CHAPTER III. THE LATIN VERSIONS.

Since the publication of the third edition of this book, exhaustive work on the Old Latin Versions and the Vulgate, commenced before for the University of Oxford, as is well known amongst biblical scholars, by the Right Rev. John Wordsworth, D.D., Bishop of Salisbury, with the assistance of the Rev. H. J. White, has been prosecuted further, resulting in the publication of three volumes of Old Latin Biblical Texts, and of the edition of the Vulgate New Testament as far as the end of St. Luke’s Gospel. It was therefore with the liveliest gratitude that the Editor received from the Bishop, in reply to consultation upon a special point, an offer to superintend the entire revision of this chapter, if Mr. White would give him his important help, notwithstanding other laborious occupations. Mr. White has carried out the work under the Bishop’s direction, rewriting most of the chapter entirely, but incorporating, where possible, Dr. Scrivener’s language.

(1) The Old Latin, previous to Jerome’s Revision.

There are passages in the works of the two great Western Fathers of the fourth century, Jerome [345?-420] and Augustine [354-430], whose obvious and literal meaning might lead us to conclude that there existed in their time _many_ Latin translations, quite independent in their origin, and used almost indifferently by the faithful. When Jerome, in that Preface to the Gospels which he addressed to Pope Damasus (in 384), anticipates but too surely the unpopularity of his revision of them among the people of his own generation, he consoles himself by the reflection that the variations of previous versions prove the unfaithfulness of them all: “verum non esse quod variat etiam maledicorum testimonio comprobatur.” Then follows his celebrated assertion: “Si enim Latinis exemplaribus fides est adhibenda, respondeant quibus: tot enim sunt exemplaria pene quot codices(54).” The testimony of Augustine seems even more explicit, and at first sight conclusive. In his treatise, De Doctrina Christiana (lib. ii. cc. 11-15), when speaking of “Latinorum interpretum infinita varietas,” and “interpretum numerositas,” as not without their benefit to an attentive reader, he uses these strong expressions: “Qui enim Scripturas ex hebraea lingua in Graecam verterunt, numerari possunt, Latini autem interpretes nullo modo. Ut enim cuique primis fidei temporibus in manus venit codex Graecus, et aliquantulum facultatis sibi utriusque linguae habere videbatur, ausus est interpretari” (c. 11); and he soon after specifies a particular version as preferable to the rest: “In ipsis autem interpretationibus Itala(55) ceteris praeferatur. Nam est verborum tenacior cum perspicuitate sententiae” (cc. 14-15).

When, however, the surviving codices of the version or versions previous to Jerome’s revision came to be studied and published by Sabatier(56) and Bianchini(57), it was obvious that though there were many points of difference, there were still traces of a source common to many, if not to all of them; and on a question of this kind, occasional divergency, however extensive, cannot weaken the impression produced by resemblance, if it be too close and constant to be attributable to chance, as we have just seen. The result of a careful and thorough examination and comparison of the existing Old Latin texts, is a conviction that they are all but off-shoots from one, or at most two, parent stocks. Now when, this fact fairly established, we look back at the language employed by Jerome and Augustine, we can easily see that, with some allowance for his habit of rhetorical exaggeration, the former may mean no more by the term “exemplaria” than that the scattered copies of the Latin translation in his own day varied widely from each other; and though the assertions of Augustine are too positive to be thus disposed of, yet he is here speaking, not from his own personal knowledge so much as from vague conjecture; and of what had been done, not in his own time, but “in the first ages of the faith.”

