Between 220 and 250, Origen wrote his Hexa-
pla, giving in separate columns the Hebrew, the
Hebrew in Greek letters, the officially received
Greek text, Aquila, Syriimaclms, and Theodo-
tion, and in some parts a fifth, sixth, and seventh
Greek translation. From the critical editors of
Homer he borrowed the signs with which he in-
dicated what was found in the Greek, but not in
the Hebrew (obelus), what was found in tlie He-
brew but not in the Greek, and therefore sup-
plied from some other version (asterisk), and
the end of each such passage ( metobelus ) . The
original work is lost. Part of a copy made in
the Tenth Century was discovered by ilercati in
189(i. As no passage athetized by Origen is
found in the Old Latin, important changes do
not seem to have been made in the version for
some time before Origen. All the more startling
are some of the variations found in Jewish and
Christian writers of the First and Second cen-
turies. They apparently point to the existence
of another version or text-recension already at
the end of the First Century a.d. On the other
hand, there is strong evidence that both Origen's
text and that represented by the Old Latin ex-
hibited many peculiarities and numerous addi-
tions not found in the original translation. As
this translation seems to have been produced by
many men. in different places, from the middle
of the Second Century to the beginning of our
era, the value of its different parts is naturally
not the same, either from a literary point of
view or as a means of discovering the original
Hebrew and Aramaic text. With all its natural
shortcomings, it is on the whole a close and
faithful rendering, and constitutes our earliest
witness to the original. Recent investigation of
the Greek papyri found in Egypt has increased
our knowledge of the Hellenistic dialect in which
it is written.
As the differences between the Greek version and the current Hebrew text, occasioned largely by expansions in the latter, were observed in an age intent upon textual purity, a desire for a more accurate translation, particularly of some books, would naturally arise. Thus U. Esdras appeared in addition to I. Esdras, the expurgat- ed edition, further revised by Theodotion, beside the Chigi Daniel, the much longer .Job known to Theodotion beside the shorter, the longer Jeremiah .already familiar to New-Testament writers beside the shorter, and possibly a new form of Judges. It is quite probable that new versions of certain books were thus produced not long before Josejjhus at Aatioch or Jerusalem. (3) In the reign of Hadrian (117-38), Aqui- la of Sinope, in I'ontus, a proselyte to Judaism. made a complete version of the Hebrew Bible, known through ancient writers, fragrnents of the He.apla, and a portion found in 1897 by Burkitt among material brought from the tJenizah of Cairo to Cambriilge. This translation was sla- vishly literal, and removed many inaccuracies of the current version.
(4) Theodotion of Ephesus, another Jewish proselyte, probably in the time of Marcus Aure- liis (Ifil-HO), ex«uted a less literal, yet faith- ful translation, preserved in part through an- cient writers and fragments of the llexa])la, manifestly on the basis of an earlier text-re- cension.
(5) Symniachus, an Ebionite of Samaritan birth, probably in the reign of Commodus ( 180- 92 ) , produced a more elegant version on the basis of already existing tr.anslations.
(6) The most elegant of all versions was Quinta, found by Origen at Nicopolis, near Ac- tiuni, of uncertain age, possibly a relic of the early Christianity of Epirus.
( 7 ) Decidedly of Christian origin is Sexta, found at Jericho, c.217.
(8) Of Septima little is known.
(9) The Gnecus Venetus, found in a Venice MS. of the Fourteenth Century, is a version of the Pentateuch. Ruth. Proverbs, Canticles, Lam- entations, and Daniel, made by a Jewish transla- tor, possibly Elissipus, C.13G0. It attempts to reproduce Attic Greek, but uses the Doric dialect for the Aramaic portions of Daniel.
II. Latin. — (1) There probably existed be- fore Jerome a number of Latin versions. Of these the oldest may date from the end of the Second Century A.n. As Cyprian is the earliest writer acquainted with it, and as Northern Africa was the centre of Latin literature at this time, it has been supposed that the version originated in Carthage. The vulgar dialect in which it is written may, however, have been spoken in other parts of the Empire ; and it has recently been suggested that the relations of the version to a type of Greek text prevailing in Syria points to Antioch as its birth-place. Still others think of Northern Italy. It is possible that manu- scripts and quotations from early Latin writers represent versions produced independently in dif- ferent centres or Antiochian and Italian recen- sions of an original African text. The Old Latin is the most valuable witness to the Greek text before Origen. What remains has been published by P. Sabatier in 1739-49, and the recent addi- tions by Miinter Kanke, Belsheim, Burkitt, and others.
(2) Jerome in 382 was requested to revise this Latin Bible. His first revision was followed after 392 by another, in which he used the obelus and asterisk of Origen. But already, in 390, he had begun his direct translation from the He- brew, which as a version is a masterpiece, and was destined to become the Bible of the Occident. In this Vulgate version, the unrevised books of Siracides, Sapientia Solonionis, I. and II. Mac- cabees, and Barucli, as well as the first revision of the Psalter, represent the Old Latin, while Tobit and Judith were translated from Hebrew or Aramaic. Only gradually the new translation won its way. It was exposed to corruption, and in spite of the labors of Cassiodorus, Alcuin, Lanfranc, and others, was found by Roger Bacon to be "horribly corrupted." The Mazarin Bible was printed in 14.52 ; Gutenberg's Psalter, 1457. For the improvement of the Latin text the He- brew and (ircck were used in the Compluten- siaii and the Wittenberg Bibles, by Osiander and Pellicanus. Good manuscripts were used by Robert Stephanus for his edition (1.528), which became the foundation of the Vulgate, olficially recognized as the Bible by the Tridentine Coun- cil (1546), and printed vith the approval of Si.x- tus V. (1590) and Clement VIII. (1.593). A thoroughly critical edition does not jet exist.
(3) Among the later Latin translations, the following are most noleworlliy : The very literal version of Sanctus Pagninus (1528), revised by Servetus (1542), by Stephanus (1557), by Arias Montanus (1572); that of Sebastian Miiuster (1534-35); the excellent but incomplete worK
