De Moor II:33: The Translation of Scripture, Part 1

[If you are being blessed by the translation work, please consider supporting the work and speeding it on its way.  Click here to watch a brief video on the project.]

After indicating this End of the writing of Scripture, our AUTHOR relates the Means tending toward this End, which are the Translation, Reading, Understanding, and Interpretation of the Scripture.

With respect to the Versions of the Bible there is a controversy with the Papists concerning the Propriety and Necessity of them.  The more sober of them do indeed acknowledge the Necessity and Utility of the Versions, for which reason they also adorn various Versions in various Tongues.  BARONIUS, in his Annalibus Ecclesiasticis, tome 2, on AD 231, § 17 and 18, asserts, “By a divine and wonderful counsel the first and foremost Version of the Septuagint Translators was painstakingly made:”  see GERHARD’S Confessionem catholicam, tome II, book II, special part I, article I, chapter II, thesis VII, pages 174b-180.  Nevertheless, other writers of this sect, not a few, condemn the Translations of the Bible into the Vernacular Languages as harmful and dangerous:  thus Arboreus[1] in Theosophiæ, book VIII, chapter XI:  “There is one origin of heresies, the translation of the Sacred books into the vulgar tongue.”  With whom agree Azor,[2] Harding, Baile, and a great many Jesuits, who “are wont to criticize” the translation of Scripture “as the curious εὕρημα/invention of heretics, exiled from orthodox religion, and hence useless to the Churches, and devised to sow heresies:”  consult GERHARD’S Confessionem catholicam, tome II, book II, special part I, article I, chapter II, thesis VII, pages 171-173.

The Scope/Goal/End cannot be obscure, namely, that which our AUTHOR observes, that they might more easily exercise tyranny over consciences.

We prove the Propriety and Necessity of Versions:

α.  From the Canonical Use of Scripture just now asserted in § 32, which is not applicable without the Translation of Scripture.  For, if the Scripture is going to be a norm of faith and manners for me, I must have the same for continual reading, meditation, and the turning of its pages day and night:  which, after the preaching of the Gospel among nations of all Languages, cannot be done by the faithful as individuals without a Translation of the Bible; while not even to a hundredth part among the members of the Church is the way open to the two Original Languages.

β.  From the First Writing, made in the language, not peculiar to some learned men, but most Common under the Old and New Testaments.  For the Hebrew Tongue during the time of the writing of the Old Testament for the use of the Jews was the Vernacular of that people.  Greek at the time that the New Testament was set down was especially common, sufficiently familiar to the Jews themselves, whence both Philo and Josephus, both being Jews, wrote in Greek.  But, if it were so dangerous to open the way for any Laics to consult the Sacred Codices, God Himself had provided for the Church in a manner not quite proper.  Contrariwise, we follow His example without any risk, when we exhibit the Bible to be read to each Church in its Vernacular Language, so that God might reach the goal of providing a norm, which He proposed to Himself in delivering the Scripture to the Churches.

γ.  From the gift of Tongues soon granted with the extension of the Church to the Nations, so that each nation τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ, in its own language, might be able to hear τὰ μεγαλεῖα τοῦ Θεοῦ, the wonderful works of God, as in Acts 2:6, 8, 11; so that what was written might be fulfilled, πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσεται τῷ Θεῷ, every tongue shall confess to God, according to Romans 14:11.[3]  But, if therefore God Himself miraculously granted the gift of Tongues to the Apostles and first Teachers of the New Testament, so that they might proclaim the Gospel in the Vernacular Tongue to each nation; the duty is incumbent upon faithful overseers of the Church, that to the Church they deliver the Gospel, which Men of God, as universal Teachers, wrote in the most common Language of the time, translated together with the Books of the Old Testament into the Vernacular Tongue of each nation, for the purposes of reading.

