Chapter III: The Latin Versions (1)

Since the publication of the third edition of this book, exhaustive work on the Old Latin Versions and the Vulgate, commenced before for the University of Oxford, as is well known amongst biblical scholars, by the Right Rev. John Wordsworth, D.D., Bishop of Salisbury, with the assistance of the Rev. H. J. White, has been prosecuted further, resulting in the publication of three volumes of Old Latin Biblical Texts, and of the edition of the Vulgate New Testament as far as the end of St. Luke’s Gospel. It was therefore with the liveliest gratitude that the Editor received from the Bishop, in reply to consultation upon a special point, an offer to superintend the entire revision of this chapter, if Mr. White would give him his important help, notwithstanding other laborious occupations. Mr. White has carried out the work under the Bishop’s direction, rewriting most of the chapter entirely, but incorporating, where possible, Dr. Scrivener’s language.

(1) The Old Latin, previous to Jerome’s Revision.

There are passages in the works of the two great Western Fathers of the fourth century, Jerome [345?-420] and Augustine [354-430], whose obvious and literal meaning might lead us to conclude that there existed in their time _many_ Latin translations, quite independent in their origin, and used almost indifferently by the faithful. When Jerome, in that Preface to the Gospels which he addressed to Pope Damasus (in 384), anticipates but too surely the unpopularity of his revision of them among the people of his own generation, he consoles himself by the reflection that the variations of previous versions prove the unfaithfulness of them all: “verum non esse quod variat etiam maledicorum testimonio comprobatur.” Then follows his celebrated assertion: “Si enim Latinis exemplaribus fides est adhibenda, respondeant quibus: tot enim sunt exemplaria pene quot codices(54).” The testimony of Augustine seems even more explicit, and at first sight conclusive. In his treatise, De Doctrina Christiana (lib. ii. cc. 11-15), when speaking of “Latinorum interpretum infinita varietas,” and “interpretum numerositas,” as not without their benefit to an attentive reader, he uses these strong expressions: “Qui enim Scripturas ex hebraea lingua in Graecam verterunt, numerari possunt, Latini autem interpretes nullo modo. Ut enim cuique primis fidei temporibus in manus venit codex Graecus, et aliquantulum facultatis sibi utriusque linguae habere videbatur, ausus est interpretari” (c. 11); and he soon after specifies a particular version as preferable to the rest: “In ipsis autem interpretationibus Itala(55) ceteris praeferatur. Nam est verborum tenacior cum perspicuitate sententiae” (cc. 14-15).

When, however, the surviving codices of the version or versions previous to Jerome’s revision came to be studied and published by Sabatier(56) and Bianchini(57), it was obvious that though there were many points of difference, there were still traces of a source common to many, if not to all of them; and on a question of this kind, occasional divergency, however extensive, cannot weaken the impression produced by resemblance, if it be too close and constant to be attributable to chance, as we have just seen. The result of a careful and thorough examination and comparison of the existing Old Latin texts, is a conviction that they are all but off-shoots from one, or at most two, parent stocks. Now when, this fact fairly established, we look back at the language employed by Jerome and Augustine, we can easily see that, with some allowance for his habit of rhetorical exaggeration, the former may mean no more by the term “exemplaria” than that the scattered copies of the Latin translation in his own day varied widely from each other; and though the assertions of Augustine are too positive to be thus disposed of, yet he is here speaking, not from his own personal knowledge so much as from vague conjecture; and of what had been done, not in his own time, but “in the first ages of the faith.”

On one point, however, Augustine must be received as a competent and most sufficient witness. We cannot hesitate to believe that one of the several recensions current towards the end of the fourth century was distinguished from the rest by the name of _Itala_(58), and in his judgement deserved praise for its clearness and fidelity. It was long regarded as certain that here we should find the Old Latin version in its purest form, and that in Italy it had been thus used from the very beginning of the Church, “cum Ecclesia Latina sine versione Latina esse non potuerit” (Walton, Proleg. x. 1). Mill indeed reminds us that the early Church at Rome was composed to so great an extent of Jewish and other foreigners, whose vernacular tongue was Greek, that the need of a Latin translation of Scripture would not at first be felt; yet even he would not place its date later than Pius I (142-157), the first Bishop of Rome after Clement who bears a Latin name (Mill, Proleg. § 377). It was not until attention had been specially drawn to the style of the Old Latin version, that scholars began to suggest AFRICA as the place, and the second half of the second century as the time, of its origin. This opinion, which had obtained favour with Eichhorn and some others before him, may be considered as demonstrated by Cardinal Wiseman, in his “Two letters on some parts of the controversy concerning 1 John v. 7(59).” So far as his argument rests on the Greek character of the _Roman_ Church, it may not bring conviction to the reflecting reader. Even though the early Bishops of Rome were of foreign origin, though Clement towards the end of the first, Gaius the presbyter late in the second century, who are proved by their names to be Latins, yet chose to write in Greek; it does not follow that the Church would not contain many humbler members, both Romans and Italians, ignorant of any language except Latin, and for whose instruction a Latin version would be required. On the ground of _internal_ evidence, however, Wiseman made out a case which all who have followed him, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Davidson, Tregelles, accept as irresistible; indeed it is not easy to draw any other conclusion from his elaborate comparison of the words, the phrases, and grammatical constructions of the Latin version of Holy Scripture, with the parallel instances by which they can be illustrated from African writers, and from them only (Essays, vol. i. pp. 46-66)(60). It is impossible to exhibit any adequate abridgement of an investigation which owes all its cogency to the number and variety of minute particulars, each one weak enough by itself, the whole comprising a mass of evidence which cannot be gainsaid. In the works of Apuleius and of the African Fathers, Tertullian [150?-220?], Cyprian [† 258], and in the following century, Arnobius, Lactantius, Augustine, we obtain a glimpse into the genius and character of the dialect in which the earliest form of the Old Latin version is composed. We see a multitude of words which occur in no Italian author so late as Cicero; constructions (e.g. _dominantur eorum_, Luke xxii. 25; _faciam vos fieri_, Matt. iv. 19) or forms of verbs (_sive consolamur ... sive exhortamur_, 2 Cor. i. 6) abound(61), which at Rome had long been obsolete; while the lack of classic polish is not ill-atoned for by a certain vigour which characterizes this whole class of writers, but never degenerates into barbarism.

The _European_ and _Italian_ forms of the Old Latin version will be discussed afterwards.

The following manuscripts of the version are extant. They are usually cited by the small italic letters of the alphabet, according to the custom set by Lachmann (1842-1850), which has been considerably extended, and partially altered, since his time. His _a b c d_ of the Gospels, _d e_ of the Acts, and _g_ of St. Paul, remain the same, but his _f_ and _ff_ of St. Paul = our _d_ and _e_, and his _h_ = Primasius.

