Vulgate
Vulgate is the popular and convenient designation of the common Latin version of the Bible, usually attributed to Jerome. Its great importance in the history of the Christian Church justifies an unusual degree of fullness in its treatment. SEE VERNONS.
I. Origin and History of the Name. — 1. The name "Vulgate," which is equivalent to Vulgata editio (the current text of Holy Scripture), has necessarily been used differently in various ages of the Church. There can be no doubt that the phrase originally answered to the κοινὴ ἔκδοσις of the Greek Scriptures. In this sense it is used constantly by Jerome in his commentaries, and his language explains sufficiently the origin of the term: "Hoc juxta LXX interpretes diximus, quorum editio tofo orbe vulcgta est" (Hieron. Comm. in Isa 65:20). "Multum in hoc loco LXX editio Hebraicumque discordant. Primum ergo de Yulgata editione tractabimus et postea sequemur ordinem veritatis" (ibid. 30:22). In some places Jerome distinctly quotes the Greek text: "Porro in editione Vulgata dupliciter legimus; quidam enim codices habent δῆλοί εἰσιν, hoc est manifesti sunt: alii δειλαῖοί εἰσιν, hoe est meticulosi sive miseri sunt" (Comm. in Osee, 7:13; comp. 8-11j etc.). But generally he regards the Old Latin, which was rendered from the Sept., as substantially identical with it, and thus introduces Latin quotations under the name of the Sept. or Vulgata , editio: "Miror quomodo vulgata editio . . . testimonium alia interpretatione subverterit: Congregabor et glorificabor coram Domino. . . Illud autem quod in LXX legitur: Congregabor et glorificabor coram Domino . . ." (Comm. in Isaiah 49:5). So again: "Philistheos . . . alienigenas Vulgata scribit editio" (ibid. 14:29). "Palsestinis quos indifferenter LXX alienigenas vocant" (Comm. in Ezekiel 16:27). In this way the transference of the name from the current Greek text to the current Latin text became easy and natural; but there does not appear to be any instance in the age of Jerome of the application of the term to the, Latin version of the Old Test. without regard to its derivation from the Sept., or to that of the New Test.
2. Yet more, as the, phrase κοινὴ ἔκδοσις, came to signify an uncorrected (and so corrupt) text, the same secondary meaning was attached to vulgata editio. Thus in some places the vulgata editio stands in contrast with the true Hexaplaric text of the Sept. One passage will place this in the clearest light: "Breviter admoneo aliam esse editionem quam Origenes et Caesariensis Eusebius, omnesque Grecise translatores κοινήν, id est, communem, appellant, atque vulgatam, et a plerisque nunc Λουκιανός dicitur; aliam LXX interpretum que, in ἑξαπλοῖς codicibus reperitur, et a nobis ip Latinum sermonem fideliter versa est Κοινή autem ista, hoc est, Communis editio, ipsa est qume et LXX, sed hoc interest inter utramque; quod κοινή pro locis et temporibus et pro voluntate scriptorum vetus corrupta editio est; ea autem quae habetur in ἑξαπλοῖς et quam nos vertimus, ipsa est quae in eruditorum libris incorrupta et immaculata LXX interpretum translatio reservatur" (Ep. 106, ad Sun. et Feret. § 2).
⇒See also the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.
3. This use of the phrase Vulgata editio to describe the Sept. (and the Latin version of the latter) was continued to later times. It is supported by the authority of Augustine, Ado of Vienne. (A.D. 860), R. Bacon, etc.; and B1ellarmine distinctly recognizes tile application of the term, so that Van Ess is justified in saying that the Council of Trent erred in a point of history when they described Jerome's version as "vetus et vulgata editio, quae longo tot seculorum usu in ipsa ecclesia probata est" (Gesch. p. 34). As a general rule, the Latin fathers speak of Jerome's version as "our" version. (nostra editio, nostri codices); but it was not unnatural that the Tridentine fathers (as many later scholars) should be misled by the associations of their own time, and adapt to new circumstances terms which had grown obsolete in their original sense. When the difference of the (Greek) Vulgate of the early Church and the (Latin) Vulgate of the modern Roman Church has once been apprehended, no further difficulty need arise from the identity of name (comp. Augustine, ed. Benedict. [Paris, 1836], 5, 33; Sabatier, 1, 792; Van Ess, Gesch. p. 24-42, who gives very full and conclusive references, though he fails to perceive that the Old Latin was practically identified with the Sept.).
II. The Old Latin Versions. —
1. Origin. — The history of the earliest Latin version of the Bible is lost in complete obscurity. All that can be affirmed with certainty is that it was made in Africa. During the first two centuries the Church of Rome, to which we naturally look for the source of, the version now identified with it, was essentially Greek. The Roman bishops bear Greek names; the earliest Roman liturgy was Greek; the few remains of the Christian literature of Rome are Greek. The same remark holds true of Gaul (comp. Westcott, Hist. of Canon of N.T. p. 269, 270, and ref.); but the Church of North Africa seems to have been Latin speaking from the first. At what date this Church was founded is uncertain. A passage of Augustine (Cont. Donat. Ep. 27) seems to imply that Africa was converted late; but if so the Gospel spread there with remarkable rapidity. At the end of the 2nd century, Christians were found in every rank and in every place; and the master-spirit of Tertullian, the first of the Latin fathers, was then raised up to give utterance to the passionate thoughts of his native Church. This Church father distinctly recognizes the general currency of a Latin version of the New Test., though not necessarily of every book at present included in the canon, which even in his time had been able to mould the popular language (Adv. Prax. 5 "In usu est nostrorum per simplicitatem interpretationis." De Honog. 11 "Sociamus plane non sic esse in Grseco authentico quomodo in usum exiit per duarum syllabarum aut callidam aut simplicem eversionem"). This was characterized by a "rudeness" and "simplicity" which seem to point to the nature of its origin. In the words of Augustine (De Doctr. Christ. 2, 16 [11]), "any one in the first ages of Christianity who gained possession of a Greek MS., anti fancied that lie had a fair knowledge of Greek and Latin, ventured to, translate it" ("Qui scripturas ex Hebraea lingua in Graecam verterunt numerari possunt, Latini antem interpretes nullo, modo, Ut enim cuivii primis fidei temporibus in manus venit codex Grecus et aliquantulum facultatis sibi utriusque linguve habers videbatur, aunsus est interpretari"). Thus the version of the New Test. appears to have arisen from individual and successive efforts; but it does not follow, by any means, that numerous versions were simultaneously circulated, or that the several parts of the version were made independently. Even if it had been so, the exigencies of the public service must soon have given definiteness and substantial unity to the fragmentary labors of individuals. The work of private hands would necessarily be subject to revision for ecclesiastical use. The separate, books would be united in a volume, and thus a standard text of the whole collection would be established. With regard to the Old Test., the case is less clear. It is probable that the Jews who were settled in North Africa were confined to the Greek towns; otherwise it might be supposed that the Latin version of the Old Test. is in part anterior to the Christian era, and that (as in the case of Greek) a preparation for a Christian Latin dialect was already made when the Gospel was introduced into Africa. However this may have been, the substantial similarity of the different parts of the Old and New Test. establishes a real connection between them, and justifies the belief that there was one popular Latin version of the Bible current in Africa in the last quarter of the 2nd century. Many words which are either Greek (machlera, sophia, perizoma, poderis, agonizo, etc.) or literal translations of Greek forms (vivifico, justifico, etc.) abound in both, and explain what Tertullini meant when he spoke of the "simplicity" of the translation.
2. Character. — The exact literality of the Old version was not confined to the most minute observance of order and the accurate reflection of the words of the original; in many cases the very forms of Greek construction were retained in violation of Latin usage. A few examples of these singular anomalies will convey, a better idea of the absolute certainty with which, the Latin commonly indicates the text that the translator had before him than any general statements:
Mt 4:13, "habitavit in Capharnlanm mdaritimnam." 4:15, "terra Neptalim vianss maris." 25, "ab Jerosolymis... et tranns Jordanem." Mt 5:22, "reus erit in gehennam iagis." Mt 6:19, "ubi timnea et comtestura exterminat." Mr 12:31, "majus hortum praeceptorum, aliud non est." Lu 10:19, "nihil vos nocebit." Ac 19:26, "non solnm Eplhesi sed pmane totius Awe." Ro 2:15, "inter se cagitatioint accusantium veletiam defendentim." 1Co 7:32, "sollhaitus est quae sunt Domini." It is obvious that there was a constant tendency to alter expressions like these, and in the first age of the version it is not improbable that the continual Grecism which marks the Latin texts of DI (Cod. Bezae) and E2 (Cod. Laud.) had a wider currency than it could maintain afterwards.
3. Canon. — With regard to the African canon of the New Test., the Old version offers important evidence, From considerations of style and language, it seems certain that the Epistle to the Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter did not form part of the original African version, a conclusion which falls in with what is derived from historical testimony (comp. The Hist. of the Canon of the N.T. p. 282 sq.). In the Old Test., on the other hand, the Old Latin erred by excess, and not by defect; for, as the version was made from the current copies of the Sept., it included the Apocryphal books which are commonly contained in them, and to these 2 Esdras was early added.
4. Revision. — After the translation once received a definite shape in Africa, which could not have been long after the middle of the 2nd century, it was not publicly revised. The old text was jealously guarded by ecclesiastical use, and was retained there at a time when Jerome's version was elsewhere almost universally received. The well-known story of the disturbance caused by the attempt of an African bishop to introduce Jerome's cucurbita for the old hedera in the history of Jonah (August E. 104, ap. Hieron. Epp. quoted by Tregelles, Introduction, p. 242) shows how carefully intentional changes were avoided. But, at the same time, the text suffered by the natural corruptions of copying, especially by interpolations, a form of error to which the gospels were particularly exposed. In the Old Test. the version was made from the unrevised edition of the Sept., and thus from the first included many false readings, of which Jerome often notices instances (e.g. Esp. 104, ad Sun. et Fret.).
The Latin translator of Irenaeus was probably contemporary with Tertullian, and his renderings of the quotations from Scripture confirm the conclusions which have been already drawn as to the currency of (substantially) one Latin version. It does not appear that he had a Latin MS. before him during the execution of his work, but he was so familiar with the common translation that he reproduces continually characteristic phrases which he cannot be supposed to have derived from any other source (Lachmann, N.T. 1, p. 10:11). Cyprian (died A.D. 257) carries on the chain of testimony far through the next century; and he is followed by Lactantius, Juvencus, J. Firmicus Maternus, Hilary the Deacon (Ambrosiaster), Hilaryvof Poitiers (died A.D. 449), and Lucifer of Cagliari (died A.D. 370). Ambrose and Augustine exhibit a peculiar recension of the same text, and Jerome offers some traces of it. From this date MSS. of parts of the African text have been preserved and it is unnecessary to trace the history of its transmission to a later time.
But while the earliest Latin version was preserved generally unchanged in North Africa, it fared differently in Italy. There the provincial rudeness of the version was necessarily more offensive, and the comparative familiarity of the leading bishops with the Greek texts made a revision at once more feasible and less, startling to their congregations. Thus, in the 4th century, a definite ecclesiastical recension (of the gospels, at least) appears to have been made in North Italy by reference to the Greek, which was distinguished by the name of Itala. This Augustine recommends on the ground of its close accuracy and its perspicuity (De Doctmr Christ. 15, "In ipsis interpretationibus Itala cueteris preferatur, nam est verborum tenacior cum perspicuitate sententiae"), and the text of the gospels which he follows is marked by the latter characteristic when compared with the African. In the other books the difference cannot be traced with accuracy; and it has not yet been accurately determined whether other nation — all recensions may not have existed (as seems certain from the evidence which scholars have recently collected) in Ireland (Britain), Gaul, and Spain.
The Itala appears to have been made in some degree with authority; other revisions were made for private use, in which such changes were introduced as suited the taste of scribe or critic. The next, stage in the deterioration of the text was the intermixture of these various revisions; so that at the close of the 4th century the gospels were in such a state as to call for that final recension which was made by Jerome.
5. Remains. — It will be seen that, for the chief part of the Old Test. and for considerable parts of the New Test. (e.g. Apoc. Acts), the old text rests upon early quotations (principally Tertullian, Cyprian, Lucifer of Cagliari for the African text, Ambrose and Augustine for the Italic). These were collected by Sabatier with great diligence up to the date of his work; but more recent discoveries (e.g. of the Roman Speculum) have a furnished a large store of new materials which have not yet been fully employed. (The great work of Sabatier, already often referred to, is still the standard work on the Latin versions. His great fault is his neglect to distinguish the different types of text — African, Italic, British, Gallic a task which yet remains to be done. The earliest work on the subject was by Flaminius Nobilius. Vetus Test. Sec. LXX Latine Redditum, etc. [Rom., 1588]. The new collations made by Tischendorf, Maiai Miinter, Ceriani, have been noticed separately.) SEE ITALIC VERSION.