δ.  From this necessity and utility of Versions of the Scripture, acknowledged already from the infancy of the Church, which brought it to pass that the Sacred Books were soon enough read by many nations in the Vernacular Tongue, with the benevolent Providence of God smiling upon this pious undertaking of the Church in the translation of the Original text.  Hence CHRYSOSTOM, homily II, or I, on John, opera, tome 8, page 10, says of the Gospel of John:  καὶ Σύροι, καὶ Αἰγύπτιοι, καὶ Ἰνδοὶ, καὶ Πέρσαι, καὶ Αἰθίοπες, καὶ μυρία ἕτερα ἔθνη, εἰς τὴν αὐτῶν μεταβαλόντες γλῶτταν τὰ παρὰ τούτου δόγματα εἰσαχθέντα, ἔμαθον ἄνθρωποι βάρβαροι φιλοσοφεῖν, Syrians, and Egyptians, and Indians, and Persians, and Ethiopians, and countless other nations, translating into their own tongues the doctrines introduced by him, although barbarians, have learned to philosophize.  THEODORET also, in Curatione Græcarum affectionum, book V, opera, tome 4, pages 555, 556, affirms that the Hebrew books or speech of the Hebrews was not only translated into Greek idiom, but also in the Roman Language, and Egyptian, Persian, Indian, Armenian, Scythian, and Sarmatian; and quickly into all Languages, of which the nations were making use unto that day:  Ἡμεῖς δὲ, τῶν ἀποστολικῶν καὶ προφητικῶν δογμάτων τὸ κράτος ἐναργῶς ἐπιδείκνυμεν·  πᾶσα γὰρ ἡ ὑφήλιος τῶν δε τῶν λόγων ἀνάπλεως·  καὶ ἡ Ἑβραίων φωνὴ οὐ μόνον εἰς Ἑλλήνων μετεβλήθη, ἀλλὰ καὶ εἰς τὴν Ῥωμαίων καὶ Αἰγυπτίων καὶ Περσῶν καὶ Ἰνδῶν καὶ Ἀρμενίων καὶ Σκυθῶν καὶ Σαυροματῶν, καὶ συλλήβδην εἰπεῖν, εἰς πάσας τὰς γλώττας αἷς ἅπαντα τὰ ἔθνη κεχρημένα διατελεῖ, but we visibly display the power of the apostolic and prophetic doctrines:  for every language under the sun has full need of the words:  and the Hebrew language was translated, not only into that of the Greeks, but also into that of the Romans, Egyptians, Persians, Indians, Armenians, Scythians, and Samartians, and, to say it in brief, into all the languages of which at this day all the nations make use.  And speaking of Lucian and Hesychius publishing a corrected Version of the Old Testament, JEROME in his preface to the Gospels, opera, tome 3, page 30, writes, that the Scripture had already previously been translated into the languages of many nations.  It does not belong to this Compendium to speak on behalf of the worth of the various Versions reviewed by our AUTHOR, and the great many others that could be enumerated in addition.  This requires a whole and proper Commentary.  Concerning these Ecclesiastical History is to be consulted; and BRIAN WALTON’S Apparatus Biblicus; HOTTINGER’S Thesaurus Philologicus; LEUSDEN’S Philologi; CARPZOV’S Critica Sacra in Vetus Testamentum; RUMPÆUS’ Commentatio Critica ad Novi Testamenti Libros, § L, pages 344-443; BINGMAN’S Origines Ecclesiasticæ, book XIV, chapter III, § 17, volume 6, pages 97-104, in which there is a brief narration of the Versions of Scripture used in the ancient Church.

We shall make do with a few things that are able to make for the illustration of our AUTHOR.

Our AUTHOR says, From the beginning Latin Versions were multiplied:  thus, of course, AUGUSTINE testifies, in book II, de Doctrina Christiana, chapter XI, opera, tome 3, part I, column 19, “If the infinite variety of Latin translators produces any doubt.”  And a little afterwards:  “For those that translated the Scriptures from the Hebrew language into the Greek are able to be enumerated, but not the Latin Translators.  For, as the Greek codex came into the hands of each in the first ages of the faith, and he appeared to himself to have a little ability in both languages, he ventured to translate.”

Among which was celebrated of old that which is called the Itala or Common, some parts of which they desire the Vulgate yet to retain.  Thus again AUGUSTINE, book II de Doctrina Christiana, chapter XV, column 21, “Now, among those translations let the Itala be preferred to the others:  for it holds more tenaciously to the words with perspicuity of meaning.”  Moreover, concerning this Version, and what today’s Vulgate is judged to retain from the same, see what things we said on § 10.

There are also the Greek translations of the Septuagint, so called after the Seventy Elders, the most ancient of all, concerning which previously:  That is, to the extent deemed sufficient we disputed concerning this Version on § 11, where we at the same time admonished, lest anyone should declaim on behalf of preaching from the Version of the Seventy Interpreters, or from the Seventy Greek Interpreters, since that entire narration concerning the Seventy-two Interpreters is either uncertain or fabulous.

