or is to be preferred. For the text of both see Joseph, Bidez's ed. of Philostorgius, Anhang VI (= Griechische christliche Schrftsteller, 1913, p. 187).Google Scholar

¹ Theodor, Zahn dated this document not later than the fifth or sixth century; see his Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, II (Erlangen, 1890), 311.Google Scholar The text is printed in Migne, , P.G. XXVIII,Google Scholar col. 433 see also Dörrie's, H. discussion of the textual transmission of this passage in his article, ‘Zur Geschichte der Septuaginta im Jahrhundert Konstantins’, Z. N. W. XXXIX (1940), 79–87.Google Scholar

² The relevant passage is as follows: ,.

³ Edited by Hippolyte, Delehaye, Propylaeum ad Acta Sanctorum, Novembris [vol. LXI], 1902, pp. 138ff.Google Scholar

⁴ For several other ancient testimonies to Lucian, see Routh, M. J., Reliquiae sacrae, 2nd ed., IV (Oxonii, 1846), 5–10.Google Scholar

⁵ See Ernst, von Dobschutz, Das Decretum Gelasianum (= T.U. XXXVIII, 4), pp. 51 and 292.Google Scholar

⁶ The literary activities of this scholar were immense. He published books in no less than ten languages. As the Prorector of the University said at his funeral, probably no one of his colleagues could spell out the alphabets of all the languages in which Lagarde had edited texts; see p. 170 of the address delivered by George, Foot Moore, entitled ‘Paul Anton de Lagarde’, on the occasion of the opening of the Lagarde Library in the University of the City of NewYork, 29 04 1893Google Scholar (The University Quarterly [07 1893], pp. 166–79).Google Scholar An (incomplete) bibliography of his publications, compiled by Gottheil, R. J. H. (Proceedings of the American Oriental Society [1892], pp. ccxi–ccxxix), includes 297 major publications.Google Scholar

¹ A Latin translation of this Arabic note is found in Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt… fragmenta (Oxonii, 1875), pp. lxxxiv ff.;Google Scholarcf., Giovanni Card. Mercati, ‘Di alcune testimonianze antiche sulle cure bibliche di San Luciano’, Biblica, XXIV (1943), pp. 1–17, especially pp. 7ff.Google Scholar

² Field, , op. cit. pp. lxxxix ff.;Google Scholar for more recent discussions of the characteristics of the Lucianic recension of varions Old Testament books, see Oesterley, W. O. E., Studies in the Greek and Latin Versions of the Book of Amos (1902), pp. 61–7;Google ScholarRahlfs, , Der Text des Septuaginta-Psalters (1907), p. 231;Google ScholarTorrey, C. C., Ezra Studies (1910), pp. 106–9;Google ScholarO., Procksch, Studien zur Geschichte der Septuaginta: Die Propheten (1910), pp. 79–87;Google ScholarRahlfs, , Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher (1911), pp. 171–83, 239–88, 294;Google ScholarRahlfs, , Studien über den griechischen Text des Bitches Ruth (1922), pp. 83–90;Google Scholar and Ziegler, J., ‘Hat Lukian den griechischen Sirach rezensiert?’ Biblica, XL (1959), 210–29, especially p. 229.Google Scholar

¹ Rahlfs, , Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher (1911), p. 294;Google Scholar and Das Buch Ruth griechisch (1922), p. 13.Google Scholar

² James, Hardy Ropes, The Text of Acts (1926), p. cclxxxiii.Google Scholar

¹ Westcott, and Hort, , Introduction [and] Appendix (1881), pp. 134f.Google Scholar

² Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt, I, ii (Berlin, 1902), 1456–1459Google Scholar (cf., 1361–1400), 1784–7.Google Scholar

³ Nestle made the statement first in his Septuagintastudien, I (Ulm, 1886), p. 9. He repeated it (ibid. II [Ulm, 1896], p. 12) with a Comment of approval from Franz, Delitzsch and explained his meaning more fully in ‘Zur Rekonstruktion der Septuaginta’, Philologus, LVIII (1899), 121–31.Google Scholar

