Scriptures have been translated, either wholly or in part; and not less than sixty of them are versions in the languages and dialects of Asia. It is obvious that very few modern versions can be of service in the criticism or interpretation of the Bible; but as the author has been censured for omitting them in the first edition of this work, he has endeavoured to supply that deficiency, and to procure the best information possible, on a topic so interesting to every sincere professor of Christianity.

The modern versions of the Scriptures are twofold, viz. in the Latin language, and in the vernacular languages of 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 Protes

tants.

SECTION II.

ON THE MODERN LATIN VERSIONS OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS.

I. Modern Latin Versions of the entire Bible executed by persons in communion with the church of Rome.-1. Of Pagninus.-2. Of Montanus.-3. Of Malvenda and Cardinal Cajetan. 4. Of Houbigant.—II. Modern Latin Versions of the whole Bible executed by Protestants. 1. Of Munster.-2. Leo Juda.-3. Of Castalio.-4. Of Junius and Tremellius. - 5. Of Schmidt. 6. Of Dathe.-7. Of Schott and Winzer. —III. Modern Revisions and Corrections of the Vulgate Latin Version, by Catholics and Protestants.-IV. Modern Latin Versions of the New Testament.-1. Of Erasmus.-2. Of Beza.-3. Of Sebastiani. Other modern Latin Versions of less note.

I. OF the modern Latin versions of the Old Testament, made by individuals in communion with the church of Rome, those of Pagninus, Montanus, Malvenda, Cajetan, and Houbigant, are particularly worthy of notice.1

1. SANCTES PAGNINUS, a Dominican monk, was the first modern oriental scholar who attempted to make a new translation of the Scriptures from the original languages. Having, in the course of his studies, been led to conceive that the Vulgate Latin Version of Jerome (of which an account has been given in the preceding chapter), was greatly corrupted, he undertook to form a new translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew, following Jerome only where he thought that his version corresponded to the original. Under the Patronage of the Popes Leo X. Hadrian VI. and Clement VI., he devoted twenty-five years to this great work; which was first printed at Lyons in 1528. The Jews who read it, attested its fidelity. The great fault of Pagninus is, that he has adhered too closely and ser

1 The materials of this section are derived from Masch's and Boerner's Edition of Le Long's Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. ii. Walchii Bibliotheca Theologica Selecta, vol. iv. pp. 64-76. Carpzovii Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti, pp. 707-757. Simon's Hist. Critique du Vieux Testament, livre ii. ch. xxii.

vilely to the original text; and this scrupulous attachment has made his translation obscure, barbarous, and full of solecisms. He has also altered the commonly received names of men and cities, and has substituted others in their place, which are pronounced according to the pronunciation of the Masorites. Though this translator's labours were very severely criticised by Father Simon, yet he acknowledges his great abilities and learning and all the latter commentators and critics concur in justly commending his work, as being remarkably exact and faithful, and admirably adapted to explain the literal sense of the Hebrew text. Pagninus afterwards translated the New Testament from the Greek, which he dedicated to his patron, Pope Clement VII. It was printed with the former at Lyons, in 1528. In 1557, Robert Stephens printed a new edition of his translation in two volumes folio, with corrections, but it contains only the Old Testament of Pagninus's version. The New Testament is given in the Latin version of Beza, which is noticed in p. 225. infra.

2. The translation of Pagninus was revised by BENEDICT ARIAS MONTANUS, who has erroneously been considered as a new translator of the Bible in the Latin language. His chief aim was, to translate the Hebrew words by the same number of Latin ones; so that he has accommodated his whole translation to the most scrupulous rules of grammar, without any regard to the elegance of his Latinity. Montanus's edition, therefore, may be considered rather as a grammatical commentary, than a true version, and as being adapted to instruct young beginners in the Hebrew than to be read separately: being printed interlinearily, with the Latin word placed exactly over the Hebrew, it saves the student the trouble of frequently referring to his Lexicon. In the New Testament, Montanus changed only a few words in the Vulgate version, where he found it to differ from the Greek. This translation has been very frequently printed in various sizes; but the best edition is the first, which is in folio, and printed at Antwerp in 1571.

