with the view of restoring the genuine text of the Greek | festival days. It is written in the Syriac or Chaldee dialect original: for he may be fully assured, that every phrase and expression is a precise copy of the Greek text as it stood in the manuscript from which the version was made. But, as it is not prior to the sixth century, and the Peschito was written either at the end of the first, or at the beginning of the second century, it is of less importance to know the readings of the Greek manuscript that was used in the former, than those of the original employed in the latter.”i 3. The KARKAPHENSIAN Version, as it is commonly termed, is a recension of the Peschito, or old Syriac version of the Old and New Testaments, executed towards the close of the tenth century, by David, a Jacobite monk, residing in the monastery of St. Aaron on mount Sigari in Mesopotamia, whence the appellation Karkaphensian (signifying mountain) is derived. We are informed by the learned Professor Wiseman, who has most minutely investigated the history and literary character of this recension, that the basis of its text is the Peschito or Versio Simplex, with the printed copies of which it bears a close affinity; except that proper names and Græco-Syriac words are accommodated to the Greek orthography, or to that adopted by Thomas of Harkel in his revision of the Philoxenian version. Some eminent critics have thought that the Karkaphensian version was made for the use of the Nestorians; Dr. Wiseman, however, is decidedly of opinion, that it is of Monophysite or Jacobite origin:3 but his opinion is doubted by Professor Lee.1 4. Of the OTHER SYRIAC VERSIONS, the Syro-Estrangelo version of the Old Testament, and the Palæstino-Syriac version of part of the New Testament, are of sufficient importance to deserve a brief notice. [i.] The SYRO-ESTRANGELO Version, also called the SYRIAC HEXAPLAR, is a translation of Origen's Hexaplar edition of the Greek Septuagint; it was executed in the former part of the seventh century, and its author is unknown. The late Professor De Rossi, who published the first specimen of it at Parma, in 1778, does not decide whether it is to be attributed to Mar-Abba, James of Edessa, Paul Bishop of Tela, or to Thomas of Heraclea. Assemanni ascribes it to Thomas, though other learned men affirm that he did no more than collate the Books of Scripture. This version, however, corresponds exactly with the text of the Septuagint, especially in those passages in which the latter differs from the Hebrew. A MS. of this version is in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, comprising the Books of Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Hosea, Amos, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Jeremiah, Daniel, and Isaiah: it also contains the obelus and other marks of Origen's Hexapla; and a subscription at the end states it to have been literally translated from the Greek copy, corrected by Eusebius himself, with the assistance of Pamphilus, from the books of Origen, which were deposited in the library of Cæsarea. The conformity of this MS. with the account given by Masius, in the preface to his learned Annotations on the Book of Joshua, affords strong grounds for believing that this is the second part of the MS. described by him as then being in his possession, and which, there is reason to fear, is irrecoverably lost. From this version M. Norberg edited the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel in 1787, 4to Londini Gothorum and M. Bugati, the Book of Daniel, at Milan, 1788, 4to.5 [ii] The PALESTINO-SYRIAC, or SYRIAC TRANSLATION OF JERUSALEM, was discovered in the Vatican Library at Rome by M. Adler, in a manuscript of the eleventh century. It is not an entire translation of the New Testament, but only a Lectionarium, or collection of detached portions, appointed to be read in the services of the church on Sundays and 1 Michaelis's Introduction to the New Testament, vol. ii. part i. p. 68. To Bishop Marsh's Notes, ibid. part ii. pp. 533-585. we are chiefly indebted for the preceding account of the Syriac Versions of the New Testament. See also Hug's Introduction, vol. i. pp. 372-386. Dr. G. H. Bernstein's Dissertation on Thomas of Harkel's Revision of the Syro-Philoxenian Version, entitled De Versione Novi Testamenti Syriaca Heracléensi Cominentatio. Lipsiæ, 1822, 4to. Dr. Wiseman's Hora Syricæ, tom. i. pp. 236-210. compared with pp. 162, 163. Romæ, 1828, 8vo. Ibid. tom. i. pp. 234, 235. In this learned work, Dr. Wiseman has described a valuable manuscript of the Karkaphensian recension, which is preserved in the Vatican library at Rome, and has given notices of some other MSS. of this recension. of Jerusalem, and was evidently made in a Roman province; for in Matt. xxvii. 27. the word orgaTras, soldiers, is rendered by N (ROMIA), as if the translator had never heard of any soldiers but Romans; and in the same verse ug, band or cohort, is rendered by the Latin word castra, roop. These and other indications afford reason to think, that the manuscript contains a translation made from the Greek, in Palestine; it was written at Antioch, and from all these circumstances, this version has been denominated the Jerusalem-Syriac Version. Dr. Scholz states that its text for the most part agrees with the Alexandrine recension. This manuscript has not yet been collated throughout. II. EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.