times contradictory judgments have been passed upon the two chief manuscripts, the Vatican and Alexandrian.

3. Bibl. Polyglott. Wolderi; Hamb. 1596, fol. 4. Bibl. Polyglott.; Par. 1645, fol.

11. Bibl. Græc. Venet. in Ædib. Aldi et Andreæ Soceri; 1518, fol. min. See Lamb. Bos, 1. c., and Eichhorn, 1. c. 1. Argentorati ap Wolph. Cephalæum, (cur. Loniceri ;) 1526, 4 vols. 8vo.; ib. 1529, 8vo. 2. Basil. per Joa. Hervag. (cum Præf. Phil. Melancth. ;) 1545, fol. 3. Ib. per Brylinger, 1550, 8vo. 4. Francof. ap. Andr. Wechel. hær.; 1597, fol.

III. Vet. Test. juxta LXX. ex Auct. Sixti v. ed. Rom. 1587, fol., according to the Cod. Vat. Compare Stroth, in Repert. vol. v. p. 105. 1. Vet. Test. sec. LXX. et ex Auct. Sixt. v. ed. (cur. Jo. Morini;) Par. 1628, 3 vols. fol. 2. Lond., 1653, 4to. and 8vo. See Walton, Prolegg. ix. § 33. (a) Cantabrig. cum Præf. Jo. Pearson, 1665, 3 vols. 12mo. (b) Amstel. ed. Leusden ; 1683, 12mo. maj. (c) Lips. cur. Cluveri et Klumpfii, cum Prolegg. Frickii ; 1697, 8vo. maj. 3. Bibl. Polyglott., Lond. ed. Walton; 1657, fol., (with var. of the Cod. Alex.) 4. Lips. ed. Reinecc.; 1730, 8vo., ed. 2, 1757, 8vo. 5. Vet. Test. ex Vers. LXX. interpr., sec. exemplar. Vatican. Rom. ed., accuratissime denuo recognitum, una cum Scholiis ejusdem ed., variis mstorum Codd. veterumque Exemplarium Lectt. nec non Fragmentis Aquila, Symmachi et Theodot., ed. Lamb. Bos; Franequ, 1709, 4to. See Breitinger, Præf. ad ed. LXX. After this, ed. Dav. Mill. ; Amstel. 1725, 8vo. 6. Vet. Test. Gr. juxta LXX. intt. ex auct. Sixti v. juxta Exemplar orig. Vatican.; Rom. ed. 1587, recus. c. L. van Ess.; Lips. 1824, 8vo.

IV. Septuaginta Intt. tom. i. ex antiquiss. MS. Cod. Alex. accurate descript. et Ope aliorum Exemplarium ac priscorum Scriptorum, præsertim vero hexaplaris ed. Origen. emend. atque supplet. addit. sæpe Asteriscorum et Obelorum Signis ed. J. Ern. Grabe; Ox. 1707, tom. ii. 1719; tom. iii. 1720; tom. iv. fol. (continued by Fr. Lee,) in 8 vols. 8vo. On the order of the text, see Eichhorn, Einl. § 181. Amersfoordt, 1. c. p. 31. Stroth, p. 100, sqq. Hence, Vet. Test. ex Vers. LXX. Intt. olim ad Fidem Cod. MS. Alex. express. emend. et supplet. a J. E. Grabio. Nunc vero Exemplaris Vatic. aliorumque MSS. Cod. Lectt. variis nec non criticis. Dissert. illustrat. ed. J. J. Breitinger; Zür. 1730—1732, 4 vols. 4to. (with varr.)

The Vatican text is contained in Vet. Test. Gr. cum variis lectt. ed. Rob. Holmes; Oxon. fol. tom. i. 1798-1806. (Pentat. cont.) Contin. Jac. Parsons, tom. ii. 1810–1816. (Jos., Ruth., Sam., Regg., Paralip. cont.) Tom. iii. 1823. (Esr., Neh., Esth., Job, Ps., Provv., Eccl., Cant. Cant. cont.) Tom. iv. 1825. (Proph. cont.) Tom. v. 1827, (librr. Apocr. cont.) See Dissert. phil. de variis Lectt. Holmesiensis locorum quorundam Pentateuchi. Auct. Jac. Amersfoordt, L. B. 1815, 4to. See Gesenius, in A. L. Z., 1816, 1 St., 1832, 1 St.

Daniel, sec. LXX. ex Tetrapl Origenis nunc primum ed. e singulari

The criticism of the Seventy has hitherto advanced no farther, - and perhaps it never can,— than to a collection of the various readings. The editions hitherto published do not afford the true and exact text of the manuscripts.