III. Labors of Jerome. —
1. Occasion. — It has been seen that at the close of the 4th century the Latin texts of the Bible current in the Western Church had fallen into the greatest corruption. The evil was yet greater in prospect than at the time; for the separation of the East and West, politically and ecclesiastically, was growing imminent, and the fear of the perpetuation of false and conflicting Latin copies proportionately greater. But in the crisis of danger the great scholar was raised up who, probably alone for fifteen hundred years, possessed the qualifications necessary for producing an original version of the Scriptures for the use of the Latin churches. Jerome-Eusebius Hieronymus was born in A.D. 329 at Stridon, in Dalmatia, and died .at Bethlehem in A.D. 420. From his early youth he was a vigorous student, and age removed nothing from his zeal. He has been well called the Western Origen (Hody, p. 350); and if he wanted the largeness of heart and generous sympathies of the great Alexandrian, he had more chastened critical skill and closer concentration of power. After long and self-denying studies in the East and West, Jerome went to Rome (A.D. 382), probably at the request of Damasus the pope, to assist in an important synod (Ep. 108, 6), where he seems to have been at once attached to the service of the pope (ibid. 123; 10). His active Biblical labors date from this epoch, and in examining them it will be convenient to follow the order of time.
2. Revision of the Old Latin Version of the N.T. Jerome had not been long at Rome (A.D. 383) when Damasus consulted him on points of scriptural criticism (Ep. 19 "Dilectionis tuse est ut ardenti illo strenuitatis ingenio… vivo sensu scribas"). The answers which he received (Ep. 20:21) may well have encouraged him to seek for greater services; and, apparently in the same year he applied to Jerome for a revision of the current Latin version of the New Test. by the help of the Greek original. Jerome was fully sensible of the prejudices which such a work would excite among those "who thought that ignorance was holiness" (Ep. ad Marc. 27); but the need of it was urgent. "There were," he says, "almost as many forms of text as copies" ("tot sunt exemplaria paene quot codices" [Pre; in Ev.]). Mistakes had been introduced "by false transcription, by clumsy corrections, and by careless interpolations" (ibid.); and in the confusion which had ensued the one remedy was to go back to the original sourced ("Graeca veritas, Graeca origo"). The gospels had naturally suffered most. Thoughtless scribes inserted additional details in the narrative from the parallels, and changed the forms of expression to those with which they had originally been familiarized (ibid.). Jerome therefore applied himself to these first ("hec praesens praefatiuncula pollicetur quatuor tantum Evangelia"). But his aim was to revise the Old Latin, and not to make a new version. When Augustine expressed to him his gratitude for "his translation of the Gospel" (Ep. 104, 6, "Non parvas Deo gratias agimus de opere tuo quo Evangelitim ex Greco interpretatus es"), he tacitly corrected him by substituting for this phrase "the correction of the New Test." (ibid. 112, 20, "Si me, ut dicis, in N.T. emendationaze suscipis.... For this purpose he collated early Greek MSS., and preserved the current rendering wherever the sense was not injured by it ("Evangelia… codicum Grsecorum emendata collatione sed veterum. Qum ne nmultum a lectionis. — Latina, consuetudille discreparent, ita calamo temperavimus [all.
imperavimus] ut his tantum quse sensum videbantur mutare, correctis, reliqua manere pateremur ut fuerant" [Praef. ad Dan.]). Yet although he proposed to himself this limited object, the various forms of corruption which had been introduced were, as he describes, so numerous that the difference of the Old and Revised (Hieronymian) text is throughout clear and striking. Thus, in Matthew 5 we have the following variations:
OLD LATIN VULGATE 7 ipsis miserebitur Deus. 7 ipsi miscricordiam consequentur. 11 dixerint… 11 dixerint…mentientes. --- propterjustitiam. --- propter me.
12 ante vos patres eorum (Lu 6:26). 17 non veni solvere legem aut prophetas. 18 fiant: coelum et terra transibunt, verba autem mea non proeteribunt. 12 ante vos.
17 non veni solvere
18 fiant. 22 fratri sno sine causa. 22 fratri sno. 25 es cum illo in ira. 25 es in via cum eo (and often). 29 eat in gehenuam. 29 mittatur in gehenuam. 37 quod autem amplius. 37 quod autem his abundantius. 41 adhue alia duo. 41 et alia duo. 43 odies. 43 odio habebis.
44 vestros, et benedicite qui maledicent vobis et benefacite. 44 vestros benefacite.
Of these variations, those in ver. 17, 44 are only partially supported by the old copies, but they illustrate the character of the interpolations from which the text suffered. In John, as might be expected, the variations are less frequent. The 6th chapter contains only the following:
OLD LATIN VULGATE 2 sequebatur autem. 2 et sequebatur. 21 (volebant). 21 (voluerunt).
23 quem benedixerat Dominnns[alii aliter]). 23 (gratias agente Domino)
39 haec est enim. 39 haec est autem. --- (patris mei). --- (Patris mei qui misit me). 53 (manducare). 53 (ad manducandum). 66 (a patre). 66 (a patre meo). 67 ex hoc ergo. 67 ex hoc.
Some of the changes which Jerome introduced were, as will be seen, made purely on linguistic grounds, but it is impossible to ascertain on what principle he proceeded in this respect. Others involved questions of interpretation (Mt 6:11, supersubstantials for ἐπιού σιος). But the greater number consisted in the removal of the interpolations by which the synoptic gospels especially were disfigured. These interpolations, unless his description is very much exaggerated, must have been far more numerous than are found in existing copies; but examples still occur which show the important service which he rendered to the Church by checking the perpetuation of apocryphal glosses: Mt 3:3,15 (5:12); (9:21); 20:28; (24:36).; Mr 1:3,7-8; Mr 4:19; Mr 16:4; Luke (Lu 5:10); 8:48; 9:43, 50; 11:36; 12:38; 23:48; Joh 6:56. As a check upon further interpolation, he inserted in his text the: notation of the Eusebian Canons SEE NEW TESTAMENT; but it is worthy of notice that he included in his revision the famous pericope, Joh 7:53; Joh 8:11, which is not included in that analysis.
The preface to Damasus speaks only of a revision of the gospels, and a question has been raised whether Jerome really revised the remaining books of the New Test. Augustine (A.D. 403) speaks only of "the Gospel" (Ep. 104, 6, quoted above), and there is no preface to any other books, such as is elsewhere found before all Jerome's versions or editions. But the omission is probably due to the comparatively pure state in which the text of the rest of the New Test. was preserved. Damasus had requested (Preaf. ad Dam.) a revision of the whole; and when Jerome had faced the more invidious and difficult part of his work, there is no reason to think that he would shrink from the completion of it. In accordance with this view he enumerates. (A.D. 398) among his works "the restoration of the (Latin version of the) New Test. to harmony with the original Greek." (Ep. ad Lucin. 71, 5: "N.T. Grecam reddidi auctoritati, ut enim Veterum Librorum fides de Hebreis voluminibus examinanda est, ita novorum Grecae [?] sermonis normam desiderat." De Vir. 111. 135. "N.T. Grecae fidei reddidi.
Vetus juxta Hebraicam traistuli.") It is yet more directly conclusive as to the fact of this revision that in writing to Marcella (cir. A.D. 385) on the charges which had been brought against him for "introducing changes in the gospels," he quotes three passages from the epistles in which he asserts the superiority of the present Vulgate reading to that of tie Old Latin (Ro 12:11, "Domino servientes," for "tempori servientes;" 1 rim. 5, 19, add. "nisi sub duobus.aut tribus testibus;" 1, 15, "fidelis sermo," for "humanus sermo"). An examination of the Vulgate text, with the quotations of ante-Hieronymian fathers and the imperfect evidence of MSS., is itself sufficient to establish the reality and character of the revision. This will be apparent from a collation of a few chapters taken from several of the later books of the New Test.; but it will also be obvious that the revision was hasty and imperfect; and in later times the line between the Old Latin and the Hieronymian texts became very indistinct. Old readings appear in MSS. of the Vulgate, and, on the other hand, no MS. represents a pure African text of the Acts and epistles. —
Ac 1:4-25
OLD LATIN VULGATE
4 cum conversaretur cum illis… quod audistis a me. 4 convescens… quam andistis per os meum. 5 tingemini. 5 baptizabbimini. 6 at illi convenientes. 6 Igitur qui convenerant. 7 at ille respondens dixit. 7 Dixit autem. 8 superveniente S. S. 8 supervenientis S. S.
10 intenderent. Comp. 3(4):12; 6:15; 10:4; (13:9). 10 intuerentur. 13 ascenderunt in superiora. 13 in coenaculum ascenderunt. --- erant habitantes. --- manebant.
14 perseverantes unanimes orationi. 14 persev. Unanimiter in oratione. 18 Hie-igitur adquisivit. 18 Et hic quidem possedit. 21 qui convenerunt nobiscum viris. 21 viris qui nobiscum sunt congregati. 25 ire. Comp. 17:30. 25 ut abiret.
Ac 17:16-34
16 circa simulacrum. 16 idololatrice deditam. 17 Judaeis. 17 cum Judaeis. 18 seminator. 18 seminiverbius. 22 superstitiosos. 22 superstitiosiores. 23 perambulans. 23 proeterienns. --- culturas vestras. --- simulacra vestra. 26 ex uno sanguine. 26 ex uno.
Ro 1:13-15
13 Non autem arbitror. 13 nolo antem. 15 quod in me est promptus sum. 15 quod in me promptum est.
1Co 10:4-29
4 sequenti se (sequenti, q) (Cod. Aur. f ). 4 consequente eos. 6 in figuram. 6 in figura (f) (g).
7 idolorum cultores (g corr.) efficiamur. 7 idololatrae (idolatres, f) efficiamini (f). 12 putat (g. corr.). 12 existimat (f). 15 sicut prudentes, vobis dico. 15 ut 9sicut, f, g) prudentibus loquor (dico, f, g). 16 quem (f, g). 16 cui. --- communicatio (alt.) (f,g). --- participatio. 21 participare (f, g). 21 participes esse. 29 infideli (g). 29 (aliena); alia (f).
2Co 3:11-18
14 dum (quod g corr.) non revelatur (g corr.). 14 non revelatum (f). 18 de (a g) gloria in gloriam (g). 18 a claritate in claritatem.
Ga 3:14-25
14 benedictionem (g). 14 pollicitationem (f). 15 irritum facit (irritat, g). 15 spernit (f). 25 veniente autem fide (g). 25 At ubi venit fides (f).
Php 2:2-30
2 unum (g). 2 idipsum (f). 6 cum…constitutus (g). 6 cum…esset (f). 12 dilectissimi (g). 12 carissimi (f). 26 sollicitus (taedebatur, g). 26 maestus (f). 28 sollicitus itaque. 28 festinantius ergo (fest. ego, f: fest. autem, g). 30 parabolatus de anima sua (g). 30 tradens animam suam (f).
1Ti 3:1-12
1 Humanus (g corr.). 1 fidelis (f). 2 doeibilem (g). 2 doctorem (f). 4 habentem in obsequio. 4 habentem subbditos (f,g). 8 turpilucros. 8 turpe lucrum sectantes (f) (turpil, s.g). 12 filios bene vegentes (g corr.). 12 qui filiis suis bene proesint (f).
3. Revision of the Old Test. from the Sept. — About the same time (cir. A.D. 383) at which he was engaged on the revision of the New Test., Jerome undertook also a first revision of the Psalter. 'This he made by the help of the Greek, but the work was not very complete or careful, and the words in which he describes it may, perhaps, be extended without injustice to the revision of the later books of the New Test.: "Psalterium Romae emendaram et julxta LXX interpretes, licet cursin magna illad ex parte correxeram" (Praf in Lib. Psalm). This revision obtained the name of the Roman Psalter, probably because it was made fir the use of the Roman Church at the request of Damasus, where it was retained till the pontificate of Pius V (A.D. 1566), who introduced the Galician Psalter generally, though the Roman Psalter was still retained in three Italian churches (Hody, p. 383, "nin una Rome Vaticana ecclesia, et extraurbem in Mediolanensi et in ecclesia S. Marci, Venetils"). In a short time "the old error prevailed over the new correction," and, at the urgent request of Paula and Eustochius, Jerome commenced a new and more thorough revision (Gallican Psalter). The exact date at which this was made is not known, but it may be fixed with great probability very shortly after A.D. 387, when he retired to Bethlehem, and certainly before 391, when he had begun his new translations from the Hebrew. In the new revision Jerome attempted to represent, as far as possible, by the help of the Greek versions, the real reading of the Hebrew. With this view he adopted the notation of Origen SEE SEPTUAGINT; comp. Pref. in Genesis, etc.], and thus indicated all the additions and omissions of the Sept. text reproduced in the Latin. The additions were marked by an obelis (†); the omissions, which he supplied, by an asterisk (*). The omitted passages he supplied by a version of the Greek of Theodotion, and not directly from the Hebrew ("unusquisque . . ubicunque viderit irgulam praecedentem [†]ab ea usque ad duo puncta ["] quae impressimus, sciat in LXX interpretibus plus haberi. Ubi autem stellae [*] similitudinem perspexerit, de Hebraeis voluminibus additum noverit, meque usque ad duo pulicta, juxta Theodotionis dumtaxat editionem, qui sinmplicitate sernmonis a LXX interpretibus non disr cordat" [Praef. ad Psalm; comp. Praef. in Job, Paralip., Libr. Solomu., juxta LXX Int., Ep. 106, ad Sun. et Fret.]). This new edition soon obtained a wide popularity. Gregory of Tours is said to have introduced it from Rome into the public services in France, and from this it obtained the name of the Gallican Psalter. The comparison of one or two passages will show the extent all nature of the corrections which Jerome introduced into this second work, as compared with the Roman Psalter:
Ps 8:4-6
OLD LATIN ROMAN PSALTER GALLICAN PSALTER
Quoniam videbo coelos, opera digitorum tuorum:
lunam et stellas quas tu fundasti. (Nisi quod.) Quid est homo, quod memor es ejus? Quoniam videbo coeles * tuos" opera digitorum tuorum; lunam et stellas quae + tu" fundasti. Quid est homo, quod memor es ejus?