3. The translation of THOMAS MALVENDA, a Spanish Dominican, being more grammatical and barbarous than that of Montanus, is but little esteemed, and has fallen into oblivion. The version, which bears the name of CARDINAL CAJETAN, strictly speaking, is not his production; having been made by two persons (one a Jew, the other a Christian), both of whom were well skilled in the original language of the sacred volume. The whole of the New Testament was likewise translated, except the Revelation. Cajetan carefully avoided those barbarous expressions which he must have used, if his version had been grammatically literal.

4. The Latin version of the Old Testament, printed by Father HOUBIGANT in his critical edition of the Hebrew Bible (noticed in p. 122. supra) is not framed according to the present Hebrew text, but according to the text, as he thought it should be corrected by manuscripts, antient versions, and critical conjectures.

II. Since the Reformation, several Latin versions of the Old Testament have been made from the original Hebrew by learned Protes

tants. The most esteemed are those of Munster, Leo Juda, Castalio, Junius and Tremellius, Schmidt, Dathe, Schott and Winzer.

1. In the year 1534, SEBASTIAN MUNSTER printed at Basle a new translation of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew: and in 1546 he published a second edition, with the Hebrew text, and with the addition of some notes, which Father Simon thinks useful for understanding the style of the sacred writings. Without rigidly adhering to the grammatical signification of the words, like Pagninus and Montanus, he has given a more free and intelligible version but by not deviating from the sense of the Hebrew text, he has retained some of its peculiar idioms. He has also availed himself of the commentaries of the best of the rabbinical writers. Though Simon freely censures particular parts of Munster's version, he decidedly prefers it to those of Pagninus and Montanus: and Huet gives hin the character of a translator well versed in the Hebrew language, whose style is very exact and conformable to the original.

2. The translation which bears the name of LEO JUDA was commenced by him, but being prevented by death from finishing the work, he left it to be completed by Theodore Bibliander, professor of divinity at Zurich. With the assistance of Conrad Pellican, who was professor of Hebrew in the same place, Bibliander translated the rest of the Old Testament from the Hebrew; the New Testament was undertaken by Peter Cholin and Rodolph Gualter, two learned Protestants, at that time resident at Zurich. This version was first printed in 1543, and was reprinted by Robert Stephens at Paris, in 1545, with the addition of the Vulgate version, in two columns, and with short notes or scholia, but without specifying the translator's name. Though it was condemned by the divines at Paris, it was favourably received by those of Salamanca, who reprinted it with some trifling alterations. It is acknowledged to be very faithful; and its style is more elegant than that of Munster; but the translators have in some instances receded too far from the literal sense.

3. The Latin version of SEBASTIAN CHATILLON or CASTALIO (as he is generally called) was begun at Geneva, in 1542, and finished at Basle in 1550, where it was printed in the following year, with a dedication to Edward VI. king of England. His design was, to render the Old and New Testaments in elegant Latin like that of the antient classic authors; but his style has been severely censured by some critics, as being too much affected, and destitute of that noble simplicity, grandeur, and energy, which characterise the sacred originals. Professor Dathe, however, has vindicated this learned Protestant from these changes. Castalio's version has been frequently reprinted the best edition of it is said to be that printed at Leipsic, in 1738, in 4 vols. 12mo., but the folio edition, printed in 1573, is in most request, not only on account of its beauty, but also because it contains the author's last corrections, together with a very complete table of matters.

4. The version of FRANCIS JUNIUS and IMMANUEL TREMELLIUS was first published in 1575; it was subsequently corrected by Junius,

and has been repeatedly printed. By the Protestant churches it was received with great approbation, and to this day it is held in great esteem for its simplicity, perspicuity, and fidelity. Father Simon criticised it with great severity; but our learned countryman, Matthew Poole, in the preface to his Synopsis Criticorum Sacrorum, reckons it among the best versions: and the ecclesiastical historian, Dupin, commends it for its close adherence to the Hebrew. Junius and Tremellius have been very particular in expressing the article by demonstrative pronouns.

5. In 1696, was published (after the author's decease) a new Latin translation of the Bible, by SEBASTIAN SCHMIDT, who was professor of oriental languages at Strasburgh. Of this version there have been several editions. It is strictly literal; and is chiefly useful to young students in the Hebrew language.

