Venema, Herman, D.D., a learned Dutch divine, was burn at Wildervank in 1(J97. He was successively pastor at Dronryp, and professor of theology and uni- versit}' preacher at Franeker. He died in 1787. He was a voluminous writer in all departments of sacred science. He published, Institutiones fJistoi'iw Ecclesiee Veteris et Novi Testamenti ( 1777 ) : — Dissertationum Sacrarum Libri Tres (1731) : — Commeniarius ud Li- bruni Fleuiico-propheticum Malachite (1769): — JJissei- tationes ad Librnm Geneseos (1747): — Commtntarius ad Psalmos (1762-G7): — Commeniarius ad Libnnn Pro- phetiariim Jeremue (YlGo): — Lectiunes Academicce ad Ezechielem (1790) : — JJissertationes ad Vaticinia Da- nielis Emblematica (1745): — Commenturius ud Daniel. (17(58) : — Sermones Academici vice Commentarii ad Li- brum Propfietiarum Zacharice (1787) : — Optisculit Inedi- ta (1781) : — Prelectiones de Jfethodo Prophetica.
Venerable is the title given to aixhdeacons in the English Churcli.
VEXEHAP.LE Bi:de. See Bkde.
Veneta Veisio. The Library of St. IMark's, at Venice, is in possession of a JIS. containing a (ireek ver- sion, by some unknown author in the Middle Ages, of various hooks of the Old Test. — namely, the Pentateuch, Proverbs, Kuth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, Lamenlations, and Daniel. The Pentateuch was edited by Ammon (Erlang. 1790-91, 3 vols.) ; the other parts by John Casp. d'Ansse de Villoison (Strasb. 1784, 1 voL 8vo). There is no evidence that Holmes even used it in his edition of the Sept. De' Possi, in his Varite Lectiones. has given some readings of it; but so long as the whole was not publishetl, no certainty as to its merits or demerits could be given. Since 1875 the entire version has been given to the public in the edition published by Geb- hardt. From the introduction of the editor, and the preface by Dclitzsch, we see that the translation was made in the 14th century by a certain Elissa2us who lived at the court of Murad I at Brusa and Adrianople. The translator was a Jew, perhaps a Jewish convert, as Geldiardl tliinks. See Gri:ek Versions.
The internal character of the version shows that it was made directly from the Hebrew. It is slavishlj' literal, word for word of the original being rendered into Attic Greek. In the Chaldee sections of Daniel the Doric is used. As it is impossible to adhere with rigid exactness to the words of the original, and at the same time present the elegancies of the Attic Greek, it is ob-
VENETA VERSIO
(43
VENETA VERSIO
vioiis that gross barbarisms must pervade the diction. That the Masoretic text was the basis of the translation cannot be denied. No important readings have been discovered in it which are not in existing Masoretic MSS., nor any peculiar to it which are preferable to the common text. A great many variations may be traced to the confusion from the similarity of letters, others to the grammatical ignorance of the translator. Whether the MS. he used was divided throughout, like our mod- ern copies, by accents, or furnished throughout with the present vowel system, since there are many departures from the accents and vowel-points, cannot be stated with certainty. That the translator consulted the Sept. and other Greek versions has been shown beyond a shadow of doubt by Gebhardt. Above all, he followed David Kimchi's Llhtir Rudicum, D"ia"H:un "lED, which he consulted in the interpretation of words, and to which, as Gebhardt states, "piene omnia quaj Venet® versionis propria sunt in textu Hebraico interpretando originem trahunt." Now, as D. Kimchi flourished in the 13th century, Davidson's statement that " the version must be placed after the 9th century"' must be given up. Whether the copy in the Library of St. Mark's was cop- ied from another much older, as Davidson thinks, or whether it is the original as presented by cardinal Bes- sarion in 14G8, who, according to Delitzsch, was a pupil of Plethon, better known as Georgius Gemistus, a pupil and friend of Elissreus the translator, will depend solely upon the fact as to who the author of the version was. Delitzsch himself calls his hypothesis a conjecture, or, to use his own words, "Jam animum despondebam, quum in conjecturam incidi, quam modeste, ut decet, arbitrio legitimorimi existimatorura committo." He then goes on to show the probability of Elissteus, who lived in the 14th century, being the translator. Dr. Frankl, in reviewing Gebhardt's edition in Griitz's Mo- natsschriff, 1875, p. 372 sq., thinks that Shemaria of Negroponte was the author of the version. Now, ad- mitting this quidjyro quo, the version would still belong to the 14:th century, and the probability is against Da- vidson, that the copy preserved in St. Mark's was copied from another much okler.
For the interpretation of the text and the history of hermeneutics the Veneta is very important. As for the linguistic peculiarities of this version, it contains a great many words not found in dictionaries ; thus :
uiKupi9=B~lp, Exod. xxvi,C, 11,33; xxxv, 11. u7P(aXeKTo^)i<;=nS"'2'n, Deut. xiv, 18. i7pi6/3ow='lXP, Dent, xiv, 5. aKp67ron-3-o9=b"13', Gen. xvii, 14. ai'a3-nM<<Ticr«=ni3'^il, Numb. xxi, 3. uno4>\olu>(Tii—y]'i^n'0, Gen. xxx, 3T. /3paxi'&i'M0f=n'^S!X "^^p, Prov. xiv, IT. 7i/u<rT6TH9=n2)Tl7a, Ruth iii, 3. 6eKaut5iM''o5=""2n, Lev. xxvii, IG. ewnrXiyiJ.a—^'^'Q^, Nutnb. xix, 15.
eia)i/i-M'Cw=^''X'2irn, Gen. xiii,9. Cn\oTi/7r6M=X"i3pn, Dent. xxxii,16, 21, K<i^e(5por="';3^, Geu. xix, 25. \i^6<7Mpo9="iJi, Geu. xxxi, 47.
;uapTi;onCT'S-=>Tl^3Jn, Ruth iv, 7. firiTpow6p7rii=T''213, Numb, xxxi, 50. i/€ai'iCTKc5T/)c=n'mn3, Eccles. xi, O; xii.l.
oXiyai/jia—'^'S^, Lev. XXV, 16. 7r£pifi'<rTor=31i3n, Prov. vii, 16. f(it'TicrTpoi/=iT1t53, Exod. xxvii, 3; xsxvlii, 3. <TU77i/&)juoi'riMa="lS3, Numb. xxxv, 31. Ta\apo3-£TF(u=bDbD, Prov. iv, 8. i7ro</foi'a=?Or, Lev. iii, 4, 10.