BY the VERSIONS are meant the early translations of the New Testament from the Greek into other languages. These are valuable, inasmuch as they let us know what was in the copies used by the various translators. Being translations they are not available, as may readily be understood, for every minute variation. In places where there are only shades of meaning they may not avail; but where the sense is materially altered, or where important words are inserted or omitted, they are of great weight. They go back too to the second century, thus in a measure bridging over the gap formed by the distance of our present Greek copies from the time when they were written.
Another disadvantage is that some of the early versions can be read even now only by comparatively few—others being obliged to be content with Latin translations of the same. The Syriac, Egyptian and Ethiopic have but few readers. In minute points this naturally increases the difficulty.
We cannot suppose that such a book as the New Testament would be translated in those early times by anyone who did not value its contents, and therefore we may conclude that according to the light a translator had he faithfully performed his work.
We may start with the Latin copies, and these, as with the Greek, gradually showed many variations, which went on increasing until the time of Jerome, who set to work thoroughly to revise the Latin translation. This naturally divides the Latin copies into distinct parts, namely, those before Jerome's revision and those after he had completed his work.
Latin Copies Before Jerome
These have been at times referred to under the names of the Old Latin and Italic. The latter name was given to those ancient documents because they were naturally supposed to have had their origin from Italy. But this has now been proved to be a mistake. Mr. Westcott says, "As far as we can learn, the mass of the poorer population [of Rome]—everywhere the great bulk of the early Christians—was Greek either in descent or speech ... .When Paul wrote to the Roman church he wrote in Greek; and in the long list of salutations to its members with which the Epistle is concluded, only four Latin names occur. Shortly afterward Clement wrote to the Corinthians in Greek, in the name of the church of Rome.... Justin, Hermas, and Tatian published their Greek treaties at Rome. The Apologies to the Roman emperors were in Greek ... .Even farther West Greek was the common language of Christians ... .The first sermons which were preached at Rome were in Greek: and it has been conjectured with good reason that Greek was at first the liturgical language of the church of Rome.”
Those who have examined minutely the language used in the Old Latin copies declare that they must have originated in North Africa. But inasmuch as the old copies do not agree, the question has arisen whether when in Italy they began to use Latin copies, did they make a new translation (or were indeed several made) or did they adopt the one already made in Africa? Those able to decide such a question have come to the conclusion that new translations were not made, and that all the variations found were rather alterations made to the original African version. Of course copies may have been compared with Greek manuscripts differing from those from which the original was made, and alterations made accordingly, or some one understanding both Greek and Latin might have thought in places the Greek was but defectively represented, and attempted to improve the same. Certainly many alterations were made, until they made a formidable array in the time of Jerome in the fourth century. The term Italic is now given to only a portion of the Old Latin.
The following is a list of the Old Latin copies. It will be seen that some of them are not separate copies, but refer to the Latin that accompanies some of the Greek copies. These, or some of them at least, are not considered to be the Old Latin version, already spoken of, but are simply old in age. Italic letters serve to point out the Old Latin copies. We give their names also, as single copies are often referred to by their names. Of course from their great age all are more or less defective.
a. Codex Vercellensis. Contains the Gospels, and dates in the fourth century. It is considered to be one of the most valuable of these copies. It is preserved in Vercelli, and has been published by Bianchini.
b. Codex Veronensis. Contains the Gospels, and perhaps dates a little later than a. This is also a good specimen of the Old Latin. It has been published by Bianchini.
c. Codex Colbertinus. This contains the whole of the New Testament, but only the Gospels are the Old Latin, the other parts being a copy of Jerome's version. Although it dates the eleventh century, it is considered to be one of the best copies of the Old Latin. It was published by Sabatier.
d. Codex Bezze. This is the Latin which accompanies the Greek copy D, and is considered of comparatively little value. In some places however it does not agree with its Greek companion, and in these places it is of some value. It contains the Gospels and the Acts, and is of the sixth or seventh century.
d. Codex Claromontanus. This is the Latin text of the Greek copy D of Paul's Epistles. It ranks higher than the Latin of Codex Bezæ. It is of the sixth or seventh century.
e. Codex Palatinus. Contains the Gospels, but with many parts deficient. It is of the fourth or fifth century. It contains a mixed text: in some places having the old version, and in others Italian revisions.
e. Codex Sangermanensis. This contains Paul's Epistles. It is the Latin text of the Greek copy E, but is considered to be but a copy of Codex Claromontanus, and not an independent witness.
Codex Brixianus. This contains the Gospels, and is of about the sixth century. Augustine had spoken of an Italian text, and this would seem to be a good specimen, of that to which that Father refers, though it actually dates after him. It thus shows the revised and altered text rather than the original version. It was published by Bianchini.
ff. Codex Corbeiensis. Contains the Epistle of James.
ff¹ and ff². Codices Corbeienses 1 and 2. These contain portions of the Gospels, and consist of a sort of mixed text. They have been published by Bianchini.
