A. Ancient Versions.1

I. Greek Versions.

1. The Septuagint.

Origin (§ 1).

Printed Editions (§ 2).

Early Corruption of the Text (§ 3).

The Hexapla of Origen (§ 4).

Lucian and Hesychius (§ 5).

Versions Made from the Septuagint (§ 6).

Manuscripts (§ 7).

2. Later Greek Translations.

Aquila (§ 1).

Symmachus (§ 2).

Theodotion (§ 3).

II. Latin Versions.

1. The Latin Bible before Jerome.

The Old Latin Bible. The Itala (§ 1).

Manuscripts and Editions (§ 2).

Quotations In Latin Writers (§ 3).

2. The Bible of Jerome (the Vulgate).

Jerome’s Work. The New Testament (§ 1).

The Old Testament (§ 2).

History to the Invention of Printing (§ 3).

Earlier Printed Editions (§ 4).

The Sixtine-Clementine Edition (§ 5).

Later Work. Problems (§ 6).

3. Later Latin Translations.

III. Syriac Versions.

1. The Peshito.

Origin and Name (§ 1).

The Old Testament (§ 2).

The New Testament (§ 3).

2. Later Versions.

IV. The Samaritan Pentateuch.

V. Aramaic Versions (the Targums).

Origin and Language (§ 1).

Targum Onkelos (§ 2).

Targum Jonathan (§ 3).

Other Targums of the Law and Prophets (§ 4).

The Hagiographa (§ 5).

VI. The Armenian Version.

VII. Egyptian Coptic Versions.

VIII. The Ethiopia Version.

IX. The Georgian (Iberian) Version.

X. The Gothic Version of Ufilas.


B. Modern Versions.

I. Arabic Versions.

II. Celtic Versions.

III. Dutch Versions.

IV. English Versions.

The Earliest Versions (§ 1).

Wyclif (§ 2).

Tyndale (§ 3).

Coverdale. Other Editions (§ 4).

The Douai Bible (§ 5).

The Authorized Version (§ 6).

The Revised Version (§ 7).

Minor Versions (§ 8).

Rare and Curious Editions (§ 9).

V. Finnish and Lappish Versions.

VI. French Versions.

The Earlier Versions (§ 1).

Guyard des Moulins (§ 2).

Protestant Versions (§ 3).

Roman Catholic Versions (§ 4).

VII. German Versions.

Old German Fragments (§ 1).

Printed Bibles Before Luther (§ 2).

Luther’s Bible (§ 3).

Revision of Luther’s Version (§ 4).

Other Versions (§ 5).

VIII. Greek Versions, Modern.

IX. Hebrew Translations of the New Testament.

X. Hungarian (Magyar) Versions.

The First Versions (§ 1).

The Komaromi Bible (§ 2).

Modern Versions (§ 3).

XI. Italian Versions.

XII. Lithuanian and Lettish Versions.

XIII. Persian Versions.

XIV. Portuguese Versions.

XV. Scandinavian Versions.

Before the Reformation (§ 1).

Since the Reformation (§ 2).

XVI. Slavonic Versions.

The Old Church Slavonic Version (§ 1).

Russian Versions (§ 2).

Bulgarian and Servian Versions (§ 3).

Slovenian and Croatian Versions (§ 4).

Bohemian Versions (§ 5).

Wendish or Sorbic Versions (§ 6).

Polish Versions (§ 7).

XVII. Spanish Versions.

XVIII. Bible Versions in the Mission Field.


1The principle of arrangement adopted in this series of articles is that of age, not simply, however, on account of chronological precedence, but because necessarily the earliest versions are, generally speaking, the most important for text-critical purposes. Two main divisions are thus formed: A, Ancient Versions; and B, Modern Versions. The versions treated under A are arranged approximately in order of text-critical value; under B, alphabetically.



Bible versions, or translations of the original Hebrew and Greek of the Old and New Testaments, may be treated in an encyclopedia from different points of view: (1) from the critical, as instruments with which to reconstruct the original text; (2) from the exegetical, as showing how the Bible was understood in different times and places; (3) from the historical, as documents for showing the extent of the Bible and of its propagation among the nations of the earth; (4) from a literary and philological standpoint, since the Bible versions are often the earliest monuments of the respective languages.


Versions are either primary and direct, as the Septuagint, or secondary and indirect, derived versions, as the Old Latin. [They now exist, either for the entire Bible or a part, in more than five hundred languages. During 1906 eleven new versions were added and translation, or revision is in progress in over one hundred tongues. Scriptures for the blind are issued by the British and Foreign Bible Society in fifteen languages.] Manifestly only a selection of the more important versions can be treated here.


Of the complete Bible in the original languages there is as yet but one edition in existence: Biblia Sacra tam Veteris quam Novi Testamenticum Apocryphis secundum fontes Hebræos et Græcos, ed. C. B. Michaelis (2 vols., Züllichau, 1740-41; cf. the correspondence on this point in the Sunday School Times, Sept. and Oct., 1899, raised by a statement in the TLZ, 1899, no. 14).



Bibliography: Among older works the following are indispensable: J. H. Hottinger, Dissertationum theologico-philologicarum fasciculus, Heidelberg, 1660 (deals with Jewish and Christian translations); Richard Simon, Histoire critique du Vieux Testament, Amsterdam, 1680, Eng. transl., London, 1682; idem, Histoire critique des versions du Nouveau Testament, Rotterdam, 1690, Eng. transl., London, 1692; idem, Histoire critique du texte du Nouveau Testament, Rotterdam, 1689, Eng. transl., London, 1689; idem, Nouvelles observations sur le texte et les versions du Nouveau Textament, Paris, 1695 (on Simon consult H. Margival, in Revue d'histoire et de littérature religieuses, Jan., Feb., 1896).


Bibliographical information is to be sought in the following: J. Le Long, Bibliotheca Sacra, emendata . . . ab A. G. Masch, 2 parts in 5 vols., Halle, 1778-90 (part 1 deals with editions of the original texts, part 2, in 4 vols., deals with versions); Article Bibel in J. S. Ersch and J. O. Gruber, Allgemeine Encyklopädie, reprinted as a separate volume, Leipsic, 1823; The Bibles in the Caxton Exhibition, London, 1878; British Museum Catalogue, entry "Bible," 4 parts, including Appendix, London, 1892-99 (the fullest list printed of editions of the Bible and of its parts); T. H. Darlow and F. H. Moule, Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scripture in the Library of the British and Foreign Bible Society, vol. i, English, London, 1903, vol. ii not yet issued. Of specific interest are: L. Hain, Repertorium bibliographicum, 5 vols., Stuttgart, 1826-91, Supplement by W. A. Copinger, 3 vols., London, 1891-1902, Appendices by D. Reichling, Munich, 1905-06; W.T. Lowndes, Bibliographer's Manual, 4 vols., London, 1857-64; J. C. Brunet, Manuel du Libraire, 7 vols., Paris, 1860-78. Consult also the works of Loisy, Copinger, and Kenyon given under BIBLE TEXT, I; the table of Bible Translations in J. S. Dennis, Centennial Survey of Foreign Missions, New York, 1904; T. Häring, Das Verständniss der Bibel in der Entwicklung der Menschheit, Tübingen, 1905, and DB, iv, 848-855, extra volume, 236-271, 402-420.



A. Ancient Versions.


I. Greek Versions.--1. The Septuagint: (1.) Origin. The Bible version most important in every respect is the Alexandrian translation of the Old Testament, the so-called Septuagint. "Custom now holds to the version which is called the Septuagint," writes Augustine (De civitate Dei, xviii, 42). The term "Septuagint" is an abbreviation of secundum septuaginta interpretes; the subscription of Genesis in the Codex Vaticanus is "According to the Seventy"; Codex A has before Isaiah, "the Edition of the Seventy"; this is based on the story that King Ptolemy Philadelphus, by the advice of his librarian Demetrius Phalereus, asked from the high priest Eleazar of Jerusalem seventy-two scholars, who translated for him in seventy-two days the law, and, after a later form of the legend, in seventy-two (or thirty-six) cells, the seventy-two or thirty-six copies being found without any variation when brought together and compared. The story is first told in the so-called "Letter of Aristeas" (see ARISTEAS), who pretends to be one of the officers sent by Philadelphus to Jerusalem, and is wholly unhistorical.


As the date of the version ancient chronicles mention the 2d, 7th, 17th, 18th, 19th, or 20th year of Philadelphus, the year 1734, 35, 36, or 37 of Abraham; as its day the 8th of Tebeth, a day of darkness like that on which the golden calf was made (cf. Margoliouth, in the Expositor, Nov., 1900, 348-349). Philo relates, on the contrary, that the Jews of Alexandria kept in his time an annual festival "in commemoration of the time when the interpretation first shone out, and they praised God for his works in times new and old." He knows that the interpreters asked God’s blessing on this undertaking; "for he answered their prayers that more and more the whole race of men might be assisted to correctness of life in thought and deed." This aspiration was fulfilled when the version became one of the chief instruments for the preparation and propagation of Christianity (on this aspect of the version cf. E. W. Grinfield, Apology for the Septuagint, London, 1850; W. R. Churton, The Influence of the Septuagint on the Progress of Christianity, London, 1861; A. Deissmann, Die Hellenisierung des semitischen Monotheismus, Leipsic, 1903). It is not yet certain whether the translation is due, as the legend purports, to the literary interest of a king who was a bibliophile; or, as is the common view at present, to the religious wants of the Jewish community of Alexandria; or to the needs of an intended Jewish propaganda. For the latter view the prologue of Ecclesiasticus may be mentioned, which is, at the same time, the first witness to speak of all three parts of the Hebrew Bible as already extant in Greek; Aristeas, Philo, and Josephus speak only of the law. Of the several books of the Old Testament only Esther has a statement about the translation of the book, which is referred generally to Soter II (114 B.C.), but by H. Willrich (Judaica, Göttingen, 1900) to Ptolemy XIV (48 B.C.). At the end of Job is the strange notice: "This is interpreted from the Syrian book."


(2.) Printed Editions. The first part of the Septuagint to be multiplied by the printing-press was the Psalms in the Greek and Latin Psalter of Bonacursius (Milan, Sept. 20, 1481; in Greek alone, Venice, 1486, and again by Aldus Manutius about 1497). The complete editions fall into four classes according as they are derived from one or another of four original editions, of which the first (designated as c) is the Complutensian Polyglot of Car  dinal Ximenes, printed 1514-17 but not published until 1521 (see BIBLES, POLYGLOT, I; cf. Franz Delitzsch, Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Polyglottenbibel des Cardinals Ximenes, Leipsic, 1871, supplemented 1878-86; T. H. Darlow and F. H. Moule, Historical Catalogue . . . of the BFBS, ii, London, 1908, 1 sqq.). Of the manuscripts used for the Greek Old Testament we know with certainty Vat. Gr. 330 and 346, and Venet. 5 (= Holmes-Parsons 108, 248, and 68). The second (a) is the Aldine Bible published by Andreas Asulanus, father-in-law of the elder Aldus (Venice, 1518). Among the manuscripts used were Holmes-Parsons 29, 68, 121, all of Venice. The third and most important is the Editio Sixtina (b), published by Pope Sixtus V (Rome, 1586 [1587] on the basis of Codex Vat. Gr. 1209 (=B1 in the article BIBLE TEXT, II, 1, § 9). Besides c and a, the manuscripts Holmes-Parsons 16, 19, 23, 51 seem to have been used, especially for the scholia, which were collected chiefly by Petrus Morinus and enlarged by Flaminius Nobilius in the Latin translation published 1588. The fourth edition (4 vols. folio and 8 vols. 8vo, Oxford, 1707-20) was begun by Johannes Ernst Grabe (q.v.), who published vols. i and iv (1707, 1709), and after his death (1711) was completed by Francis Lee (vol. ii, 1719) and George Wigan (vol. iii, 1720). It is based on the Codex Alexandrinus (A; see BIBLE TEXT, II, 1, §9) with use of other sources, especially Origen’s Hexapla, has useful prolegomena, and possesses a merit of its own.


These editions have been often reproduced--the Sixtine edition most frequently--with more or less of editorial labor (for list of reprints, etc.; also mention of the more important editions of single books of the Greek Old Testament, cf. the Hauck- Herzog RE, iii, 4-9 and Swete, Introduction, 171-194). But no existing edition of the Septuagint satisfies present wants, for none gives an exact reproduction of the manuscript or manuscripts which it follows, nor does any provide a full apparatus criticus. The first attempt to satisfy the latter want was made in the great work begun by Robert Holmes (q.v.) and completed after his death (1805) by James Parsons, Vetus Testamentum Græcum cum variis lectionibus (5 vols., Oxford, 1798-1827; cf. Swete, Introduction, 184-187; Church Quarterly Review, Apr., 1899, 102 sqq., and the annual accounts published during the progress of the work from 1789 to 1805). The text is that of b. Not less than 164 volumes of manuscript collations prepared for this work are still in the Bodleian Library. All manuscripts, versions, and quotations were put under contribution. Despite some drawbacks in the plan and still more in the execution, the work deserves admiration; it is still indispensable to all who wish full information about the Old Testament in Greek. The advance made in the course of the nineteenth century insdue, on the one hand, to the discovery of new materials (e.g. the Codex Sinaiticus; see BIBLE TEXT, II, 1, § 9) on the other, to greater exactness in handling witnesses. Both these advantages are evident in the work of C. Tischendorf, P. de Lagarde, and H. B. Swete. Tischendorf (Vetus Testamentum Græce juxta LXX interpretes, 2 vols., Leipsic, 1850; 7th ed., 1887) repeated the text of b and enriched it with variants from the Codex Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, and (after 1869) the Sinaiticus, adding rich prolegomena. Lagarde’s work, though left incomplete, was monumental (for list of his publications, see LAGARDE, PAUL ANTON DE). Swete reproduced in his edition (The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint, 3 vols., Cambridge, 1887-94; 2d ed., 1895-99; 3d ed., 1901-07) for the first time not the printed text of b, but the Vatican manuscript itself, in the first edition according to the facsimile impression of Fabiani-Cozza (Rome, 1869-81), which for the second has been revised (by E. Nestle) after the photographic reproduction. Where the manuscript in deficient the text has been taken from the oldest manuscript accessible in a trustworthy form, while under the text variants have been given from some of the oldest manuscripts, as Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Ambrosianus. The merit of this edition is that it gives the materials with greatest accuracy; its defect, that it does not make any attempt to construct the text according to the principles of textual criticism, but follows the leading manuscript even in its most glaring faults. And in some books at least (e.g. in Ecclesiasticus), the oldest manuscripts are far from being the best. But this deficiency is fully explained by the fact that the edition is intended to be but the basis of a great critical edition now in course of preparation, of which the first part has already appeared, The Old Testament in Greek, according to the Text of Codex Vaticanus Supplemented from Other Uncial Manuscripts, with a Critical Apparatus Containing the Variants of the Chief Ancient Authorities for the Text of the Septuagint, ed. A. E. Brooke and N. McLean, vol. i, The Octateuch, part i, Genesis (Cambridge, 1906; cf. JTS, iii, 601-621, and E. Nestle, Die grosse Cambridger Septuaginta, in Verhandlungen des XIII. Internationalen Orientalistenkongresses, 1902; idem, Septuagintastudien, vol. v, 1907).


There are two English translations: The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament according to the Vatican Text, translated into English, with the principal various readings of the Alexandrine copy, and a table of comparative chronology, by Sir Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton (2 vols., London, 1844; has also the Greek text); the other by Charles Thomson (Philadelphia, 1808; new ed., The Old Covenant, commonly called the Old Testament, by S. F. Pells, 2 vols., London, 1904).


(3.) Early Corruption of the Text. That there is yet not a satisfactory edition of the Septuagint is not because of want of materials for its preparation--there is on the contrary a embarras de richesse--but of its complicated history. The history of a translation will always be more complicated than that of an original text, but in this case it is the more so as the Septuagint is a work of Jewish origin, taken over into the Christian Church. Of the pre-Christian period of its history next to nothing is known. There are some Hellenistic writers who used the Septuagint, as Demetrius, Eupolemus, Aristeas (the historian), Ezekiel, and Aristobulus; but the preserved fragments of their writings are too few and incomplete to establish more than the mere fact that they used the Septuagint. Philo made extensive use of the law, but his quotations from the rest of the Old Testament are very few, and from Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Lamentations, Ezekiel, and Daniel he does not quote at all. Besides, his writings can be traced back only to the library of Origen, and have been transmitted to us probably exclusively through Christian copyists. For Josephus we must be content to know that for his description of the restoration he used what is now called I Esdras; but about his relation to the chief manuscripts there is uncertainty. Even the quotations in the New Testament do not justify very definite statements, except that they prove that already in those times the copies were not free from textual corruption cf. Heb. iii, 9, xii, 5). A little later the situation is described by Origen--speaking, it is true, chiefly of the manuscripts of the New Testament, but what he says holds good also of those of the Old Testament: "Now it is clear that there has come a great difference in copies, either through the laziness of scribes or from the audacity of those who introduced corruptions as amendments, or of others who took away from or added to their new text such things as seemed good to them."


(4.) The Hexapla of Origen. If the situation was already bad, since any copyist or reader who was acquainted with the original might change single passages on comparison with the Hebrew, it became worse when new translations appeared, especially those of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion (see below, 2). At last a systematic comparison of the Septuagint with the Hebrew and these versions was carried out by Origen in the Hexapla (see ORIGEN), and what appeared to him a safeguard against the calamity that threatened the text turned out--not by his fault, but through later ignorance and carelessness--the worst aggravation of it. In continuation of the passage just quoted, he goes on to say that through the guidance of God he found a way to correct the dissonance in the copies. Using the Hebrew as a criterion, and adopting the text of the Septuagint which confirmed the Hebrew, he made the two the ground text, and marked changes by diacritical signs. It is pardonable that he took his Hebrew text--whence begot it is not known--as the original text; but it was contrary to sound criticism to take those readings of the Septuagint which agreed with the Hebrew for the true ones, instead of those which differed from it (cf. the third axiom of Lagarde for the restoration of the Septuagint, Mittheilungen, i, 21). Nevertheless we should be extremely thankful if the work of Origen had been preserved. Until 1896 it was known only from the descriptions of Eusebius, Jerome, Epiphanius, and some later writers, and by specimens preserved in scholia of Biblical manuscripts, a great part also by a literal Syrian translation (see below, § 6). In 1896 Giovanni Mercati discovered in a palimpsest of the Ambrosian Library of Milan the first continuous fragments of a copy of the Hexapla, and in 1900 another and much older piece was found by C. Taylor among the Greek palimpsests from the Cairo genizah in the Taylor and Schechter collection. These fragments show that Origen put generally only one Hebrew word, or at the most two, in one line; the extent of the work, therefore, must have been much greater than was previously supposed. The later fate of the original is unknown. Jerome saw and used it in the library at Cæsarea; it may have been destroyed there during the invasion of the Arabs.


Origen arranged his work in six columns, the first containing the Hebrew text in Hebrew letters, the second the same in a Greek transcription, the third the translation of Aquila, the fourth that of Symmachus, the fifth the Septuagint, the sixth the translation of Theodotion. For some books, especially the Psalms, Origen had a fifth, sixth, and even a seventh translation at his disposal (see below, 2, § 3). In the Septuagint column he used the system of diacritical marks which was in use with the Alexandrian critics of Homer, especially Aristarchus, marking with an obelus--under different forms, as  ÷ called lemniscus, and —̣ called hypolemniscus--those passages of the Septuagint which had nothing to correspond in Hebrew, and inserting, chiefly from Theodotion under an asterisk (*) those which were missing in the Septuagint; in both cases a metobelus (γ) marked the end of the notation. This column was copied afterward with additional excerpts from the other version, on the margins; and, if it had been copied with all its critical marks, it would have been well, but later copyists neglected these completely and produced what we may call krypto-hexaplaric manuscripts, completely spoiling by this carelessness the value of the Septuagint for critical purposes. Such a copy, for instance, is, for Kings, the Codex Alexandrinus; and it is but a poor defense of these copyists that the same process has been repeated in the nineteenth century by the Moscow and Athens reprints of Grabe's edition of that codex.


(5.) Lucian and Hesychius. After Origen, Eusebius and his friend Pamphilus were careful to continue or disseminate his exegetical labors. Copies of the Pentateuch are known which were compared with the Samaritan text (cf. S. Kohn, Samareitkon und Septuaginta, in Monatschrift für Wissenschaft des Judenthums, new series, i, 1894, pp. 1-7, 49-67; ZDMG, 1893, p. 650). Jerome mentions besides Eusebius and Pamphilus, Lucian and Hesychius, the text of the former being used from Constantinople to Antioch, that of the latter in Alexandria and Egypt, while the provinces between, especially Palestine, kept to the copies of Origen as published by Eusebius and Pamphilus Præfatio in paralipomena; Adv. Rufinum, ii, 27). About neither the work nor the person of Hesychius (see HESYCHIUS, 1) is there complete certainty. He may have been the martyr bishop mentioned by Eusebius (Hist. eccl., viii, 13) together with Phileas of Thmuis. The result of his labors is sought now for the Octateuch in the manuscripts 44, 74, 78, 84, 106, 134; for the prophets, especially Isaiah and the Twelve, in the Codex Marchalianus and its supporters 26, 106, 198, 306 (cf. N. McLean, in JTS, ii, 1901, p. 306, and A. Ceriani, De Codice Marchaliano, Rome, 1890, pp. 48 sqq., 105 sqq.). Lucian was a deacon of Antioch, who died a martyr at Nicomedia 312 (see LUCIAN THE MARTYR). He must have known a Hebrew text which showed many peculiarities, especially in the historical books, and perhaps used for his purposes the Syrian version. The first part of his work has been edited by Lagarde in Librorum Veteris Testamenti canonicorum, pars prior, græce (Göttingen, 1883; cf. his Mittheilungen, ii, 171). But this revision must not be confounded with the original Septuagint any more than the English Revised with the Authorized Version. Since the fourth century very little has been done in the Greek Church for its Bible. Emperors directed beautiful copies of it to be written--e.g., Constantine ordered fifty copies through Eusebius for the new churches of his capital, and for Constans Athanasius procured "copies of the divine writings," one of which is perhaps preserved in the famous Codex Vaticanus. Other royal persons wrote them with their own hands.


(6.) Versions Made from the Septuagint. Latin was probably the first language into which the Septuagint was translated. (On the Latin version, or rather versions, of the Septuagint see below, II, 1. It is a pity that so little of these labors has been preserved, and that these few remnants are so difficult of access.) After the Latin versions came the Egyptian (see VII). Here the difficulty of the language makes these helps for restoration of the Septuagint accessible to few. Similar is the case with the most neglected branch of the Semitic languages, the Ethiopic (see VIII). The Arabic versions (see B, I) are for a great part too late to have much weight for the critic of the Septuagint. The Gothic version (see X) is an outcome of the Lucianic recension, for which it would have great importance, both for age and literalness, but very little of the Old Testament is preserved in Gothic. The Lucianic recension is also the basis of a Slavonic version (see B, XVI) and through it of the Georgian (see IX). The Armenian version (see VI) is again of great importance, also the so-called Syro-Hexaplar version made in the year 616-617 by Paul, bishop of Tella (Constantine in Mesopotamia), in a cloister near Alexandria with the utmost fidelity from manuscripts which went back by few intervening links to the very copies of the Hexapla and Tetrapla of Origen. The greater is the pity, therefore, that only fragments have been preserved, and that especially the codex which Andre du Maes (Masius, d. 1573) had in his hands, containing the historical books (including part of Deuteronomy and Tobit), has been lost, and that only a part of this Bible (poetical and prophetic books) is still preserved in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, hence called Codex Syro-hexaplaris Ambrosianus (published in a photolithographic facsimile edition by A. Ceriani as vol. vii of the Monumenta sacra et profana, Milan, 1874). The fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, Judges, and I and II Kings have been most carefully edited in the last work of Paul de Lagarde, Bibliothecæ Syriacæ a Paulo Lagarde collectæ quæ ad philologiam sacram pertinent (Göttingen, 1892). For earlier works on this version cf. E. Nestle, Litteratura Syriaca (reprinted from his Syrische Grammatik, Berlin, 1888), 29-30; cf. also T. S. Rordam, Libri Judicum et Ruth (Copenhagen, 1859-61), and F. Field, Otium Norvicense, i (Oxford, 1864) and his edition of the Hexapla (Oxford, 1875). There are also fragments in the special dialect called Syro-Palestinian, on which cf. Swete, Introduction, 114, and F. C. Burkitt, in JTS, ii, 174 sqq.


(7.) Manuscripts. Up to the present day in several Churches these versions based on the Septuagint have been retained and even in those where they have been replaced by translations from the original, as in the Latin West through Jerome or in modern Europe through the Reformation, the influence of the Septuagint is still very marked; note, for instance, the names of the Biblical books in the latest of these revisions, the English Revised Version. The versions just mentioned are one of the three sources which exist for the recovery of the true text of the Septuagint, the first class being, of course, the Greek manuscripts still in existence, the third the quotations of ancient writers. A list of the more ancient manuscripts of the Septuagint was given in the eighteenth century by Stroth in Eichhorn’s Repertorium (Leipsic, 1777 sqq.), vols., v sqq.; the most complete list was formerly that in the prefaces of Holmes-Parsons; then in the prolegomena of Tischendorf and in Lagarde’s Genesis Græce; but reference may now be made to Swete, Introduction, pp. 122-170. A few remarks on some of them may be offered.


The four great uncials, א or S, A, B, and C, are the chief manuscripts also for the New Testament (see BIBLE TEXT, II, 1, § 9). For א there is needed a photographic reproduction or a complete new collation. The notations from A in Swete’s Septuagint need revision, at all events in the first volume. Of B a new photographic reproduction is in preparation; on the suggestion of Rahlfs that B is dependent on Athanasius, cf. E. Nestle, Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament (London, 1901), 62, 181, where (note 1) read Constantius instead of Constans. Concerning the famous illuminated Codex Cottonianus (D), which was badly injured by fire in 1731, nothing new has come to light since Swete wrote; it is well to mention the name of Martin Folkes as editor, by whom were issued the facsimiles in the Vetusta monumenta of 1747. On the purple illuminated Genesis of Vienna (L), there is a dissertation by W. Lüdtke (Greifswald, 1897), who is inclined to ascribe this oldest Biblical history with illuminations to the second part of the fifth century. To the eighteen uncial manuscripts enumerated by Swete (Introduction, pp. 146-148) as not yet used for any edition of the Septuagint and remaining without a symbolical letter or number, may be added: fragments of Genesis at Vienna (cf. Philologischer Anzeiger, xiv, 1884, 415); a Hebrew-Greek palimpsest containing fragments of Ps. cxliii, cxliv and parts of four leaves from a papyrus codex of Genesis, of the late second or early third century (Oxyrhynchus papyri no. 656). On the miniscules scarcely anything has been done lately, except that some will be used in the Cambridge edition mentioned above (§ 2). For facsimiles, cf. F. G. Kenyon, Facsimiles of Biblical Manuscripts in the British Museum (London, 1901).


The question, in which set of manuscripts the purest text is to be found, is not yet settled. It is the more complicated since the Old Testament is a collection of books which in one and the same manuscript may have had a very different pedigree; for whole Bibles (pandectes, such as manuscripts א, A, and B) do not seem to have been produced much before the time of Eusebius or Origen.


2. Later Greek Translations: The rupture between Church and Synagogue led to new translations. The authors of at least three of them are known by name, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion.


(1.) Aquila. Of the Fathers of the Church, Irenæus is the first who mentions Aquila of Pontus as a translator of the Bible. Epiphanius calls him a "Greek" and a relation of Hadrian, and tells that he was placed by Trajan in charge of the rebuilding of Jerusalem, that he became a Christian but returned to the Jewish faith. Epiphanius places his translation in the twelfth year of Hadrian, 430 years, four months, less nine days after the Septuagint. Jewish sources mention a proselyte Aquila, a contemporary of Rabbis Eliezer, Joshua, and Akiba, who met Hadrian and is called his nephew, and is praised as translator of the Bible in the words of Ps. xlv, "thou art fairer than the children of men"; some passages of his translation are quoted.


It is not clear as yet, whether or how the dates of Epiphanius and the statements of the Pseudo- Clementine writings about Aquila, the disciple of Simon Magus, are to be combined. That Aquila the translator of the Bible is the well-known husband of Priscilla in the New Testament is a fancy of Hausdorff. His translation, the use of which was permitted in the synagogue by Justinian, is the most literal ever produced, and enough has been preserved to judge of its value and character. Up to 1897 all known of it went back to the Hexapla of Origen (cf. F. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quæ supersunt, 2 vols., Oxford, 1867-75, and, on Field, J. H. Burn, Expository Times, Jan., 1897). In 1897 for the first time a continuous portion of his translation came to light in a palimpsest of the Cairo Synagogue, showing the tetragrammaton written in Old Hebrew letters. The statement of Jerome that Aquila made two versions, "a second edition, which the Hebrews call ‘the accurate one'" seems to be correct. Some new fragments to be added to Field are in J. B. Pitra, Analecta sacra (Paris, 1876); E. Klostermann, Analekta zur Septuaginta (Leipsic, 1895); Jerome, in Anecdota Maredsolana, iii, 1.


(2.) Symmachus. According to Epiphanius, Symmachus was a Samaritan, and lived not under Severus, but under "Verus" (i.e., Marcus Aurelius; cf. Lagarde, Symmicta, ii, Göttingen, 1880). Geiger identified the translator with Symmachus ben Joseph, disciple of Rabbi Meir (Jüdische Zeitschrift für Wissenschaft und Leben, i, 1882, pp. 62-64). Origen got the manuscript of his translation from a certain Juliana of Cæsarea, who had received it with other works of Symmachus from Symmachus himself. Whether the Cæsarea where she lived was that of Palestine or Cappadocia is in doubt. In the sixteenth century Symmachus’s works were still in existence at Rodosto near Constantinople (cf. R. Forster, De antiquitatibus et libris manuacriptis Constantinopolitanis, Rostock, 1877; T. Zahn, TLB, 1893, p. 43). Symmachus wrote the most elegant Greek of all these translators. Jerome quotes in three passages a second translation.


(3.) Theodotion. Theodition, according to Irenæus, was from Ephesus; according to Epiphanius, from Pontus; he went over from Gnosticism to Judaism. His work is a revision of the Septuagint and has therefore been placed by Origen in his Hexapla next to the column of the Septuagint. For the same reason Origen made use chiefly of Theodotion to supply such passages as were missing in the Septuagint (cf. I Sam. xvii, 12 sqq.; Jer. xxxiii, 14-26; xxxix, 4-13). For the Book of Daniel his version came into general use in the Church, while the older Greek version has been preserved only in the one codex (Chisianus) discovered 1772. Readings similar to those of Theodotion are found before his time (on this question cf. E. König, Einleitung, ii, 108; TLB, 1897, 51; Stärk, ZWT, 1895, 288). Howorth offers some unconventional views (PSBA, 1891-92) on the question whether Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah in our editions of the Septuagint are from Theodotion. That his name has the same meaning as that of the Targumist Jonathan seems accidental.


Besides these versions, which covered the whole Old Testament--note, however, that for Samuel we have no quotations from Aquila--Origen succeeded in finding, at least for certain parts, more translations: the one which he numbered five, in Nicopolis near Actium; the sixth with other Hebrew and Greek books in a clay jar near Jericho in the time of Antoninus, the son of Severus.


Deserving of brief mention is a Greek translation which is 1,000 years younger than the preceding, the Græcus Venetus, which first became known in 1740 through the catalogue of the library of San Marco. The complete and final edition is due to O. von Gebhardt (Græcus Venetus, Pentateuchi, Proverbiorum, Ruth, Cantici, Ecclesiastæ, Threnorum, Danielis græca versio, with preface by F. Delitzsch, Leipsic, 1875). Delitzsch is inclined to see in the translation the work of a Jew, Elisseus, who lived at the court of Murad I in Prusa and Adrianople; von Gebhardt, that of a proselyte. The rendering of "Yahweh" by ontourgos, ousiōtēs and the use of the Doric dialect for the Aramaic portions of Daniel are interesting.



