Do you know whereabouts of the Old Latin 157 AD?

[Eliyahu]

I have heard about the Old Latin Bible before Jerome’s Bible, which may date back to 157AD, as follows:

The Old Latin Vulgate (AD 157)​

The word 'vulgate' is Latin for vulgaror common.The Old Latin Vulgate is a version. It was used by early believers in Europe when Latin was in popular use. It was sometimes referred to as the Itala version.
The Old Latin Vulgatemust not be confused with Jerome's Vulgate, which was produced over 220 years later in AD 380. Jerome's Vulgate (also written in Latin for the Roman Church) was rejected by the early Christians for almost a millennium. The Waldenses, Gauls, Celts, Albegenses and other groups throughout Europe used the Old Latin Vulgate and rejected Jerome's Vulgate. In his book An Understandable History of the Bible Rev. Samuel Gipp Th.D confirms this fact. He writes:

Quote: ​

"The Old Latin Vulgate was used by the Christians in the churches of the Waldenses, Gauls, Celts, Albegenses and other fundamental groups throughout Europe. This Latin version became so used and beloved by orthodox Christians and was in such common use by the common people that it assumed the term 'Vulgate' as a name. Vulgate comes from 'vulgar' which is the Latin word for 'common' It was so esteemed for its faithfulness to the deity of Christ and its accurate reproductions of the originals, that these early Christians let Jerome's Roman Catholic translation 'sit on the shelf.' Jerome's translation was not used by the true Biblical Christians for almost a millennium after it was translated from corrupted manuscripts by Jerome in 380 A.D. Even then it only came into usage due to the death of Latin as a common language, and the violent, wicked persecutions waged against true believers by Pope Gregory IX during his reign from 1227 to 1242 A.D." (Ref:B2)

David Fuller confirms this fact: "It is clearly evident that the Latin Bible of early British Christianity was not the Latin Bible (Vulgate) of the Papacy." (Ref:F9)
http://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/oldlatin.html


But I have never heard about where they are or how they exist today.

- 1) Are they still available today?
- 2) Do they exist in the form of any Codex or any part of the Bible?
- 3) How can we prove that the Old Latin Bible existed
I encountered this question because I noticed the following Codices for other Old Latin Bible such as:

Codex Vercellensis -
at the time of Eusebius : It contains Mark 16:9-20
Preserved in the cathedral library. Vercelli, Piedmont, Italy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vercellensis

Codex Veronensis-
4-5 century It contains Mark 16:9-20
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Veronensis

Codex Corbeiensis II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Corbeiensis_II
5-6 century
Preserved by National Library of France

Can anyone provide me with any information on Old Latin Bible which dates back to 157AD?
THE ABOVE ARE ALL OLD LATIN BIBLE

 

[Deacon]

No single manuscript contains the entire Old Latin Bible, but Old Latin manuscripts, commonly notated as “it” with a superscript letter (e.g., ita, itb), are fairly well attested for the New Testament, with just over one hundred fragments—about forty-six of the Gospels, nineteen of Acts, twenty of the Pauline Epistles, twelve of the Catholic Epistles and seven of the book of Revelation.

Wegner, P. D. (2006). A student’s guide to textual criticism of the Bible: its history, methods & results (p. 288). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Rob .

 

[Eliyahu]

The followings are some of the list of the Old Latin Bible, but I am looking for something dating back to 157 AD.

Manuscripts will sometimes be referred to as "it" followed by the siglum.
s.Name#ADContentEditorCustodianCity, StateCountrygatCodex Gatianum30750Acts 6-8MilanItalyg2Codex Mediolanensis521000Acts 6-8MilanItalyhafCodex Hafnianus—550RevelationWordsworthmCodex Speculum——New TestamentJülicher;
WordsworthphCodex Philadelphiensis631150ActsSandersPhiladelphiaU.S.qCodex Monacensis64650GenBruyneMunichGermanyr2Codex Usserianus II28800GospelsJülicherDublinIrelandr3Codex Monacensis64650PaulBruyneMunichGermanyvVindobonensis Lat. 50225650GospelsJülicherViennaAustriawCodex Waldeccensis83850PaulSchultzeδCodex Sangallensis 4827850four Gospels 16JülicherAbbey of St. GallSt. GallenSwitzerlandnCodex Sangallensis 139416450Matthew; MarkJülicherAbbey of St. GallSt. GallenSwitzerlandoCodex Sangallensis 139416650Mark 16JülicherAbbey of St. GallSt. GallenSwitzerlandpCodex Sangallensis 139520450John 11JülicherAbbey of St. GallSt. GallenSwitzerlandCodex Sangallensis 6047ca. 800John 1:29-3:26JülicherAbbey of St. GallSt. GallenSwitzerlandCodex Sangallensis 5148750JohnJülicherAbbey of St. GallSt. GallenSwitzerlandρCodex Ambrosianus24700John 13JülicherAmbrose LibraryMilanItalysCodex Ambrosianus21600Luke; GenJülicherAmbrose LibraryMilanItalyρ—88950Paul—Basel University LibraryBaselSwitzerlandμFragmentum Monacense34450Matthew 9–10—Bavarian State LibraryMunichGermanyμ—82850Hebrews—Bavarian State LibraryMunichGermanyqCodex Monacensis13600GospelsJülicherBavarian State LibraryMunichGermanyrFrisingensia Fragmenta64600Gen—Bavarian State LibraryMunichGermany



