In her
publication on the Great Stemma in 1984, Yolanta Zaluska asserted that all the existing recensions contained a mixture of Vetus Latina and Vulgate names:
Lé fond commun de la Vieille Latine est sensible dans tous les témoins consultés, mais à des degrés variés. Il est indiscutable que la Vulgate a été utilisée à plusieurs reprises tantôt pour corriger les lignées, tantôt pour compléter les textes explicatifs.
She characterized these differences as follows:
Recension α: ... texte mixte, en général très corrompu, disposé toujours sur quatorze tables; à partir d'Abraham (table VI), n'a presque pas été retouché sur la Vulgate.
Recension β: ... texte corrigé d'après la Vulgate, néanmoins dans l'ensemble assez corrompu, et fortement interpolé, en grande partie, semble-t-il, à l'aide des Etymologies d'Isidore; peut être commodément désigné comme une recension longue.
Recension σ transmise par le Beatus de Saint-Sever (S), apparaissant pour l'essentiel comme un texte de type α corrigé d'après la Vulgate, mais fournissant quand même des textes qui lui sont propres ...
Recension γ: ... texte ne montrant que des retouches occasionnelles d'après la Vulgate; partie caractéristique à la page des Juges; plusieurs omissions.
Recension δ: ... Le premier texte (Bible de San Millán de la Cogolla, Madrid) est probablement celui qui reflète le plus fidèlement la tradition de la Vieille Latine; le texte de [Bible de Calahorra] en revanche suit généralement la Vulgate, à partir d'Abraham; des interpolations communes dans la première partie du texte.
Zaluska never presented any statistical data or analysis to back up these characterizations, so I have done some sampling of my own. Below is a tabulation containing a rough scoring of 39
Genesis names from the period down to Abraham. I have included a recension, Epsilon, that Zaluska left out of account. I have not included Zaluska's Sigma in this survey.
The assessments are subjective, which is to say I judged the different spellings and rated how closely they resembled the Vetus Latina orthography (which is based on the Septuagint Greek). The scoring system offers a continuum between forms that show no influence from Jerome and forms that could only be corruptions of Jerome's orthography. This is not highly scientific, but it is a start. Here are the numerical values I employed:
- -2 signifies an obviously LXX/Vetus form, but with extreme scribal deformation;
- -1 is the pure LXX/Vetus type;
- 0 means a name containing a consonant or vowel that uncertainly suggests the LXX/Vetus type;
- +1 a name of Vulgate type;
- +2 signified variants that are very unlike the Vetus but do resemble the Vulgate type
The columns, from left to right, represent Epsilon, Delta, Gamma, Alpha, Beta; the last three columns comprise
Fischer's form of the Vetus name, the Clementine Vulgate form and the Stuttgart Vulgate form.
| 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | Gamer | Gomer | Gomer |
| 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | Iuvan | Iavan | Javan |
| -2 | -2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Thobel | Tubal | Thubal |
| -1 | -1 | -1 | 0 | 0 | Cham | Ham | Ham |
| -1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | Mestrem | Mesraim | Mesraim |
| 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | Evilat | Hevila | Hevila |
| -1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Sabacatha | Sabatacha | Sabatacha |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Iudadan | Dadan | Dadan |
| 0 | 1 | -1 | 0 | -1 | Nebroth | Nemrod | Nemrod |
| 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | Labiim | Laabim | Laabim |
| 1 | 1 | -2 | 1 | -2 | Neptabiim | Nepthuim | Nephthuim |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Patrosin | Phetrusim | Phetrusim |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Caslonin | Cesluim | Chasluim |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Captorim | Capthurim |
|
| 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | Chetteum | Ettheum | Hethæum |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | Euveum | Eveum | Hevæum |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Aruceum | Araceum | Aracæum |
| 2 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | Asenneum | Sineum | Sinæum |
| -1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | Samareum | Samariten | Samaræum |
| 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | Aelam | Elam | Ælam |
| -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | Arfaxat | Arfaxad | Arphaxad |
| 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | Obs | Us | Us |
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Ul | Hul | Hul |
| 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | Gather | Gether | Gether |
| -2 | -2 | -2 | 0 | 0 | Mosoch | Mes | Mes |
| -2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Helmodat | Helmodad | Elmodad |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Odorrem | Aduram | Adoram |
| 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | Ezel | Uzal | Uzal |
| 1 | 0 | -1 | 1 | 1 | Gebal | Ebal | Ebal |
| 1 | 1 | -2 | 1 | 1 | Abimeel | Abimahel | Abimaël |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Ufir | Ophir | Ophir |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Evilat | Evila | Hevila |
| -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | Falec | Faleg | Phaleg |
| -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | Ragau | Reu | Reu |
| -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | Seruch | Sarug | Sarug |
| 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | Nachor | Nahor | Nahor |
| -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | Thara | Thare | Thare |
| 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | Nachor | Nahor | Nahor |
| 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | Sarra | Sarai | Sarai |
This list has been filtered to only comprise 39 names in Genesis where there seems to be a distinction between the Vetus Latina and Vulgate forms.
