IX. Modem Versions of the Vulgate. — The versions used in the Church of Rome have all been made from the Vulgate, of which the first German translation was printed in 1466, the Spanish in 1478, and the Italian in 1471. Onr limits will allow ns only to refer to that in use in English, of which the Old Test, was printed at Douai in 1609, and the New at Rheims in 1582. This is greatly inferior in strength and elegance of ex- pression to the A. V. of 1611, but is highly commenda- ble for its scrupulous accuracy and fidelity, which can- not be predicated of all translations from the Vulgate into other languages. It was altered and modernized by bishop Challoner in 1749, when the text was conformed to that of the Clementine edition. It has since under- gone various alterations under the care of the Irish Ro- man Catholic hierarchy, and has been in some respects conformed to the A. V., even in passages which con- troversialists of a bygone age had stigmatized as heret- ical. But this has been done without any departure from the text. The original translators, however, ad- hered so servilely to this as to employ such barbarous words and phrases as sindom (Mark xv, 46), zealators (Acts XX, 20), pra^finition (Eph. iii. 11), contristate (iv, 30),agniti()n (Philem.16), repropitiate (Heb. ii, 17),with such hosts God is promerited (xiii, 16), etc. "Yet, in justice, it must be observed that no case of wilful per- version of Scripture has ever been brought home to the Rhemish translators" (Scrivener, Supplement to the A u- thorized Version). Mr. Scrivener adds that "the Rhe-
VULGATE
839
VULTURE
mish divines [who were evidently men of learning and ability] may occasionally do us good service by fur- nishing some happy phrase or form of expression which had eluded the diligence of their more reputable prede- cessors" {ibid.).
The translators observe in their preface that they religiously keep the phrases word for word, "for fear of missing or restraining the sense of the Holy Ghost to the fantasie;" in proof of which they refer to such phrases as ri f/tot Kai aoi, yin'ni (.loini ii, 4) which they render "What to me anti thee, woman V" explain- ing it in tiie note by the phrase " What hast thou to do with me?" But in some of the modern editions of the Hhemish version this rule has been departed from and the text altered into '• What is t/ial to me or theeV" (Dublin ed. 1791, KS->4),or "What is it to me and thee?" (ibid. 1S2()) ; a reading inconsistent with the transla- tion of tlie same wortls in Luke viii, "JN. The inter- polation has been removed in Dr. IMurray's edition of 1825. In the New Veision oj' the Four GospeU, by a Catholic (Dr. Lingard), the words are rendered, "What hast thou to do with me?" The whole passage is thus rendered and commented on by Tittmann {Mdeteniata Sacra) : "Missnin me. far, o mea, 'Leave that to my care, good mother.' It is not the language of reproof or refusal, but rather of consolation and prt)mise. This appears from tlie words which follow, ' mine hour is not yet come.' For in these words he jjromises his mother that at the proper time he will gratify her wish. . . . But our Loril purposely delayed his assistance, that the greatness of the miracle might be the better known to all. Tiie appellation yvvai, which was employed by our Lord on otiier occasions also (John xix, 2(5; xx, 15), was very honorable among the Greeks, who were accus- tomed to call their queens by this title, and may be ren- dered ' my beloved.' "
Prof. Moses Stuart {Commentary on the Apocalypse, i, 119) conceives that "in the translation oi ptravo- tlre by aylte paenitentiam (iMatt. iii, 2), the .same spir- it was operating which led one part of the Church in modern times to translate fxtTcivotiTe by do peniince." But the Latin phrase " agere poenitentiam," which is also found in the old Italic, is evidently synonymous with fiETavoeiv, " to repent." "Agite poenitentiam," says Campbell, " was not originally a mistranslation of tiie Greek /.uravoHTe." Dr. Lingard {ut sup.') renders it " repent."
We refer to one passage more, often objected to as proving that the Vulgate was altered to serve a pur- pose. In Heb. xi, 21, the Vulgate reads, as the trans- lation of npo<yiKvvi](jw iwi rv UKpov rijg pal3Sov avToii : adoravit fastigium virgse ejus, "worshipped the top of his [.Joseph's] rod." If the present pointing of the He- brew nZi'a (Gen. xlvii, 31) be correct, the Seventy, who read it nii'p, "a staff" or ".sceptre," must have been in error, wherein they were followed by the Syriac. Tholiick {Commentary on f/eb.) is of opinion that the Latin translators did not (as some suppose) overlook iwi, " upon," and he considers that this preposition with the accusative might easily lead to the acceptation in which it is taken by the Vulgate, which is also that adopted by Chrysostom and Theodoret, who explain the passage as if Jacob had foreseen .Joseph's sovereign- ty, and gave a proof of his belief in it by the act of adoration in the direction of his sceptre. This is, in Tholuck's opinion, further confirmed by the generally spread reading ai'Tov (his), not avroii (his own); and he doubts if the inspired writer of the epistle did not himself so imderstand the passage in the Sept. as being the more significant. But should it be admitted, with Tholuck, that "the Protestant controversialists have very unjustly designated this passage of the Vulgate as one of the most palpable of its errors," it must be borne in mind that Onkelns, Jonathan, Symmachus, and Aquila follow the present reading; to which Jerome also gives a decided preference, observing (on Gen.