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...in_manuscripts

 

[Logos1560]

The Waldenses, Gauls, Celts, Albegenses and other groups throughout Europe used the Old Latin Vulgate and rejected Jerome's Vulgate.

Your sources are misinformed about the Bibles used by the Waldenses.

Baptist historian Thomas Armitage wrote that “he [Peter Waldo] employed Stephen of Ansa and Bernard Ydross to translate the Gospels from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome into the Romance dialect for the common people, as well as the most inspiring passages from the Christian Fathers” (History of the Baptists, I, p. 295). Andrea Ferrari wrote that “Waldo of Lyons paid some clergy to translate parts of the Bible from the Vulgate” (Diodati’s Doctrine, pp. 71-72). Paul Tice confirmed that Waldo “enlisted two clerics to translate various parts of the Bible, including the four Gospels, into the native Provencal language” (History of the Waldenses, p. vi). H. J. Warner maintained that the base for this translation was “for the most part the Vulgate of Jerome” (Albigensian, II, p. 222). Warner noted that Stephen de Ansa, a [Roman Catholic] priest, translated some books of the Bible into the Romance tongue while another priest Bernard Udros wrote his translating down for Peter Waldo (p. 221).

Glenn Conjurske affirmed that “the medieval Waldensian version in the old Romance language [was] translated from the Vulgate” (Olde Paths, July, 1997, p. 160). KJV-only author Ken Johnson wrote that “we openly grant this” [“the fact Waldo used the Vulgate as the basis of his translation”] (Real Truth, p. 21).


Deanesly wrote that “the earliest existent Waldensian texts, Provencal, Catalan and Italian, were founded on a Latin Bible, the use of which prevailed widely in the Visigothic kingdom of Narbonne, up to the thirteenth century” and that this Latin Bible “is characterized by a set of peculiar readings, amounting to over thirty, in the Acts of the Apostles” and these same readings appear in “the early Provencal, Catalan and Italian Bible” and “in the Tepl manuscript” (Lollard Bible, pp. 65-66). Deanesly referred to this Latin Bible as “the Visigothic Vulgate” and indicated that it was later superseded by the Paris Vulgate (p. 66). James Roper maintained that the two Provencal versions “are derived from the Latin text of Languadoc of the thirteenth century, and hence in Acts contain many ‘Western’ readings of old Latin origin” (Jackson, Beginnings, III, p. cxxxviii). Roper added: “The translators of these texts merely used the text of Languadoc current in their own day and locality, which happened (through contiguity to Spain) to be widely mixed with Old Latin readings” (p. cxxxviii). Referring to Codex Teplensis and the Freiberg manuscript, Roper wrote: “The peculiar readings of all these texts in Acts, often ‘Western’ go back (partly at least through a Provencal version) to the mixed Vulgate text of Languadoc of the thirteenth century, which is adequately known from Latin MSS” (pp. cxxxix-cxl). Roper asserted: “A translation of the New Testament into Italian was made, probably in the thirteenth century, from a Latin text like that of Languadoc, and under the influence of the Provencal New Testament. It includes, like those texts, some ’Western’ readings in Acts” (p. cxlii). Since Languadoc or Languedoc was the name of a region of southern France, especially the area between the Pyrenees and Loire River, and since Narbonne was a city in southern France in the same region and it was also the name of a province or kingdom in this area, both authors seem to have been referring to the same basic region. For a period of time, this area was not part of the country of France. The Catalan, Provencal, and Piedmontese dialects are considered to be dialects of the Romaunt language, the vernacular language of the South of Europe before the French, Spanish, and Italian languages were completely formed. The above evidence indicates that the mentioned Waldensian translations were made from an edition of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate that was mixed with some Old Latin readings, especially in the book of Acts. William Gilly had the Romanunt Version of the Gospel of John printed in 1848. L. Cledat had the N. T. as translated into Provencal printed in 1887 (Warner, p. 68).