Now it is striking that none of the five recensions above consistently follows the Vetus Latina type, which would be indicated by one of the columns consisting mostly of scores of -2 or -1.
When transcribing the manuscripts, my impression was that the concentration of Vetus Latina names was highest in Delta, but in this scoring, Delta has a median value of +0.3. In fact it is Gamma which is closest to the Vetus, with a median score of -0.2 . As for the rest, the medians are Epsilon +0.4, Alpha +0.5 and Beta +0.5.
I have converted the table to a graph below. If anyone can think of a more expressive graph, I would be glad to hear advice on how this could be presented in line with current methods.
It will be clear to the readers from both the table and from the graph that there is no obvious consistency in the way that medieval editors revised the five recensions. The variants swerve wildly to both sides. In this sample of names from
Genesis, the data does not seem to support Zaluska's conclusion that Gamma contains "occasional retouchings" drawn from the Vulgate," whereas Delta is the "most faithful" to the Vetus Latina. If anything, Gamma is more faithful.
What can we say about the names from those parts of biblical history subsequent to Genesis?
We cannot expect to find any differences in the names from Christ back to the Exile, because these names only existed in the Greek manuscripts of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke and no Hebrew evidence for them exists. Jerome of Stridon did not alter their Latin transcriptions, so these names are invariant between the Vetus Latina and the Vulgate.
As for the names from the Exile back to Saul, we also cannot expect to find much significant variation. We do not yet possess scholarly editions of the Vetus Latina text of
1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Chronicles and
2 Chronicles, 1 Kings and
2 Kings (they will take
several more decades to arrive). To fill the gap, I have instead collated the
Septuagint forms, which were of course the basis for the Vetus Latina. The reader can construe the likely Latin transcriptions, and compare these to the
Stuttgart Vulgate forms. The following selection shows that Jerome left the bulk of the pre-existing Latin forms pretty well unchanged.
| Αχινααμ | Ahinoem | 1Sa | 25:43, 2 Sa 3:2 |
| Αβιγαιας | Abigail | 1Sa | 25:42, 2Sa 3:3 |
| Μααχα | Maacha | 2Sa | 3:3 |
| Αγγιθ | Aggith | 1Ch | 3:2, 2Sa 3:4 |
| Αβιταλ | Abital | 2Sa | 3:4 |
| Αιγλα | Agla | 2Sa | 3:5 |
| Βηρσαβεε | Bethsabee | 2Sa | 11:3 |
| Αμνων | Amnon | 2Sa | 3:2 |
| Δαλουια | Chelaab | 2Sa | 3:2, 1Ch 3:1 |
| Αβεσσαλωμ | Absalom | 2Sa | 3:3 |
| Ορνια | Adonias | 2Ch | 3:4 |
| Σαφατια | Safathia | 1Ch | 3:3, 2Sa 3:4 |
| Ιεθερααμ | Iethraam | 2Sa | 3:5 |
| Θημαρ | Thamar | 2Sa | 13:1 |
| Ιβααρ | Ibaar | 1Ch | 3:6, 14:5, 2Sa 5:15 |
| Ελισαε | Elisama A | 1Ch | 14:5, 3:6, 2Sa 5:16 |
| Ελιφαλετ | Eliphalet / Helifeleth | 1Ch | 3:6, 14:5, 2Sa 5:16 |
| Ναγε | Noge | 1Ch | 3:7, 14:5 |
| Ναφαγ | Napheg / Nepheg | 1Ch | 3:7, 14:5, 2Sa 5:15 |
| Ιανουε / Ιανουου | Iaphie | 1Ch | 3:7, 14:5, 2Sa 5:15 |
| Ελισαμα / Ελισαμαε | Elisama B | 1Ch | 3:8, 14:5 |
| Ελιαδα | Helida / Heliade | 1Ch | 3:8, 14:5, 2Sa 5:16 |
| Ελιφαλετ | Eliphalet / Helisua | 1Ch | 3:8, 14:5, 2Sa 5:15 |
