Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadMcClintock Biblical Encyclopedia: Vulgate
Subjects in this Topic:
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 êïéíὴ ἔêäïóéò 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. Isa_30:22). In some places Jerome distinctly quotes the Greek text: “Porro in editione Vulgata dupliciter legimus; quidam enim codices habent äῆëïß åἰóéí , hoc est manifesti sunt: alii äåéëáῖïß åἰóéí , hoe est meticulosi sive miseri sunt” (Comm. in Osee, 7:13; comp. 8-11 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 Isa_49:5). So again: “Philistheos . . . alienigenas Vulgata scribit editio” (ibid. 14:29). “Palsestinis quos indifferenter LXX alienigenas vocant” (Comm. in Eze_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 êïéíὴ ἔêäïóéò , 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 êïéíήí , id est, communem, appellant, atque vulgatam, et a plerisque nunc Ëïõêéáíüò dicitur; aliam LXX interpretum que, in ἑîáðëïῖò codicibus reperitur, et a nobis ip Latinum sermonem fideliter versa est Êïéíή autem ista, hoc est, Communis editio, ipsa est qume et LXX, sed hoc interest inter utramque; quod êïéíή pro locis et temporibus et pro voluntate scriptorum vetus corrupta editio est; ea autem quae habetur in ἑîáðëïῖò et quam nos vertimus, ipsa est quae in eruditorum libris incorrupta et immaculata LXX interpretum translatio reservatur” (Ep. 106, ad Sun. et Feret. § 2).
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:
Mat_4:13, “habitavit in Capharnlanm mdaritimnam.” 4:15, “terra Neptalim vianss maris.” 25, “ab Jerosolymis... et tranns Jordanem.” Mat_5:22, “reus erit in gehennam iagis.” Mat_6:19, “ubi timnea et comtestura exterminat.” Mar_12:31, “majus hortum praeceptorum, aliud non est.” Luk_10:19, “nihil vos nocebit.” Act_19:26, “non solnm Eplhesi sed pmane totius Awe.” Rom_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
Of these variations, those in Luk_6:17; Luk_6:44 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
39 haec est enim.
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 (Mat_6:11, supersubstantials for ἐðéïý óéïò ). 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: Mat_3:3; Mat_3:15 (5:12); (9:21); 20:28; (24:36).; Mar_1:3; Mar_1:7-8; Mar_4:19; Mar_16:4; Luke (Luk_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 (Rom_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. —
Act_1:4-25
OLD LATIN
16 circa simulacrum.
13 Non autem arbitror.
4 sequenti se (sequenti, q) (Cod. Aur. f ).
14 dum (quod g corr.) non revelatur (g corr.).
14 benedictionem (g).
2 unum (g).
1 Humanus (g corr.).
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:
Psa_8:4-6
OLD LATIN
(Domino.)
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.
Psa_33:12-16 (1Pe_3:10-12)
OLD LATIN
Sacrificium et oblationem noluisti: aures autem perfecisti mihi.
Psa_18:5 (Rom_10:18)
In omnem terram exiit sonus eorum: et in finibus orbis terrae verba eorum.
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 ῾Åîáðëïῖò 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. Ecclesiastes 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, Sirach , 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 (Gen_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: Deuteronomy 1, 9, add. solitudilem; venissemus, for etis; Deuteronomy 1, 9:4, 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 Mar_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 ex