Glenn Conjurske cited Herman Haupt as maintaining that “the old Romance, or Provencal, Waldensian version invariably reads Filh de la vergena (‘Son of the virgin’) instead of ‘Son of man’--except only in Hebrews 2:6, where (of course) it has filh de l’ome, ‘son of man’,” and Conjurske noted that he verified Haupt’s claim (Olde Paths, June, 1996, p. 137). H. J. Warner observed that “in St. John 1, the Romance version had ‘The Son was in the beginning,‘ and in verse 51 ‘The Son of the Virgin’ for ‘the Son of Man,‘ and so throughout all the Dublin, Zurich, Grenoble and Paris MSS. in every corresponding place” (Albigensian, II, pp. 223-224). William Gilly maintained that “wherever the words, Filius Hominis (Son of Man), occur in the Vulgate, they are translated Filh de la Vergena (Son of the Virgin), throughout the whole of this Version of the New Testament” (Romanunt Version, p. xliii).


James Todd described a Waldensian manuscript preserved at Dublin that has the New Testament with the books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Cantica, Wisdom, and Ecclelsiasticus in the Romance dialect (Books of the Vaudois, p. 1). Todd noted that its Gospel of Matthew includes “the prologue of St. Jerome.” Todd observed: “No intimation of the apocryphal or uncanonical character of the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus occurs in the MS” (Ibid.). In an appendix of Todd’s book, Henry Bradshaw described some Waldensian manuscripts preserved at Cambridge, noting that Morland Manuscript A includes “a translation of Genesis 1-10 from the Vulgate” (p. 216). Bradshaw noted that Morland Manuscript C included a translation of Job chapters 1-3 and 42 from the Vulgate and “a translation of the whole book of Tobit from the Vulgate” (pp. 215-216).

 

[Eliyahu]

Your sources are misinformed about the Bibles used by the Waldenses.
.

I think you don't have any Info on this issue.

Whether or how much the Old Latin was used is not a big issue, but I am looking for any substantial information on how they can claim there existed Old Latin Bible dating back to 157AD, even to 120AD.

Apostle Paul must have used the Bible when he preached the gospel to Yugoslavia (Rom 15:19). When he fully preached the Gospel of Christ even unto Illyricum, there must have resulted in many believers who must have used the bible. Then the Lingua Franca was the Latin and therefore there must be the bible in Latin before Jerome translated it in 389AD.

From Illyricum to Alps was a distance of couple of days' journey at that time.

If any of you have the information on this issue please let me know.

 

[SolaSaint]

Now where did I put that 157 issue of the Latin OT? If I remember where I placed it, I will get back with you. :BangHead:

 

[Eliyahu]

Now where did I put that 157 issue of the Latin OT? If I remember where I placed it, I will get back with you. :BangHead:

Thanks!
In fact I sometimes have the same problem with it as I couldn't find my own post quickly, LOL.

 

[Logos1560]

Old Latin variations

Arthur Voobus wrote: "The textual complexion of the Old Latin version is marked by the boldest departures from the received text" (Early Versions of the NT, p. 47). Bruce Metzger claimed that “the textual affinities of the Old Latin versions are unmistakably with the Western type of text” (Early Versions, p. 325). KJV defender Edward F. Hills included the Old Latin Version in the Western family of texts (Believing Bible Study, p. 68). Kevin James asserted that at Mark 2:22 “the Western text represented by Codex Bezae and the Old Latin says: ‘and the wine and the bottle will be marred,‘ omitting ‘is spilled’” (Corruption, p. 93). James suggested that the Old Latin adds “in him” after “the forgiveness of sins” at Acts 5:31 and that the Old Latin had “said to the chief leaders and counselors” where the KJV has “said to them” at Acts 5:35 (p. 50). He disclosed that the Old Latin agreed with the Western family in omitting “worshipped him” at Luke 24:52 (pp. 46-47). He also indicated that “the Western family (including the Old Latin)“ had “Isaiah the prophet” at Mark 1:2 (pp. 94-95). Dean John William Burgon also acknowledged that the Old Latin Version had the name of Isaiah at Mark 1:2 and that “copies of the Old Latin version thrust Isaiah’s name into Matthew 1:22, and Zechariah’s name into 21:4” (Unholy Hands, I, pp. B-53-B-54). Burgon pointed out that copies of the Old Latin have the words for “And Jesus said to His disciples” at the beginning of John 14:1 (p. B-33). James specified that the Old Latin had “in Bethany” at John 1:28 (Corruption, p. 129). In his commentary on Galatians, J. B. Lightfoot pointed out that the Old Latin omitted the negative [oude] at Galatians 2:5 (p. 121). Burkitt indicated that the Old Latin codices substitute the rendering of Psalm 2:7 [“Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee”] for the words used at Luke 3:22 (Old Latin, p. 9). At Matthew 10:29, J. Scott Porter maintained that “the Italic, not only as found in the MSS. but as quoted by Tertullian, by the translator of Irenaeus, by Cyprian, and by Novation, has ’without the will of your Father’” (Principles, pp. 231-232). Instead of “a man” as in the KJV at Matthew 10:35, Porter observed that “the Itala reads ’a son’” (p. 232). Porter pointed out that at the end of Matthew 10:39 “the Versio Itala adds ’unto eternal life’ in vitam aeternam” (Ibid.).


