Our knowledge of the version is derived from printed editions, extant manuscripts, transla tions made from it, and quotations in early writers. The cditio priamps appeared in the Complutensian Polyglot (151417). based chiefly upon the AI SS. numbered OS, 10S. and 24S in Holmes and Parsons's collection; the Aldine, printed in Venice in 15I5, was based on Holmes and Parsons's 29, 08. and 121: the Sixtine edi tion was published in Ronne (15S7). and was based on Codex Vatieanus, but supplied and al tered by other MSS.; the Orabian edition, based on Codex Alexandrines, appeared at Oxford, in 1707.20; the magnificent and indispensable edi tion of Bolmes and Parsons. for which 297 sep arate codives were more or less carefully col Wed, among them 20 uncials, was published at Oxford. in 1798-1827. Tischendorf was able to use Codex Sinaitieus for his editions (1850ff.); and Nestle Cozza's facsimile of Codex •atieamts for the edition of Swete's Cambridge edi tion (1887-94 and 1895-99) was based on the Vatican MS., but gave the reading of sonic of the leading uncials. A larger Cambridge edition is in course of preparation.
The extant manuscripts are in part uncials or majuscules, and in part eursi yes or minuseles; some are approximately complete Bibles: others give only portions of the Bible. Among the un cials, the most important are Codex Alexandrinus (A), written in the Fifth Century, probably in Egypt, now in the British 31usemn, published in autotype facsimile in 1881-83: Codex Vaticanns (B), probably written in Egypt after A.D. 367, published in a facsimile by Cozza (1881), and in a more accurate photographic reproduction in 1890; Codex Ephraemi Syri Rescriptus (C), written in Egypt in the Fifth Century, now in Paris. edited by Tischendorf in 1845; Codex Si naiticus (X). written probably in the Fifth Cen tury. now in Leipzig and Saint Petersburg. pub lished by the discoverer. Tisehendorf, partly in Leipzig. 1846, 1855, and 1857; partly in Saint Petersburg, 1802 and 1867. Codex Ambrosianua (F), of the Fifth Century. now in :Milan. pub lished by Ceriani in his llonumenta III. (1864) ; Codex Sarravianus (G) of the Fifth Century, now in Leyden, I'aris, and Saint Petersburg, published in 1597; and Codex-Alarchalianus (Q), of the Sixth Century, now in Rome. published in heliotype, 1890, are of particular value because of their Hexaplarie notes and signs. Sonic re cently discovered papyri fragments may date from the Third Century. Of the numerous cur sive manuscripts. none is likely to be older than the Ninth Century, though some may have been made from uncials older than those in our pos session. They manifestly belong to different families, but the classification is as yet imper feet. Of especial interest is Codex Chisianns (S8), now in Rome. possibly written in the Eleventh Century, containing a different trans lation of Daniel from that of the uncials.
No extant manuscript seems to be older than the three recensions of the text undertaken in the beginning of the Fourth Century by Lucian in Antioch. llesychins in Alexandria, and Eusehius and Pamphilus in C•sarea. But some codices unquestionably have preserved independent and earlier textual traditions, while others represent later corrupted forms of these standard texts. Among the daughter-versions, the Gothic, Arme nian. Georgian. and Slavonic appear to have been made from a text of the Lucianie recension; the Buhairie Egyptian seems to reflect the llesy chian recension. while the Sallidie. in part at least, is earlier in origin; the Ethiopic version has in certain books a marked similarity to Codex Alexandrines, while elsewhere it apparent• ly was based on Greek MSS. not known to us: the Arabic version of the Prophets also shows kinship to Codex ..1.0; the Old Latin is earlier than Origen; the Syriac version of l'aul of Tella was made either from a copy of Origen's llexa pia or from the column edited Eusehins.
Between 220 and 250, Origen wrote his Ilexa pia, giving in separate columns the Hebrew, the Hebrew in Greek letters, the officially received Greek text, Aquila, Symmaelms. and Theodo tion, and in some parts a fifth, sixth, and seventh Greek translation. From the critical editors of Homer he borrowed the signs with which he in dicated what was found in the Greek, but not in the Hebrew (obelus), what was found in the He brew but not in the Greek, and therefore sup plied from some other version (asterisk), and the end of each such passage (metobelus). The original work is lost. Part of a copy made in the Tenth Century was diseovered by \lercati in 1S96. As no passage athetized by Origen is found in the Old Latin, important changes do not seem to have been made in the version for sonic time before Origen. All the more startling are some of the variations found in Jewish and Christian writers of the First and Second cen turies. They apparently point to the existence of another version or text-recension already at the end of the First Century A.D. On the other hand, there is strong evidence that both Origen's text and that represented by the Old Latin ex hibited many peculiarities and numerous addi tions not found in the original translation. As this translation seems to have been produced by many men. in different places, from the middle of the Second Century to the beginning of our era, the value of its different parts is naturally not the same, either from a literary point of view or as a means of discovering the original Hebrew and Aramaic text. With all its natural shortcomings. it is on the whole a close and faithful rendering, and constitutes our earliest witness to the original. Recent investigation of the Greek papyri found in Egypt has increased our knowledge of the Hellenistic dialect in which it is written.