232 



Froceedinys of the Royal Irish Academy. 



Passing on to the Acts, we have a number of short phrases which 

 agree with the Yulg., and differ from the extant 0. L. iiss. 

 (1) Audenter dico, ii. 29 ; (2) Excitem .... persecidionem^ xiii. 50 ; 

 (3) Alligatus spiritu, xx. 22 ; (4) Mihi protestatur, xx. 23 ; 

 (5) Sed nihil horum iiereor, xx. 24 ; (6) Lnpi rapaces, xx. 29 ; In (1) 

 d, e conflict with g, pi ; in (2) d^ g agree ; in (3) d conflicts with 

 g ; in (4) d, <?, g agree ; in {b) d, e, g differ widely from each other ; 

 in (6) d, e, g agree. Thus, in three out of the six places the extant 

 0. L. Mss. give a most uncertain sound ; and in (6), where they agree, 

 it is most likely that St. Patrick was confusing Acts xx. 29 with the 

 more familiar S. Matt. vii. 15, where lupi rapaces occurs. On the 

 other hand, St. Patrick agrees with some form of 0. L. in Acts i. 4 ; 

 ii. 5 ; xiii. 47. It is at least possible that, in the above six places, 

 and in many others in the Acts, the Vulgate reproduces the render- 

 ings of the 0. L. text used by St. Jerome as the basis of his revision. 



And the same theory has still more plausibility when we come 

 to the Pauline Epistles. I have been warned by Mr. F. C. Purkitt 

 that of the six mss. noticed in the list of abbreviations under Paul, only 

 three, d, e, and r have a right to be reckoned as 0. L. Of these e is 

 a poor copy of d, and r is fragmentary. That means that we have only 

 one continuous 0. L. text for the Pauline Epistles. We have seen from 

 the examples cited just now from the Acts, that there is no uniformity 

 amongst O.L. mss. Is it not possible that, in the Pauline Epistles, 

 where the Yulgate differs from d, it may often preserve 0. L. renderings 

 as distinguished from 0. L. readings ? There are some nine places in 

 which St. Patrick's citations from the Pauline Epp. (incl. Hebrews) 

 agree with the Yulgate against d, i.e. Eom. xiii. 9; 1 Cor. xv. 10; 

 2 Cor. iii. 2, 3 ; xi. 6 ; Phil. ii. 15 ; iv. 13 ; 2 Thess. ii. 15 ; Tit. iii. 

 5, 6 ; Heb. xii. 28. In every case but two, 2 Cor. xi. 6 and Heb. 

 xii. 28, the Yulgate rendering is supported by pre-Hieronymian 

 patristic citations quoted by Sabatier. One cannot, however, place 

 any confidence in alleged patristic citations, unless in the case of 

 writers whose works have been critically edited in quite recent 

 times. 



All this may possibly read like the special pleading of one who is 

 contending for a theory of his own. I have no theory on the subject 

 whatever, but am merely deprecating decisions based on insufficient 

 evidence. Even if St. Patrick's use of St. Jerome's Yulgate was demon- 

 strated, it would not be an argument against the date assigned to his 

 death above, p. 230, i.e. a.d. 461. St. Patrick was not, as far as 

 Biblical knowledge is concerned, a product of Ireland or Britain. 