Nisi quia (quod). Ant filius hominis, quoniam visitaas eum? Ant filius hominis, quoniam visitas eum?
Minorasti. Minuisti eum paulo minus ab angelis; gloria et honore coronasi eum: et constituisti eum super opera manuum tuarum. Minuisti eum paula minus ab angelis; gloria et honore coronasti eum, + et " constituisti eum super opera manuum tuarum
Ps 39:1-4
Exspectans exspectavi Domiuum:
Exspectans exspectavi Domiuum: respexit me. Et respexit me; et intendit mihi;
depredationem. et exaudivit deprecatopmem meam; et eduxit me de lacu miseriae, et +ex" audivit predes meas; et eduxit me de lacu miseriae, et de luto faecis. + et" de lutofaecis.
Et statnit super petram pedes meos; Et statuit super petram pedes meos; et direxit gressus meos. +et " direxit gressus meos.
Et immisit in os meum canticum movum: Et immisit in os meum cauticum novum: hymnum. Hymnum Deo nostro. Carmen Deo nostro.
PSALM 16 (15):8-11 (Ac 2:25-28)
(Domino.) Providebam Dominum in consoectu meo semper, quoniam a dextris est mihi, ne commovear. Jocundatum. Propter hoc delectatum est cor meum, Providebam Dominum in conspectu meo semper, Quoniam a dextris est mihi, ne commovear. Propter hoc loetatum est cor meum, et exsultavit lingua mea: et exsultavit lingua mes:
insuper et caro mea requiescet in spe. Quoniam non derelinques animam meam in + insuper" er caro mea requiescet in spe. Quoniam non derelinnques animam meam in apud inferos. inferno (-um); inferno;
nec dabis Sanctum tuum videre corruptionem. Nec dabis Sanctum tuum videre corruptionem. Notas mihi fecisti vias Notas mihi fecisti vias vitae: vitae:
adimplebis me laetitia cum vultu tuo: delectationes in dextra tua, usque in finem. adimplebis me laetitia cum vultu tuo: Delectationes in dextera tua + usque " in finum.
How far he thought change really necessary will appear from a comparison of a few verses of his translation from the Hebrew with the earlier revised Septuagintal translations.
PSALM 33(34):12-16 (1Pe 3:10-12)
OLD LATIN VULGATE JEROME'S TRANSL
Quis est homo qui vult vitam, et cupit videre dies bonos? Cohibe linguam tuam a malo: et aures ejus ad preces eorum. Vultus Domini super facientes mala. Quis est homo qui vult vitam, diligit dies videre bonos? Ptohibe linguam tuam a malo: et labia tua ne loquantur dolum. Diverte a malo et fac bonum: inquire pacem, et aures ejus in preces eorum. Vultus autem Domini super facientes mala. Quis est vir qui velit vitam diligens dies videre vonos? Custodi linguam tuam a malo, et labia tua ne loquantur dolum. Recede a malo et fac bonum: quoere pacem et persequere eam. Oculi Dominni ad justos et aures ejus ad clamores eorum. Vultus Domini super facientes malum.
PSALM 39 (40):6-8 (Heb 10:5-10)
Sacrificium et oblationem noluisti: aures autem perfecisti mihi. Holocausta etiam pro delicto non postulasti.
Tunc dixi: Ecce venio. In capite libri scriptum est de me, ut faciam voluntatem tuam. Sacrificium et oblationem noluisti: aures autem perfecisti mihi. Holocaustum et pro peccato non postulasti. Tunc dixi: Ecce venio. In capite libri scriptum est de me, ut facerem voluntatem tuam. Victima et oblatione non indiges: aures fodisti mihi Holocaustum et pro peccato non petisti.
Tunc dixi: Ecce venio. In volumine libri scriptum est de me, ut facerem placitum tibi.
PSALM 18(19):5 (Ro 10:18)
In omnem terram exiit sonus eorum: et in finibus orbis terrae verba eorum. In omuen terram exivit sonus eorum: et in fines orbis terrae verba eorum. In universam terram exivit sonus eorum: et in finem orbis verba eorum.
Numerous manuscripts remain which contain the Latin Psalter in two or more forms. Thus Bibl. Bodl. Laud. 35 (10th century?) contains a triple Psalter — Gallican, Roman, and Hebrew; Coll. C. C. Oxon. 12 (15th century), Gallican. Roman, Hebrew; ibid; 10 (14th century), Gallican, Hebrew, Hebrew text with interlinear Latin; Brit. Mus. Harl. 643, a double. Psalter, Gallican and Hebrew; ibid. Arund. 155 (11th century), a Roman Psalter with Gallican corrections; Coll. SS. Trin, Cambr. R. 17, 1, a triple Psalter, Hebrew, Gallican, Roman (12th century); ibid. R. 8, 6, a triple Psalter, the Hebrew text with a peculiar interlinear Latin version, Jerome's Hebrew, Gallican. An example of the unrevised Latin, which, indeed, is not very satisfactorily distinguished from the Roman, is found with an Anglo- Saxon interlinear version, Univ. Libr. Cambr. Fr. 1, 23 (11th century). H. Stephens published a Quincuplex Psalterium, Gallicum, Romaicum, Hebraicum, Vteus, Conciliatum (Paris, 1513), but he does not mention the manuscripts from which he derived his texts.
From the second (Gallican) revision of the Psalms Jerome appears to have proceeded to a revision of the other books of the Old. Test., restoring all, by the help of the Greek, to a general conformity with the Hebrew. In the preface to the revision of Job, he notices the opposition which he had met with, and contrasts indignantly his own labors with the more mechanical occupations of monks which excited no reproaches ("Si aut fiscellam junco texeremr aut palmarumi folia complicarem ... nullus morderet, nemo reprehenderet. Nunc auntem … corrector vitiorum falsarius vocor"). Similar complaints, but less strongly expressed, occur in the preface to the books of Chronicles, in which he had recourse to the Hebrew as well as to the Greek, in order, to correct the innumerable errors in the names by which both texts were deformed. In the preface to the three books of Solomon (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon) he notices no attacks, but excuses himself for neglecting to revise Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom on the ground that "he wished only to amend the canonical Scriptures" ("tantummodo canonicas Scripturas vobis emendare desiderans"). No other prefaces remain, and the revised texts of the Psalter and Job have alone been preserved; but there is no reason to doubt that Jerome carried, .out his design of revising all the "canonical Scriptures" (comp. Ep. 112, ad August., [cir. A.D. 404], "Quod autem in allis quseris.epistolis cur prior mea in libris canonicis interpretatio asteriscos habeat et virgulas prsenotatas"). He speaks of this work as a whole in several plaes (e.g. Adv. Ruf. 2, 24, Egone contra LXX interpretes aliquid sum locutus, quos ante; annos: plurimos diligentissime emendatos mese linguae studiosis dedi?" comp. ibid. 3, 25; p. 71, ad Lucin., "Septuaginta interprettim editionem et te habere non dnbito, et ante annos plurimos [he is writing A.D. 398] diligentissime emendatam studiosis tradidi"), and distinctly represents it as a Latin version of Origen's Hexaplar text (Ep. 106, ad Sun. et Fret., Ea autem quae habetur in ῾Εξαπλοῖς et quam non vertimus), if, indeed, the reference is not to be confined to the Psalter, which was the immediate subject of discussion. But though it seems certain that the revision was made, there is very great difficulty in-tracing its history, and it is remarkable that no allusion to the revision occurs in the preface to the new translation of the Pentateuch, 7 Joshua (Judges, Ruth), Kings the Prophets, in which, Jerome touches more or less plainly on the difficulties, of his task, while he does refer to his former labors on Job, the Psalter, and the books of Solomon in the parallel prefaces to those books, and also in his Apology against Runfinus (2:27, 29-31). It has, indeed, been supposed (Vallarsi, Praef. in lier. 10) that these six books only were published by Jerome himself. The remainder may have been put into circulation surreptitiously. But this supposition is not without difficullties. Augustine, writing to Jerome (cir. A.D. 405 ), earnestly begs for a copy of the revision from the Sept., of the publication of which he was then only lately aware (Ep. 106, 34," Deinde nobis mittas, obsecro, interpretationem tuam de Septuaginta, quam te edidisse nesciebam;" comp. § 34). It does not appear whether the request was granted or not, but at a much later period (cir. A.D. 416) Jerome says that he cannot furnish him with "a copy of the Sept. [i.e. the Latin version of it] furnished with asterisks and obeli, as he had lost the chief part of his former labor by some person's treachery" (ibid. 134, "Pleraque prioris laboris franle cujusdam amisimus"). However this may have been, Jerome could not have spent more than four (or five) years on the work, and that too in the midst of other labors, for in 491 he was already engaged on the versions from the Hebrew which constitute his great claim on the lasting gratitude of the Church.
4. Translation of the Old Test. from the Hebrew. Jerome commenced the study of Hebrew when he was already advanced in middle life (cir. A.D. 374), thinking that the difficulties of the language, as he quaintly paints them, would serve to subdue the temptations of passion to which he was exposed (Ep. 125, 12; comp. Praef. in Daniel). From this time he continued the study with unabated zeal, and availed himself of every help to-perfect his knowledge of the language. His first teacher had been a Jewish convert but afterwards he did not scruple to seek the instruction of Jews, whose services he secured with great difficulty and expense. This excessive zeal (as it seemed) exposed him to the misrepresentations of his enemies, and Rufinus indulges in a silly pun on the name of one of his teachers, with the intention of showing that his work was not "supported by the authority of the Church, but only of a second Barabbas" (Ruf. Apol. 2, 12 Hieron. Apol. 1, 13; comp. Ep. 84, 3; Praef. in Paral.). Jerome, however, was not deterred by opposition from pursuing his object, and it were only to be wished that he had surpassed his critics as much in generous courtesy as he did in honest labor. He soon turned his knowledge of Hebrew to use. In some of his earliest critical letters he examines the force of Hebrew words (Epp. 18 20:A.D. 381, 383); and in 384 he had been engaged for some time in comparing the version of Aquila with Hebrew MSS. (ibid. 32:1), which a Jew had succeeded in obtaining for him from the synagogue (ibid. 36:1). After retiring to Bethlehem, he appears to have devoted himself with renewed ardor to the study of Hebrew, and he published several works on the subject, cir. A.D. 389 (Quest. Hebr. in Genesis etc.). These essays served as a prelude to his New version, which he now commenced. This version was not undertaken with any ecclesiastical sanction, as the revision of the gospels was but at the urgent request of private friends, or from his own sense of the imperious necessity of the work. Its history is told in the main in the prefaces to the several installments, which were successively published. The books of Samuel and Kings were issued first, and to these he prefixed the famous Prologus Galeatus, addressed to Paula and Eustochius, in which he gives an account of the Hebrew canon. It is impossible to determine why he selected these books for his experiment, for it does not appear that he was requested by any one to do so. The work itself was executed with the greatest care. Jerome speaks of the translation as the result of constant revision (Praol. Galatians, in Lege ergo primum Samuel et Malachim meum; meum, inquam, meuim.; Quidquid enim crebrius vertendo et emnendando sollicitius et didicimus et tenemus nostrum est"). At the time when this was published (cir. A.D. 391, 392) other books seem to have been already translated (ibid., omnibus libris quos de Hebraeo vertimus"); and in 393- the sixteen prophets were in circtulation, and Job had lately been put into the hands of his most intimate, friends (p. 49, ad Pammach.). Indeed, it would appear that already in 392 he had in some sense completed a version of the Old Test. (De Vim. Ill. 135, "Vetus juxta Hebraicum transtuli:" this treatise was written in that year); but many books were not completed and published till some years afterwards. The next books which he put into circulation, yet with the provision that they should be confined to friends (Praef. in Ezr.), were Ezra and Nehemiah, which he translated at the request of Dominica and Rogatianus, who had Urged him to the task for three years. This was probably in the year 394 (Vit. Hieron. 21:4), for in the preface lie alludes to his intention of discussion a question which he treats in Ep. 57, written in 395 (De Optimo Genesis Interpret.). In the preface to the Chronicles (addressed to Chromatius), he alludes to the same epistle as "lately written," and these books may therefore be set down to that year. The three books of Solomon followed in 398, : having been "the work of three days" when he had just recovered from a severe illness, which he suffered in that year (Pref., "Itaque longa segrotatione fractus tridui opus nomini vestro [Chromatio et Heliodoro] consecravi;" comp. Ep. 73, 10). The Octateuch now alone remained (ibid. 71, 5), i.e. Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, and Esther (Praef. in Jos.). Of this the Pentateuch (inscribed to Desiderius) was published first, but it is uncertain in what year. The preface, however, is not quoted in the Apology against Rufinus (A.D. 400), as those of all the other books which were then published, and it may therefore be set down to a later date (Hody, p. 357). The remaining books were completed at the request of Eustochius, shortly after the death of Paula, in 404 (Praef. in Jos.). Thus the whole translation was spread over a period of about fourteen years, from the sixtieth to the seventy-sixth year of Jerome's life. But still parts of it were finished in great haste (e.g. the books of Solomon). A single day was sufficient for the translation of Tobit (Praef. in Tob.), and "one short effort" (una lucubratiuncula) for the translation of Judith. Thus there are errors in the work which more careful revision might have removed; and Jerome himself in many places gives renderings which he prefers to those which he had adopted, and admits from time to time that he had fallen into error (Hody, p. 362). Yet such defects are trifling when compared with what he accomplished' successfully. The work remained for eight centuries the bulwark of Western Christianity, and, as a monument of ancient linguistic power, the translation of the Old Test. stands unrivalled and unique.' It was at least a direct rendering of the original, and not the version of a version.