Codex Beornerianus. This is the interlined Latin text to the Greek copy of Paul's Epistles G. Tregelles describes it as "barbarous in the extreme," and only occasionally of any critical value.
g¹ and g². Codices Sangermanenses. These contain the Gospels. Both have been collated by Sabatier. They both contain a mixed text. "Very ancient.”
gue. Codex Guelferbytanus. Fragments of Romans. Sixth century.
Codex Claromontanus. It contains the Gospels, but the Gospel of Matthew alone is the Old Latin, and that in a measure mixed, the rest being Jerome's. It is of the fourth or fifth centaury.
Codex Vindobonensis. Contains fragments of Luke and Mark of about the fifth century. It is said to be a good specimen of the Old Latin, unaltered.
Codex Sarzannensis. This contains portions of John's. Gospel and is of the fifth century. Its text is peculiar.
Codex Bobbiensis. Contains portions of Matthew and Mark, of about the fifth century. It contains many ancient readings, but in other places has been altered.
k Codex Bobbiensis. This consists of only a few leaves containing fragments of the Acts and Catholic Epistles.
1. Codex Rhedigerianus. Portions of the Gospels of the seventh century. Its text is mixed.
From a "speculum." This is a remarkable work for the age (the sixth or seventh century). It contains a large number of christian doctrines as heads, under which are arranged quotations from the Old and New Testaments without any note or comment. The quotations are generally African as distinguished from Italic. It is remarkable also in containing twice the disputed passage of 1 John 5:7, known as "the heavenly witnesses.”
Codex Sangallensis. The Gospels; of the fourth or fifth century.
St. Gall. Fragments of the Gospels; of about the seventh century.
St. Gall. Fragments of the Gospels; seventh or eighth century.
Codex Monacensis. The Gospels; of the sixth century. An important copy.
Codex Frisingensis. Paul's Epistles; of the fifth or sixth century.
Codex Mediolan. Fragments of Luke. s. Codex Bobbiensis. Fragments of the Acts, James, and 1 Peter, of about the fifth century.
δ. The interlinear Latin of God. Δ.
The Latin of Jerome—the Vulgate
This revision came about by the solicitation of Damascus, Bishop of Rome (A.D. 366-384). We have seen that revisers had been busy at work before this, and it was not an unholy desire to obtain a more correct translation, and one that should carry weight with it, and stay farther revisions.
Jerome procured the best ancient Greek copies he could, and doubtless had the pure African Latin text as well as that now called Italic. In A.D. 384 he had finished the Gospels; and the rest of the New Testament followed. Many years after he was still engaged on the Old Testament.
Jerome did not do his revision very uniformly, making alterations more freely in some parts than in others. In his Commentaries he speaks of some emendations which he preferred, but which, for some reason, he did not put into his text.
The effort to make a new translation of the scriptures was even in those early days not without its dangers. Jerome's New Testament was a revision; but his Old Testament was a translation from the Hebrew, the Old Latin of the Old Testament having been made from the Septuagint. This Augustine advised him not to do, fearing the change would have a bad effect on the mass of the people; and related to him the following instance: "A certain brother bishop of ours, when he introduced the reading of thy version in the church over which he presides, something attracted notice on the prophet Jonah, which thou hadst rendered in a manner very different from that which was habitually familiar to the minds and memories of all, and which was consecrated by use through such a succession of ages. Such a tumult arose among the people, especially from the contention of the Greeks, and from their vociferating a charge of falsification, that the bishop was compelled (it occurred in a city) to require the testimony of the Jews. But, whether from ignorance or malice, they replied that in the Hebrew copies there was found the same that the Greeks and Latins had, and used. What next? Why the poor man was forced, after much danger, to be willing to correct this as though it had been false in order not to remain without the people.”
The reader will no doubt be curious to know what could have caused such a commotion. It would appear that one word especially attracted the attention of the audience. The passage being read was that referring to the "gourd." From this the Old Latin (made from the LXX) was cucurbita, ‘gourd,' which Jerome (he translated from the Hebrew) replaced by hedera, ‘ivy.'
But to resume: As might be expected, when Jerome's version began to be copied variations appeared, until there were again many differences. From time to time some attempted to restore the original text of Jerome, but it was the copy of the scriptures (except what scholars might have had here and there) available in Western Europe during the middle ages—say for a thousand years—and becomes thus of great interest. In course of time some attempted (as Erasmus) to form new translations to take its place. Robert Stephens made an endeavor to restore Jerome's text, and in 1528 printed an edition, which was followed by even better editions; but as then the Greek text began to come into prominence, a mere translation began to lose its value.
