ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
In the present chapter those versions of the Old Testament also that
were made in connection with versions of the New, and in the interest of
Christianity, will be briefly considered.
I. LATIN VERSIONS.
1. A peculiar interest attaches to the early Latin versions. The "_Old
Latin_" translation of the New Testament, in connection with which one
of the Old Testament was executed from the Septuagint, is perhaps the
earliest that exists in any language. The Old Syriac alone can rival it
in antiquity, and if either may claim the precedence, it is probably the
Latin. This version, and afterwards the revision of it by Jerome, was
the grand medium through which the Holy Scriptures were known to the
Western or Latin churches for more than twelve centuries. It has
exercised no small influence on the popular modern versions of
Christendom, and it is the great storehouse of theological terms for
both Catholic and Protestant Christianity.
The English version of Wiclif (1324-1384) is a literal
translation of the current text of the Latin Vulgate. The
Psalter of the English Prayer Book is taken from Cranmer's Bible
called the "Great English Bible:" and the version of the Psalms
follows the Gallican Psalter, the second of the revisions made
by Jerome from the Old Latin. See below, No. 4.
2. How early the _ante-Hieronymian_ Latin version (that current before
the days of _Hieronymus_, that is, _Jerome_), was executed is unknown;
but the writings of Tertullian furnish satisfactory proof that it was in
popular use in North Africa (the place where it was made) in the last
quarter of the second century. According to the testimony of the ancient
church fathers, its text existed in a great variety of forms, and the
same variety has come down to us in the old manuscripts that contain it.
Some, indeed, have maintained that several independent versions existed.
But the sum of the evidence from both the early fathers and the
manuscripts goes to show that there was never more than one that could
be called independent. The copies of this were subjected to multiplied
emendations or revisions from the Greek original, till the text had
fallen in the days of Augustine and Jerome into a state of great
confusion.
The language of Augustine is very strong: "The translators of
the Scriptures from the Hebrew tongue into the Greek can be
numbered, but the Latin interpreters can by no means be
numbered. For whenever, in the first ages of Christianity, any
one had gained possession of a Greek manuscript, and imagined
himself to possess some little skill in the two languages, he
ventured to become an interpreter." De Doct. Christ. 2. 16.
According to the received opinion the so-called _Itala_
(_Italian_) was not an independent version, but one of these
revisions, apparently made in Italy, and as some think, under
ecclesiastical auspices. This, Augustine recommends as more
faithful and perspicuous than the rest.
3. The _canon_ of the Old Latin version seems to have wanted, in the New
Testament, Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter. In the Old Testament it followed
the Septuagint. It contained, therefore, the apocryphal books of that
version, to which was also added the second of Esdras. Appendix to Pt.
2, No. 6. The _text_ of this version is known to us from two sources,
quotations and manuscripts. For our knowledge of the Old Testament we
are dependent mainly on the quotations of the early Latin fathers, since
only a few fragments remain in the shape of manuscripts. The same is
true of some parts of the New Testament, particularly the Apocalypse.
But of the gospels as well as other parts of the New Testament, we have
some very ancient manuscripts which are of high value in textual
criticism. The agreement of this version in many characteristic readings
with the oldest known Greek manuscripts has already been noticed. Chap.
3, No. 3. Such agreement is the strongest possible testimony for the
genuineness of the readings in question. Chap. 26, No. 2.
The _Codex Vercellensis_, belonging to the fourth century, and
said to have been written by Eusebius, bishop of Vercellae (now
Vercelli) in Northern Italy where the manuscript is preserved,
is one of the oldest manuscripts of the sacred text in
existence. The _Codex Veronensis_ at Verona, the Graeco-Latin
_Codex Claromontanus_ in the Imperial Library at Paris, the
_Codex Vindobonensis_ at Vienna, the _Codex Bobbiensis_ at
Turin, and others that might be named, are also very ancient.
Among the codices that contain what is called the _Italic_
version, is the _Brixianus_ of the sixth century.
