RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Bible Versions
in London, London, 1894; E. Hatch and H. A. Redpath, Concordance to the Septuagint, London, 1892-1900; F. C. Conybeare, Philonean Text, in JQR, Jan., 1893, pp. 246- 280 Oct., 1895, pp. 88-122; H. A. Redpath, in The Academy Oct.' 22, 1893; G. Morin, Une revision du psautier, in Revue Unedictine, 1893, part 5, pp. 193-197; H. H. Howorth, in The Academy, 1893, July 22, Sept. 16, Oct. 7, Dec 16 1894, Feb. 17, May 5, June 9 (cf. W. A. Wright, ib. 1894, Nov. 3, and T. K. Cheyne, 1894, Nov. 10); V. Nourisson, La Bibliotheque des Ptolemees, Alexandria, 1893; S. Silberstein, Codex Alexandrinus und Vaticanus des dritten Kbnigsbuches, in ZATW, 1893-94; G. A. Deissmann, Bibelstudien, Marburg, 1895-96, Eng. transl., Edinburgh, 1901; H. A. Kennedy, Sources of New Testament Greek, Edinburgh, 1895; E. Klostermann, Analecta zur Septuaginta, Leipsic, 1895; Max Lohr, Vorarbeiten zu Daniel, in ZATW. xv (1895), 75-103, 193-225; E. Nestle, Zum Codex Alexandrinus, in ZATW. xv (1895), 261-262; idem, Zur Hexapla des Origenes, in ZWT, xxxviii, 231; H. E. Ryle, Philo and Holy Scripture, London, 1895; F. Johnson, Quotations of the New Testament, London, 1896; A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Septuagint, in The Expositor, April, 1896, 213-257; E. Klostermann, Die Mailander Fragmente, in ZATW. 1896, pp. 334-337; J. Furst, in Semitic Studies in Memory of A. Kohut, Berlin, 1897; E. Nestle, Einfilhrung in das griechische Neue Testament, Gottingen, 1897, Eng. transl., London, 1901; J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. i, Prolegomena, pp. 1-41, Edinburgh, 1906; A. Merx, Der Werth der Septuaginta fur die Textkritik des A. T., in JPT, ix, 65; A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Studien, parts i-ii, Gottingen, 1904-07.
On Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, besides the references in Irenseus, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, and Epiphanius, consult: C. A. Thieme, Pro puritate Symmachi, Leipsic, 1755; R. Anger, De Onkelo Chaldaico, ib. 1845; F. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum qucs supersunt, i, pp. xvi sqq., Oxford, 1867; G. Mercati, L'Eta di Simmaco interprete, Modena, 1892; L. Hausdorff, Zur Geschichte der Targumim nach talmudischen Quellen, in Monatsschrift fur Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums, xxxviii (1893), 5-7; L. Blau, Zur Einleitung in die heilige Schrift, Budapest, 1894; M. Friedmann, Onkelos und Akylas, Vienna, 1896; S. Kraus-Budapest, in Festschrift zum achtzigsten Geburtstage \M. Steinschneiders, Leipsic, 1896; F. C. Burkitt, Fragments of the Books of Kings . , Cambridge, 1897; DCB, i, 150-151, ii, 14-23 (valuable); DB, iv, 864-865; EB, iv, 5017-19.
II. Latin Versions: The origin of the earliest Latin versions is unknown. This fact is easily explained if the case was stated correctly by Augustine: "Those who translated the Scriptures from Hebrew into Greek can be enumerated; but the Latin translators by no means. For in the early days of the faith when any one received a Greek manuscript into his hands and seemed to have ever so little facility in language, he dared to translate it" (De doctrina Christiana, ii, 11). Again (ii, 14) he mentions " the abundance of interpreters." Augustine is probably right in the supposition that Latin versions did not exist in pre-Christian times. At all events there are no traces of Jewish undertakings in this direction. The history of the Latin versions is divided into two unequal parts by the work of Jerome and closes with an account of later versions independent of Jerome, particularly those made by Protestants.
1. The Latin Bible before Jerome: The statement of Augustine about the great variety of Latin translations is corroborated by the documents, manuscripts, and quotations preserved, for the New Testament of course much more than for the Old But even for the latter one may cite, e.g. for Deut. xxxi> 17> at least eight variant readings; and in the New Testament for Luke xxiv, 4, 5, at least twenty-seven variant readings. In other
words, as Jerome says, " as many readings as copies"; and these readings are not merely dif-
1 The Old ferent renderings of an identical Greek Latin Bible. text'. ,3ut corresPond to various Greek
The Itala. ' readings, a fact which seems to demonstrate the more clearly the existence of different translations. Nevertheless Jerome speaks frequently as if there was but one ancient translation, which he opposes as " the common edition" and an "old translation" to his own undertaking. Some variations at least arose in the way sketched by Jerome — " by stupid interpreters badly translated, by presumptuous but unskilled men perversely amended, by sleepy copyists either added to or changed about." Nevertheless it is impossible to reduce all these variations to consecutive stages of one original translation and therefore scholars use the term "Old Latin versions " (in the plural) and avoid especially the name formerly used ; viz .," Itala. " This designation went back to a single passage of Augustine (De doctrina Christiana, ii, 14, 15); after he had fixed the principle " that the uncorrected texts should give way to the corrected ones at least when they are copies of the same translation," he goes on to say: " Among translations themselves the Itala is to be preferred to the others, for it keeps closer to the words, without prejudice to clearness of expression." There can be no doubt that he puts here one translation, which he prefers, in opposition to several other translations; therefore it was not well done to comprehend all that is left of the Latin Bibles from the time before Jerome under this name Itala. Some have tried to change the text, but Itala is the correct reading. Augustine must mean a version used in or having come from Italy, probably the northern part of the peninsula. Isidore of Seville (Etymologies, vi, 4) in the seventh century clearly understood by "Itala" the work of Jerome. This view was restated in 1824 by C. A. Breyther, was considered possible by E. Reuss, and wellfounded by F C. Burkitt (The Old Latin and the Itala, in TS, iv, 3), with the limitation that Augustine had not yet in view the whole of Jerome's labor, but only its beginning — the revision of the Gospels. It is therefore advisable to avoid completely the name "Itala" and to use "Old Latin" for the Bible before Jerome. The home of this Bible is not to be sought in Rome, where Greek was the language of the infant Church and its literature, but most probably in Africa. It is true, many of the linguistic peculiarities ascribed to Africa are shared by the lingua rustica in other parts of the Latin world, and it has become customary to distinguish an African and a European branch of the Latin Bible; nevertheless the origin of this whole literature seems to have been in Africa. Translations of certain books which in early times were of almost canonical standing — such as the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the First Epistle of Clement— are closely connected with these versions (cf. Harnack, Litteratur, i, 883; O. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der alikirchlichen Litteratur, i, Freiburg, 1902V
Because the Old Latin versions have been replaced in the use of the Church by the version of
Bible Versions