A more complete and important revision of Olivetan’s work was carried out by Osterwald, who published a Bible at Amsterdam in 1724. This was followed in 1744 by a much more thorough revision, which regarded mainly the French idiom and the exegetical views of the time. It is clearer than Martin, and bears the marks of careful work, but as a translation is heavy in style. Another Geneva edition of some import- ance appeared in 1802-1805, and in 1822 a revised edition of Osterwald was published by the Bible Societies of Lausanne and Neufchatel, which in turn was revised more than once later. In 1834 a committee was formed at Paris to make a good translation, and they proposed ‘to combine Martin and Osterwald, keeping the exactness of the one and the clearness of the other.’ As a result, a NT was published in 1842 at the expense of the 8.P.C.K., and this was followed by the OT in 1849. But the Bible of Osterwald was still the most popular, and feeling was so strong that in 1863 a disruption of the Bible Societies in France was the result, the majority wishing to circulate other texts, while a minority was anxious to adhere to Osterwald.
9. Leaving, at this point, the history of Olivetan’s version, we must go back chronologically to men- tion the French translation made by Castalion of Geneva, on which he had been at work since 1544, and which he published in 1555. This translation was made, not from his Latin version published in 1551, but from the Hebrew and Greek. His chief aim was to produce a work intelligible to the common people; and to effect his object he did not hesitate, if necessary, to coin a word. The style is brief, nervous, and often effective, but the expressions chosen are sometimes undignified. While its language was strongly censured by some when it appeared, as by Henry Stephen and the Genevan professors, it has been more highly valued by later Protestants as ‘the first translation truly French and truly modern.’
10. It is not necessary to delay over the many Catholic versions of the 17th cent., connected with the names of Corbin (1648), Marolles (1649, etc.), Amelote (1666), Bouhours (1697), which were all based, more or less, on the Vulgate, and are chiefly interesting as showing the existence of a need among the French Catholies.
The only one of lasting importance is the work of the Port Royalists, which is associated with the names of Antony and Louis Isaac le Maistre. The last named is better known as de Sacy. The translation of the NT from the Vulgate was begun by Antony le Maistre before 1657, and revised and completed by Louis le Maistre, who used the original Greek. The whole was revised by Arnauld and others, with the help of the ancient Versions and Patristic commentaries. The translation was finally authorized, and the NT appeared at Mons in 1667. The OT translation was the work of de Sacy himself during his imprisonment in the Bastille ; but the publication was authorized only if notes were added to the translation. This was done, and the result was that the publication begun in 1672 was only completed in 30 volumes, the last of which appeared in 1695. ‘The transla- tion made from the Vulgate is not always literal enough: it pays more attention to clearness and elegance than to faithfulness. Of all the French versions, it is the purest from the point of view of the language, and the best written.’ It has been often reprinted with and without notes, and during
CONTINENTAL VERSIONS
the last century it was circulated even by the Bible Societies.
11. Numberless translations of the whole or part of the Bible have been published both by Roman Catholics and Protestants during the last century, which need not detain us. It is only necessary in conclusion to notice the translation of the NT published by Oltramare in 1872 and that of the OT by Segond in 1874. These were combined in an edition published by the French Bible Society in 1882. Segond completed his translation of the whole Bible by publishing a NT in 1880, which, though not so good as Oltramare’s version of the NT, has been circulated widely by the English and French Bible Societies. In 1900 the French Bible Society again published the OT of Segond, and the NT version of Oltramare.
LiITERATURE.—S. Berger, La Bible Francaise aw moyen age, Paris, 1884, ‘Les Bibles Provengals,’ etc., in Romania, vols. xvili. and xix.; E. Mangenot, art. ‘Frangaises Versions de la Bible’ in Vigouroux’s Dictionnaire de la Bible; le Long, Bibliotheca Sacra; E. Reuss, numerous articles in the Strass-
burg Revue de Théologie; Douen, Histoire de la Société Bib- lique Protestante; Herzog, RE iii, 127 ff.
li. ITALIAN VERSIONS.—1l. None of the MSS of the Italian Bible which have survived probably belong to an earlier date than the 14th cent.; but the evidence they afford as to the text from which they are derived enables us to refer the origin of the translation to the middle or second half of the preceding century. It is not likely that the whole Bible was translated as early as this. That part is earlier than the 14th cent. is clear from the differences between the text of the Italian version and the Latin texts of the 14th and 15th cents., and its frequent agreement (e.g. at Ex 3478, Nu 3%) with the peculiar local readings of earlier Latin MSS circulating in Northern Italy. An early date is also indicated by other evidence furnished by some of the MSS. Thus the order of the books, and the divisions of the text found in two Paris MSS, and another at Siena, agree with those of Latin MSS prior to the 13th century. Other facts preclude the obvious suggestion that the resem- blance is due to the use of the early Latin MSS by a 14th cent. translator. The beginnings of the version are to be traced to the ‘religious and literary influence of France,’ and it has many points in common with the early French MSS, more particularly those connected with Provence and the valleys of the Vaud. These resemblances occur throughout the whole Bible. Thus the Italian Psalter is in close agreement with one of the earliest French Psalters. Of the Gospels, again, M. Berger writes: ‘The Italian Gospels stand in so close a relationship to the different Pro- vencal texts that we have to look to each of them in turn for parallels to the peculiarities of our version.’* The Proveneal text to which the Italian is related is an early form of that text. The same is true of the rest of the Italian version of the NT, but there are indications that it belongs to a somewhat later date. One of the most striking illustrations of the relationship between the Italian and Provencal texts is to be found in Jn 1, where ‘In the beginning was the Word’ is rendered by the Italian version ‘In the beginning was the Son of God.’ This is found also in Provencal MSS, and other versions con- nected with them. Another parallel between the Italian and Provencal is found in the famous passage 1 Jn 57 8,