t The Clarendon Press announces Novum Testamentum S. Trenwi, containing a full collation of its readings with those of OL authorities, edited by Prof. Sanday. Will published as one of OL Bibl. Texts series.
LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD
Priscillian.—Bp. of Avila in Spain, fl. end of 4th cent. See Schepss, CSEL, vol. xviii. Introduction, and in Archiv, ili. 3 u. 4, p. 307 fh
Salvian.—Of Marseilles, fl. 450. See J. B. Ullrich, De Salviani scripture sacr. versionibus, Neustadt a. Haardt, 1893.
Tertullian. —Of Carthage, ec. 150-c. 240. See Ronsch, Das Neue Testament Tertullians, Leipz. 1871. See also import. criticism of Rénsch by J. N. Ott, Fleckeisen’s Jahrbiicher, 1874, Ρ. 856 ff.
Tyconius.—A frican, fl. c. 390. See F. C. Burkitt, Rules of Tyconius, Camb. 1894; Haussleiter, Der Urspr. des Donatismus, Th. Lit. Bl. 1884, 13.
Victor.—Bp. of Tunis. Middle of 6th cent.
Victorinus.—Bp. of Pettau in Pannonia, fl. c. 300. See Haussleiter, Luthardt’s Zeitsch. f. kirchl. Wissenschaft, vii. pp. 239-257.
Vigilius.—Bp. ot Thapsus (Africa), fl. c. 484.
We may add here Ἐπ Liber Judicum, Toric 1867 (containing quotations in Fathers from
g).
The above lists of MSS are believed to be fairly complete. For further particulars regarding NT MSS, see H. J. White in Scrivener’s Introduction‘, ἣν 45 ff.; C. R. Gregory, Prolegg. to Tischdf.’s
T®, vol. iii. pars ult. p. 953 ff. Numerous details of importance are to be found in S. Berger’s Hist. de la Vulg., Paris, 1893. We have attempted to make the OT list as full as possible, since hitherto there has been no convenient survey of the materials in hand.*
The earliest attempt to collect the fragments of the OL version was made by Flaminius Nobilius (assisted by others), Vetus Test. see. LXX latine redditum, Rome, 1588. This consisted of quota- tions from the Fathers, with the gaps filled up by the editors. It was entirely superseded by the great work of the Benedictine, P. Sabatier, whose Bibliorum sacrorum latine versiones antique seu uetus Italica appeared at Reims 1739-1749.7 It is made up, partly of extracts from the Fathers, and partly (to a less extent) of fragments of MSS, chiefly at Paris. It is a monument of painstaking, self-denying work. But it requires to be used with caution, as the critical ideal of that time was necessarily somewhat crude.+
Strangely enongh, it remains the only full col- lection of quotations from and fragments of the OL version of OT and NT, although a rich abundance of material has come to light since Sabatier’s day.
A new work, however, on the lines of Sabatier, is being prepared under the auspices of the Munich Academy. It is to deal with OT.$
We must return to the problem already stated. Can we trace the history of the Latin Bible? It is needful to deal very cautiously with our small group of data, lest our conclusions should go beyond the facts. Much of the discussion has centred round the origin of the Latin Version. Was the Bible first trd. into Latin at Rome or in N. Africa, for these were the two great centres of Western Christianity? Or is there any other alternative? Various hypotheses have been put forward with confidence. Some scholars, such as Kaulen,|| Reinkens,{/ and Gams,** decide for Rome on the supposition that the lower stratum of members in the Christian Church of the Metropolis
* This was written before the appearance of Nestle’s art. in Herzog’, iii. 24 ff. ἡ Reprint at Paris, 1757.
$ See E. Ranke, Frag. Vers. ... Antehieron, 1868, pp. 7-14. § See Linke, ‘ Ueber den Plan einer neuen Ausgabe der Itala, Archiv, viii. 2, pp. 311-312. For the various collections of
material in addition to Sabatier, see the lists of MSS above, where the works which contain the several fragments oe«« enumerated.
I Geach. der Vulg. p. 109 ff.
{| Hilarius von Poitiers, p. 336s.
** Kirchengesch. Spaniena, i. p. 86 8q.
δ4 LATIN VERSIONS, THE OLD
would, from the earliest times, require a Lat. tr. of the Scriptures. And yet we know that Greek was the language of the Roman Liturgy, even within the 3rd cent.* Since the appearance of Wiseman’s Two Letters on some parts of the con- troversy concerning 1 Johny. 7 (reprinted in Essays on Various Subjects, i. pp. 5-70), perhaps the majority of critics have accepted Africa as the birthplace of the Lat. Version. As we shall find, there are several important facts in the history of the OL which give countenance to this hypothesis. Che earliest form of the version to which we can assign a definite date, namely, that used by Cyprian, ppisialy cireulated in Africa. The lan- “uage and style of the trn., taken generally, find their closest parallels in African writers. Indeed it is this latter point which has, in the minds of many, led to a definite decision in favour of Africa. But there are certain cautions which deserve attention. To begin with, k, the oldest MS authority for the specially ‘ African’ type of text, is considered by οἷς best paleographers to have been written outside the bounds of Africa,t and the same is true of 4, another leading witness.
But, further, too much stress must not be laid on the ‘Africanism’ of OL Bible. It must be borne in mind that the Lat. literature of the 2nd and 3rd centuries which we possess is almost exclusively African. And so we are in danger of labelling with that name a type of diction which may well have prevailed throughout the Latin- speaking provinces of the Rom. Empire. A definite foundation is given to this last hypothesis by the fact that there are numerous points of contact between the OL Bible, the Campanian Petronius, the Church Fathers (chiefly African), the Jurists, Papinian, Ulpian, and Paulus, and the Lat. Inscriptions of Africa.t And the dialect of the Spanish and Gallican Lat. writers, so far as we possess it, cannot be separated by any well- marked boundaries from that of Africa.§ In short, the current investigation of Late-Latin is more and more tending to reduce the so-called ‘ Africanisms,’ and to establish a wider basis for their occurrence. ||