_Old Latin Manuscripts of the Gospels._

_a._ CODEX VERCELLENSIS [iv?], at Vercelli; according to a
tradition found in a document of the eighth century, this MS. was
written by Eusebius, Bishop of Vercellae († 370); M. Samuel
Berger, however, and other scholars would place it later. It is
written in silver on purple vellum. Bianchini, when Canon of
Verona, collated this treasure in 1727; see E. Mangenot, Joseph
Bianchini et les anciennes versions latines (Amiens, 1892), who
gives an interesting and sympathetic account of his work. _Mut._
in many letters and words throughout, and entirely wanting in
Matt. xxiv. 49-xxv. 16; Mark i. 22-34; iv. 17-25; xv. 15-xvi. 7
(xvi. 7-20 is in a later hand, taken from Jerome’s Vulgate); Luke
i. 1-12; xi. 12-26; xii. 38-59. Published by J. A. Irici
(Sacrosanctus Evangeliorum Codex S. Eusebii Magni), Milan, 1748,
and by Bianchini on the left-hand page of his great “Evangeliarium
Quadruplex,” Rome, 1749; the latter edition has been reprinted in
Migne, Patr. Lat. tom. xii. Facsimile given in Zangemeister and
Wattenbach, Exempla codicum Latinorum, pl. 20 (Heidelberg, 1876);
compare Bethmann in Pertz, Archiv, xii. p. 606, and E. Ranke,
Fragmenta Curiensia, p. 8. Bianchini’s work seems to have been
extremely accurate, though he does not keep to the actual division
of the lines in the original manuscripts either here or in his
edition of _b_. The Gospels are in the usual Western order,
Matthew, John, Luke, Mark; so also _a_2 _b d e f ff_2 _i n q r_.

_b._ COD. VERONENSIS [iv or v], also in Bianchini’s “Evangeliarum
Quadruplex” on the right-hand page. _Mut._ Matt. i. 1-11, xv.
12-23, xxiii. 18-27; Mark xiii. 8-19; 24-xvi. 20; Luke xix.
26-xxi. 29; also John vii. 44-viii. 12 is _erased_.

_c._ COD. COLBERTINUS [xii], at Paris (Lat. 254); New Testament,
very important, though so late; edited in full by Sabatier (_see_
p. 42, n. 3), and in a smaller and cheaper form by J. Belsheim,
Christiania, 1888; Belsheim’s work however is, as usual,
inaccurate. For the date of the MS. see E. Ranke, Fragmenta
Curiensia, p. 9. Beyond the Gospels, the version is Jerome’s, and
in a later hand. _See_ below under Vulgate MSS., no. 53.

_d._ COD. BEZAE [vi], its Latin version; _see_ Vol. I. pp.
124-130, and for its defects p. 124, n. 2; also Prof. J. Rendel
Harris, A Study of Codex Bezae, Cambridge, 1891; and F. H. Chase,
The Syriac element in Codex Bezae, London, 1893.

_e._ COD. PALATINUS [iv or v], now at Vienna (Pal. 1185), where it
was acquired from Trent between 1800 and 1829; on purple vellum,
14 x 9-3/4, written with gold and silver letters, as are Codd. _a_
_b_ _f_ _i_ _j_, edited by Tischendorf, Leipzig, 1847. Only the
following portions are extant: Matt. xii. 49-xiii. 13; 24-xiv. 11
(_with breaks, twelve lines being lost_); 22-xxiv. 49; xxviii.
2-John xviii. 12; 25-Luke viii. 30; 48-xi. 4; 24-xxiv. 53; Mark i.
20-iv. 8; 19-vi. 9; xii. 37-40; xiii. 2, 3; 24-27; 33-36; i.e.
2627 verses, including all St. John but 13 verses, all St. Luke
but 38. Another leaf, bought for Trinity College, Dublin, by Dr.
Todd before 1847, containing Matt. xiii. 13-23, was published by
Dr. T.K. Abbott in his edition of Cod. Z. It was recognized in
1880 to be a fragment of _e_ by Mr. French, the sub-librarian;
_see_ also H. Linke, Neue Bruchst. des Evang. Pal. (S. B. of the
Munich Acad. 1893, Heft ii).

_f._ COD. BRIXIANUS [vi], at Brescia, edited by Bianchini beneath
Cod. _b. Mut._ Matt. viii. 16-26; Mark xii. 5-xiii. 32; xiv.
53-62; 70-xvi. 20. There are some bad slips in Migne’s reprint of
this MS.

_ff_1. COD. CORBEIENSIS I [viii or ix], containing the Gospel of
St. Matthew, now at St. Petersburg (Ov. 3, D. 326). It formerly
belonged to the great monastic Library of Corbey, or Corbie, on
the Somme, near Amiens; and with the most important part of that
Library was transferred to St. Germain des Prés at Paris, in or
about the year 1638, and was there numbered 21. The St. Germain
Library, however, suffered severely from theft and pillage during
the French Revolution, and Peter Dubrowsky, Secretary to the
Russian Embassy at Paris, seems to have used his opportunities
during that troublous time to acquire MSS. stolen from public
libraries; _ff_1 with other MSS. fell into his hands and was
transferred to the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg about
1800-1805. In 1695 Dom Jean Martianay, well known as the principal
editor of the Benedictine St. Jerome, published _ff_1 with a
marginal collation of the St. Germain Bible (_g_1), and the Corbey
St. James (_see_ p. 52) in a small volume entitled “Vulgata
antiqua Latina et Itala versio secundum Matthaeum e vetustissimis
eruta monumentis illustrata Prolegomenis ac notis nuncque primum
edita studio et labore D.J.M. etc. Parisiis, apud Antonium
Lambin.” Bianchini reprinted it underneath Cod. _a_, giving in its
place a collation of _ff_2 in SS. Mark, Luke, and John; Sabatier,
however, cites _ff_1 in Mark i. 1-v. 11, but it is difficult to
know to what MS. he refers. Finally it has been re-edited by
Belsheim (Christiania, 1882). For the history of this MS., _see_
Wordsworth, Old Lat. Bibl. Texts, i. p. xxii, and Studia Biblica,
i. p. 124; and for the history of the Library at Corbey, Delisle,
Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Chartes, 1860, p. 438; R. S. Bensly,
The missing fragment of the Latin Translation of the Fourth Book
of Ezra, p. 7 (Cambridge, 1875).