Bibliography: The following is only a selection out of the vast body of literature available. The critical Introductions and Commentaries on the Old Testament and on separate parts deal more or less fully with the subject. For the literature on Polyglots see BIBLES, POLYGLOT; for that on Aristeas see ARISTEAS; and on printed editions of the Septuagint cf. H. B. Swete, Introduction, pp. 171-194, London. 1902. On the Septuagint in general consult besides the works mentioned in the text: J. H. Hottinger, Exercitationes Anti-Morinianæ, Zurich, 1644; idem, Dissertationum . . . faciculus, Heidelberg. 1660; A. Calovius, Criticus sacer, Leipsic, 1646; L. Cappellus, Critica sacra, Paris, 1650; J. Buxtorf, Anticritica, seu vindiciæ veritatis Hebraicæ, Basel, 1653; J. Ussher, De Græca septuaginta interpretum versione syntagma, London, 1655; J. Morinus, Exercitationes ecclesiasticæ et biblicæ, Paris, 1669; H. Hody, De bibliorum textibus originalibus, Oxford, 1705; J. E. Grabe, Epistola ad J. Millium. Oxford, 1705; idem, De vitiis septuaginta interpretum, ib. 1710; E. Leigh. Critica sacra, 5th ed., London. 1706; A. Trommius, Concordantiæ Græcæ versionis, Amsterdam, 1718; W. Whiston, Essay toward Restoring the True Text of the Old ... Testament, London, 1722, and Supplement (to the same), 1723; J. G. Carpsov, Critica sacra, Leipsic, 1728; W. Wall, The Use of the Septuagint Translation, in his Brief Critical Notes, London, 1730; C. F. Houbigant, Prolegomena in scripturam sacram, Paris, 1746; B. Kennicott, The State of the Printed Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, Oxford, 1753; idem, a second Dissertation on the same subject 1759; J. D. Michaelis, Programma . . . über die 70 Dollmätscher, Göttingen, 1767: H. Owen, Enquiry into the Present State of the Septuagint Version, London. 1769; idem, Critica sacra, 1774; idem, A Brief account . . . of the Septuagint Version, 1787; J. C. Biel, Novus thesaurus philologicus, The Hague, 1779-80; J. F. Schleusner, Lexici in interpretes græci Veteris Testamenti, Leipsic, 1784-86; C. A. Wahl, Clavis librorum Veteris Testamenti, Leipsic, 1853; G. Bickell, De indole ac ratione versionis Alexandrinæ . . . Jobi, Marburg, 1862; F. Delitzsch, Studien . . . der complutensischen Polyglotte, Leipsic, 1886; A. Scholz, Masorethischer Text und die LXX-Uebersetzung des . . . Jeremias, Regensburg, 1875; idem, Die alexandrinische Uebersetzung des . . . Jesaias, Würzburg, 1880; E. Flecker, Scripture Onomatology . . . Critical Notes on the Septuagint, London, 1883; W. J. Deane, in The Expositor, 1884, pp. 139-157, 223-237; E. Nestle, Septuagintastudien, vols. i-v, Ulm, 1886-1907, Maulbronn, 1899-1903; J. G. Carleton, The Bible of our Lord and his Apostles, London, 1888; E. Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, London, 1889 (cf. criticism by Hort, in The Expositor, Feb., 1897); A. Schulte, De restitutione ... versionis Græcæ . . . Judicum, Leipsic, 1889; G. C. Workman, Text of Jeremiah . . . Greek and Hebrew, Edinburgh, 1889; P. de Lagarde, Stichometrie, in Mittheilungen, iv, 205, Göttingen, 1891; F. C. Conybeare, on Philo’s Text, in The Expositor, Dec., 1891, pp. 456-466; H. B. Swete, on Grätz's Theory, in Expository Times, June, 1891. J. Taylor, Massoretic Text and... Versions of . . . Micah, London, 1891; Transactions of the Congress of Orientalists in London, London, 1894; E. Hatch and H. A. Redpath, Concordance to the Septuagint, London, 1892-1900; F. C. Conybeare, Philonean Text, in JQR, Jan., 1893, pp. 246- 280, Oct., 1895, pp. 88-122; H. A. Redpath, in The Academy, Oct. 22, 1893; G. Morin, Une revision du psautier, in Revue bénédictine, 1893, part 5, pp. 193-197; H. H. Howorth, in The Academy, 1893, July 22, Sept. 16, Oct. 7, Dec. 16, 1894, Feb. 17, May 5, June 9 (cf. W. A. Wright, ib. 1894, Nov. 3, and T. K. Cheyne, 1894, Nov. 10); V. Nourisson, La Bibliotheque des Ptolémées, Alexandria, 1893; S. Silberstein, Codex Alexandrinus und Vaticanus des dritten Königsbuches, in ZATW, 1893-94; G. A. Deissmann, Bibelstudien, Marburg, 1895-96, Eng. transl., Edinburgh, 1901; H. A. Kennedy, Sources of New Testament Greek, Edinburgh, 1895; E. Klostermann, Analecta zur Septuaginta, Leipsic, 1895; Max Lohr, Vorarbeiten zu Daniel, in ZATW, xv (1895), 75-103, 193-225; E. Nestle, Zum Codex Alexandrinus, in ZATW, xv (1895), 261-262; idem, Zur Hexapla des Origenes, in ZWT, xxxviii, 231; H. E. Ryle, Philo and Holy Scripture, London, 1895; F. Johnson, Quotations of the New Testament, London, 1896; A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Septuagint, in The Expositor, April, 1896, 213-257; E. Klostermann, Die Mailänder Fragmente, in ZATW, 1896, pp. 334-337; J. Fürst, in Semitic Studies in Memory of A. Kohut, Berlin, 1897; E. Nestle, Einführung in das griechische Neue Testament, Göttingen, 1897, Eng. transl., London, 1901; J. H, Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. i, Prolegomena, pp. 1-41, Edinburgh, 1906; A. Merx, Der Werth der Septuaginta für die Textkritik des A. T., in JPT, ix, 65; A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Studien, parts i-ii, Göttingen, 1904-07.


On Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, besides the references in Irenæus, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, and Epiphanius, consult: C. A. Thieme, Pro puritate Symmachi, Leipsic, 1755; R. Anger, De Onkelo Chaldaico, ib. 1845; F. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quæ supersunt, i, pp. xvi sqq., Oxford, 1867; G. Mercati, L’Età di Simmaco interprete, Modena, 1892; L. Hausdorff, Zur Geschichte der Targumim nach talmudischen Quellen, in Monatsschrift fur Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums, xxxviii (1893), 5-7; L. Blau, Zur Einleitung in die heilige Schrift, Budapest, 1894; M. Friedmann, Onkelos und Akylas, Vienna, 1906; S. Kraus-Budapest, in Festschrift zum achtzigsten Geburtstage (M. Steinschneiders), Leipsic, 1896; F. C. Burkitt, Fragments of the Books of Kinqs . . ., Cambridge, 1897; DCB, i, 150-151, ii, 14-23 (valuable); DB, iv, 864-865; EB, iv, 5017-19.



II. Latin Versions: The origin of the earliest Latin versions is unknown. This fact is easily explained if the case was stated correctly by Augustine: "Those who translated the Scriptures from Hebrew into Greek can be enumerated; but the Latin translators by no means. For in the early days of the faith when any one received a Greek manuscript into his hands and seemed to have ever so little facility in language, he dared to translate it" (De doctrina Christiana, ii, 11). Again (ii, 14) he mentions "the abundance of interpreters." Augustine is probably right in the supposition that Latin versions did not exist in pre-Christian times. At all events there are no traces of Jewish undertakings in this direction. The history of the Latin versions is divided into two unequal parts by the work of Jerome and closes with an account of later versions independent of Jerome, particularly those made by Protestants.


1. The Latin Bible before Jerome: (1.) The Old Latin Bible. The Itala. The statement of Augustine about the great variety of Latin translations is corroborated by the documents, manuscripts, and quotations preserved, for the New Testament of course much more than for the Old. But even for the latter one may cite, e.g. for Deut. xxxi, 17, at least eight variant readings; and in the New Testament for Luke xxiv, 4, 5, at least twenty-seven variant readings. In other words, as Jerome says, "as many readings as copies"; and these readings are not merely different renderings of an identical Greek text, but correspond to various Greek readings, a fact which seems to demonstrate the more clearly the existence of different translations. Nevertheless Jerome speaks frequently as if there was but one ancient translation, which he opposes as "the common edition" and an "old translation" to his own undertaking. Some variations at least arose in the way sketched by Jerome--"by stupid interpreters badly translated, by presumptuous but unskilled men perversely amended, by sleepy copyists either added to or changed about." Nevertheless it is impossible to reduce all these variations to consecutive stages of one original translation and therefore scholars use the term "Old Latin versions" (in the plural) and avoid especially the name formerly used; viz., "Itala." This designation went back to a single passage of Augustine (De doctrina Christiana, ii, 14, 15); after he had fixed the principle "that the uncorrected texts should give way to the corrected ones at least when they are copies of the same translation," he goes on to say: "Among translations themselves the Itala is to be preferred to the others, for it keeps closer to the words, without prejudice to clearness of expression." There can be no doubt that he puts here one translation, which he prefers, in opposition to several other translations; therefore it was not well done to comprehend all that is left of the Latin Bibles from the time before Jerome under this name Itala. Some have tried to change the text, but Itala is the correct reading. Augustine must mean a version used in or having come from Italy, probably the northern part of the peninsula. Isidore of Seville (Etymologiæ, vi, 4) in the seventh century clearly understood by "Itala" the work of Jerome. This view was restated in 1824 by C. A. Breyther, was considered possible by E. Reuss, and well- founded by F. C. Burkitt (The Old Latin and the Itala, in TS, iv, 3), with the limitation that Augustine had not yet in view the whole of Jerome’s labor, but only its beginning--the revision of the Gospels. It is therefore advisable to avoid completely the name "Itala" and to use "Old Latin" for the Bible before Jerome. The home of this Bible is not to be sought in Rome, where Greek was the language of the infant Church and its literature, but most probably in Africa. It is true, many of the linguistic peculiarities ascribed to Africa are shared by the lingua rustica in other parts of the Latin world, and it has become customary to distinguish an African and a European branch of the Latin Bible; nevertheless the origin of this whole literature seems to have been in Africa. Translations of certain books which in early times were of almost canonical standing--such as the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the First Epistle of Clement--are closely connected with these versions (cf. Harnack, Litteratur, i, 883; O. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Litteratur, i, Freiburg, 1902).


Because the Old Latin versions have been replaced in the use of the Church by the version of Jerome, only a few manuscripts of the Old Latin have survived and these as fragments and palimpsests only, but of high antiquity. It is a great pity that they are not yet collected in such a way as to make their use easy, especially for the Old Testament, since they are all important for the criticism of the Septuagint. This was recognized by the Roman commission which prepared the Editio Sixtina of the Septuagint. They collected with great care the Biblical quotations from the Latin ecclesiastical writers. Petrus Morinus, Antonius Agellius, and Lælius Malwerda were the members of the commission to whom this part of the task was entrusted. Their labors were used in the scholia of the Greek edition of 1586 [1587], but still more freely in its Latin translation, published by Flaminius Nobilius (Rome, l588; reprinted with the Greek text at Paris, 1624; without it, Venice, 1609, 1628; Antwerp, 1616). But the chief work is Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinæ versiones antiquæ... opera et studio Petri Sabatier, O. S. B., e congregatione S. Mauri (3 vols., Reims, 1739-49, with new title, Paris, Didot, 1751). Before Sabatier, are to be mentioned J. M. Carus (Cardinal Tommasi), Sacrorum Bibliorum iuxta editionem seu LXX Interpretum seu B. Hieronymi veteres tituli, etc. (2 vols., Rome, 688; 2d ed. in Thomasii Opera, ed. Vezzosi, i, Rome, 1747); and Ecclesiastes ex versione Itala cum notis Bossueti (Paris, 1693). For full list of manuscripts and editions, cf. the Hauck-Herzog RE, iii, 28-33. The manuscripts of the New Testament are enumerated also in Scrivener’s Introduction, ii (London, 1894), 45-54 (revised by H. J. White); in Gregory’s Prolegomena to Tischendorf's New Testament, iii, 952-971, and Textkritik des Neuen Testaments (Leipsic, 1900), 598-613; and in the prefaces of Jerome’s New Testament edited by J. Wordsworth and H. J. White (Novum Testamentum Domini nostri Jesu Christi Latine secundum editionem S. Heronymi ad codicum manuscriptorum fidem recensuit Johannes Wordsworth. In operis societatem adsumpto Henrico Juliano White, part i, the four Gospels, Oxford, 1889-98; part ii, section i, Acts, 1905). In the critical apparatus of the New Testament they are designated by the small letters of the Latin alphabet.


The following additions may be made to what is contained in the RE (ut sup.):

Old Testament: P. Sabatier, Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinæ veriones antiquæ, i, (Reims, 1744), 904 (for a fragment of Job; cf. S. Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate, Paris, 1893, 86); G.M. Bianchini, Vindiciæ canonicarum scripturarum (Rome, 1740; Psalms from the Codex Veronensis); F. Mone, Lateinische und Griechische Messen (Frankfort, 1850), 40 (for fragments of Psalms from a Palimpsest in Carlsruhe); P. de Lagarde, Probe einer neuen Ausgabe der lateinischen Uebersetzung des Alten Testaments (Göttingen, 1885; for Psalms); H. Ehrensberger, Psalterium vetus (Tauberbischofsheim, 1887); Heptateuchi partis posterioris versio Latina antiquissima e codice Lugdunensi (Lyons, 1890; cf. F. Vigouroux, in Revue des questions historiques, Jan.-Apr., 1902); P. de Lagarde, Septuagintastudien, ii, (Göttingen, 1892; for III Esdras); J. Belsheim, Libri Tobit, Judit, Ester . . . Latina translatio e codice . . . Monachensi (Trondhjem, 1893); V. Schultze, Die Quedlinburger Itala-Miniaturen . . . in Berlin (Munich, 1898; he refers them to the fourth century); P. Corssen, Zwei neue Fragmente der Weingartener Prophetenhandschrift, nebst einer Untersuchung über das Verhältnis der Weingartener und Würzburger Prophetenhandschriften (Berlin, 1899); P. Thielmann, Bericht über das gesammelte handschriftliche Material zu einer kritischen Ausgabe der lateinischen Uebersetzungen biblischer Bücher des Alten Testaments, in Sitzungsberichte der königlichen Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1899, ii, 2; G. Hoberg, Die älteste lateinische Uebersetzung des Buches Baruch (Freiburg, 1902): A. M. Amelli, De libri Baruch vetustissima Latina . . . epistola (Montecassino, 1902); W. O. E. Oesterley, Old Latin Texts of the Minor Prophets, in JTS, v (1904), 76, 242, 378, 570, vi, 67, 217. The Psalms from the Mozarabic Liturgy are in MPL, lxxxv.


New Testament: Gospels: The Fragmenta Curiensia (a) are edited in OLBT, ii (London, 1888); for Codex Saretianus (j), cf. G. Amelli, Un antichissimo codice biblico latino purpureo (Montecassino, 1893); Acts: Codex Demidovianus (dem), probably of the thirteenth century, now lost, a mixed text, was edited by C. F. Matthaei (Novum Testamentum, Riga, 1782); for the Codex Laudianus (e), see BIBLE TEXT, II, 1, § 9; it was revised by White for Wordsworth- White; on the Codex Perpinianus (p), thirteenth century, a mixed text, collated by White, cf. S. Berger, Un Ancien Texte latin des Actes des Apôtres, in Notices et Extraits des manuscrits, xxxv (Paris, 1895); cf. further Liber comicus sive lectionarius missæ quo Toletana ecclesia ante annos MCC uttebatur, ed. G. Morin (Anecdota Maredsolana, i, Maredsous, 1893), Pauline Epistles: for the manuscripts d, e, f, g, cf. H. Ronsch, in ZWT, 1882, p. 83. Apocalypse: cf. H. Linke, Studien zur Itala (Breslau, 1889). The Codex Corbeiensis (ff2), with fragments of the Catholic Epistles, Acts, and the Apocalypse from the Fleury palimpsest (Paris, 6400 G), have been lately edited by E. S. Buchanan (Ox- ford, 1907, in OLBT, v).


On the relation of the different texts, cf. for the New Testament Hort’s Introduction (London, 1881) and Wordsworth-White; for the Old Testament Kennedy in DB, iii. 49 qq. On the language, cf. H. Rönsch, Itala und Vulgata (Marburg, 1869), on which work cf. J. N. Ott, in Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie, cix, 1874, pp. 778, 833.


3. Quotations in Latin Writers. Of the highest importance for the restoration of the Old Latin Bible are the quotations of the older Latin writers. Their countries are known and thus the home of the Biblical texts is located. Yet many questions are still unsettled; e.g., did Tertullian know and use a Latin translation or are his quotations taken by him from the Greek and translated into Latin? Heinrich Hoppe (Syntax und Stil des Tertullian, Leipsic, 1903) denies that Tertullian knew a Latin version of the Old Testament. T. Zahn makes the same assertion for the New Testament.


Quotations from almost all books are found in the Liber de divinis scripturis sive speculum (designated as m), ascribed to Augustine, published by A. Mai in Spicelegium Romanum, ix, 2 (Rome, 1843), 1-88, and in Nova patrum bibliotheca, i, 2 (1852), 1-117; better by F. Weihrich, in CSEL, xii (cf. Weihrich’s dissertation, Die Bibel-Exerpte de divina scriptura, Vienna, 1893). Several fragments are also in C. Vercellone, Dissertationi accademiche (Rome, 1864). On the quotations in general, cf. H. Rönsch, in ZHT, x, 1867, 606-634, 1869, 433-479, 1870, 91-150, 1871, 531, 1875, 86; L. J. Bebb, in Studia Biblia, ii (London, 1890), 195 sqq.; Scrivener’s Introduction (London, 1894), 167-174; Gregory's Prolegomena, iii (Leipsic, 1894), 1131-1246, and Kennedy, in DB, 52-53.


The writers that are of primary importance are: Alcimus Avitus, archbishop of Vienne c. 450-517; Ambrose, bishop of Milan 374-397; Ambrosiaster, the name given to a most important commentator on the thirteen Epistles of St. Paul (cf. T. Zahn, in NKZ, xvi, pp. 419 sgq., and A. Souter, TS, vii, 4, Cambridge, 1905); Arnobius, presbyter in Africa fourth century; Exhortationes de pænitentia, ascribed to Cyprian; Liber de aleatoribus (according to Harnack as early as Cyprian); Liber de pascha computis (written in Africa c. 243); Liber de promissionibus (ascribed to Prosper of Aquitaine); Liber collationis legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum (ed. P. Krüger and T. Mommesen in Collectio librorum juris antejustiniani, iii, Berlin, 1891); Augustine, bishop of Hippo 354-430 (from this author alone Lagarde collected 13,276 quotations of the Old Testament and 29,540 of the New Testament). Capreolus, bishop of Carthage c. 431; Cassian, monk at Marseilles (d. about 435); Commodian (perhaps middle of third century); Cyprian, bishop of Carthage (d. 288; cf. Sanday, in OLBT, ii; Lagarde, Symmicta, i, 74; Mittheilungen, ii, 54; P. Corssen, Der cyprianische Text der Acta Apostolorum, Berlin, 1892); Teaching of the Twelve Apostles; Philastrius, bishop of Brescia (c. 380; ed. Marx in CSEL, xxxviii); Fulgentius, bishop of Ruspe (c. 468-533); Gildas of Britain; Eucherius; Hilarius, bishop of Poitiers (d. 380; cf. Zingerle, in Kleine philologische Abhandlungen, Innsbruck, 1887); Irenæus, bishop of Lyons (c. 180, Novum Testamentum Irenæi; to he published in OLBT by Prof. Sanday); Jovinian (in the time of Jerome); Lactantius (in Africa c. 260-340); Lucifer, bishop of Cagliari (d. 371; cf. Dombart, in Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift, 1866, no. 6); Julius Firmicus Maternus (c. 345); Maximin (cf. TLZ, 1900, 17); Novatian (at Rome c. 252; cf. Harnack, in TU, xiii, 4); Origen (Latin translation; c. 251); Optatus, bishop of Mileve in Numidia, c. 368; Primasius, bishop of Adrumetum, sixth century (cf. Haussleiter, in Zahn, Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen, Kanons, iv, Berlin, 1900, 1-224); Pelagius of Ireland; Priscillian, bishop of Avila in Spain, fourth century (cf. CSEL, xviii); Salvianus of Marseilles, c. 450 (cf. Ullrich, De Salviani scripturæ sacræ versionibus, Neustadt, 1893); Tertullian of Carthage, c. 150-240 (cf. Rönsch, Das Neue Testament Tertullians, Leipsic, 1871, and J. N. Ott, in Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie, 1874, p. 856); Tyconius, in Africa, c. 340 (cf. F. C. Burkitt, in TS, iii, 1, 1894); Verecundus (cf. Lagarde, Septuagintastudien, i); Victorinus, bishop of Pettau in Pannonia, c. 300 (cf. Haussleiter, in ZWT, vii, 239-257); Vigilius, bishop of Thapsus, c. 484.


Some parts of the Old Latin Bible are still in ecclesiastical use and even in the works of Luther Denifle has shown readings from this source. The same is the case with some of the translations in the vernacular dialects of medieval Europe, such as the Anglo-Saxon (cf. for instance R. Handke, Ueber das Verhältnis der westsächsischen Evangelienübersetzung zum Lateinischen Original, Halle, 1896; A. S. Cook, Biblical Quotations in Old English Prose Writers, New York, 1898; Max Forster, in Englische Studien, Leipsic, 1900, p. 480).


2. The Bible of Jerome (the Vulgate): (1.) Jerome’s Work. The New Testament. Toward the end of the fourth century the inconvenience from which the Western Church suffered because there was no single authorized Latin version of the Bible must have been seriously felt, and Damasus, bishop of Rome (d. 384), commissioned Jerome (q.v.) to prepare an authoritative revision, probably in the year 882. The letter with which Jerome dedicated the first part (the Gospels) to the pope gives the only authentic record of the work and its scope (cf. NPNF, 2d ser., vi, 487-488). Jerome accepts the task set him by Damasus, notes its extreme difficulty and the resulting peril to himself, anticipates the harshest criticism of himself and of the results of his labor, and states that his emendations have been as conservative as possible. Notwithstanding Jerome’s modesty concerning his work, it has had an unparalleled history, inasmuch as it became the Bible of the whole Occident.


To estimate Jerome’s work properly, it would be necessary (1) to know what were the Latin texts which he had to revise; (2) what were the Greek texts which he chose as standard; (3) to have his work in its original form. The last is now realized, at least for the first part of the New Testament, since the monumental edition of Wordsworth-White. The Greek manuscript or manuscripts used by Jerome must have been of the type of the Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus; there are, however, some readings not attested by any Greek manuscript (cf., for instance, John x, 18, unum ovile; xvi, 13, docebit; and on this question of the letter of Wordsworth and White in The Academy, Jan. 27, 1894; their Epilogue, 657-672; E. Mangenot, in RSE, Jan., 1900). About Jerome’s Latin texts there is still less information. Wordsworth and White printed under Jerome’s text that of the Codex Brixianus (f) as most nearly related to it; but according to Burkitt and Kaufmann it is rather a text of Jerome himself adapted to the Gothic version. Jerome's statement in his prefatory letter that he changed as little as possible is probably true; for the language indicates that the Gospels came from different translators. Identical expressions in Greek are quite differently rendered into Latin (cf. the history of the Passion in the different Gospels, and notice for instance lagenam aquæ baiulans = amphoram aquæ portans, or the rendering of "high priest" in Matthew by princeps sacerdotum, in Mark by summus sacerdos, in John by pontifex). It is, therefore, quite wrong to treat the Vulgate of the Gospels as a harmonious work, and it is clear that the value of it for textual criticism is greatly enhanced, since it preserves the text of the time when the Gospels were not yet united into one collection. Whether also in the second part of the New Testament such differences can be detected has not yet been investigated. It is not even quite certain how far Jerome revised the second part of the New Testament. Only the Gospels have his prefaces, and Augustine writes to him only of the Gospel: "We give no small thanks to God for your work in which you have interpreted the Gospel from the Greek." Jerome, however, answers: "If, as you say, you suspect me of emending the New Testament"; and in 398 he wrote to Lucinius Beticus, to whom he sent the first copy ready (Epist., lxxi, 5, NPNF, 2d series, vi, 154): "The New Testament I have restored to the authoritative form of the Greek." In his De vir. ill. he says: "The New Testament I have restored to the true Greek form, the Old I have rendered from the Hebrew."


(2.) The Old Testament. Jerome’s work on the Old Testament was more thorough. First he revised the Psalter (from the Septuagint) in 383 in Rome. This revision was introduced by Damasus into the liturgy and is hence called the Psalterium Romanum in distinction from the Psalterium vetus or the unrevised Old Latin. It was in use in Italy till Pius V (1566-72), and it is still used in St. Peter’s in Rome and in Milan, partly in the Roman Missal and in one place in the Breviary, in the hortatory Psalm xcv (xciv). About four years later in Palestine Jerome revised the Psalms a second time, making use of the critical marks of Origen, the obelus and asterisk. This revision is known as the Gallican Psalter, as it was first used chiefly in Gaul (it seems through Gregory of Tours), but finally it became the current version in the Latin Church (through Pius V), of course without the critical marks. At last Jerome translated the Psalms from the Hebrew at the suggestion of Sophronius about 392 (not 405, as Lagarde has it); but this remained a private labor and is not found in many manuscripts. The best edition of this version is Lagarde’s Psalterium juxta Hebræos Hieronymi (Leipsic, 1874).


About the same time with his second revision of the Psalter Jerome revised the translation of Job (preserved in a few manuscripts, especially at Oxford and St. Gall; edited by Lagarde, Mittheilungen, ii, 189 sqq.; cf. Caspari, in Actes du huitième congrès des Orientalistes, i, Leyden, 1893, 37-51) and most of the books of the Old Testament; but he lost the work "by the deceit of somebody." Therefore he undertook the greater labor of translating the Old Testament afresh direct from the Hebrew. He began in 390 with Samuel and Kings and published them with his Prologus galeatus (q.v.); then followed Job, the Prophets, and Psalms. About the chronological order of the rest absolute certainty is not reached.1 He left Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Maccabees, and Baruch without revision. According to his own statement he translated the three Solomonic writings in three days, Tobit in one day, Judith in one night; for the latter two his Jewish teacher translated to him the Aramaic into Hebrew and he dictated the Latin to a copyist (cf. G. Grützmacher, Hieronymus, i, Leipsic, 1901, 73-77.   On Jerome’s method, cf. G. Hoberg, De S. Hieronymi ratione interpretandi, Bonn, 1886; M. Rahmer, Die hebräischen Traditionen in den Werken des Hieronymus, Breslau, 1861).


1White gives the following table: 394 Esdras; 396 Chronicles; 398 Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon; 401? Genesis, followed by Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; 405 Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Esther, Tobit, Judith, and the apocryphal parts of Daniel and Esther.


(3.) History of the Invention of Printing. At first Jerome’s work was not well received, especially because he had dared to part with the Septuagint, which even Augustine believed to be equally inspired with the original Hebrew. An African bishop on finding hedera ("ivy") in the Book of Jonah in the new version instead of the accustomed cucurbita ("gourd") raised a    tumult in his Church. Jerome’s former friend Rufinus wrote expressly against the new work. "So great is the force of established usage," says Jerome, "that even acknowledged corruptions [of text] please the greater part, for they prefer to have their copies pretty rather than correct." On the other hand he knows "that they attack it in public and read it in secret." At the time of his death (420) the attacks and criticism of his opponents had ceased.


We are not informed where and when complete Bibles of Jerome’s version were first produced and introduced into the use of the Church. In Spain it seems to have been at a pretty early time. Cassiodorus (d. about 570) was one of the first, if not the very first, who took care to produce correct copies. From his copies are derived the introductory pieces in the Codex Amiatinus (cf. H. J. White, in Studia Biblica, ii, Oxford, 1890, 273; P. Corssen, Die Bibeln des Cassiodorius, JPT, 1883, 1891). Pope Gregory the Great wrote at the end of the sixth century: "I indeed circulate the new translation; but when the course of argument demands it, I use now the new and now the old by way of proof; and this because the Apostolic See, over which under God I preside, uses both and by the study of both my toil is lightened." By that time the name Vulgata ("common," "ordinary"), which before had meant the Septuagint and its Latin translation, had gone over to the work of Jerome. Roger Bacon says of it "that [version] which is diffused among the Latins is that which the Church receives in these days." But even in the printed editions of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries this name is not yet as invariable as we are inclined to suppose; and despite the warning of Walafrid Strabo, "let none desire to amend one from the other," mixing in all degrees of the old and the new texts took place and survives up to the present not only in manuscripts, but even in the printed text, as when in II Kings i, 18, the first part is from the Old Latin, and the second from Jerome.


Charlemagne found several recensions in use in his dominions. In a capitulary of 789 he ordered that there should be "in each monastery and parish good copies of the catholic books, and the boys must not be permitted to deface them either in reading them or by writing on them; and if there be necessity for writing [copying] a Gospel, Psalter, or Missal, men of maturity are to do it, using all care." In 797 he committed to Alcuin (q.v.) the "emendation of the Old and the New Testament"; and the copy of the Biblical books, "bound together in the sanctity of one most glorious body," which Alcuin offered to him on Christmas 801, must have been the first copy of this revision, of which the Codex Vallicellanus at Rome is the best representative in existence. As Alcuin was himself of Northumbria, he probably had his text brought from there, and fortunately just there the purest text seems to have survived (cf. Berger’s Histoire and Wordsworth-White). At the same time Bishop Theodulf of Orleans (787-821) worked at a revision, but on very different lines. Being a Visigoth, he took Spanish manuscripts as the basis, but incorporated in the margins various readings; fortunately his work found no large circulation. It is still represented by some fine manuscripts (cf. Berger, 145-184, and Delisle, in Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes, vol. xl, Paris, 1879). About the labors of Lanfranc of Canterbury (q.v.) precise information is not obtainable; but the normal copy produced with the help of Jewish scholars by Stephen Harding, third abbot of Citeaux, for the members of his order is still preserved at Dijon (cf. J. P. Martin, in RSE, 1887). Later on, critical observations on the true readings of certain passages were collected in the so-called Correctoria Biblica. The principal Correctoria are (1) the Correctorium Parisiense, prepared about 1236, also called Senonence, sneered at by Roger Bacon, who in 1267 called the Parisian text, in a letter to Pope Clement IV, "horribly corrupt"; "the correctors," he says, are "corruptors, for any reader whatsoever in the lower orders corrects as he pleases, in like manner also the preachers, and similarly the students change as they like what they do not understand"; (2) the Correctorium Sorbonicum, a sort of epitome of the larger Correctoria; (3) the Correctorium of the Dominicans, prepared under the auspices of Hugo of St. Cher, which sometimes went back of the Latin text to Greek and Hebrew manuscripts; (4) the Correctorium Vaticanum, the work of the Franciscans, perhaps especially of Willermus de Mara. (Cf. on the Correctoria, besides S. Berger, in RTP, xvi, 41, especially Denifle, in Archiv für Litteratur- und Kirchengeschichte, iv, Berlin, 1883, 268, 471.) By the influence of the University of Paris the text used there was the one which was most current in the Middle Ages and consequently that which found its way into the first printed editions, and gained thereby still more influence.


To enumerate even the more important of the manuscripts of the Vulgate is here impossible. There are lists in J. Le Long, Bibliotheca sacra (i, Paris, 1723, 234 sqq.), and in C. Vercellone, Variæ lectiones vulgatæ Latinæ Bibliorum editionis (i, Rome, 1860, lxxxii sqq., ii, 1864, xvii sqq.). Scrivener’s Introduction (ii, London, 1804, 67-90) has a select list of 181 manuscripts, chiefly of the New Testament, by H. J. White; Berger’s Histoire (Paris, 1893, 374-422) one of 253; Gregory’s Prolegomena (iii, Leipsic, 1894, 983-1108) notes some 2,270, and his Textkritik (2 vols., Leipsic, 1900-02) 2,369, reserving some for an appendix. H. J. White (DB, iv, 886-889) classifies them under the following headings: (1) Early Italian texts; (2) Early Spanish texts; (3) Italian texts transcribed in Britain; (4) Continental manuscripts written by Irish or Saxon scribes and showing a mixture of the two types of text; (5) Type of text current in Languedoc; (6) Other French texts; (7) Swiss manuscripts, especially of St. Gall; (8) Alcuinian recension; (9) Theodulfian recension; (10) Medieval texts.


(4.) Earlier Printed Editions. Naturally Bibles and parts of the Bible were among the earliest of printed books, and as a matter of course the text presented was the Vulgate. The Mazarin Bible, so called, because a copy in the library of Cardinal Mazarin first attracted the attention of bibliographers--i.e., the Bible in forty- two lines, not that in thirty-six--is now proved to be the first Bible printed by Gutenberg. His Psalter of 1457 is the first book with a printed date, while the Psalter of 1459 is one of the most costly of books. A Bible printed at Mainz 1462 is the first dated Bible. The first Bible printed at Rome is of 1471, by Sweinheim and Pannartz, printed in 250 copies. Of ninety-two editions of the fifteenth century which can be localized, thirty-six belong to Germany (to Nuremberg 13, Strasburg 8, Cologne 7, Mainz 3, Speyer 2, Bamberg 1, and Ulm 1, the latter of 1480 being the first Bible with summaries); twenty-nine belong to Italy, twenty-four of them to Venice. In England in the whole period none is known. The first quarto Bible is believed to have been printed at Piacenza 1475, and the first octavo at Basal 1491 (because of its small size called the first "poor man’s Bible"). An undated Bible, probably of 1478, has for the first time the verses:


            Fontibus ex græcis hebræaeorum quoque libris

                 Emendata satis et decorata simul

            Biblia sum præsens, superos ego testor et astra.


Copinger mentions 124 editions of the Latin Bible prior to 1500, of the sixteenth century he knows 438 editions, of the seventeenth 262, of the eighteenth 192, of the nineteenth (till 1892) 133, in all 1,149. These figures show that, under the influence of the religious and intellectual awakening, the sixteenth century was the time of the Latin Bible.


The bad state of the text soon became evident and attempts were made to improve it from the original texts, as by the editors of the Complutensian Polyglot (see BIBLES, POLYGLOT, I), and, among Protestants, first by Andreas Osiander (Nuremberg, 1522) and at Wittenberg, in an edition of the Pentateuch, Joshua-Kings, and the New Testament, ascribed to Luther and Melanchthon (1529), then by Lukas Osiander at Tübingen (9 vols., 1573- 1586), with an "exposition." Of greater importance are the attempts to correct the text from the Latin manuscripts, to which Lorenzo della Valle had called attention in the fifteenth century. Erasmus published his In Latinam Novi Testamenti interpretationem ex collatione græcorum exemplarium annotationes apprime utiles at Paris in 1505. The French printer Robert Stephens (q.v.) in particular corrected the text from manuscripts and put variant readings on the margins (cf. Wordsworth, in OLBT, i, 1883, 47-54). For his edition of 1528 he used three good manuscripts, for the larger of 1540 not less than seventeen; his impression of 1555 is the first complete Bible with the modern verse division, and his text became the basis of the official Roman text through the mediation of the edition undertaken by the theological faculty of Louvain under the guidance of Johannes Hentenius after comparison of some thirty manuscripts (Louvain, 1547).


(5.) The Sixtine-Clementine Edition. All these editions were private undertakings. In its fourth session (Apr. 8, 1546), the Council of Trent decreed that "of all Latin editions the old and vulgate (vulgata) edition be held as authoritative in public lectures, disputations, sermons, and expositions; and that no one is to dare or presume under any pretext to reject it." The council decreed at the same time that "this same old and vulgate edition be printed in as correct form as possible." It does not appear that steps were taken to entrust a special person or body with the latter task. The edition of Hentenius was used for a long time as the best available. At last several popes took the matter in hand, and after various attempts of Pius IV and Pius V, at last Sixtus V carried the work to completion through a committee, with Cardinal Antonio Caraffa at its head, and published the Biblia Sacra Vulgatæ Editionis tribus tomis distincta. Romæ: ex Typographia Apostolica Vaticana M.D.XC (on a second title-page: Biblia Sacra Vulgatæ Editionis. ad concilii Tridentini præscriptum emendata et a Sixto V. P. M. recognita et approbata). In the constitution Æternus ille (Mar. 1, 1589; not included in the Bullarium; Romanum; printed in Thomas James, Bellum papale, London, 1600, and L. van Ess, Geschichte der Vulgata, Tübingen, 1821, 269) Sixtus had declared the edition "true, lawful, authentic, and not to be questioned in disputations, either public or private." No future edition was to be published without the express permission of the Holy See, and for the next ten years it was forbidden to reprint it in any place except the Vatican; all future editions were to be carefully collated with it, "that no smallest part be changed, added to, or taken away," and they were to be accompanied with the official attestation of the inquisitor of the province or of the bishop of the diocese, no variant readings, scholia, or glosses being allowed on the margins. In August of 1590 Sixtus V died, and was followed by several short-lived popes; in 1592 Clement VIII called in all copies of the edition which were within reach--copies are, therefore, of extreme rarity--and replaced it under the direction of Cardinal Bellarmine with a new Biblia Sacra Vulgatæ Editionis. Romæ: Ex Typographia Apostolica Vaticana M.D.XCII (on the second title-page: Biblia Sacra Vulgatæ Editionis Sixti Quinti Pont. Max. Jussu recognita atque edita). The accompanying bull decreed: "From the form of this copy let not even the least particle be changed, added to, or taken away, unless it happens that some fault is unmistakably due to typographical carelessness--let this be inviolably observed." The reasons for this whole proceeding are not quite clear. That the printing of the first edition was not correct enough is not true; as a matter of fact the Sixtine edition is typographically more correct than the Clementine, but the text of the Clementine is an improvement on that of the Sixtine. Sixtus was personally interested in the work and changed the text frequently to accord with that of Stephens, while the editors of the Clementine edition followed more often that of Hentenius. There are some 3,000 differences between the two editions. Nevertheless the names of both popes were placed on the title-pages of the later reprints, first, it seems, at Lyons, 1604 then at Mainz, 1609, the official title being now: Sixti V. et Clementis VIII. Pontt. Maxx. jussu recognita atque edita. A quarto edition was issued in 1593 with "marginal references, explanations of Hebrew names, and an index of subjects," and a small quarto edition in 1598 with a correctorium. All four editions (1590, 1592, 1593, 1598) are compared by Leander van Ess in his edition of the Vulgate (3 parts, Tübingen, 1822-24). Of editions by other editors, those of C. Vercellone (Rome, 1861) and particularly M. Hetzenauer (Innsbruck, 1906) may be mentioned; the latter has useful appendices.