-From the proximity of Egypt to Judæa, it appears that the knowledge of the Gospel was very early communicated to the inhabitants of that country, whose language was divided into three dialects-the Coptic, or dialect of Lower Egypt; the Sahidic, or dialect of Upper Egypt; and the Bashouric, a dialect of the inhabitants of Bashmour, a province of the Delta. The COPTIC language is a compound of the old Egyptian and Greek; into which the Old Testament was translated from the Septuagint, perhaps in the second or third century, and certainly before the fifth century. Of this version, the Pentateuch was published by Wilkins in 1731; and a Psalter, with an Arabic translation, by the congregation de Propaganda Fide, at Rome, in 1744 and 1749.7 In the SAHIDIC language the ninth chapter of Daniel was published by Münter at Rome in 1786; and Jeremiah, ch. ix. 17. to ch. xiii., by Mingarelli, in Reliquiæ Egyptiorum Codicum in Bibliotheca Naniana asservata, at Bologna, in 1785. The late Dr. Woide was of opinion that both the Coptic and Sahidic versions were made from the Greek. They express the phrases of the Septuagint version; and most of the additions, omissions, and transpositions, which distinguished the latter from the Hebrew, are discoverable in the Coptic and Sahidic versions. The Coptic version of the New Testament was published at Oxford in 1716, in 4to., by Daniel Wilkins, a learned Prussian, who has endeavoured to prove that it must have been executed prior to the third century; but his opinion has been controverted by many learned men, and particularly by Louis Picques, who refers it to the fifth century. Professor Hug, however, has shown that it could not have been composed before the time of Hesychius, nor before the middle of the third century. The celebrated passage (1 John v. 7.) is wanting in this version, as well as in the Syriac-Peschito, and Philoxenian translations. From the observations of Dr. Woide, it appears that the Coptic inclines more to the Alex andrian than the Sahidic-that no remarkable coincidence is to be found between the Coptic or Sihidic, and the Vulgate, -and that we have no reason to suspect that the former has been altered or made to conform to the latter. Its text agrees with the Alexandrine recension. Concerning the age of the Sahidic version critics are not yet agreed. Dr. Woide, however, has shown that it was most probably executed in the second century; and, consequently, it is of the utmost importance to the criticism of the Greek Testament. In a dissertation on this version, written in the German language, and abridged by Bishop Marsh, Dr. W. observes, that there are now in existence two Sahidic manuscripts, one formerly in the possession of the late Dr. Askew, the other brought from Egypt by the celebrated traveller, Mr. Bruce. The former contains a work entitled Sophia, and written by Valentinus, in the second century. This manuscript contains various passages both from the Old and New Testament, which coincide with the fragments of the Sahidic version now extant; whence it is concluded that the Sahidic version of the whole Bible not only existed so early as the beginning of the second century, but that it was the same as that of which we have various fragments, and which, if put together, would form perhaps a complete Sahidic version of the Bible. The other manuscript to which Cellerier, Introd. au Nouv. Test. pp. 180, 181. Hug's Introduction, vol. i. pp. 386-389. Scholz, Nov. Test. tom. i. Proleg. p. cxxiv. A notice of the principal editions of the Syriac version is given in the Bibliographical APPENDIX to VOL. II. PART 1. CHAP. I. SECT. V. § 3. [i.] Masch, part ii. vol. i. pp. 182-190. Jahn, p. 81. The only perfect copy of the Coptic Bible now in Europe is said to be in the possession of Monsieur Marcel. See M. Quatremière's Recherches sur la Langue et la Littérature d'Egypte, p. 118. In pp. 114, 115, 134, 135, this, learned writer has specified various portions of the Coptic version which are preserved in the great libraries on the Continent. Hug's Introd. vol. i. p. 410. Marsh's Michaelis, vol. ii part ii. pp. 595, 596. There is, however, reason to expect that, in no long time the gift of the entire Ethiopic Scriptures will be imparted to Abyssinia. A manuscript copy of this version, in fine pre servation, has been purchased by the committee of the Church Missionary Society. From a memoir on this manuscript by Professor Lee, we learn, that it contains the first eight books of the Old Testament, written on vellum, in a bold and masterly hand, in two columns on each page. The length of the page is that of a large quarto; the width is not quite so great. The volume contains 285 folios, of which the text covers 282, very accurately written, and in high preservation. On the first page is written, in Ethiopic, the invocation usually found in the books of the eastern Christians: "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Then follows an account of the contents of the book, written in Latin by some former possessor, and a date A. D. 1596, 20th September. On the reverse of the first folio is found a table, not unlike the tables of genealogy in some of our old English Bibles, which seems to be intended to show the hours appointed for certain prayers. Then follows the Book of Genesis, as translated from the Greek of the Septuagint. On the reverse of the third folio is the following inscription in Arabic: "The poor Ribea, the son of Elias, wrote it: O wine! to which nothing can be assimilated, either in reality Besides the versions in the Coptic and Sahidic dialects, or appearance: O excellent drink! of which our Lord said, Father Georgi discovered, in a manuscript belonging to Car- having the cup in his hand, and giving thanks, This is my dinal Borgia, some fragments of a version written in a still blood for the salvation of men.' Folios 7. and 8. have different Egyptian dialect, which he calls the AMMONIAN been supplied, in paper by a more modern hand. On the reDIALECT. It contains only 1 Cor. vii. 36.