On one point, however, Augustine must be received as a competent and most sufficient witness. We cannot hesitate to believe that one of the several recensions current towards the end of the fourth century was distinguished from the rest by the name of _Itala_(58), and in his judgement deserved praise for its clearness and fidelity. It was long regarded as certain that here we should find the Old Latin version in its purest form, and that in Italy it had been thus used from the very beginning of the Church, “cum Ecclesia Latina sine versione Latina esse non potuerit” (Walton, Proleg. x. 1). Mill indeed reminds us that the early Church at Rome was composed to so great an extent of Jewish and other foreigners, whose vernacular tongue was Greek, that the need of a Latin translation of Scripture would not at first be felt; yet even he would not place its date later than Pius I (142-157), the first Bishop of Rome after Clement who bears a Latin name (Mill, Proleg. § 377). It was not until attention had been specially drawn to the style of the Old Latin version, that scholars began to suggest AFRICA as the place, and the second half of the second century as the time, of its origin. This opinion, which had obtained favour with Eichhorn and some others before him, may be considered as demonstrated by Cardinal Wiseman, in his “Two letters on some parts of the controversy concerning 1 John v. 7(59).” So far as his argument rests on the Greek character of the _Roman_ Church, it may not bring conviction to the reflecting reader. Even though the early Bishops of Rome were of foreign origin, though Clement towards the end of the first, Gaius the presbyter late in the second century, who are proved by their names to be Latins, yet chose to write in Greek; it does not follow that the Church would not contain many humbler members, both Romans and Italians, ignorant of any language except Latin, and for whose instruction a Latin version would be required. On the ground of _internal_ evidence, however, Wiseman made out a case which all who have followed him, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Davidson, Tregelles, accept as irresistible; indeed it is not easy to draw any other conclusion from his elaborate comparison of the words, the phrases, and grammatical constructions of the Latin version of Holy Scripture, with the parallel instances by which they can be illustrated from African writers, and from them only (Essays, vol. i. pp. 46-66)(60). It is impossible to exhibit any adequate abridgement of an investigation which owes all its cogency to the number and variety of minute particulars, each one weak enough by itself, the whole comprising a mass of evidence which cannot be gainsaid. In the works of Apuleius and of the African Fathers, Tertullian [150?-220?], Cyprian [† 258], and in the following century, Arnobius, Lactantius, Augustine, we obtain a glimpse into the genius and character of the dialect in which the earliest form of the Old Latin version is composed. We see a multitude of words which occur in no Italian author so late as Cicero; constructions (e.g. _dominantur eorum_, Luke xxii. 25; _faciam vos fieri_, Matt. iv. 19) or forms of verbs (_sive consolamur ... sive exhortamur_, 2 Cor. i. 6) abound(61), which at Rome had long been obsolete; while the lack of classic polish is not ill-atoned for by a certain vigour which characterizes this whole class of writers, but never degenerates into barbarism.

The _European_ and _Italian_ forms of the Old Latin version will be discussed afterwards.

The following manuscripts of the version are extant. They are usually cited by the small italic letters of the alphabet, according to the custom set by Lachmann (1842-1850), which has been considerably extended, and partially altered, since his time. His _a b c d_ of the Gospels, _d e_ of the Acts, and _g_ of St. Paul, remain the same, but his _f_ and _ff_ of St. Paul = our _d_ and _e_, and his _h_ = Primasius.

_Old Latin Manuscripts of the Gospels._

_a._ CODEX VERCELLENSIS [iv?], at Vercelli; according to a tradition found in a document of the eighth century, this MS. was written by Eusebius, Bishop of Vercellae († 370); M. Samuel Berger, however, and other scholars would place it later. It is written in silver on purple vellum. Bianchini, when Canon of Verona, collated this treasure in 1727; see E. Mangenot, Joseph Bianchini et les anciennes versions latines (Amiens, 1892), who gives an interesting and sympathetic account of his work. _Mut._ in many letters and words throughout, and entirely wanting in Matt. xxiv. 49-xxv. 16; Mark i. 22-34; iv. 17-25; xv. 15-xvi. 7 (xvi. 7-20 is in a later hand, taken from Jerome’s Vulgate); Luke i. 1-12; xi. 12-26; xii. 38-59. Published by J. A. Irici (Sacrosanctus Evangeliorum Codex S. Eusebii Magni), Milan, 1748, and by Bianchini on the left-hand page of his great “Evangeliarium Quadruplex,” Rome, 1749; the latter edition has been reprinted in Migne, Patr. Lat. tom. xii. Facsimile given in Zangemeister and Wattenbach, Exempla codicum Latinorum, pl. 20 (Heidelberg, 1876); compare Bethmann in Pertz, Archiv, xii. p. 606, and E. Ranke, Fragmenta Curiensia, p. 8. Bianchini’s work seems to have been extremely accurate, though he does not keep to the actual division of the lines in the original manuscripts either here or in his edition of _b_. The Gospels are in the usual Western order, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark; so also _a_2 _b d e f ff_2 _i n q r_.

_b._ COD. VERONENSIS [iv or v], also in Bianchini’s “Evangeliarum Quadruplex” on the right-hand page. _Mut._ Matt. i. 1-11, xv. 12-23, xxiii. 18-27; Mark xiii. 8-19; 24-xvi. 20; Luke xix. 26-xxi. 29; also John vii. 44-viii. 12 is _erased_.