IV. History of Jerome's Translation to the Invention of Printing. —
1. Early Acceptance. — The critical labors of Jerome were received, as such labors always are received by the multitude, with a loud outcry of reproach. He was accused of disturbing the repose of the Church and shaking the foundations of faith. Acknowledged errors, as he complains, were looked upon as hallowed by ancient usage (Praef. in Job. 2), and few had the wisdom or candor to acknowledge the importance of seeking for the purest possible text of Holy Scripture. Even Augustine was carried away by the popular prejudice, and endeavored to discourage Jerome from the task of a new translation (Ep. 104), which seemed to him to be dangerous and almost profane. Jerome, indeed, did little to smooth the way for the reception of his work. The violence and bitterness of his language is more like that of the rival scholars of the 16th century than of a Christian father, and there are few more touching instances of humility than that of the young Augustine bending himself in entire submission before; the contemptuous and impatient reproof of the veteran scholar (Ep. 112, s.f.). But even Augustine could not overcome the force of early habit. To the last he remained faithful to the Italic text, which he had first used; and while he notices in his Ratiactato in several faulty readings which he had formerly embraced, he shows no tendency to substitute generally the New version for the Old. In such cases Time is the great reformer. Clamor based upon ignorance soon dies away, and the New translation gradually came into use equally with the Old, and at length supplanted it. In the 5th century, it was adopted in Gaul by Eucherius of Lyons; Vincent of Lerins, Sedulius, and Claudianus Mamertus (Hody, p. 398), but the Old Latin was still retained in Africa and Britain (ibid.). In the 6th century, the use of Jerome's version was universal among scholars except in Africa, where the other still lingered (Junilius); and at the close of it, Gregory the Great, while commenting on Jerome's version, acknowledged that it was admitted equally with the Old by the apostolic see (Praef. in Job, ad Leandrum Novam translationem dissero, sed ut comprobatipnis causa exigit, nunc No-vam, nunc Veterem, per testimnonia assumo; ut quia sedes apostolica [cui aulctore Deo presideo] utraque utitur mei quoque labor studii ex utraque fulciatur"). But the Old version was not authoritatively displaced, though the custom of the Roman Church prevailed also in the other churches of the West. Thus. Isidore of Seville (De Ofic. Eccles. 1, 12), after affirming the inspiration of the Sept., goes on to recommend the version of Jerome, "which," he says, "is used universally as being more truthful in substance and more perspicuous in language" (Hody, p. 402). In the 7th century the traces of the Old version grow rare. Julian of Toledo (A.D. 676) affirms with a special polemical purpose the authority of the Sept., and so of the Old Latin; but still he himself follows Jerome when not influenced by the requirements of controversy (ibid. p. 405, 406). In the 8th century, Bede speaks of Jerome's version as in our edition (ibid. p. 408); and from this time it is needless to trace its history, though the Old Latin was not wholly forgotten. Yet, throughout, the New version made its way without any direct ecclesiastical authority. It was adopted in the different churches gradually, or at least without any formal command (see ibid. p. 411 sq. for detailed quotations).
But the Latin Bible which thus passed gradually into use under the name of Jerome was a strangely composite work. The books of the Old Test., with one exception, were certainly taken from his version from the Hebrew; but this had not only been variously corrupted, but was itself in many particulars (especially in the Pentateuch) at variances with his later judgment. Long use, however, made it impossible to substitute his Psalter from the Hebrew for the (Gallican Psalter; and thus this book was retained from the Old version, as Jerome had corrected it from the Sept. Of the Apocryphal books, Jerome hastily revised or translated two only, Judith and Tobit. The remainder were retained from the Old version against his judgment; and the Apocryphal additions to Daniel and Esther, which he had carefully marked as apocryphal in his own version, were treated as integral parts of the books. A few MSS. of the Bible faithfully preserved the "Hebrew canon," but the great mass, according to the general custom of copyists to omit nothing, included everything which had held a place in the Old Latin, In the New Test. the only important addition which was frequently interpolated was the Apocryphal epistle to the; Laodiceans. The text of the gospels was in the main Jerome's revised edition; that of the remaining books his very incomplete revision of the Old Latin; Thus the present Vulgate contains elements which belong to every period and form of the Latin version —
(1.) Unrevised Old Latin: Wisdom, Ecclus., 1 and 2 Macc., Baruch,
(2.) Old Latin revised from the Sept. Psalter.
(3.) Jerome's free translation from the original text: Judith, Tobit. (4.) Jerome's translation from the original: Old Test. except Psalter. (5.) Old Latin revised from Greek MSS. Gospels. (6.) Old Latin cursorily revised: the remainder of the New Test.
2. Revision of Alcuin. — Meanwhile the text of the different parts of the Latin Bible was rapidly deteriorating. The simultaneous use of the Old and New versions necessarily led to great corruptions of both texts. Mixed texts were formed according to the taste or judgment of scribes, and the confusion was further increased by the changes, which were sometimes introduced by those who had some knowledge of Greek. From this cause scarcely any Anglo-Saxon Vulgate MS. of the 8th or 9th century, in all probability, is wholly free from an admixture of old readings. Several remarkable examples are noticed below; and in rare instances it is difficult to decide whether the text is not rather a revised Vetoms than a corrupted Vulgata nova (e.g. Brit. Mus. Reg. 1, E, 6; Adlit. 5463). As early as the 6th century, Cassiodorus attempted a partial revision of the text (Psalter, Prophets, Epistles) by a collation of old MSS. But private labor was unable to check the growing corruption, and in the 8th century this had arrived at such a height that it attracted the attention of Charlemagne. Charlemagne at once sought a remedy, and intrusted to Alcuin (cir. A.D. 802) the task of revising the Latin text for public use. This Alcuin appears to have done simply by the use of MSS. of the Vulgate, and not by reference to the original texts (Porson, Letter 6 to Travis, p. 145). The passages which are adduced by Hody to prove his familiarity with Hebrew are, in fact, only quotations from Jerome, and he certainly left the text unaltered-at least in one place where Jerome points out its inaccuracy (Ge 25:8). The patronage of Charlemagne gave a wide currency to the revision of Alcuin, and several MSS. remain which claim to date immediately from his time. According to a very remarkable statement, Charlemagne was more than a patron of sacred criticism, and himself devoted the last year of his life to the correction of the gospels "with the help of Greeks and Syrians" (Van Ess, p. 159, quoting Theganus, Script. Hist. Franc. 2, 277).
However this may be, it is probable that Alcuin's revision contributed much towards preserving a good Vulgate text. The best MSS. of his recension do not differ widely from the pure Hieronymian text, and his authority must have done much to check the spread of the interpolations which reappear afterwards, and which were derived from the intermixture of the Old and New versions. Examples of readings which seem to be due to him occur: De 1; De 9, add. solitudilem; venissemus, for etis; ver. 4, ascendimus, for acemdemus; 2, 24, innatua, for in mantus tuas; 4:33, vidisti, for vixisti; 6, 13, ipsi, add. soli; 15:9, oculos, om. tuos; 17:20, filius, for flii; 21:6, add, venient; 26:16, at, for et. But the new revision was gradually deformed, though later attempts at correction were made by Lanfranc of Canterbury (A.D. 1089, Hody, p. 416), Card. Nicolaus (A.D. 1150), and the Cistercian abbot Stephanus (cir.A.D. 1150). In the 13th century Correctoria were drawn up, especially in France, in which varieties of reading were discussed; and Roger Bacon complains loudly of the confusion which was introduced into the "common, that is, the Parisian, copy;" and quotes a false reading from Mr 8:38, where the correctors had substituted confessus for confusus (Hody, p. 419 sq.). Little more was done for the text of the Vulgate till the invention of printing; and the name of Laurentius Valla (cir. 1450) alone deserves mention, as of one who devoted the highest, powers to the criticism of Holy Scripture, at a time when such studies were little esteemed.
V. History of the Printed Text. —
1. Early Editions. It was a noble omen for the future progress of printing that the first book which issued from the press was the Bible; and the splendid: pages of the Mazarin Vulgate (Mainz-Gutenberg and Fust) stand yet unsurpassed by the latest efforts of typography. This work is referred to about the year 1455, and presents the common text of the 15th century. Other editions followed in rapid succession (the first with a date, Mainz, 1462, Fust and Schaeffer), but they offer nothing of critical interest. The first-collection of various readings appears in a Paris edition of 1504, and others followed at Venice and Lyons in 1511, 1513; but cardinal Ximenes (1502-1517) was the first who seriously revised the Latin text ("contuli mus cum quamplurimis exemplaribus venerandne vetustatis; sed his maxime, que in publica Complutensis nostrse universitatis bibliotheca reconduntur, quae supra octingentesimum abhinc annum litteris Gothicis con, scripta, ea sunt sinceritate ut nec apicis lapsus possit ini eis deprehendi" [Praef]), to which he assigned the middle place of honor in his Polyglot between the Hebrew and Greek texts. The Complutensian text is said to be more correct than those which preceded it, but still it is very far from being pure. This was followed 1 1528 (2d ed. 1532) by an edition of R. Stephens, who had bestowed great pains upon the work, consulting three MSS. of high character and the earlier editions; but as yet the best materials were not open for use. About the same time various attempts were made to correct the Latin from the original texts (Erasmus, 1516; Pagminus, 1518-28; Card. Cajetan; Stenchius, 1529; Clarius, 1542), or even to make a new Latin version (Jo. Campensis, 1533). A more important edition of 1. Stephens followed in 1540, in which he made use of twenty MSS. and introduced considerable alterations into his former text. In 1541 another edition was published by Jo Benedictus at Paris, which was based on the collar tion of MSS. and editions, and was often reprinted afterwards. Vercellone speaks much more highly of the Biblia Ordinaria, with glosses, etc., published at Lyons, 1545, as giving readings in accordance with tie oldest MSS., though the sources from which they are derived are not given (Vlarice Lect. 99). The course of controversy in the 16th century exaggerated the importance of the, differences in the text and interpretation of the Vulgate, and the confusion called for some remedy. An authorized edition became a necessity for the Romish Church, and, however gravely later theologians may have, erred in explaining the policy or intentions of the Tridentine fathers on this point, there can be no doubt that (setting aside all reference to the original texts) the principle of their decision — the preference, that is, of the oldest Latin text to any later Latin version — was substantially right.