Our AUTHOR, with the whole chorus of Theologians and Philologists, calls this Version the most ancient of all:  from whom whether the Most Illustrious HOTTINGER has sufficiently weighty reasons to dissent, when he maintains that before this Greek Version, even from the times of Ezra, there was a Chaldean paraphrase of most of the books of the Old Testament, and also thinks that some Greek Version of the Pentateuch of the Samaritans surpasses the antiquity of the Septuagint—Viralis, is able to be doubted, if one is pleased to call his reasons set forth in Thesauro Philologico, pages 282-285, in for examination, and to compare with those what things were taught in § 11, both concerning the Greek Version of the Samaritan Pentateuch, and concerning the antiquity of the Septuagint—Viralis Version.

Then our AUTHOR adds Greek Translations:

Of Aquila Ponticus, under Hadrian.  Initially he was a Greek with respect to religion, then at Jerusalem he embraced the faith of Christ and was baptized:  afterwards he was ejected from the communion of the Church, because he was so addicted to Judicial Astrology;[4] at which time he was made a proselyte:  and when with great labor he had learned the Hebrew language, he translated the speech of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek, especially (as it is evident) so that he might annoy the Christians, and corrupt the oracles prophesying concerning Christ; and that under the Emperor Hadrian before the middle of the Second Century.  For, as the Septuagint Version had already been prepared before the birth of Christ, so the remaining Greek Versions mentioned here were completed only after the Christ:  see CARPZOV’S Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti, part II, chapter III, § 2, pages 553-560; PRIDEAUX’S An Historical Connection of the Old and New Testaments, part II, book I, columns 762-764.

Of Theodotion of Ephesus, under Commodus.[5]  Epiphanius calls him Ponticus also, but according to Irenæus and the Synopsis of Athanasius he is believed to have been an Ephesian.  Although the Ancients relate various things concerning his religion, perhaps they were able to be reconciled in this way; if you say that he was first a Marcionite, then an Ebionite, and finally a proselyte.  Having been made a proselyte and circumcised, he prepared a new Greek Version, generally following the footsteps of the Septuagint Translators.  The Church was always wont to read Daniel out of the translation of Theodotion, as JEROME testifies, preface on Daniel, opera, tome 3, page 27.  This his work is referred to the rule of Commodus after the middle of the Second Century by Epiphanius and others, although there are those that think that it is to be referred to a time shortly before Lucius Aurelius Commodus:  see CARPZOV’S Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti, part II, chapter III, § 3, pages 560-566; PRIDEAUX’S An Historical Connection of the Old and New Testaments, part II, book I, columns 763-765.

Of Symmachus the Samaritan and Ebionite, under Verus or Severus.[6]  Not very long after Theodotion Symmachus also translated the Old Testament into the Greek language; EPIPHANIUS expressly relates that this happened under Severus.  EUSEBIUS makes him an Ebionite.  JEROME calls him at one time a Jew, at another time a Judaizing heretic, and elsewhere expressly an Ebionite.  Nevertheless, EPIPHANIUS, the Author of the Athanasian Synopsis, and others, describe Symmachus as a Samaritan, who, led by ambition (as EPIPHANIUS relates), did not have his wish answered among his people, and, becoming angry with his people, passed over to the Jews, and, putting his name among the proselytes, was circumcised a second time, with his foreskin previously restored by medical arts.  That the Scope/Goal of Symmachus in his translation was to subvert the Versions that were received among the Samaritans, EPIPHANIUS relates:  πρὸς διαστροφὴν τῶν παρὰ Σαμαρείταις ἐρμηνειῶν ἐρμηνεύσας, τὴν τρίτην ἐξέδωκεν ἐρμηνείαν, translating in order to pervert the translations current among the Samaritans, he published the third translation.  Nevertheless, that does not appear likely to FABRICIUS in his Bibliotheca Græca, unless perhaps it might therefore be said that, because the Pentateuch alone was admitted by the Samaritans, Symmachus translated the remaining Prophetic Books also.  He thinks that it is rather to be observed that Christian writers, just as they generally indicate Aquila when they appeal to the Hebrew, so when they cite the Σαμαρειτικὸν/Samaritan, have regard unto this Version of the Samaritan Symmachus, by whom this learned Man persuades himself the Pentateuch was translated out of the Samaritan.  Yet, with CARPZOV in his Criticis Sacris Veteris Testamenti, part II, chapter III, page 568, as judge, this erudite observation of Fabricius does not at all prevent Symmachus from being able to undertake and prepare a Version out of hatred for his fellow tribesmen; although perhaps the Fathers call or hold that as Samaritan, not from the here overlaid opinion of the Samaritans, but from the author, first arising from the Samaritans:  compare § 11; CARPZOV’S Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti, part II, chapter III, § 4, pages 566-571; PRIDEAUX’S An Historical Connection of the Old and New Testaments, part II, book I, columns 763-765.