The Roman authorities however sought to have an authorized edition of the Vulgate, and under Sixtus V. an edition was published in 1590, and all printed Latin Bibles after that were implicitly to follow this version. But, as one has well said, there is no royal or papal road to Biblical criticism, and so it turned out that this guide to all others had to be corrected with the pen in some places, and in others a piece of paper was pasted over, containing a correction or a totally different reading, and even this was done so incorrectly that one copy did not agree with another. The edition had to be recalled.
In the meantime Sixtus V. had passed away, and, in two years after, another edition was published under Clement VIII. In several hundred places this differs from that of Sixtus V., though to this day, in order to save the credit of the papacy, the title page bears the names both of Sixtus V. and Clement VIII. The Catholic edition is often called the Latin Vulgate: Jerome's revision has also the same title; they must not however be confounded, for they are not one and the same.
It is commonly thought that the Roman Catholics have grossly corrupted the word of God; but this is not borne out by unprejudiced examinations as far as the Vulgate is concerned. Bentley says that though those who revised this edition were unequal to the task, and not able to judge correctly as to the age and value of manuscripts, he did not discover anything ‘dolo malo,' by evil artifice. It is declared to be substantially the version of Jerome; but still with many alterations, the changes being always for the worse!
There are a few good copies of Jerome's version in manuscript.
Codex Amiatinus (am). This copy contains both the Old and New Testaments, in one volume, is in very good condition, and with but few defects. It was written about the year A.D. 541. The New Testament is printed in full with Tregelles' Greek Testament, and is judged to be the best manuscript of Jerome's version.
Codex Fuldensis (fuld or fu). This is also counted to be of the sixth century. It contains the whole of the New Testament. Lachmann gives the variations of this manuscript in the Latin appended to his Greek Testament.
Codex Forojuliensis (for). This is a very good copy of the Gospels of the sixth century. It is stated that Mark's Gospel was removed from this copy and taken to Venice and there passed off as the actual copy of Mark's Gospel written by himself! Of course it only imposed upon those who did not know that Mark wrote his gospel in Greek instead of Latin.
Codex Augiensis (aug). This is the Latin portion of the Greek copy F of Paul's Epistles. The Hebrews is in Latin only. It is a good copy of Jerome's version, modified in places.
Codex Toletanus (tol). Contains both Testaments in Gothic characters. It is judged to be of the eighth century.
Codex Harleian. (hart). Contains the Gospels. It dates about the seventh century. An important manuscript.
There are other copies, but they are only fragmentary.
Syriac Versions.
The Syriac is mentioned as a distinct language in 2 Kings 18:26, though it is supposed to be alluded to as early as Gen. 31:47, where the leap of stones was called by Laban, ‘Jegar-Saha-dutha;’ and by Jacob ‘Galeed,' the former being Aramæan or Chaldean (the same family of tongues as the Syriac) and the latter being Hebrew: both mean "heaps of witness." The language is still preserved as their sacred tongue in several Eastern churches.
It is pretty generally admitted that the New Testament was translated into Syriac as early as the second century. Eusebius says that Hegesippus speaks of quotations from ‘the Syriac;' and Ephraem the Syrian in the fourth century speaks of ‘our version,' which had evidently been then long in use.
1. This version is called the PESHITO, which is interpreted to mean simple, but which some take to mean "faithful." It has been called "the queen of versions," as being the oldest and best, and is declared to be a most excellent translation. It was long since translated into Latin for the use of those who could not read Syriac. It has since been translated into English. The pure Peshito wanted 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and the Apocalypse.
THE CURETONIAN SYRIAC. This copy was discovered in the British Museum by Canon Cureton. It contains the following fragments of four gospels: Matt. 1:1-8:22; 10:32-23:25. Mark 16:17-20. John 1:1-42; 3:6-7:37; 14:10-12; 16-18; 19-23; 26-29. Luke 2:48-3:16; 7:33-15:21; 17:24-23:44. It is found not only to be a different translation from the Peshito (though others judge them to have had a common origin) but also to have been made from a different text. It is judged to be of the fifth century. It has been published by Dr. Cureton with an English translation.
3. THE PHILOXENIAN SYRIAC. This is stated to have been made by Polycarp, and was revised by Thomas of Harkel in the year A.D. 508 (and is sometimes quoted as the Harclean version). The translation is very literal, to the destruction of Syriac idiom. This version has received considerable attention from some one, being marked with asterisks and obeli. It is supposed that when an addition was thought to be needed an asterisk was put, and when a part was to be omitted an obelus was placed; the corrections being placed in the margin. It is a matter of question whether these various corrections were made by comparing this version with the older Peshito, or with various Greek copies; they may indeed have been made from both sources. It is necessary in quoting this version to distinguish between the version itself and its marginal corrections. This version contains all the New Testament except the Revelation.
