Bible

BIBLE. This word comes from the Greek Biblos, which signifies a book. We give this name to the collections of the Sacred Writings, and call it Bible or Book in the way of eminency and distinction: The Hebrews call it Mikra¹, which signifies Lesson, Lecture or Scripture. They acknowledge no more than two and twenty books of the Bible to be Canonical, which we shall here set down in their order.

Here follows a Catalogue of the Sacred Writings, as they are received by the Jews, taken from Origen, tom. 1. Edit. Huet. p. 47.

The order and division of the Books of the Bible, as well of the Old as the New Testament, according to the division made by the Council of Trent. Session iv. Decree 1.

Genesis. Exodus. Leviticus. Numbers. Deuteronomy. Joshua. Judges and Ruth. The first Book of Kings. The second Book of Kings. The third Book of Kings The fourth Book of Kings. The first Book of Chronicles. The second Book of Chronicles. The first Book of Esdras. The second Book of Esdras, or Nehemiah, Tobit. Judith. Esther. Job. The Psalms. The Proverbs. Ecclesiastes. The Song of Solomon. The Book of Wisdom. Ecclesiasticus. Isaiah. Jeremiah and Baruch. Ezekiel. Daniel. Hosea. Joel. Amos. Obadiah. Nahum. Jonah. Micah. Habakkuk. Zephaniah. Haggai. Zechariah. Malachi. The first Book of Maccabees. The second Book of Maccabees.

The Books of the New Testament, are The Gospel of S. Matthew. The Gospel of S. Mark. The Gospel of S. Luke. The Gospel of S. John. The Acts of the Apostles.

The Epistles of S. Paul. The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans. The first Epistle of S. Paul to the Corinthians. The second Epistle to the Corinthians. The Epistle to the Galatians.

———to the Ephesians. ———to the Philippians. ———to the Colossians. The first Epistle to the Thessalonians. The second Epistle to the Thessalonians. The first Epistle to Timothy. The second Epistle to Timothy. The Epistle to Titus.

———to Philemon. ———to the Hebrews.

Catholick or general Epistles. The Epistle of S. James. The first Epistle of S. Peter. The second Epistle of S. Peter. The first Epistle of S. John. The second Epistle of S. John. The third Epistle of S. John. The Epistle of Jude. The Revelations of S. John.

Of the Apocryphal Books of the Bible. The Apocryphal Books of the Old Vid. Jude 14.Testament are, the Book of Enoch, the third and fourth Books of Esdras, the third and fourth Books of the Maccabees, the Prayer of Manasseh, the Testament of the twelve Patriarchs, the Psalter of Solomon, and some other Pieces of this nature .

The Books which are now lost and are cited in the Old Testament, are these; the Book of the Righteous, Jos. x. 13. and 1 Sam. xvii. 18. the Book of the Wars of the Lord, quoted Numb. xxi. 14. the Annals of the Kings of Judah and Israel, so often cited in the Books of Kings and Chronicles. The Authors of these Annals were the Prophets who lived in the kingdoms of Judah and Israel. We have likewise but a part of Solomon’s three thousand Proverbs, 1 Kings iv. 32. 1 Kings iv. 33.and his thousand and five Songs. And we have intirely lost what he wrote upon Plants, Animals, Birds, Fishes, and Reptiles. The Prophet Jeremiah’s writing is 2 Mac. ii. 1.not extant, wherein he injoined the Captives who went to Babylon, to take the Sacred Fire and conceal it; nor the precepts which he gave them to secure themselves from Idolatry. Lastly, It is a question, whether we have the Lamentations which he composed upon the death of Josiah King of Judah; for the taking of Jerusalem, and the destruction of it by Nebuchadnezzer², seem to be the objects of those, which we have remaining of this Prophet.

The Apochryphal Books of the New Testament are, the Epistle of S. Barnabas, the pretended Epistle of S. Paul to the Laodiceans, several spurious Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and Revelations, the Book of Hermas, intitled, The Shepherd, Jesus Christ’s letter to Abgarus, the Epistles of S. Paul to Seneca, and several other pieces of the like nature, which may be seen in the collection of the Apochryphal Writings of the New Testament made by Fabricius.

Of the Language wherein the Books of the Bible were written.

The Books of the Old Testament were written for the most part in Hebrew. There are Ezra iv. 7, 8. v, vi. 1.-19. vii. 1, 2.— 34. Dan. ii. 12.—27. 4. & seq. Dan. iv. iii. 14, 15. & v. 17. &c. vi 21, &c.are some places of Esdras, and Daniel, which are written in Chaldee; Tobit, Judith, the Maccabees, and Ecclesiasticus were likewise written in this Language, or in Syriac; but for the Book of Wisdom, it was never written in any other than in Greek. The Reader may consult our Prefaces upon all these Books in particular.

The Books of the New Testament were all written in Greek, except S. Matthew, which was written in Hebrew, that is to say in Syriac, which was the language spoken at that time in Judæa. It is disputed, whether S. Mark wrote in Greek or Latin, and whether the Epistle to the Hebrews was not at first written in Hebrew. But we think that we have shewn very clearly in our several Prefaces to these Books, that they were originally composed in Greek.

Of the Translations of the Books of the Bible.

The Hebrews were at first very reserved in communicating themselves to strangers³. As they despised and shun’d the Gentiles, they would not condescend to disclose any thing to them, of those treasures which were concealed in the Holy Scriptures; and the people bordering upon the Jews, such as the Egyptians, Arabians and Phœnicians, for their parts, were not very curious to know the Laws or History of a people whom they reciprocally hated and contemned. It was not till after the several Captivities of the Jews, that foreigners admiring the singularity of their Laws and Ceremonies, were inclined to have a more particular knowledge of them.

Josephus, who studied the Antiquities of his Country with an almost incredible diligence, could discover only some slight footsteps of the Jewish History, interspersed in the Egyptian, Chaldean and Phœnician History. Nor has he there observed any notice to be taken of their Laws or Religion, except in times very modern, compared with the Antiquity of the Hebrews. The Author was so sensible of this, that he thought himself obliged to enquire into the reasons, why foreign writers were so silent in affairs relating to his Nation⁴. And all he has to say after this consideration is, that they never read books written by the Hebrews. He adds, that Demetrius Phalereus, Philo the Elder, and Eupolemus, did indeed speak of the Jews, but with very little accuracy and success, because they were not able to apply themselves with all necessary care to the reading of their History; which want of opportunity to use such application proceeded from hence, viz. that the Sacred Books were not as yet translated into Greek, nor known to the writers of that Nation.

Aristeas indeed says, there was a translation, tho’ an imperfect one, of the Jewish Scriptures before the time of Demetrius Phalereus, and that Theopompus intending to insert something of them in his verses, was deprived of his understanding; but all this is affirmed by Aristeas without any proof or probability. For whose use could this version have been made? Not sure for the heathen Greeks, for there were none of them in the East, who could be any way concerned to have this done. And the Jews themselves had still less occasion for any such Translation of their Sacred Books. It was sometime therefore after Alexander the Great, that the Jews who dwelt in great numbers in the Provinces, and had not a sufficient understanding of the Hebrew, desired a Greek Translation of their Scriptures. To this we may add, that the Curiosity of the Philosophers, and learned Heathens, and if you please the great inclination of the Egyptian Kings to embellish and enrich their Library, produced the first Translations of the Scripture. These are the true reasons which first induced the undertakers to think of translating the Jewish Scriptures out of Hebrew into Greek.

The Greek Bible of the Septuagint.

In the article of the Septuagint, we shall examine the History of Aristeas, and what he says of the Version⁵ procured by Demetrius Phalereus, Library-keeper to Ptolemy Philadelphus. In the mean time we take this opportunity to declare, that we are not inclinable to believe the Greek Version attributed to the Septuagint, to be much later than the reign of Ptolemy; and further we believe, that there is not any more antient. Nor can we be easily persuaded, that the whole Bible was at once translated into Greek. It is very certain, that the Translations of the other Books of Scripture are not near so correct and exact as that of the five Books of Moses; and that in the other Books the Criticks observe considerable differences as to the style, and ways of expressing, and translating the same term.