4. About A.D. 388, Jerome at the solicitation of Damasus, bishop of
Rome, undertook the arduous task of _revising_ the Old Latin version by
a comparison with the original Greek text. In this work he proceeded
very cautiously, being well aware of the prejudices which he must
encounter on the part of multitudes who could not discriminate between
the authority of the original Greek text and that of the Latin version
made from it. He began with the four gospels. According to his own
testimony, he selected ancient Greek manuscripts, but such as did not
differ much from the Latin usage; and in the use of these he so
restrained his pen that, when he had corrected those things only which
seemed to change the sense, he suffered the rest to remain as they were.
(Preface to the four gospels addressed to Damasus.) His work of revision
was afterwards extended to the remaining books of the New Testament; a
revision which Tregelles describes as "less complete and uniform than
that of the gospels, and in which many parts seem to have received
hardly any alterations from his hand." In Horne, vol. 4, ch. 23. About
the same time he turned his attention to the Latin version of the Old
Testament, which had been made, not from the original Hebrew, but from
the Greek Septuagint. Of this he first revised the Psalter, but not very
thoroughly; in his own words, "cursorily for the most part." This first
revision is known by the name of the _Roman_ Psalter. A later and more
thorough revision, executed by Jerome at Bethlehem between A.D. 384-391,
is called the _Gallican_ Psalter. There is good reason to believe that
Jerome's revision extended to all the remaining books of the Old
Testament, though we have positive evidence in respect to only a part of
them--Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Chronicles.
Gregory of Tours is said to have introduced Jerome's second
revision of the Psalter into the public service in France;
whence its name _Gallican_. The Roman Psalter was retained in
Italy till the time of Pius V., who introduced the Gallican
generally. But three churches, one of them that of the Vatican,
continued to use the Roman Psalter. Westcott in Smith's Bible
Dict.; Art. Vulgate.
5. Jerome was soon convinced of the necessity of undertaking a _new
translation_ of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew. To this
arduous task he addressed himself with great earnestness, availing
himself of the help of Jewish scholars to complete his knowledge of the
Hebrew. The whole work occupied his time, with periods of intermission,
from A.D. 385 to A.D. 405. See in Horne, vol. 2, p. 89. He did not
venture, however, to make a new version from the Hebrew of the book of
Psalms, the constant use of which in the church service was a barrier to
the substitution of a new translation. He accordingly retained his
second _revision_ from the Septuagint, which is called the Gallican
Psalter. Of the Apocryphal books he translated only two, Judith and
Tobit. The remaining Apocryphal writings were retained in their old
form. The Latin bible thus in part revised and in part translated by
Jerome (most of the Apocryphal writings being left unrevised) is called
the _Vulgate_, that is _common_ or _current_ version, although this term
belonged, before the days of Jerome, to the Old Latin itself. Its
diversified character is thus briefly indicated by Westcott.--"(1.)
_Unrevised Old Latin_: Wisdom, Eccl., 1, 2 Macc., Baruch. (2.) _Old
Latin revised, from the LXX._: Psalter. (3.) _Jerome's free translation
from the original text_: Judith, Tobit. (4.) _Jerome's translation from
the original_: Old Testament except Psalter. (5.) _Old Latin revised
from Greek MSS._: Gospels. (6.) _Old Latin cursorily revised_: the
remainder of New Testament." In Smith's Bible Dict.; Art. Vulgate.
It is not necessary to follow the history of the text of the
Vulgate since Jerome's day. Suffice it to say that the
simultaneous use of the Old Latin and Vulgate led to a
corruption of both texts, which has not yet been thoroughly
removed. The present standard text is that called the
_Clementine_, from Pope Clement VIII., under whose auspices the
Vulgate was edited in 1592. This is better than the preceding
_Sixtine_ edition, A.D. 1590, but not by any means the pure text
of Jerome, as it might be recovered, proximately at least, by a
careful collation of ancient manuscripts and quotations.