But thus divine Providence took care that, besides the ancient Greek Version prepared by the Jews, three others were additionally supplied by Apostates or Infidels of the Church.  But these four Greek Versions formerly made up the Tetrapla of ORIGEN, which in four columns was exhibiting the Version, 1.  of Aquila, 2.  of Symmachus, 3.  of the Septuagint, 4.  Of Theodotion.  Unto which, in the Hexapla prepared by the same Church Father, were added in a first and second column the Hebrew Text written in the Hebrew box-script, and the same Text expressed in Greek characters.  In addition, in the Octapla of the same Origen were extant two ἀνώνυμοι/anonymous Greek Versions of uncertain authorship, one called Hierichuntine,[7] because in the Third Century under Emperor Antonius Caracalla[8] it was discovered at Jericho, stored in earthenware vessels, together with other Hebrew and Greek books.  Whence Athanasius conjectures that it was composed by one that was without devotion to Jerusalem.  The other is called Nicopolitan, which was similarly found in earthenware vessels on the Actian shore of Nicopolis[9] not very long after the former, with Alexander Severus reigning.[10]  Now, which Version was first gathered in Origen’s Octapla, whether the Hierichuntine according to Epiphanius and others, as it is commonly thought; or whether the Nicopolitan is to be set before the Hierichuntine, which indeed CARPZOV concludes to be preferable, CARPZOV’S Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti, part II, chapter III, page 572, out of Jerome; in this matter there is certainly too little evidence:  since those quadru-, sextu-, octuple Codices have lamentably perished, except for some fragments of this work beyond the Septuagint Version remaining to the present day, published by MONTFAUCON in 2 folio tomes, Paris, 1713.  But, the greater the labor ORIGEN had devoted to an accurate emendation of the Septuagint Version, the greater the loss the destruction of this work of Origen has brought upon the Church; since he, reviewing the text of the Septuagint, added, 1.  Asterisks (*) to words that were wanting in the Greek, but supplied by himself out of the Hebrew:  2.  Obelisks (ǂ or ҂) to words, added beyond the Hebrew text in the Greek Version, as if fixed with a nail:  3.  Lemnisci (÷), where readings may vary, but the superior number of exemplars may prevail:  4.  Hypolemnisci (˗), where there is at least a pair of exemplars agreeing, or, according to Epiphanius, one of the thirty-six pairs of Interpreters or Translators; the distinct exemplars, thirty-six in number, of all which, exhibiting various readings here and there, Epiphanius believes, foolishly enough, to have survived unto the time of Origen.  But thus of the Lemnisci and the Hypolemnisci, as we have just now related, judge MASIUS, VALESIUS, HUETIUS, and SPANHEIM, in his Historia Ecclesiastica, Century III, chapter X, columns 774-776.

Indeed, we hardly doubt that today’s editions of the Septuagint Version also have much from the emendation of Origen:  nevertheless, the value of the work would have been to distinguish for the eye his corrections, enclosed with the signs just now mentioned at the beginning and two points at the end.

Concerning the comparison and joint exhibition of the Greek Versions of the Old Testament and Origen’s work on the same, see the discussions of, among others, JOHANN ALBERT FABRICIUS, Bibliotheca Græca, book III, chapter XII, volume 2, pages 315-360; PRIDEAUX, An Historical Connection of the Old and New Testaments, part II, book I, columns 765-770; BUDDEUS, Isagoge ad Theologiam universam, book II, chapter VIII, § 5, tome 2, pages 1525-1528a, § 8, pages 1585-1587; JOHANN GOTTLOB CARPZOV, Criticis Sacris Veteris Testamenti, part II, chapter III, pages 552-585, and the many more whom he commends.  Concerning the exemplar of the Septuagint Version, of which Origen made use, and which he inserted in his Hexapla, see in addition CARPZOV’S Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti, part III, chapter IX, § 3, pages 955, 970-972.

