Latin Bible History (3)

**List: Latin Ministry

the Bible ( the Bible )
Latin...
"III.--VERSIONS OF THE SCRIPTURES IN THIS LANGUAGE.

   We possess no direct evidence as to the time when the Scriptures were first translated into Latin.
There is no reason to suppose that a Latin translation would be peculiarly wanted by the large body of

Christians residing at Rome in the earliest ages, for Greek was well understood by both the educated
and uneducated.   This language spread among even the lower classes, from the great influx of
strangers into the capital of the civilised earth, with whom Greek was the general language of com-
munication, as well as from the vast number of slaves in Rome brought from countries where Greek
had obtained some footing: besides this, the near proximity of Rome to the cities of Magna Græcia, to
which the franchises of the jus Latinum had been extended, must have had no small influence.   And
indeed the fact of St. Paul having written in Greek to the church at Rome, may be taken as at least an
indication that Latin was not absolutely required by the Christians in that city.

   A Latin version had, however, been made some time before the end of the second century.   Such
a version was used by Tertullian, who criticised it, and condemned some of its renderings.   Many have
supposed that there existed originally numerous independent Latin translations; and in proof of this
they have turned to passages in Jerome and Augustine, which speak of the multiplicity of translations,
and they have also pointed out how differently the same texts are read by different Latin Fathers.   The
statements, however, of Jerome and Augustine may be better understood as relating to what versions
had become through repeated alterations; and the variety in citations appears to have arisen
partly from the use of such altered versions, and partly from writers having translated passages for
themselves.
   Lachmann especially has given good reasons for supposing that at first there existed but one
version in Latin, and that it was made in the north of Africa, in that Roman province of which
Carthage was the metropolis.   Like most of the other ancient versions, we know not from whose hand

it sprung; and it does not seem as if much authority was attached to it, otherwise private individuals
would hardly have felt themselves at liberty to alter it almost at pleasure.
   As this version was made from the Greek, it was in the Old Testament based on the LXX., and
not on the original Hebrew.   Hence it has resulted, that when a version of the Old Testament into
Latin had been made from the Hebrew, the older version fell after a time into such oblivion, that only
fragments of it have come down to us.
   In the latter part of the fourth century, the process of continually altering and correcting the
Latin copies occasioned great confusion: this was remarked by Jerome, Augustine, and others.   The
latter of these Fathers speaks of the multiplicity of the versions then current, and, amongst them all,
commends one which he calls the Itala.   This term has occasioned much discussion, and much mis-
apprehension.   Some have thought the word Itala to be an error; while others have strangely applied
the name of Itala or Italic to all the Latin versions extant prior to the time of Jerome.   It is evident,
however, that Augustine meant some one version, and that it was one which had been revised, and that
the name indicates its connection with the province of Upper Italy (Italic in contrast to Roman), of
which Milan (Mediolanum) was the capital.   It is well known how closely Augustine was connected
with Milan; it might, we believe, be shown, that in his day pains were taken to revise the Latin
copies in that very district.   One thing at least is certain, that however common it may be to call the
ancient Latin versions indiscriminately "the Old Italic," the name ought to be rejected, as having
originated in misconception, and as perpetuating a confusing error.
  [CHM note: Italic is correct usage.]
   Before we speak of the labours of Jerome for the revision and retranslation of the Latin text, we
have to mention what editions have been published of the older translations.
   In 1588, Flaminio Nobili published at Rome a work which professed to be the ancient Latin
version of the Old Testament, made from the Greek: it was, however, always considered doubtful from
what sources Nobili had taken the passages, so as to give the Old Testament complete; and now it is
certain that he really in general did nothing but translate into Latin the Sixtine text of the LXX.

   Sabatier, one of the distinguished French Benedictines, published at Rheims, in 1743-49, a very
large collection of fragments of the ancient versions: he drew them from MSS. and citations: the
modern Vulgate
is placed by the side of the more ancient text, and the various citations of Latin
Fathers are given very elaborately in the notes.   Besides the collection of Old Testament fragments
given by Sabatier, some passages of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Hosea, were found by Dr. Feder, in
a Würzburg Codex Rescriptus; and they were published by Dr. Münter in 1821.   Cardinal Mai has
also given, in his Spicilegium Romanum, vol. ix. 1843, some fragments of such a version.
   The term Ante-Hieronymian is often used as a general expression for denoting all the versions or
revisions made before the labours of Jerome.   Of these we possess not a few of the Gospels, and some
of other parts of the New Testament.   Martianay published, in 1695, an old text of St. Matthew's
Gospel and of the Epistle of St. James.   In 1749 (as has been mentioned), Sabatier published all he
could collect of the New Testament.   In the same year, Bianchini published at Rome his Evangeliarum
Quadruplex, containing the Latin texts of the Gospels, as found in the Codices Vercellensis, Veronensis,
Brixianus, and Corbeiensis.   Subjoined there were some Latin texts of parts of Jerome's version.   The
principal of these was the Codex Forojuliensis.   In 1828, Cardinal Mai gave, in his "Collectio
Vaticana,"
vol. iii., an Ante-Hieronymian version of St. Matthew's Gospel, from a MS. which in the
other Gospels followed Jerome's version
.   We have, in the last place, to mention the "Evangelium
Palatinum,"
a purple MS. at Vienna, of which Tischendorf published a magnificent edition in 1847.
   Besides these Latin texts, there are also others of which we cannot speak with entire certainty, as
they accompany a Greek text in the same MS.: they may probably, therefore, be versions which never
had a separate circulation.   Hearne published in 1715, at Oxford, the Greco-Latin Codex Laudianus
of the book of Acts; in 1793, Kipling edited the Codex Bezæ of the Gospels and Acts; and, in 1791,
Matthæi published the Codex Boernerianus of St. Paul's Epistles, which has an interlineary Latin
version: a similar copy of the Four Gospels, Codex Sangallensis, was published in 1836, by Rettig."
--The Bible of Every Land. (1860, Second Edition)   Samuel Bagster   [Info only:
See Old Latin Version, pp. 102-109, Jack A. Moorman.]