Chaldee Translations.

The Chaldee translations of the Scripture are thought generally to be antient, and there are some Criticks, who believe them to be made before the time of Jesus Christ. But they are certainly of a later date, as may be seen in F. Morinus’s critical Comments on the Bible, l. ii. Exercit. 8. c. 2. They are not plain literal Translations of the Hebrew Text, but rather Paraphrases or Expositions. We shall speak of them more at large in the article Targum, or Chaldee Paraphrases.

The Syriack Bible.

The Syrians have in their Language a Translation of the Old Testament out of Hebrew, which they give out to be of great antiquity. They pretend, that a great part of this Version was made in Solomon’s time, and the rest in the time of Abgarus King of Edessa. Hiram King of Tyre, and Solomon’s Friend, desir’d, as they say, this Prince to communicate the use of Letters, and writing to the Syrians, and to translate for them the Sacred Books of the Hebrews, which were then in being, into Syriac; namely, the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the two Books of Samuel, the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Solomon’s Song, and Job. Solomon granted very readily the favour which Hiram requested of him; and from this Prince’s reign to the time of Jesus Christ, the Syrians had no other Books of Scripture than those which we have just now mentioned. But after the preaching of S. Thaddæus, (not the Apostle of this name, who was sent to them after the Ascension of our Saviour) they received all the other Books of Scripture, which were then translated into Syriac by the care of Abgarus King of Edessa, who had a knowledge of Jesus Christ, even before his Passion, and embraced Christianity. This is the Tradition of the Maronites relating to their translation of the Scripture out of Hebrew.

But all that they say of their Translation made in the time of Solomon and Hiram, is looked upon as fabulous. Nor is it agreed that even the Syriac Translation, which we now have, was of Abgarus’s time; tho’ we must allow it to be very antient⁶, since it is very frequently cited by the Fathers. Who the Author of it was we cannot tell, nor in what time particularly it was made. Pocock⁷ quotes a Syriac Version by one Thomas of Heraclea, but he confesses that there was one very antient before it. Abbot Renaudot says, Thomas was a Jacobite, or of Dioscorus’s Sect; and that when he came into Egypt, he took the pains to compare the Syriac Bible with the old Copies, which were preserved in the Monastery of S. Antonius. From that time therefore all the Sacred Writings of the Syrians are collated with and corrected from this Edition of Thomas of Heraclea, which is esteemed to be the most accurate and correct of all. But there is no proof that he himself ever composed any Translation.

Besides this old Syriac Version from the Hebrew, which is printed in the Polyglotts of Paris and England, the Syrians have another made from the Greek. The original of it is not distinctly known. Masius⁸ says, that he had in his possession, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings, Chronicles, Esdras, Judith and Tobit, translated in the Year of J. C. 615. from the Greek Copies corrected by Origen. But these Versions, which Masius speaks of, have never yet appeared, and several doubts as to this point must necessarily arise, when we consider the extreme difference between the Greek and Syriac Languages, and the impossibility of placing all Origen’s Obelisks and Asterisks in a Language, wherein are none of those articles or other particles which are in the Greek. One Syriac Version from the Greek we know of, and we know too that one Mar-Abba⁹ was the Author of it.

Latin Bibles.

The Latin Translation of the Bible is one of the most antient; but does not exceed the beginning of Christianity: The Jews who liv’d in the Roman Empire, never thought of translating the Old Testament into Latin; because they all understood Greek or Hebrew; and as they came out of Asia or Greece, Greek was very well known among them: But as soon as Christianity began to prevail, several Heathens, who understood the Latin tongue only, having embraced the Faith of Jesus Christ; there was a necessity to procure for them a translation of the Scripture in this language. The Author or rather Authors, for there were several imployed about it¹⁰, are not known; and their manner of translating the Greek into Latin, shews rather, that they themselves were not masters of all the delicacies of the Latin tongue, or that they for whose use they made it, were plain, ignorant and illiterate people. And it is certain, that there were many of this sort upon the first prevalency 1 Cor. i. 26, 27.of Christianity¹¹. Now, scarce any besides these had occasion for a Latin Translation: for persons of qua lity and learning, and they who were of any rank in the world, understood Greek, and had no occasion to consult Translators: besides, the first Christians in general despised the charms of worldly Wisdom; solid truth was what they aimed at: all that they sought for in the Sacred Writings, was to be edified and made better men, not to be diverted or amused with the beauty of words, and the order and disposition of a discourse.

The first Latin version of the Old Testament was made from the Greek of the Septuagint, which was the only one that the Latin Translators had any knowledge of. There were no thoughts of translating the Old Testament from the Hebrew, till Saint Jerom’s time: Among the many Latin Editions, which were extant before S. Jerom, the old or the Italick was always distinguished, as the cleareft and most literal interpretation.¹² But after S. Jerom had finished his Translation from the Hebrew, the whole Latin Church insensibly forsook the old Italick, and adopted that of this Father, which is at this day in our printed and manuscript Bibles.

The old Italick is nowhere, that we know of, to be found intire; but some fragments of it are preserved in our common Bibles; for example, The Psalter, the book of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the additions to Daniel, and the book of Esther, Baruch, the Maccabees, and the Epistle of Jeremiah. As to the New Testament, the same S. Jerom translated it intirely from the Greek; and the Church at this day makes use of his Translation, which was declared authentick by the Council of Trent.

The old Italick of the New Testament is not intirely lost, nor would it be impossible to recover it. The four Gospels according to this Version, were found in a very old Manuscript at Corbie; indorsed 195, the various readings whereof have been produced by us in our Supplement printed at the end of the Revelations. F. Martianay has published the Gospel of S. Matthew from other old Manuscripts, as well as the Epistle of S. James. Luke of Bruges says, he¹³ had an antient Latin Manuscript in his possession, belonging to the Abby of Malmedy, that contained the old Italick, which was in use before S. Jerom’s time. To these we may add the Greek and Latin Manuscript of S. Paul’s Epistles, whereof there is a copy in the King’s Library, and another in that of St. Germain des Prez, the Latin column whereof contains the old Vulgate. I make no question but that if diligent search were made in Libraries, all this old Version might be found. But we are not to imagine that it would be all uniform, since S. Jerome and S. Austin inform us¹⁴, that the old Copies differ’d very much from one another.

We shall have another opportunity to speak of the Latin Translation of the Bible under the article Vulgate.

Arabic Bibles.

Pocock and Walton observe, that there are two Arabic Versions of the old Testament in use among the eastern Christians, one in the Church of Alexandria, the other in that of Antioch, and in the Churches which depend upon these two principal Metropolis’s of the East. Cornelius a Lapide thought he had discovered Copies of them both in the great Duke of Tuscany’s Library¹⁵; but Abbot Renaudot¹⁶ assures us, that the Greek Church of Alexandria makes use of the Greek language in its Office, and of the Version of the Septuagint; and that in private, where the publick Offices are not used, it makes use of the Arabic Translation of the Septuagint. But the Coptic, or heretical Egyptian Church of the same Country, uses the Coptic language in the publick Office, tho’ it be no longer common in Egypt.

The same Abbot adds, that the Greeks of Antioch, or Syrian Melchites, who follow the Greek Ritual, perform the Office, and administer all the Sacraments in Greek; but the Syrian Jacobites or Nestorians use the Syriac Version in their publick Office, and an Arabic Translation from the Syriac in private, and consequently one pretty near the Hebrew, from which the Syriac itself was formed. This is what Walton and Pocock were not very particularly acquainted with. M. Renaudot farther remarks, that tho’ the Syrians have likewise a Syriac Translation from the Greek, they never make use of it in the Office of the Church, nor in their theological Disputes.