-ix. 16. and xiv. verse of folio 8. is a very humble attempt at drawing, in the 33.-xv. 33. Some fragments of a BASHMOURICO-COPTIC figure of a person apparently in prayer, accompanied by an Version of the Old and New Testaments, discovered in the inscription in Ethiopic at the side of the figure: "In the Borgian Museum at Velitri, were published by M. Engel- prayers of Moses and Aaron, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, breth at Copenhagen, in 1816. Dr. Frederick Munter has am I, thy servant, O Lord, presented in the power of the printed the Sahidic and Ammoniac texts of 1 Cor. ix. 10-16. Trinity, a weak, infirm, and defiled sinner. Let them imin his Commentatio de Indole Versionis Novi Testamenti Sahi-plore Christ." Under the drawing, in Ethiopic: "In the dica (4to. Hafnia, 1789), in parallel columns, in order to same manner, every slayer that slays Cain, will I repay in present the reader with a distinct view of the similarity or this; and as he slew, so shall he be slain." On the reverse difference between the two versions. On account, however, of folio 98., at the end of the Book of Exodus, are two of the chief difference consisting in the orthography of single figures, somewhat similar, but rather better drawn, and seemwords, he is not disposed to assign to the Ammoniac the ingly by the writer of the manuscript; and in another place name of a separate dialect. On considering the region or two there are marginal ornaments. At the end of Deuterwhere this dialect seemed to be vernacular, he was inclined onomy is this inscription in Ethiopic: "The repetition of for several reasons to fix upon the Oases, particularly the the law, which God spake to Moses. Numbered 50707 Ammonian Oasis, whence he called it the Ammonian (words). Intercede for your slave Isaac."-At the end of Dialect: but Professor Hug, who has investigated the hypo- the volume: "Pray for those who laboured in this book; and thesis of various learned men, is of opinion that the fragments for your slave Isaac, who gave this to Jerusalem, the Holy." in question may possibly exhibit the idiom of Middle Egypt. Then follows an inscription, in Arabic: "In the name of the M. Quatremère, however, prefers the appellation of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, one God. OASITIC Dialect to that of Basmuric. This version was O Lord, save thy people from every evil! O our God, Jesus probably executed in the latter part of the third century.4 Christ, the speaker to men! O holy people, remember your III. The ETHIOPIC or ABYSSINIAN VERSION of the Old slave Isaac, the poor: God shall remember you in the merTestament was made from the Septuagint: although its cies of this book. Pray, if God be willing, that I may be author and date are unknown, yet, from the marks of unques- permitted to see your face. And pray for me, the sinner. tionable antiquity which it bears, there is every reason to Pardon my sins, O Lord! and let my body be buried in believe that it was executed in the fourth century. In the Mount Sion." Then follows, in Ethiopic: "That our eneGospels it agrees for the most part with the Alexandrine re- mies may not say of us, 'We have conquered them:' be ye cension. Some peculiar readings occur in this translation: prudent. We have given you a lamp. Be ye the culture. but, where it seems to be exact, it derives considerable autho- Sow ye the flock: reap and rejoice." rity from its antiquity. Only a few books and fragments of have been erased. Then follows this version have been printed. The first portions of the poor, in your prayers. It was completed in Beth Gabbaza, Ethiopic Scriptures that appeared in print were the Psalms of Axuma. In thy name, O Lord, have I planted, that thou and the Song of Solomon; edited at Rome, by John Potken, place me not in any other place except Mount Sion; the A. D. 1513. The translation of the New Testament is sup-mount of Christ; the house of Christians. Let them not posed to have been made by Frumentius, who, about the year 330, first preached Christianity in Ethiopia. In 1548, the New Testament was printed at Rome by some Abyssinian priests, and was afterwards reprinted in the London Polyglott: but as the manuscripts used in the Roman edition were old and mutilated, the editors restored such chasms as appeared in the text, by translations from the Latin Vulgate. These editions, therefore, are not of much value, as they do not present faithful copies of the ancient Ethiopic text; which, according to Professor Hug, exhibits the appearance either of several versions being united in one copy, or of Dr. Woide appeals, contains two books, the one entitled | several MSS. (belonging to different recensions) being quoted Βίβλος της γνώσεις, the other, Βιβλος λόγουκ στα μυστηριον. Now in the composition of this version. that this was written by a Gnostic, as well as the other manuscript, appears both from the title and the contents, and therefore it is concluded that the author lived in the second century. And as various passages are quoted in it both from the Old and New Testaments, Dr. Woide deduces the same inference as from the foregoing. Of this version some fragments of the Gospels of Matthew and John have been published by Mingarelli, in a work entitled Egyptiorum Codicum Reliquia, Venetiis in Bibliothecâ Nanianâ asservatæ. (Bononiæ, 1785, 4to.) But the completest collection of fragments of this version is that prepared for the press by the late Dr. Woide, who did not live to publish them. The work was completed and edited by the Rev. Dr. Ford, from the Clarendon Press, at Oxford, in folio, 1799, as an appendix to Dr. W.'s fac-simile of the Codex Alexandrinus. Scholz states that it agrees with the Alexandrine recension, but that It has many readings either peculiar to itself, or in common with the Latin versions.2 From the difference of their readings, and from the circumstance that additions in the one are omitted in the other, Bishop Marsh infers that the Coptic and Sahidic are independent versions, both made from the original Greek. Both, therefore, may be quoted as separate evidence for a reading in the Greek Testament. 