VULGATE
825
VULGATE
Test, without regard to its derivation from the Sept., or to that of the New Test.
2. Yet more: as tlie phrase Koirn) tKdoaig came to signify an uncorrected (and so corrupt) text, the same secondary meaning was attached to vulguta editio. Thus in some places the vulgata editio stands in con- trast with the true Hexaplaric text of the Sept, One passage will place this in the clearest light : " Brev- iter admoneo aliam esse editioneni quara Origenes et Ciesariensis Kusehius, oranesipie Gneciai translatores izoivi]v, id est, coinimme.m appellant, atque vitlf/atam, et a plerisque nunc AovKiai'6(^ dicitur; aliam LXX inter- pretum qnte in jgaTrXoTf codicibus reperitur, et a nobis in Latinum sermonem tideliter versa est . . . Koir// au- tem ista, hoc est. Communis editio, ipsa est qute et LXX, sed hoc interest inter utramque, quod Koivi) pro locis et temporibus et pro voluntate scriptorum vetus corrupta editio est; ea autem (\\xx habetur in t^oTrXoif et quam nos vertimus, ipsa est qu;e in eruditorum libris incor- rupta et immaculata LXX interpretura translatio re- servatur" (Ap. cvi, ad Sun. et Fret. § 2).
3. This use of the phrase Vulgata editio to describe the Sept. (and the Latin version of the latter) was con- tinued to later times. It is supported by the authority of Augustine, Ado of Vienne (A.D. 800), K. Bacon, etc.; and Bellarmiiie distinctly recognises the 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 vnlgata editio, quae longo tot siBCulorum usu in ipsa ecclesia probata est" (Gesch. p. 34). As a general rule, the Latin fathers speak of Jerome's version as " our" version {iiostru edi- tio. 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 Koman Cliiirch has once been apprehen<led, no further difficulty need arise froin the identity of name (corap. Augustine, ed. Benedict. [Paris, 1836], V, 33 ; Sabatier, i, 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.).
IL The Old Latin Versions. — 1. Ori(/in. — The history of the earliest Latin version of the Bible is lost in com- plete obscurity. All that can be afiirmeil with certain- ty is that it was made in Al'rica. During the first two centuries the Church of Home, 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 Gaid (comp. Westcott, Hist, of Canon o/N. T. p. 2G9, 270, and reff.) ; 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. xxxvii) seems to imijly that Africa was converted late; but if so, the Gospel spread there with remarkable rapidity. At the end of the 2d cen- tur}'. 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 recognises the general curren- cy of a Latin version of the New Test., though not nec- essarily of every book at present included in the canon, which even in his time bad been able to mould the pop- ular language (.1 dr. Prax. v : " In usu est nostrorum per simplicitatem interpretationis." De Monor/, xi : " Sci- amus plane non sic esse in Grajco 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, ii. IG [11]), "any one in the first ages of Christianity who gained possession of a Greek MS., and fancied tliat lie had a fair knowledge of Greek and Lat- in, ventured to translate it" ("Qui scripturas ex He- braia lingua in (inecam verterunt numerari possunt; Latini autem interpretes nullo modo. Ut eniin cuivis primis fidei temporibus in manus venit c(Klex (irtecus, et ali(iuantuliuT) facidtatis sil)i utriusijue lingua; habere videbatur, aiisus est interprelari"). Thus the version of the New Test, appears to liave arisen from individual and successive efforts ; but it does nol follow, by any means, that numerous versions were simultaneously cir- culated, or that the several parts of the version were made independently. Even if it had been so, the exi- gencies of the public service must soon have given def- initeness and substantial unity to the fragmentary la- bors of individuals. Tlie work of private hands would necessarily be subject to revision for ecclesiastical use. The separate books would Ije united in a volume, and thus a stantlard text of the whole collection woidd be established. With regard to the (^lil Test., the case is less clear. It is probable that the Jews who were set- tled in North Africa were confined to the (ireek 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 (ireek) 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 Tests, establishes a real con- nection 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 2d century. Many words which are either Greek (machsera, sophia, peri- zoma, poderis, agonizo, etc.) or literal translations of Greek forms (vivifico, justitico, etc.) abound in both, and explain what Tertullian meant when he spoke of the "simplicity" of the translation.