_ff_2. COD. CORBEIENSIS II [vi], now at Paris (Lat. 17,225),
formerly at Corbey, where it was numbered 195; it contains 190
leaves and is written in a beautiful round uncial hand. Quoted by
Sabatier, and a collation given by Bianchini in Mark, Luke, and
John; published in full by Belsheim (Christiania, 1887).
Belsheim’s work, however, has been since revised by M. Berger and
his revision communicated to the present writer (H. J. White).
_Mut._ Matt. i. 1-xi. 6; John xvii. 15-xviii. 9; xx. 22-xxi. 8;
Luke ix. 48-x. 21; xi. 45-xii. 6; and a few verses missing in
Matt. xi, Mark ix and xvi; Facsimile in Palaeogr. Soc. i. pl. 87.

_g_1. COD. SANGERMANENSIS I [ix], now at Paris (Lat. 11,553);
formerly in the Library of St. Germain des Prés, where it was
first numbered 15 and afterwards 86; it is the second volume of a
complete Bible, the first volume of which has been lost. This MS.
was known to R. Stephens, who in his Latin Bible, published
1538-40 and again 1546, quotes it as _Germ. Lat._, in consequence
of its breadth; it was also examined by R. Simon, who, writing in
1680, speaks of it at some length; Martianay published a collation
of its readings in his edition of the Corbey St. Matthew (_see_
under _ff_1); and Martianay’s collation, which indeed was faulty
enough, was reprinted by Bianchini. John Walker, Bentley’s
coadjutor in his great but unfinished work for the New Testament,
collated it carefully in 1720; and finally Bp. Wordsworth
published St. Matthew’s Gospel with full Introductions in 1883
(Old Latin Biblical Texts, No. 1, Oxford), and has collated the
other Gospels for his edition of the Vulgate. J. Walker cited the
MS. as μ; Bp. Wordsworth cites it as _g_1 in St. Matthew, G in the
other books of the New Testament. The text can only be called
strictly _Old Latin_ in St. Matthew, where it seems to be partly
of the European, partly of the Italian type; in the other Gospels
it is Vulgate, though largely mixed with Old Latin readings. _See_
below under Vulgate, MSS., no. 21.

_g_2. COD. SANGERMANENSIS II [x], 116 leaves, Irish hand, with a
mixed Old Latin and Vulgate text. Now at Paris (Lat. 13,169), but
was originally at Angers, and then apparently at Mans in the
province of Tours; possibly brought there by Ulgrinus, Bishop of
Mans 1057-65. See Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les
premiers Siècles du M.A., p. 48.

_h._ COD. CLAROMONTANUS [iv or v], now in the Vatican Library
(Lat. 7223), for which it was bought by Pius VI (1775-99),
contains, like _g_1, St. Matthew only in the Old Latin, the other
Gospels being Vulgate. _Mut._ Matt. i. 1-iii. 15; xiv. 33-xviii.
12. Sabatier gave extracts, and Mai published St. Matthew in full
in his “Script. Vet. nova collectio Vaticana,” iii. p. 257 (Rom.
1828); it has been republished by Belsheim (Evangelium secundum
Matthaeum ... e codice olim Claromontano nunc Vaticano),
Christiania, 1892.

_i._ COD. VINDOBONENSIS [vii], at Vienna (Lat. 1235), formerly
belonging to an Augustinian Monastery at Naples, whence it was
brought with ninety-four other MSS. to Vienna in 1717; consists of
142 leaves, and contains Luke x. 6-xxiii. 10; Mark ii. 17-iii. 29;
iv. 4-x. 1; 33-xiv. 36; xv. 33-40. The MS. was described and
edited by F. C. Alter, the Mark fragments in G. E. H. Paulus’ “N.
Repert. d. bibl. u. morgenl. Literatur,” iii. pp. 115-170 (1791),
the Luke fragments in Paulus, Memorabilia, vii. pp. 58-95 (1795).
Bianchini had, however, previously obtained a collation for his
“Evangeliarium Quadruplex” from the Count of Thun and Hohenstein
(afterwards Bishop of Gurk in Carinthia), who had spent some time
at the Court of Vienna; and N. Forlosia, the principal Librarian
at Vienna, had given him a careful description of the MS.; _see_
“Epistola Blanchinii ad Episcopum Gurcensem” in Bianchini’s
prolegomena. Finally Belsheim edited the MS. completely in 1885
(Leipzig, Weigel), and Dr. Rudolf Beer revised his edition for
Bishop Wordsworth’s edition of the Vulgate in 1888.

_j._ COD. SARZANNENSIS or SARETIANUS [v] was discovered in 1872 in
the Church of Sarezzano near Tortona. It consists of eight quires
written on purple vellum in silver letters, and contains (much
mutilated) 292 verses of St. John, viz. i. 38-iii. 23; iii. 33-v.
20; vi. 29-49; 49-67; 68-vii. 32; viii. 6-ix. 21, written two
columns on a page. The text is peculiar, and much with _a_ _b_ _d_
_e_. Guerrino Amelli, sub-librarian of the Ambrosian Library (and
now at the Benedictine Monastery of Monte Cassino), published at
Milan the same year a “Dissertazione critico-storica,” 18 pp. (2nd
edition, 1885), with a lithographed facsimile, whose characters
much resemble the round and flowing shape of those in _a_ _b_ _f_.
The MS. is now at Rome undergoing careful restoration, but no part
of it has yet been published.

_k._ COD. BOBIENSIS [v or vi], now in the National Library at
Turin (G. vii. 15), whither it was brought with a vast number of
other books from Bobbio; traditionally asserted to have belonged
to St. Columban, who died in the monastery he had founded there,
in 615. This MS. is perhaps the most important, in regard to text,
of all the Old Latin copies, being undoubtedly the oldest existing
representative of the African type. It contains Mark viii. 8-11;
14-16; 19-xvi. 9; Matthew i. 1-iii. 10; iv. 2-xiv. 17; xv. 20-36;
the order then was probably John, Luke, Mark, Matthew. It was
edited by F. F. Fleck in 1837, and by Tischendorf in 1847-49; but
so inaccurately by the former and so inconveniently by the latter
as to be little known and used by students. It was finally edited
by Bishop Wordsworth (1886) as No. 2 of the “Old-Latin Bible
Texts,” with full introduction, and with a dissertation on the
text by Professor Sanday.