James pointed out that “the Old Latin has many disagreements among its surviving manuscripts” (Corruption, p. 26). At Luke 24:4-5, Metzger maintained that "the Old Latin manuscripts present no fewer than twenty-seven variant readings" (Early Versions, p. 322). Metzger wrote: “At Luke 2:14 all Old Latin manuscripts read omnibus bonae voluntatis (‘to men of goodwill’)“ (p. 330). Metzger claimed that John 7:53-8:11 is absent “from several Old Latin manuscripts (a f l* q)“ (Text, p. 223). Joseph Bosworth indicated that the Old Latin sometimes omitted a whole verse such as Matthew 23:14 (Gospels, p. xi). Alexander Souter maintained that at Luke 24:36 “the words ‘Peace be unto you’ are absent from all unrevised Old-Latin texts” (Text, p. 49). Metzger noted that Old Latin manuscripts have some additions to the text such as the addition at Matthew 3:16 in manuscript a and the long addition at Mark 16:4 in manuscript k” (Bible in Translation, p. 31). Scrivener indicated that the Old Latin m “reads Jesus Christ” instead of “God” at Acts 20:28 (Plain Introduction, II, p. 375). Edward Hills listed several additions found in the Old Latin manuscripts at Matthew 3:15, Matthew 20:28, Luke 3:22, Luke 6:4, Luke 23:53, John 6:56, Acts 15:20, and Acts 23:24 (Believing Bible Study, pp. 46-47; KJV Defended, pp. 121-122) and also several omissions (BBS, pp. 69-70; KJV Defended, p. 123). Hills observed that the Old Latin version omitted Luke 24:12 (KJV Defended, p. 123). According to Hills, the Old Latin added the following at Acts 23:24: “For he feared lest the Jews should seize him and kill him and he meanwhile should be accused of having taken a bribe” (p. 122). Cloud indicated that the reading “which” instead of “God” at 1 Timothy 3:16 is found in most Latin manuscripts including the Old Latin (Faith, p. 394). Hills acknowledged that the Western text (the Latin versions) at 1 Timothy 3:16 “reads, which was manifest in the flesh” (KJV Defended, p. 137). In a footnote, KJV-only author Floyd Jones acknowledged that “Dr. Letis informs us that no Byzantine Old Latin is known to be extant” (Which Version, p. 105, footnote 8). Glenn Conjurske asserted: “There is no evidence that the Old Latin read filius in 1 John 5:7, nor any solid evidence that the Old Latin contained 1 John 5:7 at all, though [Frederick] Nolan can give us a few seems, and mights, and might have beens” (Olde Paths, April, 1994, p. 93).

 

[Logos1560]

Old Latin Old Testament made from Greek LXX

In the Old Testament, the Old Latin versions were translated from the Greek Septuagint and were thus a translation of a translation (Geisler, General Introduction to the Bible, p. 528). A New Standard Bible Dictionary noted that in the second century “the Septuagint was first translated into Latin, the Old Latin Bible (Vetus Itala) (p. 936). F. H. A. Scrivener as edited by Edward Miller also indicated that the O. T. of the Old Latin “was made from the Greek Septuagint” (Plain Introduction, II, p. 57).

