tongue, still more of the original sense must be lost, and more of the genuine spirit must evaporate. 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. -- Robert Stephens was the first who attempted to remedy this confusion, by publishing his critical editions of the Vulgate in 1528, 1532, 1534, 1540,2 and particularly in 1545 and 1546. These, particularly the last, having incurred the censures of the doctors of the Sorbonne, John Hentenius, a divine of Louvain, was employed to prepare a new edition of the Vulgate: this he accomplished in 1547 in folio, having availed himself of Stephens's previous labours with great advantage. A third corrected edition was published by Lucas Brugensis, with the assistance of several other divines of Louvain, in 1573, in three volumes 8vo., which was also reprinted in 1586 in 4to. and 8vo., with the critical notes of Lucas Brugensis. The labours of the Louvain divines not being in every respect approved by Sixtus V., he commanded a new revision of the text to be made with the utmost care to this work he devoted much time and attention, and corrected the proofs himself 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 Clement VIII. caused it to be suppressed, and published ano 1 Bp. Lowth's Translation of Isaiah, vol. i. Prel. Diss. p. lxxiii. 2 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 printed and it is likewise of great value to a critic, as it contains a copious collection of readings from Latin manuscripts, and some of the early editions. Father Simon, (Hist. Crit. des Versions du N. Test. ch. xi. p. 130.) calls it un chef d'œuvre en fait de Bible;' and (p. 131.) he terms this edition la meilleure de toutes.' Hentenius, in his preface 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 I. 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. ther authentic Vulgate in 1592, in folio: 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 differences between these two editions are transcribed. 1. Clauses omitted in the Sixtine, but inserted in the Clementine Bible. Num. xxx. 11. Prov. xxv. 24. Jud. xvii. 2, 3. 1 Kings iv. 21. 3 Kings (same as 2 Chron. ii. 10. Matt. xxvii. 35. Uror in domo viri, &c. to the end of the verse. Reddidit ergo eos matri suæ, &.c. 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. 2. Clauses or Words introduced into the Sixtine, but omitted in the Clementine Bible. 1 Sam. xxiv. 8. Virit dominus, quia nisi dominus percusserit eum, aut dies ejus venerit ut moriatur, aut decendens in prælium periret ; propitius mihi sit dominus ut non mittam manum meam in Christum Domini. 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. Er multis annis salvos faciens tuos et omnia tua. De quo fecit Salomo omnia vasa area in templo et mare æne- Et concilium totius Israel venit ad regem. Usque quo piger dormis? usque quo de somno consurges. Quare respicis contemptores et taces conculcante impio justi orem se? Et facies homines quasi pisces maris, et quasi reptilia non habentia ducem. Duo in lecto, unus assumetur, et unus relinquetur. Et commota est omnis multitudo in doctrina eorum, Paulus autem, &c. xxiv. 18, 19. Et apprehenderunt me clamantes et dicentes, tolle inimicum nostrum. 3. Manifest contradictions, or differences between the editions. Ex. xxiii. 18. Sixtine Tua, Clementine Mea. Numb. xxxiv. 4. Deut. xvii. 8. Jos. ii. 18. iv. 23. S. Ad meridiem, C. A meridie. S. Inter lepram et non lepram, C. Inter lepram et lepram. xi. 19. S. Quæ se non traderet, C. Quæ se traderet. 1 Kortholt, de variis Scripturæ Editionibus, pp. 110–251. 2 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. Ibidem. Job, xxxi. 75. Ps. xli. 3. Pro. xx. 25. Ezek. xiv. 22. Sirach, xxxviii.25. Isaiah, xlvi. 12. S. Nec poterat videre lucernam Dei antequam extingueretur, S. In thersam, C. In terram. S. Fecit, ejus muros in altitudinem 70 cubitus: this is one of los meos cor meum. S. Ad Deum fontem vivum, C. Ad Deum fortem, vivum. S. qui affligit patrem et fugit matrem, C. Qui affligat, &c. et S. Egredientur, C. Ingredientur. S. Sapientiam scribe, C. Sapientia scribe. S. Justum, C. Avem. S. Cor hominis, C. hominum. IV. The Vulgate is regarded by Papists and Protestants in very different points of view: by the former it has been extolled beyond measure, while by most of the latter it has been depreciated as much below its intrinsic merit. Our learned countryman, John Bois, (canon of Ely,) was the first who pointed out the real value of this version in his Collatio Veteris Interpretis cum Bezâ aliisque recentioribus (Svo. 1655.) In this work, which is now of extreme rarity, the author has successfully shown that, in many places, the modern translators had unduly depreciated the Vulgate, and unnecessarily departed from it. Bois was followed by Father Simon, in his Histoire Critique du texte et des versions du Nouveau Testament, who has proved that the more antient the Greek manuscripts and other versions are, the more closely do they agree with the Vulgate and in consequence of the arguments adduced by Simon, the Vulgate has been more justly appreciated by biblical critics of later times. Although the Latin Vulgate is neither inspired nor infallible, as Morinus, Saurez, and other advocates of the Romish church have attempted to maintain, yet it is allowed to be in general a faithful translation, and sometimes exhibits the sense of Scripture with greater accuracy than the more modern versions: for all those which have been made in modern times, by divines in communion with the VOL. II. 26 church of Rome, are derived from the Latin Vulgate, which, in consequence of the decree of the council of Trent above noticed, has been substituted for the original Hebrew and Greek texts. The Latin Vulgate therefore is by no means to be neglected by the biblical critic and since the Ante-Hieronymian Latin