(6.) Later Work. Problems. Since the edition of 1592 scarcely any attempt has been made in the Roman Church to apply to its Bible the most necessary emendation. D. Vallarsi printed an emended text (Verona, 1734), under the title Divina bibliotheca, in his edition of the works of Jerome. [A Biblical commission was appointed late in the pontificate of Leo XIII, and Pius X has lately commissioned members of the Benedictine Order to revise the Vulgate. It is intended to restore, so far as possible, the exact text of Jerome.] Among Protestants, Richard Bentley contemplated a new edition of the Latin New Testament together with the Greek (see BIBLE TEXT, II, 2, § 3); about the same time J. A. Bengel (q.v.) did much for it; in the nineteenth century S. Berger in France should have the greatest credit for clearing up the history of the Latin Bible; at last Wordsworth-White have issued what must be called the first critical edition of the Latin New Testament; and in Bavaria P. Thielmann is engaged in publishing those books of the Old Testament which were not translated by Jerome himself.


It is a matter of surprise that a task so easy and interesting as the criticism of the Latin Bible has received so little attention. Berger knew more than 8,000 manuscripts of the Latin Bible; few of them have been properly investigated. What kind of surprises they may offer is shown by the recent discovery of two different translations of the Third Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians in two manuscripts of the tenth and thirteenth centuries at Milan and Laon. The order of the Biblical books in the manuscripts; the prefaces and summaries (cf. on this point Les Préfaces jointes aux livres de la Bible dans les manuscrits de la Vulgate; mémoire posthume de M. Samuel Berger, in the Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, ser. i, vol. xi, part 2, 1902); the capitulation and divisions; the illumination and miniatures (many of the manuscripts belong to the most beautiful productions of Christian art); ecclesiastical or private notes; connection with the vernacular versions, influence upon the dialects of Europe; lists of the passages in literature which mention manuscripts of the Latin Bible; and many other points may be named as those which await investigation.


3. Later Latin Translations: That the Latin Vulgate was not sufficient was asserted in the Middle Ages by scholars like Nicolaus de Lyra and Raymond Martini. The English Benedictine Adam Easton (d. 1397) is said to have been one of the first to think of a new translation. It was Erasmus, however, who vindicated the right to place new Latin translations by the side of the Vulgate through his translation of the New Testament (Basel, 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527, 1535, and more than 200 times since the death of Erasmus; see BIBLE TEXT, II, 2, § 1; ERASMUS, DESIDERIUS). He has had many followers who have translated into Latin either the Old or the New Testament or both, as well as separate books of the Bible, even as late as the nineteenth century. But the time has passed when Latin versions were necessary or helpful; since the Reformation translations into the vernacular languages have taken their place.


The more important new translations of the whole Bible are those of the Dominican Sanctes Pagninus (Lyons, 1528; revised and annotated by Michael Servetus, Lyons, 1542). of Arias Montanus in the Antwerp Polyglot (1572), and one prepared under the direction of Cardinal Cajetan (1530 sqq.; see CAJETAN, THOMAS).


The Old Testament was newly translated by the Hebraist Sebastian Münster (Basel, 1534-35 and often); by Leo Jud and (after Jud’s death) T. Bibliander, C. Pellican, P. Cholinus, and R. Gualtherus (Zurich, 1543); by Sebastian Castellio (complete ed., Basel, 1551, with a dedication to King Edward VI of England); by Immanuel Tremellius, a Jew of Ferrara, and his son-in-law, Franciscus Junius. (du Jon; 5 parts, Frankfort, 1575-79; best ed., with full index, by P. Tossanus, Hanau, 1624. Tremellius's work was well received); by J. Piscator (24 parts, Herborn, 1601- 1616; really a revision of Tremellius); by Thomas Malvenda, a Spanish Dominican (left incomplete at Malvenda's death in 1628 and first published with his Commentarii, 5 vols., Lyons, 1650); by J. Cocceius (published with his commentaries, Opera, vols. i-vi, Amsterdam. 1701; incomplete; contains also most of the New Testament); by Sebastian Schmid, a Strasburg Lutheran, who worked forty years on the translation (Strasburg, 1696; photographic facsimile, with manuscript notes by Swedenborg, ed. R. L Tafel, Stockholm, 1872); by Jean Le Clerc (Clericus; Amsterdam. 1693-1731); by C. F. Houbigant (4 vols., Paris, 1753); by J. A. Dathe (Halle, 1773-89); and by H. A. Schott and J. F. Winzer (Leipsic, 1816).


Forty years after the first edition of the New Testament of Erasmus, Beza's Latin New Testament appeared (Geneva, 1556, 1565, 1582, 1588, 1598, and more than 100 subsequent editions; by the BFBS, 1896). A translation by H. A. Schott was published at Leipsic in 1805. The latest works of the kind are by F. A. A. Nabe (Leipsic, 1831) and A. Göschen (Leipsic, 1832).


For other translations, including those of separate books of the Bible, cf. the Hauck-Herzog RE, iii, 49-58. On translations of the Psalms into Latin verse, cf. Hugues Vaganay, Les Traductions du Psautier en vers latin au seizième siècle, in Compte rendu du quatrième Congres international des Catholiques (Freiburg, 1898), part vi, Sciences philologiques.



Bibliography: On the Latin Bible before Jerome consult; H. Rönsch, Itala und Vulgata, Marburg, 1875; idem, in ZWT, 1875, pp. 76, 81, 425, 1876, pp. 397, 1881, p. 198; Desjacques in Études, religieuses, philosophiques, historiques et littéraires de la compagnie de Jésus, 1878, pp. 721-724; L. Ziegler, Die lateinischen Uebersetzungen vor Hieronymus und die Itala des Augustinus, Munich, 1879; G. Koffmane, Geschichte des Kirchenlateins bis auf Augustinus-Hieronymus, Breslau, 1879-81; P. Corssen, Die vermeintliche "Itala" und die Bibelübersetzung des Hieronymus, in JPT, 1881, pp. 507-519; F. Zimmer, in TSK, 1889; F. C. Burkitt, The Old Latin and the Itala, in TS, iv, 3, Cambridge, 1896; E. Ehrlich, Beiträge zur Latinität der Itala, Rochlitz, 1895; idem, Quæ sit Italæ quæ dicitur verborum tenacitus, Leipsic, 1889; P. Monceaux, Les Africains. Étude sur la littérature Latine d'Afrique and La Bible Latine en Afrique, in REJ, 1901; DB, iii 47-64; EB, iv, 5022-24.


In the Vulgate consult: S. Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate, Paris, 1893 (this work was crowned by the Academy, pp. xx-xxiv contain a full list of earlier literature); G. Riegler, Geschichte der Vulgata, Sulzbach, 1820; L. Van Ess, Pragmatisch-kritische Geschichte der Vulgata, Tübingen, 1824; A. Schmitter, Kurze Geschichte der hierony- mianischen Bibelübersetzung Freysing, 1842; F. Kaulen, Geschichte der Vulgata, Mainz, 1868; O. Rottmanner, in Historisch-politische Blätter, cxiv, 31-38, 101-108; DB, iv, 873-890.


On the grammar and the language consult: W. Nowack, Die Bedeutung des Hieronymus für die alttestamentliche Textkritik, Göttingen, 1875; J. A. Hagen, Sprachliche Erörterungen zur Vulgata, Freiburg, 1863; J. B. Heiss, Zur Grammatik der Vulgata, Munich, 1864; V. Loch, Materialien zu einer lateinischen Grammatik der Vulgata, Bamberg, 1870; P. Hake, Sprachliche Bemerkungen zu dem Psalmentexte der Vulgata, Arnsberg, 1872; H. (Gölzer, Étude . . . de la latinité de St. Jerôme, Paris, 1884, P. Thielmann, in Philologus, i, xlii, 319, 370; G. A. Saalfeld, De bibliorum sacrorum Vulgatæ editionis græcitate, Quedlinburg, 1891; W. M. C. Wilroy, The Participle in the Vulgate N. T., Baltimore, 1892; L. B. Andergassen, Ueber den Gebraugh des Infinitivs in der Vulgata, 1891; P. Thielmann, Beiträge zur Textkritik der Vulgata, Speier, 1883; S. Berger, in Revue de théologie et de philosophie, xvi (1883), 41 sqq.; idem, in Mémoires de la société des antiquaires de France, lii, 144; P. Martin, in Le Muséon, vii (1888), 88-107, 169-196, viii (1889), 444; H. P. Smith, in Presbyterian and Reformed Review, April, 1891; E. von Dobschütz, Studien zur Textkritik der Vulgata, Leipsic, 1894 (cf. on it H. J. White, in Critical Review, 1896, pp. 243-246); J. Ecker, Porta Sions, Lexikon zum lateinischen Psalter, viii, 234, 1,936 columns, Trier, 1904; F. Kaulen, Sprachliches Handbuch zur biblischen Vulgata, Freiburg, 1904 (cf. on it Julicher, in TLZ, 1905, no. 6).


On the printed text consult: W. A. Copinger, Incunabula biblica, etc., London, 1892; cf. L. Delisle, in Journal des savans, 1893, pp. 202-218, where Copinger's 124 editions prior to 1500 are reduced to ninety-nine, and W. Muller, in Dziatzko's Bibliothekswissenschaftliche Arbeiten, no. 6, 1894, pp. 84-95); L. Hain, Repertorium bibliographicum, 4 vols., Paris, 1826-38, Index volume, Leipsic, 1891, Supplement by W. A. Copinger, 3 vols., London, 1895-1902, Appendices by D. Reichling, fasciculus 1, Munich, 1905 (gives ninety-seven editions prior to 1500). On the first printed Bible consult K. Dziatzko, Gutenbergs früheste Druckerpraxis auf Grund einer Vergleichung der 42zeiligen und 36zeiligen Bibel, Leipsic, 1891; L. Delisle, in Journal des savans, 1894, pp. 401-413; British Museum Catalogue, entry Bible.



III. Syriac Versions.--1. The Peshito: (1.) Origin and Name. According to some Syrians certain of the Biblical books (enumerated by Ishodad, bishop of Haditha, c. 862) were translated into Syriac under Solomon at the request of Hiram, king of Tyre. Another tradition refers this work to a priest Asa or Ezra, who was sent by the king of Assyria to Samaria, and the rest of the Old Testament with the New to the days of King Abgar V of Edessa and the apostle Addai (i.e., Thaddeaus; see ABGAR. Cf. II Kings xvii, 24, I Chron. xv, 18, in the editions of Lee and Ceriani; J. P. N. Land, Anecdota Syriaca, iii, Leyden, 1870, 11; Bar Hebræus on Ps. x; JA, 1872, 458). Bar Hebræus makes the strange statement that, according to Eusebius (cf. Hist. eccl., VI, xvi, 4, and VI, xvii), Origen found the Syriac version in the keeping of a widow at Jericho; and equally curious is the tradition which refers the translation of the New Testament to Mark. Some manuscripts of the Psalms state that they were translated from Palestinian into Hebrew, from Hebrew into Greek, from Greek into Syriac. Theodore of Mopsuestia (commentary on Zeph. i, 6) rightly says: "These books were translated into Syriac by some one, but who he was no one knows to this day." Some scholars have thought to discover, at least for the New Testament, the influence of the Latin Vulgate; more probable is the supposition that at least some parts of the Old Testament are pre-Christian or certainly Jewish; and the home of the translation is not Jerusalem and Palestine (JA, 1872, 458) or Antioch, but Edessa and its neighborhood.


The name which is commonly given to the oldest and most important Syriac version, "Peshito" ("Peshitto"), is first found with Moses bar Kepha (d. 913) and in Masoretic manuscripts of the ninth and tenth centuries (cf. N. P. S. Wiseman, Horæ Syriacæ, Rome, 1828, p. 223; J. P. P. Martin, Introduction a la critique textuelle du Nouveau Testament, Paris, 1883, p. 101; ZDMG, xxxii, 589). It means "the simple" in contradistinction to the more elaborate versions, such as that made from the Greek by Paul of Tella (see below, 2; on the name, cf. K W. M. Montijn and J. P. N. Land, in Godgeleerde Bijdragen, 1882; F. Field, Origenis Hexapla, i, Oxford, 1875, p. ix; ZDMG, xlvii, 157, 316; A. Mez, Die Bibel des Josephus, Basel, 1895, 4; F. C. Burkitt, Early Eastern Christianity, London, 1904, chap. ii).


(2.) The Old Testament. The Syriac Old Testament is practically the same as that of the Palestinian Jews. Chronicles, however, was missing in the Nestorian canon and, as it seems, also in that of the Jacobites; at least it is not treated in their Masoretic manuscripts, but it is found in very old manuscripts. Ezra-Nehemiah too are not treated in the Masoretic manuscripts nor Esther by the Nestorians, while in Jacobite manuscripts this book together with Judith, Ruth, Susanna, and Thecla forms the "Book of Women" (cf. A. Baumstark, in Oriens Christianus, iii, Leipsic 1901, 353). After the Law there follows as the second part the "Book of Sessions," i.e., Job, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Proverbs, Ecclesiasticus, Ecclesiastes, Ruth, Song of Solomon. Among the prophets, Isaiah (sometimes divided at xxv, 2) is followed by the minor prophets, then Jeremiah (with a division at xxxii, 6) with Baruch i-ii and the Epistle of Jeremiah, then Ezekiel and Daniel.


Manuscripts with the Apocrypha are called "catholic" or "pandects"; they do not contain I Esdras, Tobit, or the Prayer of Manasses, but have an Apocalypse of Baruch, IV Esdras, and even the story of Shamuna and Josephus, War, V, as IV and V Maccabees. Tobit, as far as chap. vii, 11 is preserved only in the translation of Paul of Tella, but from that point on there is a still later text. Accurate manuscripts give stichometrical lists (cf. Martin, Introduction, 677; J. R. Harris, On the Origin of the Ferrar Group, London, 1893, 10, 26; DB, iv, 650).


The character of the translation is different in various books; it is very literal in the Law, influenced by the Septuagint in Isaiah and the minor prophets, probably also in the Psalms. Ruth is paraphrastic. Chronicles resembles a Jewish targum, while the Syriac Proverbs has been used in the Targum. Ecclesiasticus is taken from the Hebrew.


(3.) The New Testament. Up to 1858 only one old version of the New Testament in Syriac was known in Europe; viz., that published for the first time by J. A. Widmanstadt (Vienna, 1555). Textual critics considered it "the queen of the Bible translations." In 1858 W. Cureton published in London, from manuscripts which had come into the British Museum in 1842, Remains of a very Antient Recension of the Four Gospels in Syriac hitherto Unknown in Europe. The great value of this recension was soon recognized, and was greatly enhanced when, in 1892, a second manuscript of it was discovered in a palimpsest on Mount Sinai by Mrs. A. S. Lewis and her sister, Mrs. M. D. Gibson, which was published under the title, The Four Gospels in Syriac Transcribed from the Sinaitic Palimpsest by the Late R. L. Bensly . . . J. R. Harris . . . and F. C. Burkitt. With an Introduction by Agnes Smith Lewis (Cambridge, 1894). Mrs. Lewis published Some Pages of the Four Gospels Retranscribed from the Syriac Palimpsest with a Translation of the Whole Text (London, 1894). F. C. Burkitt published Evangelion da-Mepharreshe: The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, with the Readings of the Sinai Palimpsest and the Early Syriac Patristic Evidence Edited, Collected, and Arranged (vol. i, text and translation, vol. ii, introduction and notes, Cambridge, 1904). Burkitt’s title is taken from the heading or subscription of the two manuscripts and means "the Gospel of the Separated" (i.e., "the Separated Gospels"), used in contradistinction to the Diatessaron of Tatian, which was called among the Syrians "the Gospel of the Combined" ("the Combined Gospels"). Herein is indicated the first problem in the history of the Syriac New Testament. It is well known that a harmony of the Gospels was used in the Syriac Church till the beginning of the fifth century, when Theodoret removed the copies in his diocese, and Rabbulas of Edessa ordered that the "Gospel of the Separated" should be read in church. The great question concerns the relationship of the Peshito, the Mepharreshe, and Tatian. It seems certain that the three are interrelated. It seems further to have been proved by Burkitt that the Peshito is the latest, and is in all probability the revision which Rabbulas of Edessa (d. 435) is said to have undertaken. The decision of the other question, whether the Mepharreshe or Tatian is the earlier, is made difficult by the fact that Tatian’s work is not preserved in its original form, and further by the fact that the two representatives of the Mepharreshe, the manuscripts of Cureton and Lewis, differ greatly. But on the whole it seems most probable that Tatian was the first to bring the Gospel to the Syrians in the form of his Diatessaron, and that then on the basis of his harmony the version of the separate Gospels originated. Burkitt is inclined to believe that this was toward the end of the second century, perhaps under the influence of the Church of Antioch, through Paul of Edessa. The opposite view, that the Mepharreshe is earlier than Tatian, is taken by Hjelt, who believed he was able to show that the Gospels in the Mepharreshe were translated by different hands, and that the first Gospel especially betrays a Jewish character. Without the discovery of new evidence the question will be very difficult to decide.


No manuscript of an early Syriac version of the Acts and the Pauline Epistles is known. But that there was an older version can be proved from the quotations of such early writers as Aphraates and Ephraem, and perhaps also from readings in the Armenian version. In early times the apocryphal correspondence with the Corinthians was placed with the Epistles of Paul. The Catholic Epistles were at first totally unknown, as is expressly stated by Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodore bar Koni (cf. A. Baumstark, in Oriens Christianus, i, 176, iii, 555). In the Peshito as we have it the three greater of them are found, in accordance with the use of the Church of Antioch. Still later the four others were added. It is strange that the Nestorian inscription of Singan-fu (see NESTORIANS) speaks of twenty-seven books of the New Testament. Revelation never formed part of the canon among the Syrians (cf. on the Syriac canon, T. Zahn, Grundriss der Geshichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, Leipsic, 1904, § 6; J. A. Bewer, The History of the New Testament Canon in the Syrian Church, Chicago, 1900; W. Bauer, Der Apostolos der Syrer, Giessen, 1903), and whether the Pauline collection included Philemon can not be decided.


2. Later Versions: The Nestorian patriarch Mar Abba (d. 552) is said by Bar Hebræus, Ebed Jesu, and Amru to have translated and explained the Old and New Testaments from the Greek; but nothing more is known about it.


In 508 Philoxenus of Mabug with the help of his coadjutor Polycarp translated at least some parts of the Old Testament and undertook a new version of the New Testament. Parts of Isaiah preserved in a manuscript of the British Museum may belong to this version (ed. A. Ceriani, Monumenta sacra et profana, v, 5, Milan, 1873, 1-40). According to Bernstein, the Gospels are contained in manuscript A2 of the Angelican library at Rome. Isaac H. Hall published a Syriac Manuscript. Gospels from a pre-Harklensian Version, Acts and Epistles o,f the Peshitto Version, Written (probably) between 700 and 900 A.D. Presented to the Syrian Protestant College [Beirut] (Philadelphia, 1884). The minor epistles, first published by E. Pococke in 1630 and since often found in editions of the Syriac New Testament, are very likely part of this version, and so is the version of Revelation discovered by J. Gwynn and published by him (Dublin, 1897).


About one hundred years later the work of translation was resumed, for the Old Testament, by Paul of Tella (the so-called Syro-Hexaplar version; see above, I, 1, § 6), and, for the New Testament, by Thomas of Heraclea (Harkel in Mesopotamia). This version was published by J. White under the inappropriate title, Versio Philoxeniana (Oxford, 1778-1803). A lacuna in the Epistle to the Hebrews was filled in by R. L. Bensly (Harklean Version of the Epistle to the Hebrews xi, 28-xiii, 25, London, 1889). W. Deane began a new edition but was prevented from finishing it. Its completion, especially for the Acts, is much to be desired. For his marginal notes, Thomas made use of a manuscript closely related to the Greek codex D (cf. A. Pott, Der abendländische Text dir Apostelgeschichte, Leipsic, 1900, and Hilgenfeld, in ZWT, xliii, 1900, p. 3). The Syriac text of Revelation published by De Dieu (Leyden, 1627) and now in the common Syrian New Testaments belongs to this version (cf. J. Gwynn, in Hermathena, 1898, 227-245).


On the revision of the Old Testament undertaken by Jacob of Edessa in 704-705, cf. Kamphausen, in TSK, 1869, 753, and A. Ceriani, Monumenta sacra et profana, v, 1 (Milan, 1871).


Mention must also be made of the Palestinian version (used by the Melchite Church in Palestine and Egypt). Of the Old Testament, only fragments remain. The New Testament has been known from an evangeliarium at Rome since 1789 (published by F. Miniscalchi-Erizzo, Verona, 1861- 1864, and by Lagarde, Bibliotheca Syriaca, Göttingen, 1892). Since that time many new texts have been brought to light, especially through Mrs. Lewis. A full list is given in the Lexicon syropalæstinum of F. Schulthess (Berlin, 1903), pp. vii-xvi. F. C. Burkitt (JTS, ii, 183) gives reasons for believing that this literature may have a connection with the attempts of Justinian in the fifth century to extirpate the Samaritans, and of Heraclius early in the sixth century to harass the Jews. This peculiar dialect is important lexically, as being closely akin to the language spoken in Galilee.



Bibliography: The first parts of the Bible printed in Syrian are in Ambrosius Theseus, Introductio in Chaldaicum linguam, Syriacam, atque Armenicam, Pavia, 1539 (cf. ZDMG, lviii, 1904, 601). The Old Testament appeared first in the Paris Polyglot, vols. vi-ix. 1632-45, then in the London Polyglot, vols. i-iv, 1654-57, reprinted by S. Lee for the BFBS, London, 1823 (other copies, 1824; on their differences--one set contains Ps. cli, the other ZDMG, lix, 1905, 31), and at Urumiah (with modern Syriac added), 1852. The text is very bad, resting on a single late manuscript at Paris adapted by Gabriel Sionita, editor of the Paris Polyglot, from which the London Polyglot and Lee took it with scarcely any correction, the Urumiah edition, at least in some parts, with but few corrections (cf. W. E. Barnes, An Apparatus criticus to Chronicles in the Peshitta Version, Cambridge, 1897; G. Diettrich, Ein Apparatus criticus zur Pešitto zum Propheten Jesaia, Giessen, 1905). Bernstein and Rahlfs have published emendations, the former in ZDMG, iii, 1849. 387-396,0. the latter in ZATW, ix, 1889, 161-210. A. M. Ceriani published a photographic reproduction of the Codex Ambrosianus, Milan, 1876-83. The Apocrypha was published by Lagarde, Leipsic, 1861. The first critical edition of the Gospels was by P. E. Pusey and G. H. Gwilliam, Oxford, 1901; for the rest of the New Testament there are the editions of the American mission at Urumiah, 1846, New York, 1846, etc. The edition most used in textual criticism hitherto has been that of J. Leusden and C. Schaaf, Leyden, 1709 and 1717, reprinted by Jones, Oxford, 1805 (cf. Tischendorf on Matt. x, 8, with the note of Pusey-Gwilliam). The entire Bible was printed by the Dominicans at Mosul, 1887-91. A list of editions to 1888 is contained in Nestle, Litteratura Syriaca (reprinted from Syrische Grammatik, Berlin, 1888), 17-30. Consult further: Beck, Editiones principes Novi Testamenti Syriaci, Basel, 1771; J. Le Long, Bibliotheca sacra emendata . . . ab A. G. Masch, i, part 4, pp. 54-102, 5 vols., Halle, 1778-90; A. M. Ceriani, Le Edizioni e i manoscritti delle versione Siriache del vecchio Testamento, Milan, 1869; Printed editions of the Syriac New Testament, in Church Quarterly Review, July, 1888, 255-297; Syriac New Testament translated into Eng. by J. Murdock, with a bibliographical Appendix, by I. H. Hall, 6th ed., Boston, 1893; G. H. Gwilliam, The Ammonian Sections, Eusebian Canons and Harmonizing Tables in the Syriac Tetraeuangelium, in Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, ii, Oxford, 1890; idem, Materials for the Criticism of the Peshitto, ib. iii, 1891; Scrivener, Introduction, ii, 6-40; F. C. Burkitt, Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, Introduction, vol. i, London, 1905. On the Old Testament in the Peshito consult: J. Prager, De veteris testamenti versione Syriaca quam Peschittho, Göttingen, 1875; J. Perles, Meletemata Peschitthoniana, Breslau, 1860; J. M. Schönfelder, Onkelos und Peschittho, Munich. 1869. On parts of the Old Testament: L. Hirzel, De Pentateuchi versionis Syriacæ indole, Leipsic, 1815; S. D. Luzzatto, Philoxenus sive de Onkelosi Chaldaica Pentateuchi versione, Vienna, 1830; F. Tuch, De Lipsiensi codice Pentateuchi Syriaco, Leipsic, 1849; B. Schwartz, Die syrische Uebersetzung des 1. Samuelis, Berlin, 1897; J. Berliner, Die Peschitta zum 1. Buch der Könige, Berlin, 1897; 5. Fränkel, in JPT, 1879, pp. 508, 720 (on Chronicles); A. Oliver, A Transl. of the Syriac Peschito Version of the Psalms, Boston, 1861; F. Bäthgen, Untersuchungen über die Psalmen nach der Peschito, Kiel, 1878; idem, in JPT, viii (1882), 405, 593; F. Dietrich, Commentatio de psalterii usu in ecclesia Syriaca, Marburg, 1862; B. Oppenheim, Die syrische Ubersetzung . . . der Psalmen, Leipsic, 1891; J. F. Berg, Influence of the Septuagint upon the Peshitta Psalter, New York, 1895; Techen, Glossar, in ZATW, xvii (1897), 129, 280 (on Psalms); Baumann (on Job), in ZATW, xviii-xx (1898-1900); J. A. Dathe, De ratione consensus . . . Syriacæ Proverbiorum, Leipsic, 1764; A. S. Kamenetzky (on Ecclesiastes), in ZATW, xxiv (1904); U. Dietrich, Die Massorah der östlichen und westlichen Syrer, London, 1899; idem, Textkritischer Apparat, 1905 (Isaiah); C. H. Cornill, Das Buch des Propheten Ezechiel, pp. 137-156, Leipsic, 1886; C. A. Credner, De prophetarum minorum versionis Syriacæ . . . indole, Göttingen, 1827; M. Sebök (Schönberger), Die syrische Uebersetzung der zwölf Propheten, Breslau, 1887; V. Ryssel, Untersuchungen über die Textgestalt . . . des Buches Micha, Leipsic 1887; J. J. Kneucker, Das Buch Baruch, pp. 190-198, Leipsic, 1869; T. Nöldeke, Die Texte des Buches Tobit, in Monatsberichte der Berliner Akademie, 1879, pp. 45-69.


On the New Testament: The Peshito Versions of the Gospels, ed. G. W. Gwilliam, London, 1901. On the Curetonian: C. Hermansen, De codice evangeliorum Syriaco, Copenhagen, 1869; Le Hir, Étude sur une ancienne version syriaque des evangiles, Paris, 1859: G. Wildeboer, De waarde der syrische evangelien, door Cureton ontdekt, Leyden, 1880; Fr. Bäthgen, Evangelienfragmente, Leipsic, 1885; H. Harman, Cureton Fragments, in JBL, 1885, June-Dec., pp. 28-48.


On the Mepharreshe, J. R. Crowfoot, Fragmenta Evangelica, London, 1870; idem, Collation in Greek of Cureton's Syriac Fragments, ib. 1872. On the Sinai Palimpsest: M. D. Gibson, How the Codex was found, Cambridge, 1893; Mrs. R. L. Bensly, Our Journey to Sinai . . . with a Chapter on the Siani Palimpsest, London, 1896; K. Holzhey, Der neuentdeckte Codex Syrus Sinaiticus, Munich, 1896; A. Bonus, Collatio codicis Lewisiani . . . cum codice Curetoniano, Oxford, 1896. For further accounts of the Lewis codex consult the files of the Athenæum, Academy, Contemporary Review, Expository Times, Guardian, Church Quarterly Review, TLZ, and similar journals for the years 1893-96.


On the Peshito in textual criticism consult: The Oxford Debate on The Textual Criticism of the New Testament, London, 1897; T. W. Etheridge, Horæ Aramaicæ. With a Transl. of . . . St. Matthew and . . . Hebrews from the . . . Peshito, London, 1843; idem, The Apostolical Acts; Transl. from the Peshito and a later Text, London, 1849; W. Norton, A Transl. . . of the Seventeen Letters . . . of the Peshito Syriac, London, 1890; J. Gwynn, Older Syriac Version of the four Minor Catholic Epistles, in Hermathena, 1890. On Tatian: A. Hjelt, in T. Zahn, Forschungen, vii, 1 (1903); Mrs. Lewis, in Expositor, Aug., 1897, June, 1890.



IV. The Samaritan Pentateuch: This must not be confounded with the Hebrew text of the Pentateuch in Samaritan characters or with the Arabic version used by the Samaritans. All three are contained in the famous triglot manuscript in the Barberini Library at Rome of the year 1227 (for facsimile of. G. M. Bianchini’s Evangeliarium quadruplex, Rome, 1749, or, on a reduced scale, F. G. Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, London, 1896, pl. v). The question of the age of this targum depends on the decision of the question whence the readings are taken which are found under the rubric to Samaraitikon in some fifty marginal notes of Origen’s Hexapla (to the passages collected by Field add Lev. xv, 8; Deut. viii, 22, xxxiv, 1-3, from the margins of Lagarde’s Bibliotheca Syriaca). The most probable view seems to be that not Origen but Eusebius took these notes from the Hebrew Pentateuch as used among the Samaritans. On a Samaritan inscription found at Amwas (Emmaus) cf. Revue Biblique, 1896, p. 433.



The Samaritan Pentateuch is essentially the same as the Hebrew. The variations, aside from those of a linguistic character, are the following: the narrative of action or declaration by Moses is often preceded by the statement that he acted or spoke by divine direction; Gen. ii, 2a, "seventh" is changed to "sixth"; anthropomorphisms are removed, and in Gen. xx, 13, xxxi, 53, xxxv, 7, Ex. xxii, 8, the plural predicate after Elohim is changed to the singular to avoid a polytheistic implication; "Ebal" Deut. xxvii, 4) was displaced by Gerizim for national reasons. The Samaritan Pentateuch is proved by these changes to be a revision of the Jewish, but a revision made in early times (possibly pre-Christian), though the modern tendency is to ascribe the text now extant to the second Christian century.


Bibliography: The text was first printed in the Paris Polyglot, 1643, then in Walton’s Polyglot, 1657. Other editions of the whole or of parts are: A. Brüll, Das samaritanische Targum zum Pentateuch, Frankfort, 1873-75, with two appendices which appeared 1875-76; H. Petermann and C. Vollers, Pentateuchus Samaritanus . . ., i, Genesis, Berlin, 1872, ii, Exodus, 1882, iii, Leviticus, 1883, iv, Numeri, 1885, v, Deuteronomium, 1891; J. W. Nutt, Fragments of a Samaritan Targum, London, 1874; F. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, i, p. lxxxii-lxxxiv, Oxford, 1875; S. Kohn, in Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums, 1894, pp. 1-7, 46-67.


On various phases of the relation to text-criticism consult: J. Morinus, Exercitationes in utrumque Samaritanorum Pentateuchum, Paris, 1631; idem, in the Preface of his edition of the Septuagint, 1628; W. Gesenius, De Pentateuchi Samaritani indole, . . . Halle, 1815; G. B. Winer, De versionis Pentateuchi Samaritanæ indole, Leipsic, 1817; S. Kohn, De Pentateucho Samaritano, . . . ib. 1865; idem, Samaritanische Studien, Breslau, 1868; idem, Zur Sprache, Literatur und Dogmatik der Samaritaner, Leipsic, 1876; idem, in ZDMG, xxxix (1885), 165-226; A. Cowley, in JQR, viii (1896), 562 sqq., and in JE, x, 667; idem, A Supposed Early Copy of the Samaritan Pentateuch, in PEF, Quarterly Statement, Oct., 1904; P. Kahle, Textkritische und lexikalische Bemerkungen zum samaritanischen Pentateuchtargum, Leipsic, 1898; J. Skinner, Notes on a newly acquired Samaritan MS, in JQR, xiv (1901), 26-36; W. E. Barton, The Samaritan Pentateuch, in Bibliotheca sacra, lx (1903); H. Gottheil, in JBL, xxv, part 1, 1906; J. A. Montgomery, The Samaritans, Philadelphia, 1907.



V. Aramaic Versions (The Targums): 1. Origin and Language. These are Aramaic paraphrases of the Old Testament (targum = "interpretation, translation," from targem, "to explain, translate"; cf. Ezra iv, 7) prepared for use in the synagogue, and took their rise from the custom of repeating and explaining the Hebrew sacred text in the Aramaic tongue, which after the exile became the vernacular of the Jews in Palestine and elsewhere. At first the targum was a free oral exposition; then it gradually acquired fixed form, and at last was reduced to writing. It is frequently found in manuscripts following the Hebrew text verse by verse. When the Law was read, the paraphrase was given after every verse; with the Prophets three verses were allowed to be taken together.


