Augustine's version of the Bible

koot van wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD)

Kyungbook National University

Sangju Campus

South Korea

Conjoint lecturer of Avondale College

Australia

16 March 2010

Church father Augustine was the chief leader for his time for the Catholic church in the fifth century CE. He was younger than Jerome, who lived in Bethlehem. The two had a rift of dispute and one day Jerome said to Augustine, "I may be old, but I can still hit with a strong fist".

The Vetus Latina is a Latin translation of the Old Testament that was made in 190 CE. The Vetus Latina was based upon defective copies that were made of the Hebrew form of the consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition, which is the standard for all evaluations on the topic. It can be clearly demonstrated when one compares the Qumran manuscripts with the consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition and also with the Vetus Latina.

In 392-402 CE, church father Jerome was not satisfied with the condition of the biblical text and decided to translate the Bible anew. He wanted to obtain Hebrew manuscripts and translate the Bible from the Hebrew. What our information is showing, is that his translation in Latin, called the Vulgate, was also based upon defective manuscripts, at times even more defective than the Vetus Latina. Yes, of course the Vetus Latina and Vulgate rings a consistent bell similar to the consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition. However, when one looks at the variants of these texts with the Hebrew of the consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition, it is then that one can evaluate the problems better.

Even if the translator wants to be as literal as possible or as true to his Hebrew manuscript, if that Hebrew manuscript was copied from a defective Hebrew manuscript, or if that method that was used, for example dictation, led to many defective misspellings, slips of the eye, slips of the ear, slips of the memory, slips of the tongue and even slips of the hand (especially if later translators have to work with it) then one will have variants and problems, sober intention aside. 

If one takes the critical text called the Vetus Latina Hispana, it is possible to see which text form Augustine is following.

Case one

In Judges 6:11 Augustine is following the Vulgate form in citing sub quercu while the Vetus Latina used the Latin form sub ilice, a form that was also used by Lucifer of Cagliari round about 360 CE.

Case two

In Judges 6:12 Augustine has his own form reading potens in fortitudine (Augustine read this form in QH In Jud. 32, 604) whereas Jerome read in 392-402 CE in the Vulgate uirorum fortissime, the Vetus Latin read potens in uirtute and Lucifer of Cagliari read potens uirtute (Lucifer read this in RA 36). Lucifer's variant with the Vetus Latina may be due to the method of copying that he was doing, by memory and dictation that could explain the "falling out" of some forms and the "transformation" of others.

Case three

In Judges 6:13, Augustine refused to follow the Vulgate of Jerome in his own time with obsecro mi domine and read with the Vetus Latina in me domine and also with Lucifer of Cagliari.

Case four

In Judges 6:14-15 Augustine chose to follow the Vetus Latina very strictly by reading nonne ecce misi te et dixit ei gedeon in me domine but Jerome translated with his own Latin words scito quod miserim te. Qui respondens ait: Obsecro mi domine. Lucifer of Cagliari, due to his method of copying of the Vetus Latina transformed it slightly to nonne ecce mitto te. Copies of the Vetus Latina that we have of the sixth or seventh centuries illustrate to us the same problems that we are discussing with copying of defective Hebrew manuscripts. It is as if manuscripts were not easily available and copying was done with memory and dictation so that reader's text and copyist's forming of that text is separated by time and space. The copies of the sixth and seventh centuries CE read nonne ego misi te et dixit illi gedeon in me domine.

What we have here, is the complex problem of availability of manuscripts to scribes in the process of copying. They have to rely on their memory when the text is not available for too long and copying are restricted by these barriers. They all intended to end with the same sentence or information but they did not. Human frailty and human factors.

It appears that Augustine had both copies in Latin, Jerome's Vulgate and the Vetus Latina available for citation and for some reason he sometimes cites from the one and then at other times from the other. Modern pastors have sometimes two or more different translations in the English on their desks when they prepare for a sermon. They will say that the NEB translates it this way and the KJV the other way.

The problem with Augustine, is that he was not a keen reader of the Bible but he enjoyed reading Greek classics. His sermons are many times citing from the same verses all the time, almost like pastors who prepare only one sermon and then preach that sermon in 40 different congregations throughout the year. Augustine cannot be seen as an exegete, but he can be seen as someone interested in philosophy and spirituality mixed. The Vetus Latina, the Vulgate, Lucifer of Cagliari and the copies we have of the Vetus Latina dating to the sixth and seventh centuries CE are all based upon defective copies that were made of the Hebrew manuscripts going back to similar copies comparing well with those at Qumran. Again, statistics cannot establish the Word of God. The consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition is the very Word of God. Any other version, whether Latin, Greek, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopian, Arabic are derivatives and approximations thereof. Intentions aside.