Besides the Arabic Translation from the Syriac, there is another from the Septuagint by Hareth the Son of Senan. The diversity to be observed between the several Copies of this Version is so great that it is impossible to reconcile it. The use of it is not general in the East, but is limited to some Churches of the Melchites, or orthodox Greeks, who perform the Office in Greek, and in private read the Scripture in Arabic, according to the Version of the Septuagint. The Coptites have also an Arabic Version, made either immediately from the Greek, or from the Coptic itself, which is translated from the Greek; for this is a particular which still seems dubious to Abbot Renaudot, who has furnished us with these remarks.

The Arabic Translations printed in the Polyglotts of Paris and London, are in all points different from the Arabic Versions used in the East; and what is very singular, no eastern Church could know its own Translation by those which we have been speaking of. The Arabic Version of the Pentateuch, printed in the Polyglotts, is taken for the most part from that which Saadias Gaon a Jew of Egypt, made from the Hebrew Text, for the service of his Brethren. But the Christians having interpolated, and fashioned it for their own particular use, Gabriel Sionita, who had the chief direction of the edition of the Arabic in the Polyglott of Paris, made use of this Translation thus changed and interpolated: The other Books of Scripture are Translations by different hands; and the Arabic Versions are made sometimes from the Greek, and sometimes from the Syriac; they who had the care of this edition, concerning themselves no further than to provide an Arabic Version of such or such a book, without giving themselves the trouble to examin it with a critical exactness. So that these Arabic Versions are of no Authority among the eastern Christians.

The Jews have likewise several Arabic Translations of the Scripture, some whereof are to be met with in Libraries; but they are not very antient, and considered by themselves are of no authority. Some are written in Arabic, others in Hebrew characters; that of Saadias Gaon is perhaps the first of all those which have been made from the Hebrew; but it would be convenient to have it all intire in its purity.

Ethiopic Bibles.

The Ethiopic Version of the Old Testament is made immediately from the Greek Text, or from the Coptic or Arabic Text, which are themselves translated from the Greek of the Septuagint. M. Ludolphus¹⁷ observes, that there is a very sensible agreement between this Translation and the Alexandrian Manuscript. The order of the chapters, the inscriptions of the Psalms, and every thing besides, are all together alike. The Ethiopians attribute their Version of the Scripture to Salama, who is thought to be the same as Frumentius the Apostle of Ethiopia, sent into this Country by S. Athanasius. The Martyrology of the Abyssinians, supposes him to be the Author of it. But others¹⁸ believe it to be the work of the nine first Apostles of this Nation, and that it was made from the Arabic. But M. Ludolphus is of opinion, that under the name of Sacred Books, we are to understand the Apostolical Canons and Constitutions, which are indeed translated from the Arabic into Ethiopic.

But Mr. Renaudot¹⁹ and M. Simon, maintain,²⁰ that the Ethiopic Version of the whole Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is made from the Coptick or Egyptian. Thus the Egyptian Version being made from the Septuagint, and old Copies agreeing with the Alexandrian Manuscript, it is not at all surprising, that there should be observed to be so much conformity between the Ethiopic Version and that of the Septuagint in this Manuscript. It is certain, that since the Mahometans have been masters of Egypt, the Church of Ethiopia has been always subject to the Church of the Jacobites in Egypt; and so it is not strange, that it should take from thence the Text of Scripture, from which it procured that Translation to be made into the Ethiopic language, which is in use among the Christians of this Country.

Coptic or Egyptian Bibles.

The word Coptic is formed from that of Egyptos, or Aiguptos; and the Coptic Version is the Translation into the Egyptian tongue. Learned men agree, that this Version is made from the Greek of the Septuagint, that it expresses literally the sense of these Interpreters; and M. Renaudot²¹ observes something particular to this purpose, which is, that the Egyptians were so punctual in preserving the old Greek Version of the Septuagint, which their Church of Alexandria had made use of from the beginning, that they refused to take any advantage from the labours of Origen or others, who had been at great pains in comparing the Greek Version with the Hebrew Text; and we read in the life of Demetrius Archbishop of Alexandria, that Origen quite destroyed the old prophecies relating to the Messiah, and after being excommunicated by his Bishop, retired among the Jews. Such was the idea which the Egyptians had of Origen.

There are disputes concerning the antiquity of the Egyptian Version. Some are of opinion, that from the beginning of Christianity, there was a Translation of the Scripture in this language, made by S. Mark, for the service of such Christians, as did not understand Greek. Athanasius observes²², that S. Antony, who understood no Language but the Egyptian²³, having one day heard these words read in the Church, Mat. xix. 31.Go, sell that ye have and give it to the poor, supposed them to be directed to himself only, and immediately resolved upon putting them in practice. From hence it is concluded, that there was therefore at that time an Egyptian Translation of the Scripture, which was read publickly in the Church. But others are of opinion, that S. Antony heard these words from the Priest who explained that in Egyptian, which he had read in the publick Office in Greek; for it is certain, that in Egypt²⁴, from the beginning, the Liturgy was read in Greek, as some particular parts of the Office still shew, which are recited in this Language: This however does not hinder, but that the common Prayers of the Church might be celebrated in Coptic in upper Egypt, where Greek was not so generally known, and in the mean time continued in Greek at Alexandria, and in lower Egypt w.

However this may be, the original of the Coptic Version is what we are not acquainted with, nor do we know whether that which we have at this day, be that very antient one which is presum’d to have been used when S. Antony was living, and in the following ages, wherein we see the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon subscribed by some Bishops in Egyptian, who knew not how to write in Greek, wherein too there were many Monks and Abbots living, who understood no other Language but Egyptian. Now it is not at all credible, that so many Bishops and Religious should have lived without reading or explaining Holy Scripture. There was therefore at that time an Egyptian Translation. But, as I said, we have reason to doubt, whether that which we now have, is this old Version, or whether it be one more modern. I should be more inclinable to believe it is the old one; for to what purpose should a new one have been made, if there already was another? Besides if any one had undertaken to make a new Translation since the seventh and eighth Ages, we should in all probability have known the Author, and the particular time of its production; but as we are ignorant of both, it is very reasonable to believe, that the Version which we have, is the old one.

T he Coptic Language, which is that of the Egyptian Version, is the primitive Egyptian Language²⁵, at least as to the ground and substance of it: but it is blended with many words and phrases in imitation of the Greek. The very character is copied from the Greek. Altho’ the Coptic is now no longer common in Egypt, and this language is not understood by the people, yet the publick Prayers are still performed in it, but the Gospel and Epistle are explained in Arabic, which is the vulgar Language of the country.

Persian Bibles.

There are several Persian Translations both of the Old and New Testament, composed by different Authors, for the most part unknown, who have performed some one part, some another. But there is not one intirely made by one Author only, and acknowledged as authentick by all those who use the Persian Language. Among those which we meet with in Libraries, some are in Hebrew Characters; these in all probability were made purely for the service of the Jews, others in Persian Characters, and the greatest part of them are still in Manuscript²⁶.

There is a Version of the Psalms in Persian by one Father John, a Carmelite, and another of the same Book made from the Latin by the Jesuits. We have the Gospels likewise in Persian, copied in the Year 1388. from an Original of greater antiquity. Walton in the London Polyglott has published the Gospels translated from the Syriac, by one Simon the Son of Joseph, a Christian of Persia, who lived in 1341. This Walton made choice of as the best and oldest of all those which we know any thing of in this Language²⁷. Wheelock, in 1657. printed a Persian Translation of the Gospel, which is different from that of Simon the Son of Joseph, of Tabriz; but it is made from the Greek, as well as those printed in the London Polyglott, except the Translation of the Pentateuch, which was made from the Hebrew, by one Jacob a Jew, the Son of Joseph of Tavas.

Bibles in the Turkish, Armenian and Georgian Languages.