The language of the Targums used to be called Chaldee, because Jerome so named the Aramaic portions of the Hebrew Bible, which are written in a dialect very akin to that of the Targums. In reality, those have preserved the Jewish form of the Aramaic, the next cognate dialect being Syriac, the form of the Aramaic used by the Christians of Edessa, while still other cognate dialects are those of the Palmyrene inscriptions and of the Samaritans (see SEMITIC LANGUAGES). The grammatical and lexicographical use of the Targums is hampered by the fact that no edition has as yet appeared that takes account of all the materials now available. Mercier vocalized the texts after the Syriac, Buxtorf after the Biblical Aramaic; the edition printed by Foa (Sabbionetta, 1557) seems to rest on a manuscript in which the supralinear system of vocalization had been changed into that of Tiberias, but with many faults and inconsistencies. The most original system of vocalization is that preserved in manuscripts from Yemen, on which cf. the works of Merx, Berliner, Landauer, Kautzsch, Margoliouth (The superlinear Punctuation, in PSBA, xxui, 164-205), and Barnstein (The Targum of Onkelos to Genesis, London, 1896), and the editions of Prätorius (Joshua, Berlin, 1899; Judges, 1900).


2. Targum Onkelos. For the greater part of the Old Testament there is more than one Targum. One on the Pentateuch is attributed in some passages of the Talmud to the helpers of Ezra. According to the Babylonian Talmud (Megillot 3a), Onkelos delivered it orally in Palestine; but this is the result of confusing Onkelos with Aquila, who translated the Old Testament into Greek (see above, I, 2, §1), and "Judaic Pentateuch-Targum" is a better name than "Targum of Onkelos," which has been in use since Bomberg's Rabbinic Bible of 1517. In the third century its text seems to have been considered fixed, and manuscripts are mentioned several times, but Origen and Jerome apparently did not know a Targum, and hence we may conclude that it did not find official recognition before the fifth century. Its language is different from that of both Talmuds, and seems to render the original into the language of the place and time of its origin (Palestine) as faithfully as a translation which is somewhat paraphrastic can do. The Hebrew text on which it rests is practically our Masoretic text, and it is of interest as representing the exegetical tradition of the Jews. It is quite literal, gives a messianic interpretation of Gen. xlix, 10, and Num. xxiv, 17, additions to Gen. xlix, Num. xxiv, Deut. xxxii, 33, and avoids all anthropomorphisms. Like the Hebrew text, it has been the subject of Masoretic studies, which have been edited by Berliner (Die Massorah zum Targum Onkelos, Leipsic, 1877).


3. Targum Jonathan. The Targum of the Prophets has been ascribed to Jonathan ben Uzziel, Hillel’s greatest disciple; others give as its redactor Joseph ben Hiyya of Babylon (d. about 333); but it did not receive its final written form before the fifth century. It is more paraphrastic than the Targum of the Law, which induced Cornill to think that it is older. Eichhorn and Bertholdt thought they recognized different hands. The paraphrase is greatly influenced by the book of Daniel. Isa. liii is understood of the Messiah, whose suffering atones for Israel. Great enmity is shown against Rome.


4. Other Targums of the Law and Prophets. The two Targums just described represent the Judaic Aramaic; of a mixed character is the language of Targums Yerushalmi I and II on the Law. Some verses are missing from the former, and the latter is preserved only in fragments. Certain other fragments found in various manuscripts and editions of the Pentateuch are designated by Dalman (Grammatik, § 6, 3) as Yerushalmi III. There are similar fragments of a Targum on the Prophets published by Lagarde from the margins of Reuchlin’s codex (on which cf. Bacher, in ZDMG, xxviii). Bassfreund (Das Fragmententargum zum Pentateuch, Breslau, 1896) and similarly Dalman (Grammatik, § 6, 4) see in Onkelos the oldest Palestinian Targum and in Yerushalmi I and II a later development. M. Ginsburger, on the contrary (Pseudo-jonathan, Berlin, 1903, preface), and Bacher find in them traces of a very old Palestinian Targum, which has been worked over by Onkelos. The comment in these pieces is sometimes very fantastic.


5. The Hagiographa. The Targums of the Hagiographa are not translations, but commentaries; the Targum of the Song of Solomon, for instance, is a panegyric of the Jewish nation with foolish anachronisms, the Targum of the Psalms is in some parts literal, in others explanatory. The Targum of Proverbs is a working over of the Syriac translation (cf. Pinkuss, in ZATW, xiv, 65, 161). As the Hagiographa were not read in the Synagogue as regularly as the Law and the Prophets (cf. Lk. iv, 16; Acts xiii, 15; xv, 21), their Targums are to some extent private literary works of differing character. For Ezra-Nehemiah and Daniel no Targum is known, unless the Aramaic parts of Daniel are fragments of a Targum. For Esther there are two Targums.



Bibliography: The best grammar is G. Dalman, Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch, Leipsic, 1894, Ausgabe mit Dialektproben, 1896, 2d ed., 1905 (gives valuable compend of literature). The first special dictionary for the Targum is the Meturgeman of Elias Levita, Isny, 1541; quite complete but unsatisfactory linguis- tically is J. Levy, Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Targumim, 2 vols., Leipsic, 1867-68. The whole range of Aramaic literature is treated in Nathan ben Jehiel Sepher he-aruk c. 1100 A.D.), first printed without place and date, but before 1480 A.D., new ed. by A. Kohut, Vienna, 1878-92 (cf JE, ix, 180-182). Others are: G. F. Boderianus (1573), printed in the Antwerp Polyglot; J. Buxtorf, Lexicon chaldaicum, 1640, new ed., B. Fischer, Leipsic, 1869-75; M. Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Jerushalmi and the Mid- rashic Literature, 2 vols., New York, 1903 (the most accessible); G. Dalman, Aramäisch-neuhebräisches Wörterbuch mit Lexikon der Abbreviaturen, von G. Händler, Frankfort, 1897-1901.


The Targum of Onkelos was first printed Bologna, 1482, with Hebr. text and Rashi’s commentary; best edition by Foa, at Sebbionetta, 1557, republished by A. Berliner at Berlin, 1884 (cf. Lagarde, Mittheilungen, ii, 163-182); latest edition in the Hebrew Pentateuch Sefer keter tora at Jerusalem, 1894-1901. Parts are in A. Merx, Chrestomathia Targumica, Berlin, 1883; in E. Kautzsch, Ueber eine alte Handschrift des Targum Onkelos, Halle, 1893; and G. Dalman, Aramäische Dialektproben, Leipsic, 1896. Translations are that in Eng. by J. W. Etheridge, including Onkelos, Jonathan, and the Jerusalem fragments, 2 vols., London, 1862, and the Latin transl. by P. Fagius, Strasburg, 1546. On the text-critical value and other relations consult: S. Landauer, Die Masorah zum Onkelos, Leipsic, 1877; H. Barnstein, Targum of Onkelos to Genesis, London, 1896; G. Diettrich, Grammatische Beobachtungen, in ZATW, xx (1900), 148-159; E. Brederek, in TSK, lxxiv (1901), 351-377; A. Merx, Die Vokalisation der Targume, in Verhandlung des 5ten orientalischen Congress, ii, part 1, pp. 142-188. On the person of Onkelos consult: D. Luzzatto, Philoxenus, Cracow, 1895; M. Friedmann, Onkelos und Akylas, Vienna, 1896; JE, ii, 36-38, ix, 405, xii, 58-59.


The editions of the Targums of Jonathan are: For the "Former Prophets" lst edition, Leiria, 1494, for the whole, in the first Rabbinic Bible, Venice, 1517; by Lagarde after Reuchlin's MS., 1872 (cf. A. Klostermann in TSK, xlvi, 1873, 731-767); Joshua and Judges by Prætorius from South Arabian MSS., Berlin, 1899-1900; Jonah and Micah by Merx, in his Chrestomathia, ut sup.; Nahum by Adler, in JQR, vii (1895). 630-657; Jer. i-xii by Wolfsohn, 1903; Ezekiel, i-x by Silbermann, 1902; the Haftaroth in the Hebrew Pentateuch Sefer keter torah, ut sup. Consult also: C. W. H. Pauli, The Chaldee Paraphrase on the Prophet Isaiah, London, 1871; Z. Frankel, Zu dem Targum der Propheten, Breslau, 1872; W. Bacher, in ZDMG, xxviii (1874). 1-72, 157, 319; H. S. Levy, Targum on Isaiah, with Commentary, London, 1889.


Yerushalmi I and II were first published in Bomberg’s Rabbinic Bible, Venice, 1517. The best editions of both are by M. Ginsburger, Pseudo-Jonathan, Berlin, 1903, and Das Fragmententhargum, 1899 (cf. Barnstein, in JQR, xiii, 1899, 167; ZDMG, lviii, 1904, 374-378). On both Targums, cf. Dalman, Grammatik, § 6, 1-2; on an important manuscript of Yerushalmi II at Nuremberg, cf. Lagarde, Mittheilungen, iii, Gottingen, 1889, 87.


The Targum of the Hagiographa: The first edition of Job, Ps., Prov., and the Rolls was in the Rabbinic Bible, Venice, 1517, which books were reprinted by Lagarde in 1873; the best edition of the Targum on Esther is by M. David, Berlin, 1898 (cf. Posner, Das Targum Rischon zu Esther, Breslau, 1896); Ecclesiastes, from South Arabian MSS., by A. Levy, ib. 1905. Consult E. Brederek, Konkordanz zum Targum Onkelos, Giessen, 1906; H. L. Strack, Einleitung in das A. T., § 84, Munich, 1906.



VI. The Armenian Version: The Armenian translation of the Old Testament rests on the Greek, though it shows in certain passages and books traces of revision either from the Syriac or from the Hebrew. The Greek text used seems to have been dependent on Origen, for in some Armenian manuscripts hexaplaric marks are found. In the manuscripts (not in the printed editions) various pseudepigraphic books appear. The Armenian Psalter printed for the British and Foreign Bible Society at Venice, 1850, was rejected in consequence of these additions. Ecclesiasticus has been translated twice, first in the fifth century, this version being printed in the Venice Bible, 1860; again probably in the eighth century, found in Zohrab’s edition of the Armenian Bible of 1805. On the statements of Koriun, Lazar of Parpi, and Moses of Chorene, that the Scriptures were translated by Mesrob, Sehag, Eznik, and others between 396 and 430 from manuscripts brought from Edessa, Constantinople, and Alexandria, cf. Conybeare, DB, i, 152 (see ARMENIA, II, §§ 2-3). A collation of the Armenian version was made for Holmes-Parsons (see above, I, 1, § 2), and is being made afresh for the forthcoming Cambridge Septuagint by McLean (cf. Swete, Introduction, London, 1900, p. 118). Theodoret states that in his time the language of the Hebrews was translated into that of the Armenians, Scythians, and Sauromatians. A concordance to the Armenian Bible has been printed in the cloister of San Giacomo at Jerusalem (1895). The uncanonical writings of the Old Testament found in Armenian manuscripts in the library of San Lazzaro were translated into English by J. Issaverdens (Venice, 1901); on Ter Moosesjan's History of the Translation of the Bible into Armenian, cf. H. Goussen, in Nouvelle Revue de Théologie, 1904, p. 9.


For the New Testament Mill used some notes on the Armenian version by W. Guise and L. Piques. For Tregelles C. Rieu collated Zohrab’s edition of 1805. His notes were used by Tischendorf in the eighth edition of his New Testament; Gregory catalogued sixty-four manuscripts in Europe (outside of Russia) and America. At Moscow is a copy of the Gospels dated 887, at Echmiadzin is the manuscript 222 written in 989, but with an ivory binding which is much older. Conybeare discovered in this manuscript, after Mark xvi, 8, the words Ariston eritzou ("of the presbyter Arist[i]on "), which probably preserve the name of the author of the close of the second Gospel. The Gospels have invariably the so-called Ammonian sections; the Acts and Epistles of Paul, the Euthalian additions (see AMMONIUS OF ALEXANDRIA; EUTHALIUS); at their end is found the apocryphal correspondence of Paul with the Corinthians. After John follows sometimes the apocryphal "Rest of John." The Apocalypse is said to be a recension made by Nerses Lambron in the twelfth century; a much older version is indicated by H. Gaussen (cf. Gregory, Textkritik, Leipsic, 1902, p. 568). The inclusion of the apocryphal correspondence of Paul with the Corinthians and other characteristics of this version and the whole history of the Armenian Church confirm the view that the Armenian version was first based on the Syriac Bible and afterward revised from the Greek; cf. on this question Conybeare and Burkitt. 



Bibliography: The Armenian Bible was first printed, Amsterdam, 1606, from a single MS.; of this the edition by Mechitar, Venice, 1733, was in the main a reprint; the first critical edition was by Zohrab, Venice, 1805. Consult Scrivener, Introduction, ii, 148-154; Gregory, Textkritik, i, 565-573; F. C. Conybeare, in DB, i, 151- 154, and in The Expositor, 1893, pp. 242 sqq., and Dec., 1895; F. C. Burkitt, in EB, iv, 5011, 5028; A. Abeghian, Vorfragen zur Entstehungsgeschichte der altarmenischen Bibelübersetzungen, Marburg, 1906; idem. Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der altarmenischen Bibelübersetzungen, Tübingen, 1907.



VII. Egyptian Coptic Versions: According to Zosimus Panopolitanus, the Hebrew Bible was translated into Egyptian at the same time as the Septuagint (see above, I, 1, § 6); according to the life of St. Anthony, he heard the Gospel read in church in the Egyptian language. But the latter statement is not certain enough to justify the supposition that the Egyptian version of the New Testament goes back to the middle of the third century. At that time Christianity in Egypt seems to have been restricted to the Greek-speaking towns. Modern scholars distinguish linguistically as many as five or six Coptic dialects; for the textual critic the Coptic versions fall into three divisions, although a former generation knew only one and called it the Coptic, i.e., the Egyptian, version. These divisions are: (1) The Saidic or the version of Upper Egypt, sometimes called the Thebaic; (2) the Fayyumic (formerly called the Bashmuric), with which text the fragments in the Middle-Egyptian dialect agree; (3) the version now in ecclesiastical use among all Copts or Egyptian Christians, called Bohairic. The Bohairah ("Lake") is a district near Alexandria and Lake Mareotis, the modern Beherah. There is a fourth dialect called Akhmimic; but the version of the Catholic Epistles in this dialect, preserved in a very ancient manuscript, is properly classed with the Saidic version. Bashmuric had already died out in the time of Athanasius.


The Bohairic version was for a long time the only one known to European scholars, and is still supposed by some to be the earliest version in any Egyptian dialect; but with better reason others see in it a late recension, characterized by greater faithfulness to the Greek, the basal Greek text being best represented by the Greek Codex L and, among the Fathers, not by Clement and Origen, but by Cyril. Of the Saidic manuscripts some of the more ancient are bilingual, the Greek occupying the page on the left hand of the open book; the Bohairic manuscripts, on the contrary, are often accompanied by an Arabic translation, but there is no instance of a Greco-Bohairic manuscript. When written in two columns the Greco-Saidic manuscripts have both Greek columns on the left and both Saidic on the right, and occasionally the two pages of the codex give different readings. The text of this version generally supports that represented by Codex B, but it has some strange "Western" singularities; for instance, to Luke xxiii, 53, it is added that Joseph placed a stone at the door of the sepulcher, which twenty men were scarcely able to move, and in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus the name of the former is given as "Ninevah." Revelation seems to have been considered uncanonical, for it is not found with the rest of the New Testament.



Bibliography: Ersch and Gruber, Allgermeine Encyclopädie, Section 2, vol. xxxix, 12-36: J. P. Martin, in Polybiblion, i, 126, Paris, 1886; A. Schulte, Die koptische Uebersetzung der vier grossen Propheten, Münster, 1893; Scrivener, Introduction, ii, 91-144; H. Hyvernat, Étude sur les versions Coptes de la Bible, in Revue Biblique, v (1896), 3, 427-433, 540-569, vi (1897). 1, 48-74; Gregory, Textkritik, i, 528-553; DB, i, 668-673; EB, iv, 5006-11, 5027: W. E. Crum is accustomed to note new Biblical texts in the annual Archæological Report of the Egypt Exploration Fund (cf. that for 1905-06, pp. 66 sqq.).


On the Bohairic version of the Old Testament, especially the Pentateuch, cf. A. E. Brooke, in JTS, iii, 258-278. For the Bohairic New Testament there is now the fine edition of the Clarendon Press by G. Horner, The Coptic version of the N. T. in the Northern Dialect, otherwise called the Memphitic and Bohairic, with Introduction, critical Apparatus, and literal Eng. transl., vols. i-ii, Gospels, 1898, vols. iii- iv, Acts and Epistles, 1905.


The Saidic New Testament is edited by P. J. Balestri in Sacrorum bibliorum fragmenta copto-sahidica Musei Borgiani, vol. iii, Rome, 1904; the Berlin manuscript of the Psalter, by A. Rahlifs, GGA, iv, 4, 1901; cf. also J. O. Prince, Two Versions of the Coptic Psalter, in JBL, xxi, 92-99; E. O. Winstedt, Sahidic Biblical Fragments in the Bodleian Library, in PSBA, xxvii, 2; and C. Wessely, Sahidischgriechische Psalmenfragmente, Vienna, 1907. For parts of the Old Testament cf. Lagarde’s Pentateuch, Leipsic, 1867, Psalterii versio Memphitica, Göttingen, 1875, and (for Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, and Psalms) his Ægyptiaca, 1883; vols. i and ii of the Borgian Fragments, by Ciasca, 1885-89; on the importance of the Egyptian version of Job, cf. Lagarde, Mittheilungen, Göttingen, 1884, i, 203.



VIII. The Ethiopic Version: In Ethiopic there exists a translation of the Bible which has continued the only one authorized among Abyssinian Christians, and even among the Jewish Falashas; and it still maintains its ancient authority, although the Ethiopic long ago ceased to be spoken. There is no reliable information as to the exact time or manner of its origin; but it is certain that it was made from the Septuagint in the early days of Abyssinian Christianity, between the fourth and the sixth century. It is very faithful, being, for the most part, a verbal rendering of the Greek, readable and fluent, and in the Old Testament often renders closely the ideas and the words of the Hebrew.


Dillmann projected an edition of the Ethiopic Old Testament in five volumes, of which he lived to publish vols. i, Gen.-Ruth (1853), ii, Sam.-Kings (1861-71), and v, the Apocrypha (1894). He arranged the manuscripts in three groups: (1) those which contain the original translation from the Septuagint uncorrupted; (2) those the text of which has been revised and completed from the Greek; (3) those which have been corrected from the Hebrew. From the circumstance that the Ethiopic Church was dependent on that in Egypt, it is probable that the particular recension of the Septuagint from which the Ethiopic translation was made was the Hesychian (see above, I, 1, § 5). But the early Aramaic-speaking missionaries influenced the translation, as is shown by the numerous Aramaic words which are employed to convey Christian ideas. Possibly the Bible was translated, at least in part, by these missionaries or their pupils.


The division into chapters was introduced at a later day into Abyssinia, under European influences. The Ethiopic Bible includes the Apocrypha, except the books of Maccabees, which were either not translated or very early lost, and several pseudepigrapha, and puts them upon perfect equality with the canonical writings; and in this way the number of books is given as eighty-one, forty-six for the Old Testament, thirty-five for the New. (See ABYSSINIA AND THE ABYSSINIAN CHURCH.)



Bibliography: For lists of Ethiopic MSS. available consult the Catalogues by A. T. d’Abbadie, Paris, 1859 (a general list), by C. F. A. Dillmann (for British Museum), London, 1847 (for Bodleian Library), Oxford, 1848, and (for Berlin) Berlin, 1878. by W. Wright (for British Museum), London, 1817, and Zotenberg (for Bibliothèque Nationale), Paris; ZDMG, v. 164 sqq. (for those in Tübingen), ZDMG, xvi, (for Vienna), Bulletin scientifique publié par l'Académie des Sciences, ii, 302, iii, 145 sqq. (for those in St. Petersburg), and a general list in C. R. Gregory, Prolegomena, iii, 900-912, Leipsic, 1894. On the version consult: C. F. A. Dillmann, in Jahrbücher der biblischen Wissenschaft, v (1853), 144-151: Reckendorf, in ZATW, vii (1887), 61-90 P. J. Bachmann, Dodekapropheton æthiopum, part 1, Obadiah, Halle, 1892, part 2, Maleachi, 1893, Die Klagelieder, 1893, Jesaia, 1893; L. Goldschmidt, Bibliotheca æthiopica, Leipsic, 1893; Hackspill, in ZA, xi (1897), 150-151. The subject is treated also in C. R. Gregory, Prolegomena, iii, 894-900. ut sup.: in the Einleitung of König, 1893, p. 113, of Jülicher, 1894, p. 388, and of Cornill, 1896, p. 338, and the Introduction of Scrivener, ii, 154-155.


The best ed. of the Old Testament is that of Dillmann (ut sup.). The New Testament was first printed at Rome in 1548-49 by the Abyssinian Tasfa-Sion or, as he is also called, Peter the Ethiopian, reprinted in the London Polyglot. An ed. was issued by T. P. Platt for the BFBS in 1826-30, reprinted at Leipsic, 1899.



IX. The Georgian (Iberian) Version: The earliest translations of parts of the Bible in the language of the Iberians belong to the fifth century, and seem to betray the influence of the Syriac version. David and Stephen in the eighth century are the first names known of men engaged in revision of the Iberian Bible. A papyrus Psalter is assigned to the seventh or eighth century, and a copy of the Gospels is dated a century later (facsimile in Tsagareli). The edition printed at Moscow, 1743, has been retouched from the Slavonic. S. C. Malan in 1862 used this version for his edition of the Gospel of John. On the Georgian manuscripts of the library at Paris there is a recent paper by A. Khakhanov.



Bibliography: Scrivener, Introduction, ii, 156; A. A. Tsagareli, "Information about the Monuments of Georgian Literature" (Russian), parts i-iii, St. Petersburg, 1886-94; C. R. Gregory, Prolegomena, iii, 922-923, Leipsic, 1894; idem, Textkritik, i, 573; J. M. Bebb, in DB, iv, 861; A. Palmieri, Le Versione Georgiane della Bibbia, in Bessarione, 2 ser., vol. v, 250-268, 322-327, vi, 72-77, 189- 194, Rome, 1901-02. On the people consult: A. Leist, Das georgische Volk, Dresden, 1903.



X. The Gothic Version of Ulfilas: Ulfilas (q.v.), the Moses of the Goths, as Constantine styled him (cf. TSK, 1893, 273), was made bishop probably in 34l at Antioch and died in 38l or 383. He gave to his people the alphabet and the Bible, but, according to Philostorgius (Hist. eccl., ii, 5), omitted to translate the books of Kings because he thought they contained too much about war for the good of his fierce countrymen. Of the Old Testament very few fragments are left; viz., Gen. v, 3-30; Ps. lii, 2-3; Ezra xv (i.e. Neh. v), 13-16, xvi, 14-xvii, 3, xvii, 13-45. The translation follows the recension of Lucian (see above, I, 1, § 5). The Gothic priests Sunnias and Fretela, who were in correspondence with Jerome about the true readings of certain passages in the Psalter some twenty years after the death of Ulfilas (cf. Jerome, Epist., cvi), were perhaps engaged in a revision of the Gothic Psalms. That the Psalms were sung in Gothic at Constantinople is testified by Chrysostom (cf. the dissertation of J. Muhlau, Zur Frage nach der gotischen Psalmenübersetzung, Kiel, 1904). On the frag- ments of Ezra (Nehemiah), cf. E. Langner, Die gotischen Nehemia-fragmente (Sprottau, 1903).


More of the New Testament is preserved, thanks to the Codex Argenteus now in Upsala, also by a palimpsest from Weissenburg discovered in Wolfenbüttel in 1756, and fragments at Turin discovered by Angelo Mai in 1817 and by Reifferscheid in 1866. The Codex Argenteus must have had a very near relationship to Codex f. of the Latin Bible (cf. M. Haupt, Die Vorrede der gotischen Bibelübersetzung, in his Opuscula, vol. iii, Leipsic, 1876; Burkitt, JTS, i, 129; Kauffmann, ZDP, xxxii, 305- 335; Dräseke, ZWT, 1907). It was perhaps part of a Greek, Gothic, and Latin Testament. The version is very faithful, following the text used by Chrysostom. More than 100 Greek and Latin words were retained by Ulfilas (cf. C. Elis, Ueber die Fremdwörter und fremden Eigennamen in der gotischen Bibelübersetzung, Göttingen, 1903).



Bibliography: E. Bernhardt, Kritische Untersuchungen über die gothische Bibelübersetzung, Meiningen, 1867; K. Weinhold, Die gothische Sprache im Dienste des Christenthums, Halle, 1870; A. Kisch, Der Septuaginta-Codex des Ulphilas, in Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, xxii, (1873), 42-46, 85-89, 215-219; O. Ohrloff, Die Bruchstücke . . . der gotischen Bibelübersetzung, Halle, 1873; idem, in ZDP, vii (1876), 251-295; A. Schaubach, Ueber das Verhältnis der gothischen Bibelübersetzung . . . zu der Lutherischen . . . , Meiningen, 1879; G. Kauffmann, in Zeitschrift üur deutsches Alterthum, xxvii (1883); K. Marold, Kritische Untersuchungen über den Einfluss des Lateins auf die gothische Bibelübersetzung, Konigsberg, 1881; C. R. Gregory, Prolegomena, iii, 1108, Leipsic, 1894; F. Kauffmann, in ZDP, xxix (1896), 306-337; W. Bangert, Der Einfluss lateinischer Quellen auf die gothische Bibelübersetzung, Rudolstadt, 1880; W. Luft and F. Vogt, in Zeitschrift für deutsches Alterthum, xlii (1898); J. Muhlau, Zur Frage nach der gotischen Psalmenübersetzung, Keil, 1904. On the language consult: G. H. Balg, Comparative Glossary of the Gothic Language, 8 parts, New York, 1887-90; J. Wright, A Primer of the Gothic Language, London, 1899; on the Gothic alphabet, W. Luft, Studien zu den ältesten germanischen Alphabeten, Gütersloh, 1898.


The Codex Argenteus was first published by Franciscus Junius (du Jon), Dort, 1665; with the other fragments, glossary, etc., by H. C. de Gabelentz and J. Loebe, Leipsic, 1836 and 1846; in facsimile by A. Uppström, Upsala, 1854, supplemented in 1857 by ten leaves which had been stolen but afterward recovered. The edition most used in Germany is by F. L. Stamm, Paderborn, 1858, 9th ed., with dictionary by M. Heyne and grammar by F. Wrede, 1896. Another ed. with apparatus is by E. Bernhardt, Halle, 1875 (text ed., 1884). There is an American edition by G. H. Balg. The First Germanic Bible, Milwaukee, 1891. Partial eds. are J. Bosworth, The Gothic and Anglo-Saxon Gospels ...with... Wycliffe and Tyndale, London, 1865, new ed., 1907, and W. W. Skeat, Mark, London, 1882.



B. Modern Versions.


I. Arabic Versions: "There are more Arabic versions of the Gospels than can be welcome to theology, with its press of work," wrote Lagarde in the preface of his edition of the four Gospels in Arabic (Leipsic, 1864). There are translations made from Hebrew, Samaritan, Coptic, Latin, Syriac, and Greek. There was not, as it seems, a translation into Arabic before Mohammed (cf. M. J. de Goeje and M. Schreiner, in Semitic Studies in Memory of Alexander Kohut, Berlin, 1897, p. 495.) John of Seville is said to have produced an Arabic Bible about 737; the chronicle of Michael Syrus mentions an Arabic translation of the Gospels made under direction of John, patriarch of Antioch, at the command of the emir Amru. The "Indians" mentioned by Chrysostom between Egyptians and Persians as in possession of the Scriptures in their mother tongue may be South-Arabians, but there is no additional information about this version.


Of translations from the Hebrew Old Testament, by far the most important is the work of Saadia ben Joseph, the Gaon, from the Fayyum (d. 942; see SAADIA). On Saadia and his translation, cf. H. Ewald and L. Dukes, Beiträge zur Geschichte der ältesten Auslegung und Spracherklärung des alten Testaments, ii (Stuttgart, 1844); S. Munk, in La Bible, traduction nouvelle . . . par S. Cahen, ix (Paris, 1838,) 73- 159; M. Steinschneider, Die arabische Literatur der Juden (Frankfort, 1902), 56 sqq.; and especially the edition of his collected works by J. H. Derenbourg, vol. i, the Pentateuch (Paris, 1893); iii, Isaiah (1896); iv, Proverbs (1899); v, Job (ed. Bacher, 1899). On the question of the text, cf. P. Kahle, Die arabischen Bibelübersetzungen . . . (Leipsic, 1904), no. viii, and against him Bacher, in TLZ, 1905, no. 8 Saadia's translation of the Pentateuch was printed first in Hebrew letters with the Hebrew text, Targum and a Persian translation at Constantinople, 1546, then in the Paris and London Polyglots (see BIBLES, POLYGLOT, III, IV). For Genesis and Exodus, cf. Lagarde, in his Materialien zur Kritik (Leipsic, 1867). Kahle used for his specimen a manuscript of Florence and Wolfenbuttel, not used by Derenbourg. On Isaiah, cf. Derenbourg, in ZATW, 1890, pp. 1- 84. Of Job there is an edition by J. Cohn (Berlin, 1889). On the Psalms, cf. the dissertations of Haneberg, in AMA, 1841, iii, 2; J. Cohn, in Magazin für die Wissenschaft des Judenthums, 1881. On Canticles, cf. A. Merx, Die Saadjanische Uebersetzung des Hohen Liedes ins Arabische (Heidel- berg, 1882). On Proverbs, cf. a dissertation of Jonas Bondi (Halle, 1888). On Saadia's system of translating, cf. W. Engelkemper, De Saadiæ Gaonis vita, bibliorum versione, hermeneutica (Münster, 1897).


There are other Arabic translations made from the Hebrew by Jews such as the Arabs Erpenii, a translation of the Pentateuch made by an African Jew in the thirteenth century (published by Erpenius, Leyden, 1622), and a translation of the Psalms made by the Karaite Japhet ben Eli (ed. J. J. L. Barges, Paris, 1871); a specimen of his commentary on Genesis is in Kahle, viii; his commentary on Deuteronomy was edited by S. Margoliouth, in Anecdota Oxoniensia, Semitic series, vol. i, part 3, 1899. Hosea and Joel from an Oxford manuscript were edited by Schröter, in Archiv für Wissenschaftliche Erforschung des Alten Testaments, i and ii (1869-70). A Fragment einer arabischen Pentateuchübersetzung was published by J. Hirsch, Leipsic.


The first specimen of an Arabic translation of the Samaritan text was published by A. C. Hwiid (Rome, 1780) from the famous triglot in the Barberini library; then by Paulus, 1789 and 1791; better by de Sacy, in Mémoires de l'Académie des Inscriptions, xlix, 1-199; S. Kohn, in Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, vol. v, part 4 (Leipsic, 1876), 1-499; J. Bloch, Die samaritanisch-arabische Pentateuchübersetzung (Berlin, 1901); and Kahle, ut sup., no. vi. The Samaritans seem to have used at first the translation of Saadia; soon after 1000 they made a translation of their own, which was revised in the middle of the thirteenth century by Abu Said; Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus of this version were edited by Kuenen, 1851-54 (cf. A. Cowley, in JE, x, 677).


Many Coptic manuscripts have an Arabic translation by the side of the Coptic text; in other manuscripts containing only an Arabic version, this is derived from the Coptic (cf. Arab. 3 in the Greek Pentateuch of Holmes-Parsons; see above, I, 1, § 2); for Job such a translation has been edited by Lagarde, Psalterium, Job, Proverbia arabice (Göttingen, 1876); on Psalms, cf. Psalterium Coptice, ed. M. G. Schwartze (Leipsic, 1843), v.


From the Latin, either made from it or corrected by it, are the Roman editions such as that of Sergius Risi (Arabic and Latin, 3 vols., Rome, 1671), the Gospels (1591), and Psalms and Prophets (1614). A new recension by Rafael Tuki contains only Genesis-Nehemiah and Tobit (2 vols., 1752). The edition of 1671 without the Apocrypha has been frequently reprinted by the BFBS since 1822 after it had reprinted the Arabic portion of the London Polyglot under the supervision of J. D. Carlyle (Newcastle, 1811). In 1858 the Gospels, in 1860 the New Testament, in 1865 the Old Testament appeared in the new translation begun by the American missionary Eli Smith (q.v.) and finished by C. V. A. Van Dyck at Beirut, with the help of native scholars. It has been frequently reprinted in Beirut, Oxford, London, and New York. In competition with this translation are two from Roman Catholics, the one undertaken by the Dominicans of Mosul under the direction of Joseph David (4 vols., 1875-78), the other by the Jesuits in Beirut (3 vols., 1876-82; reproduced by photolithography in 1 vol., 1897; cf. on these editions Kahle, iii sqq.; A G. Ellis, Catalogue of Arabic Books in the British Museum, London, 1894 sqq.; the Bible Catalogue of the same library; and Darlow-Moule, Historical Catalogue of the Collection of the BFBS, ii, London, 1908). Independent translations of the New Testament are those of Salomo Negri (London, 1727) and of Nathanael Sabat (Calcutta, 1816). There is also an edition of the Psalms by Negri (London, 1725; cf. G. A. Freylinghausen, Memoria Negriana, Halle, 1764).


From the Syriac Bible is the text of Judges, Ruth, Samuel, I Kings i-xi, II Kings ii, 17 to the end, Chronicles, Neh. ix, 28 to end, and Job in the Paris and London Polyglots. The first four books are, according to Rödiger, by the same author, the rest by different authors. Psalms, Proverbs, and Job have been reissued by Lagarde (Psalterium, etc., ut sup.) and the whole with few alterations by the BFBS (1811, ut sup.). A Psalter in Syriac and Arabic in Syriac letters (the so-called Karshunic script; i.e., Gersom's manner of writing) was printed by Maronite monks of Mount Lebanon at Kozchaya, 1610 (perhaps as early as 1585), and reprinted in Arabic type by Lagarde. Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy in the Materialien of Lagarde seem to have been derived from the Syriac Bible. A translation of the Syriac Hexapla of the Pentateuch and Wisdom is the work of Hareth ben Senan ben Sabat (cf. Nestle, in ZDMG, 1878, p. 468; Holmes-Parsons, Præfatio ad Pentateuchum, and Kahle, ut sup., ix). The fragments of Job were edited by Baudissin, 1870.