_c._ COD. COLBERTINUS [xii], at Paris (Lat. 254); New Testament, very important, though so late; edited in full by Sabatier (_see_ p. 42, n. 3), and in a smaller and cheaper form by J. Belsheim, Christiania, 1888; Belsheim’s work however is, as usual, inaccurate. For the date of the MS. see E. Ranke, Fragmenta Curiensia, p. 9. Beyond the Gospels, the version is Jerome’s, and in a later hand. _See_ below under Vulgate MSS., no. 53.

_d._ COD. BEZAE [vi], its Latin version; _see_ Vol. I. pp. 124-130, and for its defects p. 124, n. 2; also Prof. J. Rendel Harris, A Study of Codex Bezae, Cambridge, 1891; and F. H. Chase, The Syriac element in Codex Bezae, London, 1893.

_e._ COD. PALATINUS [iv or v], now at Vienna (Pal. 1185), where it was acquired from Trent between 1800 and 1829; on purple vellum, 14 x 9-3/4, written with gold and silver letters, as are Codd. _a_ _b_ _f_ _i_ _j_, edited by Tischendorf, Leipzig, 1847. Only the following portions are extant: Matt. xii. 49-xiii. 13; 24-xiv. 11 (_with breaks, twelve lines being lost_); 22-xxiv. 49; xxviii. 2-John xviii. 12; 25-Luke viii. 30; 48-xi. 4; 24-xxiv. 53; Mark i. 20-iv. 8; 19-vi. 9; xii. 37-40; xiii. 2, 3; 24-27; 33-36; i.e. 2627 verses, including all St. John but 13 verses, all St. Luke but 38. Another leaf, bought for Trinity College, Dublin, by Dr. Todd before 1847, containing Matt. xiii. 13-23, was published by Dr. T.K. Abbott in his edition of Cod. Z. It was recognized in 1880 to be a fragment of _e_ by Mr. French, the sub-librarian; _see_ also H. Linke, Neue Bruchst. des Evang. Pal. (S. B. of the Munich Acad. 1893, Heft ii).

_f._ COD. BRIXIANUS [vi], at Brescia, edited by Bianchini beneath Cod. _b. Mut._ Matt. viii. 16-26; Mark xii. 5-xiii. 32; xiv. 53-62; 70-xvi. 20. There are some bad slips in Migne’s reprint of this MS.

_ff_1. COD. CORBEIENSIS I [viii or ix], containing the Gospel of St. Matthew, now at St. Petersburg (Ov. 3, D. 326). It formerly belonged to the great monastic Library of Corbey, or Corbie, on the Somme, near Amiens; and with the most important part of that Library was transferred to St. Germain des Prés at Paris, in or about the year 1638, and was there numbered 21. The St. Germain Library, however, suffered severely from theft and pillage during the French Revolution, and Peter Dubrowsky, Secretary to the Russian Embassy at Paris, seems to have used his opportunities during that troublous time to acquire MSS. stolen from public libraries; _ff_1 with other MSS. fell into his hands and was transferred to the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg about 1800-1805. In 1695 Dom Jean Martianay, well known as the principal editor of the Benedictine St. Jerome, published _ff_1 with a marginal collation of the St. Germain Bible (_g_1), and the Corbey St. James (_see_ p. 52) in a small volume entitled “Vulgata antiqua Latina et Itala versio secundum Matthaeum e vetustissimis eruta monumentis illustrata Prolegomenis ac notis nuncque primum edita studio et labore D.J.M. etc. Parisiis, apud Antonium Lambin.” Bianchini reprinted it underneath Cod. _a_, giving in its place a collation of _ff_2 in SS. Mark, Luke, and John; Sabatier, however, cites _ff_1 in Mark i. 1-v. 11, but it is difficult to know to what MS. he refers. Finally it has been re-edited by Belsheim (Christiania, 1882). For the history of this MS., _see_ Wordsworth, Old Lat. Bibl. Texts, i. p. xxii, and Studia Biblica, i. p. 124; and for the history of the Library at Corbey, Delisle, Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Chartes, 1860, p. 438; R. S. Bensly, The missing fragment of the Latin Translation of the Fourth Book of Ezra, p. 7 (Cambridge, 1875).