We have some manuscript Translations of the Scripture in the Turkish Language. For example, John Vugnadius procured a Translation of the whole Bible to be made into this Language, as Thuanus tells us in his History of what was transacted in the year 1565. Albert Bobavius, a Polish Renegade, after his Abjuration called Alibeg, made likewise a Turkish Version of the Scripture, at the instance of Levinus Varnerius. We have no knowledge of any thing printed in this Language from the Old Testament; but in the Year 1666. there was a Turkish Translation of the New Testament printed at London, which differs from the pure Arabick and Persian.

The Armenians have an Old Translation of the Bible in their Language taken from the Greek of the Septuagint. Gregory, Bishop of Alexandria, who lived in 620. says, that while S. Chrysostom was in exile at Cucusa, a city of Armenia, he there very fortunately found out some persons who understood Greek, and ingaged them to undertake an Armenian Translation of the New Testament and Psalter, for the service of the common people²⁸. But the truth of this fact is very disputable, as well as the sincerity of Gregory of Alexandria, whom Photius accuses with having sometimes advanced facts against the truth of History.

We are assured²⁹ that the first Translations, which were seen, of Scripture in Armenian, were of the Emperor Arcadius’s time and S. John Chrysostom’s. Three learned Armenians were imployed about them, viz. Moses, sirnamed the Grammarian, David the Philosopher, and Mampræus, these translated most of the Books both of the Old and New Testament out of Greek into Armenian.

Others attribute the honour of this performance to Abbot Mesropus, assisted by his two Disciples John and Joseph, in the time of Theodosius the younger. Gretzer cites a Greek Fragment, which tells us, that in the time of Theodosius the Great, and Bahram King of Armenia, who lived about the Year 380. some persons translated the Psalms into Armenian, at which Theodosius was offended, and complained, that the Tradition received by the Armenians from Gregory their Apostle, was neglected by them. See Gretzer, Defens. Bellarm. l. ii. c. 16. col. 881. But the truth of this relation is very much to be questioned; the eastern people are not very exact, nor very scrupulous in their accounts of historical Facts.

We are told likewise³⁰, that Bartholomew le Petit, and John l’ Ange, two preaching Friars, with two Armenians, whose names where John and James, translated the whole Bible out of Latin into Armenian, in the Year of J.C. 1316. But this particular too is very dubious, and attested by no antient Author.

The Armenians in 1666. procured an Impression of the Bible in their Language, to be made at Amsterdam, under the direction of an Armenian Bishop, who had the principal care of this Edition. It was translated from the Greek of the Septuagint, and not very well liked by the Armenians. Another therefore was printed at Antwerp in 1670. by the care and procurement of Theodorus Petræus; and the New Testament separately in 1668 and 1669. M. Pique, Doctor of the Sorbonne, was of opinion, that the Armenian Translation was of great Antiquity, and might be very useful in correcting the Greek Text, from which this Version was made.

The Georgians³¹ have likewise a Translation of the Bible in the old Georgian Language; but as this Language is known to very few persons, and the people of the country are extremely ignorant, there is scarce any one to be found, who either reads or understands this Version, except some women, who have learned some historical Passages of the Gospel by rote out of it.

French Bibles.

We shall not enlarge much on the French Translations of the Bible; there are already several Books printed on this Subject, which may be consulted by those who would have a more particular knowledge of it. The first French Bible, whereof we have any certain and distinct knowledge, is that of Peter de Vaux, the Author, and principal of the Waldenses, who lived about the Year 1160. We do not know whether there are any Copies of it still remaining or not in some old Libraries³².

Innocent III. in a Letter to Bertram Bishop of Metz, tells him³³, that several Laymen, who were desirous of reading Holy Scripture, had procured a French Translation of the Gospels, S. Paul’s Epistles, the Psalter, Job’s Morals, and several other Books. This Epistle of Innocent III. was written in the Year 1200.

Several modern Writers have ascribed an old French Translation of the Bible to Nicholas Oresme; but F. le Long³⁴ maintains, that Oresme was not the Author of the Bible translated into French under Charles V. King of France, but Raoul de Presle, who set about it by the King’s command, as he declares expressly in his Epistle Dedicatory to this Prince, sirnamed the Wise. This Translation was finished about the Year 1380.

And consequently it is later than Guiard des Moulins, which was compleated in 1294. as he himself says in his Preface. This Translation is to be found in Manuscript in several Libraries. Guiard acknowledges, that he inserted several marginal Annotations in the text of the Bible, and several remarks taken from the Scholastick History of Peter Comestor; and that he hath omitted divers things, which he thought it was not necessary to translate, as the particulars of Genealogies, and things of that nature. This Bible was printed oftner than once under this title, Bible historiale, or historical Bible.

Besides these Versions, wherein the whole Bible is contained, there are other old ones of some parts of Scripture, as the Psalter or the New Testament; the Catalogue whereof may be seen in F. le Long’s Bibliotheca Sacra, t. 2. p. 21, 22, 23.

William le Menard, about the Year 1484. printed a French Bible after the Latin Translation of Peter Comestor. Perhaps it may be that only of Guiard de Moulin’s revis’d, and put into a new dress.

John de Rely reviewed likewise des Moulins’s Bible in the Reign of Charles the Eighth. James le Fevre of Estaples, translated the whole Bible out of Latin into French, and had it printed at Paris in 1528. The New Testament had been printed in 1523. and the Psalter in 1525. It has been since several times reprinted in different places of the Kingdom.

The Doctors of Louvain having translated the Bible out of Latin into French by the Emperor Charles the Fifth’s order, they printed it at Louvain in 1550. Charles the fifth’s Licence is dated 1546, and this Bible has been very frequently reprinted. The Doctors of Louvain have been reproached³⁵ with doing nothing more in their Translation than copying almost throughout, and correcting in some places the Version of Geneva published by Olivetan. But M. Simon³⁶ remarks, that in the year 1530, or rather 1534, Martin L’Empereur printed a French Bible at Antwerp translated by Nicholas de Leuse Doctor of Louvain; and that this Bible is the same in Substance with that which appeared some years after, under the name of the Louvain Doctors, printed principally by the care of the same Nicholas de Leuse, who had been imployed in the first Translation. And from this Version of de Leuse, Olivetan himself made his which was printed at Geneva in 1535.

In 1566, Renatus Benoist published a French Bible at Paris, with Marginal Notes on some difficult places. This Edition was censured by the Faculty of Divinity at Paris, in 1567, as being no other than the Version of Geneva, which Renatus Benoist thought he had sufficiently purged; but it was still found to be very full of faults. F. Veron in his Preface to the New Testament, which he had translated into French, asserts, that the French Versions, which appeared afterwards under the names of Peter Frizon, and Peter de Besse, were the same with that of Renatus Benoist, or rather that of Geneva, and were likewise very faulty.

James Corbin in 1643, printed a French Bible, which he translated by Lewis the XIIIth’s order; but it is generally thought to be too barbarous, and to keep close too servilely to the Latin Text; the very turn whereof, and particular phrases, the Translator has endeavoured to imitate.

Cardinal Richelieu had begun to set some at work about a new Translation of the Bible into French; but his death put a stop to the execution of this undertaking.

Michael de Maroles having translated the Bible into French, and added Annotations to it from Pereira, set about the printing of it, and had already proceeded as far as the xiii. chap. of Leviticus, when on a sudden a stop was put to the impression by Chancellor Seguier, about the year 1671; I have seen the printed sheets of it in the King’s Library, and the publick, in my opinion, has lost nothing by the suppression.

Isaac le Maitre de Sacy, in the year 1672, published his Translation of the Bible, with Explanations of the literal and spiritual meaning of it, and it was received with wonderful applause and approbation. It has been since corrected very much, and printed very often in different forms. The person who procured the edition by Broncard in 1701, revised and mended it in several places. We likewise have made some farther amendments of it in the edition of this Text, which is prefixed to our literal Comment.