From the Greek are translated the prophets and the poetical books (except Job) in the Polyglots, perhaps also the Psalms as edited by Athanasius, patriarch of Antioch (Aleppo, 1700), reprinted by Lagarde with a translation of the tenth century by Abu al-Fath Abdallah ben Fadhl.


Gregory (Textkritik, Leipsic, 1902) mentions 137 Arabic manuscripts for the New Testament. On no. 136, cf. Stenij, Die altarabische Uebersetzung der Briefe an die Hebräer, an die Römer und an die Korinther (Helsingfors, 1901). For the manuscripts on Mount Sinai, cf. thc catalogue of Mrs. M. D. Gibson, in Studia Sinaitica, iii (Cambridge, 1894), and her publication of a part of an Arabic translation of the Epistles of St. Paul in no. ii (1893) of the same collection; also in no. vii (1899), an Arabic translation of Acts and of the seven Catholic Epistles from an eighth or ninth century manuscript. On the revision of the Arabic made about 250 at Alexandria by Hibath Allah ibn al-Assaly with various readings from the Greek, the Syriac, and the Coptic, cf. D. B. Macdonald, in the Hartford Seminary Record, Apr., 1893. Finally, the Arabic version of Tatian's Diatessaron (ed. Ciasca, Rome, 1888) must not he forgotten.



Bibliography: On the MSS. the one indispensable book is I. Guidi, Le traducioni degli evangelii in arabo . . ., Rome, 1888; and valuable is also C. R. Gregory, Prolegomena, iii, 928-947, Leipsic, 1894. On the version and editions consult: Walton's Polyglot, Prolegomena, chap. 14, London, 1652; C. F. Schnurrer, Bibliotheca arabica, de Pentateucho arabico ..., Tübingen, 1780; H. E. G. Paulus, Commentatio critica, Jena, 1789; R. Holmes, Vetus Testamentum Græce, the Preface to the Pentateuch, Oxford, 1798; J. Roediger, Commentatio . . . de interpretatione Arabica . . . , Halle, 1824; idem, De origine . . . Arabicæ . . . interpretationis, ib. 1829; J. Gildemeister, De evangeliis in Arabicum . . . translatis, Bonn, 1865; Gregory, Textkritik; Scrivener, Introduction, ii, 161- 164; F. C. Burkitt, in DB, i, 136-138 (a lucid presentation).


II. Celtic Versions: No version of the Bible or of single Biblical books in any of the Celtic dialects has come down from the pre-Reformation period, though a few Biblical extracts in Old Irish (8th-11th centuries) are extant in homilies. After the establishment of the English Church in 1560 as the State Church, Bishop Nicholas Walsh of Ossory and others made an effort toward giving the Bible to the Irish people, and the New Testament, translated by William O’Donnell, archbishop of Tuam, was published at Dublin in 1603 in Irish characters. This edition was republished at London in 1681, and in 1685 the Old Testament, translated by Bishop William Bedell of Kilmore and others, was issued. This edition was often reprinted, especially in a revised form by the British and Foreign Bible Society in 1827. A translation of the New Testament into the modern dialect of Munster by Dr. R. O'Kane appeared at Dublin, 1858. Of the Roman Catholic translation prepared by Archbishop John MacHale of Tuam from the Vulgate, the first volume only (Genesis-Joshua) has appeared (Tuam, 1861). Gaelic, which is spoken in the Highlands and western isles of Scotland, is related to Irish; consequently the Scottish minister Robert Kirke, in order to satisfy the needs of the Protestant Highlanders, had O’Donnell’s Irish translation of the New Testament printed in Roman letters and supplied with an Irish-Gaelic glossary (London, 1690). To provide the Gaelic-speaking Highlanders with a Bible of their own, the Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge published in 1767 the New Testament translated by James Stuart of Killin, and in 1783-1801 a translation of the Old Testament prepared by John Stuart, Jr., and John Smith. At the instance of the same society, Dr. Mark Hildesley, bishop of Man, distributed different parts of the Bible among the Manx-speaking clergy of the Isle of Man, with the view of having a translation prepared into this tongue. The whole was revised by P. Moore and his pupil John Kelly. In 1770-72 the Bible in Manx was printed for the above society at Whitehaven under the supervision of J. Kelly, and is the basis of all later editions.


Before the Reformation hardly any parts of the Bible were translated into Cymric. In 1562 the House of Commons resolved to have the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer translated into Cymric within four years, and made the bishops of Bangor, St. Asaph, Hereford, Llandaff, and St. Davids responsible for its execution. The New Testament was published in London in 1567, and in 1588 the whole Bible (revised by Bishop Richard Parry, 1620). All later issues follow Parry’s revised text. The Bible has never been translated into Cornish. A manuscript belonging to the first half of the eighteenth century contains a translation of Gen. i, iii; Matt. iv, vi, 9-13, vii; and the ten commandments. Before the beginning of the nineteenth century only short passages of the Bible had appeared in the Breton. The British and Foreign Bible Society published at Angouleme in 1827 the New Testament translated by the Breton scholar Le Gonidec into the dialect of Leon. The translation was made from the Vulgate, and was for other reasons unsuitable. A new translation by the Baptist missionary John Jenkins was printed at Brest in 1847. Le Gonidec’s translation of the Old Testament was revised by Troude and Milin, and published at Saint-Brieuc in 1866. In 1883 the Trinitarian Bible Society published a New Testament in the dialect of Tréguier, prepared by the Breton Protestant G. Ar C’hoat, and in 1889 the whole Bible. A Roman Catholic translation of the New Testament was published in Guingamp in 1853, and an edition of the Psalms at Paris in 1873. For linguistic purposes C. Terrien translated the Gospel of Matthew into the dialect of Vannes (Lundayn, 1857) at the instance of Lucien Bonaparte.



Bibliography: J. Reid, Bibliotheca Scoto-Celtica, Glasgow, 1832; the Scottish-Celtic Review, Nov., 1881, pp. 150 sqq.; T. Llewelyn, An Historical Account of the British or Welsh Versions and Editions of the Bible, London, 1768; W. Rowland, Llyfryddiaeth of Cymry, pp. 10-21, 41-50, 93-97, Llandloes, 1869; Revue Celtique, vi, 382, xi, 180-190, 368; Bible of Every Land, pp. 151-173, London, 1861; I. Bal- linger, The Bible in Wales, London, 1906.



III. Dutch Versions: The first printed Dutch version (Delft, 1477), was made, apparently by a layman, probably about 1300 from the Latin. Some parts, which the translator was unwilling to popularize, as Deut. xxii, 13-21, are passed over with a reference to the Latin text. Difficult passages have explanations mostly from the Historia scholastica of Peter Comestor. The printed edition omits Psalms and the New Testament, though both are contained in a good manuscript of this version at Vienna. A very good translation of the Psalms is found in several incunabula. About 1,300 translations of the New Testament, or at least of the church lessons or of the life of Christ, began to be made. A translation of the New Testament of Erasmus appeared at Delft in 1524, and two years before at Antwerp a translation of Luther’s version was printed by Hans van Roemundt (repeated at Basal, 1525 and 1526, also, a little altered, at Amsterdam, 1526). The Old Testament with the Pentateuch and Psalms translated from Luther, the rest the text of the Delft edition revised, was printed, also by Roemundt, in 1525 in four small vols.; and the first complete Dutch Bible was printed at Antwerp in 1526 by Jacob van Liesveldt. It was reprinted and corrected several times until 1546, when Charles V prohibited the edition.


Roman Catholic editions of the New Testament followed in 1527, 1530, and 1533, in Dutch and Latin in 1539. The whole Bible did not appear until after the meeting of the Council of Trent, at Cologne in 1548 by Alexander Blanckart, and at Louvain in the same year by Nicolaus van Winghe with a sharp preface against the Protestant editions. In 1599 it was revised after the official Vulgate of 1592, again in 1717 by Ægidius Wit of Ghent. After 1820 the Roman Catholics were allowed to use editions without notes, and such an edition of 1599, called the Mörentorf Bible (from its publisher), was circulated by the British and Foreign Bible Society.


The division of Dutch Protestantism into various parties, Lutherans, Mennonites, and Reformed, caused the production of various versions. The Lutherans received a version in 1558 after Bugenhagen’s edition in Low German; it has been several times revised and reprinted up to 1851. The Mennonites used a version printed by Nicolaes Biestkens at Emden in 1560, the first Dutch edition with verse divisions. The Reformed received another in 1556, based on the Zurich Bible of 1548-49 (see below, VII, § 5); but in 1562 they adopted a version based on Luther’s, called the Deux Aes or Eulenspiegel Bible (from the marginal notes at Neh. ii, 5 and Ecclus. xix, 5). The Remonstrants used at first the Staatenbibel (see below) but received a New Testament of their own from Hartsoeker in 1680.


After the beginning of the seventeenth century the necessity of improving the Dutch versions was felt and was shown especially by W. Baudartius of Zutphen, who published in 1614 an emended translation. As early as 1594 the States General determined on undertaking a revision. The result is the Staatenbibel. At first Philips van Marnix (q.v.) was entrusted with the task of a new translation; in 1596 Johannes Drusius (q.v.) was appointed his assistant. The Synod of Dort discussed the question in eight sessions in Nov., 1618, and May, 1619. The work of translation was completed in 1632, the revision of the Old Testament Sept., 1634, that of the New Testament, Oct. 10, 1635. The first edition was printed, with and without notes, in 1636, but not published before July 29, 1637. An official list of misprints followed in 1655 and in 1711 for the first time an edition was stereotyped. An edition of 500 copies of the New Testament was printed for Peter the Great in 1717, and of the Old Testament in five parts in 1721, in two columns, one being left blank in order to receive in St. Petersburg the Russian text. Language and orthography raised difficult questions in a revision of 1762, and another by Henry Cats and W. A. van Hengel in 1834. The first impression for the British and Foreign Bible Society was made in 1812.


About the middle of the last century members of the theological faculty of Leyden began a new revision; the New Testament was finished in 1866; work on the Old Testament was interrupted for a time, but was resumed in 1884 by A. Kuenen and his pupils, H. Oort, W. H. Kosters, and J. Hooykas. The first instalment appeared at Leyden in 1897, the first part (Gen.-Esther) in 1900, the second part (Job-Malachi) in 1901.


Of other translations that by J. H. van der Palm (1825 and often) is worthy of mention. The New Testament has been translated by G. Vissering, a Mennonite (1854), by S. P. Lipman, a Roman Catholic (1861), and by G. J. Vos of the Reformed Church (1895). 



Bibliography: The really important work is Isaac Le Long, Boek-Zaal der nederduitsche Bybels, Amsterdam, 1732, 2d ed., 1764. Consult also Bible of Every Land, pp. 181-186, London, 1861; H. van Druten, Geschiendenis der Nederlandsche Bijbelvertaling, 2 vols., Leyden, 1896-97; G. N. De Vooys, ThT, March, 1903; J. M. Bebb. in DB, extra vol., pp. 414-415.


On the Staatenbibel consult N. Hinlopen, Historie van de Nederlandsche Overzettinge des Bybels, Leyden, 1777; P. Meyjes, Jacobus Revius, Amsterdam, 1895; J. Heinsius, Klank-en Buigingsleer van de taal des statenbijbels, Amsterdam, 1897.



IV. English Versions: 1. The Earliest Versions. Setting aside the Biblical poetry that is in the main wrongly ascribed to the Anglo-Saxon Caedmon (q.v.), and the translation of John’s Gospel which Bede finished on his deathbed, but of which nothing further is known, the Psalms seem to have been the first part of the Bible to be translated into English. An Anglo-Saxon paraphrase is extant containing the first fifty Psalms in prose, the rest in verse (ed. B. Thorpe, Oxford, 1835), which has been incorrectly attributed to Aldhelm (q.v.), bishop of Sherborne, who died in 709, and to King Alfred; the name of the translator is not known, but he did his work after 778 and used the Latin, not the Greek text, as did all the others down to and including Wyclif. A translation of the four Gospels was made probably in the ninth century (ed. Matthew Parker, 1571; T. Marshall, 1665; B. Thorpe, Tha halgan Godspel on Englisc. The Anglo-Saxon Version of the Holy Gospels, London, 1842; Joseph Bosworth and George Waring, The Gothic and Anglo-Saxon Gospels, London, 1865; new ed., 1907), and interlinear glosses for the Psalms and the Gospels in the ninth and tenth centuries (Psalterium Davidis Latino-Saxonicum vetus, London, 1640). The so-called Vespasian Gospels probably belong to the first half of the ninth century (cf. J. Stevenson, Anglo-Saxon and Early English Psalter, 2 vols., London, 1843-47; H. Sweet, The Oldest English Texts, Early English Text Society, vol. 83, London, 1885, pp. 183-420; E. Wende, Ueberlieferung und Sprache der mittelenglischen Version des Psalters und ihr Verhältnis zur lateinischen Vorlage, Breslau, 1884). There are other similar glosses to the Psalter in the libraries of Cambridge University and Trinity College, Cambridge, in the British Museum, in the Bodleian at Oxford, in Lambeth Palace, and Salisbury Cathedral. For other Gospel versions, cf. G. Stevenson and G. Waring, The Lindisfarne and Rushworth Gospels (4 vols., Durham and London, 1854-65); K. W. Bouterwek, Die vier Evangelien in alnorthumbrischer Sprache (Gütersloh, 1857); W. W. Skeat, The Gospel according to Matthew, etc. (Cambridge, 1887,--Mark, 1871; Luke, 1871; John, 1878); A. S. Cook, A Glossary of the Old Northumbrian Gospels (Halle, 1894). Alfric (q.v.) translated the Pentateuch and Joshua in 997-998. The following may also be mentioned: homilies on the lessons by the Augustinian monk Ormin in the twelfth or thirteenth century (the so-called Ormulum): the translation of the Psalms by William de Shorham, vicar of Chart- Sutton, near Leeds in County Kent, about 1325 (the manuscript in Trinity College, Dublin, owned by John Hyde and perhaps written by him, may be a revision of this translation); and the commentary with a translation of the Psalms by Richard Rolle of Hampole near Doncaster, Yorkshire, written about 1330 (cf. H. R. Bramley, The Psalter . . . by Richard Rolle . . . Edited from Manuscripts, Oxford, 1884; Heinrich Middendorff, Studien über Richard Rolls von Hampole, Magdeburg, 1888).


2. Wyclif. The language developed and the thoughts of men strode onward. John Wyclif (q.v.) entered the lists to war for the pure truth, and he determined to give the people the Bible. With the help of his pupil Nicholas of Hereford (q.v.) he seems to have translated the whole Bible, and when he was charged with heresy and driven from Oxford in 1382, he withdrew to Lutterworth and revised the whole very carefully. His pupil John Purvey (q.v.) appears also to have revised some things in the Old Testament; he did all he could to spread the translation abroad after Wyclif’s death (cf. The New Testament in English, Translated by John Wycliffe circa 1380, now first printed from a contemporary manuscript. . . Printed at Chiswick by Charles Whittingham for William Pickering, London, 1848; Josiah Forshall and Frederic Madden, The Holy Bible . . . in the Earliest English Versions Made. . . by John Wycliffe and his Followers, 4 vols., Oxford, 1850, with a list of 170 manuscripts; J. ten Brink, Geschichte der englischen Litteratur, vol. ii, by Alois Brandl, Strasburg, 1893, pp. 5-32, especially pp. 27; A. Richter, Das Wycliffesche Evangelium Johannis im 500. Bde. der Tauchnitzer Collection of British Authors, die Wycliffesche Bibelübersetzung, und das Verhältnis des ersteren zu der letzteren, programme of the gymnasium at Wesel, Aug. 30, 1862). The first English Bible, the first Bible at all in a modern tongue, was well received by the people, but for a century and a half was the object of attack by priests and nobility. Even long after the discovery of printing no one could think of publishing this translation. It finally came out as a literary necessity in 1731, edited by J. Lewis (reprinted by H. H. Baber, London, 1810, and by Bagster, London, 1841; the edition of 1848 is named above). For another version of this period consult the work of a Swedish lady, Anna C. Paues, A Fourteenth Century English Biblical Version (Cambridge, 1904).


3. Tyndale. The first to translate the New Testament in English from the original Greek was William Tyndale (q.v.). He printed Matthew and Mark first, somewhere on the Continent, in 1524 and 1525, and then the whole New Testament in quarto, partly at Cologne at Peter Quentel’s before 1526, partly, it seems, at Worms (at Peter Schöffer's?) in 3,000 copies, and in octavo at Cologne at Schöffer's in 3,000 copies. Both editions were in England by about March, 1526 (cf. The First Printed English New Testament Translated by William Tyndale. Photolithographed . . . Edited by E. Arber, London, 1871; The First New Testament Printed in the English Language . . . by William Tyndale. Reproduced in facsimile . . . by F. Fry, Bristol, 1862; James Loring Cheney, The Sources of Tyndale’s New Testament, Halle, 1883, especially pp. 39, 40; W. Sopp, Orthographie und Aussprache der ersten neuenglischen Bibelübersetzung von William Tyndale, Marburg, 1889). The hierarchy attacked Tyndale’s work violently. The first public burning of the volume appears to have taken place in the autumn of 1526. William Warham (q.v.), archbishop of Canterbury, thought in May, 1527, that his agents had bought up all the copies of all three editions. In 1528 the readers of the New Testament had to take their turn at being burned. Tyndale published the Pentateuch Jan. 17, 1530 (see TYNDALE, WILLIAM), Joshua in 1531.


4. Coverdale. Other Editions. William Roye, George Joye (afterward a bitter enemy), Miles Coverdale (q.v.), John Rogers (q.v.), and John Frith (q.v.) were among the friends who from time to time worked with Tyndale. Coverdale completed at Antwerp, Oct. 4, 1535, the printing of his translation of the whole Bible "out of Douche and Latyn" (i.e. the German of Luther and the Zurich Bible of 1524-29--see below, VII, § 5--and the Vulgate), using also Tyndale’s work. This was the first complete Bible in English; in it the non-canonical books of the Old Testament are in an appendix by themselves, named "Hagiographa." In 1537 the "Matthew" Bible came out, a speculation on the part of the king’s printer, although most of it was perhaps printed in Antwerp; it was a combination of Tyndale and Coverdale, made by John Rogers (alias Matthew) in Antwerp. In 1539 appeared the "Taverner" Bible, a revision of the Matthew Bible by Richard Taverner (q.v.). The "Great" Bible was brought out by Cromwell, Earl of Essex, Thomas Cranmer (q.v.), and Thomas More (q.v.), and committee of prelates and scholars, and was printed under Coverdale’s supervision, partly at Paris, till the Inquisitor-General attacked it Dec. 17, 1538, and then in London, where the volume was finished in Apr., 1539; the second edition ("Cranmer’s" Bible, 1540) was "apoynted to the vse of the churches"; the Psalter from this Bible still stands in the prayer-book of the English Church. In 1557 William Whittingham published at Geneva an English New Testament with Stephens’s verse-division of 1551 (see BIBLE TEXT, III, §§ 2-3) and with many corrections of the translation. In 1558 Coverdale began in Geneva a new Bible, but returned to England in 1559, while Whittingham, Anthony Gilby, and Thomas Sampson finished the printing of the handsome edition known as the "Geneva" Bible in Apr., 1560. Archbishop Parker (q.v.) with eleven bishops and four minor prelates began in 1563 a revision of the edition of 1539, which was completed Oct. 5, 1568 as the "Bishops’" Bible; but it was not especially liked; in the churches they used chiefly the Bible of 1539 and at home the Geneva Bible. See BIBLES, ANNOTATED, AND BIBLE SUMMARIES, II, §§ 1-2.


5. The Douai Bible. The Roman Catholic fugitives on the Continent now prepared an English version and published the New Testament at Reims in 1582; the Old Testament followed in two volumes at Douai (q.v.) in 1609-10 (the first edition of the "Douai" Bible; cf. Gregory Martin, A Discoverie of the Manifold Corruptions of the Holie Scriptures by the Heretikes of our Daies, etc., Reims, 1582; William Fulke, A Defence of the Sincere and True Translations of the Holie Scriptures . . . against . . . Gregorie Martin, London, 1583, ed. C. H. Hartshorne for the Parker Society, Cambridge, 1843). [Both works profess to be "faithfully translated out of the authentical Latin, diligently conferred with the Hebrew, Greek, and other editions in divers languages," and are provided with arguments of books and chapters, annotations, and "other helps for the better understanding of the text, and specially for the discovery of the corruptions of divers late translations, and for clearing the controversies in religion of these days." The New Testament was reprinted at Antwerp in 1600; the two Testaments were united by Richard Challoner (q.v.) in a five volume edition published in London, 1749-50. The version was promoted by Cardinal William Allen (q.v.) and the translation was by Gregory Martin, a former fellow of St. John’s College, Oxford, revised by Allen, Richard Bristow, fellow of Exeter College, Oxford, and probably others. The annotations, tables, etc., for the Old Testament were by Thomas Worthington, a graduate of Oxford (Brasenose College) and president of Douai College 1599-1613. The long interval between the publication of the two Testaments was due to lack of means as the translation of both was completed before 1582. The English of the translation is faulty owing to too close following of the Vulgate, and from the critical standpoint it possesses the advantages and defects inherent in that Latin version. An elaborate preface of more than twenty pages explains and justifies the translation. The notes are characterized by the controversial spirit of the time in which they were produced. The Douai version became the standard Bible of the English Roman Catholics and, with extensive changes in language and orthography introduced in Challoner’s various editions (see CHALLONER, RICHARD), still remains such. American editions were published in New York in 1854 and 1861. Consult Henry Cotton, Rhemes and Doway (Oxford, 1855); F. E. C. Gigot (Roman Catholic), General Introduction to the Study of the Scriptures (New York, 1900), pp. 345 sqq.]


6. The Authorized Version. Puritan dissatisfaction with existing versions, or perhaps with the existence of another version than the one used and approved by themselves, was urged by John Reynolds (q.v.), head of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, at the Hampton Court Conference (q.v.) in Jan., 1604. The idea of a new Bible translation, to be made ostensibly at his instance and under his direction, was congenial to James I. By the summer of 1604 the preliminaries were completed. A commission of six "companies," each of nine scholars (two companies each in Westminster, Oxford, and Cambridge; actually forty-seven members took part; for names of the translators, the division of the work, and much other information about the Authorized Version in convenient form, cf. Mombert’s Hand Book, chap. xiii; Schaff’s Companion, chap. vii), was appointed by James and very strict rules were laid down for the work. After years of labor (although some say that the work really began only in 1607 and lasted but two years and a half), during which some passages were wrought over fourteen or even seventeen times, the version appeared in 1611 in two folio editions, set up and printed at the same time so as to have a large number of copies very quickly; in the same year a duodecimo edition came out, of which only one copy (in the Lenox Library, New York City) is said to be known, and in 1613 what is called the second folio edition. The translation was then called "The Authorized Version" (although it does not appear ever to have been "authorized") or "King James’s Version," and the title read "Appointed to be read in Churches." The translation was good, clear, dignified, idiomatic, and suited to the people. Of course, like everything new, it was, at first and for a long time sharply attacked, but little by little it made its way, and in 1661 the Epistles and Gospels in the English prayer book were changed to this translation. F. H. A. Scrivener published a critical edition of this version: The Cambridge Paragraph Bible of the Authorized English Version, etc. (Cambridge, 1873), in which he compared many of the reprints, as well as the revisions of Dr. Paris in 1762, Dr. Blayney in 1769, and of the American Bible Society in 1867; unfortunately Scrivener does not give the exact text of 1611 or of 1613.


7. The Revised Version. On Feb. 10, 1870, on motion of Samuel Wilberforce (q.v.), bishop of Winchester; the Convocation of Canterbury determined upon a revision of the Authorized Version (cf. Mombert, Hand Book, chap. xiv; Schaff, Companion, chap. viii). About thirty-seven scholars were asked to take up the Old Testament, and about twenty-nine the New Testament, although the number really working at any time was less. At least five religious bodies besides the Church of England shared in the work. In like manner two groups of scholars from nine different religious bodies took up the work in America and the results of the deliberations were exchanged across the sea. The Greek text of the New Testament (cf. The Greek Testament with the Readings Adopted by the Revisers of the Authorized Version, Oxford, 1881) was thoroughly worked over and the translation made on the basis of the result compared with the translation of 1611, and in every detail filed and polished. The revised New Testament was published in England May 17, 1881, and in America, May 20, 1881; the Old Testament appeared May 19, 1885. Three million copies of the New Testament were sold within a year. The reception, especially in England, was at first, as was to be expected, not very friendly. A very few indeed were dissatisfied because too few alterations had been made. The great mass struggled against the change of old familiar words and found support in one scholar or another. Some conservative scholars condemned the English dress while they approved the changes made in the original text, and others took offense at the new readings in the original text, because they considered the common readings sacred. America had a peculiar reason for complaint, seeing that many an expression which American scholars had preferred was to be found only in the appendix, and they were bound not to issue a new edition within fourteen years. That time was up in 1896, and the American edition, a model of exact work, appeared in New York in 1901. As the years pass the revision gains friends, and gains them more rapidly than did the revision of 1611.




8. Minor Versions. The following is a list (incomplete) of translations of the Bible or parts of it into English or attempts at revision of the Authorized Version by individuals previous to the revision of 1881-85 (see also BIBLES, ANNOTATED, AND BIBLE SUMMARIES, II). Daniel Mace, a Presbyterian clergyman, N. T. (2 vols., London, 1729; Gk. text with a scholarly but eccentric transl.); Anthony Purver, a Quaker, A New and Literal Transl. of All the Books of the O. and N. T. (2 vols., London, 1764; has notes); Edward Harwood, A Liberal Transl. of the N. T. (2 vols., London, 1768; described as an attempt to translate the sacred writings with the "freedom, spirit, and elegance" of other translations from the Greek; has notes and includes the First Epistle of Clement); Henry Southwell, entire Bible (London, 1782; the A. V. with notes, "wherein the mistranslatlons are corrected"); George Campbell, professor in Aberdeen, The Four Gospels (2 vols., London. 1789; has dissertations and notes); Gilbert Wakefield, a Unitarian, N. T. (3 vols., London, 1791); James Macknight, All the Apostolical Epistles (4 vols., Edinburgh, 1795; has commentary, notes, and life of Paul); William Newcome, archbishop of Armagh, N. T. (2 vols., Dublin, 1796; from Griesbach's text; a Unitarian version based on Newcome's work was issued by Thomas Belsham in 2 vols., London, 1808; Newcome also published "attempts" at improved versions of the Minor Prophets, 1785, and Ezekiel, 1788; his manuscript materials for a revised O. T. are in Lambeth Palace); Nathaniel Scarlett, successively a Methodist, Universalist, and Baptist, N. T. (London, 1798; with notes); David Macrae, A Revised Transl. and Interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures, after the Eastern manner, from concurrent authorities of the critics, interpreters, and commentators' copies and versions, showing that the inspired writings contain the seeds of the valuable sciences, etc. (2 parts, London, 1798-99); Charles Thomson, entire Bible, the O. T. from the Septuagint (4 vols., Philadelphia, 1808); John Bellamy, O. T. through Song of Sol. (London, 1818 sqq.; has notes); Alexander Campbell, founder of the Disciples of Christ, N. T. (1826; see CAMPBELL, ALEXANDER); Rodolphus Dickinson, an American Episcopalian, N. T. (Boston, 1833; has notes); Noah Webster, the lexicographer, the Bible "with amendments of the language" (New Haven, 1833; the amendments were the removal of obsolete words or "those deemed below the dignity and solemnity of the subject, the correction of errors in grammar, and the insertion of euphemisms, words, and phrases which are not very offensive to delicacy"); Nathan Hale, N. T. (Boston, 1836; from Griesbach’s text); Granville Penn, N. T. (London, 1836); C. Wellbeloved, a Unitarian, Pentateuch and Job-Song of Sol. (2 vols., London, 1838; "a new transl." with notes); Samuel Sharpe, the Egyptologist, N. T. (London, 1840; from Griesbach’s text) and O. T. (3 vols., 1865; there were eight eds. of the former and four of the latter during the author’s life; Sharpe’s revision is commended for skilful removal of the archaisms of the A. V.); Edgar Taylor, N. T. (London, 1840; from Griesbach’s text; a meritorious version); Joshua V. Himes, the "Millerite," N. T. (Boston, 1849); James Murdock, N. T. from the Peshito (New York, 1851); Andrews Norton, Gospels (2 vols., Boston, 1855); Gospel of John (London, 1857) and Pauline Epistles (1861) by Henry Alford, George Moberly, W. G. Humpbry, C. J. Ellicott, and John Barrow; L. A. Ambrose, N. T. (Boston, 1858; with chronological arrangement and "improved" chapter and verse divisions); L. A. Sawyer, N. T. (Boston, 1858), entire Bible (New York, 1879 sqq.); Robert Young, author of the concordance, entire Bible (Edinburgh, 1863; very literal); T. S. Green, The Twofold N. T. (London, 1864; Gk. text and new transl. in parallel columns); Henry Alford. N. T. (London, 1869); G. R. Noyes, professor in Harvard, N. T. (Boston, 1869; from Tischendorf’s text; Prof. Noyes also published translations of Job, 1827, Psalms, 1831, the Prophets, 1833, and Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles, 1846); J. N. Darby, N. T. (2d ed., London, 1872); J. B. Rotherham, N. T. (London, 1872; from text of Tregelles, with introduction and notes); Samuel Davidson, N. T. (London, 1875; from Tischendorf’s text, with introduction); J. B. McClellan, Gospels (London, 1875; based on A. V. with a "critically revised" text); Julia E. Smith, entire Bible (Hartford, 1876); The Revised English Bible (O. T. by F. W. Gotch and Benjamin Davies, N. T. by G. A. Jacob and S. G. Green, London, 1877; with notes, tables, and maps); The Sunday School Centenary Bible, by T. K. Cheyne, R. L. Clarke, S. R. Driver, A. Goodwin, and W. Sanday (London, 1880; republished, 1832, as The Variorum Teacher’s Bible). The American Bible Union, formed in 1850 (see BIBLE SOCIETIES, III, 2), undertook an English version which should reflect Baptist views in the language used, and published the N. T. 2d. revision, New York and London, 1869) and certain books of the O. T. Since 1882 the work has been continued by the American Baptist Publication Society of Philadelphia and is now nearing completion. Among the scholars who have collaborated in this version are John A. Broadus, T. J. Conant, H. B. Hackett, William R. Harper, Alvah Hovey, A. C. Kendrick, Ira M. Price, J. K Sampey, and B. C. Taylor. A present day tendency is represented by The Bible in Modern English, translated direct from the original languages by Ferrar Fenton, with critical introduction and notes (St. Paul’s epistles, London, 1894; N. T. complete, 1895; O. T., 1903).


The following are by Roman Catholics: John Caryll, a layman, secretary to the queen of James II and intimately associated with the family of James, the Psalms (St. Germains, 1700; a prose version from the Vulgate taking Bellarmine as a guide); Cornelius Nary, parish priest of St. Michan’s, Dublin, The N. T. . . . newly Translated out of the Latin Vulgate (Dublin, 1718; has annotations and notes); Robert Witham, president at Douai, Annotations on the N. T. (2 vols., Douai, 1730 explains the "literal sense," "examines and disproves" false interpretations, and gives "an account of the chief differences betwixt the text of the ancient Latin version and the Greek"); "Troy’s Bible" (Dublin, 1791; ed. the Rev. Bernard MacMahon, who had already edited three annotated editions of the Reims N. T.; this Bible is annotated and the text of the N. T. differs considerably from Challoner; the name comes from J. T. Troy, titular archbishop of Dublin, who approved the work); Alexander Geddes, Genesis-II Chronicles and the Prayer of Manasses (2 vols., London, 1792- 1797) and Psalms i-cviii (1807; see GEDDES, ALEXANDER); the "Newcastle N. T." (1812; differs from every other known edition in the Gospels and Acts); John Lingard, A New Version of the Four Gospels (London, 1836; for the most part from the Greek; has notes); F. P. Kenrick, bishop of Philadelphia, later archbishop of Baltimore, N. T. (2 vols., New York, 1849-51; "a revision of the Rhemish translation with notes"); F. A. Spencer, 0. P., N. T. (New York, 1898 sqq.; from the Greek). The work of Bishop Challoner has been referred to above (§ 5).


