Chapter 20 The Versions of the Book of the Twelve

Simone Rickerby

A discussion of the Latin text of the Minor Prophets is more complex than one might expect. When the Latin version is spoken of often it is the edito- rial efforts of Jerome, collected together as the textual tradition, which are meant. However, this practice obscures the fact that there is evidence for translation of the into Latin which is older than Jerome.1 What is also not readily acknowledged is the complexity associated with a study of the Vulgate and this older Latin textual tradition. The “Vulgate” is a modern construct. In this study the term “Vulgate” will be used to refer to the later edition of Jerome preserved in a wealth of manuscript evidence which is more or less similar, and which has been gathered together to form the Clementine Vulgate and other edited texts. Despite the fact that the internal text of each book is generally coherent, these translations were done over a period of time and reflect Jerome’s changing attitudes to translation practice and to the text he is translating (whether Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic). This suggests that from book to book the Vulgate is a much more complex cor- pus than is generally acknowledged. The older Latin textual tradition also preserves a wealth of complexity which is not generally discussed. In this study the reader will find the use of the phrase “older Latin textual tradition(s),” rather than “Old Latin” version. The homogeneity suggested by the use of “Old Latin” belies the realities of the evidence. In the study of the older Latin textual tradition we find countless witnesses attesting various Latin textual traditions. While these various textual traditions may ultimately have their origins in a single original, the identifica- tion of this text is a distant prospect.2 The use of the Vulgate version by the later Roman led to the displacement of the older Latin textual tradition in most books of the

1 In this study “Old Testament” refers to the collection of books used within a Jewish Greek milieu and includes the Greek translations of the books of the Hebrew , but also the Wisdom of Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Judith, Tobit, and the Wisdom of Solomon. 2 Interpretation of the evidence varies. Haelewyck, “Relevance,” 440, states that “Until we find proof to the contrary, we may indeed say that, for each book or collection of books, there was originally only one Latin version.” He is therefore content to continue to use “Old Latin” to refer to the older Latin textual tradition.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424326_022 326 Rickerby

Old Testament.3 An examination of the Latin version of the Old Testament is therefore constrained by the fact that the manuscript evidence for the older Latin textual tradition, compared with the manuscript evidence extant for the revisions of Jerome, is “very fragmentary.”4 The lack of manuscript evidence for the older Latin textual tradition of most books of the Old Testament means that academic investigation of the Latin text often relies on the information provided by quotations from patristic sources (such as Cyprian, Tertullian, Ambrose, and Jerome) which in turn generates its own textual complexities. That we have any extant evidence for the older textual traditions of the Latin Bible is remarkable. However, the very existence of an older Latin textual tradition is in itself noteworthy. Where (and why) would such a translation have occurred? One might posit that Rome was the place of origin for the earli- est translations of the Old Testament into Latin.5 However, this seems doubt- ful when one considers the fact that the widespread use of Greek in Rome was an issue for comment by Roman satirists of the first century.6 Additionally, up until the middle of the third century ce the official correspondence of the Roman Church was received and composed in Greek!7 The are conspicuous in their silence regarding the origin of the Latin biblical text. Both Augustine and Jerome discuss the existence of older translations of the Old and New Testaments. However, while they are critical of the plurality and dismissive of the quality of the older textual traditions, they do not sup- ply a context of origin.8 Modern commentators too avoid engaging with this issue, preferring to state the problem and move on.9 While these questions are

3 According to Thiele, Sapientia, 11, the extant witnesses to the book of Wisdom (Sapientia), with few exceptions, preserve different forms of one single old text type which can be traced back to Cyprian. The Vulgate text of Sapientia also belongs to this text type and is thus not the work of Jerome. A similar situation may be found in the Vulgate text of the Wisdom of Sirach, and 1 and 2 Maccabees—these texts are representative of the older Latin textual tradition. 4 Ulrich, “Characteristics,” 68. 5 Mohrmann proposes that by the middle of the second century ce the process of Latinization of the Church of Rome was underway. Mohrmann, “Les origines,” 71. 6 Swete, Introduction, 87: “Roman satirists of the first century complained that the capital had become a Greek city; the upper classes acquired Greek; the freedmen and slaves in many cases spoke it as their mother tongue.” 7 Mohrmann, “Les origines,” 69, the complete Latinization of the Roman Liturgy did not occur until the middle of the fourth century ce. 8 In his Prologue to Judith, Jerome refers to Multorem codicum uarietatem uitiosissimam am­ putaui (“Inicipit Prologus Iudith,” Fischer et al., Biblia Sacra I, 691) while Augustine notes the infinita uarietas of the older Latin textual tradition and the aliquantulum facultatis (little skill) demonstrated by the translators (Augustine, Doctr. chr. 11:16). 9 In relation to the Latin version of the Old Testament, Fernández Marcos notes: “No doubt we would like to know more about the origin and circumstances, sociological as well as religious,