Page images
PDF
EPUB

xiv. 3.

1 Sam. iv. 9.
xx. 9.

1 Kings, vii. 9.
Hab. i. 13.
Heb. v. 11.
2 Pet. i. 16.

Ex. xxiv. 5.

Ex. xxxii. 28. 2 Sam. xv. 7. 1 Kings, iv. 42. 2 Kings, xiv. 17.

XXV. 19.

2 Chron. xiii. 17.

1 Sam. iii. 2, 3.

1 Kings, ii. 23. 2 Kings, xv. 19. Judith, i. 2.

Ibidem.
Job, xxxi. 75.

Ps. xli. 3.

Pro. xx. 25.
xix. 23.

Ezek. xiv. 22.

Sirach, xxxviii.25. -xlii. 9.

Isaiah, xlvi. 12.

[blocks in formation]

S. Quinque millia, C. Quinque et mille.
Vigenti Quinque, C. Quindecem.
Sex, C. Sexagenta.

S.

S. Quinquagenta, C. Quingenta.

5. Other remarkable differences.

S. Nec poterat videre lucernam Dei antequam extingueretur,
C. Nec poterat videre; lucerna Dei antequam extingueretur.
S. Ad Salomonen, C. Ad Jaob.

S. In thersam, C. In terram.
S. Fecit, ejus muros in altitudinem 70 cubitus: this is one of
those places where paper had been pasted on the text, the
word first printed was latitudinem, and altitudinem was
printed on a slip of paper and put over it, S. Latitudinem.
S. Latitudinem, 30 cu. C. Altitudinem, 30 cubitus.
S. Si secutus est oculus meus cor meum, C. Si secutum et ocu
los meos cor meum.

S. Ad Deum fontem vivum, C. Ad Deum fortem, vivum.
S. Decorare sanctos, C. Devotare sanctos.

S. qui affligit patrem et fugit matrem, C. Qui affligat, &c. et
fugat, &c.

S. Egredientur, C. Ingredientur.
S. Sapientiam scribe, C. Sapientia scribæ.
S. Adultera, C. Adulta.

S. Justum, C. Arem.

Jer. xvii. 9. 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

[blocks in formation]

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 Latine Versionis antique seu veteris Italicæ: 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.

1. 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.

[ocr errors]

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, Philolo gus 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 Cellérier, 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 THIOYETOY, &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 Cellérier, Introduction au Nouv. Test. p. 175.

tell, and at the expense of the emperor Ferdinand I. This editio princeps is in quarto. The Syriac New Testament has since been printed several times: but the best edition is that of Leusden and Schaaf (with an excellent Syriac Lexicon) in two volumes 4to., Leyden, 1708, 1709, which was reprinted in 1717. A beautiful and correct edition of the antient Syriac version of the New Testament was executed at the press of Mr. Watts (London, 1816, 4to.) for the use of the Syrian Christians in India, by whom it has been received with the utmost gratitude. This edition was corrected for the press, as far as the Acts of the Apostles, by the late Rev. Dr. Buchanan; and was completed by the Rev. Samuel Lee, A. M. Professor of Arabic in the University of Cambridge, one of the most accomplished Oriental scholars in this country. The expense of the edition was defrayed by the BRITISH AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY. There is also extant a Syriac version of the second Epistle of Saint Peter, the second and third Epistles of John, the Epistle of Jude, and the Apocalypse, which are wanting in the Peschito: these are by some writers ascribed to Mar Abba, primate of the East, between the years 535 and 552. The translation of these books is made from the original Greek; but the author, whoever he was, possessed but an indifferent knowledge of the two languages.

The Philoxenian or Syro-Philoxenian Version, derives its name from Philoxenus, or Xenayas, Bishop of Hierapolis or Mabug in Syria, A. D. 488—-518, who employed his rural bishop (Chorepiscopus) Polycarp to translate the Greek New Testament into Syriac. This version was finished in the year 508, and was afterwards revised by Thomas of Harkel or Heraclea, A. D. 616. Michaelis is of opinion, that there was a third edition, and a fourth is attributed to Dionysius Barsalibæus, who was bishop of Amida from 1166 to 1177. It appears, however, that there were only two editionsthe original one by Polycarp, and that revised by Thomas of Harkel; the single copy of the Four Gospels, with the alterations of Barsalibæus, in the twelfth century, being hardly entitled to the name of a new edition. This version was not known in Europe until the middle of the eighteenth century; when the Rev. Dr. Gloucester Ridley published a Dissertation on the Syriac versions of the New Testament, three manuscripts of which he had received thirty years before from Amida in Mesopotamia. Though age and growing infirmities, the great expense of printing, and the want of a

1 Michaelis, vol. ii. part i. pp. 4-18. has given an account of the principal editions of the Syriac New Testament to which his translator has furnished some valuable additions, (part ii. pp. 536-546.) See also Masch, part ii. vol. i. pp. 71 -102.

2 De Syriacarum Novi Fœderis Versionum Indole atque Usu Dissertatio ; Philoxenianam cum simplici e duobus pervetustis Codicibus, ab Amida transmissis, conferente Glocestrio Ridley, LL. B. 1761, 4to. This very scarce tract is reprinted at the end of Semler's edition of Wetstein's Libclli ad Crisin atque Interpretationem Novi Testamenti, (8vo. Hale, 1766), pp. 247-339. from a copy then in the library of the celebrated Michaelis; to whose elaborate account of the Syriac versions, editions, and critical tracts concerning them, we are indebted for the present notice of the Syriac translations. See his Introduction to the New Testament, vol. ii. part i. pp. 1-75.; and Bishop Marsh's Notes, ibid. part ii. pp. 533-585.

patron, prevented Dr. Ridley from availing himself of these manuscripts; yet having, under circumstances of peculiar difficulty, succeeded in acquiring a knowledge of the Syriac language, he employed himself at intervals in making a transcript of the Four Gospels. These, being put into the hands of the late Professor White, were published by him with a literal Latin translation, in 1778, in two volumes 4to., at the expense of the delegates of the Clarendon press at Oxford. In 1799 Professor White published from the same press the Acts of the Apostles and the Catholic Epistles, and in 1804, the Epistles of Saint Paul, also in 4to., and accompanied with a Latin translation.

The Philoxenian version, though made immediately from the Greek, is greatly inferior to the Peschito, both in the accuracy with which it is executed, and also in its style. It is, however, not devoid of value, "and is of real importance to a critic, whose object is to select a variety of readings, with the view of restoring the genuine text of the Greek 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."1

3. 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 translatiou 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 festival days. It is written in the Syriac or Chaldee dialect of Jerusalem, and was evidently made in a Roman province : for in Matt xxvii. 27. the word, drgariwra soldiers, is rendered by

, as if the translator had never heard of any soldiers but Romans; and in the same verse asiga, band or cohort is rendered by the Latin word castra, D. 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. This manuscript has not yet been collated throughout, so that it is very uncertain to what recension it belongs. But, from what is known concerning it, there is reason to think that it combines the readings of different families.2

4. Egyptian Versions.-There are two translations of the New Testament extant in the Egyptian language - one in the Coptic or

1 Michaelis, vol. ii. part i. p. 68. See also Dr. G. H. Bernstein's Dissertation on Thomas of Harkel's revision of the Syro-Philoxenian Version, entitled De Versione Novi Testamenti Syriacâ Heracleensi Commentatio. Lipsiæ, 1822, 4to. 2 Cellérier, Introduction au Nouv. Test. pp. 180, 181.

« PreviousContinue »