tremely literal, they serve to vindicate the original text, as it has come down to us, from the charge of corruption by the Jews for the sake of evading the arguments of Christians. For the same reason they often afford the interpreter important aid in determining the signification of difficult words and phrases, although from the remoteness of their period from the age when the language was vernacular, their testimony cannot have the weight of that of direct and immediate witnesses. But they undoubtedly serve as a channel for conveying down to us the earliest traditionary sense put by the Jews upon many obscure passages of the sacred writings, and correct information on this point is always exceedingly desirable. In addition to this, they often reflect considerable light on the Jewish rites, ceremonies, laws, customs, and usages mentioned or alluded to in both Testaments. But it is in establishing the meaning of particular prophecies relative to the Messiah, that these Targums are pre-eminently useful. For some striking illustrations of this remark, the reader is referred to Prideaux' Connection, vol. 4th. p. 236 (Charlest. ed. 1816), where the whole subject is fully and learnedly treated.-Walton's Polyglott Bible will present the student with all the Targums; and Buxtorf's Biblia Rabbinica will not only give these, but all the distinguished Rabbinic Commentaries, such as those of Kimchi, Jarchi, Aben Ezra, etc. to which should be added his Lexicon Chald. Talmud. Rabbinicum, an invaluable store-house of illustration in every department of Chaldee and Rabbinical literature.

(b.) THE SEPTUAGINT.-This is the title applied to the most ancient and valuable of the Greek versions. It is so called, either from the Jewish account of seventy-two persons having been employed to make it, or from its having been ordered, superintended, or sanctioned by the Sanhedrin, or great council of the Jews, which consisted of seventy, or more correctly, of seventy-two persons. Much uncertainty rests upon the real history of this version, though its date is usually referred to the second century before the Christian era; but there is no question as to its value; and in so much esteem was it held by the Jews and the early Christians, that it was constantly read in the synagogues and churches. Hence it is uniformly cited by the early fathers, whether Greek or Latin, and from it all the translations into other languages (with the exception of the Syr iac), which were approved by the ancient Christian church, were executed, as the Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Gothic, and old Italic or Latin version in use before Jerome; and to this day the Septuagint is exclusively read in the Greek and most other Oriental churches. As a source of interpretation it is invaluable. Desirous of possessing in Greek a faithful representation of the Hebrew Scriptures, and being themselves Jews, the translators retained Hebrew forms and modes of expression, while the words employed were Greek. The language therefore of the Septuagint is a kind of Hebrew-Greek, which a native of Athens might have found it difficult to understand. Such as it is, it has operated to give character to the style of the New Testament, and forms in fact one of the most important means of its critical illustration. The book,' says Michaelis, ' most necessary to be read and understood by every man who studies the New Testament, is, without doubt, the Septuagint, which alone has been of more service than all the passages from the profane authors collected together. It should be read in the public schools by those who are destined for the church, should form

the subject of a course of lectures at the University, and be the constant companion of an expositor of the New Testament.' This is confirmed by the testimony of Dr. Adam Clarke, who, in speaking of his biblical labours, says, 'About the year 1785 I began to read the Septuagint regularly, in order to acquaint myself more fully with the phraseology of the New Testament. The study of this version served more to expand and illuminate my mind than all the theological works I had ever consulted. I had proceeded but a short way in it, before I was convinced that the prejudices against it were utterly unfounded; and that it was of incalculable advantage towards a proper understanding of the literal sense of the Scripture.' (Comment. vol. I. Gen. Pref.) A marked difference of style in its different parts indicates the version to have been the work not of one but of several translators, and to have been executed at different times. In all, however, the Greek abounds with Hebraisms, and errors are by no means infrequent, particularly in the right construction of the original. This in many instances can only be resolved into absolute incapacity on the score of knowledge and general qualification for the task assumed. Yet very many parts are excellently translated. The first place in the scale of merit is due to the version of the Pentateuch, which far surpasses that of the other books. The translator has for the most part religiously followed the Hebrew text, and has in various instances introduced the most suitable and best chosen expressions. Next to the Pentateuch, for ability and fidelity of execution, ranks the translation of the book of Proverbs, the author of which was well skilled in the two languages. Michaelis is of opinion that of all the books of the Septuagint this is the best; the most ingenious thoughts being clothed in as neat and elegant language as was ever used by a Pythagorean sage, to express his philosophic maxims. The books of Judges, Ruth, Samuel, and Kings, seem to have been translated by one who does not admit more Hebraisms than the other translators, but has several other peculiarities. The Psalms and Prophets, according to Jahn, have been translated by men who were unequal to their task. The version of Jeremiah he considers better than the rest; those of Amos and Ezekiel deserve the next place, and the last must be given to that of Isaiah. The version of Ecclesiastes is remarkable for its being closely literal. In that of Job, additions have been made to those parts of the books which are in prose, while the poetical parts are deficient in scores of passages. The translation of Daniel was so very erroneous, that it was totally rejected by the ancient church, and Theodotion's version substituted instead of it. The Septuagint version, however, which was for a long time supposed to have been lost, was discovered and published at Rome in 1772, from which it appears that its author had but an imperfect knowledge of the Hebrew language.-It may interest a portion of our readers to be informed that the only complete translation of the Septuagint into English was made by a countryman of our own, Charles Thomson, Esq. Secretary to Congress in the time of the Revolutionary war. Though faithfully and creditably executed, yet it is to be regarded rather as a literary curiosity, than as a work of much practical utility to the biblical student. It was printed at Philadelphia, in 1808, in 4 vols. 8vo, and has now become extremely scarce. Our quotations from this version, in the body of the work, are so numerous as to render additional specimens, for illustrating its style, unnecessary.-Perhaps the best edition for common use is that of Leipsic by Leander Van Ess.