_l._ COD. RHEDIGERANUS [vii], in the Rhedigeran Library at
Breslau; from a note at the end of St. Luke’s Gospel, it appears
to have been bought by Thomas von Rhediger at Verona in the year
1569. J. E. Scheibel in 1763 published SS. Matthew and Mark, far
from correctly. D. Schulz wrote a dissertation on it in 1814, and
inserted his collation of it in his edition of Griesbach’s N. T.,
vol. i. 1827. It was edited in full by H. F. Haase, Breslau (in
the “Index, lect. univ. Vratisl.”), 1865-66. _Mut._ Matt. i. 1-ii.
15; John i. 1-16; vi. 32-61; xi. 56-xii. 10; xiii. 34-xiv. 23; xv.
3-15; xvi. 13 _ad fin._

_m._ This letter indicates the readings extracted by Mai from the
“Liber de divinis scripturis sive speculum,” ascribed to St.
Augustine, and containing extracts from the whole N. T. except
Philemon, Hebrews, and 3 John; it also has a citation from the
Epistle to the Laodiceans. It resembles the “Testimonia” of
Cyprian (and indeed one MS. has the subscription _explicit
testimoniorum_) in that it consists of extracts from both
Testaments, arranged in chapters under various heads. This
treatise was published by Mai, first in the “Spicilegium Romanum,”
1843, vol. ix. part ii. 1-88, and again in the “Nova Patrum
Bibliotheca,” Rome, 1852, vol. i. part ii. 1-117; and Wiseman had
drawn attention to it in his celebrated “Two Letters” (_see_ p.
43), because it contains 1 John v. 7 in two different places. Mai
had published it from the Sessorian MS. (no. 58) of the eighth or
ninth century, so called from the library of Sta. Croce in
Gerusalemme (Bibliotheca Sessoriana) at Rome, in which it is
preserved (see Reifferscheid, Bibl. Patr. Italica, ii. p. 129); he
furnished a facsimile. Recently the treatise has been excellently
edited by Dr. F. Weihrich in the Vienna “Corpus script. eccl.
lat.,” vol. xii (Vienna, 1887), from six MSS.; one of these is the
Codex Floriacensis (Libri MS. 16, now in the Bibl. Nat. at Paris,
Nouv. acq. lat. 1596), the readings of which are occasionally
cited by Sabatier under the name of _floriac_. (_see_ Weihrich, p.
xl, and L. Delisle, Cat. des MSS. des fonds Libri et Barrois,
1888, p. 25 and pl. iv. 1; also Palaeographical Soc., series ii.
pl. 34).

_n._ FRAGMENTA SANGALLENSIA [v or vi], in the Stiftsbibliothek at
St. Gall, to which Library they have probably belonged from its
foundation. The fragments are bound up in a large book numbered
1394, and entitled “Veterum fragmentorum manuscriptis codicibus
detractorum Collectio;” they contain Matt. xvii. 1-xviii. 20; xix.
20-xxi. 3; xxvi. 56-60; 69-74; xxvii. 62-xxviii. 3; 8-20; Mark
vii. 13-31; viii. 32-ix. 10; xiii: 2-20; xv. 22-xvi. 13; to this
must be added a whole leaf containing John xix. 28-42, and a slip
containing portions of John xix. 13-27, which are in the
Stadtbibliothek of the same city, bound up in a MS. numbered 70
and entitled “Casus monasterii Sancti Galli;” and the conjecture
of the Abbé Batiffol and Dr. P. Corssen is undoubtedly right that
the fragment from St. Luke known as _a_2 (see below) is also a
part of this MS.

Tischendorf transcribed these fragments, intending to edit them
himself, but died before he had done so; the transcripts were
purchased from his widow by the Clarendon Press in 1883, and
published in the second volume of “Old Lat. Bibl. Texts” (Oxford,
1886) by the Rev. H. J. White, who revised them on the spot from
the originals; meanwhile they had been published in France by the
Abbé Batiffol (Note sur un Evangéliare de Saint-Gall, Paris,
Champion, 1884, and “Fragmenta Sangallensia” in the _Revue
archéologique_, pp. 305-321, for 1885). A facsimile was appended
to the Oxford edition, and is also given by the Palaeographical
Soc., series ii. plate 50.

_o._ [vii], another fragment at St. Gall, bound up in the same
volume with _n_, contains Mark xvi. 14-20; it may very possibly
have been written to complete the above-named MS. when it had lost
its last leaf, as it has the same number of lines to a page and
begins exactly at the point where _n_ leaves off. Edited by
Batiffol with _n_, and also in Old Lat. Bibl. Texts, vol. ii.

_p._ [vii or viii], also at St. Gall, bound up in the second
volume of the “Veterum fragmentorum Collectio” (pp. 430-433). This
fragment consists of two leaves written in an Irish hand, and
apparently belonging to a “Missa pro defunctis,” of which it was
the Gospel; it contains John xi. 16-44, introduced with the lines
from Ps. lxv, “te decet dñe,” &c. The opening verses of the Gospel
are adapted as an introduction of the lection; the rest of the
text is of the European type, but (with _r_) contains many
peculiar Irish characteristics. _p_ has been published three
times: by Forbes, in the “Preface to the Arbuthnott Missal,” p.
xlviii (Burntisland, 1864); by Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, vol.
i. Appendix G, p. 197 (Oxford, 1869); and in Old Lat. Bibl. Texts,
vol. ii.

_q._ COD. MONACENSIS [vii], now in the Royal Library at Munich
(Lat. 6224); it was transferred hither in 1802 with other MSS.
from the Chapter Library of Freising, in which it was numbered 24;
written by a scribe named Valerianus. Contains the four Gospels,
but _mut._ Matt. iii. 15-iv. 23; v. 25-vi. 4; 28-vii. 8; John x.
11-xii. 38; xxi. 8-20; Luke xxiii. 23-35; xxiv. 11-39; Mark i.
7-21; xv. 5-36. Published in full by the Rev. H. J. White in Old
Lat. Bibl. Texts, vol. iii (Oxford, 1888); facsimiles given in the
Oxford edition and also by Silvestre (Paléog. univ.; quatrième
partie, no. 158).

_r_ or _r_1. CODEX USSERIANUS I [vii], in the Library of Trinity
College, Dublin (A. iv. 15); it is kept among the books which once
belonged to Archbishop Ussher, but nothing is known of its early
history. The MS. consists of 180 leaves or fragments, written in
an Irish hand, but much injured by damp; it contains the four
Gospels in the usual Old Latin order, but _mut._ Matt. i. 1-xv.
16; 31-xvi. 13; xxi. 4-21; xxviii. 16-20; John i. 1-15; Mark xiv.
58-xv. 8; 29-xvi. 20. Published in full by Professor T. K. Abbott,
Evangeliorum versio antehieronymiana (Dublin, 1884); facsimiles
are given in his edition, in the Palaeographical Society, series
ii. plate 33, and in the “Facsimiles of National MSS. of Ireland,”
part i (1874), pl. ii. It contains the _pericope de adultera_ in
St. John, but in the Vulgate, not the Old Latin, text.