1 Scholz, Nov. Test. tom. i. Proleg. p. cxxvii. 2 Marsh's Michaelis, vol. ii. part i. pp. 76-81. part ii. pp. 586-597. Recherches sur la Langue et Littérature de l'Egypte, p. 228. The whole of his fifth section, which treats on the Basmuric dialect, is highly interesting and valuable. Hug's Introduction, vol. ii. pp. 417-423. For a notice of the editions or VOL. I. A few lines "me, Isaac, the be forgotten in your prayers, who have read and testified to you. Preserve, O Lord, this my offering for me thy servant, the poor; and preserve all these books which I offer, that the brethren, dwelling at Jerusalem, may be comforted. And pray for me, forget me not in the holy offices, and in prayer, that we may all stand before God in the terrible day and hours. That it might not be written that we were wanting, Jahn, p. 81. Masch, part ii. vol. i. pp. 140-143. Michaelis, vol. ii. pp. 95-98. 610-614. Hug, vol. i. pp. 426-428. Walton, Prol. xv. §§ 10-12. pp. 679-685. Kortholt, pp. 298-301. In Mr. Bruce's Travels, vol. ii. pp. 416-420. (Svo. edit.) there is an interesting account of the Ethiopic biblical books. As this inscription, which occurs on the supplied leaves, savours of the errors of the Romish church, it was probably written by some Abyssinian Romanist. The inscriptions of Isaac, the writer of the MS., though mutilated, and sometimes obscure, seem free from these errors. The figure of St. Peter, mentioned below, was probably traced by the same hand. It is customary among the Jews, Syrians, and Ethiopians, to number the words in the books of Scripture. In most of the eastern churches, it is the practice to enumerate their saints in a certain part of the Liturgy. I have previously sent and given you this for the warfare of the testimony. Intercede, and bless. And also for the refreshing of the record of the Fathers: and also for Cueskam, the queen of the sons of Abyssinia; that they may be comforted, and thence convert our region-may, moreover, migrate into other regions, and restore Jerusalem:-and for the Calvary of Mary. Let them pray for me. Let it be preserved as the widow's mite, for ever and ever. Let them not sell or exchange; nor let them carry it away; nor let them cause it to be placed elsewhere. And ." the rest is wanting. Hence it appears, that the book was written at Axuma, the ancient capital of Ethiopia; and that it was sent by Isaac to the Abyssinians residing in Jerusalem. No date appears in the manuscript itself. It is, probably, about 300 years old. On the reverse of fol. 285. is a drawing intended to represent Andrew the Apostle, with the book of the Gospels in one hand, and the keys in the other. Some less ingenious draftsman, however, has, by means of the transparency of the vellum, traced out this figure on the first page of this folio, and given the name of Peter to his humble representation. He has thus succeeded in assigning to St. Peter the first place, and also in bestowing on him the keys. Against this picture of Peter is placed his age, 120 years. The following fac-simile represents part of the remarkable prophecy of Balaam.2 I shall see him, but not now: I shall call him blessed, but he is not near there shall arise a star out of Jacob, and from Israel shall it arise: and he shall destroy the ambassadors of Moab, and shall take captive all the children of Seth. This precious manuscript has been carefully transcribed, and in 1826 the four Gospels were edited by T. P. Platt, Esq. M.A. They were printed with a fount of types, cast at the expense of the British and Foreign Bible Society, from the matrices (preserved at Frankfort) of the celebrated Ethiopic scholar John Ludolph; whose types, as used in his printed works, have been highly approved by the Abyssinians.3 IV. ARABIC VERSIONS. Although the Christian religion was preached in Arabia as well as in other countries of the East, at an early period, yet it never was the established religion of the country, as in Syria and Egypt: for even the temple at Mecca was a heathen temple till the time of Mohammed. Historical evidence, therefore, concerning the Arabic versions of the Old Testament, does not extend beyond the tenth century, when 1. Rabbi Saadias Gaon, a celebrated Jewish teacher at Babylon, translated, or rather paraphrased, the Old Testament into Arabic: of this version the Pentateuch was printed at Constantinople, in folio, in the year 1546, in Hebrew characters; and in the Paris and London Polyglotts, in Arabic letters. The prophecy of Isaiah was published by Paulus in 8vo. at Jena, in 1790, 1791. Jahn, after Simon, observes, that its style is not pure. Saadias is also said to 1 The name of a region, a sea, and a mountain, in Ethiopia; so cele. brated, as to be esteemed by the Ethiopians as preferable to even Sinai or Mount Olivet; and, as tradition says, whither Joseph and Mary, with the child Jesus, betook themselves, making it their residence for some time, after the flight into Egypt. Castell, sub voce.-Ludolf, sub voce, says it is the name of a monastery in Upper Egypt, which was always had in great veneration by the Copts and Ethiopians; and where Christ is said to have resided with his mother, when he fled from Herod. 