(c.) THE VULGATE.-This is the appellation given to the common Latin translation of the sacred Scriptures. After Christianity extended itself in the West, a Latin version of the Bible naturally became necessary. In the time of Augustine there were several of these; although only one of them was adopted by ecclesiastical authority. This was called Vulgata, common, popular, because it was made from the Greek version, also denominated Kotvn common. In modern times this ancient Latin version is often called Itala (Italic) in consequence of a passage in Augustine; but the reading there is false, and it should be read usitata. This translation was made literally from the Septuagint, and gives, most conscientiously, even all the verbal mistakes of the Greek. There are still extant of it the Psalms, Job, and some of the apocryphal books complete, besides fragments. As the manuscripts of this version had become by degrees very much corrupted, a revision of the Psalter and book of Job was undertaken in A. D. 383, by Jerome in pursuance of an appointment to the work by Damasus bishop of Rome. This is still extant, and called Psalterium Romanum, because it was introduced into the Roman diocese. While Jerome was thus employed in the revision of the ancient Vulgata, or Itala, he ventured to commence also, a new version of his own, out of the original' Hebrew; being induced to the undertaking partly by the counsel of his friends, and partly by his own feeling of the necessity of such a work. He began with the Books of Kings, and completed the work, A. D. 405, with Jeremiah. While engaged in this work, he enjoyed the oral instruction of learned Jewish Rabbins in Palestine, and availed himself of all the former Greek versions and of the Hexapla of Origen. His new version surpasses all the preceding in usefulness. The knowledge of Hebrew which Jerome possessed was, for the age, very respectable; and he also made himself master of the Chaldee. His manner of explanation connects itself very closely with that of the Jews; and his choice of Latin expressions is, for the most part, very happy. Still, the production did not meet with the anticipated success and general reception; and especially Augustine and Rufinus wrote against it with virulence, as if a new Bible were about to be introduced. Nevertheless, the new version maintained itself along with the ancient one; and at length, in the seventh century, supplanted it almost entirely.

The Vulgate was the first book ever printed. The first edition is without date or place; the first with a date was printed at Mayence, 1462. At the council of Trent, in 1545, the Vulgate was declared to be the standard version of the Catholic church, and to be of equal authority with the original Scriptures. Since this time, the study of the original text has been regarded by the Catholics as a verging towards heresy. The Vulgate at present consists of different elements; the Psalms and most of the apocryphal books being from the ancient version, or Itala, and the rest from the latter Vulgate. The popes have taken great pains to obtain as correct a text of the Vulgate as possible; thus, in 1590, under Sixtus V., appeared the Editio Sixtina, which was declared to be the standard for all future editions. But many errors being afterwards discovered in it, the popes purchased up all the copies, so far as possible, and a new standard, the Editio Clementina, was published in 1592, which still retains its authority.

The great value of this version, which among Protestants has been underra ted from the circumstance of its being so highly regarded by the Catholics, arises from its extreme antiquity. It is a consideration, of no small weight that even.

the latest part of it was made upwards of fourteen hundred years ago, and is consequently many centuries prior to all the Latin translations now current, none of which can claim a date earlier than the revival of letters in the West. There are two things in this circumstance which powerfully tend to recommend the Vulgate version. (1.) Having been made from manuscripts older than most, perhaps than any now extant, it serves in some degree to supply the place of those manuscripts and to furnish us with the probable means of discovering the genuine ancient readings. For this reason this translation is usually considered as equivalent to a manuscript of the fourth century. (2.) From its having been executed long before those controversies arose which are the foundation of most of the sects now existing, we may rest assured, that, in regard to these, there will be no bias from party zeal to either side of the question; which cannot be said of the translations which have been made since the rise of Protestantism, either by Protestants or Papists.