¹ Ceriani, A. M., Monumenta sacra et profana, I, i (Milan, 1861), p. xvi (addenda).Google Scholar

² Carlo, Vercellone, Variae lectiones Vulgatae latinae Bibliorum editionis, II (Rome, 1864), xxi–xxii, 179; compare I, xciii–xcv.Google Scholar

³ Burkitt, F. C., The Book of Rules of Tyconius (= Texts and Studies, III, I; Cambridge, 1895), p. cxvii.Google Scholar

⁴ Driver, S. R., Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1913), p. lxxvi.Google Scholar

⁵ Dieu, L., ‘Retouches Lucianiques sur quelques textes de la vieille version latine (I et II Samuel)’, R.B. n.s. XVI (1919), 372–403.Google Scholar

⁶ James, A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (New York, 1927), pp. 54–5.Google Scholar

⁷ Haupert, R. S., The Relation of Codex Vaticanus and the Lucianic Text in the Books of the Kings from the Viewpoint of the Old Latin and the Ethiopic Versions (Univ. of Penna. Diss., 1930), pp. 361 f.Google Scholar Whether these data prove that the Old Latin version was made originally at Antioch in Syria, as some have thought, iseed not be examined here; for a classic discussion of the problem, see Kennedy, H. A. A., ‘Latin Versions, the Old’, Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, III (New York, 1900), p. 54.Google Scholar

¹ Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher (Göttingen, 1911), pp. 158ff.Google Scholar

² Paul, Capelle, Le Texte du Psautier latin en Afrique (= Collectanea biblica latina, IV; Rome, 1913), p. 204.Google Scholar

³ Bonifatius, Fischer, ‘Lukian-Lesarten in der Vetus Latina der vier Königsbücher’, Miscellanea biblica et orientalia R. P. Athanasio Miller…oblata (= Studia Anselmiana, XXVII-XXVIII; Rome,1951), pp. 169–77.Google Scholar

⁴ Theodor, Stockmayer, ‘Hat Lucian zu seiner Septuagintrevision die Peschito benützt?’ Zeit schrjft für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, XII (1892), pp. 218–23.Google Scholar

⁵ The fragment, which is 240 in the Greek and Roman Museum in Alexandria, was edited by Norsa, M. in Bulletin de la Société royale dˇarchéologie dˇAlexandrie, XXII (1926), 162–4.Google Scholar

¹ Wilhelm, Bousset, Die Evangeliencitate Justins des Märtyrers in ihrem Wert für die Evangelienkritik (Göttingen, 1891), p. 20.Google Scholar

² Theologische Literaturzeitung, XVI (1891), 67.Google Scholar

³ Adam, Mez, Die Bibel des Josephus untersucht für Buch V–VII der Archäologie (Basel, 1895), p. 80.Google Scholar

⁴ Rahlfs, , Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher, pp. 80–111.Google Scholar

⁵ Henry, St John Thackeray, Josephus, the Man and the Historian (New York, 1929), p. 85. In the preface to the Cambridge edition of the Septuagint Text of the Books of Samuel, Thackeray indicates that from I Sam. viii onwards ‘Josephu becomes a witness of first-importance for the text of the Greek Bible… His main source is a Greek Bible containing a text closely allied to that of the “Lucianic” group of MSS., but anterior by more than two centuries to the date of Lucian’ (p.ix).Google Scholar

⁶ Staerk, W., ‘Die alttestamentlichen Citate bei den Schriftstellern des Neuen Testaments’, Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, XXXV (1892), 464–85; XXVI, I (1893), 70–98.Google Scholar

¹ For a discussion of the correct text of Jerome's comment on this interpolation, see Sutcliffe, E. F., ‘The “diversa” or “dispersa”? St Jerome, P.L. 24, 548 B’, Biblica, XXXV (1955), pp. 213–22. It is curious that elsewhere Jerome calls the Lucianic recension the text; see note 2 to p. 192 above.Google Scholar