2 Eighteenth Report of the Church Missionary Society, pp. 188, 189. For a notice of such parts of the Ethiopic version of the Scriptures as have been printed, see the BIBLIOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX to Vol. II. PART I. CHAP. I. SECT. V. § 3. [v.]; and for other particulars relative to this Ver. sion the reader is referred to Mr. Platt's "Catalogue of the Ethiopic Biblical Manuscripts in the Royal Library of Paris, and in the Library of the British and Foreign Bible Society," &c. London, 1823, 4to. have translated the Book of Job and the Psalms: a manuscript containing Job is preserved in the Bodleian Library: Cod. Huntington. No. 511. The remaining books of this translation have not hitherto been discovered. Besides this, there are several other Arabic versions extant, made immediately from the Hebrew, either by Jews, Samaritans, or Christians, of which the following are the principal; viz. 2. The Arabic version of the Pentateuch, published by Erpenius at Leyden, in 1622, 4to., appears to have been executed in the thirteenth century by some African Jew, who has very closely adhered to the Hebrew. 3. The Arabic version of the Book of Joshua, printed in the Paris and London Polyglotts, is, in the opinion of Bauer, made directly from the Hebrew. Its author and date are not known. 4. The Pentateuch, Psalms, and Prophecy of Daniel, were translated by Saadi Ben Levi Asnekot, who lived in the early part of the seventeenth century: they are extant only in MS. in the British Museum, and are of very little value. Besides these versions, the Arab Christians have a translation of the Book of Job (printed in the Paris and London Polyglotts), and two versions of the Psalms, still in MS., which were respectively made from the Peschito or Old Syriac version. All the Arabic books of the Old Testament (with the exception of the Pentateuch and Job), which are printed in those Polyglotts, were executed from Hesychius's recension of the Septuagint. The Psalms, inserted in Justiniani's Polyglott Psalter, and Gabriel Sionita's Arabic Psalter, were made from Lucian's recension of that version: and the Arabic Psalter, printed at Aleppo in 1706, 4to., follows the Melchitics recension of the LXX.6 4 Cat. Harl. MSS. vol. iii. num. 5505. The Melchites were those Christians in Syria, Egypt, and the Levant, who, though not Greeks, followed the doctrines and ceremonies of the Greek Church. They were called Melchites, that is, Royalists, by their adversaries, by way of reproach, on account of their implicit submission to the edict of the Emperor Marcian, in favour of the council of Chalcedon. Mosheim's Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. p. 188. note (m). Carpzov. Crit. Sacr. pp. 640-644. Bauer, Crit. Sacr. pp. 321-324. Jahn, Introd. ad Vet. Foed. pp. 78-80. Masch, part ii. vol. i. pp. 103-110. There are many Arabic translations of the New Testa- | words, and subjoined a Persian translation. The other Perment, besides those which have appeared in print: for since sian translation was edited by Wheloc, and after his decease the Arabic language supplanted the Syriac and Egyptian, by Pierson, at London, in 1652-57, after a collation of three the inhabitants of the countries where these had been spo- manuscripts. It is supposed to have been from the Greek.1 ken, have been obliged to annex Arabic translations to the ancient versions, which are no longer understood. These § 4. ON THE ANCIENT WESTERN VERSIONS OF THE SCRIPTURes. Arabic translations are supposed to have been made at different times between the seventh and the eleventh centuries: I. Ancient Latin versions of the Scriptures.-I. Of the OLD in general they were not all executed from the original text, but from the versions which they were intended to accompany. Thus some which are placed together with the Greek text have been made from the Greek, while others have been made from the Syriac, the Coptic, and even from the Latin Vulgate. ITALIC or ANTE-HIERONYMIAN VERSION.-2. Account of the Biblical labours and Latin version of JEROME.-3. Of the VULGATE VERSION and its revisions.-4. Critical value of the Latin Vulgate version.-II. GOTHIC VERSION.—III. SCLAVONIC VERSION.-IV. ANGLO-SAXON VERSION. I. ANCIENT LATIN VERSIONS OF THE SCRIPTURES. V. The ARMENIAN VERSION of the Old Testament was 1. At the commencement of the Christian æra, the Latin made from the Alexandrian Septuagint: its author was Mies- was gradually supplanting the Greek as a general language, rob, who invented letters fully expressive of the Armenian and it soon might be called the language of the western tongue, towards the close of the fourth or early in the fifth church. From the testimony of Augustine, it appears that century. It is said to have been subsequently altered accord- the Latin church possessed a very great number of versions ing to the Peschito or old Syriac version, and according to of the Scriptures, made at the first introduction of Christithe Latin Vulgate, by Uscan, an Armenian bishop, who was anity, and whose authors were unknown; and that, in the specially sent to Amsterdam to superintend the edition there primitive times, as soon as any one found a Greek copy, and printed in 1666. The translation of the New Testament is thought himself sufficiently versed in both languages, he ascribed jointly to Miesrob, and to the patriarch Isaac at the attempted a translation of it. In the course of time, this end of the fourth or early in the fifth century. It was twice diversity of translation produced much confusion, parts of translated from the Syriac, and then from the Greek; and that separate versions being put together to form an entire comthe copies now extant were made from the latter