_r_2. CODEX USSERIANUS II [ix or x], also in the Library of
Trinity College, Dublin (A. iv. 6). Contains the four Gospels, St.
Matt. in the Old Latin and in a text allied to _r_1; St. Mark, the
early part of St. Luke, and the small portion (only five leaves)
extant of St. John, present a text very near the Vulgate. Dr.
Abbott inserted a collation of this MS. in the second volume of
his book, and also a facsimile. _Mut._ Matt. i. 1-18, ii. 6-iv.
24; v. 29-xiii. 7; xiv. 1-xvi. 13; xviii. 31-xix. 26; xxvii.
58-xxviii. 20; Mark iii. 23-iv. 19; v. 31-vi. 13; Luke i. 1-13;
ii. 15-iii. 8; vi. 39-vii. 11; xi. 53-xii. 45; xiv. 18-xv. 25;
xvi. 15-xvii. 7; xxii. 35-59; xxiii. 14-xxiv. 53; John i. 1-v. 12;
vi. 24-viii. 7; x. 3-xxi. 25.

_s._ FRAGMENTA AMBROSIANA [vi], now in the Ambrosian Library at
Milan, where they are bound up in a volume (C. 73 inf.) containing
various treatises; they belonged originally to the Monastery of
St. Columban at Bobbio. Four leaves only remain, containing Luke
xvii. 3-29; xviii. 39-xix. 47; xx. 46-xxi. 22. They have been
edited by Ceriani, Monumenta sacra et profana, tom. i. fasc. i
(Milan, 1861), and again in Old Lat. Bibl. Texts, vol. ii; a
facsimile is given by the Palaeographical Society, series i. plate
54.

_t._ FRAGMENTA BERNENSIA [v], palimpsest fragments, now at Berne,
where they are bound up in a volume numbered 611; exceedingly
difficult to decipher, as the later writing is parallel to the
original text. Contain Mark i. 2-23; ii. 22-27; iii. 11-18. They
were first published by Professor H. Hagen under the title “Ein
Italafragment aus einem Berner Palimpsest des VI. Jahrhunderts” in
Hilgenfeld’s “Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie,” vol.
xxvii. p. 470 ff. (Leipzig, 1884); reprinted in Old Latin Bibl.
Texts, vol. ii, with rather important alterations in the
conjectural restitution of the missing half-columns.

_v._ FRAGMENTUM VINDOBONENSE [vii], at Vienna, where it is bound
up at the beginning of a volume numbered Lat. 502 and entitled
“Pactus legis Ripuariae;” it contains John xix. 27-xx. 11, but the
writing is much faded. Transcribed by the Bishop of Salisbury and
the Rev. H. J. White in 1887, and published in Old Latin Bibl.
Texts, vol. iii.

_aur._ CODEX AUREUS or HOLMIENSIS, in the Royal Library at
Stockholm; Gospels [vii or viii], 195 leaves, complete with the
exception of one leaf, which contained Luke xxi. 8-30. According
to an inscription in Old English on the title-page, the book was
purchased by Alfred the Alderman from the pagans [Danes?] when
Alfred was king and Ethelred archbishop (A.D. 871-89), for the use
of Christ Church, Canterbury. It afterwards found its way to
Madrid, where Sparvenfeldt bought it in 1690 from the Library of
the Marquis de Liche. Edited, with facsimiles, by Belsheim
(Christiania, 1878), who classes it as Old Latin; but it is really
a Vulgate text, though with a certain admixture of Old Latin
readings. Hort’s _holm_. (Introd., Notes, p. 5).

_a_2. FRAGMENTA CURIENSIA [v or vi], formerly preserved amongst
the Episcopal archives at Chur or Coire, now placed in the
Reatisches Museum of the same city. M. Batiffol was the first to
suggest that these fragments belonged to the same MS. as _n_; and
though this view was combated at first by Mr. White, it was
reasserted strongly by Dr. Corssen (Göttingsche gel. Anzeigen,
1889, p. 316), and further examination has shown that it is
correct. The fragments contain Luke xi. 11-29; xiii. 16-34; they
were first discovered by Professor Hidber, of Berne, then
described by Professor E. Ranke in the “Theol. Studien u.
Kritiken,” 1872, pp. 505-520, and afterwards edited by him in
full, Curiensia Ev. Lucani Fragmenta Latiua (Vienna, 1874).

δ. CODEX SANGALLENSIS, the interlinear Latin of Cod. Δ, stands
remarkable especially for its alternative renderings of the Greek,
such as ’uxorem uel coniugem’ for τὴν γυναῖκα Matt. i. 20, and in
almost every verse. How far the Latin text of these MSS. is
independent, and how far it is a mere reproduction of the Greek,
or whether the Greek has in turn been influenced by the Latin, is
one of those elaborate and obscure problems which are still very
far from solution. The reader is referred to Prof. J. Rendel
Harris’ work, The Codex Sangallensis (Cambridge, 1891), for an
interesting discussion of these alternative readings.

_In the Acts_ we have Codd. _d m_ as in the Gospels; _e_ the Latin
version of Cod. E (Laudianus) of the Acts, and also:—

_g._ COD. GIGAS HOLMIENSIS [xiii], a Bohemian MS. of the whole N.
T., now at Stockholm, so called from its great size. Contains the
Acts and Apocalypse in the Old Latin version, the rest of the N.
T. in the Vulgate. Mr. Belsheim published the Acts and Apocalypse
in full and a collation of the other books (Christiania, 1878).
His edition was carefully revised for the Bishop of Salisbury by
Dr. H. Karlsson in 1891.

_g_2. FRAGMENTUM MEDIOLANENSE [x or xi], from a lectionary;
discovered by Ceriani in the Ambrosian Library at Milan and
published by him in “Monumenta Sacra et Profana,” tom. i. fasc.
ii. p. 127 (see also preface, pp. vi and vii). Contains Acts vi.
8-vii. 2; 51-viii. 4; i.e. lection for St. Stephen’s day.

_h._ PALIMPSESTUS FLORIACENSIS [vi or vii], now in the Bibl. Nat.
at Paris, where it forms foll. 113 to 130 of a volume containing
various treatises and numbered Lat. 6400 G; it was formerly
numbered 5367, and was as such quoted by Sabatier, tom. iii. p.
507 ff., who had collated the first three pages. An inscription on
fol. 130 shows it to have belonged in the eleventh century to the
famous Benedictine Abbey of Fleury on the Loire. Mr. A. Vansittart
deciphered and published some more in the “Journal of Philology”
(vol. ii, 1869, p. 240, and vol. iv, 1872, p. 219), and M. H.
Omont published four pages of the Apocalypse in the “Bibl. de
l’École des chartes” (vol. xliv. 1883, p. 445). Belsheim published
an edition of the fragments in 1887 (“Appendix Epist. Paulin. ex
cod. Sangerm.,” Christiania); and finally M. Berger published a
most careful and complete edition in 1889 (Le Palimpseste de
Fleury, Paris, Fischbacher). The MS. contains fragments of the
Apocalypse, the Acts, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1 John; in the order
above mentioned. Of the Acts in M. Berger’s edition we obtain the
following:—iii. 2-iv. 18; v. 23-vii. 2; 42-viii. 2; ix. 4-23; xiv.
5-23; xvii. 34-xviii. 19; xxiii. 8-24; xxvi. 20-xxvii. 13.
Facsimile given by Berger.