The oldest and best manuscript of the Latin Vulgate Old and New
Testaments, is the _Codex Amiatinus_ in the Laurentian Library
at Florence. It belongs to the sixth century, and exhibits the
text of Jerome in a very pure form, carrying us back to about
120 years from Jerome's death. The _Codex Fuldensis_ is said to
belong to the same century. There are other good manuscripts
more or less complete of the eighth and ninth centuries.
Many other Latin versions have appeared in modern times,
sometimes in connection with the original text, and sometimes
separately, which it is not necessary to notice in detail.
II. SYRIAC VERSIONS.
6. The ancient Syriac version called the _Peshito_ belongs, in the
judgment of biblical scholars, to the second century. It comprises the
Old Testament as well as the New. The version of the Old Testament was
made from the original Hebrew, and thus has the honor of being the
oldest translation of the Hebrew Scriptures for Christian use, the Old
Latin version having been made from the Septuagint. The version of the
New Testament was made in connection with that of the Old, so that both
together constitute one work.
Syrian tradition makes extravagant claims in respect to the
antiquity of the Peshito, telling us that it was executed by men
sent to Palestine by the apostle Thaddeus (whom tradition
connects with the founding of the church at Edessa), and by
Abgarus, King of Edessa, a contemporary of the Saviour. The Old
Testament was sometimes referred to a still earlier age--that of
Solomon and Hiram, or that of the captivity of the ten tribes.
Without giving credence to such traditions, we may well believe
that it belongs to the earliest period of the Syrian churches,
and cannot be placed later than the last part of the second
century. Of the term _Peshito_, that is, _simple_, there are
different explanations. The most usual is that it denotes a
simple and literal version, free from glosses and allegorical
interpretations. Tregelles suggests that it was called _simple_
in contrast with the translation made by Paul of Tela from the
Hexaplar text of Origen (see below, No. 8), which was replete
with _asterisks_ and _obeli_ to mark Origen's revisions, and had
also marginal references. It is agreed that the Old Testament
was translated from the original Hebrew and Chaldee, though the
translators seem to have had before them the Greek version of
the Seventy, and to have consulted it in the progress of their
work
7. The Peshito is a free, and at the same time, a faithful version of
Scripture, holding the first place among the ancient versions for its
general excellence, while it ranks with the Old Latin in antiquity. Its
authority in both textual criticism and interpretation is deservedly
high. As it regards textual criticism, however, its value is diminished
by the fact that its text has not come down to us in a pure state. It
has suffered in the same way as the text of the Old Latin, though not to
the same extent.
Among the manuscripts brought from the Nitrian monasteries, and
deposited in the British Museum, is one of great antiquity, containing
large portions of the four gospels in Syriac. Dr. Cureton published in
1858 the text of this manuscript as "Remains of a very ancient Syriac
recension of the four gospels in Syriac, hitherto unknown in Europe,"
with an English translation and preface. Its appearance was hailed with
lively interest and has excited warm discussions. The manuscript itself
is assigned to the fifth century, but it presents a text which, in the
judgment of competent scholars, is older than the current text of the
Peshito. Whether it is an older form of the Peshito version, or another
and earlier version of the gospels, is a question that has been
differently answered. It is maintained, on the one hand, that the
Peshito is a revision of the Curetonian text, "replete with readings
unknown in the second century" (Tregelles in Smith's Bible Dict.); on
the other, that it is "an older version than the Peshito; which the
author or authors of the latter consulted throughout." Davidson in
Alexander's Kitto. Its great value for critical purposes must be
acknowledged by all.
In many characteristic readings it agrees with the oldest
manuscripts and quotations. It has also some erroneous readings
known to be of great antiquity. In a word, the high antiquity of
its text cannot be reasonably questioned. Drs. Cureton and
Tregelles think that the gospel of Matthew may be a translation
from the apostle's Hebrew copy. But this is denied by Davidson
and others.
