obelus (/), to mark passages of doubtful
character. Thus it supplies, as far as a version can, the
Hexaplar of Origen, of which only a few fragments remain.

The Philoxenian version of the New Testament, as revised by
Thomas of Harkel, contains also the same asterisks and obeli.
Critical marks and marginal readings also appear in most of the
manuscripts. This critical apparatus is generally thought to
have proceeded from Thomas himself, in imitation of the Hexaplar
Syriac of the Old Testament; but whether to indicate comparison
with the Peshito, or with the Greek manuscripts employed by
Thomas is not certain.

There is a version of the Catholic epistles wanting in the
Peshito--2 Pet., 2, 3 John, Jude--existing in two forms, one of
which is thought to be the _unrevised_ Philoxenian text. There
is a codex at Rome containing the four gospels which has also
been supposed to contain the same unrevised text.

The _Jerusalem Syriac Lectionary_, containing simply lessons
from the four gospels, is a peculiar version known to us from a
single manuscript in the Vatican Library which belongs to the
eleventh century. The version itself is referred by some to the
sixth century, by others to a later date. Its dialect is
barbarous, being a mixture of Chaldee and Syriac, but its
readings are said often to coincide with the oldest and best
authorities.

III. EGYPTIAN AND ETHIOPIC VERSIONS.

9. Formerly but one version was known to exist in the language of the
ancient Egyptians. This, which was made in the dialect of lower Egypt,
was naturally called _Coptic_. When it was discovered that another
version existed in the dialect of upper Egypt, the Arabic term _Sahidic_
was applied to it. But since the word _Coptic_ is generic, applying to
both dialects alike, it has been proposed to call the former version
_Copto-Memphitic_ or simply _Memphitic_, from Memphis, the ancient
capital of lower Egypt; and the latter _Copto-Thebaic_ or _Thebaic_,
from Thebes, the celebrated capital of ancient upper Egypt. When these
versions were executed cannot be determined with certainty. But they
existed in the fourth century, and probably in the latter part of the
third century. Their high antiquity gives to them great value in textual
criticism. The latter of them, however, exists only in a fragmentary
form. Some fragments of a _third_ version, differing from