_s._ COD. BOBIENSIS [v or vi], at Vienna, consisting of a number
of palimpsest leaves preserved loose and numbered Lat. 16 (_see_
“Tabulae Codd. MSS. praeter graecos et orientales in bibl.
Palatina Vindob. asservatorum,” 1863-1875). They were brought with
other MSS. to Vienna from Naples in 1717, and formerly belonged to
the famous Monastery at Bobbio. Described by Denis (Codd. MSS.
theolog. bibl. Palat. Vindob., tom. ii. p. 1, col. 628) and later
by von Eichenfeld (Wiener Jahrb. der Literatur, 1824, Bd. xxvi. p.
20); then by Tischendorf in the same periodical (1847, Bd. cxx. p.
36). Finally published in full by Belsheim (Fragmenta
Vindobonensia, Christiania, 1886), who printed all the fragments
of this very hard palimpsest which Tischendorf had been able to
decipher, and the leaves which he himself had been able to make
out in addition. We thus obtain Acts xxiii. 18-23; xxv. 23-27;
xxvi. 22-xxvii. 7; 10-24; 28-31; xxviii. 16-28. The same MS. also
contains fragments of St. James and 1 Peter; _see_ below.

_In the Catholic Epistles_ we have:—

_ff._ CODEX CORBEIENSIS [x], of the Epistle of St. James, now in
the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg, where it was numbered Qv.
i. 39. Formerly belonging to the Corbey Library, where it was
numbered 635, it was about 1638 transferred to St. Germain des
Prés and was numbered 717 in Dom Poirier’s catalogue (made about
1791); and finally was taken to St. Petersburg by Peter Dubrowsky
about 1805 (see above on _ff_1, p. 46). The Epistle was published
in 1695 by Martianay in the same volume which included _ff_1;
later by Mr. Belsheim (Der Brief des Jacobus, Christiania, 1883);
and again, after revision by Professor V. Jernstedt, by Bishop
Wordsworth in “Studia Biblica,” vol. i.

There are also _h_, containing 1 Pet. iv. 17-2 Pet. ii. 6; 1 John
i. 8-iii. 20; _m_ as in Gospels; _s_ as in Acts, containing James
i. 1-25; ii. 14-iii. 5; 13-iv. 2; v. 19, 20; 1 Pet. i. 1-12; ii.
4-10.

_q._ One of the sets of fragments at Munich [vii], published by
Ziegler (_see_ below): they consist of two leaves, giving us 1
John iii. 8-v. 21, and containing the three Heavenly Witnesses (1
John v. 7), placed, however, _after_ v. 8, as in the Vulgate
_Codex Cavensis_ (_see_ Ziegler, p. 5 f.); these leaves are in the
collection of fragments marked Clm. 6436 (Fris. 236). Later in the
same year Ziegler published more fragments from the same MS.,
which had been used in covering some other books; these give us 1
Pet. i. 8-19; ii. 20-iii. 7; iv. 10-v. 14; 2 Pet. i. 1-4. See
Sitzungsberichte der k. b. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu München,
1876, Heft v. pp. 607-660.

_In the Pauline Epistles_ we have _m_ as in the Gospels. Codd. _d_
_e_ _f_ _g_ are the Latin versions of Codd. DEFG of St. Paul,
described above, Cod. D (Clarom.); Cod. E (Sangerm.); Cod. F
(Aug.); Cod. G (Boern.). To these must be added

_gue._ COD. GUELFERBYTANUS [vi], fragments of Rom. xi. 33-xii. 5;
17-xiii. 5; xiv. 9-20; xv. 3-13, found in the great Gothic
palimpsest at Wolfenbüttel (Evann. PQ), published with the other
matter by Knittel in 1762, and more fully by Tischendorf, Anecdota
sacra et profana, pp. 155-158. In the eighth edition of his N. T.
he adds readings from Rom. xiii. 3, 4, 6; 1 Tim. iv. 15.

_r._ COD. FRISINGENSIS [v or vi], consisting of twenty-one leaves
at Munich, numbered Clm. 6436 (Fris. 236), and containing Rom.
xiv. 10-xv. 13; 1 Cor. i. 1-iii. 5; vi. 1-vii. 7; xv. 14-43; xvi.
12-2 Cor. ii. 10; iii. 17-v. 1; vii. 10-viii. 12; ix. 10-xi. 21;
xii. 14-xiii. 10; Gal. ii. 5-iii. 5; Eph. i. 16-ii. 16; Phil. i.
1-20; 1 Tim. i. 12-ii. 15; v. 18-vi. 13; Hebr. vi. 6-vii. 5;
8-viii. 1; ix. 27-xi. 7. Eight of these leaves were examined by
Tischendorf in 1856, who drew attention to their importance in the
“Deutsche Zeitschr. f. christliche Wissenschaft u. chr. Leben,”
1856, n. 8; he incorporated many of their variant readings into
his N. T., and intended to publish the fragments. They were
published by L. Ziegler with _q_ and _r_2 (Italafragm. d.
paulinischen Briefe, Marburg, 1876); see E. Wölfflin, Freisinger
Itala (S. B. of Munich Acad. 1893, Heft ii).

_r_2. A single leaf from Munich [vii], containing Phil. iv. 11-23;
1 Thess. i. 1-10; published by Ziegler, _see_ above; also numbered
Clm. 6436 (Fris. 236).

_r_3. COD. GOTTVICENSIS [vi or vii], fragments of Romans and
Galatians, from the Benedictine Abbey of Göttweig on the Danube,
and consisting of two leaves taken from the cover of another book.
They are numbered 1. (9) foll. 23, 24 in the Library Catalogue,
and contain Rom. v. 16-vi. 4; 6-19; Gal. iv. 6-19; 22-v. 2.
Published by H. Roensch in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschrift, vol. xxii
(1879), pp. 224-238.

_In the Apocalypse_ we have _m_ of the Gospels and _g_ of the
Acts; also _h_ of the Acts (_see_ above), containing i. 1-ii. 1;
viii. 7-ix. 11; xi. 16-xii. 14; xiv. 15-xvi. 5 (Lachmann cites
Primasius’ version as _h_).