_ff_2. COD. CORBEIENSIS II [vi], now at Paris (Lat. 17,225), formerly at Corbey, where it was numbered 195; it contains 190 leaves and is written in a beautiful round uncial hand. Quoted by Sabatier, and a collation given by Bianchini in Mark, Luke, and John; published in full by Belsheim (Christiania, 1887). Belsheim’s work, however, has been since revised by M. Berger and his revision communicated to the present writer (H. J. White). _Mut._ Matt. i. 1-xi. 6; John xvii. 15-xviii. 9; xx. 22-xxi. 8; Luke ix. 48-x. 21; xi. 45-xii. 6; and a few verses missing in Matt. xi, Mark ix and xvi; Facsimile in Palaeogr. Soc. i. pl. 87.

_g_1. COD. SANGERMANENSIS I [ix], now at Paris (Lat. 11,553); formerly in the Library of St. Germain des Prés, where it was first numbered 15 and afterwards 86; it is the second volume of a complete Bible, the first volume of which has been lost. This MS. was known to R. Stephens, who in his Latin Bible, published 1538-40 and again 1546, quotes it as _Germ. Lat._, in consequence of its breadth; it was also examined by R. Simon, who, writing in 1680, speaks of it at some length; Martianay published a collation of its readings in his edition of the Corbey St. Matthew (_see_ under _ff_1); and Martianay’s collation, which indeed was faulty enough, was reprinted by Bianchini. John Walker, Bentley’s coadjutor in his great but unfinished work for the New Testament, collated it carefully in 1720; and finally Bp. Wordsworth published St. Matthew’s Gospel with full Introductions in 1883 (Old Latin Biblical Texts, No. 1, Oxford), and has collated the other Gospels for his edition of the Vulgate. J. Walker cited the MS. as μ; Bp. Wordsworth cites it as _g_1 in St. Matthew, G in the other books of the New Testament. The text can only be called strictly _Old Latin_ in St. Matthew, where it seems to be partly of the European, partly of the Italian type; in the other Gospels it is Vulgate, though largely mixed with Old Latin readings. _See_ below under Vulgate, MSS., no. 21.

_g_2. COD. SANGERMANENSIS II [x], 116 leaves, Irish hand, with a mixed Old Latin and Vulgate text. Now at Paris (Lat. 13,169), but was originally at Angers, and then apparently at Mans in the province of Tours; possibly brought there by Ulgrinus, Bishop of Mans 1057-65. See Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers Siècles du M.A., p. 48.

_h._ COD. CLAROMONTANUS [iv or v], now in the Vatican Library (Lat. 7223), for which it was bought by Pius VI (1775-99), contains, like _g_1, St. Matthew only in the Old Latin, the other Gospels being Vulgate. _Mut._ Matt. i. 1-iii. 15; xiv. 33-xviii. 12. Sabatier gave extracts, and Mai published St. Matthew in full in his “Script. Vet. nova collectio Vaticana,” iii. p. 257 (Rom. 1828); it has been republished by Belsheim (Evangelium secundum Matthaeum ... e codice olim Claromontano nunc Vaticano), Christiania, 1892.

_i._ COD. VINDOBONENSIS [vii], at Vienna (Lat. 1235), formerly belonging to an Augustinian Monastery at Naples, whence it was brought with ninety-four other MSS. to Vienna in 1717; consists of 142 leaves, and contains Luke x. 6-xxiii. 10; Mark ii. 17-iii. 29; iv. 4-x. 1; 33-xiv. 36; xv. 33-40. The MS. was described and edited by F. C. Alter, the Mark fragments in G. E. H. Paulus’ “N. Repert. d. bibl. u. morgenl. Literatur,” iii. pp. 115-170 (1791), the Luke fragments in Paulus, Memorabilia, vii. pp. 58-95 (1795). Bianchini had, however, previously obtained a collation for his “Evangeliarium Quadruplex” from the Count of Thun and Hohenstein (afterwards Bishop of Gurk in Carinthia), who had spent some time at the Court of Vienna; and N. Forlosia, the principal Librarian at Vienna, had given him a careful description of the MS.; _see_ “Epistola Blanchinii ad Episcopum Gurcensem” in Bianchini’s prolegomena. Finally Belsheim edited the MS. completely in 1885 (Leipzig, Weigel), and Dr. Rudolf Beer revised his edition for Bishop Wordsworth’s edition of the Vulgate in 1888.