| Σαμμους | Samua | 2Sa | 5:14 |
| Σωβαβ | Sobab | 2Sa | 5:14 |
| Σαλωμων | Salomon | Mt | 1:6, 2Sa 5:14 |
|
|
|
|
| Ιεροβοαμ / Ναβατ | Hieroboam | 1Kgs | 11:26 |
| Ναδαβ | Nadab | 1Kgs | 15:25 |
| Βαασα / Αχια | Baasa filius Ahia | 1Kgs | 15:33 |
| Ηλα | Hela filius Baasa | 1Kgs | 16:8-16 |
| Ζαμβρι | Zamri | 1Kgs | 16:9 |
| Θαμνι / Γωναθ | Thebni filium Gineth | 1Kgs | 16:21 |
| Αχααβ / Αμβρι· | Ahab filius Amri | 1Kgs | 16:29 |
| Ιεζαβελ | Hiezabel | 1Kgs | 16:31 |
| Οχοζιας | Ohozias | 1Kgs | 22:40 |
| Ιωραμ / Αχααβ | Ioram filius Ahab | 2Kgs | 3:1, 1Kgs 22:50 |
| Ιου / Ναμεσσι | Hieu filius Namsi | 1Kgs | 19:16, 2Chr 22:7 |
| Ιωαχας | Ioachaz | 2Kgs | 10:35 |
| Ιωας | Ioas filius Ioachaz | 2Kgs | 13:10 |
| Ιεροβοαμ | Hieroboam | 2Kgs | 13:13 |
| Ζαχαριας | Zaccharias filius Hieroboam | 2Kgs | 15:8 |
| Σελλουμ / Ιαβις | Sellum filius Iabes | 2Kgs | 15:13 |
| Μαναημ / Γαδδι | Manahem filius Gaddi | 2Kgs | 15:14 |
| Φακεϊας | Phaceia filius Manahem | 2Kgs | 15:23 |
| Φακεε / Ρομελιου | Phacee filius Romeliae | 2Kgs | 15:25 |
| Ωσηε / Ηλα | Osee filius Hela | 2Kgs | 17:1 |
As luck would have it, where differences do occur in the above list, it is not always easy to see a pattern in the Great Stemma's uptake of the forms. First of all we find certain odd distortions. The first Elisama, for example, appears not as Elisae, but as Elisbe. Secondly, some of the variations completely contradict Zaluska's generalizations: Zambri with a B appears in three recensions (Epsilon, Alpha, Beta), but has been "corrected" to Jerome's Zamri without a B in Delta and Gamma, which are normally the most conservative texts.
Zaluska's assertion that the balance in Alpha swung, after Abraham, to almost pure Vetus Latina forms is therefore interesting and provocative, but needs to be treated with a certain amount of caution. My guess is that her generalization was in fact largely argued from her very perceptive analysis of the Horrite names in
Genesis 36. I wrote a
survey of these in 2010 where I tabulated the names and provided the proof that is missing from her article, though implied. The differences among the Horrite names between Alpha and Beta are especially striking and this section of the collation is crucial in proving that the Great Stemma is indeed drawn from a Vetus Latina tradition.
I have not yet studied the Vetus/Vulgate distribution of the names making up the Twelve Tribes of Israel: it would be interesting to follow this up at a later time.
In conclusion, I would say this. The Great Stemma and the
Liber Genealogus were clearly originally written in a time and place where Jerome's Vulgate was not available and were then haphazardly modified by medieval editors. But the process of modification was not as simple or as linear as Zaluska suggests, and her conclusions are too sweeping. The Great Stemma manuscripts are anything but unambiguous evidence for the onomastics of the Vetus Latina. Bonifatius Fischer was correct to collate the Great Stemma from four Spanish bibles as a somewhat compromised source, while treating it with the greatest of caution.
Footnote: there is a further discussion of this issue a couple of years later:
http://macrotypography.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-old-latin.html 