THE KARKAPHENSIAN SYRIAC. It is not known from what this Codex took its name, and it is supposed to be the same as Syr. Vatican 153. It is dated A.D. 980, but may have been copied from an earlier translation. It contains the same as the Peshito, but in the following order: Acts, James, 1 Peter, 1 John, Paul's fourteen Epistles, and then the Gospels. The translation closely resembles the Peshito, but is not simply a copy of that recension.
Besides the above, there are copies of a later Syriac version containing the parts missing in the Peshito.
There is also a Lectionary of the Gospels, in Syriac, called the JERUSALEM SYRIAC, because of its peculiar dialect. It bears the date of A.D. 1030, but is supposed to have been copied from a translation of the fifth or sixth century. It differs from all of the above, and abounds in barbarisms.
Egyptian Versions.
Various names have been given to the Egyptian versions. At first only one version was known, and then it was called the Coptic; but when other copies were discovered, and one was traced to Lower Egypt, the term Coptic did not apply, seeing that name is from Coptos, a city in Upper Egypt. Sehidic was another name applied to the version of Upper Egypt; but now other terms are used for both Upper and Lower, the version of Upper Egypt being called Thebaic (or Sahidic), and that of Lower Egypt Memphitic (or Bahiric).
As Christianity spread, the desire for the scriptures in the vernacular tongue naturally arose, and there is good reason for believing that certainly not later than the fourth century the New Testament was translated into Egyptian dialects.
THE THEBAIC VERSION. This is considered to be the more ancient of the two, and has been set down by some as belonging to the second century. It abounds in Greek words, and is set down as an unpolished dialect, the language of the common people, but it is thus all the more valuable in some respects. There are several manuscript fragments in this dialect.
THE MEMPHITIC VERSION. This is the dialect of Lower Egypt, and is judged to have been made when the language became more refined, and that it eventually superseded the Thebaic version in ecclesiastical uses. There are many manuscripts containing portions of this version.
THE BASHMURIC VERSION. This is in another dialect from either of the above, and is an independent translation.
The Gothic Version.
This was made by Ulphilas, bishop of the Goths, in the fourth century. He was an Arian, but it has not been ascertained that this caused him to corrupt the scripture in his translation (except perhaps in Phil. 2:6). The scriptures were too widely spread for this, and any such dereliction would be sure to have been discovered; the Arians rather contented themselves with interpreting the scriptures in a way that would seem to support their error.
One famous copy of the Gospels is called the Codex Argenteus, because is was written in silver with some parts in gold. It has many defects, but some of these have been supplied from other manuscripts. Other copies also supply Paul's Epistles (with defects) except Hebrews. The Acts, the Catholic Epistles and the Revelation are also missing.
The Armenian Version.
An attempt was made to make a translation of the New Testament in the Armenian language from the Syriac; but in A.D. 431 a copy of the Bible in Greek was obtained from Ephesus where the Council was held; and with this the work was recommenced; but the translators found that their knowledge of the Greek language was too imperfect to accomplish such an important work, and therefore three of them repaired to Alexandria to acquire the language. On their return they commenced their third translation. It dates therefore the fifth century.
The question naturally arises as to how far this translation has reached us unadulterated. Certain Armenian editions have been printed, but in 1668 an edition was published which contained the disputed passage of 1 John 1:7, which raised a suspicion that the original translation had been corrupted. Dr. Rieu, of the British Museum, endeavored to clear the text of its alterations, putting the various readings in the margin. Dr. Rieu says that out of eighteen manuscripts used by Zohrab, a former editor, only one (written in A.D. 1656) had the above disputed passage.
The Æthiopic Version.
A Text of this was published in Walton's Polyglot, with a Latin translation. An edition was also issued by Mr. Platt for the British and Foreign Bible Society, for use by the Abyssinian church. In doing this Mr. Platt consulted such manuscripts as were available to him. Mr. Prevost of the British Museum has compared this edition with the one in Walton's Polyglot and noted the variations, which compilation forms the materials available for Biblical purposes.
Later Versions.
The versions besides those above named are of comparatively recent date and of much less critical value. Still as they are sometimes referred to by Editors, they may be named.
1. ARABIC VERSIONS. It has been a disputed point whether these have been taken from the Greek or the Latin; one version is supposed to have been made from the Egyptian. Nothing certain is known of the dates.
THE SLAVONIC VERSION. The oldest known manuscript is A.D. 1056, though printed editions may have referred to earlier ones.
THE PERSIAN GOSPELS. These are of recent date (one is A.D. 1341) and are of no critical value.
THE GREGORIAN VERSION. This was published at Moscow in 1743, and is considered of little weight.
THE ANGLO-SAXON GOSPELS. These are more interesting than useful for textual criticism. They were made from the Latin in one or other of its forms.
THE FRANKISH VERSION of St. Matthew.