LATIN VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE. – Vulgate (v.), there were in use V. l., partially preserved, in the Christian communities of Africa and western Europe. From the earliest beginnings of Christianity in these Latin countries, the need was felt for a Latin translation of the Bible. St. Cyprian (d. in 258) uses in his writings a biblical text that had already been translated; the same can probably be said of Tertullian (d. after 222). A Numidian martyr from Scillium (ca. 180) must have been referring to Latin texts when he stated that he had with him “the books and letters of Paul, the just man” (Acta of the Scillitan martyrs). For the Roman Church, there is the testimony of Novatian (d. in 257–58). Thus, toward the end of the second century, the Bible, or at least part of it, had already been translated into Latin: it was the Vetus Latina (v. ITALA). A comparison between the texts cited by Cyprian and those of Novatian shows, moreover, that the two writers used different translations. Therefore, at least two versions existed, probably only partial ones. The same conclusion is suggested by the biblical manuscripts that have come down to us. Indeed, for some books, such as Leviticus, as many as four versions can be identified (cf. codd. Lugdunensis, Monacensis, Wirceburgensis, and the text used by St. Augustine in the Locutiones et quaestiones in Heptateuchum).
This fact lends some justification to St. Augustine’s assertion that the translators of the Bible into Latin had been innumerable (De doctrina christiana, II, 11, 16; PL 34, 43); taken as a whole, however, this seems to refer to the number of different authors who had translated the individual books. St. Jerome always speaks of a version in the singular, undoubtedly the one in use in the Roman Church, while he often laments the great variety of readings
in the different copies. Indeed, for some books, such as Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, no certain evidence of a plurality of versions has so far been produced. It follows that, while some books circulated in two, three, or four distinct versions, others were translated only once.
The dates cited establish only that the work began around the middle of the second century and perhaps continued until the end of the third. Equal uncertainty prevails concerning the places in which these anonymous versions arose. For serious reasons, based on alleged linguistic provincialisms and on the usage of African authors, it is thought that the first version originated in North Africa. But the need for a translation also existed in other regions where Greek was little or not at all understood, such as northern Italy, Gaul, and Spain. Whatever the homeland of the translation may have been, today, for practical reasons and out of respect for ancient testimonies (those of the Carthaginian Cyprian and the Roman Novatian), it is preferable to speak of an “African” text and a “European” text. It should nevertheless be noted that the two texts are interdependent, since one served to assist in the expansion of the other. Identifying them in individual cases is very difficult even in books that evidently contain them, because the two texts were often contaminated in transmission, both mutually and through contact with the text of the Vulgate when (fifth–sixth centuries) the latter gained the ascendancy.
The study of the ancient V. l. is very useful from a linguistic point of view, because they often reproduce grammatical forms and vocabulary foreign to the literary language. These peculiarities, especially in vocabulary, so important for the history of Latin, constituted one of the reasons for St. Jerome’s revision, in which he—at least for the Psalter—undertook to make the diction “less plebeian” (Epist., 106, 54, 56), condemning as “verbal monstrosities” certain terms, such as adnullae or nullificare, coined by the ancient translators or taken from dialects (Epist., 106, 57). Examination of the earliest V. criticism, because of their often slavish fidelity to the Greek text of the Septuagint (only the book of Daniel was translated from the Greek version of Theodotion). For the critical study of the highly authoritative Greek translation, the ancient V. l. offer the advantage of reproducing a text close to the archetype (v. ESAPLE); consequently, their testimony is sometimes preferable to that of certain Greek manuscripts. In the New Testament they reproduce a good text of the Western type. Nevertheless, the usefulness of these versions, great in theory, is often rendered doubtful in practice, because their manuscripts were frequently revised according to other Greek recensions or conformed to the text of the Vulgate. Five books not translated by Jerome are still read by the Church in their ancient V. l. (Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, I and II Maccabees).
Manuscripts of the entire Bible are lacking among the pre-Jeromean versions. The Sessorianus codex (at S. Croce in Rome), from the eighth–ninth century, comprises almost the entire New Testament, but only in fragmentary passages.