Our AUTHOR continues in this way, Famous also are the Targumim or Chaldean Paraphrases, especially of Onkelos and Jonathan.  To the Chaldeans, a תַּרְגּוּם/Targum or תַּרְגּוּמָא/Targumah is a translation, or an explication, in which the words of one are rendered and explained either through another, more familiar language, or in the same language through more and clearer words; it is from the quadrilateral root תִּרְגֵּם or תַּרְגֵּם, to interpret, to explain.  Nevertheless, usage thus obtained that the word Targum be used in a somewhat more restricted sense, and be assigned to indicate synecdochically the Chaldean Paraphrases of the Bible, which the Jews ordinarily understand when they cite a Targum in an absolute manner, while they call other Versions in other languages הַעֲתָקוֹת/translations, from עָתַק, to translate.  Moreover, DRUSIUS advises that Targum, as it is also with Talmud,[11] is not quite used correctly by Christians in the neuter gender, since a book is understood, which nevertheless is not regarded as applicable in all places.  The origin of the Targumim is commonly found in a custom, which had come on with the vernacular dialect of the Jews having changed by degrees, namely, that in the Synagogues, after a section of the Hebrew text was read aloud by the reader, the same was then translated by an interpreter in Chaldean or Syriac for the use of the ignorant:  which is thought to have furnished an occasion to Onkelos and Jonathan, so that these might consign to writing the translation, the former of the Law, the latter of the Prophets.  Our AUTHOR also reviews these two Targums as more celebrated in reputation than the others.

They commonly make Onkelos younger than Jonathan, and they maintain that he flourished somewhat after Christ; while Jonathan ben Uzziel, who is thought to have been a disciple of Hillel the Elder,[12] and a disciple together with Simeon the Just[13] and Gamaliel,[14] of whom we read in Acts, is thought to be older than Christ by some years.  Whence they suppose that Jonathan also published his translation before Onkelos:  see BUDDEUS’ Historiam ecclesiasticam Veteris Testamenti, period II, section VII, § 17, tome 2, pages 971b, 972.  On the other hand, that Onkelos both lived and composed his Targum before Jonathan, the Learned PRIDEAUX, An Historical Connection of the Old and New Testaments, part II, book VIII, columns 1386, 1393, 1394, concludes from this, 1.  that the style of Onkelos is far purer than the diction of Jonathan, and comes much closer to Biblical Chaldean; 2.  that, if the Targum of Onkelos upon the Pentateuch had not yet been prepared, no reason is able to be given as to why Jonathan, with the Pentateuch passed by, had undertaken a translation of the Prophets:  which diverse opinions CARPZOV thus attempts to reconcile in the best manner possible, asserting that Onkelos was likely a σύγχρονον/contemporary of Jonathan, and that both were of the same generation with the Savior Christ; and that Jonathan was perhaps more advanced in age, yet his hand was applied later to his work, after he had understood that Onkelos’ Version of the Law was received with such applause.  Of course, from Onkelos we have a Translation of the Pentateuch alone, but from Jonathan ben Uzziel a Targum upon both the former and the latter Prophets.  And, although this Paraphrase of Jonathan perhaps ought to yield to Onkelos’ in order of time, that the age of this Jonathan and of his paraphrase are almost the same as that of Christ, contrary to the opinions of Morinus and Isaac Vossius, who postpone the same unto far later ages, the Learned gather from the purity of style, Talmudic suffrage; and from the very style of commenting, which is simpler and more restrained than what is found in following ages; and also from shining testimonies concerning the Messiah, by which he confirms Christian truth even against the Jews.  But, if any vestiges of novelty occur in this Paraphrase, they think that these argue the hand of an interpolator.  For, with respect to the character of each of these Targumim, the translation of Onkelos is judged to take the prize above all the other Targumim:  since in polish and purity of language it comes near to the Biblical style of Daniel and Ezra, and does not admit barbarous words in such number as the others do:  it cleaves more firmly to the letter, and generally renders the sense in the same number of words in which it is expressed in the Hebrew Codex; and to fables and digressions it is altogether strange, and from the corruptions of copyists and the patched on rags of interpolators it is thus free enough.

In the prophetic Targum of Jonathan the style of Chaldean speech and the purity of Chaldean diction are also commended, agreeing quite closely with Onkelos, and little turning from the terse Biblical Chaldean.  This Targum is seen as somewhat more liberal, especially in the latter Prophets, and indulging excessively in allegories.  It is also found to be variously interpolated.  Nevertheless, excellent testimonies concerning Messiah are drawn from it.

The remaining Targumim, as of a far later age, are thus of an inferior character.  Such are the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan upon the Pentateuch, Targum Jerusalem upon the Pentateuch, the Targum on the five Megilloth of uncertain authorship, another Targum upon the Book of Esther; the Targum upon the Hagiographa, which is commonly attributed to Rab Jose, or Joseph Cæcus or Luscus, Rector of the Academy of Sorana in Babylonia in the fourth Century, to whom also is related the received Targum upon the Books of the Chronicles,[15] brought into the light at last near the end of the preceding Century:  concerning all which the Philologists and Critics just now cited above are able to be consulted, even CARPZOV, in his Criticis Sacris Veteris Testamenti, part II, chapter I, pages 430-481; PRIDEAUX, in his An Historical Connection of the Old and New Testaments, part II, book VIII, columns 1383-1405:  to which add BUDDEUS, in his Isagoge ad Theologiam universam, book II, chapter VIII, § 5, tome 2, pages 1509-1516a; JOHANN CHRISTOPH WOLF, in his Bibliotheca Hebraica, part II, book VI, pages 1135-1191.