As to New Testaments which have been printed separately, and by particular Authors, one of those which has made the most noise, and deserved most consideration, is that of F. Amelotte of the Oratory, composed by the direction of some French Prelates, and printed with Annotations, in the years 1666, 1667, and 1670, viz. The Gospels and Acts in 1666, the Epistles of S. Paul in 1667, the general Epistles and the Revelations in 1670. This Author tells us in his Preface, that in order to make his Translation the more perfect, and to be convinced the more fully, that the Latin Text of the Vulgate agrees with the most ancient Greek Originals, he had taken care to have search made in all the Libraries of Europe, for the oldest Manuscripts that could be found there, some whereof appear’d to be of twelve or thirteen hundred years standing; that he had made extracts out of them; that he had had the inspection of twenty Manuscripts belonging to France, and of all those in the Vatican or other Libraries in Italy; of sixteen Manuscripts belongbelonging to Spain, without reckoning those which Cardinal Ximenes made use of in his Edition of the Complutensian Polyglott. Lastly, that he had had the use of several Manuscripts out of England, and the northern Countries, and of many others, which were in Greece, &c. But when we examine F. Amelotte’s Annotations³⁷, we find, that excepting three or four Manuscripts consulted by him, which too are not above four or five hundred years old, he has produced no various Lections that are in any degree considerable, which had not been before taken notice of, either in the London Polyglott, or elsewhere. And when he has been pressed close upon this Point, he has made no scruple of confessing, that all which he had said of this matter was no more than a figurative way of speaking, which he had made use of to give the World a greater Idea of his Performance.

The New Testament of Mons, which was printed in 1665, with the Archbishop of Cambray’s Permission, and the King of Spain’s Licence, has made so much noise, that it deserves to be particularly considered. The first Author of this Work was M. le Maitre, who having translated the four Gospels into French, M. Antony Arnaud, and M. le Maitre de Sacy, corrected them in several places. M. de Sacy composed a new Preface to them, with the help of M. Nicole and M. Claude de Sainte Marthe: But in the Licence, Mr. Arnaud alone is taken notice of; for that informs the World, that the Translation is the work of a Doctor of the Sorbonne. The Manuscript written with M. le Maitre’s hand, with Emendations in the Margin of M. Arnaud’s and M. de Sacy’s Handwriting, was given to M. Toinard by one of the Elzevirs³⁸, who printed it; for tho’ we read in the Title Page, that it was printed at Mons by Gaspard Migiot, it is nevertheless very true, that no Copies of it were ever printed at Mons. M. de Cambout Abbot of Pont Chateau, went to Amsterdam on purpose to have it printed by the Elzevirs.

This Book has met with a great deal of Opposition, the account whereof has no relation to my Subject. It was condemned by Pope Clement IX. in 1668, by Pope Innocent XI. in 1679, and in several Bishopricks of France at several times. All which notwithstanding it has gone through many Editions, and the generality of those who, since that time, have attempted to translate the New Testament into French, have made use of this Version as a Foundation to work upon, and have endeavoured to correct and purge it of every thing disagreeable to them; and which might draw upon them the Censure of the Pope and Bishops; for both the Version which is in M. de Sacy’s Bible, and that which is published with F. Quesnel’s Reflections, and that in M. Huré’s New Testament, are the same in Substance with the Translations of Mons, revised and reformed by them in all those places, which gave uneasiness to the Censors.

M. Antony Godeau Bishop of Vence, printed his Translation of the New Testament at Paris in 1668; but it is, properly speaking, neither a literal Translation, nor a Paraphrase; but it is a medium between both, and adds some particular words to the Text, which explain the sense of it.

The New Testament published at Trevoux in French by M. Simon in the year 1702, with literal and critical Annotations upon difficult Passages, was condemned by the Bishops of Paris and Meaux, who in 1702, 1703, prohibited the use of it in their Dioceses.

F. Bouhours a Jesuit, in the year 1697, published a Translation of the New Testament, which he composed in conjunction with his Brethren FF. Michael Tellier and Peter Besnier. During the Impression of this Work, the Archbishop of Paris named Revisers of it, in order to examin and correct it. The Translation for the most part is harsh and obscure, which was owing to the Author’s Inclination to keep too scrupulously close to the Latin Text, which he translated. F. Lallemant a Jesuit, in his Exposition of the New Testament put out by him some years since, has adopted this Translation.

We have likewise a new Version of the New Testament by F. Martianay, printed at Paris in 1712, with Annotations, and literal Explanations borrowed, as he says, from the pure Fountains of the Scripture.

Lastly, Abbot Fleury, heretofore Preceptor to the Children of France, and at present Confessor to King Lewis XV. has prepared a French Translation of the New Testament, by express orders from the King and Cardinal de Noailles, which has not yet been printed. These are the principal Translations of the Old and New Testament, which have been made by Catholick Writers.

French Translations of the Bible by Pro-

The first French Bible which the Protestants published, was that of Robert Peter Olivetan, printed at Geneva in 1535, and since reprinted often with the Corrections of John Calvin, and some others. But the first Editions of Olivetan were very defective, because the Author did not speak good French, and understood not the original Languages of the Old and New Testament. His Version is said to be the same as Dr. Nicholas de Leuse’s Bible, printed at Antwerp by Martin l’Empereur in 1534. and indeed, when we compare them together, we may observe, that they differ only in those places, wherein Olivetan thought it necessary to forsake the Vulgate, and adhere to the Hebrew of the Old Testament, translated by Pagninus, and to the Greek of the New, translated by Erasmus. Olivetan therefore might very easily boast, that in the space of one Year he had translated the whole Bible into French, the Old Testament from the Hebrew, the New from the Greek; for this is what he values himself upon, in the Edition published at Neufchatel, in 1535. at the expence of the Vaudois.

Sebastian Castalio, or Chateillon, published a French Translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew, and of the New from the Greek, at Basil, in the Year 1555. But this Translation had no manner of success, and did no honour to its Author, because he did not understand French. He made himself ridiculous by particular ways of expressing himself, which were never used by good judges of the Language; for example, instead of transgresser he put trespasser, instead of circoncision he would say rognement, instead of prepuce he would use the word avantpeau. An instance whereof we have in his Translation of the 25, 26 and 27th Verses of the second Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, which runs thus, Si tu viens á tréspasser la loi, ton rognement devient avantpeau. Que si un empellé (he means one uncircumcised) garde les ordonnances de la loi, certes son avantpeau lui sera compté pour rognement, Et celui qui de nature est empellé, et garde la loi, te condamnera, toi qui as la lettre et rognement, et si trespasses la loi.

John Diodati published a French Bible translated from the Greek and Hebrew, with Annotations of his own; this was printed at Geneva in 1644. The Reformed extremely approved it, and they still make use of it as much or more than of Olivetan’s, tho’ that has been revised so often, and both the sense and expressions have been corrected by the most learned Protestant Divines. But Diodati’s method is found fault with; he does not keep close enough to the Letter, and that he may make himself the more intelligible to all the world, he rather paraphrases the Text than translates it, and inserts words frequently in his Translation to make it more clear.

We are assured, that M. Charles le Cene and M. Le Clerc have both composed intire Versions of the Bible, but they have not yet been published.

As to the New Testament, printed separately by Protestant Authors, the principal Translation of it is that of John le Fevre of Estaples, revised and accommodated to the use of the reform’d Churches in Piedmont, and printed in 1534.

The New Testament translated into French by Peter Dolet, appeared before the Year 1545. the Year wherein the Author was burnt.

John Daillé the Son, and Valentine Conrart, printed a French New Testament at Paris, in 1671. compiled from the Translations of Mons and F. Amelotte; but the Edition was scarce finished before it was intirely suppressed³⁹.

M. John le Clerc printed a New Testament in French at Amsterdam for De Lorme, in 1703. with Annotations taken for the most part from Grotius and Hammond. M. Bayle says, that this Edition was prohibited and proscribed in Holland, by order of the States General, and by the Decrees of several Synods of the Protestant Churches there; and in Prussia by the Consistory of Berlin, as a work tending to renew the errors of Sabellius, and foment those of Socinus.