This is the widespread scriptural Speculum, falsely attributed to St. Augustine. Gospel codices, designated by the lowercase letters of the Latin alphabet, are fairly numerous. The most notable are: cod. a, Vercellensis (fourth century), attributed to St. Eusebius (v.), containing extensive fragments of the four Gospels; cod. b, Veronensis (fifth century), famous for its beauty and containing all four Gospels; cod. d, Bezae or Cantabrigiensis (sixth century), that is, the Latin part of the bilingual D. It contains the four Gospels and almost all the Acts of the Apostles; cod. f, Brixianus (sixth century), written with great elegance and containing the four complete Gospels; cod. ff, Corbeiensis (now in Paris at the Bibliothèque nationale), from the fifth–sixth century; the codices g and g, both Sangermanenses (now both in Paris), from the ninth and tenth centuries, are mixed, because in many passages they reproduce the text of the Jeromean Vulgate.
The codices listed, together with several others, represent the so-called “European” text. The “African” text is provided by cod. e, Palatinus, from the fifth century (now in the Museum of Trento; one leaf in Dublin), with the four Gospels mutili, and by cod. k, Bobiensis, from the fourth–fifth century (now in Turin), which contains only Mk. 8:8–Mt. 15:36.
For the Acts of the Apostles, besides the aforementioned Bezae Cantabrigiensis codex, it is sufficient to recall cod. e, Laudianus, a bilingual manuscript from the sixth century, written in Sardinia and now in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. Cod. d, Bobiensis, a palimpsest (now in the National Library of Naples), besides fragments of the Acts, also contains notable passages from the Letter of St. James and the Second Letter of Peter. For the Pauline letters, besides the few bilingual codices, the fragments of Frisinga (r, Frisingensis, now in Munich), from the sixth–seventh century, should be noted.
Of the Old Testament, the Pentateuch is available, generally in fragmentary condition or joined to certain books containing the text of the Vulgate, in the following codices: Lugdunensis, from the sixth–seventh century; Wirceburgensis, from the fifth–sixth century; Monacensis and Ottobonianus (Vatican Library), from the seventh–eighth century. The historical books can be reconstructed almost in their entirety from various codices, the principal ones being: the Vindobonensis (now in the National Library of Naples), from the sixth century; the Complutensis (now in Madrid), from the ninth century; the Vaticanus, from the ninth century; and the Monacensis, from the ninth century. The Psalter is contained in about ten codices, of which it is enough to mention the Veronensis, from the sixth century; the Sangermanensis, from the sixth century; the Mediolanensis, from the ninth century; and the Psalterium mozarabicum. The wisdom books not included in the Vulgate can be read in the following codices: Vindobonensis, from the sixth–seventh century; Tolosanus, from the seventh–ninth century; Veronensis, from the sixth–seventh century; and the Monacensis. The prophetic books are represented by the codices Wirceburgensis, Constantinianus-Weingartensis from the fifth–sixth century, dispersed among various libraries; Sangermanensis, from the fifth–sixth century; Gothicus Legionensis, from the tenth century; and the Veronensis, from the eighth century.
Gran parte di questi e di altri manoscritti è stata già pubblicata in edizioni particolari. Una ricostruzione del Vecchio Testamento con testimonianze raccolte nei vari codici o desunte dalle opere dei Padri fu tentata nel sec. XVI da Flaminio Nobili (v.). Molto più perfetta e completa risultò l'opera di P. Sabatier, Bibliorum Sacrorum latinae versionis antiquae seu vetus Italica et ceterae quaecumque in codicibus mss. et antiquorum libris reperiri potuerunt, 3 voll. (Reims 1739-43; 2ª ed., ivi 1751). In questi anni i monaci benedettini di Beuron preparano un «nuovo Sabatier» (v. DEWE), che corrisponda alle esigenze ed alle condizioni della scienza attuale. Finora è uscito il fascicolo introduttivo con un foglio di saggio (cf. Biblica, 31 [1950], pp. 116-18) dal titolo: Vetus latina, Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel nach Petrus Sabatier neu gesammelt und herausgegeben von der Erzabtei Beuron. 1. Verzeichniss der Sigel für Handschriften und Kirchenschriftsteller, Friburgo in Br. 1949. L'Accademia di Berlino ha pubblicato i Vangeli di Matteo (1938) e di Marco (1940), curati da A. Jülicher. Molti testi si possono leggere in Old-Latin biblical texts (I-VII, Oxford 1883-1923), ed in Collectanea biblica latina (I-V, VIII, Roma 1912-21, 1945). - Vedi tav. LVII.