[318:2] Adv.  Marc. iv. 2.

[318:2] Ibid. iv. 5.

[318:4] Ibid. v. 9.

[318:5] Ibid. iv. 2-5; compare v. 9, and Roensch, pp. 53, 54.

[319:1] Eus. H.E. vi. 25.

[319:2] See M’Clellan on Luke i. 1-4.  On the general position of Origen in regard to the Canon, compare Hilgenfeld, Kanon, p. 49.

[320:1] So Westcott in S.D. iii. 1692, n.  Tregelles, in Horne’s Introduction, p. 333, speaks of this translation as ‘coeval, apparently, with Irenaeus himself.’  We must not, however, omit to notice that Roensch (p. 43, n.) is more reserved in his verdict on the ground that the translation of Irenaeus ’in its peculiarities and in its relation to Tertullian has not yet received a thorough investigation;’ compare Hilgenfeld, Einleitung, p. 797.

[320:2] Roensch, Das N.T.  Tertullian’s, p. 43.

[321:1] Roensch, Itala und Vulgata, pp. 2, 3.

[321:2] Horne’s Introduction, p. 233.

[321:3] Introduction (2nd ed.), pp. 300, 302, 450, 452.

[321:4] iii. p. 1690 b.

[322:1] Hilgenfeld, in his recent Einleitung, says expressly (p. 797) that ’the New Testament had already in the second century been translated into Latin.’  This admission is not affected by the argument which follows, which goes to prove that the version used by Tertullian was not the ‘Itala’ properly so called.

[322:2] See Smith’s Dictionary, iii. p. 1630 b.

[322:3] Introduction, p. 274.

[322:4] See Routh, Rel.  Sac. i. pp. 124 and 152.

[323:1] See Scrivener, loc. cit.

[323:2] See New Testament, &c., i. p. 635.

[323:3] S.D. iii. p. 1634 b.

[324:1] Einleitung in das Neue Testament, p. 724.

[324:2] Geschichte der heiligen Schriften Neuen Testaments, p. 302.

[324:3] Einleitung, p. 804.

[324:4] See Tregelles, loc. cit.

[324:5] Cf.  Hilgenfeld, Einleitung, p. 805.  It hardly seems clear that Origen had no MS. authority for his reading.

[324:6] Introduction, p. 530.  But [Greek:  oupo] is admitted into the text by Westcott and Hort.

[324:7] ’The text of the Curetonian Gospels is in itself a sufficient proof of the extreme antiquity of the Syriac Version.  This, as has been already remarked, offers a striking resemblance to that of the Old Latin, and cannot be later than the middle or close of the second century.  It would be difficult to point out a more interesting subject for criticism than the respective relations of the Old Latin and Syriac Versions to the Latin and Syriac Vulgates.  But at present it is almost untouched.’  Westcott, On the Canon (3rd ed.), p. 218, n. 3.

[325:1] See Scrivener’s Introduction, p. 324.