To which we join, as our AUTHOR continues, the Syriac Versions, both of the New Testament, and also of the Old Testament, both exceedingly ancient.  The Syrians make use of a twofold Version of the Old Testament, one simple and ancient, which is drawn from the Hebrew, and is alone used in the divine offices:  and one more recent, translated from the Greek text of the Septuagint long after the advent of Christ.  That simple Version is found in the Paris and London Polyglots, published from a variety of Manuscript Codices.  The Syrians refer this Version either unto the age of Solomon and Hiram, or to Asa the priest, who was sent from Assyria to Samaria,[16] to whatever extent the Canonical Books had already been committed to writing at that time; or unto the Apostle Thaddæus, or unto Mark the Evangelist.  It is likely that that most ancient and first Church of Christians, which was in Syria, was not long without the more intimate use of Scripture, which without translation into the vernacular tongue was not able to be so readily available to all.  The repeated mentions of τοῦ Σύρου, the Syriac, by the most ancient Fathers argue that this Version is ancient enough, and that it possesses no small authority.  Now, however things may stand concerning the primeval reading of this simple version, which was able to be accommodated to the Hebrew Text with sufficient accuracy; nevertheless, that, as it is read in the Polyglots, often approaches more nearly to the Septuagint than to the Hebrew Text, the fault of which situation is perhaps to be attributed to copyists.  But in such a way that it is devoid neither of its own usefulness, nor of these and similar blemishes.

The other Syriac Version of the Old Testament, made from the Greek translation of the Septuagint, is more recent; nevertheless, no typeset edition has hitherto furnished a copy of it for us.  However, many Versions together, or certainly editions, of this sort, translated from the Greek, appear to be in the hands of the Maronites.[17]  Concerning this twofold Syriac Version of the Old Testament, see CARPZOV’S Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti, part II, chapter V, § 1, 2, pages 621-640, and the many whom he commends:  to which add PRIDEAUX in his An Historical Connection of the Old and New Testaments, part II, book I, § 10, columns 760-762; and BUDDEUS in his Isagoge ad Theologiam universam, book II, chapter VIII, § 5, tome 2, page 1528.

The Syriac Version of the New Testament is not held to be of the same age among all.  The Syrians maintain that this Version was undertaken by the Evangelist Mark himself.  Others judge that this was composed by an Apostolical men.  Again, others believe that this work was undertaken by the nascent Church of Antioch for its own uses.  From whom JACQUES BASNAGE dissents in a surprising manner, when he contends that this Version was not composed before the twelfth century.  Although the Author of this Version be uncertain, “yet the translation, prepared from a Greek and authentic text, is simple and accurate, in which the words answer as faithfully as possible to the words, and for which reason it is often a light to Interpreters;” if I might symbolize with FREDERIC SPANHEIM the Younger, Historia Ecclesiastica, Century II, chapter VII, § I, column 650:  whence it is deservedly held in great estimation among all.  Moreover, that this Version belongs to venerable antiquity, appears to be indicated both by the necessity of the Church of the Syrians, and also by the lack of the books, over which there was disputation in the Third Century and following, in the exemplar which in the Sixteenth Century Ignatius, Patriarch of Antioch,[18] sent into Europe,[19] from which JOHANNES ALBERTUS WIDMANSTADIUS, Jurisconsultus, Chancellor of the provinces of eastern Austria,[20] a little after the middle of the sixteenth Century, took care that the first edition of this Version be printed at Vienna:  which lack of books, nevertheless, was thereafter supplied out of other Manuscript Codices:  whence it is no trifling conjecture that a Version of the entire New Testament already existed among the Syrians from the earliest times; but because of which doubts were moved concerning some Books, that among the Syrians the Canonical confidence in these Books even began to labor, whence they were even omitted from the Canon of many Churches in Syria; and that thus these Books were not received into the Canon, of which the Patriarch Ignatius made use, and which, that it might be set down in type, he willed to be given.  Indeed, in the titles, which were added to the individual chapters of the New Testament, mention is made of the veneration of the cross, prayers for the dead, and other Papal ceremonies, which in the times of the Apostles were not yet received in the Apostolic Church:  but FREDERIC SPANHEIM the Elder, in Dubiis Euangelicis, and JOHANN HEINRICH HOTTINGER, in Analectis Historico-theologicis, observe that these titles are not of the same antiquity as the rest of the work; but that from the Vulgate Version various things were inserted into the Syriac Version in following ages whether by fraud, or under the pretext of correction.  Nevertheless, the Revisers of the new Dutch Version of the New Testament, among others also, set less value upon this Version:  see LODEWIJK GERARDUS VAN RENESSE’S[21] Commentariolum historicum, etc. in the Bylagen to NICOLAAS HINLOPEN’S Historie van de Nederlandsche Overzettinge des Bybels, page 138.  Concerning this Version consult LEUSDEN’S Philologum Hebræo-Græcum, Dissertation VII; SPANHEIM’S Historiam Ecclesiasticam, Century II, chapter VII, § I, column 650; BUDDEUS’ Isagogen ad Theologiam universam, book II, chapter VIII, § 5, tome 2, page 1528; RUMPÆUS’ Criticam ad Novi Testamenti Libros, pages 436-441, besides many others commended by Rumpæus.  Concerning the various Editions of this Version see RUMPÆUS’ Criticam ad Novi Testamenti Libros, pages 438 and following; and the Præfationem set before the edition of the Most Illustrious LEUSDEN and SCHAAF.[22]  That the Syriac Version of the New Testament was prepared in the Syrian dialect of Antioch, not the Syrian dialect of Jerusalem, following Walton OTHO VERBRUGGE observes, Observationibus philologicis de Nominum Hebræorum plurali Numero, Observation II, § 28, 30, pages 130, 133.