Edward F. Hills acknowledged that “the earlier Latin version of the Old Testament was a translation of the Septuagint” (KJV Defended, p. 95). In their preface to the 1611, the KJV translators asserted that the [Old] Latin translations “were not out of the Hebrew fountain (we speak of the Latin Translations of the Old Testament) but out of the Greek stream.” Francis Turretin affirmed that “the Latin version in use before the time of Jerome” was made from the Greek Septuagint (Institutes, I, p. 127). The Cambridge History of the Bible confirmed that the O. T. of the Old Latin version “derived from the Greek” (Vol. 1, p. 169). Fairbairn’s Bible Encyclopedia also affirmed that the O. T. of the Old Latin versions “was translated, not from the Hebrew text, but from the LXX” (VI, p. 125). Kenyon noted that O. T. translations made from the Septuagint “include the Old Latin” (Text, p. 53). J. Scott Porter maintained that the Septuagint “was the basis” for the Old Latin Version of the O. T. (Principles, p. 108). Kyle McCarter pointed out this “dependence of the Old Latin on LXX,” and he indicated that the Old Latin was a “daughter translation“ of the LXX (Textual Criticism, pp. 64, 68). Emanuel Tov also maintained that “the Vetus Latina [Old Latin] derived directly from the Greek”, and he also referred to it as a “daughter translation” of the Greek Septuagint (Textual Criticism, pp. 134, 139). Henry Swete referred to the Old Latin Bible as “the earliest daughter version of the Septuagint” (Introduction, p. 88). Ernst Wurthwein also agreed that the Old Latin “was translated from the Septuagint,“ and he noted that “it has been called ‘the Septuagint in Latin clothing’” (Text of O. T., p. 91). Likewise, S. R. Driver claimed that the Old Latin Version “was not made immediately from the Hebrew, but was formed upon the Greek” (Notes on the Hebrew Text, p. liii).

Jakob van Bruggen also indicated that the O. T. of the first Latin translations was made from the Greek Septuagint (Future, p. 40). Bruggen mentioned Augustine’s objection to Jerome’s translating from the Hebrew instead of from the Greek underlying text of the Old Latin (p. 41). Adam Kamesar cited that “Jerome notes that while his own version has been translated from the original source, the Old Latin has been ‘poured into the third jar’” (Jerome, p. 45). In an introductory article to The Abingdon Bible Commentary, Ira Price observed that the O. T. of the Old Latin was “a translation of the LXX” (p. 105; also Price‘s Ancestory, p. 159). Thomas Horne noted that “the Old Italic was translated from the Greek in the Old Testament” (Introduction, II, p. 235).

Michael Sproul observed that “it is well known that the Old Latin did not base its translation on the Masoretic text, but rather the Septuagint” (God’s Word Preserved, p. 270). William Whitley wrote: “The Latin versions had been made, not from the Hebrew direct, but from a famous Greek version known as the Septuagint” (Jacobus, Roman Catholic and Protestant Bibles, p. 4). Simon DeVries affirmed that the Old Latin Version of the O. T. “derives from a Greek text” (1 Kings, p. lvii). Harper’s Bible Dictionary suggested that the “Old Latin versions are valuable because they are translations of the Septuagint before Origen revised its text” (p. 747).
Merrill Unger maintained that the Old Testament of the Old Latin “was made from the Septuagint and slavishly follows it, even to the extent of reproducing evident blunders” (Introductory Guide, p. 170). F. C. Burkitt wrote: “The Old Latin authorities for the book of Daniel may be divided into two families, according as they follow the genuine LXX or the Version of Theodotian” (The Old Latin, p. 6). McCarter gave an example of where the Septuagint and the Old Latin agreed in preserving a long passage at 1 Samuel 14:41 that “was lost from MT when a scribe’s eye skipped from the first ysr’l to the third” (Textual Criticism, p. 41). William McKane presented the examples of Genesis 31:35 where “the words ‘in every part of the tent” appear in the Septuagint and the Old Latin, but not in the Hebrew” and of Genesis 35:4 where the additional words are “’and desecrated them’ and ‘which can still be seen to-day’” (Selected Christian Hebraists, p. 34). McKane cited that Simon traced the Old Latin rendering nutritus ‘nourished’ at Genesis 15:15 “to an inner Greek corruption” (p. 136). H. B. Swete gave “a list of the extant remains of the Old Latin Version of the LXX, and the editions in which they are accessible” (An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, pp. 93-97).

 

[Eliyahu]

I would conclude BB doesn't have Info about the Old Latin dating back to 157AD, for now.

I don't trust what Metzger said as I doubt about his salvation itself, though I appreciate Logos1560 for his endeavor very much.

 

[saturneptune]

Now where did I put that 157 issue of the Latin OT? If I remember where I placed it, I will get back with you. :BangHead:

The original manuscripts are at Wal Mart.