translations are unquestionably of great antiquity, both lead us to a discovery of the readings in very antient Greek manuscripts, which existed prior to the date of any now extant. Even in its present state, notwithstanding the variations between the Sixtine and Clementine editions, and that several passages are mistranslated, in order to support the peculiar dogmas of the church of Rome, the Latin Vulgate preserves many true readings, where the modern Hebrew copies are corrupted.1 The old Latin version of the Four Gospels was published at Rome, by Blanchini, in two volumes folio, under the title of Evangeliarium quadruplex Latina Versionis antiquæ seu veteris Italica: and the remains of the different antient versions were collected and published by Sabatier at Rheims, in three volumes folio, 1749. The printed editions of the Vulgate are so numerous, that any account of them would occupy too large a portion of the present work : the Paris edition of Didot in 1785, in two volumes quarto, may however be noticed for its singular beauty and accuracy, as well as the edition of the New Testament, printed under the superintendence of Leander Van Ess, entitled Testamentum Novum Vulgatæ editionis, juxta exemplar ex typographia Apostol. Vaticana, Roma 1592, edidit L. Van Ess. Tubingæ. 1822. 8vo. SECTION II. ON THE ANTIENT VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. L ORIENTAL VERSIONS.-1. Peschito or Antient Syriac Version. -2. The Philoxenian Syriac Version.-3. The Syriac Translation of Jerusalem. — 4. Egyptian Versions. —5. Arabic Versions.6. Ethiopic Version.-7. Armenian Version. — 8. Persian Version. II. WESTERN TRANSLATIONS. 1. The Gothic Version.-2. The Sclavonic Version.-3. The AngloSaxon Version. THE antient versions of the New Testament may be divided into three classes the Oriental, the Latin, and the Western: and as 1 Cappel has given numerous examples in his Critica Sacra, lib. ii. cc. vii.—ix. tom. ii. pp. 858-898. (edit. Scharfenberg.) 2 A particular description of all the editions is given by Masch, part ii. vol. iii. pp. 1-352; and of the principal editions by Brunet, in his Manuel du Libraire, tom. i. art. Biblia. 3 The preceding account of the Latin versions has been compiled from Michaelis, vol. ii. pp. 107-129. Semler, Apparatus ad Liberalem Vet. Test. Interpretationem, pp. 308--314. Carpzov, Critica Sacra, pp. 671-706. Leusden, Philologus Hebræomixtus, pp. 1-10. Bishop Walton, Prol. c. xi. pp. 470-507; and Viser, Hermeneutica Sacra Novi Testamenti, vol. ii. part iii. pp. 73-96. See also Cellerier, Introduction au Nouv. Test. pp. 195–208. the Latin versions have been noticed in the preceding paragraphs, we shall at present confine our attention to the Oriental and Western translations. I. The principal ORIENTAL VERSIONS are the Syriac, Egyptian, Arabic, Ethiopic, Armenian, and Persian. 1. The Old Syriac Version is usually called the Peschito, that is, right, or exact. This translation comprises only the Four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of Saint Paul (including the Epistle to the Hebrews), the first Epistle of Saint John, Saint Peter's first Epistle, and the Epistle of Saint James. The celebrated passage in 1 John v. 7., and the history of the woman taken in adultery (John viii. 2—11.), are both wanting. All the Christian sects in Syria and the East make use of this version exclusively, which they hold in the highest estimation. Michaelis pronounces it to be the very best translation of the Greek Testament which he ever read, for the general ease, elegance, and fidelity with which it has been executed. It retains, however, many Greek words, which might have been easily and correctly expressed in Syriac in Matt. xxvii. alone there are not fewer than eleven words. In like manner some Latin words have been retained which the authors of the New Testament had borrowed from the Roman manners and customs. This version also presents some mistakes, which can only be explained by the words of the Greek text, from which it was immediately made. For instance, in rendering into Syriac these words of Acts xviii. 7., ΟΝΟΜΑΤΙ ΙΟΥΣΤΟΥ ΣΕΒΟΜΕΝΟΥ, the interpreter has translated Titus instead of Justus, because he had divided the Greek in the following manner ONOMA TIIOYETOY, &c. This version is confessedly of the highest antiquity, and there is every reason to believe that it was made, if not in the first century, at least in the beginning of the second century. It certainly must have been executed previously to the third century, because the text which it follows, according to professor Hug, does not harmonise with the recension adopted by the churches of Palestine and Syria, subsequently to the third century. It is independent, it belongs to no family, and sometimes presents the antient and peculiar readings of the Vetus Itala or old Italic version, or those occurring in the Codex Cantabrigiensis. This version was first made known in Europe by Moses of Mardin, who had been sent by Ignatius, patriarch of the Maronite Christians, in 1552, to Pope Julius III., to acknowledge the papal supremacy in the name of the Syrian church, and was at the same time commissioned to procure the Syriac New Testament. This was accomplished at Vienna in 1555, under the editorial care of Moses and Albert Widmanstad, with the assistance of William Pos 1 Such is the opinion of Michaelis, in unison with those of the most eminent philologists. Introd. to New Test. vol. ii. part i. pp. 29-38. Bishop Marsh, however, in his notes, has controverted the arguments of Michaelis, (ibid. part ii. pp. 551-554.), which have been rendered highly probable by the Rev. Dr. Laurence, (Dissertation upon the Logos, pp. 67-75.) who has examined and refuted the Bishop of Peterborough's objections. 2 Cellériér, Introduction au Nouv. Tost, p. 175. |