From the fact of its having been solemnly declared by the Council of Trent, in 1545, as the standard version of the Catholic church, and from some few passages having been produced which seem to favour the abuses and corruptions of that church, the impression became very common that the Vulgate is a Popish Bible, calculated for supporting the Roman Catholic cause. Now although it is certain that besides many barbarisms and solecisms, there are several expressions occurring in this version which vary widely from the original, and seem to favour the false dogmas of the papacy, yet it can as little be doubted that in most of these cases there is nothing more than a perversion of the phrase from its primitive and genuine sense, occasioned by the corruptions which have subsequently and gradually crept into the church. From the changes incident to all languages, it sometimes happens, that words which expressed the true sense at the time when a translation was made, come afterwards to express a different sense. As institutions change, the meaning of terms applied to them changes also. Consequently, though those terms were once a proper version of the words in the original, they are not so now, having acquired a new, adventitious sense, totally different from that which they formerly conveyed. Thus, for example, it cannot well be questioned that the Latin phrase 'penitentiam agite,' do penance, is in itself as correct a rendering of the Gr. peravoe as the language admits and implies as much at least as the English word repent. But the erroneous notions which early found their way into the church in respect to the virtue of auricular confession and of various public exercises as a testimony of repentance, led at length to a total misapplication of the original phrase, which has been unhappily perpetuated by ecclesiastical usage and authority. The same may be said of several other modes of expression occurring in the Vulgate, which may reasonably be pronounced, on the whole, a good and faithful version, though unequal in style, often lacking in purity and perspicuity, and not seldom erroneous in its renderings. As to the enormously corrupt translation of Heb. 11. 21, which represents Jacob as 'adoring the top of his staff,' instead of 'worshiping, leaning on the top of his staff,' the best judges among the Roman Catholics admit that the Latin text is not entire in this place, and that there has been an accidental omission of the preposition through the carelessness of transcribers; for they have not now a writer of any name who infers from the declaration of authenticity, either the infallibility of the translator or the exactness of the copiers. 2*

As to the prejudices which have arisen against this version on the ground' of its having been officially authenticated by the council of Trent, and made the standard of ultimate appeal, the following remarks of Campbell (Prelim. Dissert. X. part 3. § 6), are well worthy of consideration. It is no further back than the sixteenth century since that judgment was given in approbation of this version, the first authoritative declaration made in its favour. Yet the estimation in which it was universally held throughout the western churches, was, to say the least, not inferior, before that period, to what it is at present. And we may say with truth, that though no judicious Protestant will think more favourably of this translation on account of their verdict, neither will he, on this account, think less favourably of it. It was not because this version was peculiarly adapted to the Romish system that it received the sanction of that synod, but because it was the only Bible with which the far greater part of the members had, from their infancy, had the least acquaintance. There were but few in that assembly who understood either Greek or Hebrew: they had heard that the Protestants, the new heretics, as they called them, had frequent recourse to the original, and were beginning to make versions from it; a practice of which their own ignorance of the original made them the more jealous. Their fears being thus alarmed, they were exceedingly anxious to interpose their authority, by the declaration above-mentioned, for preventing new translations being obtruded on the people. They knew what the Vulgate contained, and had been early accustomed to explain it in their own way; but they did not know what might be produced from new translations: therefore, to preoccupy men's minds, and prevent every true son of the church from reading other, especially modern, translations, and from paying any regard to what might be urged from the original, the very indefinite sentence was pronounced in favour of the Vulgate, that in all disputes it should be held for authentic, ut pro authentica habeatur.'' On the whole, therefore, we ought not to consider the version in question, as either better or worse for their verdict. It is not intrinsically calculated to support Romish errors and corruptions, nor ought it to be regarded as the exclusive property of that church. It is the legacy of the earliest ages of Christianity to the universal church, much older than most of the false doctrines and groundless ceremonies which it has been brought to countenance. For my own part,' say the writer Just cited, though it were my sole purpose, in recurring to a version, to refute the corruptions and absurdities of Popery, I should not desire other or better arguments than I am supplied with by that very version which one of their own councils has declared authentical.'

§ 4. Modern Versions.-The English..

Referring to other sources for a more extended historical view of the earlier English translations of the Scriptures, we propose to notice only the present Authorised Version, which it is well known, was undertaken at the command of king James the First, of England, in consequence of several objections having been made, at the conference held in Hampton Court, in 1603, to the Bishop's Bible, which had previously been the one in common use. In pursuance of a resolution adopted the following year, the king gave orders that a new translation should be undertaken, and fifty-four men, pre-eminently distinguished for