LATIN.   ANTE-HIERONYMIAN VERSION {Old Latin}.--1860   S. Bagster   [Info only: n.d. Exodus 15:1-13 unknown; used Domino for Jehovah.]

LATIN.   ANTE-HIERONYMIAN VERSION {Old Latin}.--1860   S. Bagster   [Info only: n.d. John 1:1-14 correct (unigeniti = "only begotten").]

   "Several important Latin versions, comprising only the New Testament, have been executed from
the Greek text.   The first of these, in point of time, is that of Erasmus, which was published at Basle,
in 1516, with the Greek text
.   It contained a dedicatory epistle to Pope Leo X., and was highly
commended by that pontiff; yet it was regarded with great hostility by the members of the Roman
Catholic Church, and, on its first appearance, excited much opposition
.   Erasmus drew his version not
only from printed copies of the Greek Testament, but also from four Greek MSS.
, and in the rendering
of several passages, he consulted the ecclesiastical writers.   He does not, however, make any notable
departures from the Vulgate, and wherever he felt compelled to deviate in any degree from that version,
he assigned his reasons for so doing in the notes which accompany his work.   The version of Beza is
bolder and more faithful than that of Erasmus, and does not betray the same timid adherence to the
Vulgate
.   It has been greatly condemned in consequence by Roman Catholics, but it is generally
preferred by Protestants to all other Latin versions.   Its style is clear and simple, but its chief excellence
consists in its accurate and exact interpretation of the sacred original.

   Thalemann published another Latin version of the Gospels and Acts in 1781, and Jaspis completed
the work by translating and publishing the Epistles in 1793-1797 at Leipsic.   In 1790, a version of
the entire New Testament was published at Leipsic by Reichard.   A translation, professedly executed
from the Alexandrine text, was published by Sebastiani, London, 1817; but it is well known that this
editor merely followed the common Greek text.   The versions of Schott, Naebe, and Goeschen, were
printed as accompaniments to critical editions of the New Testament: they all appeared at Leipsic;
that of Schott in 1805, that of Naebe in 1831, and that of Goeschen in 1832."
--The Bible of Every Land. (1860, Second Edition)   Samuel Bagster   [Info only]

  1. "The version of Castalio or Chatillon was printed at Basle in 1551, with a dedication to
    Edward VI., king of England.   It was reprinted at Basle in 1573, and at Leipsic in
    1738.   The design of Castalio was to produce a Latin translation of both Testaments
    in the pure classical language of the ancient Latin writers."
    --1860   S. Bagster   [Info only: Protestant.]

LATIN.   CASTALIO'S VERSION.--1860   S. Bagster   [Info only: n.d. Exodus 15:1-13 unknown; used Iouæ & Ioua.]

LATIN.   CASTALIO'S VERSION.--1860   S. Bagster   [Info only: n.d. John 1:14 correct (unigenæ = "only begotten").]

  1. "Schmidt's version of the Old and New Testaments was executed with great exactness from the
    original texts, and printed at Strasburg in 1696.   Several more recent editions have
    been issued."
    --1860   S. Bagster   [Info only: Protestant.]

LATIN.   SCHMIDT'S VERSION.--The Bible of Every Land. (1860, Second Edition)   Samuel Bagster   [Info only: n.d. Exodus 15:1-13 unknown; used JEHOVÆ & JEHOVAH.]

LATIN.   SCHMIDT'S VERSION.--1860   S. Bagster   [Info only: n.d. John 1:14 correct (unigeniti = "only begotten").]

  1. "The version of Dathe, professor of Oriental literature at Leipsic, appeared in 1773- 1789, and
    is considered a faithful and elegant translation of the Hebrew text."
    - -1860   S. Bagster   [Info only: Protestant.]

LATIN.   DATHE'S VERSION.--1860   S. Bagster   [Info only: n.d. Exodus 15:1-13 unknown; used Jovæ & Jova.]

LATIN.   SEBASTIAN'S VERSION.--1860   S. Bagster   [Info only: ~1817 John 1:14 correct (unigeniti = "only begotten").]

  1. "The version of the Pentateuch by Schott and Winzer was translated from the Hebrew, and
    published at Leipsic in 1816."
    --1860   S. Bagster   [Info only: Protestant.]

LATIN.   SCHOTT’S VERSION.--1860   S. Bagster   [Info only: ~1805 John 1:1-14 correct (unigeniti = "only begotten").]

LATIN.   GOESCHEN’S VERSION.--1860   S. Bagster   [Info only: ~1832 John 1:1-14 correct (unigeniti = "only begotten").]

[Christian Helps Ministry (USA)] [Christian Home Bible Course]