VERSIONS
370
VERSIONS
parts. A New Testament in Carshuni characters
containing in two columns the Syriac Peschitto and
the Arabic of the Codex of Erpenius was published
at Rome (1703) for the Maronites of Lebanon. A
Bible Society edition appeared at Paris (1827).
(4) Persian Version. — In the first half of the sixteenth century Rabbi Jacob Tawus translated hterally the Massoretic text of the Pentateuch.
(5) Samaritan Version of the Pentateuch. From at least the fourth century b. c. the Samaritans used a copy of Hebrew Law. It was written in archaic Hebrew characters and differed in some respects from the original. Many of its readings have found favour with not a few Biblical scholars. It was translated with hteral fidelity into Samaritan in the second century b. c. This version was printed in the Polj-- glots of 1645 and 1647.
(6) The Vulgate. — While revising the text of the Old Latin Version, St. Jerome became convinced of the need in the Western Church of a new translation directly from the Hebrew. His Latin scholarship, his acquaintance with Biblical places and customs obtained by residence in Palestine, and his remark- able knowledge of Hebrew and of Jewish exegetical traditions, especially fitted him for a work of this kind. He set himself to the task a. d. 390 and in a. d. 405 completed the protocanonical books of the Old Testament from the Hebrew, and the deuterocanoni- cal Books of Tobias and Judith from the Aramaic. To these were added his revision of the Old Latin, or Galilean, Psalter, the New Testament, revised from the Old Latin with the aid of the original Greek, and the remaining deuterooanonical books, and portions of Esther, and Daniel, just as they existed in the Itala. Thus was formed that version of the Bible which has had no less influence in the Western Church than the Septuagint has had in the Eastern, which has enriched the thought and lan- guage of Europe and has been the source of nearly all modern translations of the Scriptures. The Hebrew text used by St. Jerome was comparatively late, being practically that of the Massoretes. For this reason his version, for textual criticism, has less value than the Peschitto and the Septuagint. As a translation it holds a place between these two. It is elegant in style, clear in expression, and on the whole, notwith- standing some freedoms in the way of restricted or amplified readings, it is faithful to the sense of the original. At first it met with httle favour. It was looked upon by some as a perversion suggested and encouraged by the Jews. Others held it to be inferior to the Septuagint, and those who recognized its merits feared it would cause dissensions. But it gradually supplanted the Old Latin Version. Adopted by several writers in the fifth century, it came into more general use in the sixth. At least the Spanish churches employed it in the seventh century, and in the ninth it was found in practically the whole Roman Church. Its title "Vulgate", indicating its common use, and belonging to the Old Latin until the seventh century, was firmly established in the thir- teenth. In the sixteenth the Council of Trent de- clared it the authentic version of the Church.
From an early day the text of the Vulgate began to suffer corruptions, mostly through the copyists who introduced familiar readings of the Old Latin or inserted the marginal glosses of the MSS. which they were transcribing. In the eighth century Alcuin undertook and coniiili-ted (a. d. SOI) a revision with the aid of the best MSS. then current. Another was made about the same time by Theodulph, Bishop of Orleans. The best known of other and subsequent recensions are those of Lanfranc (d. 1089), of St. Stephen, Abbot of Citeaux (d. 1134), and of Cardinal Nicolas (d. 1150). Then the universities and religious orders began to jjublish their "Correctoria biblica", or critical commentaries on the various readings
found in the MSS. and writings of the Fathers. After
the first printing of the Vulgate by Gutenberg in
14.56, other editions came out rapidly. Their circu-
lation with other Latin versions led to increasing
uncertainties as to a standard text and caused the
Fathers of the Council of Trent to declare that the
Vulgate alone was to be held as "authentic in public
readings, discourses, and disputes, and that nobod>'
might dare or presume to reject it on any pretence"
(Sess. IV, deer, de editione et usu sacrorum librorum).
By this declaration the Council, without depreciating
the Hebrew or the Septuagint or any other version
then in circulation and without forbidding the original
texts, approved the Vulgate and enjoined its pubhc
and official use as a text free from error in doctrine
and morals. It was left to the Holy See itself to
provide for a corrected revision of the Vulgate, but
the work went on but slowly. Contributing towards
the desired end, John Henten, O.P., published at
Louvain, 1547, an amended text with variants,
which was favourably received. The same was
repubUshed at Antwerp, 15S3, with a larger number
of variants, by the Louvain theologians under the
direction of Lucas of Bruges. In 1590 a Roman
edition was prepared by a commission of scholars.
After revising it, Sixtus V ordered it to be taken as
the standard text. After his death a further revision
was carried out under the direction of Franciseus
Toletus, S.J., and finally the work was printed in
1598, with its title unchanged: "BibUa Sacra Vul-
gatae editionis, Sixti V Pontificis Maximi jussu recog-
nita et edita". This was under the pontificate of
Clement VIII, and his name has appeared in the title
since 1641. This revision is now the officially recog-
nized version of the Latin Rite and contains the only
authorized text of the Vulgate. That it has numerous
defects has never been denied, yet it ranks high in the
evidence it affords of the competent scholarship that
produced it. To bring it into closer touch with the
latter developments of textual criticism is the purpose
that induced Pius X to entrust to the Benedictines
the work of further revision. The importance of
this enterprise consists in this that it will reproduce,
as correctly as po.ssible, the original translation of
St. Jerome, and will thereby furnish biblicists with a
rehable chie to an ancient Hebrew text, differing in
many details from the Septuagint, or the Massoretic
Text (Bellarmine; Vulgate, Revision of).
Other Latin Versions. — After St. Jerome the first to translate the Old Testament from the Hebrew into Latin appears to have been Cardinal Carton (d. 1307), Bishop of London, whose work has been lost. Of numerous versions, many of which have perished or are preserved only in MSS., noteworthy are the Psabiis from the Hebrew by Felix Pratensis, O.S.A. (Venice, 1515). Another Psalter with a version of Job was made by Aug. Justinian, O.P. (Paris, 1516). Xantes Pagninus, O.P. (d. 1541), made an inter- Unear version of both the Old and New Testaments from the original languages, which by its hteral fidelity pleased Christians and Jews and was much used by the Reformers. A revision of this translation resulting in a text even more literal was made by Arias Montano. His work appeared in the .Vntwerp Polyglot (1572). Another literal version was under- taken by Thomas Malvenda, O.P. (d. 162S), as the basis of an extensive commentary- but death ended his labours at the fifteenth chapter of Ezechiel. His work was published at Lyons (1650). In 1763 the Oratorian F. Houbigant "edited his "Bibha Veteris Testament i", rendered from the Hebrew. In the "Biblia Maxima" (Paris, ItitiO), J. de la Haye, O. Mill., colliitiHi a great number of variant readings of older Latin versions. A revision of the Vulgate (Venice, 1.542, 1557) by Isadore Clarius gave offence on account of many arbitrary (changes in the text and was put on the Index.