language, is position, and marginal notes being inserted into the text: evident from their containing those books of the New Testa- but one of these Latin translations appears to have acquired a ment which were never admitted into the Peschito or ancient more extensive circulation than the others, and for several literal Syriac version. This version, in the opinion of Semler, ages was preferably used, under the name of the Vetus Itala is of great importance, as faithfully representing the Greek or old Italic, on account of its clearness and fidelity. This MSS. whence it was made: but Michaelis observes, that it version, which in the time of Jerome was received as cawould be an inestimable treasure, had it descended to us un-nonical, is by him termed sometimes the Vulgate and somealtered by time and superstition. It has in several instances times the Old, in opposition to the new translation undertaken been made conformable to the Vulgate by Haitho or Hethom, by him. He mentions no other version. The Old Italic was sovereign of the Lesser Armenia from A. D. 1224 to 1270, translated from the Greek in the Old Testament as well as who was attached to the church of Rome, and skilled in the in the New, there being comparatively few members of the Latin language.2 Western church who were skilled in Hebrew. From the above cited expressions of Augustine, it has been inferred that the old Italic version was made in the first century of the Christian æra; but the New Testament could not have been translated into Latin before the canon had been formed, which was certainly not made in the first century: and the great number of Hebraisms and Syriasms observable in it, particularly in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, have induced some eminent critics to conjecture that the authors of this translation were Jews converted to Christianity. There is, however, every reason to believe, that it was executed in the early part of the second century:" at least it was quoted by Tertullian before the close of that century. But, before the end of the fourth century, the alterations, either designed or accidental, which were made by transcribers of the Latin Bible, were become as numerous as the alterations in the Greek Bible, before it was corrected by Origen."9 VI. PERSIC VERSIONS.-Although we have no authentic account of the conversion of the whole Persian nation to Christianity, yet we are informed by Chrysostom and Theodoret, that the Scriptures were very anciently translated into the Persian language. It does not appear, however, that any fraginents of this ancient version are extant. The Persic translation of the Pentateuch was executed by Jacob Ben Joseph surnamed Tawosi or Tusi, from Tus, a city of Persia, which anciently possessed a celebrated Jewish academy. The precise time when he lived is not known; but it is evident that he could not have lived earlier than the commence ment of the ninth century, because in Gen. x. 10. for Babel he has substituted Babylon, which city was not founded until A. D. 762 by the caliph Almansor. The Persian version of the Pentateuch, which is for the most part faithfully rendered, was first printed by the Jews at Constantinople in 1546, in Hebrew characters, together with the Hebrew text, the targum of Onkelos, and the Arabic version of Saadias Gaon. From this Constantinopolitan edition the Persian version of the Pentateuch was transcribed into the Persian characters by the eminent orientalist Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Hyde, who added a very close Latin translation, and supplied between brackets the words necessary to fill up the chasms which had been caused by the negligence either of the original copyist or of the printer at Constantinople. Bishop Walton further mentions two Persic versions of the Psalms-one by a Portuguese monk at Ispahan in the year 1618, and another by some Jesuits from the Vulgate Latin version. These are yet in manuscript. There are extant two Persian Versions of the four Gospels, the most ancient and valuable of which was first printed in the London Polyglott, by Bishop Walton, from a manuscript in the possession of Dr. Pococke, dated A. D. 1314: it was made from the Syriac, having sometimes retained Syriac 1 Michaelis (vol. ii. part i. pp. 81-95.) and Hug (vol. i. pp. 430-454.) have gone fully into the history of the Arabic versions. For a notice of the principal editions of them, see the BIBLIOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX to Vol. II. PART I. CHAP. I. SECT. V. § 3. [ii.] Jahn, p. 82. Masch, pp. 169-173.; Kortholt, pp. 304, 305. On the present state of the Armenian church in India, see Dr. Buchanan's "Christian Researches," pp. 341-346. Semler, Apparatus ad Liberalein Novi Testa menti Interpretationem, p. 69. Michaelís, vol. ii. pp. 98-105. 614-617. Hug, vol. i. pp. 394-399. Walton, Prol. xvi. $$ 6-8. pp. 692-695. Kortholt, c. xix. pp. 301-303. Jahn, p. 80. Rosenmüller, de Versione Pentateuchi Persica Commentatio, pp. 4-10. Lipsiæ, 1813. For an account of editions consult Masch, part ii. viol i. pp. 158-164 2. To remedy this growing evil, Jerome, at the request, and under the patronage of Damasus, bishop of Rome, towards the close of the fourth century, undertook to revise c. 4 Michaelis, vol. ii. pp. 105, 106. 617-619. Semler, p. 69. Walton, Prol. Augustine, de Doctr. Christ. 