9. Rare and Curious Editions. The following are certain rare and curious editions of the English Bible with the passage or fact which gives to each its name. The Breeches Bible: the Geneva Bible of 1560; Gen. iii, 7 reads "They sewed fig leaves together and made themselves breeches" (also in Wyclif); the Bug Bible: an edition of the Matthew Bible in 1551; Ps. xci, 5 reads "So that thou shalt not nede to be afraid for any bugges [i.e., bogies] by night" (also in Coverdale and Taverner); the Caxton Memorial Bible: Oxford, 1877; printed and bound in 100 copies in twelve hours; the Discharge Bible: London, 1802 I Tim. v, 21, "I discharge [for charge] thee before God"; the Ears to Ear Bible: Oxford, 1807; Matt. xiii, 43, "Who hath ears to ear" (also has "good works" for "dead works" in Heb. ix, 14); the Goose Bible: Dort editions of the Geneva Bible, because the Dort press had a goose as its emblem; the He and She Bibles: the first and the second folio editions of the version of 1611; in Ruth iii, 15, the former reads "He measured six measures of barley and laid it on her: and he went into the city"; the latter "and she went into the city"; both issues were used by printers as copy until in and after 1614 all have "she" (cf. the Revised Version, text and margin); the Leda Bible: the first Bishops’ Bible (1568); it used a series of initial letters prepared for Ovid’s Metamorphoses and that for the Epistle to the Hebrews represented Leda and the swan (also called the Treacle Bible, see below); the Murderers’ Bible: has "murderers" for "murmurers" in Jude 16, also other misprints; the Placemakers’ Bible: the second edition of the Geneva Bible (1562); has "placemakers" for "peacemakers" in Matt. v, 9; the Rebekah Bible: London, 1823; Gen. xxiv, 61, "And Rebekah arose and her camels" (for “damsels”); the Rosin Bible: the first Douai Bible (1609-10); Jer. viii, 22, "Is there no rosin in Gilead?" (A. V. "balm"); the Standing Fishes Bible: London, 1806; Ezek. xlvii, 10, "The fishes [for fishers] shall stand upon it"; (the error was repeated in editions of 1813 and 1823); the Thumb Bible: Aberdeen, 1670; it is about one inch square and half an inch thick; the To Remain Bible: Cambridge, 1805; Gal. iv, 29, "Persecuted him that was born after the Spirit to remain even so it is now" (the words "to remain" had been written on the proof in answer to a query whether or not a comma should be deleted; the error was retained in an edition printed for the Bible Society in 1805-06 and in an edition of 1819); the Treacle Bible: the first Bishops’ Bible (1568; also called the Leda Bible, see above); Jer. viii, 22, "Is there no tryacle in Gilead" (cf. the Rosin Bible); the Vinegar Bible: Oxford, 1716-17; has "vinegar" for "vineyard" as the heading to Luke xx (it was printed by J. Baskett, and though the most sumptuous of the Oxford Bibles, soon came to be styled "a basketful of printer’s errors"); the Wicked Bible: London, 1631; the negative was left out of the seventh commandment (it was printed by the king’s printer and there were four editions in the same year; all were suppressed and the printer was fined £300); another Wicked Bible (London, 1653) makes Paul ask, I Cor. vi, 9, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God?" the Wife-Hater Bible: Oxford, 1810; Luke xiv, 26, : "If any man come to me and hate not his father . . . yea, and his own wife [for life] also, he can not be my disciple." The list of misprints might he greatly extended. A Cambridge Bible of 1629 printed and proof-read with great care, introduced "thy doctrine" for "the doctrine" in I Tim. iv, 16, and the error reappeared for many years. An Edinburgh octavo of 1637 has, Jer. iv, 17, "because she hath been religious [rebellious] against me." Perhaps the finest Bible ever printed at Cambridge, (1638) has a famous error in Acts vi, 3, which is said to have cost Cromwell £1,000 as a bribe--"whom ye [for we] may appoint." Cotton Mather relates that a Bible printed before 1702 made David complain in Ps. cxix, 161, "Printers [princes] have persecuted me without a cause." The "wicked" Bible of 1631 does not furnish the only instance of an infelicitous omission of a negative; an Edinburgh Bible of 1760 reads, Heb. ii, 16, "He took on him the nature of angels" (correct reading "he took not"); another (Edinburgh, 1816) has, Luke vi, 29, "Forbid [not] to take thy coat "; and a London Bible of 1817 reads, John xvii, 25, "O righteous Father, the world hath [not] known thee." On the other hand an Edinburgh edition of 1761 makes the Psalmist’s prayer (cxix, 35) "Make me not to go in the path of thy commandments." The errors of an Oxford Bible of 1804 include, Num. xxxv, 18, "The murderer shall surely he put together" (for "to death"), 1 Kings viii, 19, "out of thy lions [loins]," and, Gal, v, 17, "For the flesh lusteth after [against] the Spirit." A Cambridge Bible of 1819 reads in Mal. iv, 2, "shall the son [sun] of righteousness arise . . . and shall [for ye shall] go forth." An Oxford Bible of 1820 has, Isa. lxvi, 9, "Shall I bring to the birth and not cease [cause] to bring forth?" A Cambridge Bible of 1826 has "heart" for "hart" in Ps. xlii, 1, and the error was repeated in an edition of 1830. A Bible printed at Utica, N. Y., in 1829 begins Jas. v, 17. "Elias was a man possible like unto us" ("subject to like passions as we are"). One of Jasper Harding’s early editions, published at Philadelphia, has in I Kings i, 21, "The king shall dagger sleep with his fathers" (the copy read "The king shall sleep with his fathers"). A Bible published at Hartford in 1837 makes II Tim. iii, 16, read, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable . . . for destruction [instruction] in righteousness." An edition printed for the American Bible Society in 1855 has in Mark v, 3, "Who had his dwelling among the lambs [tombs]." The Great Bible in 1539 introduced the mistranslation "fold" for "flock" in John x, 16, and it was not corrected till the Revised Version. Some of the renderings in the early versions are extremely quaint. In (Gen. xxxix, 2, Tyndale has, "And the Lord was with Joseph and he was a lucky fellow," and in Matt. vi, 7, "When ye pray, babble not much." Coverdale renders Judges xv, 9, "Then God opened a gome tooth in the cheke bone so the water went out," and I Kings xxii, 34, "Shott the King of Israel between the mawe and the lunges."


English-speaking Jews have used freely the Authorized Version. also, since its appearance in 1885, the revised Old Testament. The Jewish School and Family Bible (4 parts, London. 1851-61) has a new translation by A. Benisch, and The Jewish Family Bible (London, 1884) has a revision of the Authorized Version by M. Friedlander; the letter was sanctioned by the chief rabbi of the British Jews. Isaac Leeser, a pioneer Jewish rabbi and founder of the Jewish press in America, published a translation of the complete Old Testament at Philadelphia in 1854, giving practically new versions of the Prophets, Psalms, and Job and following the Authorized Version in other parts. In 1898 the Jewish Publication Society of America (Philadelphia) took in hand the preparation of a complete revision, with M. Jastrow, Sr., as editor-in-chief and K. Kohler and F. de Sola Mendes as associate editors. In 1905 Dr. Kohler’s translation of the Psalms was issued (cf. the JE, iii, 194-195).


Bibliography: The most complete view of the literature on the subject is given in S. G. Ayres and C. F. Sitterly, The History of the Eng. Bible, New York, 1898 (a bibliography almost exhaustive, arranged in rubrics). The most complete account up to the time of its publication is J. Eadie, The Eng. Bible, an External and Critical Hist. of... Eng. Translations, 2 vols., London, 1876. The most recent and worthy of confidence, is H. W. Hoare, Evolution of the English Bible...1882-1885, London, 1902 (exceedingly handy). Consult further: T. J. Conant, Popular History of the Translation of the Holy Scriptures into the Eng. Tongue, New York, n.d.; The English Hexapla, published by Bagster, London n.d., has a valuable preface; The Bible of Every Land, pp. 189-205, ib. 1861 (contains specimen paragraphs from several versions); C. Anderson, Annals of the Eng. Bible, new ed. by H. Anderson, ib. 1862; Anglo-American Bible Revision, by Members of the American Revision Committee, New York, 1879; J. Stoughton, Our Eng. Bible, its Translations and Translators, London, 1879; B. Condit, Hist. of the Eng. Bible, New York, 1882; W. F. Moulton, Hist. of the Eng. Bible, London, 1882; B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek, vol. ii, Introduction and Appendix, London, 1881, New York, 1882; J. I. Mombert, Handbook of the Eng. Versions, London. 1907 (valuable); A. S. Cook, The Bible and Eng. Prose Style, Boston, 1892; idem, Biblical Quotations in Old Eng. Prose Writers . . . Introduction on Old Eng. Versions, New York, 1904 (the work of a master, minute and exact); J. Wright, Early Bibles of America, ib. 1892 (on printed editions); R. Lovett, Printed Eng. Bibles 1525-1885, ib. 1894; T. H. Pattison, Hist. of the Eng. Bible, ib. 1894; G. Milligan, The Eng. Bible, a Sketch of its Hist., Edinburgh, 1895; P. Schaff, Companion to the Greek Testament and the Eng. Version, 4th ed., New York, 1896 (deals with the A. V. and R. V.); J. W. Beardslee, Bible among the Nations; Study of the great Translators, ib. 1899; G. L. Owen, Notes on the Hist. and Text of our Early Eng. Bible, London, 1901; E. H. Foley, The Language of the Northumbrian Gloss to the Gospel of St. Matthew, New York, 1903; R. Demans, W. Tindale: A Biography. Being a Contribution to the Early History of the English Bible, London, 1904; Anna C. Paues, Fourteenth Century Eng. Version A. Prologue and Parts of the N. T. now first edited from the MSS., London, 1904; B. F. Westcott, General View of the Hist. of the Eng. Bible, ib. 1905 (the latest ed. of Bishop Westcott’s scholarly work); J. R. Slater. The Sources of Tyndale's Version of the Pentateuch, Chicago, 1906; S. Hemphill, Hist. of the R. V. of the N. T., London, 1906; I. M. Price, Ancestry of our Eng. Bible, Philadelphia, 1907. The Gospels in West Saxon, ed. J. W. Bright, are appearing in Boston, Matthew, 1904, Mark, 1905, Luke, 1906, cf. The Gospels, Gothic, Anglo-Saxon, Wycliffe, and Tyndale Versions, London. 1907.



V. Finnish and Lappish Versions: Although Swedish was formerly the principal language of Finland, which remained a Swedish province till the year 1809, during the period of the Reformation the land acquired a Finnish ecclesiastical language. A young Finn, Michael Agricola (see FINLAND, § 2) became acquainted with Luther at Wittenberg. Having returned to his native land in 1539, he began to translate religious books into Finnish. His translation of the New Testament was published first in 1548; the Psalms and some of the Prophetical books in 1551-52. In 1642 the entire Bible in Finnish by E. Petræus, M. Stadius, H. Hofman, and G. Favorin was published in Stockholm, Finland having at that time no printing establishment. There were new editions in 1683-85 by H. Florinus, and in 1758 by A. Litzelius; a new translation by A. V. Ingman appeared in 1859.


The Lappish and Finnish languages are cognates, the former having several dialects. The Lapps (q.v.) were nominally Christians early in the Middle Ages, but had little real knowledge of Christianity. Thomas von Westen (q.v.) did much for Christian instruction among them during the years 1714-23. Some Christian works were published in Lappish; parts of the Bible were translated and sent to Copenhagen, where they were destroyed by a fire. The Norwegian Bible Society having resolved in 1821 to publish a Lappish translation of the Bible, Provost Kildahl offered his services in 1822 in conjunction with a teacher named Gundersen. Kildahl died the same year, but the work was continued by Gundersen and later by Niels Stockfleth. The first two Gospels were printed in 1838, and the complete New Testament in 1840 (new eds. 1850 and, revised, 1874). Stockfleth translated also parts of the Pentateuch (1840), and the Psalms (1854). A Lapp, Lars Hätta, translated the whole Old Testament, which, after being revised by Prof. J. A. Friis and Seminary-Director Quigstad in Tromsö, was printed in 1875. All these are in the Norwegian-Lapp dialect.


In the Swedish-Lapp dialect a handbook containing the lessons from the Gospels and the Epistles for the church-year, the Psalms, Proverbs, and Ecclesiasticus was published by J. J. Tornäus at Stockholm in 1648. The New Testament was translated by Per Fjellstrom and published in 1755; a new edition and also the entire Bible was issued at Hernösand in 1811.



Bibliography: Bible of Every Land, pp. 319-324, London, 1861.



VI. French Versions: 1. The Earlier Versions. The beginnings of a French Bible may be traced at least to the early twelfth century. In all probability pupils of Lanfranc (d. 1089) translated the Psalter for the first time into the French-Norman vernacular. At that time there was scarcely any difference between the Norman and the French (i.e. the dialect used in the Île-de-France, a province having Paris as its capital). The Psalter, together with the canticles used in the Church, was offered to the French-speaking people in a double form; viz., (1) after the Psalterium Hebraicum, i.e. the Psalter translated by Jerome directly from the Hebrew (cf. Le Livre des Psaumes, ed. from Cambridge and Paris manuscripts, F. Michel, Paris, 1876); (2) after the Psalterium Gallicanum, i.e. according to the Psalter carefully revised by Jerome from the Septuagint (cf. Libri Psalmorum versio antiqua Gallica, ed. F. Michel, Oxford, 1860; see above A, II, 2, § 2). These translations were made word for word, and are interlinear, the Latin text standing between the lines of the French. The translations from the Gallican Psalter were so well received that down to the Reformation no one ventured on a new rendering. The manuscripts of the French Psalter which are still extant, more than 100 in number, without an exception go back to the old Norman Psalter.


About fifty years later Revelation was translated into French in the Norman provinces; also Samuel and Kings (cf. Les Quatre Livres des Rois, publiés par le Roux de Lincy, Paris, 1842). In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries numerous translations originated (cf. G. Paris, La Littérature française au moyen âge, Paris, 1890, §136; J. Bonnard, Les Traductions de La Bible en vers français, Paris, 1884). Toward 1170 Peter Waldo, the head of the Poor Men of Lyons, better known later as the Waldenses (q.v.), brought out translations of several parts of the Bible into the vernacular, which had been made by Lyonnaise priests at his expense, and Pope Innocent III did not rest till these suspicious writings were everywhere suppressed by the Inquisition. Nevertheless some remnants of this old Waldensian literature have been saved from the hands of the inquisitors at Metz and Liege.


2. Guyard des Moulins. Of the versions which have been printed, and of which it is possIble to give some account, mention may be made of that of Guyard des Moulins, canon of St. Peter’s at Aire in Artois, on the borders of Flanders. Taking the Historia scholastica of Peter Comestor (q.v.), composed in Bible history with glosses, he made a free translation of it between 1291 and 1295; added a sketch of the history of Job, Proverbs, and probably the other books ascribed to Solomon; substituted for Comestor’s history of the Maccabees a translation of Maccabees from the Vulgate; and in general made the whole conform more closely to the text of the Vulgate than Comestor had done. Psalms, the Prophets, and the Epistles and Revelation were not in the work as first issued, and it is uncertain whether Acts was not also omitted; they were added, however, in later issues. These parts, brought together, received the name Biblium historiale (Bible historiale; see BIBLES, HISTORICAL), and it was printed and reprinted in great numbers. An edition completed by different hands and making thus the first complete Bible, was issued by order of Charles VIII about 1487, edited by the king’s confessor, Jean de Rely, and printed by Vérard in Paris. Twelve editions of this appeared between 1487 and 1545. This is called La Grande Bible to distinguish it from a work entitled La Bible pour les simples gens, a summary of the history of the Old Testament, of which five editions, four undated, one dated 1535, have been examined. Previous to the edition of 1487, an edition of the New Testament of the same translation as that found in the supplemented work of Guyard, but not by Guyard himself, was printed at Lyons by Bartolomée Buyer, edited by two Augustinian monks, Julien Macho and Pierre Farget. It is undated, but is referred to the year 1477, and justly claims to be the editio princeps of the French Scriptures.


3. Protestant Versions. In the year 1523 there appeared at Paris, from the press of Simon de Colines, an anonymous translation of the New Testament (often reprinted), to which was added in the same year the Psalter and, in 1528, the rest of the Old Testament, issued at Antwerp in consequence of attempts on the part of the French clergy to suppress the book. There can be no doubt that the well-known humanist Jacques Lefèvre d'Étaples (see FABER STAPULENSIS) was the author of this version. The complete work appeared in one volume at Antwerp, 1530. It was placed on the papal Index in 1546; but in 1550 it was reissued at Louvain, edited by two priests, Nicolas de Leuze and François van Larben, who revised the work, striking out all that savored of heresy. The first Protestant version was prepared by Pierre Robert Olivetan (q.v.) within the space of one year, and printed in 1535 by Pierre de Wingle at Serrières, near Neuchâtel, in Switzerland, at the expense of the Waldensians. It was reprinted several times, in one case with a few emendations from the pen of Calvin, in 1545. The Roman critics had denounced Olivetan’s work as of little value because of his supposed ignorance of the languages. But he really knew and used the Hebrew to advantage, and the Old Testament was quite well done; but either through press of time or less accurate knowledge of Greek, the New Testament was inferior. To remedy the defects of Olivetan’s version, the "venerable company" of pastors of Geneva undertook a revision of the work and was assisted by Beza, Simon Goulart, Antoine Fay, and others. The editor was Bonaventure Corneille Bertram, who gives an account of his work in the Lucubrationes Franktallenses (in Pearson’s Critici Sacri, vol. viii). This revised edition appeared in 1588. In this as well as in the following editions the divine name Yahweh was translated by l'Éternel and this rendering is retained to this day in the Protestant Bible of France.


During the seventeenth century this revision of Olivetan’s version, known as the "Geneva Bible," was again revised by different ministers; the editions of G. Diodati (Geneva, 1644), Samuel Des Marets (Amsterdam, 1669), and David Martin (New Testament, Utrecht, 1696; whole Bible, 1707) are the first of such revisions. Martin’s Bible was again revised by the Basel minister Pierre Roques (1744), and is to this day disseminated by Bible Societies along with other editions. Twenty years before Roques published Martin’s revised text, J. F. Osterwald (q.v.), a pastor at Neuchâtel, published anew the Geneva Bible in 1724, and another and revised edition in 1744, in which he embodied the results of the exegetical science of the time. As Osterwald’s translation became the standard version, it was adopted by the British and Foreign Bible Society and issued from time to time. A thoroughly revised version prepared by M. Fossard and other French pastors was published by the French Bible Society in 1887, and this revised text was then adopted by the British and Foreign Bible Society.


The following are other Protestant versions: S. Chastillon (Castalio), complete Bible (2 vols., Basel, 1555); J. Le Clerc (Clericus), N. T. (Amsterdam, 1703); I. de Beausobre and J. Lenfant, N. T. Amsterdam, 1718; often reprinted in Germany and Switzerland); Charles Le Cène, Bible (Amsterdam. 1741); H. A. Perret-Gentil, professor at Neuchâtel, 0. T. (Neuchâtel, 1847 sqq.); E. Arnaud, N. T. (Toulouse, 1858); A. Rilliet, N. T. (Geneva, 1859); M. J. H. Oltramare, N. T. (Geneva, 1872); Louis Segond, O. T. (Geneva, 1874), N. T. (1879), whose work has been printed by the Oxford University press; E. Stapfer, N. T. (Paris, 1889).


4. Roman Catholic Versions. Of versions by Roman Catholics, the most important are a translation of the New Testament published anonymously (Trévoux, 1702), but ascribed with correctness to Richard Simon (q.v.), and a series of versions which proceeded from Port Royal and the Jansenists. As early as the middle of the seventeenth century, Antoine Godeau (q.v.) published a translation of the Bible, at first in parts, then as a whole. In 1667 the New Testament followed, printed by the Elzevirs at Amsterdam, for a bookseller of Mons, whence it is often called the Mons Testament. The translators were Antoine and Louis Isaac Lemaistre de Sacy (see LEMAISTRE DE SACY, LOUIS ISAAC), aided by Antoine Arnauld, Pierre Nicole, Claude de Sainte-Marthe, and Thomas du Fossé. The Old Testament, translated by Louis Isaac Lemaistre de Sacy, was added later (1671), and the New Testament by Pasquier Quesnel (q.v.) appeared in 1687. These translations exercised great influence, partly on account of the elegance of the language, partly on account of the notes, which served devotional purposes. Their method is not a literal rendering, but is paraphrastic. The translation of the New Testament generally known as that of de Sacy was often republished, and is still widely used in France, being circulated by the British and Foreign Bible Society.


René Benoist (q.v.) published a translation of the Bible in 1566. Jacques Corbin, an advocate of Paris, presented the Vulgate in a translation more Latin than French in 1643. The Latin New Testament of Erasmus was translated into French by Michel de Marolles, abbé of Villeloin (1649), who also published a version of the Psalms (1644). Denys Amelote, a priest of the Oratory, translated the New Testament Vulgate into very good French (1666). Dominique Bouhours, a Jesuit, also issued a French New Testament (1697). In the eighteenth, century C. Huré (1702), Augustin Calmet (1707), N. Le Gros (1739), and others made versions, all more or less dependent on the Vulgate. In more recent times the Psalms and Job have been often translated. The entire Bible by E. Genoude (Paris, 1821 sqq.) had great success. The Gospels by Lamennais (Paris, 1846) are a model of style, but because of the notes are really a socialistic polemic. [Other names and works which may be mentioned are: M. Orsini, La Bible des familles catholiques (Paris, 1851); H. F. Delaunay, who translated the annotated Bible of J. F. Allioli (q.v.) into French (5 vols., Paris, 1856); J. A. Gaume, Le Nouveau Testament (2 vols., Paris, 1863); M. A. Bayle, who furnished the translation for Paul Drach’s annotated Bible (Paris, 1869 sqq.); P. Giguet, who translated the Septuagint (4 vols., Paris, 1872); H. Lasserre, Les Saints Évangiles (Paris, 1887); the Abbé Boisson (Paris, 1901); the Abbé Glaire, who furnished the French translation for the polyglot Bible of F. Vigouroux (Paris, 1898 sqq.); and the Abbé Crampon, La Sainte Bible, revised by the Jesuit fathers with the collaboration of the professors of St. Sulpice (Paris, 1907).]


Translations of the Old Testament by Jews are found in S. Cahen’s annotated Bible (18 vols., Paris, 1831-51) [and in the Old Testament translated under the direction of Zadoc Kahn, chief rabbi of France (1901 sqq.)].



Bibliography: The most important contributions on the subject have been produced by S. Berger, as follows: La Bible française au moyen âge, Paris, 1884; Les Bibles provençales et vaudoises, in Romania, xviii (1889); Nouvelles recherches sur les bibles provençales et catalanes, ib. xix (1890), cf. P. Meyer, in Romania, xvii (1888), 121, and H. Suchier, in Zeitschrift fúr romanische Philologie, iii (1879), 412. For enumeration of French Bibles consult British Museum Catalogue, entry "Bibles, French," 175-188, and the Appendix, "Bibles, French," 18; O. Douen, Catalogue de la société biblique de Paris, 1862; Bible of Every Land, pp. 254-260, 281-283, London, 1861 (incomplete, but clear so far as it goes). Consult also J. Le Long, Bibliotheca sacra, vol. i, Paris, 1723; E. Reuss, Fragments littéraires et critiques relatifs à l'histoire de la Bible française, in Revue de théologie et philosophie, ii, ix-vi, xiv, new series, iii-v (1851-67, exceedingly important); idem, Geschichte der heiligen Schriften des Neuen Testaments, pp. 465 sqq., Brunswick, 1887; E. Pétavel-Olliff, La Bible en France ou les traductions françaises des saintes écritures, Paris, 1864; É. Cadiot, Essai sur les conditions d’une traduction populaire de la bible en langue française, Strasburg, 1868; G. Strümpell, Die ersten Bibelübersetzungen der Franzosen 1100-1300, Brunswick, 1872; A. Matter, Note sur la révision de la bible d’Osterwald, Paris, 1882; J. Bonnard, Les Traductions de la bible en vers français au moyen âge, Paris, 1884; P. Quievreaux, La Traduction du N. T. de Lefèvre d’Étaples, Paris, 1894; P. Meyer, Notice du MS. Bibliothèque Nationale F 6447, Paris, 1897; A. Laune, La Traduction de l'A. T. de Lefèvre d'Étaples, Paris, 1895; Revue de l'histoire des Religions, xxxii, 56; DB, extra vol., pp. 402-406.



VII. German Versions: 1. Old German Fragments. After the Gothic version of Ulfilas (see above, A, X), the oldest fragment of the Bible in a Germanic tongue is probably the Matthew of Monsee, of the year 738 (twenty-two leaves are in Vienna, two in Hanover; on the left page is the Latin, on the right German), a Bavarian working over of a Frankish or Alsacian original. The best edition is A. Hench, The Monsee Fragments newly Collated, with Text, Introduction, Notes, Grammatical Treatise, and Exhaustive Glossary and Facsimile (Strasburg, 1890). The "German Tatian," of which the chief manuscript is at St. Gall (second half of the ninth century, in two columns, left in Latin, right in German), originated about 830 in Fulda. The Latin rests upon a manuscript written about 540 for Bishop Victor of Capua (q.v.), which is still preserved in Fulda, and the German follows the Latin very closely (best edition by E. Sievers, Tatianus. Lateinisch und Altdeutsch, Paderborn, 1874, 2d ed., 1892). Heccard, count of Burgundy, in 876 gave as a present an Evangelium Theudiscum with other books (cf. P. Lejay, in Revue des Bibliothèques, July-Sept., 1896). Walton, in his Polyglot (Prolegomena, p. 34a), asserts that "Rhenanus testifies that Waldo, bishop of Freising (884-906] about the year 800 [sic!] translated the Gospels into German" (cf. Hauck, KD, ii, 620, 704, 712). Detached fragments of the Gospels have been published by F. Keinz (SMA, 1869, p. 546) and J. Haupt (Germania, xiv, 1869, p. 440), which are in a handwriting of the twelfth century, but show the accents used earlier in the school of Notker Balbulus (see NOTKER, 1; cf. W. Walther, Die deutsche Bibelübersetzung des Mittelalters, 3 vols., Brunswick, 1889-91, 455-465). For the Heliand and Otfrid’s Liber Evangeliorum or Krist, see HELIAND, THE, AND THE OLD-SAXON GENESIS; OTFRID OF WEISSENBURG).


The first translator after Ulfilas known with certainty is Notker Labeo of St. Gall (d. June 29, 1022; see NOTKER, 5). His Job is lost, but his translation of the Psalms can be almost completely reconstructed from his German and Latin commentary on them (best ed. in P. Piper’s Schriften Notkers und seiner Schule, 3 vols., Freiburg, 1883-84; facsimile in Vogt and Koch, Deutsche Litteraturgeschichte, Leipsic, 1904, and Walther, ut sup., 563). Williram, after 1048 abbot of Ebersberg in Bavaria (see WILLIRAM), made a translation of the Song of Solomon, which found so much favor that nineteen manuscripts are still known, one written as late as 1528 (cf. Walther, 523-536, with facsimile, and J. Seemüller, Die Handschriften und Quellen von Willirams Paraphrase, Strasburg, 1877, and Willirams Paraphrase, 1878; Hauck, KD, iii, 968). An interlinear version of the Psalms from the cloister of Windberg, written 1187, was published by E. G. Graff, Deutsche Interlinearversionen der Psalmen (Quedlinburg, 1839; cf. Walther, 566; also A. E. Schönbach, Bruchstücke einer fränkischen Psalmenversion, in ZDAL, xxiv, 2, pp. 177-186). Other manuscripts of this kind are mentioned by Walther, 568. Some twenty manuscripts and two impressions (the one probably by Knubloezer in Strasburg about 1477, the other by Peter Drach in Worms 1504) have preserved the commentary of Nicolaus de Lyra (see LYRA, NICOLAUS DE), containing translations into German by Heinrich von Mügeln, who was for a time with the emperor Charles IV at Prague and seems to have left him on account of his edict of 1469 against the German books on Holy Scripture (cf. Helm, in Sievers’s Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache, xxi, 1897, p. 240, xxii, 1898, p. 135).


Especially interesting is Walther’s eighth group of translations of the Psalms (which include all Latin-German Psalters printed in the Middle Ages and two or three manuscripts) on account of the fact that the German text does not go back to the Latin Vulgate in common use, but to Jerome’s version from the Hebrew (see above, A, II, 2, § 2). To Walther’s ninth group belongs the splendid Psalter of St. Florian in three languages, Latin, Polish, and German, which was made either for the Polish queen Marguerite, daughter of the emperor Charles IV, or for Mary, sister of the Polish queen Hedwig of Anjou. Another translation is due to Henry of Hesse, rector of the University of Heidelberg, who died 1427, a Carthusian. On the eve of the Reformation Duke Eberhard I of Württemberg was careful to have translations made for him (cf. TLZ, iv, 473; 571).


2. Printed Bibles before Luther. Besides 202 (203) manuscripts, Walther enumerates between 1466 and 1521 eighteen impressions of complete German Bibles, twenty-two of Psalters, and twelve of other parts. Of the eighteen complete Bibles, fourteen are in High German. They differ from the common Latin Bible by containing the Epistle to the Laodiceans and by placing Acts after the Epistles of St. Paul. The prayer of Manasses is missing in the first two and placed after Chronicles in the rest. Their correct chronological order is:


(1) Strasburg, Mentel, c. 1466 (Hain, Repertorium bibliographicum, no. 3130). (2) Strasburg, Eggestein, c. 1470 (Hain, 3129). (3) Augsburg, Pflanzmann, c. 1473 (Hain, 3131). (4) Augsburg, G. Zainer, c. 1473, a thorough revision of 2 (Hain, 3133). (5) Swiss, 1474 (Hain, 3132). (6 and 7) Augsburg, G. Zainer, and A. Sorg, 1477 (Hain, 3134-3135). (8) Augsburg, A. Sorg, 1480, a repetition of Zainer’s impression of 1477 (Hain, 3136). (9) Nuremberg, A. Koburger, 1483 (Hain, 3137). (10) Strasburg, Grüninger, 1485 (Hain, 3138). (11-14) All printed in Augsburg, by H. Schönsperger, 1487, 1490 (Hain, 3139-40), H. Otmar, 1507, and Silvanus Otmar, 1518.


All these editions give in the main one and the same version, but Zainer (4 above) undertook a thorough revision, which had much influence. Koburger (9 above) also made changes. The version was already more than 100 years old when first printed. Its home is not yet ascertained, but there are traces which indicate Bohemia. The Latin text underlying this version is interesting especially in Acts, where it has preserved many Old Latin readings. Led by an entry in a manuscript of Nuremberg, F. Jostes tried to prove that a certain Johannes Rellach of Resöm (?) in the diocese of Constance, who he thinks was a Dominican, was the author of this version about 1460 (cf. his Meister Johannes Rellach, ein Bibelübersetzer des 15. Jahrhunderts, in Historisches Jahrbuch, Munich, 1897, 133-145). Kurrelmeyer (Die deutsche Bibel, Tübingen, 1904 sqq.) seems to think the version older than this Rellach, who may have undertaken a revision of it, and he has not pronounced upon the alleged Waldensian origin of the version; the manuscript of Tepl may have been in Waldensian hands, but this does not prove a Waldensian origin. There are certain peculiar readings in which the version agrees with the Provençal translation.


A different translation containing only the Old Testament is represented by the “Wenzel” Bible at Vienna, translated from the Latin at the command of the emperor Wenceslaus by Martin Rotlev later than 1389 (facsimile in Vogt and Koch, ut sup.). A “Bible for the Poor” at Maihingen of 1437 gives a German working over of the 212 hexameters in which Alexander Vulladeus summarized all the chapters of the Bible (e.g. Gen. i-vii: sex, prohibet, peccant, Abel, Enoch, archa fit, intrant) and counts seventy-six books, fifty-eight prologues, 1,457 chapters, and 1,606 verses in the Psalter. To the same group belongs a manuscript now at Maihingen (1472), beautifully illustrated by Furtmeyer for Albert IV of Bavaria, which has between Deuteronomy and Job Matt. i-v, 44, like a manuscript in the British Museum written by the same copyist in 1465 (cf. the Athenæum for May 31, 1884, and R. Priebsch, Deutsche Handschriften in England, i, Erlangen, 1896). For other versions, cf. Walther.


The Low German Bibles include the Old Testament of Delft (1477), without Psalms, and the famous Picture Bible of Cologne (about 1478; cf. R. Kautzsch, Die Holzschnitte der Kölner Bibel von 1479, in Studien zur deutschen Kunstgeschichte, vii, 1896, and G. Gerlach, in Dziatzko's Arbeiten, ii, 13, Leipsic, 1896). The Song of Solomon in this Bible is not translated but is given in Latin. The Bible of Lübeck of 1494 gives, up to II Kings vii, an original translation; from that chapter onward text and pictures of the Cologne Bible. The edition of Ludwig Trutebul (Halberstadt, 1522) is very scarce. On the Psalters cf. Walther, 682-703, and Kurrelmeyer, ut sup.


On the “Wenzel” Bible, cf. AJP, xxi, 62-75, and F. Jelinek, Die Sprache der Wenzelbibel, Görz, 1898-99. On the pre-Lutheran Bibles, cf. A.. E. Schönbach, Miscellen aus Grazer Handschriften, ii. Reihe, Deutsche Uebersetzungen biblischer Schriften, Graz, 1899; idem, Ueber ein mitteldeutsches Evangelienwerk aus St. Paul, Vienna, 1897, and L. J. M. Bebb, in DB, extra vol., 411-413.


3. Luther’s Bible. Contemporaneously with Luther others were engaged in translating parts of the Bible into modern German, e.g., Böschenstein, Lange, Krumpach, Amman, Nachtgal, Capito, and Frölich; but their works are forgotten (see also below, § 5). Not contemplating at first the entire Bible, Luther began with the penitential Psalms (Mar., 1517, improved 1525) and followed with the Lord’s Prayer and Ps. cx in 1518, the Prayer of Manasses with Matt. xvi, 13-20, in 1519, and other pieces. At the end of 1521 he began with the New Testament. He writes on Dec. 18, 1521: “Meanwhile I am gathering notes, being on the point of translating the New Testament into the vernacular;” two days later: “Now I am laboring on annotating and translating the Bible into the common speech;” on Jan. 13, 1522, to Amsdorff: “Meanwhile I am translating the Bible, though I have undertaken a task beyond my strength. The Old Testament I can not touch unless you lend your aid" (cf. G. Bossert, in TSK, 1897, pp. 324, 349, 366). The New Testament was in type Sept., 1522; it was published with woodcuts at Wittenberg without name of printer or of translator (Das Newe Testament Deutzsch) and was sold for one and one-half Florins. In December a second edition followed (cf. R. Kuhrs, Verhältnis der Decemberbibel zur Septemberbibel. Kritischer Beitrag zur Geschichte der Bibelsprache M. Luthers. Mit einem Anhang über Joh. Lange’s Matthäusübersetzung, Greifswald, 1901). Of the Old Testament, part i (the five books of Moses) was ready in 1523; parts ii and iii (the historical and poetical books) in 1524; the prophets did not follow until 1532; and the Apocrypha as a whole not until the first complete Bible in 1534. Eleven editions were published during Luther’s lifetime, besides numerous reprints. For the Old Testament he used the edition of Brescia, 1494 (the copy is now at Berlin); for the New Testament, the second edition of Erasmus (1519), but he consulted the Vulgate, and for the Old Testament had the assistance of his friends Melanchthon, Bugenhagen, Aurogallus, and all available helps. In the preface to Sirach he mentions the earlier German translation, but he seems on the whole independent of it. The influence of Luther’s work was great even outside of Germany. It formed the basis of the Danish translation of 1524, of the Swedish and Dutch of 1526, of the Icelandic of 1540, and, through the mediation of Tyndale, influenced the English Authorized Version of 1611.


Large parts of Luther’s autograph printer’s copy are preserved, and the first part is in print in D. Martin Luther's Deutsche Bibel, Weimar, 1906. A catalogue of the original editions of Luther’s Bible was published by H. E. Bindseil (Verzeichniss der Original-Ausgaben, etc., Halle,. 1840), who also, in collaboration with H. A. Niemeyer, issued a critical reprint of the edition of 1545 with a collation of the earlier impressions (7 vols., Halle, 1845-55). J. G. Hagemann, Nachricht von denen fürnehmsten Uebersetzungen der heiligen Schrift (Brunswick, 1750), gives a list of editions to 1749. In the Hauck-Herzog RE, iii, 74-75, about ninety places are named in which Luther’s Bible has been printed, with the date of the first edition in each place. It includes the following towns in America: Germantown, Penn., 1745 (the first Bible in a European language printed in America; see SOWER, CHRISTOPHER) and 1763 (cf. Basler Bibelbote, 1899, 52); New York, 1854 (N. T.) and 1857 (complete Bible); Philadelphia, 1846. Reading, Penn., 1813, and Lancaster, Penn., 1819, may be added. A chronological list would show the influence of Pietism. The first Berlin edition (1699), for example, was due to Spener. The first Low German Bible, by J. Hoddersen, was printed by L. Dietz at Lübeck in 1533; the last was that of Lüneburg, 1621.


