A HANDY DICTIONARY Of The HOLY BIBLE

By the REV. WILLIAM GURNEY, A.M. & Revised and Edited by REV. J.G. WRENCH, A.M.

Published By - WILLIAM TEGG - LONDON : not dated

Based on the GURNEY'S Dictionary written 80 years previously

BIBLE

The name commonly given to the collection of sacred writings, which are the standard and of our faith and practice. It is called by the Jews the Mikra or Lesson Reading ; the Christians often designate it the sacred books; the oracles of God the volume of inspiration : the book of God, etc. It was always distinguished into books, but not into chapters and verses, as at present It appears from Tertullian Clemens of Alexandria, and others that in the early ages of Christianity it was divided into short paragraphs. The division into its present form of chapters is generally ascribed to Cardinal Hugo-de Sanctos Caro, in the 13th century, and perhaps more justly to Langton Archbishop of Canterbury, 1220 But it is plain from the work of Theophylact on the gospels, that it must have taken place at least 200 years sooner with respect to some kind of chapters. Such as believe the authenticity of the Hebrew punctuation, suppose the Old Testament to have been always divided: into verses; but these were not numbered as now, till perhaps Rabbi Mordecai Nathan published his Hebrew concordance, about A.D. 1450. About 1551 Robert Stephens, a French printer, divided the New Testament into verses. It is therefore no wonder this division into chapters and verses is not altogether perfect, nor is it -any crime to correct it. The chapters of the Hebrew Old Testament, and of translations, do not always correspond It has been calculated that there are 23,214 verses in the Old Testament, and 7959 in the-New. The division of the New Testament into sections by Doddridge is not injudicious

.
At present our Bible consists of the Old and the New testaments, the former was written before, and the latter since, the incarnation of Christ: the former, excepting apart of Ezra and Daniel, and a verse of Jeremiah, written in Chaldaic, are in the Hebrew language. The latter is written in Greek but of very different style from that of Homer and other celebrated authors. Both were written in the language which was then best known to the church of God: a sure token that every nation to which the gospel comes, should have permission to read the Scriptures in its own language.

Whether the Old Testament was written in the Chaldaic character, in which it now appears, or in the Samaritan ; and whether the vowel and disjunctive points be of divine authority or not, has been warmly debated. In both cases I incline to the former sentiment ; but I readily allow that our opponents have produced no inconsiderable array of arguments on their side ; and that sundry of our learned supporters have unwarily carried the affair of the points too far, and so rendered their cause less defensible.

About the time of our Saviour the Jews divided their Bible into 22 books, corresponding to the 22 letters of their alphabet, viz., the five-backs of Moses, thirteen of the Prophets, Proverbs; thirteen of- the Prophets, Joshua, Judges and Ruth, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, Isaiah; Jeremiah and Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel the twelve- lesser prophets, Job, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther; and four Hagiographs, or holy writings; Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon. Thus, the law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms, was a phrase suited to comprehend the whole, Luke xxiv. 44. The modern Jews reckon 24 books, which they suppose to have three different degrees of authority.

To the five books of Moses they ascribe the highest authority. To the former prophets, i.e., the writers of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and to the latter, viz., Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the books of the lesser ones, they ascribe a lower inspiration and authority. To the other eleven books - Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther. Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles - they ascribe scarcely any proper inspiration, but a mere superintendence of God's Spirit, which left the writers in a great measure to the direction of their own reason. The Christian division of the Old Testament is far more sensible. The historical books, which are plain and at the same time necessary for the understanding of the doctrines and predictions, are placed first. These extend up to Esther. The doctrinal books, ending with Solomon's Song, are placed in the middle. The prophetic books, to the knowledge of which an acquaintance with both histories and doctrines is necessary, are placed last in order. But in all the three parts, histories, doctrines, and predictions, are often mixed.

Several books mentioned in Scripture, as those of Jasher, of the wars of the Lord, and the Annals of the kings of Israel and Judah are now lost. But they never had more than human authority. Just before Josiah's reign, the canonical books then extant seem to have been mostly destroyed; hence he and his court were much surprised at the contents of a book of the law, perhaps an original manuscript authenticated copy, found in the house of the Lord, 2 Kings xxii. 8, xxiii 2; 2 Chron. xxxiv.14, 30. No doubt a variety of copies were soon transcribed from it. It is pretended without good reason that the inspired writings were lost during the Chaldean captivity, and restored by Ezra. Daniel had the Book of Jeremiah to peruse, chap. ix. 2. Can we doubt that other godly persons also had copies, or can we suppose that even the Samaritans were without copies of the law? It is nevertheless probable that Ezra, inspired by God, corrected a copy of the sacred books, and caused others to be transcribed from his work. To elucidate the history, he added various sentences, and sometimes changed the ancient names of cities or persons into such as were modern. Whether he added the vowel points, and the keri ketib, i.e., the various readings or marginal corrections, to the number of 900 or 1000, or at least some of them, we dare not decide. As the Book of Nehemiah (xii. xo, 11) carries down the genealogy of the high-priests, and that of 1st Chronicles (iii. 19, etc.) the line of Zerubbabel to near the time of Alexander the Great, it is probable the books of Malachi, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and Chronicles, were admitted into the sacred canon more than 100 years after Ezra's death.

