iii, IT, in opera tno. "jlinya for "^"liar'n.
iv, 16, om. Nod, which is specially noticed in Jerome's Qumst. Hebr.
vi, 6, add. et prsecavens in futiirnm. The words are a gloss, and not a piirt of the Vulgate text.
viii, 4, vicesimo se|)limo/or septitno deciyno. So Sept.
viii, 7, egiediebatur et non levertehatnr. The non is wanting in the best manuscripts of the Vulgate, and has been introduced from the Sept.
xi, 13, treccntis tribus for qnadrlngentis tribus. So Sept.
ix, 1, fiiudetnr sanguis illins. Om. " by man."
xxxvii, 2, sedecim fur septemdecim. Probably a trau- scriptural error.
xxxix, 6, om. " Wherefore he left — Joseph."
xl,5, om. "the butler — prison."
xlix, 10. Comp. Vercelloue, ad loc.
xlix, 33, om.
In sxiv, 6 ; xxvii, 5 ; xxxiv. 29, the variation is proba- bly in the rendering only. The remaining passaijes, ii, 8; iii, 6: iv, 6, 13, 26; vi, 3 : xiv, 3; xvii, 16: xix, IS; xxi, '.); xxiv, 2i ; XXV, 34: xxvii, 33; xxxi, 32; xxxviii, 5, 23; xlix, 22, contain dift'evences of interpretation; and in xxxvi, 24, xli, 45, the Vuljrate appears to have preserved important traditional renderings.
2. In the Neio Test. — The examples which have been given show the comparatively narrow limits within which the Vulgate can be use(l for the criticism of the Hebrew text. The version was made at a time when the present revision was already established; and the freedom which Jerome allowed himself in rendering the sense of the original often leaves it doubtful wheth- er in reality a various reading is represented by the pe- culiar form which he gives to a particular passage. In the New Test, the case is far different. In this the crit- ical evidence of the Latin is separable into two distinct elements, the evidence of the Old Latin and that of the Hieronymian revision. The latter, where it differs from the former, represents the received Greek text of the 41 h century, and so far claims a respect (speaking rough- ly) equal to that due to a first-class Greek MS.; and it may be fairlj' concluded that any reading opposed to the combined testimony of the oldest Greek MSS. and the true Vulgate text either arose later than the 4th
century, or was previously confined within a very nar- row range. The corrections of Jerome do not carry us back beyond the age of existing Greek MSS., but, at the same time, they supplement the original testimony of JISS. by an independent witness. The substance of the Vidgate, and the copies of the Old Latin, have a more venerable authority. The origin of the Latin version dates, as lias been seen, frotii the earliest age of the Christian Church. The translation, as a whole, was practically fixed and current more than a centurv before the transcription of the oldest Greek MS. Thus it is a witness to a text more ancient, and, therefore, cieteris paribus, more valuable, than is represented by any other authority, unless the Peshito in its present form be excepted. This primitive text was not, as far as can be ascertained, free from serious corruptions (at least in the synoptic gospels) from the first, and was variously corrupted afterwards. But the .corruptions proceeded in a (liffereiit direction and by a different law from those of (;reek MSS., and, consequently, the two authorities mutually correct each other. What is the nature of these corruptions, and what the character and value of Jerome's revision and of the Old Latin, will be seen from some examples to be given in detail.
Before giving these, however, one preliminary re- mark must be made. In estimating the critical value of Jerome's labors, it is necessary to draw a distinction between his different works. His mode of proceeding was by no means uniform; and the importance of his judginent varies with the object at which he aimeil. The three versions of the Psalter represent completely the three different methods which he followed. At first he was contented with a popular revision of the current text (the Raman Psalter) ; then he instituted an accu- rate comparison between the current text and the orig- inal (the Gallican Psalter); and in the next place he translated independently, giving a direct version of the original (the Hebrew Psalter). These three methods follow one another in chronological order, and answer to the wider views which Jerome gradually gained of the functions of a Biblical scholar. The revision of the New Test, belongs, unfortunately, to the first period. When it was made, Jerome w-as as yet unused to the task, and he was anxious not to arouse popular preju- dice. His aim was little more than to remove obvious interpolations and blmiders; and in doing this he like- wise introduced some changes of expression which soft- ened the roughness of the old version, and some which seemed to be required for the true expression of the sense (e. g. Matt, vi, II, supersubstantialem for quotidia- num). But while he accomplished much, he failed to carry out even this limited purpose with thorough com- pleteness. A rendering which he commonly altered was still sufi'ered to remain in some places without any obvious reason (e. g. pvcrrrjptov, Oo^(j^(u, dipaviZ(^) ; and the textual emendations which he introduced (apart from the removal of glosses) seem to have been made after only a partial examination of Greek copies, and those probably few in number. The result was such as might have been expected. The greater corruptions of the Old Latin, whether by addition or omission, are generally corrected in the Vulgate. Sometimes, also, Jerome gives the true reading in details which had been lost in the Old Latin: Matt, i, 2r>, cor/noscebat ; ii, 23, p?-ophetas; v, 22, oin. flicij; ix, 15, liiyere ; John iii, 8 ; Luke ii, 33, 6 wariip ; iv, 12. But not rarely he leaves a false reading uncorrected (Matt, ix, 28, vobis ; x, 42), or adopts a false reading where the true one was also current: xvi,6; xviii,29; xix, 4; John i,3, 16; vi, 64. Even in graver variations he is not exempt from error. The famous pericope, John vii, 53 ; viii, 11, which had gained only a partial entrance into the Old Latin, is cer- tainly established in the Vulgate. The additions in Matt, xxvii, 35; Luke iv, 19; John v, 4; 1 Pet. iii, 22, were already generally or widely received in the Latin copies, and Jerome left them undisturbed. The same may be said of Mark xvi, 9-20 ; but the " heavenly tes-