_j._ COD. SARZANNENSIS or SARETIANUS [v] was discovered in 1872 in the Church of Sarezzano near Tortona. It consists of eight quires written on purple vellum in silver letters, and contains (much mutilated) 292 verses of St. John, viz. i. 38-iii. 23; iii. 33-v. 20; vi. 29-49; 49-67; 68-vii. 32; viii. 6-ix. 21, written two columns on a page. The text is peculiar, and much with _a_ _b_ _d_ _e_. Guerrino Amelli, sub-librarian of the Ambrosian Library (and now at the Benedictine Monastery of Monte Cassino), published at Milan the same year a “Dissertazione critico-storica,” 18 pp. (2nd edition, 1885), with a lithographed facsimile, whose characters much resemble the round and flowing shape of those in _a_ _b_ _f_. The MS. is now at Rome undergoing careful restoration, but no part of it has yet been published.

_k._ COD. BOBIENSIS [v or vi], now in the National Library at Turin (G. vii. 15), whither it was brought with a vast number of other books from Bobbio; traditionally asserted to have belonged to St. Columban, who died in the monastery he had founded there, in 615. This MS. is perhaps the most important, in regard to text, of all the Old Latin copies, being undoubtedly the oldest existing representative of the African type. It contains Mark viii. 8-11; 14-16; 19-xvi. 9; Matthew i. 1-iii. 10; iv. 2-xiv. 17; xv. 20-36; the order then was probably John, Luke, Mark, Matthew. It was edited by F. F. Fleck in 1837, and by Tischendorf in 1847-49; but so inaccurately by the former and so inconveniently by the latter as to be little known and used by students. It was finally edited by Bishop Wordsworth (1886) as No. 2 of the “Old-Latin Bible Texts,” with full introduction, and with a dissertation on the text by Professor Sanday.

_l._ COD. RHEDIGERANUS [vii], in the Rhedigeran Library at Breslau; from a note at the end of St. Luke’s Gospel, it appears to have been bought by Thomas von Rhediger at Verona in the year 1569. J. E. Scheibel in 1763 published SS. Matthew and Mark, far from correctly. D. Schulz wrote a dissertation on it in 1814, and inserted his collation of it in his edition of Griesbach’s N. T., vol. i. 1827. It was edited in full by H. F. Haase, Breslau (in the “Index, lect. univ. Vratisl.”), 1865-66. _Mut._ Matt. i. 1-ii. 15; John i. 1-16; vi. 32-61; xi. 56-xii. 10; xiii. 34-xiv. 23; xv. 3-15; xvi. 13 _ad fin._

_m._ This letter indicates the readings extracted by Mai from the “Liber de divinis scripturis sive speculum,” ascribed to St. Augustine, and containing extracts from the whole N. T. except Philemon, Hebrews, and 3 John; it also has a citation from the Epistle to the Laodiceans. It resembles the “Testimonia” of Cyprian (and indeed one MS. has the subscription _explicit testimoniorum_) in that it consists of extracts from both Testaments, arranged in chapters under various heads. This treatise was published by Mai, first in the “Spicilegium Romanum,” 1843, vol. ix. part ii. 1-88, and again in the “Nova Patrum Bibliotheca,” Rome, 1852, vol. i. part ii. 1-117; and Wiseman had drawn attention to it in his celebrated “Two Letters” (_see_ p. 43), because it contains 1 John v. 7 in two different places. Mai had published it from the Sessorian MS. (no. 58) of the eighth or ninth century, so called from the library of Sta. Croce in Gerusalemme (Bibliotheca Sessoriana) at Rome, in which it is preserved (see Reifferscheid, Bibl. Patr. Italica, ii. p. 129); he furnished a facsimile. Recently the treatise has been excellently edited by Dr. F. Weihrich in the Vienna “Corpus script. eccl. lat.,” vol. xii (Vienna, 1887), from six MSS.; one of these is the Codex Floriacensis (Libri MS. 16, now in the Bibl. Nat. at Paris, Nouv. acq. lat. 1596), the readings of which are occasionally cited by Sabatier under the name of _floriac_. (_see_ Weihrich, p. xl, and L. Delisle, Cat. des MSS. des fonds Libri et Barrois, 1888, p. 25 and pl. iv. 1; also Palaeographical Soc., series ii. pl. 34).