2. The Sixtine and Clementine Vulgates. — The first session of the Council of Trent was held on Dec. 13, 1545. After some preliminary arrangements, the Nicene Creed was formally promulgated as the foundation of the Christian faith on Feb. 4, 1546, and then the council proceeded to the question of the authority, text, and interpretation of Holy Scripture. A committee was appointed to report upon the subject, which held private meetings from Feb. 20 to March 17. Considerable varieties of opinion existed as to the relative value of the original and Latin texts, and the final decree was intended to serve as a compromise. This was made on April 8, 1546, and consisted of two parts — the first of which contains the list of the canonical books, with the usual anathema on those who refuse to receive it; while the second, "On the Edition and Use of the Sacred Books," contains no anathema, so that its contents are not articles of faith. The Wording of the decree itself contains several marks of the controversy from which it arose and admits of a far more liberal construction than later glosses have affixed to it. In affirming the authority of the "Old Vulgate," it contains no estimate of the value of the original texts. The question decided is simply the relative merits of the current Latin versions ("si ex. omnibus Latinis versionibus quse circumferuntur"), and this only in reference to public exercises. The object contemplated is the advantage (uitilitas) of the Church, and not anything essential to its constitution. It was further enacted, as a check to the license of printers, that "Holy Scripture, but especially the old and common [Vulgate] edition [evidently without excluding the original texts], should be printed as correctly as possible." In spite, however, of the comparative caution of the decree, and the interpretation which was affixed to it by the highest authorities, it was received with little favor, and the want of a standard text of the Vulgate practically left the question as unsettled as before. The decree itself was made by men little fitted to anticipate the difficulties of textual criticism, but afterwards these were found to be so great that for some time it seemed that no authorized edition would appear. The theologian is of Belgium did something to meet the want. In 1547 the first edition of Hentenius appeared at Louvain, which had very considerable influence upon later copies. It was based upon the collation of Latin MSS. and the Stephanic edition of 1540. In the Antwerp Polyglot of 1568-72 the A Vulgate was borrowed from the Complutensian (Vercellone, Var. Lect. 101); but in the Antwerp edition of the Vulgate of 1573-74 the text of Hentenius was adopted, with copious additions of readings by Lucas Brugensis. This last was designed as the preparation and temporary substitute for the papal edition; indeed, it may be questioned whether it was not put forth as the "correct edition required by the Tridentile decree" (comp. Lucas Brug. ap. Vercellone, 102), But a papal board was already engaged, however desultorily, upon the work of revision. The earliest trace of an attempt to realize the recommendations of the council is found fifteen years after it was made. In 1561 Paulus Manuttius (son of Aldus Manutis) was invited to Rome to superintend the printing of Latin and Greek Bibles (Vercellone, Var. Lect. etc., 1, prol. 19, note). During that year and the next several scholars (with Sirletus at their head) were engaged; in the revision of the text. In the pontificate of Pius V the work was continued, and Sirletus still took a chief part in it (1569-70) (ibid. loc. cit. prol. 20, note), but it was currently reported that the difficulties of publishing an authoritative edition were insuperable. Nothing further was done towards the revision of the Vulgate under Gregory XIII, but preparations were made for an edition of the Sept. This appeared in 1587, in the second year of the pontificate of Sixtus V, who had been one of the chief promoters of the work. After the publication of the Sept., Sixtus immediately devoted himself to the production of an edition of the Vulgate. He was himself a scholar, and his imperious genius led him to face a task from which others had shrunk. "'He had felt," he says, "from his first accession to the papal throne (1585), great grief, or even indignation (indigne ferentes), that the Tridentine decree was still unsatisfied;" and a board was appointed, under the presidency of cardinal Carafa, to arrange the materials and offer suggestions for an edition. Sixtus himself revised the text, rejecting or confirming the suggestions of the board by his absolute judgment; and when the work was printed, he examined the sheets with the utmost care, and corrected the errors with his own hand. The edition appeared in 1590, with the famous constitution E'ternus ille (dated March 1, .1589) prefixed, in which 'Sixtus affirmed with characteristic decision the plenary authority of the edition for all future time. "By the fullness of apostolical power" (such are his words), "we decree and declare that this edition.... approved by the authority delivered to us by the Lord, is to be received and held as true, lawful, authentic, and unquestionable, in all public" and private discussion, reading, preaching, and explanation." He further forbade expressly the publication of various readings in copies of the Vulgate, and pronounced that all readings in other editions and MSS. which vary from those of the revised text "are to have no credit or authority for the future?" ("ea in iis quae huic nostree editioni non consenserint, nullam in posterun fidem, nullamque auctoritatem habitura esse decernim us"). It was also enacted that the new revision should be introduced into all missals and service-books, and the greater excommunication was threatened against all who in any way contravened the constitution. Had the life of Sixtus been prolonged, there is no doubt that his iron will would have enforced the changes which he thus peremptorily proclaimed; but he died in August; 1590, and those whom he had alarmed or offended took immediate measures to hinder the execution of his designs. Nor was this without good reason. He had changed the readings of those whom he had employed to report upon the text with the most arbitrary and unskillful hand; and it was scarcely an exaggeration to say that his precipitate "self-reliance had brought the Church into the most serious peril." During the brief pontificate of Urban VII nothing could be done, but the reaction was not long delayed. On the accession of Gregory XIV, some went so far as to propose that the edition of Sixtus should be absolutely prohibited, but Bellarmine suggested a middle course. He proposed that the erroneous alterations of the text which had been made in it ("quie mmale mutata erant") "should be corrected with all possible speed, and the Bible reprinted under the name of Sixtus, with a prefatory note to the effect that errors (aliqua errata) had crept into the former edition by the carelessness- of the printers." This pious fraud, or rather daring falsehood for it can be called by no other name-found favor with those in power. A commission was appointed to revise the Sixtine text, under the presidency of the cardinal Colonna (Columna), At first the commissioners made but slow progress, and it seemed likely that a year would elapse before the revision was completed (Ungarelli, in Vercellone, Proleg. 58). The mode of proceedings was therefore changed, and the commission moved to Zagarolo, the country-seat of Colonna; and, if we may believe the inscription which still commemorates the event, and the current report of the time, the work was completed in nineteen days. But even if it can be shown that the work extended over six months, it is obvious that there was no time for the examination of new authorities, but only for making a rapid revision with the help of the materials already collected. The task was hardly finished when Gregory died (October, 1591), sand the publication of the revised text was again delayed. His successor, Innocent IX, died within the same year, and at the beginning of 1592 Clement VIII was raised to the popedom. Clement entrusted the final revision of the text to Cletus, and the whole was printed by Aldus Malnutius (the grandson) before the end of 1592. The preface, which is molded upon that of Sixtus, was written by Bellarmine, and is favorably distinguished from that of Sixtus by its temperance and even modesty. The text, it is said, had been prepared with the greatest care, and, though not absolutely perfect, was at least (what is no idle boast), more correct than that of any former edition. Some readings, indeed, it is allowed, had, though wrong, been left unchanged to avoid popular offence; but yet even here Bellarmine did not scruple to repeat tie fiction of the intention of Sixtus to recall his: edition which still: disgraces the front .of the Roman Vulgate by an apology no less needless than untrue. Another edition followed in 1593, and a third in 1598, with a triple list of errata, one for each of the three editions. Other editions were afterwards published at Rome (comp. Vercellone, 104), but with these corrections the history of the authorized text properly concludes.
The respective merits of the Sixtine and Clementine editions have often been debated. In point of mechanical accuracy, the Sixtine seems to be clearly superior (Van Ess, Gesch. 365 sq.); but Van Ess has allowed himself to be misled in the estimate which he gives of the critical value of the Sixtine readings. The collections lately published by Vercellone place in the clearest light the strange and uncritical mode in which Sixtus dealt with the evidence and results submitted to him. The recommendations of the Sixtine correctors are marked by singular wisdom and critical tact; and in almost every case where Sixtus departs from them he is in error. This will be evident from a collation of the readings, in a few chapters, as given by Vercellone. Thus in the first four chapters of Genesis the Sixtine correctors are right against Sixtus: 1:2, 27, 31; 2:18, 20; 3:1, 11, 12, 17, 21, 22; 4:1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 19; and, on the other hand, Sixtus is right against the correctors in 1:15. The Gregorian correctors, therefore (whose results are given in the Clementine edition), in the main simply restored readings adopted by the Sixtine board and rejected by Sixtus. In the book of Deuteronomy the Clementine edition follows the Sixtine correctors where it differs from the Sixtine edition: 1:4, 19, 31; 2:21; 4:6, 22, 28, 30, 33, 39; 5:24; 6:4; 8:1; 9:9; 10:3; 11:3; 12:11, 12, 15, etc.; and every change (except, probably, 6:4; 12:11, 12) is right; while, on the other hand, in the same chapters there are apparently only two instances of variation without the authority of the Sixtine correctors (11:10, 32). But in point of fact the Clementine edition errs by excess of caution. Within the same limits it follows Sixtus against the correctors wrongly in 2:33; 3:10, 12, 13, 16, 19, 20; 4:10, 11:28, 42; 6:3; 11:28; and in the whole book admits in the following passages arbitrary changes of Sixtus: 4:10; 5:24; 6:13; 12:15, 32; 18:10, 11; 29:23. In the New Test., as the report of the Sixtine correctors has not yet been published, it is impossible to say how far the same law holds good; but the following comparison of the variations of the two editions, in continuous passages of the gospels and epistles will show that the Clementine, though not a pure text, is yet very far purer than the Sixtine, which often gives Old Latin readings, and sometimes appears to depend simply on patristic authority (i.e. pp. 11.):
SIXTINE CLEMENTINE Mt 1:23 vocabitur (pp. 11.). vocabunt. 2:5 Juda (gat. mm. etc.). Judae. 13 surge, accipe (?). surge et accipe.
Mt 3:2 appropinquabit (4:17), (MSS. gallic. pp. 11.). appropinquavit. 3 dequo dictum est (tol. it.). qui dictus est. 10 arboris (Tert.). arborum. 4:6 ut…toliant (it.). et…tollent. 7 Jesus rursem. Jesus: Rursum. 15 Galilaeae (it. am. ect.). Galilaea. 16 ambulabat (?). sedebat.
5:11 vobis homines (gat. mm. ect.). vobis. 30 abscinde (?). abscide. 40 in judicio (it.). judicio. 6:7 eth. faciunt (it.). ethnici. 30 enim (it.). autem.
7:1 et non judicabbimini, nolite condemnare et non condemnabimini (?). ut non judicemini. 4 sine, frater (it. pp. 11.). sine. 23 a me onues (it. pp. 11.). a me. 25 supra (pp. 11. tol. ect.). super. 29 scribae (it.). scribae eorum. 8:9 alio (it. am. etc.). alii. 12 nbi (pp. 11.). ibi. 18 jussit discipulos (it.). jussit. 20 caput suum (it. tol.). caput.
28 venisset Jesus (it.). venisset. Mt 8:32 magno impetu (it.). impetu.
33 haec omnia (?). omnia.
34 rogabant eum ut Jesus (?). rogabant ut. Eph 1:15 in Christo J. (pp. 11. Bodl.). in Domino J. 21 dominationem (?). et dominationem. 2:1 vos convivificavit (pp. 11.). vos.
11 vos eratis (pp. 11. Bodl. ect.). quod. --- dicebamini (pp. 11.). dicimini. 12 qui (pp. 11. Bodl. ect.). quod.
22 Spiritu Sancto (pp. 11. Sang. etc.). Spiritu. 3:8 mihi enim (pp. 11.). mihi. 16 virtutem (it.). virtute.
--- in interiore homine (pp. 11. Bodl.). in interiorem hominem. 4:22 deponite (it.). deponere. 30 in die (pp.11. Bodl. etc.). in diem. 5:26 mundans eam (pp.11.). mundans. 27 in gloriosam (?). gloriosam. 6:15 in praeparationem (it.). in praeparatione. 20 in catena ista (it. ?). in catena ita.
3. Later Editions. — While the Clementine edition was still recent, some thoughts seem to have been entertained of revising it. Lucas Brugensis made important collections for this purpose; but the practical difficulties were found to be too great, and the study of various readings was reserved for scholars (Bellarmin. ad Lucam Brug. 1606). In the next generation use and controversy gave a sanctity to the authorized text. Many especially in Spain, pronounced it to have a value superior to the originals, and to be inspired in every detail (comp. Van Ess. Gesch. p. 401, 402; Hody, III, 2, 15); but it is useless to dwell on the history of such extravagancies, from which the Jesuits, at least, following their great champion Bellarmine, wisely kept aloof. It was a more serious matter that the universal acceptance of the papal text checked the critical study of the materials on which it was professedly based. At length, however, in 1706, Martianay published a new, and, in the main, better, text, chiefly from original MSS., in his edition of Jerome. Vallarsi added fresh collations in his revised issue of Martianay's work; but in both cases the collations are imperfect, and it is impossible to determine with accuracy on what MS. authority the text which is given depends. Sabatier, though professing only to deal with the Old Latin, published important materials for the criticism of Jerome's version, and gave at length the readings of Lucas Brugensis (1743). More than a century elapsed before anything more of importance was done for the text of the Latin version of the Old Test., when at length the fortunate discovery of the original revision of the Sixtine correctors again directed the attention of Roman scholars to their authorized text. The first-fruits of their labors are given in the volume of Vercellone, already often quoted, which has thrown more light upon the history and criticism of the Vulg. than any previous work. There are some defects in the arrangement of the materials, and it is unfortunate that the editor has not added either the authorized or corrected text; but still the work is such that every student of the Latin text must be deeply interested in it.
The neglect of the Latin text of the Old Test. is but a consequence of the general neglect of the criticism of the Hebrew text. In the New Test. far more has been done for the correction of the Vulg., though even here no critical edition has yet been published. Numerous collations of MSS., more or less perfect, have been made. In this, as in many other points, Bentley pointed out the true path which others have followed. His own collation of Latin MSS. was extensive and important (comp. Ellis, Bentleii Critica Sacra, 35 sq.). Griesbach added new collations, and arranged those which others had made. Lachmann printed the Latin text in his larger edition, having collated the Codex Fuldensis for the purpose. Tischendorf has labored among Latin MSS., only with less zeal than among Greek. Tregelles has given in his edition of the New Test. the text of Cod. Amiatinus from his own collation with the variations of the Clementine edition. But in all these cases the study of the Latin was merely ancillary to that of the Greek text. Probably, from the great antiquity and purity of the Codd. Amiatinus and Fuldensis, there is comparatively little scope for criticism in the revision of Jerome's version; but it could not be an unprofitable work to examine more in detail than has yet been done the several phases through which it has passed, and the causes which led to its gradual corruption.