§ 48.

IV. THE DESCENDANTS OF THE ALEXANDRIAN VERSION.

1. THE OLD LATin Version, and JEROME'S RECENsion of it.

In the time of Augustine, there were several Latin versions of the Bible. Among these, he preferred the Itala, which was, perhaps, the most widely used. Its origin belongs to the earliest times of Christianity.

Augustine thus speaks of these versions: "They who have translated from the Hebrew into the Greek can be numbered, but the Latin interpreters can by no means

Chisiano Cod. annorum supra DCCC. Rom. typ. Propagandæ, 1772, fol. cura J. D. Michaelis, Gott. 1773, 8vo. 1774, 4to. c. animadverss. et Præf. C. Segaar, Traj. 1775, 8vo.

[See, also, Horne, 1. c. Bibliographical Appendix, pt. i. ch. i. sect. v. § 2. It may not be unnecessary to give a list of the most noteworthy abbreviations which occur in the margin of the MSS., and are often used in critical writings.

'Eẞo., or 'Eẞo. E., the Hebrew text in Greek letters.

'O., the LXX.

A., Aquila.

C., Symmachus.

9., Theodotion.

E., the quinta, the fifth version.

S., the sixth version.

Z., the seventh version.

4., or 10., the other versions.

Oi T., the three versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion.

Oi 4., the four versions above, and the LXX. in the common text.

II., all the Greek versions.

To low, united with the name of the author, shows that he agrees with

the reading.

Ave., an anonymous translator.

Ah, another anonymous translator.

Xw. is still doubtful.- -Eichhorn, § 205.]

be counted; for, even in the first ages of Christianity, if any man could lay his hands on a Greek codex [of the Scriptures,] he made bold to translate it into Latin, howsoever small his skill might be in either tongue." And again, "But among these interpretations the Itala is to be preferred to the others, for it is more literal and perspicuous."a

These passages afford a clear proof that there were numerous versions of the whole Bible. But it can scarcely be contested, after what has been quoted, that

a

Augustine, De Doctrina Christ. ii. 11: Qui Scripturas ex Hebræa lingua in Græcam verterunt, numerari possunt: Latini autem interpretes nullo modo. Ut enim cuivis primis fidei temporibus in manus venit codex Græcus, et aliquantulum facultatis sibi utriusque linguæ habere videbatur, ausus est interpretari. Ch. 15: In ipsis autem interpretationibus Itala cæteris præferatur: nam est verborum tenacior cum perspicuitate sententiæ. Some critics maintain that in this passage we should read Illa for Itala. Such is the opinion of Bentley, Casley, Ernesti, Lardner, and of many eminent critics. See Lardner, 1. c. vol. iv. p. 525, 526, v. p. 229. Marsh's Michaelis, vol. ii. pt. i. ch. vii. sect. xxiii. Ernesti, Institut. Int. N. T. iii. p. 4, 13. Bishop Potter, (cited in Marsh, 1. c., in notes on ch. vii. sect. xxiii., and in Lardner, vol. v. p. 229,) and Kreysig, (Observatt. phil. crit., &c., cited in Eichhorn, § 321,) adopt the reading Usitata. [This conjectural emendation is ingenious. In copying the genuine passage, "interpretationibus usitata," the us in the last word was accidentally omitted, and then itata stood in place of usitata. This might easily be mistaken for itala by a subsequent copyist. See Monk's Life of Bentley, p. 433, sqq. Wrangham's ed. of Walton's Prolegg., vol. ii. p. 271.] Hug, l. c. 115, defends the reading Itala. See, also, Van Ess, Geschichte der Vulg. Augustine, De Consens. Evang. ii. 66, uses the word usitata codices ecclesiasticos interpretationis usitata. But this and the similar terms in Jerome — Vulgata and communis editio – refer to the LXX. On the other hand, the common reading is confirmed by this passage of Augustine, Cont. Faust. ix. 2: Ita si de fide exemplarium quæstio verteretur, sicut in nonnullis, quæ paucæ sunt, et sacrarum litterarum notissimæ sententiarum varietates vel in aliarum regionum codicibus, unde ipsa doctrina commeavit: nostra dubitatio dijudicaretur: vel si hi ipsi quoque codices variarent, plures paucioribus, vetustiores recentioribus præferrentur; et si ad huc esset incerta varietas, præcedens lingua, unde illud interpretatum est, consuleretur. Eichhorn, § 321, thinks there was but one old version of the O. T. See, on the other hand, Jahn, vol. i. p. 215, sqq.

