visions ; (c) printed editions. IL Method of use, and precautions to be observed : (a) those precautions common to all authorities ; {h) tliose pecuhar to the Versions. lU. Uses of the Versions : (a) critical ; (*) exegetical ; (c) general, in connexion with the history of the Bible, Canon, etc, ; (d) literary and philological.
Introductoni- — The object of this article is not to treat any Version in detail, but to draw stten-
• Ca4lS8''.
t Lane, Modern Egi/ptiam, L (Gardner, 1896, p. 182, ch. tL), I Commentary on :ihabba(h Coa ; quoted by Delitzscb on Is 323.
5 Winer> (' Schlcier') and many others.
I On 49".
1 Same root u •1?? ' booth,' i.e. covered place.
.. IgSl9. ttOn24«i>. n381-4-l».
{} Same root as c_C».i^ n e« doubt* ; Syr. t*^ i S ( (for -CT . vv. = >]'i's) doiMt. See Lag. as quoted In Oj^. Ueb. Lex, lllliocctf. ^1ICa6^U82». -^OnliS".
^H Vetttt. iluiitrum. jnUsa.
VERSIONS
VERSIONS
849
tion to some jf the features common to tliem all, with only sullicient illustrations * to make the general statements intelligible.
It will be well to stnt« at the outset the main objects which the student of tlie Versions may have in view. The must ini|iortant is their use for critical purposes in conjunction with MSS of the original text of the OT or NT, and with Patristic Quotations. The second is their use for exegetical puriioses. Thirdly, they have a value in connexion with the history of the Uible and the light they throw on a number of questions, such as the Canon, the order of books inside the Canon, etc. Lastly, many of the Versions are of the greatest interest from a literary and philological stand- point, because they are often the earliest monu- ments of the language in which they are written.
Their exact and scientific use, however, depends on a knowledge of their liistorj', and on a con- sideration of certain i)recautions and limitations, ■which their history shows to be necessary if sound conclusions are toue reached. It will be desirable, therefore, firstly to consider some general points in their history, secondly to notice some of the neces- sary cautions, and lastly to discuss the uses just enumerated.
i. GKXiiRAL History. — The first reference to translations of the liible is found by .some in the words of Neh 8' 'They read in the book in the law of God distinctly [KVm 'with an interpreta- tion '], and they gave the sense so that they under- stood the reading.' The Heb. word p-ibD used for •distinctly' occurs again in Ezr 4'", where KVm renders ' translated.' The text gives more correctly than the margin the meaning of the Hebrew, which does not imply more than clearness in the reading. Moreover, the supposed need of a trans- lation requires us to believe tliat the Juv.s returned from the Exile ignorant of the Hebrew in which the Law was written— a view hardly tenable in face of the post-exilic writings contained in the Bible. In any case we should have to think of an explanation rather than a translation, and an oral and not a written Version. We cannot therefore fix precisely the date at which Versions of the Bible began to be made.
There is little doubt that the earliest Version committed to writing was the Septuagint, begun for the use of the Alexandrian Jews under Ptolemy n. (B.C. 285-247), and • it is probable that before the Christian era Alexandria possessed the whole or nearly the whole of the Hebrew Scriptures in a Greek translation' (Swete, Intruil. to OT in Greek,
fi. 25). The only other Version for which there is Ikely to have been any demand in [ire-Christian times is the Syhiac. There are various traditions an to the origin of this Version, e.g. tho.se recorded by Gregory Harliebra.'us, which refer it to the date of Solomon (who is said to have had it made for Hiram), or to the incidents recorded in 2 K 17", or that recorded by Jacob of Edessa, which a.Hsigns it to the date of Abgar, king of Ede-ssa. Like the Septuagint, it was not tlie work of one time or one hand ; for ' from the difl'ercnces of style and planner in its several parts we may suppose that it was made by many hands, and covered a long period of time' (\V. Wright, Enryc. Brit. 'Syr. Lit.' p. 824). The earliest delinite reference to the Version is in a commentary of Melito of Sardis, where 6 lupos is cited at Gn 22'^ To this date, i.e. to the 2nd cent. A.D., the beginning of the Version may be assigned. To the same century the begin- ning of the Latin Version, and to that or the
• .Many of these ilUislrations are taken from those collected by the writer for his Kllerton hU>ay. printed in jiart in .^tudia Biblica, ii. lOf, ff., on 'Tlie l-^videnue of the Karly Versions and Patristic Quotations ou tlie Text o! tlie Uoolu of the New Testament.'
VOL. IV. — S4
following century the origin of the Egyptian Versions, is generally ascribed. These represent the earliest Versions of the Bible, and they are succeeded by numberless others up to the present time.
If the beginnings of the history of the Versions take us back so far, ami are veiled in obscuritj-, the la-st chapter cannot yet be written, for each year sees some Iresh translation made for puriioses of missionary work.* The chief critical interest of the latest is to be found only in the illustrations they atiord of the difficulties which beset the trans- lator of every age in his attempt to transfer the ideas and expressions of one language into those of another without suggesting new assoeiations or dropping old ones.