_n._ FRAGMENTA SANGALLENSIA [v or vi], in the Stiftsbibliothek at St. Gall, to which Library they have probably belonged from its foundation. The fragments are bound up in a large book numbered 1394, and entitled “Veterum fragmentorum manuscriptis codicibus detractorum Collectio;” they contain Matt. xvii. 1-xviii. 20; xix. 20-xxi. 3; xxvi. 56-60; 69-74; xxvii. 62-xxviii. 3; 8-20; Mark vii. 13-31; viii. 32-ix. 10; xiii: 2-20; xv. 22-xvi. 13; to this must be added a whole leaf containing John xix. 28-42, and a slip containing portions of John xix. 13-27, which are in the Stadtbibliothek of the same city, bound up in a MS. numbered 70 and entitled “Casus monasterii Sancti Galli;” and the conjecture of the Abbé Batiffol and Dr. P. Corssen is undoubtedly right that the fragment from St. Luke known as _a_2 (see below) is also a part of this MS.

Tischendorf transcribed these fragments, intending to edit them himself, but died before he had done so; the transcripts were purchased from his widow by the Clarendon Press in 1883, and published in the second volume of “Old Lat. Bibl. Texts” (Oxford, 1886) by the Rev. H. J. White, who revised them on the spot from the originals; meanwhile they had been published in France by the Abbé Batiffol (Note sur un Evangéliare de Saint-Gall, Paris, Champion, 1884, and “Fragmenta Sangallensia” in the _Revue archéologique_, pp. 305-321, for 1885). A facsimile was appended to the Oxford edition, and is also given by the Palaeographical Soc., series ii. plate 50.

_o._ [vii], another fragment at St. Gall, bound up in the same volume with _n_, contains Mark xvi. 14-20; it may very possibly have been written to complete the above-named MS. when it had lost its last leaf, as it has the same number of lines to a page and begins exactly at the point where _n_ leaves off. Edited by Batiffol with _n_, and also in Old Lat. Bibl. Texts, vol. ii.

_p._ [vii or viii], also at St. Gall, bound up in the second volume of the “Veterum fragmentorum Collectio” (pp. 430-433). This fragment consists of two leaves written in an Irish hand, and apparently belonging to a “Missa pro defunctis,” of which it was the Gospel; it contains John xi. 16-44, introduced with the lines from Ps. lxv, “te decet dñe,” &c. The opening verses of the Gospel are adapted as an introduction of the lection; the rest of the text is of the European type, but (with _r_) contains many peculiar Irish characteristics. _p_ has been published three times: by Forbes, in the “Preface to the Arbuthnott Missal,” p. xlviii (Burntisland, 1864); by Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, vol. i. Appendix G, p. 197 (Oxford, 1869); and in Old Lat. Bibl. Texts, vol. ii.

_q._ COD. MONACENSIS [vii], now in the Royal Library at Munich (Lat. 6224); it was transferred hither in 1802 with other MSS. from the Chapter Library of Freising, in which it was numbered 24; written by a scribe named Valerianus. Contains the four Gospels, but _mut._ Matt. iii. 15-iv. 23; v. 25-vi. 4; 28-vii. 8; John x. 11-xii. 38; xxi. 8-20; Luke xxiii. 23-35; xxiv. 11-39; Mark i. 7-21; xv. 5-36. Published in full by the Rev. H. J. White in Old Lat. Bibl. Texts, vol. iii (Oxford, 1888); facsimiles given in the Oxford edition and also by Silvestre (Paléog. univ.; quatrième partie, no. 158).

_r_ or _r_1. CODEX USSERIANUS I [vii], in the Library of Trinity College, Dublin (A. iv. 15); it is kept among the books which once belonged to Archbishop Ussher, but nothing is known of its early history. The MS. consists of 180 leaves or fragments, written in an Irish hand, but much injured by damp; it contains the four Gospels in the usual Old Latin order, but _mut._ Matt. i. 1-xv. 16; 31-xvi. 13; xxi. 4-21; xxviii. 16-20; John i. 1-15; Mark xiv. 58-xv. 8; 29-xvi. 20. Published in full by Professor T. K. Abbott, Evangeliorum versio antehieronymiana (Dublin, 1884); facsimiles are given in his edition, in the Palaeographical Society, series ii. plate 33, and in the “Facsimiles of National MSS. of Ireland,”