To these thirty-eight codices must be added extracts from the Latin Fathers, of which the Latin interpreter of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, Priscillian, and Primasius are the most important for the history of the version. For Tertullian, considerable labour will be saved to the student by the work of H. Roensch (Das neue Testament Tertullians, Leipzig, 1871), who has arranged in order his quotations, direct and indirect; for Cyprian, Hartel’s excellent edition (vol. iii in the Vienna Corpus) is marred by his having edited the Testimonia, which consist of direct quotations from the Bible, arranged under various heads, from a late and inferior MS. (_see_ O. L. Bibl. Texts, ii. p. xliii). The works of Priscillian, who suffered death as a heretic in 385, have been quite lately discovered and edited by Dr. G. Schepss (vol. xviii in the Vienna Corpus); the quotations in them bear a strong resemblance to those of the so-called “Speculum” of St. Augustine (_m_), and are mainly from the Epistles. Primasius, bishop of Hadrumetum (d. 558?), was the author _inter alia_ of a commentary on the Apocalypse; in this he incorporated nearly the entire text of that book, and as this text agrees almost word for word with the citations found in Cyprian’s Testimonia, we thus obtain a complete African text of a book in which so many MSS. are defective. In addition to this he quoted largely from another Latin translation of the Apocalypse—that of the Donatist Ticonius—whose version seems to be a good specimen of a later text approximating more closely to the Vulgate; these have also been published quite recently by Professor Haussleiter (Zahn’s Forschungen, iv. Teil, Leipzig, 1891).

When we come to arrange these authorities for the Latin version before Jerome, we find a complicated and difficult task before us; for few of our MSS. present a consistent type of text. We will confine ourselves therefore to grouping them in the three great families described by Dr. Hort (Introd. p. 78), whose division has been accepted by most textual critics, and to pointing out how here and there even that division must be accepted with some modification.

The _African_ family is comparatively easy to fix, from the rich store of biblical quotations found in the African Fathers. Tertullian indeed does not give us so much help as we should have expected, as he seems to have largely used a Greek Bible and translated it into Latin himself. Cyprian’s quotations, however, are valuable, as he apparently confined himself strictly to the Latin Bible current in his time; he may be taken as the standard of the early African version; to him we must add, for the Gospels, the Bobbio MS. (_k_) and the Codex Palatinus (_e_), which, however, represents a stage somewhat later than _k_; for the Acts, the Fleury palimpsest (_h_); for the Apocalypse, Primasius and _h_; and a later and revised stage in the so-called “Speculum” (_m_), and in the quotations from Ticonius preserved in Primasius.

Existing simultaneously with the African family we find another type of text current in Western Europe, though whether it is a revision of the African text or is of independent origin, it is hard to say. This type Dr. Hort calls the _European_. It is represented in the Gospels by _b_, which may be taken as the typical European MS.; by _a_ in St. Matthew, _i_ (Luke and Mark), _n_ and _a_2 (giving us fragments of all the Gospels from the same MS.); _t_ in St. Mark; in a slightly revised form by _h_ of St. Matthew; in a form marked by special local characteristics, in the Irish MSS. _r_1 and _p_ (St. John); to a certain extent also by _q_ (i.e. in its renderings, and turns of expression, as distinct from the type of Greek text underlying it); of the early Fathers, the Latin version of Irenaeus may probably be referred to this family.

For the European text in the Acts, Dr. Hort cites the Gigas Holmiensis (_g_), and the Milan Lectionary _g_2, and the Bobbio fragments at Vienna (_s_); for the Epistles, the Corbey MS. of St. James (_ff_), though this has possibly a tinge of Africanism in it (_see_ Bp. Wordsworth and Dr. Sanday in “Studia Biblica,” i. pp. 113, 233); and _g_ again for the Apocalypse.

The _Italian_ family presents us with a type of text mainly European, but doubly revised; first in its renderings, “to give the Latinity a smoother and more customary aspect,” and secondly in its underlying text, which has been largely corrected from the Greek; in both these points the Italian MSS. are a sort of stepping-stone between the European MSS. and Jerome’s Vulgate; and as many of the Biblical quotations in Augustine’s works agree closely with them, it is distinctly probable that it was this revision which he praised as the Itala. To this group we would assign _f_ in the Gospels, and less notably _q_; in the Epistles the Freisingen fragments _q_ of St. John and St. Peter, and _r_ _r_2 of St. Paul’s Epistles, and the Göttweig fragments _r_3 of Romans and Galatians.

But it will be seen that this arrangement leaves a large number of MSS. unaccounted for; many of the Old Latin MSS. present texts which it is impossible to class either as African, European, or Italian. Some of them possess all three characteristics; some have been half corrected from the Vulgate; and local variation, independent translation from the Greek, and in the case of the Graeco-Latin MSS., assimilation _to_ the Greek, have still further complicated matters. Among these mixed texts must be placed _a_ in SS. Mark, Luke, and John (with occasional Africanisms, and a large element quite peculiar to itself); _c_, which gives us a text very near the Vulgate in St. John; _d_, that apparently insoluble problem; _ff_1 and _f_2_g_1_s_δ; _l_, a text which to a large extent is almost pure Vulgate, but which at the same time preserves a number of readings, mostly interpolations, that are quite peculiar.

We must bear in mind too that even the MSS. which seem to represent most consistently one type of text, show here and there strange vacillations; _e_, African throughout as it seems at first sight, must have been copied from an ordinary European MS. in the last few chapters of St. Luke; the parent MS. of _r_ obviously did not contain the _pericope de adultera_, for that passage has been supplied in a Vulgate text; and other instances might be added.

(2) Jerome’s revised Latin Version, commonly called the Vulgate.

