latter part of the fourth century, and strong indications that the revision was deliberate and in some way authoritative in both cases, it becomes natural to suppose that the two operations had some historical connexion.
189. Nevertheless the two texts are not identical. In a considerable number of variations the Vulgate Syriac sides with one or other of the Pre-Syrian texts against the Antiochian Fathers and the late Greek text, or else, as we have already found (§§ 134, 143), has a transitional reading, which has often, though not always, some Greek documentary attestation. These lesser irregularities shew that the Greek Syrian revision in its ultimate form, the only form adequately known to us, and the Syriac revision, though closely connected in origin, cannot both be due to a single critical process performed once for all. The facts would, we believe, be explained by the supposition, natural enough in itself, that (1) the growing diversity and confusion of Greek texts led to an authoritative revision at Antioch, which (2) was then taken as a standard for a similar authoritative revision of the Syriac text, and (3) was itself at a later time subjected to a second authoritative revision, carrying out more completely the purposes of the first; but that the Vulgate Syriac text did not undergo any corresponding second revision. The revision apparently embodied in the Harklean Syriac will be noticed further on.
190. The final process was apparently completed by 350 or thereabouts. At what date between 250 and 350 the first process took place, it is impossible to say with confidence; and even for conjecture the materials are scanty. There can be little doubt that during the long respite from persecution enjoyed by the Church in the latter half of the third century multiplication of copies