Italian Bibles.

Sextus Senensis⁴⁰, and after him Antony Possevin⁴¹, speak of an Italian Translation of the Bible, made by James de Voragine, who lived in 1270. But it is questioned with good reason, whether there ever was such a Bible, since James de Voragine himself says nothing of it in the Catalogue of his Works, published by him in his History of Genoa, in the Year 1292. and no Copy of any Translation of the Bible under his name is to be met with in the Libraries of Italy o. The Italian Bibles which are to be found in Manuscript in the Libraries there have no name of any Author prefix’d to them.

The first Italian Bible published by the Catholicks, is that of Nicholas Malerme, or Malherbe, a Benedictine Monk of the Order of Camaldulenses, printed at Venice in August 1471. There was another put out under the name of the same Author, in October of the same Year 1471. very different from the first as to the Old Testament, but much the same as to the New. There is no name to it either of the Printer or the place of Impression. Malerme’s Bible has been printed several times in Italy. It was translated from the Vulgate.

Antony Antony Brucioli made another Version of the Old Testament from the Hebrew, and of the New Testament from the Greek, which was printed at Venice in 1532. But this Bible was placed among the Books which were prohibited by the Council of Trent. This Translation of the New Testament has been printed ever since the year 1530.

Santes Marmochinus revised Brucioli’s Edition, and printed it at Venice as a new Translation, in 1538, and there have been several Editions of it since.

Gregorio Leti⁴² informs us, that Sixtus V. ordered a Translation to be made of the whole Bible in 1590, but that Philip II. King of Spain, and the Cardinals, having made Remonstrances to him concerning it, he was pleased to suppress it. He says, that there are Copies of this Version still to be seen in the Library belonging to the Great Duke of Tuscany, in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, and in that of Geneva⁴³. But this whole account is contradicted;⁴⁴ and it is confidently asserted, that there never was such a Translation, nor that any Copies are to be found in any Library of an Italian Bible, published by the Directions of Sixtus V.

The Calvinists have likewise their Italian Bibles. An Italian Bible translated from the Hebrew of the Old, and from the Greek of the New Testament, was published at Geneva for their use in 1562. This is Brucioli’s Translation revised, and rendred much purer, and more elegant. The New Testament is taken rather from Fabius Tudesque’s Edition of 1560, than from that of Brucioli.

John Diodati published an Edition of the Bible in Italian, first of all in 1607, then again in 1641, wherein he has observed the same method, as in his French Version; that is to say, he is rather a Paraphrast than a literal Translator. His New Testament was published separately at Geneva in 1608, and at Amsterdam and Harlem in 1665.

Maximus Theophilus printed likewise an Italian Translation of the new Testament at Lions in 1551, which was dedicated to Francis de Medicis Duke of Tuscany.

The Jews of Italy have no intire Version of the Bible in Italian, the Inquisitors constantly refusing to allow them the liberty of printing one. To supply in some sort what was wanting in this particular, Leo of Modena in the year 1612, published a Dictionary in Italian and Hebrew, wherein he explains all the most difficult passages of the Bible in Italian⁴⁵. So that this Work may serve in the room of an intire Translation of the Bible in this Language.

Spanish Bibles.

James the first King of Arragon, who died in 1276, made a Constitution, which ordered, that whosoever had the Books of the Old and New Testament in the language called Romance⁴⁶, or in the vulgar language of the Country, and did not bring them to the Bishop of the place, in order to be burnt, should be looked upon as one suspected of Heresy, whether he were of the Laity or Clergy⁴⁷. These Books were probably translated by the Albigenses.

Alphonso King of Castille gave Directions for translating the Books of holy Scripture into the Castilian language, if Mariana is to be credited in this particular⁴⁸. Gesner says,⁴⁹ that John King of Leon and Castille had likewise the holy Scriptures translated into his language: He adds, that these Books were still in being. We have indeed some Spanish Translations of several parts of the Bible; which are to be found in many Libraries, but the Authors of them are not named.

The first Spanish printed Bible that we know of, is that which Cyprian de Valera speaks of; and which he says was published about the year 1500. This Author declares he had seen it. Who the Translator was, we cannot tell, but it is believed, that he lived about the year 1420, and that he translated the whole Bible into Spanish, as it was then spoken in the Kingdom of Valencia.

The same Cyprian de Valera in the year 1602, printed at Amsterdam a Bible of his own translating into Spanish from the Hebrew, which in reality is the same as that of Cassiodore de Reyna a Calvinist, revised and published under Valera’s name.

In 1512, Ambrose de Montesin published the Epistles and Gospels of the whole Year, which he had translated into Spanish. I take no notice here of the Psalms. and other lesser parts of the Bible transla­ ted into this language by several Catholick Writers: Such a particular account would carry me too far.

Cassiodore de Reyna, a Calvinist, published his Translation of the Bible in Spanish, from Pagninus’s Latin Version of the Hebrew, and printed it at Basil in 1569. Cyprian de Valera, as we have said, revised it, and had it reprinted in 1602.

Francis Enzinas, otherwise called Driander, in 1543, published at Antwerp the New Testament in Spanish, translated from the Greek, and dedicated it to the Emperor Charles V.

The Jews in Spain have the Old Testament in Spanish, translated out of Hebrew for their use. Gilbert Voetius⁵⁰, and after him Henry Hottinger⁵¹ have affirmed, that the famous Rabbi David Kimchi, who lived sometime in the thirteenth Age, translated the Bible into Spanish. But this Fact we very much question, nor have we any knowledge of this Version, unless it be that, the Pentateuch whereof was printed at Constantinople in Hebrew Characters in the year 1546.

The first Bible which was printed in Spanish for the use of the Jews, was that printed at Ferrara in 1553, in Gothick Characters, and dedicated to Hercules d’Est Duke of Ferrara, whose Licence was annexed to the Translation. The Pentateuch of this Edition is almost intirely like that, which was printed at Constantinople in 1546 in Spanish, but in Hebrew Characters. Without doubt this Version is very ancient⁵², and was probably in use among the Jews of Spain, before Ferdinand and Isabel expell’d them out of their Dominions in the Year 1492. And altho’ the Jews in the Preface to their Bible of Ferrara, give out, that they have followed the Translation of Pagninus the Dominican, yet it is plain that they did this only to avoid Prosecution from the Inquisitors, who are very careful in prohibiting the Publication of the Bible in the vulgar tongue of their translating. The Spanish Bible of Ferrara was reprinted in 1630, at Amsterdam, under the Inspection of Manasseh Ben-Israel; and in 1661, by the Care and Diligence of Samuel de Cazéres.

German Bibles.

As the several Dialects of the German Language have made it very extensive, and it has produced very many different Versions, we do not take upon us here to mention all exactly, but those only which are the best and principal of them: They who have a mind to be more particularly informed of them, may consult those Books which treat expressly of them.

The first and most ancient Translation of the Bible in the German Language, that we have, is that of Ulphilas Bishop of the Goths⁵³, made about the Year 360. But this Bishop did not think it proper to translate the Books of Kings, which treat much of War; because the Goths were already but too much inclined to this Exercise, and he was afraid of encouraging their martial humour still more, by a recital of the Wars recorded in these parts of Scripture. We have no more remaining of this old Version, than what was found of it in the Abby of Verden near Cologn, in a Manuscript written in Silver Letters; for which reason it is called Codex Argenteus. This Monument having fallen into the hands of M. De la Gardie Chancellor of Sweden, who bought it for five hundred Ducats; he permitted Francis Junius to take a Copy of it, and he printed it in 1665, with M. Marechal’s Notes, and a Dictionary to explain it. This Manuscript is still preserved at this day in the Library of Upsal, and it contains the four Gospels, not altogether entire, but with many Breaks and Interstices, because the old Copy has suffered by time, and the Negligence of those who have been Masters of it.