A full account of the editions of the Vulg. is given by Masch (De Long), Bibliotheca Sacra (1778-90). The variations between the Sixtine and Clementine editions were collated by T. James, Bellum Papales.
Concordia Discors (Lond. 1600), and more completely, with a collation of the Clementine editions, by H. de Bukentop, Lux de Luce, 3, 315 sq. Yercellone, correcting earlier critics, reckons that the whole number of variations between the two revisions is about three thousand (Proleg. 48, nota).
VI. Principal MSS. of the Vulgate. — These may briefly be enumerated as follows:
1. Cod. Amiatinus, of the middle of the 6th century, the oldest and best extant; in the Laurentian Library at Florence; it contains the Old Test., except Baruch, and the New Test.; the latter has been edited from it by Tischendorf (Leips. 1850, 4to). SEE AMATINE MANUSCRIPT.
2. Biblia Gothica Toletance Ecclesice, of the 8th century, containing all the books except Baruch (Vercellone, Var. Lect. 1, 84).
3. Cod. Cavensis, of the 8th century, if not earlier; contains the Old and New Test.; belongs to the monastery of La Cava, near Salerno; examined by Tischendorf.
4. Cod. Paullinus, of the 9th century, wants Baruch; at Rome (Vercellone, loc. cit.).
5. Cod. Statianus hod. Vallicellanus, of the 9th century; at Rome (Vercellone, 1. c.).
6. Cod. Ottobonianus, of the 8th century, contains the Octateuch; in the Vatican (Vercellone, 1. c.).
7. Biblia Carolina, of the 9th century; wants Baruch, and the two last leaves are by a later hand; in the cantonal library at Zurich.
8. Biblia Bamburgensia, of the 9th century, wants the Apocalypse; it has Jerome's Epistle to Paulinus prefixed in large uncials, the rest of the MS. is minuscular; in this MS. 1 John 5, 7 appears (Kopp, Bilder u. Schriften der Vorzeit, 1, 184).
9. Cod. Alcuini, of the 9th century, containing the Old and New Test. (except Baruch); supposed to be that offered to Charlemagne at his coronation; formerly in the possession of the recluses at Moutier de Grandval, now in the British Museum (Addit., 10, 546).
10. A MS. on very clean parchment, probably of the 13th century; formerly at Altdorf, now at Erlangen (Niederer, Nachrichten zur Kitchen- Gelehrten und Bucher-Geschichte, 10:125).
11. A MS. of the 13th century, described in Eichhorn's Repertorium, 17:183 sq.
12. Cod. Fuldensis, of the 6th century, contains the New Test., with the gospels in the form of a harmony; used by Lachmann in his edition of the Latin subjoined to his Greek New Test.; a specimen was published by Ranke (Marb. 1860, 4to).
13. Cod. Forojuliensis; contains the four gospels; edited along with fragments of Mark's gospel from the Prague MS. (previously edited by Dobrowski, Fragmentum Pragense Ev. S. Marci, etc. [Prag. 1778, 4to]), and other remains of the same gospel from-MSS. preserved at Venice, by Bianchini, Append. ad Evangel. Quadrupl.
14. Cod. Sangellensis; a Graeco-Latin MS. of the 9th century; contains the four gospels in Greek, with an interlineary translation; edited in facsimile by Rettig (Turin, 1836, 4to). There is another Cod. Sangallensis containing fragments of the gospels, of the 6th century, described by Tischendorf in the Deutsche Zeitscrift fur christl. Wissenschaff, 1857, No. 7, and esteemed by him of great value for the text of the Vulgate (Tischendorf, Proleg. p. 249 sq.). SEE GALL (ST.) MANUSCRIPT.
Besides these, many codices exist both in British and Continental libraries. SEE MANUSCRIPTS, BIBLICAL.
VII. Critical Value of the Latin Versions. —
1. In the Old Test. — The Latin Version, in its various forms, contributes, as has already been seen, more or less important materials for the criticism of the original texts of the Old and New Tests., and of the Common and Hexaplaric texts of the Sept. The bearing of the Vulg. on the Sept. will not be noticed here, as the points involved in the inquiry more properly belong to the history of the Sept. Little, again, need be said on the value of the translation of Jerome for the textual criticism of the Old Test. As a whole, his work is a remarkable monument of the substantial identity of the Hebrew text of the 4th century with the present Masoretic text; and the want of trustworthy materials for the exact determination of the Latin text itself has made all detailed investigation of his readings impossible or unsatisfactory. The passages which were quoted in the premature controversies of the 16th and 17th centuries, to prove the corruption of the Hebrew or Latin text, are commonly of little importance so far as the text is concerned. It will be enough to notice those only which are quoted by Whitaker, the worthy antagonist of Bellarmine (Disputation of Scripture [ed. Park. Soc.], p. 163 sq.).
Ge 1:30, om. all green herbs (in Vet. L.): 3:15, ipsa conteret caput tnuln. There seems good reason to believe that the original reading was ipse. Comp. Vercellone, ad loc. See also (Ge 4:16; Ge 3:17, in opere no. ִבעבוד for ִבעבור. 4:16, om. Nod, which is specially noticed in Jerome's Quaest. Hebr. 6:6, add. et praecavens in futurum. The words are a gloss, and not a part of the Vnlgare text. 8:4, vicesimo septimofor septimo decimo. So Sept. 8:7, egrediebatur et non revertebatt. The non is wanting in the best manuscripts of the Vulgate, and has been introduced from the Sept. 11:13, trecentis tribus for quadringentis tribus. So Sept. 9:1, fundetur sanguis illins. Om. "by man" 37:2, sedecim for septemdecim. Probably a transcriptural error. . 39:6, om. "Wherefore he left-Joseph." 40, 5, om. "the butler-prison." 49:10. Comp. Vercellone, ad loc. 49, 33, om. In 24:6; 27:5; 34:29, the variation is probably in the rendering only. The remaining passages, 2:8; 3:6; 4:6, 13, 26; 6:3; 14, 3; 17:16; 19:18; 21:9. 24:22; 25:34: 27:33; 31:32; 38:5, 23; 49:22, contain differences of interpretation; and in 36:24, 41, 45, the Vulgate appears to have preserved important traditional renderings.
2. In the New Test. — The examples which have been given show the comparatively narrow limits within which the Vulgate can be used for the criticism of the Hebrew text. The version was made at a time when the present revision was already established; and the freedom which Jerome allowed himself in rendering the sense of the original often leaves it doubtful whether in reality a various reading is represented by the peculiar form which he gives to a particular passage. In the New Test. the case is far different. In this the critical evidence of the Latin is separable into two distinct elements, the evidence of the Old Latin and that of the Hieronymian revision. The latter, where it differs from the former, represents the received Greek text of the 4th century, and so far claims a respect (speaking roughly) equal to that due to a first-class Greek MS.; and it may be fairly concluded that any reading opposed to the combined testimony of the oldest Greek MSS. and the true Vulgate text either arose later than the 4th century, or was previously confined within a very narrow range. The corrections of Jerome do not carry us back beyond the age of existing Greek MSS., but, at the same time, they supplement the original testimony of MSS. by an independent witness. The substance of the Vulgate, and the copies of the Old Latin, have a more venerable authority. The origin of the Latin version dates, as has been seen, from the earliest age of the Christian Church. The translation, as a whole, was practically fixed and current more than a century before the transcription of the oldest Greek MS. Thus it is a witness to a text more ancient, and, therefore, caeteris paribus, more valuable, than is represented by any other authority, unless the Peshito in its present form be excepted. This primitive text was not, as far as can be ascertained, free from serious corruptions (at least in the synoptic gospels) from the first, and was variously corrupted afterwards. But the corruptions proceeded in a different direction and by a different law from those of Greek MSS., and, consequently, the two authorities mutually correct each other. What is the nature of these corruptions, and what the character and value of Jerome's revision and of the Old Latin, will be seen from some examples to be given in detail.
Before giving these, however, one preliminary remark must be made. In estimating the critical value of Jerome's labors, it is necessary to draw a distinction between his different works. His mode of proceeding was by no means uniform; and the importance of his judgment varies with the object at which he aimed. The three versions of the Psalter represent completely the three different methods which he followed. At first he was contented with a popular revision of the current text (the Roman Psalter); then he instituted an accurate comparison between the current text and the original (the Gallican Psalter); and in the next place he translated independently, giving a direct version of the original (the Hebrew Psalter). These three methods follow one another in chronological order, and answer to the wider views which Jerome gradually gained of the functions of a Biblical scholar. The revision of the New Test. belongs, unfortunately, to the first period. When it was made, Jerome was as yet unused to the task, and he was anxious not to arouse popular prejudice. His aim was little more than to remove obvious interpolations and blunders; and in doing this he likewise introduced some changes of expression which softened the roughness of the old version, and some which, seemed to be required for the true expression of the sense (e.g. Mt 6:11, supersubstantialem for quotidianum). But while he accomplished much, he failed ton carry out even this limited purpose with thorough completeness. A rendering which he commonly altered was still suffered to remain in some places without any obvious reason (e.g. μυστήριον, δοξάζω, ἀφανίζω); and the textual emendations which he introduced (apart from the removal of glosses) seem to have been made after only a partial examination of Greek copies, and those probably few in number. The result was such as might have been expected. The greater corruptions of the Old Latin, whether by addition or emission, are generally corrected in the Vulgate. Sometimes, also, Jerome gives the true reading in details which had been lost in the Old Latin: Mt 1:25, cognoscebat; 2:23, prophetas; 5:22, om. εἰκῆ; 9:15, lugere; Joh 3:8; Lu 2:33, ὁ πατήρ; 4:12. But not rarely he leaves a false reading uncorrected (Mt 9:28, vobis; 10:42), or adopts a false reading where the true one was also current: 16:6; 18:29; 19:4; Joh 1:3,16; Joh 6:64. Even in graver variations he is not exempt from error. The famous, pericope, Joh 7:53; Joh 8:11, which had gained only a partial entrance into the Old Latin, is certainly established in the Vulgate. The additions in Mt 27:35; Lu 4:19; Joh 5:4; 1Pe 3:22, were already generally or widely received in the Latin copies, and Jerome left them undisturbed. The same may be said of Mr 16:9-20; but the "heavenly testimony" (1Jo 5:7), which is found in the editions of the Vulgate, is, beyond all doubt, a later interpolation, due to an African gloss; and there is reason to believe that the interpolations in Ac 8:37; Ac 9:5, were really erased by Jerome, though they maintained their place in the mass of Latin copies.
Jerome's revision of the gospels was far more complete than that of the remaining parts of the New Test. It is, indeed, impossible, except in the gospels, to determine any substantial difference in the Greek texts which are represented by the Old and Hieronymian versions. Elsewhere the differences, as far as they can be satisfactorily established, are differences of expression, and not of text; and there is no sufficient reason to believe that the readings which exist in the best Vulgate MSS., when they are at variance with other Latin authorities, rest upon the deliberate judgment of Jerome. On the contrary, his commentaries show that he used copies differing widely from the recension which passes under his name, and even expressly condemned as faulty in text or rendering many passages which are undoubtedly part of the Vulgate. Thus in his commentary on the Galatians he condemns the additions, 3:1, veritati non obedire; 5:21, homicidia; and the translations, 1:16, non acquievi cani et sanguini (for non contuli cum carne et sanguine); 5:9, modicum fermentum totam massam corrumpit (for modicumfenrmentum totam conspersionem fermentat); 5:11, evacuatum est (for cessavit); 6:3, seipsum (seipse) seducit (for mentem suam decipit). In the text of the epistle which he gives there are upwards of fifty readings that differ from the best Vulgate text, of which about tenare improvements (4:21; 5:13, 23; 6:13, 15, 16, etc.), as many more inferior readings (4:17, 26, 30, etc.), and the remainder differences of expression: malo for nequam, recto pede incedunt for recte ambulant rursum for iterum. The same differences are found in his commentaries on the other epistles: ad Ephes. 1:6; 3:14; 4:19; 5:22, 31; ad Titus 3:15. From this it will be evident that the Vulgate text of the Acts and the epistles does not represent the critical opinion of Jerome, even in the restricted sense in which this is true of the text of the gospels. But still there are some readings which may with probability be referred to his revision: Ac 13:18, moies eorum sustinuit for nutriit (aluit) eos; Ro 12:11, Domino for tempori; Ephesians 4:19, illuminabit te Christus for continges Christuns; Ga 2:5, neque. ad horame cessimnus for ad horam cessimus; 1Ti 5:19, add. nisi sub duobus aut tribus testibus.
