II. The Syriac Peschito, which is particularly serviceable for the interpretation of the New Testament. III. The Latin Vulgate, with the exception of the Psalms, claims the third place IV. The Targums, or Chaldee Paraphrases, especially that of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, illustrate many difficult passages in the Old Testament, as well as in the New Testa ment. V. Other versions made immediately from the Hebrew and Greek originals follow next in order. Ancient versions need not to be consulted, except in passages that are really difficult, or unless an examination of them be instituted for some special object of inquiry. CHAPTER V. ON THE MODERN VERSIONS OF THE SCRIPTURES. NUMEROUS as were the ancient versions of the Sacred Scriptures, the publication of a version, being accomplished by the tedious process of transcription, was necessarily slow, while the high price of manuscripts enabled only the wealthy to procure them. The discovery of the art of printing in the fifteenth century, and the establishment of the glorious reformation throughout Europe in the following century, facilitated the circulation of the Scriptures, both in the original Languages and through the medium. of translations. The Modern Versions of the Scriptures are two-fold, viz. in the Latin Language, and in the vernacular languages of almost all the countries in which Christianity has been propagated: and both are made, either by persons in communion with the Church of Rome, or by Protestants. SECTION I. On the Modern Latin Versions of the Old and New Testaments. I. Modern Latin Versions, executed in communion with the Church of Rome. 1. The Version of Sanctes Pagninus a Dominican monk, was undertaken under the patronage of several popes; and, after twenty-five years of unremitting labour, was published in 1528. Though it has been censured by one critic for its close adherence to the original text, all the later commentators and critics commend it for its exactness and fidelity. It contains only the Old Testament. This translation was revised by 2. Arias Montanus, who has from this circumstance been erroneously, considered as a new translator of the Bible into the Latin Language. Montanus's aim being to translate the Hebrew words by the same number of Latin words, his edition may rather be considered as a grammatical commentary than a true version, and is best adapted to suit young beginners in the Hebrew language. 3. The translations of Thomas Malvenda, and of Cardinal Cajetan (who was not the author of that which bears his name) have both fallen into oblivion. 4. Houbigant's Latin Version of the Old Testament is framed according to the corrected Hebrew Text, published by him in 1753, in 4 vols. folio; a work which has not answered the high expectations entertained of it. II. Modern Latin Versions of the Bible, executed by Protestants 1. The translation of Sebastian Munster, first published in 1534, is considered, upon the whole, as very exact and conformable to the original. 2. The Version which bears the name of Leo Juda, though commenced by him, was finished by others: it is acknowledged to be very faithful. It was first published in 1543. 3. Sebastian Chatillon (better known by the name of Castalio) in 1551 published a version of the Bible, in which he aimed at rendering the Old and New Testaments into classical Latin. His style has been severely censured, as departing from the simple grandeur of the sacred originals. 4. The Version of Francis Junius and Immanual Tremellius, first printed in 1575, is held in great estimation for its simplicity, perspicuity, and fidelity. 5. The Latin Translation of Sebastian Schmidt, published in 1696, is strictly literal. 6. The Version of Professor J. A. Dathe, printed between the years 1779 and 1789, is deservedly in high repute for its general fidelity and excellence. 7. The Version of the Old Testament, commenced in 1816, by H. A. Schott and J. F. Winzer, professes to be very close. The Pentateuch only has been published. III. Besides the preceding new modern Latin Versions, there have been several editions of the Latin Vulgate, so much corrected from the Hebrew and Greek originals, as in some degree to be considered new translations. Of this number are the Latin Bibles published by Isidore Clarius, in 1542; by Paul Eber, in 1565; and by Luke Osiander, in 1578, and Andrew Osiander in 1600. The edition of Clarius, who was a Romanist, is preferred to those of the other three Protestant scholars. IV. Of the Latin Version of the New Testament the following are the principal: 1. Erasmus claims the first place. His version was published in 1516; and it is admitted that he succeeded in giving a clear and faithful version as far as it was possible, at that time. He varied but little from the Vulgate. 2. The Latin Version of Theodore Béza, published in 1556, has always been held in high estimation for its fidelity. 3. The Latin Version of Leopoldo Sebastiani, which appeared in 1817, professes to be formed after the text of the Alexandrian Manuscript, collated with other MSS. and critical helps. In all doctrinal points it agrees with the tenets of the Romish Church. SECTION II.-Versions in the Modern Languages of Europe, Asia, Africa, and America. The translations of the Scriptures into the different modern languages, which are spoken in the four quarters of the globe, are so numerous, that it is extremely difficult to obtain correct accounts of all of them, and still more difficult to compress those accounts into an analysis like the present. The following tables, however, will exhibit at one view the principal translations, together with the dates when they appeared, the authors by whom they were executed, and the places where they were severally |