Respecting the influence of Latin upon the later Greek, see LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
J. H. THAYER.
LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD.*—Among those
* Abbreviations used in this article :— OL=Old Latin Version (or Versions). Ed Τῶν lateinische Lexikographie, ed. by E. WOlfflin. CSEL=Corpus Scriptorum Ecelesiasticorum Latinorum, Bub. under a of Vienna Academy. GGA =Gottingische Gelehrte Anzeigen.
LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD 47
witnesses which are of primary importance for determining the text of NT, and, in a modified sense, that of OT also, the early Lat. VSS oceupy a foremost place. Hitherto, perhaps, their im portance has not been ἘΠ ΜΙΝ recognized. But the rapid developments in the science of textual criticism which this century has seen are bringing more clearly into view their unique value. This consists mainly in their high antiquity, on the one hand, and their extraordinary faithfuiness to the text which they tr., on the other. The last-named, characteristic has never been disputed. As to the other, there is, at least, a acaal agreement that, at the latest, a Lat. tr. of the Bible already existed in the middle of the 3rd cent. A.p. But this means much. The oldest Greek MSS which have, as yet, come down to us, cannot be dated further back than the 4th cent. The great majority of them must be placed at a much later date. The early Lat. VSS, therefore, as extant in MSS or biblical quotations in the Fathers, supply us with evidence prior to any contained in Gr. MSS. But this comparison must be made with caution. Other- wise it would only mislead. Our extant Gr. MSS, of course, witness to a text far earlier than the date of their own origin. ‘The evidence of a version is only second-hand. And, besides, it is always more or less local, presenting us with im- portant data for determining one particular type of text, but restricted as to the value of its general bearing. From another point of view, however, this limitation has advantages. The history and character of the version must, of necessity, shed light upon the history of the Church in the definite area over which its influence has spread. And this is pre-eminently true of the Lat. VSS. They are closely bound up with the origin and diffusion of Western Christianity. Through the influence of the Lat. Fathers they have, to a great extent, moulded its theological conceptions and its current theological terms. Finally, to the history of the Lat. language their contributions are invaluable ; for they preserve the late Lat. renderings of an extant Gr. original, using many varieties of synonyms, many abnormal constructions, and many strange formations, all of which reveal the tendencies of the later language, and fir with more or less certainty particular dialectica: variations.
1, Name.—The name Old Latin is used here to denote the Lat. VS or VSS which existed previous to, or independent of, the great revision made by Jerome at the close of the 4th cent.* The desig- nation is derived from the Lat. Fathers themselves, who speak of ‘uetus editio,’ ‘antiqua interpre- tatio,’ ‘uetus translatio,’ and the like. It seems time now to abandon the misleading term ‘Itala,’ or even ‘uetus Itala,’ to denote the pre-Hierony- mian type of text. For, as we shall see later, the name ‘Itala’ is most ambiguous, and forms the central point of one of the keenest controversies which has ever arisen on this complicated subject. The expression ‘Old Latin’ makes no assumption, but simply states an admitted fact. Under this heading there might fall ‘mixed’ Lat. texts, in which OL and Vulg. readings are found side by side. Asa rule, however, such texts have a Vulg.
Stud. Bibl. =Studia Biblica, by Members of Univ. of Oxforé
SK vMieologische Studien und Kritiken.
T. αι. U.=Texte und Untersuchungen (Gebhardt and Har
Zurn Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche Theologie.
*See Wordsworth, OL Biblical Texts, i. Ὁ. xxx: * Old-Latin texts . . . mean all early Latin versions of the Bible which are not Hieronymian, of whatever date the MSS may be which contain them, or in whatever country they were current.’ It is surely refining too minutely when Sittl (Bursian-Muller’s Jahresbericht, vol. xviii. p. 249) asserts that Vie term * pre Hicronymian’ ought to be applied only to the biblical quate tons of the older Fathers.
t8
base, and it is only when the OL element in them is of marked importance that they will be noticed below (see VULGATE).
2. We have spoken above of the OL ‘ Version or
LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD
Versions.’ ‘This brings before us a much-debated question. Was there originally only a single tr.
of the Scriptures into Lat., or were there several or many distinct versions? Before discussing the voint, let us guard against certain misconceptions. No one has ever argued that one type of OL text, whether of OT or NT, presents itaelf in the Lat. MSS or Fathers from the time of Tertullian on- wards. The most casual comparison of our exist- ing authorities disproves this at once. For while, as we shall find, both MSS and Fathers may be, with caution, classified by groups, even within those provisionally separate classes, a considerable amount of variation appears. Still greater and more distinct are the differences which seem to justify us in shading off those groups from one another.* That is to say, even those who main- tain that one original VS lies at the basis of all subsequent OL texts, are quite willing to admit the existence of various recensions of that version, made at different times and in different countries. In addition to this, it would be admitted on all sides that this assumed original tr. was by no means the work of one hand : that separate books were done into Lat. by separate translators, both in OT and in NT, and that some, in all probability, were tr? at a later date than others. But those scholars who adhere to the hypothesis of a single original version hold that, admitting many minor differences both in readings and renderings, there appears, through the complexity of variations, one funda- mental groundwork. While the various authorities seem to move on different lines through several verses, they return to an agreement sufficiently striking to demand the assumption of a common source.t Equally important names can be adduced in support of the opinion that there were, at least, several distinet OL versions.¢ And certainly, at first sight, there seems much to justify the hypo- thesis. The same passage often appears in very different forms in the various MSS and Fathers. To gain some impression of these variations, we have only to turn to the formidable array of parallels from MSS and Fathers given in such works as H. Linke’s Studien zur Itala,§ or Ziegler’s Die lat. Bibeliibersetzungen vor Hieronymus. How is the question to bedecided? Quite naturally, an puree has been made to the expressed opinions of the Lat. Fathers themselves, more especially Augustine and Jerome. And some passages in their writings seem to have a real connexion with the problem. Thus Aug. de Doctr. Christ. ii. 11: *Qui scripturas ex Hebriea lingua in Grecam uerterunt numerari possunt, Latini autem inter- pretes nullo modo: ut enim cuique primis fidei temporibus in manus uenit codex Greeeus et ali- quantulum facultatis sibi utriusque lingue habere uidebatur, ausus est interpretari.’ Two chapters further on, in the same treatise, he says: ‘quoniam ct que sit ipsa sententia quam plures interpretes pro sua quisque facultate atque iudicio conantur eloqui, non apparet, nisi in ea lingua inspiciatur, quam interpretantur.’ || He also speaks of an ‘in- finita uarietas Latinorum interpretum,’ Ἵ and uses