VULGATE
S3G
VULGATE
timonv" (1 -I^l"! v, 7), which is found hi the editions of the Vulgate, is, beyond all doubt, a later interpola- tion, duo to an African gloss; and there is reason to be- lieve that the interpolations in Acts viii, 37; ix, 5, were reallv erased by Jerome, though they maintained their place in the mass of Latin copies.
Jerome's revision of the gosjiels was far more com- plete than that of the remaining parts of the New Test. It is, indeed, impossible, except in the gospels, to de- termine any substantial dilVercncc in the Greek texts w hich are represiMited by the Old and Ilieronymian ver- sions. Elsewhere the differences, as far as they can be satisfactorily established, are differences of ex|)ression, and not of text; and there is no sufficient reason to be- lieve that the readings which exist in the best Vulgate MSS,. when they are at variance with other Latin au- thorities, rest ujion the deliberate judgment of Jerome. On the contran,', his commentaries show that he used copies differing widely from the recension which passes under his name, and even expressly condemned as faulty in text or rendering many passages which are undoubt- edly part of the Vulgate, 'i'hfis in his commentary on the Galatians he condemns the additions, iii, 1, reritali lion nbedire ; v, 21, homicidia ; and the translations, i, 16, non acquievi cariii et sanf/uini (for non contuli cum came et sanguine) ; v, 9, modicum fermentum totam massam corriimpit (for modicum fermentum totam conspersionem J'ermentaf) ; v, 11, evacuatum est (for cessavit) ; vi, 3, seipsum (seipse) seducit (for mentem suam decipit). In tlie text of the epistle which he gives there are up- wards of fifty readings that differ from the best Vulgate text, of which about ten are improvements (iv, 21 ; v, 13, 23; vi, 13, 15, 1(5, etc.), as many more inferior read- ings (iv, 17, 26, 30, etc.), and the remainder differences of expression : malo for nequam, recto pede incedunt for recte ambulant, rursum for iteruin. The same differ- ences are found in his commentaries on the other epis- tles : ad Ephes. i, 6 ; iii, 14 ; iv, U) ; v, 22, 31 ; ad Tit. iii, 15. From this it will be evident that the Vulgate text of the Ac;s and the epistles does not represent the critical opinion of Jerome, even in the restricted sense in which this is true of the text of the gospels. But still there are some readings which may with probability be re- ferred to his revision : Acts xiii, 18, mores eorum susti- nuit for nutriit (iiluit) cos; Kora. xii, 11, Domino for tempori; Eph. iv, 19, iUiiminabit te Christus for con- tiiif/es Christum; (jal. ii, 5, neque ad horam cessinius for (id horam cessimus ; 1 Tim. v, 19, add. nisi sub duobus aiit tribus testibus.
3. The Vetus Latina. — The chief corruptions of the Old Latin consist in the introduction of glosses. These, like the corresponding additions in the Codex Bezce (Dj), are sometimes indications of the venerable antiquity of the source from which it was derived, and seem to carry us back to the time when the evangelic tradition had not yet been wholly superseded i)v the written gospels. Such are the interpolations at Matt, iii, 15; xx, 28; Luke iii, 22 (comp. also i, 46; xii, 38); l)ut more fre- ipientlv they arc derived from parallel passages, either by direct transference of the words of another evange- list or by the reproduction of the substance of them. These iiiterijolations are frequent in the synoptic gos- pels: Matt, iii, 3; Mark xvi, 4; Luke i, 29; vi, 10; ix, 43. 50, 54; xi, 2; and occur also in John vi, 56, etc. IJut in John the Old Latin more commonly errs b}' de- tect than by excess. Thus it omits clauses certainly or probably genuine: iii. 31; iv, 9; v,36; vi, 23; viii, 58, etc. Sometimes, again, the renderings of the Greek text are free: Luke i, 29; ii, 15; vi, 21.- Such varia- tions, however, are rarely likely to mislead. Otherwise the 01<1 Latin text of the gospels is of the highest value. There are cases where some Latin MSS. combine with one or two other of the most ancient witnesses to sup- port a reading which has been obliterated in the mass of authorities: Luke vi, 1; Mark v, 3; xvi, 9 sq. ; and not unfrequently it preserves the true text which is lost in the Vulgate: Luke xiii, 19; xiv, 5; xv, 28.
But the places where the Old Latin and the Vulgate have separately preserved the true reading are rare, when compared with those in which they combine with other ancient witnesses against the great mass of authorities. Everj' chapter of the gospels will furnish instances of this agreement, which is often the more striking because it exists only in the original text of the Vulgate, wldle tlie later copies have been corrupted in the same way as the later (ireek MSS.: iSIark ii, 16; iii, 25 ('?); viii, 13, etc.; Rom. vi, 8; xvi, 24, etc. In the first few chapters of Matthew, the following may be noticed: i, 18 (bis); ii.l8; iii,10; v, 4, 5, 11, 30, 44." 47; vi, 5, 13; vii, 10, 14, 29; viii, 32 (x, 8), etc. It is use- less to multiply examples which occur equally in every |)art of the New Test. ; Luke ii. 14,40; iv, 2, etc.; John i, 52; iv, 42, 51; v, 16; viii, 59; xiv, 17, etc.; Acts ii, 30, 31, 37, etc. ; 1 Cor. i, 1,15, 22, 27, etc. On the oth- er hand, there are passages in which the Latin au- thorities combine in giving a false reading: Matt, vi, 15; vii, 10; viii, 28 (?), etc; Luke iv, 17; xiii, 23, 27, 31, etc.; Acts ii, 20, etc.; 1 Tim. iii, 16, etc. But these are comparatively few, and commonly marked by the absence of all Eastern corroborative evidence. It may be impossible to lay down definite laws for the separation of readings which are due to free rendering, or carelessness, or glosses; but in practice there is little difficidty in distinguishing the variations which are due to the idiosyncrasy (so to speak) of the version from those which contain real traces of the original text. When every allowance has been made for the rudeness of the original Latin and the haste of Jerome's revision, it can scarcely be denied that the Vulgate is not only the most venerable, but also the most precious, monu- ment of Latin Christianity. For ten centuries it pre- served in Western Europe a text of Holy Scripture far purer than that which was current in the Byzantine Church, and at the revival of Greek learning guided the way towards a revision of the late (ireek text, in which the best Biblical critics have followed the steps of Bent- ley, with ever-deepening conviction of the supreme im- portance of the coincidence of the earliest Greek and Latin authorities.