8. The _Philoxenian_ Syriac version was executed A.D. 508, under the
auspices of Philoxenus, or Xenaias, bishop of Hierapolis or Mabug in
Syria. Philoxenus belonged to the sect of the Monophysites, and it is
generally thought that the version was made in the interest of that
sect. The translator's name was Polycarp, one of Philoxenus' rural
bishops. With the exception, perhaps, of certain books (see below), the
text of this version has not come down to us in its original form. We
have only a _revision_ of it made A.D. 616 by Thomas of Harkel in a
monastery of Alexandria, whence this version is also called the
_Harclean_ Syriac. The characteristic of this version is its extremely
literal character. It is the translator's aim to represent every Greek
word, even the article, by a corresponding Syriac word, even where the
idiom of the language must thereby be violated. Hence its style is of
necessity barbarous. But this very character of literalness gives to the
Philoxenian version high authority in respect to textual criticism. So
far as it has come down to us in its primitive form, it is, in truth,
equal to the Greek text of its own time.
About the time that Thomas of Harkel revised the Philoxenian version of
the New Testament, Paul of Tela, another Monophysite, executed what is
called the _Hexaplar Syriac_ version of the Old Testament, because it
was made from the text of Origen's Hexaplar. Chap. 16, No. 12. It
coincides with the Philoxenian version of the New Testament in respect
to its character as well as the time of its appearance, being made on
the principle of following the Greek text word for word as exactly as
possible. Thus the Hexaplar version of the Old, and the Philoxenian
version of the New, constitute together a whole of like character
throughout.
After the example of Origen, Paul introduced into his version
_asterisks_ and _obeli_; the asterisk (*) to indicate insertions
made in the text on the authority of manuscripts and other
versions; the obelus (÷), to mark passages of doubtful
character. Thus it supplies, as far as a version can, the
Hexaplar of Origen, of which only a few fragments remain.
The Philoxenian version of the New Testament, as revised by
Thomas of Harkel, contains also the same asterisks and obeli.
Critical marks and marginal readings also appear in most of the
manuscripts. This critical apparatus is generally thought to
have proceeded from Thomas himself, in imitation of the Hexaplar
Syriac of the Old Testament; but whether to indicate comparison
with the Peshito, or with the Greek manuscripts employed by
Thomas is not certain.
There is a version of the Catholic epistles wanting in the
Peshito--2 Pet., 2, 3 John, Jude--existing in two forms, one of
which is thought to be the _unrevised_ Philoxenian text. There
is a codex at Rome containing the four gospels which has also
been supposed to contain the same unrevised text.
The _Jerusalem Syriac Lectionary_, containing simply lessons
from the four gospels, is a peculiar version known to us from a
single manuscript in the Vatican Library which belongs to the
eleventh century. The version itself is referred by some to the
sixth century, by others to a later date. Its dialect is
barbarous, being a mixture of Chaldee and Syriac, but its
readings are said often to coincide with the oldest and best
authorities.
III. EGYPTIAN AND ETHIOPIC VERSIONS.
9. Formerly but one version was known to exist in the language of the
ancient Egyptians. This, which was made in the dialect of lower Egypt,
was naturally called _Coptic_. When it was discovered that another
version existed in the dialect of upper Egypt, the Arabic term _Sahidic_
was applied to it. But since the word _Coptic_ is generic, applying to
both dialects alike, it has been proposed to call the former version
_Copto-Memphitic_ or simply _Memphitic_, from Memphis, the ancient
capital of lower Egypt; and the latter _Copto-Thebaic_ or _Thebaic_,
from Thebes, the celebrated capital of ancient upper Egypt. When these
versions were executed cannot be determined with certainty. But they
existed in the fourth century, and probably in the latter part of the
third century. Their high antiquity gives to them great value in textual
criticism. The latter of them, however, exists only in a fragmentary
form. Some fragments of a _third_ version, differing from both the
Memphitic and the Thebaic, have been discovered. To this, the epithet
_Bashmuric_ has been applied, from the Arabian name _Bashmur_, a
district of lower Egypt in the Delta to the East. But Egyptian scholars
doubt whether the term is well applied, as the version is said to have
stronger affinity to the Thebaic than to the Memphitic version.