That there is no number of the more recent translations in various Languages, our AUTHOR justifiably subjoins.  Which will be most persuasive to each one, if he should consult the Bibliothecam Sacram of JACOB LE LONG of Paris, a Priest of the Congregation of the Oratory, edited and enlaged by CHRISTIAN FREDERICK BOERNER, Professor of humane Letters at the Academy of Leipzig, which appeared in two octavo volumes at Antwerp and Leipzig in 1709;[23] BUDDEUS’ Isagogen ad Theologiam universam, book II, chapter VIII, § 5, tome 2, page 1531, § 6, pages 1538b-1543, § 7, pages 1543-1580, in which there is extended discussion focused upon Luther’s German Version of the Bible, pages 1549-1569, and in the Addendis, pages 1841, 1842a; especially with respect to the New Testament, JUSTUS WESSELUS RUMPÆUS’ Commentationem criticam ad Novi Testamenti Libros cum præfatione Carpzovii, § L, pages 344-443; and FABRICIUS’ Bibliothecam Græcam, book IV, chapter V, volume 3, pages 191-203, where the Versions of the New Testament are reviewed in Alphabetical order.  Concerning the various Italian Versions of the Bible prepared during the time of the Reformation, see GERDES’ Specimen Italiæ Reformatæ, § 10, pages 14-16, and the Syllabum Italorum Reformatorum, pages 190, 191, 242, 329, 330, 340, of the same.

Moreover, our AUTHOR has, The rash assertion from the statements of the Papists, resting upon the misrepresented Testimony of AUGUSTINE, that for many ages the Scripture was formerly read only in the Three Languages, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.  They are certainly deceived, if they want to conclude this from AUGUSTINE’S de Civitate Dei, book XV, chapter XIII at the end, opera, tome 7, column 298, where it reads:  “For also in certain Codices, three Greek, one Latin, and even one Syriac, agreeing among themselves, Methuselah died six years before the flood.”  For nothing else is gathered from these words, than that this threefold Version of the Old Testament was formerly esteemed to be of great value, since perhaps they were also surpassing all with respect to antiquity, whence Augustine appeals to the consent of these.