1. ii. c. 11. xvi. 99. pp. 695, 696. Hug, vol. i. pp. 389–393. These various ancient Latin versions, which are frequently terined Ante Hieronymian, and of the manuscripts of which some valuable frag. inents have been preserved to us in the writings of the Fathers, were written in the barbarous Latin, and frequently differed greatly. One sin gle example, out of many that might be offered, will suffice. Col. ii. 15. as cited by Hilary (de Trin. lib. i. c. 13.), runs thus:-"Exutus carnem ex potestates ostentui fecit, triumphatis iis cum fiduciâ in semet ipso." The same passage, as cited by Augustine (contra Faustum, lib. xvi. c. 29.), stands thus:-"Exutus se carnem principatus et potestates exemplavit fiducialiter triumphatus eos in semet ipso." Other examples may be seen in Hug, vol. i. pp. 451-456. Augustine, de Doct. Christ. 1. ii. c. 15. This passage of Augustine is suspected to be incorrect, and Bishop Marsh, after Bentley, Ernesti, Lardner, and other critics, thinks that we ought to read illa for Itala. (Michae 116.) But this conjecture is supported by no manuscript, and is also con lis, vol. ii. part ii. p. 623. See also Dr. Lardner's Works, vol. v. pp. 115, tradicted by the context of Augustine. M. Breyther, who has examined the various conjectures and arguments which have been alleged in support of the reading of illa, determines in favour of Itala as the genuine reading. (Dissert. de vi quam antiquissimæ versiones, quæ extant, in crisin Evang. IV. habeant, pp. 13-24) Prof. Hug also determines in favour of Itala. (Introd. to New Test. vol. i. pp. 460, 461.) "The learned and ingenious Eichhorn, in his introduction to the Old Testament, supposes that the first Latin version of the Bible was made in Africa; where Latin alone being understood, a translation was more necessary; where the Latin version was held in the highest veneration; and where, the language being spoken with less purity, barbarisms might have been more easily introduced than in a provincial town in Italy." Bp. Marsh's Michaelis, vol. ii. part ii. p. 628. Bishop Marsh's Divinity Lectures, part i. p. 66. this translation, and make it more conformable to the Sep-1546. These, especially the last, having incurred the centuagint. He executed the revision of the Old Testament sures of the doctors of the Sorbonne, John Hentenius, a diaccording to the Hexaplar text of Origen, which he went to vine of Louvain, was employed to prepare a new edition of Cæsarea to consult, and the New Testament after the origi- the Vulgate: this he accomplished in 1547 in folio, having nal Greek; and completed his task A. D. 390 or 391. Of this availed himself of Stephens's previous labours with great revision, the Book of Job and the Psalms (which alone have advantage. A third corrected edition was published by Lucas been preserved to our times), together with the Chronicles, Brugensis, with the assistance of several other divines of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon, are all that Louvain, in 1573, in three volumes, 8vo., which was also were ever published; Jerome's manuscripts, comprising the reprinted in 1586 in 4to. and 8vo., with the critical notes of remaining books of Scripture, being lost or destroyed through Lucas Brugensis. In the mean time Pius IV. commanded the wilful negligence or fraud of some individual whom he some divines of the Romish church to collect and to collate has not named. But before Jerome had finished his revisal, the most ancient manuscripts which they could procure. This he had commenced a translation of the Old Testament from collation was continued during the pontificate of Pius V., the Hebrew into Latin, in order that the Western Christians, who further caused the original text to be consulted. Under who used this last language only, might know the real mean- Gregory XIII. the work ceased, but it was resumed and ing of the Hebrew text, and thus be the better qualified to completed under the auspices of Sixtus V.; who devoted engage in controversial discussions with the Jews. much time and attention to it, and corrected the proofs of the edition which was published at Rome in 1590, in folio. The text thus revised Sixtus pronounced to be the authentic Vulgate, which had been the object of inquiry in the Council of Trent; and ordained that it should be adopted throughout the Romish church. But, notwithstanding the labours of the Pope, this edition was discovered to be so exceedingly incorrect, that his successor Gregory XIV. caused it to be suppressed; and Clement VIII., the successor of Gregory in the pontificate, published another authentic Vulgate in 1592. This, however, differs more than any other edition from that of Sixtus V., and mostly resembles that of Louvain. These fatal variances between editions, alike promulgated by pontiffs claiming infallibility, have not passed unnoticed by Protestant divines, who have taken advantage of them in a manner that sensibly affects the church of Rome; especially Kortholt, who has at great length refuted the pretensions of Bellarmine in favour of the Vulgate in a masterly manner, and our learned countryman Thomas James, in his Bellum Papale, sive Concordia Discors Sixti V. (London, 1600, 4to.), who has pointed out very numerous additions, omissions, contradictions, and other differences between the Sixtine and Clementine editions. From this very curious and now rare volume the following specimens of the dif ferences between these two editions are selected and arranged :— 1. 