3. The Vetus Latina. — The chief corruptions of the Old Latin consist in the introduction of glosses. These, like the corresponding additions in the Codex Bezce (D), are sometimes indications of the venerable antiquity of the source from which it was derived, and seem to carry us back to the time when the evangelic tradition had not yet been wholly superseded by the written gospels. Such are the interpolations at Mt 3:15; Mt 20:28; Lu 3:22 (comp. also 1, 46; 12:38); but more frequently they are derived from parallel passages, either by direct transference of the words of another evangelist or by the reproduction of the substance of them. These interpolations are frequent in the synoptic gospels: Mt 3:3; Mr 16:4; Lu 1:29; Lu 6:10; Lu 9:43,50,54; Lu 11:2; and occur also in Joh 6:56, etc. But in John the Old Latin more commonly errs by defect than by excess. Thus it omits clauses certainly or probably genuine: 3:31; 4:9; 5:36; 6:23; 8:58, etc. Sometimes, again, the renderings of the Greek text are free: Lu 1:29; Lu 2:15; Lu 6:21. Such variations, however, are rarely likely to mislead. Otherwise the Old Latin text of the gospels is of the highest value. There are cases where some Latin MSS. combine with one or two other of the most ancient witnesses to support a reading which has been obliterated in the mass of authorities: Lu 6:1; Mr 5:3; Mr 16:9 sq.; and not infrequently it preserves the true text which is lost in the Vulgate: Lu 13:19; Lu 14:5; Lu 15:28. But the places where the Old Latin and the Vulgate have separately preserved the true reading are rare, when compared with those in which they combine with other ancient witnesses against the great mass of authorities. Every chapter of the gospels will furnish instances of this agreement, which is often the more striking because it exists only in the original text of the Vulgate, while the later copies have been corrupted in the same way as the later Greek MSS. Mr 2:16; Mr 3:25 (?); 8:13, etc.; Ro 6:8; Ro 16:24, etc. In the first few chapters of Matthew, the following may be noticed: 1:18 (bis); 2:18; 3:10; 5:4, 5, 11, 30, 44, 47; 6:5, 13; 7:10, 14, 29; 8:32 (10:8), etc. It is useless to multiply examples which occur equally in every part of the New Test.; Lu 2:14,40; Lu 4:2, etc.; Joh 1:51; Joh 4:42,51; Joh 5:16; Joh 8:59; Joh 14:17, etc.; Ac 2:30-31,37, etc.; 1Co 1:1,15,22,27, etc. On the other hand, there are passages in which the Latin authorities combine in giving a false reading: Mt 6:15; Mt 7:10; Mt 8:28 (?), etc.; Lu 4:17; Lu 13:23,27,31, etc.; Ac 2:20, etc.; 1Ti 3:16, etc. But these are comparatively few, and commonly marked by the absence of all Eastern corroborative evidence. It may be impossible to lay down definite laws for the separation of readings which are due to free rendering, or carelessness, or glosses; but in practice there is little difficulty in distinguishing the variations which are due to the idiosyncrasy (so to speak) of the version from those which contain real traces of the original text. When every allowance has been made for the rudeness of the original Latin and the haste of Jerome's revision, it can scarcely be denied that the Vulgate is not only the most venerable, but also the most precious, monument of Latin Christianity. For ten centuries it preserved in Western Europe a text of Holy Scripture far purer than that which was current in the Byzantine Church, and at the revival of Greek learning guided the way towards a revision of the late Greek text, in Which the best Biblical critics have followed the steps of Bentley with ever-deepening conviction of the supreme importance of the coincidence of the earliest Greek and Latin authorities.
4. Of the interpretative value of the Vulgate little need be said. There can be no doubt that in dealing with the New Test., at least, we are now in possession of means infinitely more varied and better suited to the right elucidation of the text than could have been enjoyed by the original African translators. It is a false humility to rate as nothing the inheritance of ages. If the investigation of the laws of language, the clear perception of principles of grammar, the accurate investigation of words, the minute comparison of ancient texts, the wide study of antiquity, the long lessons of experience, have contributed nothing towards a fuller understanding of Holy Scripture, all trust in Divine Providence is gone. If we are not in this respect far in advance of the simple peasant or half-trained scholar of North Africa, or even of the laborious student of Bethlehem, we have proved false to their example, and dishonor them by our indolence. It would be a thankless task to quote instances where the Latin version renders the Greek incorrectly. Such faults arise most commonly from a servile adherence to the exact words of the original, and thus that which is an error in rendering proves a fresh evidence of the scrupulous care with which the translator generally followed the text before him. But while the interpreter of the New Test. will be fully justified in setting aside without scruple the authority of early versions, there are sometimes ambiguous passages in which a version may preserve the traditional sense (Joh 1:3,9; Joh 8:25, etc.) or indicate an early difference of translation, and then its evidence may be of the highest value. But even here the judgment must be free. Versions supply authority for the text and opinion only for the rendering.
VIII. Linguistic Character and Influence of the Latin Versions. —
1. The characteristics of Christian Latinity have been most unaccountably neglected by lexicographers and grammarians. It is, indeed, only lately that the full importance of provincial dialects in the history of languages has been fully recognised, and it may be hoped that the writings of Tertullian, Arnobius, and the African fathers generally will now at length receive the attention which they justly claim. But it is necessary to go back one step further, and to seek in the remains of the Old Latin Bible the earliest and the purest traces of the popular idioms of African Latin. It is easy to trace in the patristic writings the powerful influence of this venerable version; and, on the other hand, the version itself exhibits numerous peculiarities which were evidently borrowed from the current dialect. Generally it is necessary to distinguish two distinct elements both in the Latin version and in subsequent writings (1) provincialisms and (2) Graecisms. The former are chiefly of interest as illustrating the history of the Latin language; the latter as marking, in some degree, its power of expansion. Only a few remarks on each of these heads, which may help to guide inquiry, can be offered here; but the careful reading of some chapters of the Old version (e.g. Psalm, Ecclus., Wisd., in the modern Vulgate) will supply numerous illustrations.
(1.) Provincialisms. One of the most interesting facts in regard to the language of the Latin version is the reappearance in it of early forms which are found in Plautus or noted as archaisms by grammarians. These establish in a signal manner the vitality of the popular as distinguished from the literary idiom, and, from the great scarcity of memorials of the Italian dialects, possess a peculiar value. Examples of words, forms, and constructions will show the extent to which this phenomenon prevails.
(a.) Words. Stultiloquiuim, multiloquinum, vaniloquus (Plautus); stabilimentum (id.); datus (sulbst. id.); condignus (id.); aratiuncula (id.); versipellis (id.); satutritas (id.); stacte (id.); cordatus (Ennius); custoditio (Festus); decipula, dejero (Plautus); exentero (id.); scius (Pac.); mino (to drive, Festus).
(b.) Forms. Deponents as passive: consolor, hortor, promereor (Heb 13:16); ministror. Irregular inflections: partibor absconsus; conversely: exies, etc.; tapetia (Plantus), haec (fem. plur.). Unusual forms: pascua (fem.); murmtur (masc.); sal (neut.); retia (sing.); certor, odio, cornum, placer (subst.), dulcor.
(c.) Constructions. — Emtigro with ace. (Ps 61:7, emigrabit te de tabernaculo); dominor with gennoceo with adc.; sui, suus for ejus, etc.; non for ne prohibitive; capit impers.
In addition to these, there are many other peculiarities which evidently belong to the African (or common) dialect, and not merely to the Christian form of it.
Such are the words minorare, ninoratio, improperium, framea (a sword), ablactatio, annualis, alleviar e, pectusculutem, antemurale, panifica, pwratura, tortura, tribulare, (met.), tributlatio, valefacere, veredariu-, viare, victualia, virectum (viretum), vitulamen, volatilia (subst.), quaternio, reelinatoriunr, scrutiniunr, sponsare, stratoria (subst.), sufferentia, si.fficientia, superabundantia, sustinentia, cartalleus, cassidile, collactatnents, condulcare, gernirmen, grossitudo, refectio (κατάλυμα), exterminitumac, defunctio (decease), substanltia (abs.), incolatus.
New verbs are formed from adjectives: pessimare, proxiainre, approximare, assiduare, pigritari, salvare (salvator, salvatio), obviare, jucundare, and especially a larire class in fico: mortifico, vivifico, sanctifico, glorifico, clarifico, beatifico, castifico, gratifico, fructiftio.
Other verbs worthy of notice are: appropriate, appretiare, tenebrescere, indulcare, implanare (pliinusn), manicare.
In this class may be reckoned also many —
(1.) New substantives derived from audjectives: possibilitas, praeclaritas, paternitas, praescientia, religiositas, nativitas, supervacuitas, mam nalia.
New verbs formed in like manner: requietio, respectio, creatura, subitatio, extollentia.
(2.) New verbals: accensibilis, acceptabilis, docibilis, productilis, passibilis, receptibilis, reprehensibilis, suadibilis subjectibilis, arreptitius; and participial forms: Judoratus, angustiats, timoratus, sensatus, disciplinatuis, magnatem, linguatuns,
(3.) New adjectives: animaequmu, temporaneun, unigenitus, querulosus; and adverbs: terribiliter; unanimiiter, spiritualiter, cognoscibiliter, fiducialiter.
The series of negative compounds is peculiarly worthy of notice: immemoratio, increditio, inconsummatio inhonorare; inauxiliatus, indeficiens, inconfusibilis, importabills.
Among the characteristics of the late stage of language must he reckoned the excessive frequency of compounds, especially those formed with the prepositions. These are peculiarly abundant in the Latin version; but in many cases it is difficult to determine whether they are not direct translations of the late Sept. forms, and not independent forms: e.g. addecimare, adinvenire ntio, adincrescere, pereffluere, permundare, propurgare, superexaltare, superinvalescere, supererogare, reinvifare, rnemetLoratio, repropitiari, subinferre. Of these many are the direct representatives of Greek words: superadulta (1Co 7:36), superseminare (Mt 13:25), comnpartiipes, concaptivus, complantatus, etc. (supersubstantialis, 6:11); and others are formed to express distinct ideas; subcinericius, subnervare, etc.
(2.) Graecisms. — The "simplicity" of the Old version necessarily led to the introduction of very numerous Septuaginta or New Test. forms many of which have now passed into common use. In this respect it would be easy to point out the difference which exists between Jerome's own work and the original translation, or his revision of it.
Examples of Greek words are: zelare, perizoma, python, pythonissa, proselytmus, prophetes tisa tizare tare, poderis, pompatice, thesaurizare, anathematizare, agonizare, agonia, aromatizare, angelus iccs, peribolus, pisticus, probatica, papyrio, pastophoria, telonizun, eucharis, acharis, romphcea, braviurn, dithalassus, doma (thronus), thymiatorium, tristega, scandalunm, sitarcia, basphemnare, etc., besides the purely technical terms patriarcha, Parasceve, Pascha, Paracletus. Other words based on the Greek are: aporior, angario, apostata, a apostolatus, acedior (ἀκηδία). Some close renderings are interesting: amodo (ἀπὸ τού του), propitiatorium (ἱλαστήριον), inidipsum (ἐπὶ τὸ αύτό), rationaie (λογεῖον, Ex 28:15, etc. ), scenofactorius (Ac 18:3), seminiverbius (17, 18), subintroductus (Ga 2:4), supercertari (Jude 1:3), civilitas (Ac 22:28), intentator malorum (Jas 1:13). To this head must also be referred such constructions as zelare with accus. (ζηλοῦν τινα); facere with inf. (ποιεῖν... γενέσθαί); potestas with inf. (ἐξουσία ἀφιέναι); the use of the inf. to express an end (Ac 7:43, ἐποιήσατε προσκυνεῖν) or a result (Lu 1:25, ἐπεῖδεν ἀφελειν, respecit aniferre) the introduction of qui for ὅτι in the sense of that (ver. 58; audierunt . . . quia) or for ὅτι recitativm, in (Matthew 7:23, Confitebor illis quia); the dat. with assequi (Lu 1:3, παρακολουθεῖν Vet. L.); the use of the gen. with the comparative (Joh 1:50, majora horumn); and such Hebraisms as vir mortis (1Ki 2:26).
Generally it may be observed that the Vulg. Latin bears traces of a threefold influence derived from the original text; and the modifications of form which are capable of being carried back to this source occur yet more largely in modern languages, whether in this case they are to be referred to the plastic power of the Vulg. on the popular dialect, or, as is more likely, we must suppose that the Vulg. has preserved a distinct record of powers which were widely working in the times of the Empire on the common Latin. These are
(1) an extension of the use of prepositions for simple cases; e.g. in the renderings of ἐν (Col 3:17), facere in verbo, etc.;
(2) an assimilation of pronouns to the meaning of the Greek article; e.g. 1Jo 1:2, ipsa vita; Lu 24:9, illis undecim, etc.; and
(3) a constant employment of the definitive and epithetic genitive, where classical usage would have required an adjective; e.g. Col 1:13, filius caritatis suce; 3:12, viscera mnisericordiae.
