St. Patrick e-bog

Whilst the greatest effort has been made to ensure the quality of this text, due to the historical nature of this content, in some rare cases there may be minor issues with legibility. St. Jerome's N. T. came into general use much earlier than did his O. T. Even Muirchu, who wrote about the year 700, has a remarkable quotation from the O. L. of Exodus.<br><br>The question, as it affects St. Patrick, is dealt with in detail in the present writer's Libri S. Patricii, p. 230 ff. But something must be said here.<br><br>For the purpose of arriving at a conclusion as to the relation of Patrick's Biblical text to that of Jerome, it is necessary to remember that the Latin Bible is not homogeneous. Of the Psalter, Jerome produced three editions:<br>(1) that called the Roman Psalter (R), A. D. 383, a cursory revision of the Old Latin; (2) a more careful revision, the Gallican Psalter (G), A.D. 387, which became current in Gaul at the end of the sixth century; and (3) a new translation from the Hebrew (H). The rest of the canonical books of the O. T. were re-translated by Jerome from the Hebrew (A.D. 391-404); but the Apocrypha, with the exception of Tobit and Judith, he did not touch. The Gospels were carefully revised; but the evidence as to the rest of the N. T. is conflicting. However, it is generally agreed now that Jerome did revise the Acts, Epistles, and Revelation, but not very thoroughly. Hence we must examine separately Patrick's citations from (1) the Psalter; (2) the other canonical O. T. books;(3) the Apocrypha;(4) the Gospels; and (5) the rest of the N. T.<br><br>Moreover, we must keep in mind the fact that no two MSS. of the Vulgate N. T. present an exactly identical text.