Some Authors tell us⁵⁴, that Charlemain appointed a Translation to be made of the New Testament in the Frank or German Language; but these Writers produce no old Evidence to warrant what they advance. We know that Charlemain took a great deal of pains to have the Latin Vulgate corrected, and that he made use of the Greek and Syriac Texts, in order to restore the New Testament to its purity. This appears by the Historians of his time⁵⁵, but they do not say, that he had the New Testament translated into the Frank Language then in use, which was the same as the German.

Others⁵⁶ assert, that Lewis the Debonnaire gave orders to translate the Scripture into Saxon: But this particular is not founded on any good historical proofs. We find here and there in Libraries several German Versions of the Bible which are in Manuscript, and pretty antient; but no one can assure us certainly, that they were made in the time of Charlemain, or of Lewis the Debonnaire. There was a Psalter kept in the Library of S. Gal, which was some Years ago destroyed by the Swiss Protestants, and the Book of Job, translated by Notkar Labeon Abbot of this Abby, who lived in the reign of the Emperor Arnold, about the Year 890. And Goldast assures us, that he had in his possession at the time, when he was writing, a German Psalter, written by Ekhardus the Younger, about the Year 1004. for the use of the Empress Cunegunda, Wife to the Emperor Henry II. This is all we know of the antiquity of these manuscript Translations.

As to the German Bibles which are printed, we see some very ancient, but for the most part they are without the date of the Impression, unless it be added by some hand to them⁵⁷; for which reason these dates are very much to be suspected. The oldest with the Year fixed to it, and most certainly known by us, is that of Nuremburg, printed in 1477. and that of Augsburg, of the same Year. Of these there were several Editions in the Cities which we have named, before the appearance of Luther, and at Strasburg in 1485. but who the Authors are of this old Translation, we cannot tell.

John Dietemberger translated the Bible from the Vulgate into German; his Version was printed at Mentz in 1534. and has been since several times reprinted. The Criticks remark, that the Translator copied almost throughout the German Translation of the New Testament made by Jerom Emzer, Chaplain to George Duke of Saxony. Emzer undertook his Translation in opposition to that of Luther, when this Reformer began first to shew himself.

John Eckius translated the Old Testament from the Vulgate, but he declares in his Epistle dedicatory, that he joined Emzer’s New Testament to it, which we lately mentioned; he being unwilling to imitate their injustice, who have put out his performance under their own name, without doing honour to him, who is the true Author of it. Eckius’s Bible was printed in 1537.

Ferdinand Duke of Bavaria, and Elector of Cologn, procured a new Translation of the Bible to be made by Gaspar Ulembergius; it was printed at Cologn in 1630. but as Ulembergius was of Westphalia, and was not master of the German Tongue in all its purity, the Divines of Mentz revised his Version, and had a new Edition of it published in 1662. These are the principal German Translations, which have been produced by the Catholicks.

Martin Luther published his Translation of the Old and New Testament from the Hebrew and Greek Originals, after having been imployed eleven Years in this work. The Pentateuch was put out in 1522. the historical Books of the Old Testament and the Psalter in 1524. Solomon’s Books are supposed to have been printed in 1527. Isaiah in 1529. the Prophets in 1531, and 1532. the other Books of the Old Testament in 1530. the New Testament in 1522. Several Editions of the whole have been since published of Luther’s translating. The Learned agree that the Language of it is pure, and the Version clear, and without any intricacies. But the Author is oftentimes rather a Paraphrast than a true Interpreter⁵⁸.

Luther’s Bible was corrected several times by himself while he was living, and by others after his death. But these are particulars that do not properly come under our consideration in this place. The German Bibles which have been printed in Saxony, Switzerland, and elsewhere, are for the most part the same, as to the substance and foundation of them, with that of Luther, with very little variation. For example, that of Zurick, which is the most celebrated, and that about which the greatest pains have been employed, delivers the sense of the Old Testament almost throughout, according to the Interpretation of Leo de Juda a German Minister who translated the Bible out of Hebrew into Latin. Nevertheless in many places it copies the expressions which Luther had made use of in those Books of the Bible which he had then published, for his whole Bible was not as yet printed.

In 1604. John Piscator published a new Translation of the Bible in the German Tongue, made by him, from the Latin Version of Junius and Tremellius. He confined himself so much to the sense of these Authors, and their manner of delivering it, that it was the opinion and complaint of many, that his Translation abounded with turns of Expression, which were purely Latin, and not at all agreeable to the genius of the German Language.

The Anabaptists have likewise their German Bible, printed at Worms in 1529. and translated by Lewis Hetzerus, with the assistance of John Denkius. These Translators are said to have made great use of the Zurich Version.

John Crellius publish’d his German Translation of the New Testament at Racovia in 1630. And Felbinger printed another Translation of it at Amsterdam in 1660.

The Jews of Germany have some Versions of the Bible in their Language, part whereof are printed in Hebrew, the rest in German Characters. The objection to their Translations is, that they are too literal, and render servilely the Hebrew Text word for word in German.

Flemish Bibles.

The Flemish Bibles, which were prepared for the use of the Catholicks, are very numerous, and for the most part have no name of any Author prefixed to them, till that of Nicholas Vink appeared, which was printed at Lovain in 1548, and the same year at Cologn. The Author confesses that he was assisted in his undertaking by two Divines of Louvain, whose names he does not mention.

The Flemish Versions, which the Calvinists made use of till the Year 1636. or 1637. were copied from that of Luther, or that of Zurich in Switzerland. But their Synod of Dort having in 1618. and 1619. appointed a new Translation of the Bible to be made into Flemish, Deputies were named for this work, which was not finished till 1636. and 1637. since which time there have been very many Editions of it.

Danish Bibles.

The first Edition of the Danish Bible printed in 1550. was made by Peter Palladius, Olaus Chrysostom, John Synningius, and John Maccabæus, wherein Luther’s first German Version was the model which they followed. This Edition was revised and reprinted in 1589.

John Paul Resenius, Bishop of Zealand, published likewise in the Year 1605. a new Danish Bible, translated from the original Hebrew. The Translator has too servilely endeavour’d to render his original literally, by which means he has made himself almost unintelligible in his own Language. His Version is harsh and obscure. But in 1633. Christian IV. King of Denmark, gave orders to have it corrected, and put into a better Style.

John Michel translated the New Testament into Danish, and printed it at Lipsick in 1524. and at Antwerp in 1529. and Christian, Son to Peter Canon of Lunden, put out a Translation of it likewise in 1531. Upon the first Edition of this Version it was thought very barbarous, but in the following Editions it was corrected.

Swedish Bibles.

The Author of S. Bridget’s Life⁵⁹ says, that this Saint who lived in the fourteenth Age, was a diligent reader of the Holy Bible; and that she procured it to be translated into her mother Tongue. Matthias Canon of Lincolp, and Confessor to this Saint, is said to be the Author of this Translation; but there is now no Copy of it that we know of, to be found any where.

In 1534. Olaus, and Lawrence the Son of Peter, published a Swedish Bible which they had translated from the German Version of Martin Luther. Gustavus Adolphus King of Sweden had it revised about the Year 1617. so that afterwards it was almost generally followed; for tho’ it has been since frequently corrected, yet the substance of it is still the same.

English-Saxon, and modern English Bibles.

We are assured that Adelmus Bishop of Sherburn⁶⁰, who lived in 709. made an English-Saxon Version of the Psalms, and that Eadfridus or Ecbertus, Bishop of Lindisferne⁶¹, who lived about the Year 730. translated several Books of Scripture into the same Language⁶². It is said likewise⁶³, that venerable Bede, who died in 735. translated the whole Bible into Saxon. But Cuthbert, Bede’s Disciple, in the enumeration of his Master’s Works, speaks only of his Translation of the Gospel, and says nothing of the rest of the Bible⁶⁴.