The peculiarities which have been enumerated are found in greater or less frequency throughout the Vulg. It is natural that they should be most abundant and striking in the parts which have been preserved least changed from the Old Latin-the Apocrypha, the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse. Jerome, who, as he often says, had spent many years in the schools of grammarians and rhetoricians, could not fail to soften down many of the asperities of the earlier version, either by adopting variations already in partial use, or by correcting faulty expressions himself as he revised the text. An examination of a few chapters in the Old and New versions of the gospels will show the character and extent of the changes which he ventured to introduce:
Lu 1:60, οὐχί, non, Vet. L., nequaguam, Vulg. ver. 65, ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ὀρεινῃ, in omni montana, Vet. L., super omnia montna', Vulg;. 2, 1, profiteretur, professio, Vet. L., describeretur, descriptio, Vulg.; ver. 13, eoerciti.us emlestis, Vet. L., militia celestis, Vulg.; ver. 34, quod contradicetur, Vet. L eui contr. Vulg.; ver. 49, in propria Patris reei, Vet. L., in his quae patric mei sunt, Vulg. Some words he seems to have changed constantly, though not universally: e.g. obauditio, obaudio (obedientia, obedio); mertsurare (metiri); dilectio (caritas); sacramenlitim (mysteliulli), etc. Many of the most remarkable forms are confined to books which he did not revise: elucidare, inaltare (jucundari); fumigabundtus, illawnentatuts, indisciplinatus, insuaspicaobilis; exaecramwentum (exterrmininum), gaudimotniumnu; extollenti, honorificentia; horripilatio, inhonoratio.
2. Generally it may be said that the scriptural idioms of our common language have come to us mainly through the Latin; and in a wider view the Vulg. is the connecting-link between classical and modern languages. It contains elements which belong to the earliest stage of Latin, and exhibits (if often in a rude form) the flexibility of the popular dialect. On the other hand, it has furnished the source and the model for a large portion of current Latin derivatives. Even a cursory examination of the characteristic words which have been given will show how many of them, and how many corresponding forms, have passed into living languages. To follow out this question in detail would be out of place here; but it would furnish a chapter in the history of language, fruitful in results and hitherto unwritten. Within a more limited range the authority of the Latin versions is undeniable, though its extent is rarely realized. The vast power which they have had in determining the theological terms of Western Christendom can hardly be overrated. By far the greater part of the current doctrinal terminology is based on the Vulg., and, as far as can be ascertained, was originated in the Latin version. Predestination, justification, supererogation (supererogo), sanctification, salvation, netdiaton, regeneration, revelation, visitation (met.), propitiation, first appear in the Old Vulg. Grace, redemption, election, reconciliation, satisfaction, inspiration, scripture, were devoted there to a new and holy use. Sacrament (μυστήριον) and communion are from the same source; and though baptism is Greek, it comes to us from the Latin. It would be easy to extend the list by the addition of orders, penance, congregation, priest. But it can be seen from the forms already brought forward that the Latin versions have left their mark both upon our language and upon our thoughts; and if the right method of controversy is based upon a clear historical perception of the force of words, it is evident that the study of the Vulg., however much neglected, can never be neglected with impunity. 'It was the version which alone they knew who handed down to the Reformers the rich stores of medieval wisdom; the version with which the greatest of the Reformers were most familiar, and from which they had drawn their earliest knowledge of divine truth.
In more important respects, likewise, the influence which the Latin versions of the Bible have exercised upon Western Christianity is scarcely less than that of the Sept. upon the Greek churches. But both the Greek and the Latin Vulgates have long been neglected. The revival of letters, bringing with it the study of the original texts of Holy Scripture, checked for a time the study of these two great bulwarks of the Greek and Latin churches-for the Sept., in fact, belongs rather to the history of Christianity than to the history of Judaism-and, in spite of recent labors, their importance is even now hardly recognized. In the case of the Vulgate, ecclesiastical controversies have still further impeded all efforts of liberal criticism. The Romanist (till lately) regarded the Clementine text as fixed beyond appeal; the Protestant shrank from examining a subject which seemed to belong peculiarly to the Romanist. Yet, apart from all polemical questions, the Vulgate should have a very deep interest for all the Western churches. For many centuries it was the only Bible generally used; and, directly or indirectly, it is the real parent of all the vernacular versions of Western Europe. The Gothic version of Ulphilas alone is independent of it, for the Slavonic and modern Russian versions are necessarily not taken into account. With England it has a peculiarly close connection. The earliest translations made from it were the (lost) books of Bede, and the glosses on the Psalms and gospels of the 8th and 9th centuries (ed. Thorpe, Lond. 1835, 1842). In the 10th century Elfric translated considerable portions of the Old Test. (Ileptateuchus, etc., ed. Thwaites, Oxford, 1698). But the most important monument of its influence is the great English version of Wycliffe (1324-84, ed. Forshall and Madden, Oxford, 1850), which is a literal rendering of the current Vulgate text. In the age of the Reformation the Vulgate was rather the guide than the source of the popular versions. The Romanist translations into German (Michaelis, ed. Marsh, 2, 107), French, Italian, and Spanish were naturally derived from the Vulgate (Simon, Hist. Crit. 100, 28, 29, 40, 41). Of others, that of Luther (New Test. in 1523) was the most important, and in this the Vulgate had great weight, though it was made with such use of the originals as was possible. From Luther the influence of the Latin passed to our own A.V. Tyndale had spent some time abroad, and was acquainted with Luther before he: published his version of the New Test. in 1526. Tyndale's version of the Old Test., which was unfinished at; the time of his martyrdom (1536), was completed by Coverdale, and in this the influence of the Latin and German translations was predominant. A proof of this remains in the Psalter of the Prayer-book, which was taken from the "Great English Bible" (1539, 1540), and this was merely a new edition of that called Matthew's, which was itself taken from Tyndale and Coverdale. This version of the Psalms follows the Gallican Psalter, a revision of the Old Latin made by Jerome and afterwards introduced into his new translation, and differs in many respects from the Hebrew text (e.g. Psalm 14). It would be out of place to follow this question into detail here. It is enough to remember that the first translators of our Bible had been familiarized with the Vulgate from their youth, and could not have cast off the influence of early association. But the claims of the Vulgate to the attention of scholars rest on wider grounds. It is not only the source of our current theological terminology, but it is, in one shape or other, the most important early witness to the text and interpretation of the whole Bible. The materials available for the accurate study of it are unfortunately at present as scanty as those yet unexamined are rich and varied.
IX. Modern Versions of the Vulgate. — The versions used in the Church of Rome have all been made from the Vulgate, of which the first German translation was printed in 1466, the Spanish in 1478, and the Italian in 1471. Our limits will allow us only to refer to that in use in English, of which the Old Test. was printed at Douai in 1609, and the New at Rheims in 1582. This is greatly inferior in strength and elegance of expression to the A.V. of 1611, but is highly commendable for its scrupulous accuracy and fidelity, which cannot be predicated of all translations from the Vulgate into other languages. It was altered and modernized by bishop Challoner in 1749, when the text was conformed to that of the Clementine edition. It has since undergone various alterations under the care of the Irish Roman Catholic hierarchy, and has been in some respects conformed to the A. V., even in passages which controversialists of a bygone age had stigmatized as heretical. But this has been done without any departure from the text. The original translators, however, adhered so servilely to this as to employ such barbarous words and phrases as sindom (Mr 15:46), zealators (Ac 20:20), praefinition (Eph 3:11), contristate (4:30), agnition (Phm 1:16), repropitiate (Heb 2:17), with such hosts God is promerited (13, 16), etc. "Yet, in justice, it must be observed that no case of willful perversion of Scripture has ever been brought home to the Rhemish translators" (Scrivener, Supplement to the Authorized Version). Mr. Scrivener adds that "the Rhemish divines [who were evidently men of learning and ability] may occasionally do us good service by furnishing some happy phrase or form of expression which had eluded the diligence of their more reputable predecessors" (ibid.).
The translators observe in their preface that they religiously keep the phrases word for word, "for fear of missing or restraining the sense of the Holy Ghost to the fantasie;" in proof of which they refer to such phrases as τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί, γύναι, (Joh 2:4) which they render "What to me and thee, woman?" explaining it in the note by the phrase "What hast thou to do with me?" .But in some of the modern editions of the Rhernish version this rule has been departed from and the text altered into "What is that to me or thee?" (Dublin ed. 1791, 1824), or "What is it to me and thee?" (ibid. 1820); a reading inconsistent with the translation of the same words in Lu 8:28. The interpolation has been removed in Dr. Murray's edition of 1825. In the New Version of the Four Gospels, by a Catholic (Dr. Lingard), the words are rendered, "What hast thou to do with me?" The whole passage is thus rendered and commented on by Tittmalnn (Meletemata Sacra): "Missum me fac, o mea, Leave that to my care, good mother." It is not the language of reproof or refusal, but rather of consolation and promise. This appears from the words which follow, mine hour is not yet come.' For in these words he promises his mother that at the proper time he will gratify her wish... But our Lord purposely delayed his assistance, that the greatness of the miracle might be the better known to all. The appellation γύναι, which was employed by our Lord on other occasions also (Joh 19:26; Joh 20:15), was very honorable among the Greeks, who were accustomed to call their queens by this title, and may be rendered 'my beloved.'
Prof. Moses Stuart (Commentary on the Apocalypse, 1, 119) conceives that "in the translation of μετανο εῖτε by agite panitentiam (Mt 3:2), the same spirit was operating which led one part of the Church in modern times to translate μετανοεῖτε by do penance." But the Latin phrase Li agere poenitentiam," which is also found in the old Italic, is evidently synonymous with μετανοεῖν, "to repent." "Agite poenitentiam," says Campbell, "was .not originally a mistranslation of the Greek μετανοεῖτε." Dr. Lingard (ut sup,) renders it "repent." We refer to one passage more, often objected to as proving that the Vulgate was altered to serve a purpose. In Heb 11:21, the Vulgate reads, as the translation of προσεκύνησεν ἐπὶ τὸ ἄκρον τῆς άβδου αὐτοῦ: adoravit fastigium virgse ejus, "worshipped the top of his [Joseph's] rod." If the present pointing of the Hebrew מַּטָּה (Ge 47:31) be correct, the Seventy, who read it מִטֶּה, "a staff" or "sceptre," must have been in error, wherein they were followed by the Syriac. Tholuck (Commentary on Heb.) is of opinion that the Latin translators did not (as some suppose) overlook ἐπί, "upon," and he considers that this preposition with the accusative might easily lead to the acceptation in which it is taken by the Vulgate, which is also that adopted by Chrysostom and Theodoret, who explain the passage as if Jacob had foreseen Joseph's sovereignty, and gave a proof of his belief in it by the act of adoration in the direction of his scepter. This is, in Tholuck's opinion, further confirmed by the generally spread reading αὐτοῦ (his), not αὑτοῦ (his own); and he doubts if the inspired writer of the epistle did not himself so understand the passage in the Sept. as being the more significant. But should it be admitted, with Tholuck, that "the Protestant controversialists have very unjustly designated this passage of the Vulgate as one of the most palpable of its errors," it must be borne in mind that Onkelos, Jonathan, Symmachus, and Aquila follow the present reading; to which Jerome also gives a decided preference, observing (on Ge 47:31), "In this passage some vainly assert that Jacob adored the top of Joseph's scepter; . . . for in the Hebrew the reading is quite different. Israel adored at the head of the bed (adoravit Israel ad caput lectuli)." SEE ENGLISH VERSIONS.
X. Literature. — The chief original works bearing on the Vulgate generally are, Simon, Histoire Critique du . T. 1678-85; id. T. 1689-93; Hody, De Bibliorum Textibus Originalibus (Oxon. 1705); Martianay, fieron. Opp. (Paris, 1693), with the prefaces and additions of Vallarsi (Verona, 1734) and Maffei (Venice, 1767); Bianchini (Blanchinus, not Blanchini), Vindicie Canon. SS. Vuly. Lat. Edit. (Rome, 1740); Bukentop, Lux de Luce (Bruxellis, 1710); Sabatier, Bibl. SS. Lat. Vers. Ant. (Remis, 1743); Van Ess, Pragmatisch-kritische Gesch. d. Vulg. (Tib. 1824); Vercellone, Varice Lectiones Vulg. Lat. Bibliorum (tom. 1, Romae, 1860; tom. 2, pars prior, 1862). In addition to these, there are the controversial works of Mariana, Bellarmine, Whitaker-Fulke, etc., and numerous essays by Calmet, D. Schulz, Fleck, Riegler, etc.; and in the New Test. the labors of Bentley, Sanft, Griesbach, Schulz, Lachmann, Tregelles, and Tischendorf have collected a great amount of critical materials. But it is not too much to say that the noble work of Vercellone has made an epoch in the study of the Vulgate, and the chief results which follow from the first instalment of his collations are here for the first time incorporated in its history. See also Riegler. Gesch. der Vulgata (Sulzb. 1820); Brunati, De Vulgnat, (Vien. 1825); Kaulen, Gesch. der ulgata (Mentz, 1869); Ronsch, Itala und Vulgata (Marb. 1869); W. A. Cassinger, Der Latein. Bibel (Leipz. 1892). SEE LATIN VERSIONS.