The extensive variations then existing between different copies of the Old Latin version, and the obvious corruptions which had crept into some of them, prompted Damasus, Bishop of Rome, in A.D. 382, to commit the important task of a formal revision of the New, and probably of the Old Testament, to Jerome, a presbyter born at Stridon on the confines of Dalmatia and Pannonia, probably a little earlier than A.D. 345. He had just returned to Rome, where he had been educated, from his hermitage in Bethlehem, and in the early ripeness of his scholarship undertook a work for which he was specially qualified, and whose delicate nature he well understood(62). Whatever prudence and moderation could do in this case to remove objections or relieve the scruples of the simple, were not neglected by Jerome, who not only made as few changes as possible in the Old Latin when correcting its text by the help of “ancient” Greek manuscripts(63), but left untouched many words and forms of expression, and not a few grammatical irregularities, which in a new translation (as his own subsequent version of the Hebrew Scriptures makes clear) he would most certainly have avoided. The four Gospels, as they stand in the traditional Greek order without Western variation, revised but not re-translated on this wise principle, appeared in A.D. 384, accompanied with his celebrated Preface to Damasus (“summus sacerdos”), who died that same year. Notwithstanding his other literary engagements, it is probable enough that his recension of the whole New Testament for public use was completed A.D. 385, though the proof alleged by Mill (N. T., Proleg., § 862), and by others after his example, hardly meets the case. In the next year (A.D. 386), in his Commentary on Galat., Ephes., Titus, and Philem., he indulges in more freedom of alteration as a translator than he had previously deemed advisable; while his new version of the Old Testament from the Hebrew (completed about A.D. 405) is not founded at all on the Old Latin, which was made from the Greek Septuagint; the Psalter excepted, which he executed at Rome at the same date, and in the same spirit, as the Gospels. The boldness of his attempt in regard to the Old Testament is that portion of his labours which _alone_ Augustine disapproved(64) (August, ad Hieron. Ep. x. tom. ii. p. 18, Lugd. 1586, A.D. 403), and indeed it was never received entire by the Western Church, which long preferred his slight revision of the Old Latin, made at some earlier period of his life. Gradually, however, Jerome’s recension of the whole Bible gained ground, as well through the growing influence of the Church of Rome as from its own intrinsic merits: so that when in course of time it came to take the place of the older version, it also took its name of the _Vulgate_, or common translation(65). Cassiodorus indeed, in the middle of the sixth century, is said to have compared the new and old Latin (of the New, perhaps of both Testaments) in parallel columns, which thus became partially mixed in not a few codices: but Gregory the Great (590-604), while confessing that his Church used both “quia sedes Apostolica, cui auctore Deo praesideo, utrâque utitur,” (Epist. Dedic. ad Leandrum, c. 5), awarded so decided a preference to Jerome’s translation from the Hebrew, that this form of his Old Testament version, not without some mixture with his translation from the Septuagint (Walton, Polyglott, Prol. x. pp. 242-244, Wrangham), and his Psalter and New Testament as revised from the Old Latin, came at length to comprise the Vulgate Bible, the only shape in which Holy Scripture was accessible in Western Europe (except to a few scattered scholars) during the long night of the Middle Ages.

But it was not a pure Vulgate text that was thus used; the old versions went on side by side with it for centuries, and even when they were thus nominally superseded, fragments of them found their way into probably all existing MSS. We have already remarked (in _c_ _g_ &c.) how the same MS. will present us with an Old Latin text in some books of the New Testament, and with a Vulgate text in others; we shall note the same phenomenon in other MSS., especially the British and Irish (see the MSS. numbered 51, 67, 78, 85, 87 below), which preserve on the whole a pure Hieronymian text, but are coloured here and there from the earlier versions. Variation was still further increased by the apparently numerous local or provincial recensions which were made, sometimes anonymously, sometimes under the editorship of famous men. Many of the Irish MSS., for instance, seem to have been corrected immediately from the Greek; but the two most notable recensions of the text came, not, as we might have expected, directly from Rome, but from Gaul; they are those of Alcuin and Theodulf in the ninth century. That of Alcuin was undertaken at the desire of Charles the Great(66), who bade him (A.D. 797) review and correct certain copies by the best Latin MSS. without reference to the original Greek. Charles’ motive was not so much critical as a wish to obtain a standard Bible for church use, and consequently of simple and intelligible Latin. Alcuin obtained bibles for this purpose from his native Northumbria, the scene at the beginning of the eighth century of an earlier recension of the text; for it was to their monasteries at Wearmouth and Jarrow (_see_ below, p. 71) that Benedict Biscop and Ceolfrid had brought the bibles and other books collected in Rome and elsewhere during their journeys; and it was in Northumbria that the magnificent Anglian texts (such as those numbered 29, 64, 82, 91, &c.) were written, perpetuating the pure Vulgate text contained at that time in the Roman MSS.(67)

At Christmas in 801, Alcuin presented Charles with a copy of the revised Bible(68); specimens of this revision are to be found in the MSS. numbered below, 5, 9, 25, 37, 117, and others.

About the same time, Theodulf, Bishop of Orleans (787-821), undertook a similar revision, and not of a less scientific character, but followed a different method. Theodulf, himself a Visigoth and born near Narbonne, seems to have done little more than introduce into France the Spanish type of MSS., which was mixed, confused, full of interpolations, and of very slight critical value(69); this however he corrected carefully and enriched with a large number of marginal readings. This revision is preserved for us in the Theodulfian Bible at Paris (no. 18 below), less correctly in its sister volume at Puy (no. 24), the Paris MS. (no. 22 below), and partly also in the correction of the Bible of St. Hubert (no. 6).

Two centuries later the text had again degenerated, and our Primate Lanfranc (1069-89) attempted a similar task, perhaps rather with a view to theology than textual criticism (“secundum orthodoxam fidem studuit corrigere”)(70). In 1109 Stephen Harding, third abbot of Citeaux, made a further revision, partly from good Latin MSS., partly from the Greek, partly, in the Old Testament, from the Hebrew, as he obtained help from some learned Jewish scholars(71). In 1150 his example was followed by Cardinal Nicolaus Maniacoria(72). As these individual efforts seemed to have but slight success, the task was taken up in the thirteenth century more fully and systematically by bodies of scholars, in the so-called “Correctoria Bibliorum;” here the variant readings with their authorities, Greek, Latin, ancient, modern, and citations from the Fathers, were carefully registered. The most noticeable examples of these correctoria are (1) the “Correctorium Parisiense” prepared by the Paris theologians. Roger Bacon had a poor opinion of the work done by these students; for some time the MSS. of the Bible that were copied and bought and sold in Paris, he says, were corrupt; they were bad to begin with, and copied carelessly by the booksellers and their scribes, while the theologians were not learned enough to discover and amend the mistakes(73). This correctorium is also frequently, but according to Denifle (p. 284) wrongly, called _Senonense_, as if it was undertaken at the instance of the Bishop of Sens; there is, however, no _correctorium Senonense_, only the _correctiones Senonenses_, i.e. corrections made in the Paris Correctorium by the Dominicans residing at Sens; (2) the “Correctorium” of the Dominicans, prepared under the auspices of Hugo de S. Caro, about 1240, the final corrected form of which is now preserved at Paris, B.N. Lat. 16719-16722 (_see_ below, p. 70, no. 23)(74); this, however, was again an attempt, not so much to get at Jerome’s actual text as, to bring the Latin text into accordance with the Greek or Hebrew(75); (3) a better and more critical revision, the “Correctorium Vaticanum,” a good MS. of which is in the Vatican Library (Lat. 3466); the author of this has done his best to restore Jerome’s reading throughout, although well learned in Greek and Hebrew; and he has with some probability been identified by Vercellone with a scholar much praised by Roger Bacon as a “sapientissimus homo,” who had spent nearly forty years in the correction of the text(76) (Denifle suggests Wilh. de Mara).

These remedies, partial and temporary as they were, seemed all that was possible before the invention of printing; and, indeed, by an unfortunate chance, the worst of the three correctoria, the “Parisiense,” was made use of by Robert Stephen.