Some will have it that Alfred King of England, who lived in 890. translated likewise a great part of the Scripture into his own Language, at least that he set about a Translation of the Psalter⁶⁵, which he did not live to finish. Balæus cites also William of Malmesbury, who says, that King Ethelstan directed a Translation to be made of the Old Testament out of Hebrew into English-Saxon. It is very probable that some Jew converted to Christianity had the care of this Work.

We find an old Version in this Language, of several Books of the Bible made by Elfrick Abbot of Malmesbury. William Lille an Englishman, in the Year 1638. printed the Fragments of the Bible translated by this Elfrick, at London; but Edmund Thwaits published Elfrick’s genuine Translation at Oxford, in 1699. There are several manuscript Translations of particular Books of Scripture in this Language but without the Authors names, which are to be seen in the Libraries of England⁶⁶.

Matthew Matthew Parker, in the Year 1571. published at London the four Gospels in the English-Saxon Language. They were of some very old Translation, the Author whereof was not known. Thomas Marefchal reprinted them in 1665. in English- Saxon Characters, with remarks of his own added to them. Dr. Mill observes, that this old Version was made from a Latin Copy of the old Vulgate, which was in use over all the western part of the World, before S. Jerom published his new Translation; for which reason the Author of it is believed to be very antient.

As to the English Versions of the Bible, the first Author of them is thought to have been John Trevisa, who finished his Translation in the Year 1357⁶⁷. The second that we know of, who undertook a Work of this kind, was Wickliffe, the Manuscript of whose English Translation is in several Libraries in England; but we do not know that it was ever printed. Several other Manuscripts of English Versions are to be met with, but generally without the name of any Author affixed to them.

The first English Bible printed for the service of the Catholicks, is that which was published at Doway in 1609 and 1610. and at Paris in 1635. This Bible contains only the Old Testament, and is translated from the Vulgate, with Notes by some Divines of Doway. The New Testament was published at Rheims in 1582. with the Annotations of the English Divines in this place.

The English Bible was translated for the use of Protestants, partly by William Tindal, and partly by Miles Coverdale. It was published at London in 1535. This Book, as well as the Authors of it, had very unaccountable fortune; but at last after much contradiction it passed, and King Henry VIII. commanded it to be printed, and placed in all the Churches in England, in order to be there publickly read⁶⁸.

Thomas Matthew’s or John Rogers’s Version, which was published at London in 1537. scarce differs in any thing from that we have been speaking of. That which was put out at London in 1541. by the authority of King Henry VIII. was revis’d and corrected by Cuthbert Tunstal and Nicholas Heath, the first, Bishop of Durham, the second, Bishop of Rochester. The Year following, this very Version was prohibited by Act of Parliament and the King’s Proclamation⁶⁹; so that during the remainder of Henry VIII.’s reign, there was no Version of the Scripture in the vulgar Language publickly approved and authorized in England. But as soon as Edward was seated on the Throne, Cranmer procured a new Edition of the Bible translated by Tunstal and Heath, to which he added a Preface of his own. It was published at London 1549.

In Queen Mary’s reign, several of the English, who had lived in exile at Geneva⁷⁰, undertook to make an English Translation of the Bible from that of Geneva. It was put out in 1561. and dedicated to Queen Elizabeth; it was afterwards several times reprinted. But all the English were not pleased with it; for which reason Matthew Parker’s Bible, called the Bishop’s Bible, was⁷¹ reprinted in 1568. Vid. le Long Bibl. Sacr. t. 2. p. 264.

Lastly, in 1612. in the reign of James I. the Bible, called the King’s Bible, was published: This was translated from the Greek and Hebrew by Andrews Bishop of Winchester, and several other Divines, to the number of seven and forty, who shared the Work among them, and took great pains about it. These are the principal Editions of the Bible in English.

Sclavonian Bibles.

It is believed that S. Jerom, who was of Dalmatia, translated the Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testament into the Language of his own Country⁷²; but this opinion is not supported by any good proofs: for first, S. Jerom was of Dalmatia, and not of Sclavonia; and secondly, when this Saint tells Sophronius in his Letter to him, that he had translated the Scripture suæ linguæ hominibus, for such as used his Language; we are to understand the Latin Tongue, which was very familiar and as it were natural to him.

Others are of opinion, that the Sclavonian Version was the Work of S. Cyril and Methodius, who were imployed in the conversion of the Sclavonians, about the Year 880. and this opinion is supported by two Historians of Bohemia, one of whom lived in 993. the other in 1200. This old Version was printed by the Muscovites in 1581.

The first Bible printed in this Language, is that which was translated by John of Glogow, and printed at Cracow. This Author died in 1507. and we have not the whole Bible of his Translation, but several Books of it only, printed as we have said at Cracow. Nor do we believe that there is an intire Version of the whole Bible printed in this Language; but only the Psalter, and the Epistles and Gospels for the whole Year.

Bohemian, Polish, Russian, or Muscovite Bibles.

The Taborites, a sort of Bohemian Hereticks, procured a Bible to be printed in their Language at Venice, in 1506. This they had themselves translated from the Vulgate; it has been several times reprinted. But as the Text from which it was taken, did not please the new Reformers, their Brethren in the year 1579, printed the whole Bible translated from the Greek and Hebrew, by eight of their own Doctors, whom they had sent to the Schools of Wittemberg and Basil, particularly to study the original Languages in these places. This Bible was printed at the Castle of Cralitz in Moravia. The first Part, or Tome was published in 1579, and the sixth and last not till 1593.

The first Version of the Polish Bible that is any where known, is, they say, that composed by Hadewich Wife to Jagellon Duke of Lithuania, who imbraced Christianity in 1390. We are told likewise of a Polish Version of the Bible by Andrew de Jassowitz, and written in 1455, by the Order of Sophia, wife of Jagellon King of Poland. But these Bibles are in Manuscript only.

In 1599, there was a Polish Translation of the Bible published at Cracow, which was the Work of several Divines of this Nation, wherein James Wieck a Jesuit had a principal Share. Another was published in 1608, at Hanovia, probably Hayin in Bohemia, in the Province of Silesia, translated by Jerom of Leopolis, or as Sixtus of Sienna calls him, John of Leopolis.

In 1596, the Protestants published a Polish Bible from Luther’s Version. It was reprinted in 1632, and dedicated to Uladislaus IV. King of Poland.

The Socinians have likewise their Bible in this Language, it was translated from the Greek and Hebrew, and printed at Brestia a City of Lithuania, in 1562. Some time after, viz. in 1572, another was put out by them at Caslaw, a City of Lithuania, revised and corrected by Simon Budneus. They have besides the New Testament translated by Martin Czechovick, and another by Valentine Smalcius.

The Russians or Muscovites in 1581 published the Bible in their Language at Ostrowick, translated from the Greek by S. Cyril the Apostle of the Sclavonians. But as this old Translation was too obscure, Ernest Gliik, who had been carried captive to Moscow after the taking of Nerva, undertook to make a new Translation of the Bible in Sclavonian; and Gliik dying in 1705, the Czar of Muscovy now reigning, gave Directions to continue the Work which he had begun, and appointed some particular Divines for this purpose⁷³. But this new Translation has never yet been published, that I know of.

I shall say nothing more particularly in this place of the several Bibles translated into vulgar Languages. This is sufficient for a Dictionary. They who would have a more exact Knowledge of this matter, may consult such Authors as have written expresly on this Subject: For example, the critical Works of M. Simon on the Old and New Testament, and F. le Long’s Bibliotheca Sacra, from whence we have borrowed almost all that we have here related.

As to the Authors of each respective Book of the Bible, the time wherein they wrote, their admission into the Canon, and other questions which are generally proposed concerning every one of them, the Reader may have recourse, if he pleases, to our Prefaces, and turn to such Articles in this Dictionary, wherein the names of these Books and of their Authors are to be met with.

Read this article in its place on the printed pages