Sixtine. Clementine.
]\Iatt. i, 23, vocabitiu- (pp. 11.). vocabuut.
ii, 5, Juda (gilt. luin. etc.). Jiidse.
13, surge, accipe (?). surye et aocipe.
iii, 2, appropinquabit (iv, appropiiiquavit.
17), (MSS. Gallic. i)p.
11.).
3, de quo dictum est (tol. qui dictus est.
it.). 10, arboris (Tert.). arborum.
iv, 6, ut . . . tolhuit (it.). er, . . . tollent.
V, Jesus ruisum. JeMis: Rursum.
15, GaliljeiB (it. am. etc.). Galil.-ea. 1(1, anil)nlabat (?). sedebat.
V, 11, vobis homilies (gat. vobis. mm. etc.^. 30, nbscinde (?). abscide.
•10, in judicio (it.). jndicio.
vi, 7, eth. faciniu (it.). ethnici.
30, enim (it.). nntem.
vii, 1, et non judicabiniini, ut nou jiidicemini. uolite coiidemuMie et non condemnabi- iniiii (?).
4, sine, fralei- (it. PI). II.). sine. 23, ameomnes (ii.pp. II.). a me. 2.5, supra (pp. 11. tol. etc.). super.
20, scribas (it.). i^^cfibse eorum.
viii, 0, alio (it. .-im. etc.). nlii.
12, nl)i dtp. 11.). ibi.
IS, jussit discii)nloB (it.). jussit.
X.— G G G
Matt, viii, 20, caput snum (it. tol.). ca))ut.
2S, venisset Jesus (it.). venisset.
32, inagno inipetu (it.). inipotu.
33, hiec omnia (?). omnia.
34, rogabant euni ut Je- rogabant ut.
f^US (?).
Eph. i, 1.5, ill Christo J. (pp. 11. in Domino J. Bodl.).
21, domiuatloiiem (?). et dominationem. ii, 1, vos convivilicavii, (pp. vos.
11.).
11, vo.s eratis (pp. 11. Bodl. vos.
etc.).
— , dicebamini (pp. II. >. diciiiiiiii.
12, qui (pp. 11. Bodl. etc.). qiiod.
22, Sjiiriui Saucto (pp. 11. Spiritu.
.Sang. etc.).
iii, S, milii enim (pp. II.). mihi.
10, virtutem (it.). viitute.
— , in inteiioie homine iu iuteriorem homi- (pp. II. Bddl.). iieni.
iv, 22, depDuite (it.). de|)Oiicre.
30, iu die (pp. 11. Bodl. in diem, etc.).
V, 26, mnudanseani (pp. 11.). miindans.
27, in gloriosam (?). glorinsam.
vi, 15, iiii)r8e|)aratioiieiii(it.). in pra'paratione.
20, iu catena ista (it. ?). in cateua ita.
3. Late?- Editions. — While the Clementine edition was still recent, some thoughts seem to have been en- tertained of revising it. Lucas Brugensis made impor- tant collections for this purpose; but the practical ditii- culties were found to be too great, and the study of va- rious readings was reserved for scholars (Bellarmin. ad Liicam Brug. 1606). In the next generation use and controversy gave a sanctity to the authorized text. Many, especially in Spain, pronounced it to have a value superior to the originals, and to be inspired in every detail (comp. Van Ess. Gesch. p. 401, 402 ; Hody, III, ii. 15) ; but it is useless to dwell on the history of such ex- travagancies, from which the Jesuits, at least, following their great champion Bellarmine, wisely kept aloof. It was a more serious matter that the universal acceptance of the papal text checked the critical study of the mate- rials on which it was professedly based. At length, however, in 1706, Martianay published a new, and, iu the main, better, text, chietiy from original MS.S., in his edition of Jerome. Vallarsi added fresh collations in his revised issue of Martianay's work ; but in both cases the collations are imperfect, and it is impossible to de- termine with accuracy on what MS. authority the text which is given depends. Sabatier, though professing only to deal with the Old Latin, published important materials for the criticism of Jerome's version, and gave at length the readings of Lucas Brugensis (1743). More than a century elapsed before anything more of impor- tance was done for the te.xt of the Latin version of the Old Test., when at length the fortunate discovery of the original revision of the Sixtine correctors again directed the attention of Roman scholars to their authorized text. The first-fruits of their labors are given in the volume of Vercellone, already often quoted, which has thrown more light upon the liistory and criticism of the Vulg. than any previous work. There are some defects in the arrangement of the materials, and it is unfortu- nate that the editor has not added either the authorize d or corrected text; but still the work is such that every student of the Latin text must be deeply interested in it.
The neglect of the Latin text of the Old Test, is but a con.sequence of the general neglect of the criticism of the Hebrew text. In the New Test, far more has been done for the correction of the Vulg., though even here no critical edition has yet been published. Numerous collations of MSS., more or less perfect, have been made. In this, as in many other points, Bentley pointed out the true path which others have followed. His own collation of Latin MSS. was e.xtensive and important (comp. Ellis, Bentkii Criticn Sacra, .xxxv sq.). (iries- bach added new collations, and arranged those which others had made. Laclimann printed the Latin text in his larger edition, having collated the Codex Fuhleiisix for the purpose. Tischcndorf has labored among Latin
VULGATE
834
VULGATE
MSS., only with less zeal than among Greek. Tregelles has given in his edition of the New Test, the text of Cod. A widtinus from his own collation with the varia- tions of the Clementine edition. Hut in all these cases I he study of the Latin was merely ancillary to that of I lie (ireek text. Probably, fmm tlie great antiquity and i)urity of the Coild. A mi(i/iiiiix and Fidclensis, tiiere is comparatively little scope for criticism in the revision of .leromc's version; but it could not be an mijirotitable work to examine more in detail than has yet been done the several phases through which it has passed, and the causes which led to its gradual corruption.