The other passage of AUGUSTINE, from book II de Doctrina Christiana, chapter XI, opera, tome 3, part I, column 19, is no more to the point, of which Bellarmine expressly makes use, book II de Verbo Dei, chapter XV, column 141, to prove the hypothesis mentioned by our AUTHOR; for AUGUSTINE in that place speaks only of men of the Latin Tongue, whom he wishes to learn also the Hebrew and Greek Languages, so that in doubts arising from the variety of Latin translations they might be able to have recourse to the founts:  “Indeed (says he), men of the Latin tongue, whom we now undertake to instruct, have need of two others for the knowledge of the divine Scriptures, namely, the Hebrew and the Greek, so that they might have recourse to the preceding exemplars, if the infinite variety of Latin translators should produce any doubt.”  But, 1.  Augustine in that place, speaking concerning men of the Latin Tongue, neither affirms nor denies concerning men of another tongue, whether they might also have the Sacred Scripture translated into their own Vernacular Language, or not; but many Fathers of the same period do affirm it.  2.  At least concerning men of the Latin Tongue he teaches that they ought to read Scripture in the Vernacular Language:  but if it is as harmful as the Roman Church maintains, neither ought the Scripture to be translated into the Latin Tongue.  3.  He wants these men in doubts arising from the Latin Version to have recourse to the Hebrew and Greek founts, which also little agrees with the tenets of the Roman Church, in which they attribute authenticity to the Vulgate Version.  4.  Finally, if it is lawful for men of the Latin Tongue to read Scripture in the Vernacular Language:  why shall that not be equally lawful for men of another Tongue?

Neither is it to be Objected that, if the use of Versions were necessary, the Apostles, furnished with the gift of Tongues, would have prepared more Translations of this sort, in which manner only would we be able to be confident concerning the infallibility of the Versions.

As may be expected, I Respond with our Author, the Apostles, α.  were taken up with more necessary business, β.  as Universal Doctors, wrote in the Language most common at that time; whence, γ.  they left the task of translating the Scripture into more Languages to the diligence of the Church, which is no more infallible in the Translation of Sacred Scripture, than in its preaching and explication, although it ought to be faithful; and in all doubts recourse to the authentic Text is granted:  consult GERHARD’S Confessionem catholicam, book II, special part I, article I, chapter II, pages 181-184.

[1] Alabri, writing under the pseudonym Johannes Arboreus, published his multi-volume work, Theosophy, from 1540-1553.  However, sidestepping the esoteric elements, his definition of theosophy is roughly equivalent to theology.

[2] Juan Azor (1535-1603) was a Spanish Jesuit philosopher and theologian.  He is remembered for his three volume Institutionibus Moralibus.

[3] See also Isaiah 45:23.

[4] “Judicial Astrology” is a term encompassing a family of astrological techniques for forcasting the future.  The term is used to distinguish these techniques from “Medical” and “Meteorological” Astrology.

[5] Commodus reigned as Roman Emperor from 180 to 192.

[6] Septimius Severus reigned from 193 to 211.

[7] That is, of Jericho.

[8] Caracalla reigned from 198 to 217.

[9] On the western coast of Greece.

[10] Alexander Severus reigned from 222 to 235.

[11] תַּלְמוּד/Talmud signifies instruction, from למד, to teach or study.

[12] Hillel the Elder (c. 110 BC-10 AD) was one of the great sages of his era, founding a school of disciples known as the “House of Hillel”.  His teaching concerning the Law is characterized by leniency, and is presented in constant contrast with the Pharisaic strictness of the “House of Shammai”.

[13] Simeon ben Hillel succeeded his father as president of the Sanhedrin.  He was quickly succeeded in turn by Gamaliel I.  Some have thought this to be the same Simeon that blessed the infant Jesus, Luke 2:25-35.

[14] Gamaliel I, son of Simeon ben Hillel, succeeded his father in the presidency of the Sanhedrin.  In the Acts of the Apostles, Gamaliel is remembered as warning the Sanhedrin against punishing the Apostles with death, Acts 5:34, and as the teacher of Paul, Acts 22:3.

[15] Jewish tradition has it that Joseph Cæcus was a third or fourth century rabbi, but there appears to be some question as to whether there is any historical personage behind this name.

[16] See 2 Kings 17:27, 28.

[17] The Maronites were Aramaic-speaking and used Aramaic in their liturgy from the seventh to the eighteenth century.

[18] Namely, Ignatius Abdallah I, who held the patriarchate from 1520 to 1557.

[19] This exemplar was missing 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation.

[20] Johann Albrecht Widmannstetter (1506-1557) was trained in law, theology, and oriental languages.  He served as a papal secretary for a time.

[21] Lodewijk Gerardus van Renesse (1599-1671) was a Dutch pastor and theologian.  He was appointed to work on the revision of the Dutch translation.

[22] Leusden and Schaaf published a Syriac edition of the New Testament in 1709.  Karl Schaaf (1646-1729) was a German orientalist, and professor of oriental languages at Leiden.

[23] Christian Frederick Boerner (1683-1753) was a German Lutheran theologian, excelling in the fields of Ecclesiastical History and Biblical Criticism.  He published an edition of the works of Martin Luther in twenty-two volumes, and a corrected and enlarged edition of Le Long’s Bibliothecæ Sacræ.