4. Revision of Luther’s Version. By the middle of the nineteenth century six or seven different recensions of Luther’s version were in use in Protestant Germany (cf. C. Mönckeberg, Tabellarische Uebersicht der wichtigsten Varianten der bedeutendsten gangbaren Bibelausgaben, New Testament, Halle, 1865, Old Testament, 4 vols., 1870-71). In 1863 a committee was named by the Eisenach Conference (see EISENACH CONFERENCE) to undertake a final revision. As the result of the labors of this committee the revised New Testament appeared in 1867 and again in 1870, Genesis in 1873, the Psalms in 1876, the whole Bible (the so-called Probebibel) in 1883. At last, in Jan., 1890, the whole work was finished and the first impression was published at Halle in 1892. The revised edition was adopted in most parts of Germany, though in Mecklenburg it is still opposed. A comparison with the English revision shows that the German was much too timid (cf., on the one side, P. de Lagarde, Die revidierte Lutherbibel des Halleschen Waisenhauses, Göttingen, 1885, also in Mittheilungen, iii; on the other, E. V. Koh1schütter, Die Revision der Lutherschen Bibehibersetzung, 1887, and A. Kamphausen, Die berichtigte Lutherbibel, Berlin. 1894; also TJB, 1886, where twelve pamphlets for and against the revision are named; O. H. T. Willkomm, Was verliert unser Volk durch die Bibelrevision? Zwickau, 1901).


Luther's work was criticized early, especially by his Roman Catholic opponents--e.g., by Hieronymus Emser, to whom Urbanus Rhegius replied in 1524 (see EMSER, HIERONYMUS; RHEGIUS, URBANUS; cf. G. Kawerau's Hieronymus Emser, Halle, 1898; for criticism from the modern point of view, cf. P. de Lagarde, Die revidierte Lutherbibel, ut sup.). The Wittenberg edition of 1572 introduced the summaries of Veit Dietrich. A. Calovius added in 1661 a "Biblical Calendar " by' which it was possible to read the Psalms four times every year, Proverbs twice, and the rest of the Bible with Luther's prefaces once. The Wittenberg faculty added a new preface in 1669. The verse of the "three witnesses" (I John v, 7) was first introduced into a Frankfort edition of 1575, into it Wittenberg impression in 1596. Dietrich's summaries were replaced by those of Leonhard Hatter in 1624; in this edition a Roman Catholic compositor changed "everlasting gospel " in Rev. xiv, 6, to “new gospel," the verse being often applied to Luther, and subsequent editions were printed from the sheet as copy. Several editions gave great offense because of changes in the text or additions --e.g., an edition by N. Funk (Alton, 1815) was asserted to teach a "new faith" because of changes in the indexes and notes. The Bible Institute founded at Halle by Karl Hildebrand, Baron Canstein (q.v.) came to have great influence; after 1717 standing type or stereotyped plates were used and millions of copies of the Halle text were circulated (see BIBLE SOCIETIES, II, 1).


5. Other Versions. The Anabaptists Hans Denk and Ludwig Hätzer (qq.v.) translated the Prophets before the completion of Luther's version (published by Peter Schöffer, Worms, 1527; many later editions); their work was used by other translators and has been praised for scholarship and style (cf. J. J. I. Dö11inger, Die Reformation, i, Regensburg, 1846, 199; Heberle, in TSK, xxviii, 1855, 832; L. Keller, Ein Apostel der Wiedertäufer, Leipsic, 1882, 210 sqq.). The preachers of Zurich published a complete Bible in six parts (1525-1529), using Luther's work so far as available and adding the Prophets (part iv) themselves and the Apocrypha (part v, including III and IV Eadras and III Maccabees but not the Prayer of Azariah, the Song of the Three Children, the Prayer of Manasses, or the Additions to Esther) by Leo Jud (q.v.). The complete Bible was printed in 1530, without prefaces and glosses, the Apocrypha at the end. The edition of 1531 (2 vols.) has a short admonition and introduction for "the Christian reader of these Biblical Books" probably by Zwingli; also summaries, parallel references, woodcuts, and a new translation of the poetical books. The edition of 1548 (2 vols.) professes to have been compared word for word with the Hebrew, but really does not differ from editions of 1542 and 1545; it became the basis of later editions. The verse division was first introduced in 1589. A revision of the Zurich New Testament was undertaken by J. J. Breitinger in 1629, by a collegium biblicum in 1817, 1860, 1868, and 1882, and a new revision of the New Testament and Psalms appeared in 1893 (cf. E. Riggenbach. Die schweizerische revidicrte Uebersetzung des Neuen Testaments und der Psalmen, Basel, 1895).


Besides the Zurich Bible three other "composite” Bibles (i.e., Luther's translation so far as it had appeared with the missing parts supplied from other translations) were published before 1534: (1) Worms, Peter Schöffer, 1529, the so-called "Baptist" Bible, having Hätzer and Denk's version of the Prophets; it was the first Protestant Bible to use the word Biblia in the title, retained in Luther's Bible till the eighteenth century; (2) Strasburg, Wolff Köpphl, 1530, Prophets by Hätzer and Denk, Apocrypha by Jud; (3) Frankfort, C. Egenolph, 1534, in which only a part of the Apocrypha was not Luther's. The Epistle to the Laodiceans was included in these editions.


About one hundred.years after Luther new versions began to appear. The first complete Bible was that of J. Piscator (Herborn, 1602), called the "Straf mich Gott" Bible because the translator added in smaller type to Mark viii, 12, Wann disem geschlecht sin zaichen wirdt gegeben werden, so, straffe mich Gott ("If a sign be given to this generation, so strike me God; " cf. R. Steck, Die Piscatorbibel, Bern, 1897). The Berleburg Bible (8 vols., 1726-1742) and the Wertheim Bible (1735) were prepared in the interest of mysticism and rationalism respectively (see BIBLES, ANNOTATED, AND BIBLE SUMMARIES, I, §§ 3, 4). Later versions are by J. D. Michaelis (O. T., 13 vols., Göttingen, 1769 sqq.; N. T., 2 vols., 1790); J. H. D. Moldenhauer (O. T., 10 vols., Quedlinburg, 1774 sqq.; N. T., 2 vols., 1787-88); Simon Grynæus (5 vols., Basel, 1776-77; a paraphrase in modern style, the historical books of the O. T. abridged, the Gospels harmonized); and G. F. Criesinger (Stuttgart, 1824). Better than these is the version of W. L. M. de Wette and J. C. W. Augusti (6 vols., Heidelberg, 1809-14; later editions by De Wette alone). Bunsen's annotated Bible (9 vols., Leipsic, 1858-70) has a translation of the Hagiographa by A. Kamphausen, of the Apocrypha and N. T. by H. J. Holtzman, other portions by Bunsen.


Translations of the New Testament alone include: J. Crell, J. Stegman the elder, and others, the Socinian N. T. (Rakow, 1630); J. Felbinger, also a Socinian (Amsterdam, 1660); J. H. Reitz, Reformed (Offenbach, 1703); C. E. Triller (Amsterdam, 1703); Count Zinzendorf (Ebersdorf, 1727); Timotheus Philadelphus (i.e., J. Kayser, a Stuttgart physician, 1733); C. A. Heumann (Hanover, 1748); J. A. Bengel (Stuttgart, 1753); C. T. Damm (3 vols., Berlin, 1765); C. F. Bahrdt ("the latest revelations of God," 4 vols., Riga, 1773-74); J. C. F. Schulz (vol. i, the Gospels, 1774); P. M. Hahn (Winterthur, 1777); G. W. Rullmann (3 vols., Lemgo, 1790-91); J. A. Bolten (8 vols.. Alton, 1792-1806); J. O. Theiss, Gospels and Acts (4 vols., Hamburg, 1794-1800); J. J. Stolz (2 vols., Zurich, 1795; a second ed. of a version by Stolz, J. L. Vögeli, and C. Häfeli, 2 vols., 1781-82); G. F. Seiler (2 vols., Erlangen, 1806); J. C. R. Eckermann (3 vols., Kiel, 1806-08); J. W. F. Hetzel (Dorpat, 1809); C. F. Preiss (2 vols., Stettin, 1811); L. Schuhkrafft (Stuttgart); J. Gossner (Munich, 1815); H. A. W. Meyer (Göttingen, 1829); E. G. A. Böckel (Altona, 1832); J. K. W. Alt (4 parts, Leipsic, 1837-39); K. von der Heydt (Elberfeld, 1852; used by the Plymouth Brethren); F. Rengsdorf (Hamburg, 1860); C. Weizsäcker (Tübingen, 1875; 9th ed., 1900); C. Reinhardt (Lahr, 1878); E. Zittel (3 vols., Carlsruhe, 1880-85); C. Stage (Reclam, Leipsic, 1896; "in present-day speech"); H. Wiese (Berlin, 1905).


Roman Catholic versions have been numerous. Hieronymus Emser's New Testament (Dresden, 1527; see EMSER, HIERONYMUS) was merely a slight revision of Luther after the Vulgate. J. Dietenberger, a Dominican, published the entire Bible at Mainz in 1534 (cf. F. Schneider, Johann Dietenberger's Bibeldruck, Mainz, 1901). In the New Testament he followed Emser chiefly, in the Apocrypha Leo Jud, in the Old Testament he took much from Luther. C. Ulenberg revised this version in 1630, and the clergy of Mainz in 1662; thenceforth it was commonly called the "Catholic" Bible. Later Roman Catholic versions are: T. A. Erhard (2 vols., Augsburg, 1722); the Benedictines of the cloister of Ettenheimmünster (Constance, 1751); I. Weitenauer (14 vols., Augsburg, 1777-81); F. Rosalino (3 vols., Vienna, 1781); K. H. Seibt (Prague, 1781); H. Braun (13 vols., Augsburg, 1788-1805; worked over by J. F. Allioli, 6 vols., Nuremberg, 1830-32); D. von Brentano, T. A. Dereser, and J. M. A. Scholz (N. T. by Brentano, 3 vols., Kempten, 1790-91; revised and O. T. added by Dereser and Scholz, 15 vols., Frankfort, 17971833); K. and L. van Ess (3 vols., Sulzbach, 1807-22); H. J. Jäck (Leipsic, 1847). Translations of the New Testament alone are: C. Fischer (Prague, 1784); B. B. M. Schnappinger (3 vols., Mannheim, 1787-99); S. Mutschelle (2 vols., Munich, 1789-90); B. Weyl (Mainz,. 1789); J. G. Krach (2 vols., Freiburg, 1790); C. Schwartzel (6 vols., Ulm, 1802-05); M. Wittmann (Regensburg, 1809); J. M. Sailer (Graz, 1822); J. H. Kistemaker (Munich, 1825; circulated by the British and Foreign Bible Society, which now also circulates Allioli’s translation); B. Weinhart (Freiburg, 1900); A. Arndt, S. J. (Regensburg, 1903); B. Grundl (Augsburg, 1903).


Finally, mention should be made of the scholarly translation of the canonical Old Testament, edited by E. Kautzsch in collaboration with F. Baethgen, H. Guthe, A. Kamphausen, R. Kittel, K. Marti, W. Rothstein, R. Ruëtschi, V. Ryssel, K. Siegfried, and A. Socin (Freiburg, 1894; 2d ed., 1896). In the supplementary translation of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Prof. Kautzsch had the assistance of G. Beer, F. Blass, C. Clemen, A. Deissmann, C. Fuchs, H. Gunkel, H. Guthe, A. Kamphausen, R. Kittel, E. Littmann, M. Lohr, W. Rothstein, V. Ryssel, F. Schnapp, K. Sigfried, and P. Wendland. Since 1899 cheap editions called Textbibel, both with and without Weizsäcker’s New Testament, have been circulated.


German Israelites have translations of the Old Testament prepared under the direction of L. Zunz (Berlin, 1837) and by S. Bernfeld (Berlin, 1902). There are also versions in the Jewish-German (Yiddish).



Bibliography: The one work on early German translations is W. Walther, Die deutsche Bibelübersetzung des Mittelalters, 3 vols., Brunswick, 1889-91; cf. Bible of all Lands, pp. 178-187, London, 1861, and DB, extra vol., pp. 411-414.


The subject of the printed German Bible before Luther has been much elucidated by W. Kurrelmeyer of Baltimore, who has prepared an edition from a collation of all impressions and manuscripts; vols. i and ii, the N. T., have already appeared as nos. 234 and 238 of the Bibliothek des litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, Tübingen, 1904 and 1905; vols. iii-iv of the O. T., nos. 243, 246, ib. 1907. F. Jostes (Roman Catholic) has long had a history in preparation. Consult L. Hain, Repertorium bibliographicum, vol. i, Paris, 1826; L. Keller, Die Reformation und die älteren Reformparteien, Leipsic, 1885; idem, Die Waldenser und die deutschen Bibelübersetzungen, v, 189, ib. 1886; F. Jostes, Die Waldenser und die vorlutherische deutsche Bibelübersetzung, p. 44, Münster, 1885; idem, Die Tepler Bibelübersetzung, Münster, 1886; idem, "Die Waldenserbibeln" und . . .            Johannes Rellach, in Historisches Jahrbuch, xv (1894), 77 sqq.; H. Haupt, Die deutsche Bibelübersetzung der mittelalterlichen Waldenser . . . , Wurzsburg, 1885; idem, in Centralblatt für Bibliothekswesen, 1885, pp. 287-290; idem, Der waldensische Ursprung des Codex Teplensis . . . , Würzburg, 1886; M. Rachel, Die Freiberger Bibelhandschrift, Freiburg, 1886; S. Berger, La Question du codex Teplensis, in Revue historique, xxx (1886), 164, xxxii (1886), 184; K. Schellhorn, Ueber das Verhältnis der Freiberger und der Tepler Bibelhandschrift, Freiberg, 1896; W. Walther, Ein angeblicher Bibelübersetzer des Mittelalters, in Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift, viii, 3 (1896), 194-207; Schaff, Christian Church, vi, 351 sqq.


On Luther’s Bible consult: J. G. Palm, Historie der deutschen Bibelbersetzung Dr. M. Lutheri, 1517-34, ed. J. M. Göze, Halle, 1772; G. W. Panzer, Entwurf einer vollständigen Geschichte der deutschen Bibelübersetzung M. Luthers, 1517-81, Nuremberg, 1791; J. Janssen-Pastor, Geschichte des deutschen Volkes, vii, 531-575, Freiburg, 1893; Schaff, Christian Church, vi, 340-368; Moeller, Christian Church, iii, 34-35.


On the language of Luther’s Bible consult: R. von Raumer, Einwirkung des Christentums, Stuttgart, 1845; P. Pietsch, M. Luther und die hochdeutsche Schriftsprache, Breslau, 1883; K. Burdach, Die Einigung der neuhochdeutschen Schriftsprache, Halle, 1884; B. Lindmeyer, Der Wortschatz in Luthers, Emsers und Ecks Ubersetzung des N. T.'s, Strasburg, 1899; F. Dauner, Die oberdeutschen Bibelglossare des xvi. Jahrhunderts, Darmstadt, 1898; Böhme, Zur Geschichte der saähsischen Kanzleisprache, Reichenbach, 1899; W. W. Florer. Substantivflexion bei Martin Luther, Ann Arbor, 1899; H. Byland, Der Wortschatz des Züricher A. T.’s von 1525 und 1531 . . . Berlin, 1903.


On translations after Luther consult: J. Mezger, Geschichte der Bibelübersetzungen in der schweizerisch-reformierten Kirche, Basel, 1876; A. Kappler, Die schweizerische Bibelübersetzung, Zurich, 1898; idem, Die neue Revision der Züricher Bibel, in Neue Zuüicher Zeitung, Nov. 2 and 27, 1904.


On Roman Catholic versions consult: G. W. Panzer, Geschichte der römisch-katholischen Bibelübersetzung, Nuremberg, 1781; J. Janssen-Pastor, ut sup.; G. Keferstein., Der Lautstand in den Bibelübersetzungen, von Emser und Eck, Jena, 1888.



VIII. Greek Versions, Modern: Parts of the Old Testament were translated by Jews into modern Greek as early as the end of the Middle Ages. A version of the Pentateuch made in 1547 has been edited by C. Hesseling (Leipsic, 1897). On the whole the Greek Church has been anxious to make the people acquainted with the Bible, a fact evinced especially in the sixteenth century by the efforts of Damascenus the Studite (q.v.). But when, at the instance of Cyril Lucar, Maximos Kalliupolites published in 1838 an edition of the New Testament in the original Greek with a modern Greek version, the Church as a whole did not favor it, though the patriarch Parthenios permitted its circulation. This text was reprinted in London in 1703 by the monk Seraphim, also in 1710 at Halle, and by C. Reineccius in his polyglot Bible of 1713 (see BIBLES, POLYGLOT, V). In the East, Seraphim’s edition was expressly prohibited by the patriarch Gabriel of Constantinople (1702-04).


A new period began when the British and Foreign Bible Society took the matter in hand. As early as 1810 it published the text of Maximos, and English influence induced the patriarchs Cyril VI and Gregory V to permit its circulation. Other issues followed in 1814, 1819, and 1824. The deficiencies of the old text having been long known, it was decided to bring out a new translation, which should approach more nearly the ancient Greek. For this work the monk Hilarion was employed under the direction of the learned Archbishop Constantius of Sinai, afterward patriarch. But when, in consequence of a controversy over the Apocrypha (1825-27), the society introduced bibles without the Apocrypha, the Greek Church would not circulate them. Moreover, after the war of liberation the desire to be entirely independent of Occidental aid greatly increased and orthodox reaction set in anew. The version of such learned Greeks as Typaldos, Bambas, and others found no more favorable reception. This disposition has continued. The latest version of the New Testament by A. Pallis (Liverpool, 1902), written in common Greek, has not been approved. The patriarch Joachim III has renewed the prohibition of Bible translation.



Bibliography: Korals, in Atakta, vol. iii (1830); J. Wenger, Beiträge zur Kenntnis der griechischen Kirche, Berlin, 1839; Bible of Every Land, pp. 241-244, London, 1861; É. Legrand, Bibliographie Hellénique, 3 vols., Paris, 1885-1903 (for 15th and 16th centuries); idem, Bibliographie Hellénique, 5 vols., ib. 1894-1903 (for the 17th century); A. D. Kyriakos, Geschichte der orientalischen Kirchen, 1453-1898, Leipsic, 1902; Bible Society Reporter, Jan. and May, 1902; DB, extra vol., p. 420.



IX. Hebrew Translations of the New Testament: The anciently attested Hebrew original of the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel according to the Hebrews are not to be included in this treatment (see MATTHEW, II; APOCRYPHA, B, I, 19). Of existing Hebrew versions of the New Testament, the more important are the following:


1. Versions by Jews: (1) The Evangelium Matthæi in lingua Hebraica cum versione Latina, by Sebastian Münster, appeared at Basel, 1537 (2d ed., Paris, 1541; 3d. ed., with Hebrews in Hebrew and Latin, Basel, 1557). (2) The Evangelium hebraice Matthæi recens e Judæorum penetralibus erutum, with Latin translation, edited by Jean du Tillet and Jean Mercier (Paris, 1555) is part of a translation of the Gospels by Schemtob Schaprut (1385), which may be preserved in a Vatican manuscript. (3) A complete translation of the New Testament was made by Ezekiel Rachbi (d. 1772), and an assistant from Germany.


2. Versions by Christians: (1) Elias Hutter made a Hebrew translation of the complete New Testament for his polyglot editions (Nuremberg, 1599, 1602; see BIBLES, POLYGLOT, V); a better edition of this version was issued by B. Robertson (London, 1661), and the first part of the same by R. Caddick (London, 1798). (2) Johannes Baptista Jona translated the four Gospels (Rome, 1668). (3) A translation of Matthew by Johannes Kemper (d. 1714), with Latin rendering by A. Borelius, is preserved in manuscript in the library of the University of Upsala. (4) The Epistle to the Hebrews, translated by F. A. Christiani, appeared in Leipsic, 1676, and Luke i, 1-xxii, 14, by I. Fromman at Halle, 1735. (5) The translation of the whole New Testament prepared for the London Society for Promoting Christianity among the Jews appeared in 1821, and in revised form in 1840 and 1866. (6) The edition of the British and Foreign Bible Society, begun in 1864, was made by Franz Delitzsch (Leipsic, 1877; stereotyped ed., 1881; revised ed., 1885; again revised by Delitzsch) and edited by G. Dalman, 1892). (7) The translation of the Trinitarian Bible Society, begun by Isaac Salkinson and completed by C. Ginsburg, was issued in London, 1885.



Bibliography: On 1: A. Herbst, Die von Sebastian Münster . . . Übersetzungen des Evangeliums Matthäi, Göttingen, 1879; F. Delitzsch, Brief an die Römer, pp. 22, 105, 103-109, Leipsic, 1870; S. Schechter, in JQR, vi, 144-145. On 2: F. Delitzsch, ut sup., pp. 21-38; Theologisches Literaturblatt, 1889-1890; G. Dalman, in Hebraica, ix, 226-231 and Theologisches Literaturblatt, 1891, pp. 289 sqq.; J. Dunlop, Memories of Gospel Triumphs, pp. 378-386, London, 1894.



X. Hungarian (Magyar) Versions: 1. The First Versions. János Erdösi (or Sylvester; b. 1504; died c. 1560) made the first Hungarian translation of the New Testament. After studying in Cracow and Wittenberg (1526-29), he returned to his native land and worked at Sarvar under the patronage of the magnate T. Nádasdi, who erected the first Hungarian printing-press in Uj-Sziget (Neanesis). There Erdösi's translation was printed in 1541. Erdösi was afterward professor of Hebrew in Vienna (1542-52); driven out by the Jesuits, he went to Debreczin and, in 1557, to Löcse (Leutschau) as teacher and preacher. A little later, G. Heltai, pastor at Kolosvár (Klausenburg), and his three colleagues translated the New Testament, with several books of the Old Testament (Kolosvár, 1552-61). Péter Juhász (Melius), pastor and superintendent at Debreczin (1558-72), rendered into Hungarian the books of Job and Kings (Debreczin, 1565), and the New Testament (Szegedin, 1567); of the latter work no copy is known. T. Félegyházi, professor and pastor at Debreczin, published a translation of the New Testament at Debreczin in 1586. Gaspar Károli (d. 1591), a pupil of Melanchthon, pastor at Gönc (not far from Kassa), translated the entire Bible with the Apocrypha and published it at Visoly, 1590. This is styled the Visoly Bible, and it has remained in use to the present. It has passed through many editions with some slight corrections.


2. The Komáromi Bible. During the religious wars (1604-45) against the Austrian monarchs the Hungarian nation heroically fought for political and religious liberty; to the great Protestant princes of Transylvania, Bocskai, Bethlen, and George (György) Rákóczi the Protestant Church is much indebted, for without them it would have suffered the fate of the Bohemian Church. The victorious Rákóczi family caused 10,000 copies of the Bible to be published at Várad in 1657. The years 1660 to 1781 were a dark period for Hungarian Protestants, during which the Austrian government, under Jesuitical influences, took control of the entire kingdom, and the freedom gained in the Reformation was lost. The crisis came in 1671-81, the so-called "decade of mourning." This grievous situation explains the fact that Hungarian bibles had to be printed in foreign countries. The learned Reformed pastor of Debreczin, György Csipkés Komáromi, an excellent Hebrew scholar, in order to meet the common wish and to make the Bible keep pace with the growth of the language, made a new translation which was approved by the synods in 1681. The city of Debreczin at enormous cost had an edition of 4,000 copies printed at Leyden in 1718. When the edition reached the frontier it was seized by the Jesuits (who had secured from the king an order to that effect) and carried to their house at Kassa. The agitated citizens and council of Debreczin used all means available to recover the books and at length secured a royal edict from King Charles III (June 29, 1723) granting them a free Bible (P. Bod, Historia Hungarorum ecclesiastica, iii, 89). So great was the power of the Jesuits, however, that they frustrated the royal edict, and the bishop of Eger, Count F. Barkóczy, carried the Komáromi bibles to his palace and threw them all into damp cellars, where they remained till 1754, when on Nov. 1 he burned them in the court of his palace before a large gathering (cf. The Bible Society Monthly Reporter, Mar., 1904, p. 69). A few copies retained in Varsó, hidden in the Prussian ambassador’s house, were brought to Debreczin in 1789.


The Roman Catholics, on their part, had the Bible translated by a Jesuit scholar György Káldi, and this translation appeared at Vienna, 1626 (see KÁLDI, GYÖRGY). In the nineteenth century Baron A. Bartakovics, archbishop of Eger, ordered a new translation, which was made by his secretary, the learned Tárkányi (d. 1886); this "Eger Bible" was published at the cost of the archbishop in 1862, and again in 1892.


3. Modern Versions. Samuel Kámori, professor in the Lutheran theological academy at Pozsony (Pressburg), attempted a new translation of the whole Bible with the Apocrypha (Budapest, 1870). Because of the translator’s modern style and his inadequate knowledge of the Magyar tongue, notwithstanding its fidelity to the original, this version can not be used by the people. A revision of the old Károli text was proposed as early as 1840, and the British and Foreign Bible Society assumed the task. The first revision of the New Testament was accomplished by J. Menyhárt, professor of exegesis in Debreczin College, and by W. Györi, Lutheran pastor of Budapest. It was issued at Budapest in 1878 and, being sharply criticized, did not gain acceptance. The work of revision began more seriously in 1886, when T. Duka, a native of Hungary and a member of the committee of the Bible society in London, secured the aid of that great organization. Competent men were chosen from among the professors and pastors of both Churches. After many years’ labor, the revised Old Testament left the press at Budapest in 1898. This noble work needs further revision, and the Hungarian Church awaits the moment when the second revision, soon to appear, will be ready. Work on the revision of the New Testament is progressing.


After the great revolution of 1848 and between 1851 and 1861, the constitution of Hungary was suspended by the Austrian government and the circulation of the Bible was prohibited. The Bible depot, the property of the British Society, was ordered to be removed, and was located at Berlin; since the coronation of Francis Joseph I all hindrances have been removed, and under the Hungarian state government circulation of the Bible is free.



Bibliography: Bible of Every Land, pp. 325-327, London, 1861; F. Verseghi, Dissertatio de versione Hungarica scripturæ sacræ, Budapest, 1822; T. Duka, in Bible Society’s Monthly, London 1892; KL, ii, 770-771; Hauck-Herzog, RE, pp. 115-118 (gives the literature in Hungarian); BD, extra vol., p. 417.



XI. Italian Versions: Legend has it that Jacobus de Varagine (q.v.), bishop of Genoa, made an Italian translation of the Bible. There can be no doubt that one was prepared as early as the thirteenth century. The earliest printed Italian Bible is that of Nicolò di Malherbi, an abbot of the Camaldolites, based on the Vulgate and published Venice, 1471. In 1530 Antonio Bruccioli published at Venice his translation of the New Testament and in 1532 the entire Bible. In the same year the New Testament by the Dominican Zaccaria was published at Venice, and in 1551 that of Domenico Giglio. After this time Geneva became the home of the Italian Bible. A congregation of refugees settled there about the middle of the sixteenth century, and for their benefit Massimo Teofilo, a former Benedictine of Florence, translated the New Testament from the Greek (Lyons, 1551). For the Old Testament Bruccioli’s version was revised and thus in 1562 the first Protestant Bible in the Italian language appeared (at Geneva). It was entirely superseded in 1607 by the translation of G. Diodati (q.v.) of Lucca. This version, made directly from the original texts, stands in high esteem for fidelity and has been repeatedly reprinted by different Bible societies. A version affecting great elegance, but by no means as faithful because made from the Vulgate, is that of Antonio Martini, archbishop of Florence (Turin, 1776). This version has also been repeatedly reprinted by the British and Foreign Bible Society, and in 1889 sqq. an illustrated edition was published by the Catholic publisher Sonzogno at Milan. [A version of the Gospels and Acts in modern Italian prepared under the direction of the St. Jerome Society of Rome by Giuseppe Clementi, a secular priest and professor of Italian literature, with brief notes by Giovanni Genocchi of the Mission of the Sacred Heart, and preface by Giovanni Semeria of the Order of St. Paul (Barnabites), was printed at the Vatican Press with the approbation of Pope Leo XIII in 1902. The work was well received by the public and by scholars, and was approved and circulated by many dignitaries of the Roman Church, although some feared its influence. The completion of the New Testament and translation of the Old, which was contemplated by the Society, has been postponed, as it seemed inadvisable to Pope Pius X to give the Italian people the epistles of St. Paul at the present time. The volume published is sold at a nominal price, and about 500,000 copies, it is claimed, have been distributed.

(S. BERGER †.)


Bibliography: S. Berger, La Bible Italienne au moyen âge, in Romania, xxiii (1894), 358 sqq. (contains bibliography and list of MSS.); Bible of Every Land, pp. 277- 279, London, 1861; J. D. Hales, The Bible or the Bible Society? The Corruption of God’s Word in the Italian Version of Martini, London, 1861; J. Carini, Le Versione della Biblia in volgari italiano, S. Pier d’Arena, 1894; S. Minocci, Versions Italiennes de la Bible, in Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de la Bible; KL, ii, 741-742; DB, extra vol., 406-408.



XII. Lithuanian and Lettish Versions: A forerunner of the Bible translation for Protestant Lithuanians was the rendering of the Scripture lessons from the Gospels and Epistles by B. Willent (Königsberg, 1579) from Luther’s text (edited by F. Bechtel, in Bezzenberger’s Litauische und lettische Drucke des 16. Jahrhunderts, part 3, Göttingen, 1882). The first translator of the Bible in a fuller sense was Jan Bretkun (Bretkunas), minister at Labiau and Königsberg (d. 1602 or 1603). He translated the whole Bible, 1579-90. The manuscript, preserved in the university library at Königsberg, is described by A. Bezzenberger, Beiträge zur Geschichte der litauischen Sprache (Göttingen, 1877), pp. vi-vii. Only the Psalms were published (Königsberg, 1625) and the editor, J. Rhesa, introduced many changes.


The Reformed Lithuanians, anxious for a Bible, in 1657 commissioned Samuel Boguslaw Chylinski to go to England and have the Bible printed there (cf. H. Reinhold, in Mittheilungen der litauischlitterarischen Gesellschaft, vol. iv, part 2, p. 105). The Old Testament as far as the Psalms was presented to the synod at Wilna in print in 1663, other parts in manuscript. Of this Bible impression only three copies, all imperfect, are known to exist. Chylinski was the translator.


The New Testament, translated by Samuel Bythner, was published at Königsberg, 1701, for the benefit of the Lutherans (new ed., Berlin, 1866). A New Testament translated by different ministers was published at Königsberg in 1727. The Old Testament was prepared in the same way and the whole Bible was published at Königsberg, 1735. In the beginning of the nineteenth century the need of a new edition of the Bible was felt, and the work was undertaken, with the help of the British and Foreign Bible Society, by a number of clergymen and especially by L. J. Rhesa. It was based on Luther’s version, with comparison of the Hebrew and Greek originals, and was published at Tilsit, 1824.


For the Roman Catholic Lithuanians, Joseph Arnulf Giedraitis (Polish, Giedrojé), bishop of Samogitia, translated the New Testament from the Vulgate (Wilna, 1816).


The oldest specimen of Lettish printing, the Enchiridion (Königsberg, 1586-87; called in later editions Vademecum and "Hand-Book"), contains among other writings for ecclesiastical use the Scripture lessons for Sundays and festivals for the Evangelical Letts (in later editions enlarged by parts of the Old Testament). The first Lettish Bible, translated by E. Glück and C. B. Witten, was published at Riga, 1685-89. In 1877 A. Bielenstein published at Mitau a thoroughly revised edition.



Bibliography: L. J. Rhesa, Geschichte der litthauischen Bibel, Königsberg, 1816; H. Reinhold, Die sogenannte Chylinskische Bibelübersetzung, in Mittheilungen der litauischlitterarischen Gesellschaft, vol. iv, part 2, p. 105; Napiersky, Chronologischer Conspect der lettisch-litterarischen Gesellschaft, vol. iii, 1831; Bible of Every Land, pp. 310- 313, London, 1861; Bielenstein, Zum 300jährigen Jubiläum der lettischen Literatur, Riga, 1886. Consult also the Annual Reports of the BFBS.



XIII. Persian Versions: Chrysostom mentions Persians as well as Syrians, Egyptians, Ethiopians, and other nations as being in possession of the Gospel; but it is very doubtful whether there was at that time a version of Scripture in the Persian tongue, since Syrian influence predominated in the Persian Empire. It is said, however, that Chosroes II had the Scriptures brought from Edessa (cf. TLZ, 1896, 432, and Theodoret, Hist. eccl., i, 5). All that was known in Europe till 1700 of Biblical and other texts is found in Lagarde, Persische Studien (Göttingen, 1884), 3-8.


A translation of the Pentateuch by the Persian Jew Jacob ben Joseph Tawus, printed in Hebrew characters, is contained in a polyglot Pentateuch of Constantinople (1546), and was transcribed into Persian characters with a Latin translation by T. Hyde in vol. iv of Walton’s Polyglot. The Gospels, translated from the Greek, were edited by Abraham Wheelocke and, after his death, by Pierson (London, 1657), and another translation from the Syriac was printed in vol. v of Walton’s Polyglot, and used by Tischendorf after the edition of C. A. Bode (Helmstadt, 1750-51). In Paris are parts of two different translations of the Old Testament, the one made from the Hebrew, the other from the Aramaic (cf. Zotenberg, Catalogue des manuscrits Hebreux, etc., Paris, 1866 sqq., and Lagarde, Persische Studien, i, 69, and ii, and his Symmicta, ii, Göttingen, 1879, 14-17). On Jewish reports about the Bible in the language of Elam and Media cf. L. Blau, Einleitung in die heilige Schrift (Budapest, 1894), 80-94.



