ing. Jerome frequently uses the expression communis or vulf/ata edi/io, but by this he intends the Sept., or the old Latin translation of the Sept. In reference to the Latin N. T. he uses the expressions Lutinus interpres, Latiid codices, or simply in Latino.
The statement of Augustine, that of these interpreta- tions the Itala was preferred, has been supposed to indi- cate decidedly the existence of several national Latin versions known to him. For this title can only indicate a translation prepared in Italy, or used by the Italian churches, and presupposes the existence of other ver- sions, which might be known as the Africana, the His- 2Kinica, etc. On the other hand, however, Lf there was a version known by this name, it seems strange that it should never be mentioned again by Augustine or by any one else ; and further, it is remarkable, that to des- ignate an Italian version he should use the word ^'■Jtala" and not " Jtcdica." This has led to the suspicion that this word is an error, and different conjectural emenda- tions have been proposed. Bentley suggested that for itala .... nam there should be read ilia .... qua, a singularly infelicitous emendation, as Hug has shown (Inti-od. E. T. p. 2G7). As Augustine elsewhere speaks of "codicibus ecclesiasticis inteqiretationis usitatte" {De consensu Evanej. ii, G6), it has been suggested by Potter that for Itala should be read usitata, the received read- ing having probably arisen from the omission, in the first instance, of the recurrent syllable us between inter- pretationibus and usitata (thus IxxEiiPKEXATiosiBUSi- tata), and then the change of the unmeaning itata into itala. Of this emendation many have approved, and if it be adopted, the testimony of Augustine in this pas- sage, as for a plurality of Latin versions, will be greatly enfeebled, for by the versio usitata he would doubtless intend the version in common use as opposed to the un- authorized interpretation of private individuals. As tending to confirm this view of his meaning, it has been observed that it is extremely improbable that if there was an acknowledged rersio Africana, the Christians in Africa would be found preferring to that a version made for the use of the Italians. A new suggestion re- lating to this passage has been offered by Keuss {Gescli. d. Schr. d. N. 7". p. 436), "Is it not possible," he asks, " that Augustine may refer, in this passage (written about the year 397), to a work of Jerome, viz., his ver- sion of Origen's Hexapla, which Augustine, in one of his letters {Ep. xxviii, torn, ii, p. Gl) to Jerome prefers to his making a new translation from the original? At any rate," he adds, "it is remarkable that Isidore of Spain {Etymol. vi, 5) characterizes the translation of Jerome (the last) as verborum teneiciorem et perspicuitate senten- tia clariorem. May one venture to suggest that he has taken this phrase from Augustine, regarding him as using it of Jerome." To this, however, it may be re- plied, that whilst it is not improbable that Isidore took the passage from Augustine, he may have done so with- out regarding Augustine's words as referring to any work of Jerome. That they do so refer seems to us very improbable.
An effort has been made to obtain a decision for this question from a collation of the extant remains of the ancient Latin texts, but without success. Eichhom {Einleit. ins. N. T. iv, 387 sq.) has compared several pas- sages found in the writings of the early Latin fathers with certain extant codices of the early Latin text, and, from the resemblance which these bear to each other, he argues that they have all been taken from one com- mon translation. In this conclusion many scholars have concurred both before and since the time of Eichhorn ( Wetstein, Ilody, Semler, Lachmann, Tregclles, Tischen- d(irf ), but others have, on the other side, pointed to se- rious differences of rendering, which, in their jiulgment, indicate the existence of distinct translations (JMichaelis, Hug, De Wctte, Bleek, etc.).
As the evidence stands, it seems impossible cither to hold to the existence of only one accredited Latin ver- sion before the time of Jerome, the corruption of which,
LATIN VERSIONS
2G5
LATIN VERSIONS
from various causes, is sufficient to account for all the discrepancies to be found in the extant remains, or to maintain with certainty that there were several inde- pendent versions, the work of persons in different parts of the Latin Church. There is, however, a third sup- position which may be advanced : There may at an early period, and probably in Africa, have been made a translation of the Bible from the Greek into Latin, and this may have formed the groundwork of other transla- tions, intended to be amended versions of the original. In this case a certain fundamental similarity viould mark all these translations along with consiilerable va- riety ; but this variety would be traceable, not to unde- signed corruption, but to purposed attempts, more or less skilfully directed, to produce a more adequate ver- sion. This supposition meets all the facts of the case, and so far has high probability in its lavor. I'roceed- ing upon it, we may fiu'ther suppose that these different revised or amended translations might have their origin in different parts of the western world ; and in this case the meaning of Augustine's statement in the passage (J\inf. Fausfum, ii, 2) where he speaks of "codices ali- arum regionum" becomes manifest. In this case, also, if the reading Jtula be retained (anil most critics incline to retain it) in the famous passage above cited, it will indicate the revision prepared in Italy and used bj' the Italian churches, of which it is natural to suppose that it Avould be both more exact and more polished than the others, and with which Augustine would become fa- miliar during his residence in Rome and Milan, See Italic Version.