² It was edited by Roberts, C. H., Two Biblical Papyri in the John Rylands Library, Manchester (Manchester, 1936).Google Scholar

³ Albert, Vaccari, ‘Fragmentum Biblicum Saeculi II ante Christum’, Biblica, CVII (1936), 501–4;Google Scholar compare Kahle, P. E., ‘Problems of the Septuagint’, in Studia Patristica, ed. by Kurt, Aland and Cross, F. L., I (= Texte und Untersuchungen, LXIII; Berlin, 1957), 328–38.Google Scholar

⁴ It may be mentioned here that Paul Wendland's careful examination of the Old Testament quotations in one of Philo's tractates, and his conclusion that in a large proportion of cases the text of Philo agrees with Lucian and seldom joins other manuscripts against Lucian, cannot be accepted without being re-examined (‘Zu Philos Schrift de posteritate Caini. Nebst Bemerkungen zur Rekonstruktion der Septuaginta’, Philologus, LVII [1898], 248–88).Google Scholar Wendland naturally made use of Lagarde's edition of the Lucianic text, but since this begins to be Lucianic only on p. 259, line 3, with Ruth, iv. 11Google Scholar (so Rahlfs, , Studien…Ruth, pp. 77 f.),Google Scholar a comparison of Philo's Pentateuchal quotations with this edition Counts for nothing. See Peter, Katz, ‘Das Problem des Ur-textes der Septuaginta’, Theologische Zeitschrift, V (1949), 19f.,Google Scholar and his monograph on Philo's Bible (Cambridge, 1950), p. 12, note I.Google Scholar

¹ In Westcott, and Hort, , The New Testament in the Original Greek, vol. II, Introduction [and] Appendix, 2nd ed. (London, 1896), pp. 329–30.Google Scholar

² ibid.

³ Evangelion da-Mepharresche, II (Cambridge, 1904), 224f.Google Scholar

¹ Streeter, B. H., The Four Gospels (London, 1924), p. 119.Google Scholar

² Ropes, J. H., The Text of Acts (1926), pp. cclxxxivf.Google Scholar Referring to the text of Acts, Ropes, says, ‘Apart from the “Western” readings found in the Antiochian recension, the Old Uncial base which the revisers used was evidently an excellent text’Google Scholar, ibid. p. cclxxxvii.

¹ For further examples of distinctively Byzantine readings which are also found in ⁶⁶, consult John, i. 32; iii. 24; iv. 14, 51; v. 8; vi. 10, 57; vii. 3, 39; viii. 41, 51, 55; ix. 23; x. 38; xii. 36; xiv. 17.Google Scholar

² Despite Edward F. Hills's valiant attempt to do so in is essay, ‘Dean Burgon in the Light of Recent Research’, prefixed to the 1959 reprinting of Burgon, 's Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to St Mark, pp. 44–67.Google Scholar

³ Compare G., Zuntz, ‘The Byzantine Text in New Testament Criticism’, J. T.S. XLIII (1942), pp. 25–30,Google Scholar and The Text of the Epistles; a Disquisition upon the Corpus Paulinium (London, 1953), p. 55.Google Scholar

⁴ For example, it may be that in Luke, xx. 1,Google Scholar, supported by the Koine text alone, is to be preferred to, , imacr;ς supported by ℵ B C D L M Q R ⊖ fam i fam 13 it vg (cf., H. Greeven's cogent argument in N. T. S. VI [1960], 295 f.)Google Scholar. For a discussion of several Lucianic readings in Acts, which so sober a critic as James, Hardy Ropes was disposed to regard as original, see his Text of Acts (1926), p. cclxxxv.Google ScholarZuntz, G. has some stimulating things to say on this subject in his Text of the Epistles (1953), pp. 49–57 and 150–1.Google Scholar