6. The version of JOHN AUGUSTUS DATHE, who was professor of oriental literature at Leipsic, is deservedly in high repute for its general fidelity and elegance, both in this country and on the continent. It was originally published in detached octavo volumes: the Pentateuch, in 1781; the Historical Books, in 1784; the Greater Prophets, in 1779, and again in 1785; the Minor Prophets in 1773 (the third edition in 1790); the Psalms, in 1787; and the Books of Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon, in 1789. Professor Dathe "never published any part, until he had repeatedly explained it in his public lectures, and convinced himself that no difficulties remained, but such as could not be removed. In this manner was his translation produced, which may be considered as a perpetual commentary."

7. In the year 1816, another new translation of the Old Testament, from the Hebrew, was commenced by M. M. HENRY AUGUSTUS SCHOTT and JULIUS FREDERICK WINZER. One volume only has appeared, comprising the Pentateuch. This version professes to be very close.

III. Besides the preceding new modern Latin versions, there have been several editions of the Latin Vulgate, so much corrected from the original Hebrew and Greek as in some degree to be considered new translations. Of this number are the Latin Bibles published by Clarius, Eber, and the Osianders.

Isidore Clarius's edition of the Vulgate first appeared at Venice, in 1542, and is of extreme rarity: it was reprinted at the same place in 1557 and 1564. He has not only restored the antient Latin text, but has also corrected it in a great number of places which he conceived to be erroneously translated, so as to make them conformable to the Hebrew original. Although he corrected more than eight thousand places, as he states in his preface, yet he omitted some, lest he should offend the Roman Catholics by making too many alterations in the Vulgate version.

The method of Clarius was followed by Paul Eber, who corrected the Vulgate from Luther's German version. His edition was pub1 Aikin's Biographical Dictionary, vol. x. Supplement, p. 306.

lished at Wittemberg, in 1565, with the addition of Luther's translation, under the authority of Augustus, Elector of Saxony; and was reprinted in 1574, in ten volumes, quarto.

The edition of Luke Osiander appeared in 1578, and has since been very often reprinted; as also has a German translation of it, which was first published at Stutgard, in 1600. Andrew Osiander's edition was also printed in 1600, and frequently since. They have both corrected the Vulgate, according to the Hebrew originals; and have occasioned some confusion to their readers, by inserting their emendations in a character different from that in which the Vulgate text is printed.

IV. There are likewise several Latin versions of the New Testament, made both by Catholics and Protestants, of which those of Erasmus, Beza, and Sebastiani are particularly worthy of notice.

I. The celebrated ERASMUS has the honour of being the first translator of the New Testament into the Latin language from the original Greek. His object was, to give a faithful and clear version; in which it is admitted that he succeeded as far as it was possible at that time. In this version he followed not only the printed copies, but also four Greek manuscripts; according to the example of Jerome, he varied but little from the Vulgate. The first edition of his translation appeared in 1516, and was dedicated to Pope Leo X., by whom it was highly commended in a letter of thanks which he wrote to Erasmus. The pontiff's praises, however, did not prevent his labours from being censured with great severity by certain Roman Catholic writers, against whom Erasmus defended himself with great spirit. His version has been frequently printed, and corrected, both by himself and by his editors.

2. The Latin version of THEODORE BEZA was first published in 1556, and has since been repeatedly printed. On account of its fidelity, it has always been highly esteemed by Protestants of every denomination. Bishop Walton, indeed, was of opinion that he was justly charged with departing unnecessarily from the common readings, without the authority of manuscripts; but a careful examination of Beza's translation will shew that that distinguished prelate was in this instance mistaken.

3. In the year 1817, a new Latin version of the New Testament was published by LEOPOLDO SEBASTIANI, the very learned editor of Lycophron (Romæ, 1803, royal 4to), justly celebrated throughout the East, and not altogether unknown in England, for the losses he sustained, and misfortunes he suffered, in consequence of important services which he gratuitously rendered to the British government, while resident in Persia as president of the missionages sent out by the church of Rome, at the time that Buonaparte attempted to establish relations with the court of Ispahan. The version is made from the Alexandrian manuscript, with which the translator states that he collated several manuscripts and collections of various readings, availing himself also of every critical aid he could procure, and particularly of the writings of the Greek fathers, and the assistance of

VOL. II.

29