3. This version, which surpasses all former ones, was executed at different times, Jerome having translated particular books in the order requested by his friends. We learn from Augustine, that it was introduced into the churches by degrees, for fear of offending weak persons: at length it acquired so great an authority from the approbation it received from Pope Gregory I., that ever since the seventh century it has been exclusively adopted by the Romish church, under the name of the VULGATE version: and a decree of the fourth session of the Council of Trent, in the sixteenth century, ordained that the Vulgate alone should be esteemed authentic (a very ambiguous term, which ought to have been more precisely defined than the members of that assembly chose to define it), in the public reading of the Scriptures, in disputations, in preaching, and in expounding, and that no one should dare to reject it under any pretext whatever. "Upon this ground many contended that the Vulgate version was dictated by the Holy Spirit; at least was providentially guarded against all error; was consequently of divine authority, and more to be regarded than even the original Hebrew and Greek texts. And, in effect, the decree of the Council, however limited and moderated by the explanation of some of their more judicious divines, has given to the Vulgate such a high degree of authority, that, in this instance at least, the translation has taken the place of the original; for the learned of the church of Rome, who have taken the liberty of giving translations of Scripture in the modern languages, instead of the Hebrew and Greek texts, profess to translate the Vulgate. When, indeed, they find the Vulgate very notoriously deficient in expressing the sense, they do the original Scriptures the honour of consulting them, and take the liberty, by following them, of departing from their authentic guide; but, in general, the Vulgate is their original text; and they give us a translation of a translation; by which second transfusion of the Holy Scriptures into another tongue, still more of the original sense must be lost, and more of the genuine 2. Clauses or words introduced into the Sixtine, but omitted in spirit must evaporate." 993 The universal adoption of Jerome's new version throughout the Western church rendered a multiplication of copies necessary; and with them new errors were introduced in the course of time, by the intermixture of the two versions (the Old Italic and Jerome's or the Vulgate) with each other. Of this confusion, Cassiodorus was the principal cause, who ordered them to be written in parallel columns, that the old version might be corrected by the Vulgate; and though Alcuin in the eighth century, by the command of Charlemagne, provided more accurate copies, the text again fell into such confusion, and was so disfigured by innumerable mistakes of copyists-(notwithstanding the efforts made to correct it by Lanfranc archbishop of Canterbury, in the eleventh century, and by Cardinal Nicholas, and some other divines, about the middle of the twelfth and in the thirteenth centuries),—that the manuscripts of the middle ages materially differ from the first printed editions. Clauses omitted in the Sixtine, but inserted in the Clementine Bible. Num. xxx. 11. Prov. xxv. 24. Lev. xx. 9. Judg. xvii. 2, 3. 1 Kings iv. 21. 3 Kings (same 2 Chron. ii. 10. Matt. xxvii. 35. 1 Sam. xxiv. 8. 1 Sam. xxv. 6. 2 Sam. vi. 12. 2 Sam. viii. 8. 2 Sam. xix. 10. Prov. xxiv. ult. Hab. i. 3. Matt. xxiv. 41. Uror in domo viri, &c. to the end of the verse. Patri matrique maledixit. Reddidit ergo eos matri suæ, &c. Quia capta est arca Dei. as our first) xii. 10. Sic loqueris ad eos. Et vini vigenti millia metretas. Ut impleretur quod dictum est per prophetam dicentem, diviserunt sibi vestimenta mea, et super vestem meam miserunt sortem. the Clementine Bible. Vivit dominus, quia nisi dominus percusserit eum, aut De quo fecit Salomo omnia vasa area in templo et surges. Quare respicis contemptores et taces conculcante impio Acts xxiv. 18, 19. Et apprehenderunt me clamantes et dicentes, tolle ini micum nostrum. printed; and it is likewise of great value to a critic, as it contains a copious collection of various readings from thirteen Latin manuscripts, and three Robert STEPHENS was the first who attempted to remedy of the early editions. Father Simon (Hist. Crit. des Versions du N. Test. this confusion, by publishing his critical editions of the Vul-ch. xi. p. 130.) calls it "un chef-d'œuvre en fait de Bible" and (p. 131.) gate in 1528, 1532, 1534, 1540,4 and particularly in 1545 and 1 Jerome, Ep. 64. ad Augustin. With the exception of the Psalms; which being daily chanted to music in the church service, made it difficult to introduce alterations. The Old Italic Psalter, as corrected by Jerome, has therefore been used ever since the time of Gregory 1. The apocryphal books of Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and the two books of Maccabees, are also retained from the old Latin version. Bp. Lowth's Translation of Isaiah, vol. i. Prel. Diss. p. lxxiii. The edition of 1540 was Stephens's principal edition of the Latin Vulgate; as his edition of 1550 was his principal edition of the Greek. In magnificence it surpasses every edition of the Vulgate that ever was he runs this edition "la meilleure et des toutes." Hentenius, in his pre face to the Louvain edition, calls it "accuratissima et castigatissima Biblia." (See also the praises bestowed on it in Masch's edition of Le long's Bibliotheca Sacra, part ii. vol. iii. p. 187.) The title-page prefixed to the New Testament bears the date of 1539; though that which is prefixed to the Old Testament is dated 1540. (Marsh's Letters to Travis, p. 254. note.) It is by this latter date, that Stephens's best edition of the Vulgate is usually known and cited. Kortholt, de variis Scripturæ Editionibus, pp. 110-251. Additional instances of the contradictions between the above mentioned papal editions, together with a defence of the Bellum Papale, may be seen in Mr. James's "Treatise of the Corruptions of Scripture, Councils, and Fathers, by the Prelates, Pastors, and Pillars of the Church of Rome, for the maintenance of Popery," pp. 272–358. London, 1688. 8vo. |