the following passages may be understood to relate either to several different versions, or to the different texts of one, and perhaps the common version. He writes to Jerome, "You would do the greatest service if you would add the Greek version of the Seventy to the true Latin text, which is now so different in different manuscripts, that it can hardly be tolerated, and so strongly suspected of differing from the Greek, that it is doubtful

if

any thing can be proved by it." Again, "Therefore I wish for your translation of the Seventy, that we may, as far as possible, be free from the great unskilfulness of the Latin interpreters, who have had the rashness to undertake it."

a

Jerome also testifies to the same thing: "For the most part, among the Latins, there are as many different Bibles as copies of the Bible; for every man has added or subtracted, according to his own caprice, as he saw fit." "If faith is to be placed in the Latin books, there are almost as many books as copies." [Jerome sometimes calls the old Latin version the common, for it contained the text generally used before that of Origen's Hexapla took its place, and sometimes the old. Eichhorn thinks there was but one version in common use before the time of Jerome; that

Augustine, Ep. 88, ad Hieron. vol. iv. pt. ii. p. 611: Per hoc plurimum profueris, si eam Scripturam Græcam, quam LXX. interpretati sunt, Latinæ veritati addideris, quæ in diversis codicibus ita varia est, ut tolerari vix possit, et ita suspecta, ne in Græco aliud inveniatur, ut inde aliquid proferri aut probari dubitetur. Ep. 97, p. 641: Ideo autem desidero interpretationem tuam de LXX., ut ea tanta Latinorum interpretum, qui qualescunque hoc ausi sunt, quantum possumus, imperitia careamus. Jerome, Præf. in Jos. : ......Maxime cum apud Latinos tot sint exemplaria quot codices, et unus quisque pro arbitrio suo vel addiderit vel subtraxerit, quod ei visum est. Præf. in Evangg.: Si Latinis exemplaribus fides est abhibenda, respondeant quibus: tot enim sunt exemplaria pæne quot codices.

others were made, but never obtained general circulation. He says, all the quotations from the Latin Bible, before Jerome, belong to the same text, though he admits that it was most grossly corrupted. He thinks this version called the Italian," the common, the old — was made in the first century A. C., and by African Christians. His arguments for the latter are as follows: There were learned Christians in Africa at that time; a translation was more needed than in Italy, where many understood Greek; the old version was more highly prized in Africa than elsewhere; none but an African would have written such bad Latin in that age, and some expressions betray the African author. But the whole of this reasoning is extremely unsatisfactory and insecure.]' There is no proof of its African origin.

The version of the Old Testament, of which some fragments still remain, was made literally from the Alex

с

" If Itala be the true reading.

b [Eichhorn, § 320-323.]

The fragments may be seen in the following works: Vet. Test. sec. LXX. Latine redditum ex Auct. Sixti V. Pont. Max. editum. Additus est index dictionum et locutt. Hebr., Gr., Lat., (Auct. Flaminio Nobilio ;) Roin. 1588, fol. Quincuplex Psalterium, Gallicum, Roman., Hebr., Vetus, conciliatum, (Ed. Faber Stapulensis ;) Par. 1509, fol.; ed. 2, 1513; ed. 3, Caen. 1515. Psalterium Davidicum Græco-Lat. ad fidem vet. exemplarium atque adeo cod. Gr. MS. etc.; Par. 1645, 16mo. Excudebat Carola Guillard. Psalterium duplex cum canticis juxta vulgatam Gr. LXX. Seniorum et antiquam Lat. Ital. vers. Prodit ex insigni cod. Græco-Lat. Capituli Veron. uncialibus characteribus ante sept. sec. exarato; Rom. 1740, fol. (The second part of Blanchini's Vindiciæ Canon. Scripturarum vulg. Lat. editionis; Rom. 1740. Mittenzwey, Dissert. Anti-Blanch. und Ernesti, Neu. theol. Biblioth. vol. i. p. 856.) Ecclesiastes ex Vers. Itala cum notis Bossueti; Par. 1693. Capitula Bibliorum antiqua sec. interpretationem To LXX. ed. Jos. Maria Carus, (Tommasi ;) Rom. 1688. Bibliorum sac. Latina verss. antiquæ, seu vetus Itala et cett., quæcunque in codd. MSS. et antiquorum libris reperiri potuerunt: quæ cum vulgata Lat. et cum textu Gr. comparantur. Acc. præff., observatt. et notre indexque novus ad vulgatam e regione ed. Op. D. Petri Sabatier, ord. S. Bened. e congreg. S. Mauri; Remis, 1743, 3 vols. fol. ; ed. auct. 1749-1751,