The Memphitic and Thebaic versions are said to have contained
the whole Bible, that of the Old Testament being made from the
Septuagint. The whole Memphitic New Testament has been several
times published, but never in such a manner as to meet the wants
of Biblical criticism. Of the Thebaic version only some
fragments have been published.
10. An _Ethiopic_ version of the whole Bible exists in the ancient
dialect of Axum. That of the Old Testament was made from the Septuagint;
that of the New is a close version of the original Greek. The age to
which it belongs is not known. Many of the readings of its text are said
to show an affinity with the older class of Greek manuscripts, while
others are of a later character. This leads to the suspicion that the
version has undergone revision by the aid of later Greek manuscripts. An
edition of the whole Bible is in process of publication in Germany.
IV. THE GOTHIC AND OTHER VERSIONS.
11. The first information which European scholars had of the existence
of a _Gothic_ version of the New Testament was in the sixteenth century,
when one Morillon copied from a Gothic manuscript in the library of the
Monastery of Werden in Westphalia the Lord's Prayer and some other
parts, which were afterwards published. When the Swedes, in 1648, took
Prague, among the spoils sent to Stockholm was the celebrated _Codex
Argenteus_, _Silver manuscript_, containing a copy of the Gothic gospels
written on purple vellum in silver letters, except the beginnings of the
sections which are in gold. When entire the manuscript is said to have
contained 320 leaves, but when found it had but 188 in quarto size. In
its present state it wants parts of all the gospels. The letters are
deeply furrowed, and beautifully regular. It is thought that this
manuscript was executed for the use of some Gothic king. After various
changes of place, it was finally deposited in the library of the
University of Upsal in Sweden, where it is now preserved enclosed in a
silver case. The Gothic version, of which the Codex Argenteus is a
transcript, was made in the fourth century by Ulphilas, second bishop of
the Goths in Moesia (the so-called Moeso-Goths). The manuscript itself
belongs, it is thought, to the sixth century.
12. In 1762 a palimpsest was discovered by Knittel at Wolfenbüttel, a
city of the duchy of Brunswick in Germany, containing, as the earlier
writing, part of the epistle to the Romans in Gothic and Latin, the
versions standing side by side. In 1817 the late Cardinal Mai discovered
in the Ambrosian Library at Milan five palimpsests, from which, in
connection with the Wolfenbüttel palimpsest, the Gothic text of the
greater part of the Pauline epistles (that to the Hebrews not included)
has been recovered, as also some fragments of the gospels, and of the
books of Ezra and Nehemiah. All that has been recovered of the Gothic
version was edited in 1835-6 by Gabelentz and Loebe with a Latin
translation, notes, and a Gothic dictionary and grammar. There are
several later editions partly of the Codex Argenteus, and partly of all
the Gothic remains of the Scriptures. Thus this interesting version,
which represents the text of the New Testament in the fourth century as
it was known to Ulphilas, is made available for the purposes of Biblical
criticism.
13. There is an ancient _Armenian_ version unaccompanied as yet by any
Latin translation; and thus available for critical purposes only through
the help of those who know the language. By means of such help Dr.
Tregelles used it for his critical edition of the New Testament, and he
speaks of its value "as a critical witness as to the general reading of
certain Greek copies existing in the former half of the fifth century."
In Smith's Bible Dict., Art. Armenian Version.
Other ancient versions, as the Arabic and Slavonic, we pass by; as their
comparatively late date makes them of little importance for critical
studies. The history of modern versions, among which is our own
authorized version, presents a wide and interesting field of inquiry,
but it does not come within the scope of the present work.
SECOND DIVISION, PARTICULAR INTRODUCTION