For partial translations of the Bible, particularly of the Pentateuch, the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, the Minor Prophets, Esther, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Job, and Lamentations, preserved in manuscript, cf. JE, iii, 190, vii, 318- 319. The oldest fragments of this character are probably those found in the Pahlavi Shikandgūmānīg Vijār, which dates from the latter part of the ninth century (ed. Jamasp-Asana and E. W. West, Bombay, 1887; transl. by E. W. West, SBE, xxiv, 117 sqq.). These fragments are Gen. i, 2-3, ii, 16-17, iii, 9, 11-16, 18-19, vi, 6; Ex. xx, 5; Deut. xxix, 4, xxxii, 35; Ps. xcv, 10; Isa. xxx, 27-28, xliii, 19; Matt. i, 20, v, 17, vii, 17-18, xii, 34, xv, 13, xviii, 32; Luke v, 31-32, vi, 44, xv, 4; John i, 11, 14, viii, 23, viii, 37-38, 42-45, 47; and Rom. vii, 19-20. They were quoted for anti-Christian polemics, and from the forms of the proper names seem to have been derived from a Syriac original, though traces of the Targum of the pseudo-Jonathan (see above, A, V, § 3) may be discovered in the renderings of Ex. xx, 5 and especially of Gen. iii, 14 (cf. L H. Gray, in Actes du XIV. congrès international des orientalistes, i, Paris, 1905, 182-186). Equally interesting are the fragments of the New Testament in Estrangelo script but in an Iranian dialect (probably Sogdhian, thus constituting almost the only known remains of this dialect), discovered in Turfan, Eastern Turkestan, in 1903. These citations are Manichean in origin, and the following passages are thus far known: Matt. x, 14 sqq.; Luke i, 63-80; John xx, 19 sqq.; Gal. iii, 25 sqq., and a number of smaller fragments which are adaptations and compilations rather than translations (cf. F. W. K. Müller, in appendix to the Abhandlungen der Berliner Akademie, 1904, pp. 34-37, and Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie, 1907, pp. 260-270). Mention may also be made of a Persian version of Gen. i-vi, 6, by Abhichand, a Hindu converted to a mixture of Judaism and Mohammedanism by the Judeo-Persian poet Sarmad early in the seventeenth century, and preserved in the Dabistan. This version differs materially from the translation of Jacob Tawus.


Bibliography: Walton's Polyglot, Prolegomena, 16, and S. Clericus in vol. iv; S. Munk, Une version persane MS. de la Bibliothèque Royale, Paris, 1838; Bible of Every Land, pp. 64-71, London, 1861; A. Kohut, Beleuchtung der persischen Pentateuchübersetzung, Heidelberg, 1871; T. Nöldeke, in ZDMG, li (1893), 548; Horn, Aus italienischen Bibliotheken, in ZDMG, li (1893); Scrivener, Introduction, ii, 165; Gregory, Textkritik, i, 575-578.



XIV. Portuguese Versions: Portuguese versions begin with that by João Ferreira d’Almeida, a former Roman Catholic priest (New Testament, Amsterdam, 1681; Old Testament, revised and continued by Danish missionaries, Tranquebar, 1719- 1751). A Roman Catholic version, with annotations, by Antonio Pereira de Figueiredo, was published in Lisbon, 1778 sqq. (23 vols.; revised ed., greatly improved, 1794-1819).


A version based on Almeida’s translation was made by the Rev. Thomas Boys, and published by the Trinitarian Bible Society (London, 1843-47). The British and Foreign Bible Society has often printed revised editions of both Almeida’s and Pereira’s versions. The need of a better and more accurate translation of the Bible in the Portuguese language is generally recognized by Protestant missionaries and laborers in Portugal and Brazil.

(S. BERGER †.)


Bibliography: Bible of Every Land, p. 271-276, London, 1861; S. Berger, in Romania, xxviii (1899), 543 sqq. (gives a full account of the literature); DB, extra vol., pp. 410-411.



XV. Scandinavian Versions: 1. Before the Reformation. Of the Scandinavian countries, Norway and its colony, Iceland, had at a very early period a national literature in the Old Norwegian tongue (incorrectly called Old Norse). To the earliest period of Bible translation belongs the Stjorn ("Dispensation," sc., of God), which includes Gen.-II Kings. This is not a translation but a paraphrase of these books on the basis of the Vulgate, with explanatory remarks from different authors--Josephus, Augustine, Peter Comestor, Vincent of Beauvais, and others. The preface states that it was prepared under the patronage of King Haakon V (1299-1319), and from a note in one of the manuscripts it appears that Brand Jonson, bishop of Hole in Iceland (d. 1264), made the translation. If this note is correct, Jonson probably translated the middle and most ancient part (Ex. xix-Deut. xxxiv). The Stjorn was edited by Prof. C. R. Unger (Christiania, 1862). In the Old Norwegian literature there exist many homilies, legends of the saints, and apocryphal Acts of the Apostles which contain many Bible texts; these were put together and published by J. Belsheim under the title Af Bibelen i Norge og paa Island i Middelalderen (Christiania, 1884).


The earliest traces of a translation of the Bible into Old Swedish appear in the time of St. Bridget. In her "Revelations" as well as in accounts of her life it is said that she had a copy of the Bible made in Swedish. This was undoubtedly only an exposition of the Pentateuch composed by her father confessor Matthias in Linköping (d. 1350; see BRIDGET, SAINT, OF SWEDEN). Joshua, and Judges were translated later by Nils Ragnvaldson (d. 1514), while Judith, Esther, Ruth, and Maccabees were translated by Jens Budde of the Nådendal monastery. There is also extant a translation of the Apocalypse, made prior to 1520. All these Biblical works, based on the Vulgate, were edited by G. E. Klemming, in Svenska Medeltidens Bibelarbeten (2 vols., Stockholm, 1848-55).


An old Danish version based on the Vulgate, containing the first twelve books of the Old Testament, is contained in a manuscript of the Mariager monastery in Jutland, antedating 1480. The first eight books were edited by Prof. C. Molbech (Copenhagen, 1828). A translation of the Psalms of the same period is extant in different manuscripts. Some of them were edited by C. J. Brands, in Gamle danske Läsebog (Copenhagen, 1857).


2. Since the Reformation. In both Denmark and Sweden the entire Bible was first translated in the period of the Reformation. Norway was united with Denmark from 1380 to 1814 and the Danish language, being cognate with the Norwegian, became the common literary language in the two countries. The New Testament was first rendered into Danish by Hans Mikkelsen, formerly burgomaster of Malmö, who followed Christian II into exile in the Netherlands in 1523. This New Testament appeared at Leipsic in 1524. Being a mixture of Danish and German, the language was uncouth. A better translation was made by Christen Pedersen (d. 1554), the first editor of the history of Denmark by Saxo Grammaticus and of other older works. Pedersen’s New Testament was printed at Antwerp 1529 and again in 1531, and in the latter year his translation of the Psalms appeared. Previous to this (1528) a translation of the Psalms made by Frans Wormordsen, a Dutchman by birth, was published at Rostock. All these followed the Vulgate closely, but were influenced by Luther and Erasmus. The Danish Reformer Hans Tausen (d. 1561, as bishop of Ribe [Ripen]) translated the Pentateuch from Luther’s version (Magdeburg, 1535). Peder Tidemand translated Judges (Copenhagen, 1539), and Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus (Magdebnrg, 1541). The first complete Bible in Danish was published at Copenhagen in 1550, following, according to the instructions of Christian III, as much as possible Luther’s version. The greater part of the work was done by Christen Pedersen, assisted by a number of professors. A new edition followed, 1589, reprinted 1633. A translation from the original languages, prepared by Hans Paulsen Resen (d. 1638), appeared in 1607, and, revised by Bishop Hans Svane or Svaning (the so-called Svaning Bible), again in 1647 and was used till the middle of the nineteenth century. In 1819 Bishop F. C. K. H. Münter (q.v.) with others undertook a revision of the New Testament, and the whole Bible, revised by C. Rothe, C. Hermansen, and C. Kalkar under the presidency of Bishop H. L. Martensen (q.v.) was published in 1872. There are translations made by other scholars, such as C. Bastholm (New Testament, 1780), O. H. Guldberg (New Testament, 1794), the whole Bible by J. C. Lindberg (1837-56) and C. Kalkar (1847), the four Gospels by K. F. Viborg (1863), and the New Testament by Bishop T. S. Rördam (1886; 2d ed., 1894-95). A Roman Catholic version of the New Testament after the Vulgate was published by J. L. V. Hansen in 1893.


After the separation of Norway from Denmark in 1814, three revisions of the New Testament were made 1819, 1830, and 1873), the most important being by Prof. Hersleb in 1830. A new translation of the Old Testament undertaken by Adjunct Thistedahl and Profs. Kaurin, Holmboe, Caspari, and Nissen was published in parts 1857- 1869; revised ed. completed 1890), and of the New Testament by Bishops F. W. Bugge, A. C. Bang, and others was published in 1904.


The New Testament was rendered into the Norwegian vernacular, which much resembles the Old Norwegian, by Prof. E. Blix, I. Aasen, M. Skard, and J. Belsheim, and published in 1889 (new ed., 1899). A translation of parts of the Old Testament is in preparation and the Book of Psalms was printed in 1904, Genesis in 1905. A translation of the New Testament for the use of Roman Catholics has also been published. During the Reformation period Iceland also received the Bible in its old Norwegian-Icelandic tongue. An Icelander, Odd Gottskalkson, of Norwegian descent, translated the New Testament, which was published at Roskilde, 1540. The whole Bible translated after Luther’s version by Bishop Gudbrand Thorlakson appeared in 1584 (revised 1644). A new translation by Bishop Stein Jonson was issued in 1728, but the rendering was not smooth, so the older version of Thorlakson was reprinted at Copenhagen in 1747, and the New Testament again in 1750 and 1807, followed in 1813 by a reprint of the whole Bible. In 1827 a new translation of the New Testament was published, followed by a revised edition of the whole Bible in 1841, and by a revised edition, Oxford, 1863.


When Gustavus Vasa became king of Sweden in 1523, wishing for a Swedish translation, he applied to Archbishop Johannes Magni of Upsala, requesting him with the help of the clergy to prepare a translation of the New Testament. The archbishop devised a plan which, however, was opposed by some of the ministers. Bishop Hans Brask of Linköping said that "it were better for Paul to have been burned, than to be known by every one." The New Testament translated by the chancellor Lorenz Andreä (q.v.) with the assistance of Pastor Olaus Petri (q.v.) was published at Stockholm 1526. The whole Bible, translated by Lars Petri, archbishop of Upsala (d. 1573), was issued 1540-41. This Bible, made after Luther’s, was for a long time the church Bible of Sweden. A revised edition by the two bishops Gezelius in Abo (father and son; see GEZELIUS, JOHANNES) was highly praised. Different commissions for translating the Bible were appointed; one, consisting of twenty-three members, spent a long time in preparing a translation with a rationalistic tendency; but the "specimens" published from time to time found no favor. In 1844 the commission was reconstituted, with Prof. A. Knös as one of its most active members. The New Testament prepared by the cathedral provost, C. A Thoren and H. M. Melin and published in 1853-77 was not favorably received. A better reception met the version of the New Testament prepared by Archbishop Sundberg, Cathedral Provost Thoren, and Bishop Johanson, published in 1882. A new translation of the Old Testament is in preparation. The Bible version of Cathedral Provost Melin was published in 1865-69.



Bibliography: J. Belsheim, Veiledning i Bibelens Historie, pp. 252 sqq., Christiana, 1880; J. A. Schinmeier, Geschichte der schwedischen Bibel-Uebersetzungen und Ausgaben, Leipsic, 1777; P. W. Becker, De J. P. Resenii versione Danica, Copenhagen, 1831; C. Molbech, Bidrag til en historie af de Danske Bibeloversaettelser, ib. 1840; Bible of Every Land, pp. 214-225, London, 1561; C. W. Bruun, Bibliotheca Danica, Copenhagen, 1872; J. P. Häggman, Forteckning öfver svenska upplagor af Bibeln, Upsala, 1882; KL, ii, 767-769; DB, extra vol., pp. 415-416.



XVI. Slavonic Versions: 1. The Old Church Slavonic Version. The history of Bible versions in the Slavonic begins with the second half of the ninth century. The oldest translation, commonly called the Church Slavonic, is closely connected with the activity of the two apostles to the Slavs, Cyril and Methodius, in Moravia, 864-885 (see CYRIL AND METHODIUS). The oldest manuscripts are written either in the so-called Cyrillic or the Glagolitic character. The former is the Greek majuscule writing of the ninth century with the addition of new characters for Slavic sounds which are not found in the Greek of that time; the latter was a style of the Greek minuscule with the addition of new signs as in the Cyrillic alphabet. The oldest manuscripts are written in the Glagolitic, which is older than the Cyrillic. The oldest manuscripts extant belong to the tenth or eleventh century, and the first complete collection of Biblical books in the Church Slavonic language originated in Russia in the last decade of the fifteenth century. It was made by Archbishop Gennadius of Novgorod, and the Old Testament was translated partly from the Vulgate, and partly from the Septuagint. The New Testament is based upon the old Church Slavonic translation. During the sixteenth century a greater interest in the Bible was awakened in South and West Russia, owing to the controversies between adherents of the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholics and Uniates. In the second half of the sixteenth century the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, and parts of the Psalter were often printed at Lemberg and Wilna, though the oldest edition of the Acts and Epistles was issued at Moscow in 1564. In 1581 the first edition of the Slavonic Bible was published at Ostrog, a number of Greek manuscripts, besides the Gennadius Bible, having been used for this edition. But neither the Gennadius nor the Ostrog Bible was satisfactory, and in 1663 a second somewhat revised edition of the latter was published at Moscow. In 1712 the czar Peter the Great issued a ukase ordering the printed Slavonic text to be carefully compared with the Greek of the Septuagint and to be made in every respect conformable to it. The revision was completed in 1724 and was ordered to be printed, but the death of Peter (1725) prevented the execution of the order. The manuscript of the Old Testament of this revision is in the synodal library at Moscow. Under the empress Elizabeth the work of revision was resumed by a ukase issued in 1744, and in 1751 a revised "Elizabeth" Bible, as it is called, was published. Three other editions were published in 1756, 1757, and 1759, the second somewhat revised. All later reprints of the Russian Church Bible are based upon this second edition, which is the authorized version of the Russian Church.


2. Russian Versions. The Church Slavonic is not intelligible to the Russian people. An effort to produce a version in the vernacular was made by Frantsisk Skorina (d. after 1535), a native of Polotsk in White Russia. He published at Prague, 1517-19, twenty-two Old Testament books in the "Russian language," in the preparation of which he was greatly influenced by the Bohemian Bible of 1506 (see below, § 5). Other efforts were made during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, but the Church Slavonic predominated in all these efforts. Peter the Great felt that the mass of the Russian people needed a Bible in the vernacular and authorized Pastor Glück in 1703 to prepare such an edition. Unhappily Glück died in 1705 and nothing is known of his work. It was left to the nineteenth century in connection with the establishment of the Russian Bible Society (founded in 1812 at St. Petersburg, with the consent of Alexander I; see BIBLE SOCIETIES, II, 5) to prepare a Bible in the vernacular. The work was undertaken by Philaret (q.v.), rector of the Theological Academy of St. Petersburg (afterward metropolitan of Moscow), and other members of the faculty of the academy. The Gospels were published in 1818 and in 1822 the entire New Testament. In 1820 the translation of the Old Testament was undertaken, and in 1822 Philaret’s translation of the Psalms was published. In 1825 the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth were issued. The year 1826 saw an end to the activity of the Bible Society in the ban put upon all kinds of private associations, even when non-political. Not before 1858 was the work of translation resumed. In 1876 the entire Bible was published in one volume. The Old Testament books, though based upon the Hebrew, follow the order of the Septuagint and the Church Slavonic Bible. The Apocryphal books also form a part of the Russian Bible. The British and Foreign Bible Society also issued a Russian edition, omitting, however, the Apocrypha.


3. Bulgarian and Servian Versions. The Bulgarians too were provided during the nineteenth century with translations of Biblical books into the vernacular. In 1828 the New Testament was published at Bucharest (2d ed., 1833), translated by the pastors Sapunov and Seraphim. For the British and Foreign Bible Society the archimandrite Theodosius, abbot of the Bistrica monastery, translated the New Testament, which was printed at London in 1828. The entire edition was sent to St. Petersburg and is said to have been destroyed there. A new translation of the New Testament was published at Smyrna in 1840 (3d ed., Bucharest, 1853, and often). In 1867 the American Bible Society printed in New York a translation of the New Testament and other editions were issued at Constantinople in 1866 and 1872. The Old Testament "translated from the original" was also published there in three parts (1862-64), but without the Apocrypha. An edition of the entire Bible "faithfully and accurately rendered from the original" was published by the same society at Constantinople in 1868 (3d ed., 1874). A translation of the New Testament into Servian was made by Vuk Stefanović Karajić, the founder of modern Servian literature, and published at Vienna in 1847. The Old Testament was translated by Vuk’s pupil Dyuro Danichić and issued at Belgrade in 1868. The language in both is excellent. The Servian Bible of Atanasiie Ivanović Stoiković (published by the Russian Bible Society at St. Petersburg, 1824) is not written in the vernacular, but is a mixture of Church Slavonic and Servian.


4. Slovenian and Croation Versions. The Bible versions for the Slovenes are most closely connected with the activity of the Reformer of Carniola, Primus Truber (1507-86; see TRUBER, PRIMUS), and his associates and successors; they were intended for the Evangelical Slovenes. Truber translated the Gospel of Matthew, which was printed at Reutlingen in 1555; in 1557 the first part of the New Testament was published at Tübingen, the second part in 1560, and the complete New Testament was issued in 1582; the Psalms appeared in 1566. Dalmatin, who assisted Truber, translated the Old Testament, and an edition of the entire Scriptures in Slovenian was published under his direction at Wittenberg in 1584. Stevan Kuezmics published a New Testament for the Hungarian Slovenians in their dialect at Halle in 1771. An edition published at Güns (Köszeg) in 1848 has the Psalms added. In 1784 a part of the New Testament for the use of Roman Catholics was printed at Laibach, translated from the Vulgate by several hands. The second part of the New Testament was issued in 1786, and the Old Testament between 1791 and 1802. Efforts were also made to prepare a Bible version for the Evangelical Croats or for those who should be brought over to the Evangelical faith. A New Testament translated by Anton Dalmata and Stipan Consul was printed in Glagolitic characters (2 parts) at Tübingen 1562-63. In the seventeenth century efforts were made to give a translation to the Catholic Croats and Servians in the so-called Illyrian dialect, but nothing was printed till the nineteenth century, when a Bible in Latin letters together with the parallel text of the Vulgate, translated into "the Illyric language, Bosnian dialect" by Petrus Kataucsich, was published at Budapest (6 parts, 1831). It followed the Vulgate slavishly.


5. Bohemian Versions. The Czech literature of the Middle Ages is very rich in translations of Biblical books, made from the Vulgate (cf. the list of manuscripts and prints in J. Jungmann, Historic Literatury Ćeské, Prague, 1849). During the fourteenth century all parts of the Bible seem to have been translated at different times and by different hands. The oldest translations are those of the Psalter. The New Testament must also have existed at that time, for according to a statement of Wyclif, Anne, daughter of Charles IV, received in 1381 upon her marrying Richard II of England a Bohemian New Testament. It is certain that Huss had the Bible in Bohemian before him as a whole and he and his successors undertook a revision of the text according to the Vulgate. The work of Huss on the Bible antedated 1412. During the fifteenth century the revision was continued. The first complete Bible was published at Prague, 1488; other editions were issued at Kuttenberg, 1489, and Venice, 1506. These prints were the basis of other editions which were published from time to time.


With the United Brethren a new period began for the translation of the Bible. In 1518 the New Testament appeared at Jungbunzlau at the instance of Luke of Prague (q.v.). It was not satisfactory and the same must be said of the edition of 1533. Altogether different was the translation made by Jan Blahoslav from the original Greek (1564, 1568). The Brethren soon undertook the translation of the Old Testament from the original and appointed for this work a number of scholars, who based their translation upon the Hebrew text published in the Antwerp Polyglot. The work began in 1577 and was completed in 1593, and from the place of printing, Kralitz in Moravia, it is known as the Kralitz Bible (6 parts, 1579-93, containing also Blahoslav’s New Testament). This excellent translation was issued in smaller size in 1596, and again in folio in 1613 (reprinted at Halle in 1722, 1745, 1766; Pressburg, 1787; Berlin, 1807).


After the year 1620 the publication of non-Catholic Bibles in Bohemia and Moravia ceased, and efforts were made to prepare Bibles for the Catholics. After some fruitless beginnings the work was entrusted to certain Jesuits, who took the Venice edition of 1506 as the basis, but relied greatly, especially for the Old Testament, on the Brethren’s Bible. Between 1677 and 1715 the so-called St. Wenceslaus Bible was published at the expense of a society founded in honor of the saint. A new edition appeared at Prague 1769-71. A thoroughly revised edition, using the text of the Brethren’s Bible, was published in 1778-80. Still more dependent on the Brethren’s Bible was Prochaska’s New Testament (Prague, 1786), and his edition of the whole Bible (1804). Editions of Prochaska’s text, slightly amended, were issued in 1851 and 1857. The Bible edited by Besděka (Prague, 1860) gives the text of the Brethren's Bible with slight changes. G. Palković translated the Bible from the Vulgate into Slovak (2 parts, Gran, 1829).


6. Wendish or Sorbic Versions. The oldest Sorbic Bible version, that of the New Testament of 1547, is extant in a manuscript in the Royal Library at Berlin. The translator was Miklawusch Jakubica, who employed a dialect (the Lower Sorbic) now extinct. In the eighteenth century Gottlieb Fabricius, a German, made a translation of the New Testament which was printed in 1709. In a revised form this version was published by the British and Foreign Bible Society in 1860. The Old Testament, translated by J. G. Fritz, was printed at Kottbus in 1796. An edition of the entire Bible was published by the Prussian Bible Society in 1868.


Michael Frentzel, pastor in Postwitz (d. 1706), translated the New Testament into the Wendish of Upper Lusatia (Upper Sorbic), and his version was published by his son, Abraham Frentzel (Zittau, 1706). A complete edition of the Bible, the work of different scholars, was first published at Bautzen, 1728. A second revised edition was prepared by Johann Gottfried Kühn and issued in 1742; a third improved edition prepared by Johann Jacob Petschke was published in 1797. Passing over other editions, it is worth while to note that the ninth edition of the complete Bible (Bautzen, 1881) was revised by H. Immisch and others and contains a history of the Upper Lusatian Wendish Bible translation. For the Roman Catholic Wends of Upper Lusatia G. Lusčanski and M. Hornik translated the New Testament from the Vulgate, and published it at Bautzen, 1887-92; the Psalms were translated from the Hebrew by J. Laras (Bautzen, 1872).


7. Polish Versions. The history of the Polish translation of the Bible begins with the Psalter (cf. W. Nehring, Altpolnische Sprachdenkmäler, Berlin, 1886). A manuscript of the second half of the fourteenth century, in the abbey of St. Florian, near Linz, in Latin, Polish, and German is probably the oldest. A critical edition of the Polish part was published by Nehring (Psalterii Florianensis pars Polonica, Posen, 1883) with a very instructive introduction. Besides the Florian Psalter there is the Psalter of Pulawy (now in Cracow) belonging to the end of the fifteenth century (published in facsimile, Posen, 1880).


Polish Bibles originated after the middle of the fifteenth century. An incomplete Bible, the so-called Sophia Bible (named after Queen Sophia, for whom it was intended, according to a remark from the sixteenth century; also called the Sárospatak Bible from the place where it is preserved), contains Genesis, Joshua, Ruth, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, II (III) Esdras, Tobit, and Judith (ed. A. Malecki, Biblia Krolowéj Zofii, Lemberg, 1871). With the Reformation period activity in the work of translation increased as the different confessions endeavored to supply their adherents with texts of the Bible. An effort to provide the Lutherans with the Bible in Polish was made by Duke Albert of Prussia (q.v.) in a letter directed in his name to Melanchthon. Jan Sieklucki, preacher at Königsberg (d. 1578), was commissioned to prepare a translation, and he published the New Testament at Königsberg 1551 and 1552. The Polish Reformed (Calvinists) received the Bible through Prince Nicholas Radziwill (1515-65). A company of Polish and foreign theologians and scholars undertook the task, and, after six years’ labor at Pincow, not far from Cracow, finished the translation of the Bible which was published at the expense of Radziwill in Brest-Litovsk, 1563 (hence called the Brest or Radziwill Bible). The translators state that for the Old Testament they consulted besides the Hebrew text the ancient versions and different modern Latin ones. The Brest Bible was not universally welcomed. The Reformed suspected it of Socinian interpretations; the Socinians complained that it was not accurate enough. The Socinian Simon Budny especially charged against the Brest Bible that it was not prepared according to the original texts, but after the Vulgate and other modern versions, and that the translators cared more for elegant Polish than for a faithful rendering. He undertook a new rendering, and his translation ("made anew from the Hebrew, Greek and Latin into the Polish") was printed in 1572 at Nešvižh. As changes were introduced in the printing which were not approved by Budny, he disclaimed the New Testament and published another edition (1574). The charges which he made against the Brest Bible were also made against his own, and the Socinian Adam Czechowicz published a new and improved edition of the New Testament (Rakow, 1577). The interesting preface states that Czechowicz endeavored to make an accurate translation, but did not suppress his Socinian ideas; e.g., he used "immersion" instead of "baptism." Another Socinian New Testament was published by Valentinus Smalcius (Rakow, 1606).


The Brest Bible was superseded by the so-called Danzig Bible, which finally became the Bible of all Evangelical Poles. At the synod in Ožarowiec, 1600, a new edition of the Bible was proposed and the work was given to the Reformed minister Martin Janicki, who had already translated the Bible from the original texts. In 1603 the printing of this translation was decided upon, after the work had been carefully revised. The work of revision was entrusted to men of the Reformed and Lutheran confessions and members of the Moravian Church (1604), especially to Daniel Mikolajewski (d. 1633), superintendent of the Reformed churches in Great Poland, and Jan Turnowski, senior of the Moravian Church in Great Poland (d. 1629). After it had been compared with the Janicki translation, the Brest, the Bohemian, Pagnini's and the Vulgate, the new rendering was ordered printed. The Janicki translation as such has not been printed, and it is difficult to state how much of it is contained in the new Bible. The New Testament was first published at Danzig, 1606, and very often during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The complete Bible was issued in 1632 and often since. The Danzig Bible differs so much from that of Brest that it may be regarded as a new translation. It is erroneously called also the Bible of Paliurus (a Moravian, senior of the Evangelical Churches in Great Poland, d. 1632); but he had no part in the work.


For the Roman Catholics the Bible was translated from the Vulgate by John of Lemberg (Leopolita, hence this was called the Leopolitan Bible) and published at Cracow, 1561, 1574, and 1577. This Bible was superseded by the new translation of Jakub Wujek (a Jesuit, b. about 1540; d. at Cracow 1593). Wujek criticized the Catholic and non-Catholic Bible versions and spoke very favorably of the Polish of the Brest Bible, but asserted that it was full of heresies and of errors in translation. With the approbation of the Holy See the New Testament was first published at Cracow, 1593, and the Old Testament in 1599, after Wujek’s death. This Bible has often been reprinted. Wujek’s translation follows, in the main, the Vulgate.



Bibliography: For the beginnings of Slavic versions consult: Vita Methodii, russo-slovenice et latine, ed. F. Miklosich, Vienna, 1870; C. Dümmler, Die pannonische Legende vom heiligen Method, in Archiv für Kunde österr. Geschichtsquellen, vol. Xiii; idem and F. Miklosich, Die Legende vom heiligen Cyrillus, in Denkschriften der Wiener Akademie, phil.-histor. Classe, xix (1870); Jagić, Zur Entstchungsgeschichte der Kirchenslav-Sprache, Vienna, 1900. On the history of versions consult: S. W. Ringeltaube, Nachricht von polnischen Bibeln, Danzig, 1744; R. G. Ungar, Allgermeine böhmische Bibliothek, part 1, Theologie, Prague, 1786 (a bibliography of Bohemian versions); J. Dobrowsky, Ueber den ersten Text der böhmischen Bibelübersetsung, Prague, 1798; idem, Glagolitica, ib. 1807; C. F. Schnurrer, Slavischer Büchernachdruck in Würtemberg im 16. Jahrhundert, Tübingen, 1799; G. J. Diabacz, Nachricht von einem bisher noch unbekannten böhmischen A. T., Prague, 1804; Bible of Every Land, pp. 291-310, London, 1861; I. Kostrenćić, Geschichte der protestantischen Litteratur der Südslaven, 1559-65, Vienna, 1874; W. R. Morfill, Slavonic Literature, London, 1883; Archiv für Slavische Philologie, by V. Jagić, especially supplement vol. by F. Pastirnek, Berlin, 1892 (contains bibliographical lists of works on Slavonic subjects for the years 1876-91, including whatever has appeared during that time on the Russian Bible); V. Vondrák, Die Spuren der altkirchenslavischen Evangelienübersetzung, Vienna, 1893; F. Ahn, Bibliographische Seltenheiten der Truberlitteratur, Leipsic, 1894; L. J. M. Bebb, The Russian Bible, in Church Quarterly Review, Oct., 1895, pp. 203-225; T. Elze, Die slovenischen protestantischen Druckschriften des xvi. Jahrhunderts, Venice, 1896; Scrivener, Introduction, ii, 157 sqq.; BD, extra vol. pp. 417-420.



XVII. Spanish Versions: It is very difficult to decide at what time the first Spanish version was made. In treating of Spanish Bibles, a distinction should be made between the Catalonian and the Castilian speech. Of Biblical manuscripts in the former there are many from the fifteenth century, one (of the New Testament) from the fourteenth. Report has it that the Dominican Romeu Sabruguera of Mallorca (d. 1313), who translated the Psalms, worked on a translation of the entire Bible; but the report can not be verified. Most of the Catalonian translations of parts of the Bible (Proverbs, the Prophets, Pauline and Catholic Epistles) depend on the Vulgate and early French versions; a translation of the Psalms depends wholly on the French; the Gospels in the oldest manuscripts are not based on the Vulgate but on a text in southern French. Of an alleged translation supposed to have been printed in Valencia, 1478, no bibliographical datum or exemplar is known, only a few fragments being so attributed.


Of the Castilian translations almost as little is known, since no efficient examination of Spanish manuscripts has yet been made. If tradition may be accepted, the oldest version belongs to the thirteenth century, having been made at the request of Alphonso of Castile and John of Leon; but there is no confirmation of this statement. It is a remarkable fact that the early Castilian versions of the Old Testament were made by Jews, and the basis was, naturally, the Hebrew text. Luis de Guzman, grand master of the Order of Calatrava, entrusted in 1422 to the learned rabbi Moses Arragel of Maqueda the work of translating and annotating the Scriptures, but with the help and under the supervision of the Franciscan Arias of Enzinas (Enciena) and others of the clergy. It accords with this that most of the manuscripts follow the order of the Hebrew canon.


Of printed texts the first in chronological order is the New Testament by Francis of Enzinas (Antwerp, 1543); next a Bible printed in two editions (Ferrara, 1553), one for Jews, the other for Christians (reprinted Amsterdam, 1611, 1630; revised ed., 1661). In 1556 Juan Perez published (ostensibly at Venice, really at Geneva) an edition of the New Testament, which follows the original Greek. In 1569 a Bible was published, probably at Basel, in the translation of Cassiodoro de Reina. Another edition with slight changes was published by Ricardo del Campo, 1596, and an entirely revised edition by Cipriano de Valera was published at Amsterdam, 1602. The oldest Jewish-Spanish printed translation of the Pentateuch is that of Constance, 1547. The Old Testament in Hebrew and Spanish was published by Solomon Proops at Amsterdam in 1762. It was not until the end of the eighteenth century that a Roman Catholic scholar undertook to give his Spanish countrymen a new translation, with the Latin text and a commentary. The author of this work (10 vols., Valencia, 1790-93; 20 vols., Madrid, 1794-97) was Felipe Scio de San Miguel, bishop of Segovia. It was often reprinted. A more recent translation, having respect to the original texts, was published by Felix Torres Amat, bishop of Astorga (9 vols., Madrid, 1824-29; 6 vols., 1832-35; reprinted, 17 vols., Paris, 1835). A corrected edition of Amat’s version was published under the care of Señor Calderon, by the Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge in 1853. In 1893 the American Bible Society published a thoroughly revised edition of Valera’s Bible, which may be regarded as practically a new version. The work was done by H. B. Pratt. A New Testament in the Catalan, translated by J. M. Pratt, was issued by the British and Foreign Bible Society.

(S. BERGER †.)


Bibliography: S. Berger, Nouvelles recherches sur les bibles . . . catalanes, in Romania, xix. 1890; idem, Les Bibles castillanes, ib. xxviii, 1899 (contains bibliography and list of MSS.); J. M. de Egurén, Memoria de Los codices notables, Madrid, 1859; J. Rodriguez de Castro, Biblioteca española, vol. i, ib. 1781; J. L. Villanueva, De la leccion de la S. Escritura en lenguas vulgares, Valenzia, 1791; Bible of Every Land, pp. 261-267, London, 1861; The Governor of Madrid’s Bible, ib. 1871; J. E. B. Mayor, Spain, Portugal, and the Bible, ib. 1895; G. Borrow, The Bible in Spain, latest ed., ib. 1906; KL, ii, 743-744; DB, extra vol., pp. 408-410.



XVIII. Bible Versions in the Mission Field: Eusebius (Theophania, iii, 28) says that the writings of the Apostles were translated in the whole world, in all languages of Greeks and barbarians; and Chrysostom and Theodoret repeat the remark with still greater emphasis. Nevertheless from this early time till the rise of Pietism and the founding of missionary and Bible societies little was done by the official Church or Churches for the translation and circulation of the Bible. The first Report of the British and Foreign Bible Society has an account of what was then the most famous collection of Bibles (at Stuttgart) and estimates the number of languages represented there at forty-one. The Bibles presented to the Society in its first year were in forty-six languages, from Arabic and Armenian to Turkish and Welsh. The catalogue of Bibles of the British Museum includes ninety-seven languages. The hundredth Report of the British and Foreign Bible Society, in the "Historical Table of Languages and Dialects in which the Translation, Printing, or Distribution of the Scriptures has been at any time promoted by the Society" (pp. 434 sqq.), gives 378 languages; versions in twenty-four languages prepared by other societies have been removed from the list. [The total number of languages into which the Bible, or parts of it, has now been translated is about 500.] The best conspectus is afforded by T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule, Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scripture in the Library of the British and Foreign Bible Society (2 vols., London, 1903-08).



Bibliography: The Bible of Every Land, London, 1861; R. N. Cust, Language as Illustrated by Bible Translations, ib. 1886; idem, Essays on the Languages of the Bible and Bible Translations, ib. 1890; idem, Three Lists of Bible Translations accomplished . . . to Aug. 1, 1890, ib. 1890; J. S. Dennis, Centennial Survey of Foreign Missions, New York, 1901; E. Wallroth, in Allgemeine Missionzeitschrift, xviii, 1901; T. Nicol, The Bible and the Church and the Mission Field, in London Quarterly Review, Jan., 1904. The Reports of the various Bible Societies furnish the sources.