The Jews divided the Pentateuch, or law of Moses, into 54 sections, answerable to the number of Sabbaths in their third or intercalated year. In other years they joined two short sections, on two different Sabbaths, that they might publicly read the whole law every year in their assemblies for worship. They subdivided it into a number of lesser sections, where it seems their readers stopped to give the sense, or hand the book to another. About B.C. 168, Antiochus prohibited the reading of the law; they therefore substituted fifty-four sections of the prophets in its stead. After Judas Maccabeus restored their worship, the two were conjoined, and a section of the law and another of the prophets were read every Sabbath.

The manuscript Bibles of the Jews in Spain are far more correct than those of Germany; but scarce any of either are thought above 600 or 700 years old. In the 16th century of the Christian era, Bomberg printed a vast number of Hebrew Bibles, in 4 to and folio. The folio edition, 1548, with the Masora, Chaldee paraphrases, and commentaries of Jarchi, Aben Ezra, and David Kimchi, is the most exact, From this, about 70 years after, Buxtorf and Leo Modena printed their Rabbinic Bibles at Basle and Venice. Innumerable Hebrew Bibles, in almost every form, have been printed. That of Leusden and Athias, in 1667, has a glorious character; but none in exactness is equal to that of Menasseh Ben-Israel, 1634, and especially that of Van der Hooght in 1705. Nor are those of Proops, Jablonski, Opitius, Michaelis, Reineccius, and Simon, inexact, especially the first. Houbigant's large Bible abounds too much with pretended rectification of the text, often upon mere conjecture. Kennicott has, with infinite labour, compared about 6oo manuscripts of the Old Testament.

When the Jews in their captivity had learned the language of Chaldea, and forgotten part of their own, it was necessary that the reader of the law should stop at the end of a sentence, and give the sense, Neh. viii. 8. This produced a variety of paraphrases or Targums, but no literal translation of the Bible into the Chaldean tongue. That of Onkelos on the, Pentateuch, or five books of Moses, composed about the time of our Saviour, is by far the most literal and sensible. The Targum of Jerusalem on the same books, is written in a very obscure language, and we have no more than shreds of it. Another large paraphrase on the Pentateuch, mixed with plenty of fables, is ascribed to Jonathan the son of Uzziel, though, if we can judge by the style, it is none of his. It is called the Targum of the pseudo Jonathan has indeed a paraphrase on the former and latter prophets, which is far from contemptible. The author of the paraphrase on the Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther, is not certainly known. It is pretty large, frequently useful, and not seldom whimsical. There is also a Targum on the two books of Chronicles. Its importance I know not.

The Samaritans, whom the Assyrians placed in the land of Israel, have a double Pentateuch; one in Hebrew language, but Samaritan characters, little different from the Hebrew, except in the portion which treats of the patriarchs before Abraham, and in what relates to mount Gerizim, and in a number of inaccuracies: another in their own language, which is a corrupt Hebrew or Chaldaic. This last is not altogether despicable.

According to Aristobulus, the pentateuch and Joshua, if not other books, must have been translated into Greek before the time of Alexander the Great; and it is supposed the Grecian philosophers borrowed a part of their knowledge from them? The Greek version ascribed to seventy interpreters was not composed till a considerable time after. Could we believe Aristeas, Josephus, Philo, Justin Martyr, and Epiphanius, it was done by 72 Jewish interpreters, at the demand of Ptolemy Philadelphus king of Egypt, to be placed in his library. When the translations came to be compared, it was found that they all agreed word for word, in a way to be accounted for on no other supposition than that the 72 were divinely inspired. But the evident marks of fable interwoven with the accounts of reliability, the vast differences in various parts, of that version, the obvious inaccuracy of the greater part of it, do sufficiently refute it. It is more probable that the Pentateuch was translated for the use of those Jews. who had built a temple, and established the worship of their country, at Heliopolis in Egypt, about 150 years before our Saviour's birth; and that the rest of the Septuagint, the rendering of which is far less exact, was translated by various hands. This version, however, paved the way for the spread of the gospel, and was very much used in the primitive church, as well as among the Hellenist Jews, and is still of great use for settling the meaning of some Hebrew words. The principal printed editions of it are, (1) The Complutensian, published by Cardinal Ximenes, A.D. 1515. It was altered in a variety of places, to make it correspond with the Hebrew; and so is the best version in Greek, but not the true Septuagint. (2) The Venetian, printed from many manuscripts, A.D. 1518. It has been reprinted at Strasburgh, Basle, etc., and altered in some places to bring it nearer the Hebrew. (3) The Vatican, printed at Rome, 1587, from a fine manuscript of the pope's library. This text, as well as the various readings of the excellent Alexandrian manuscript, are inserted in Walton's Polyglot. (4) Grabe's copy of the Alexandrian MS., printed at Oxford, 1707. Sometimes he altered the text as he thought fit.

Christianity had scarcely spread in the world, when new translations of the Old Testament were published in Greek. About A.D. 160, Aquila, of Pontus, a proselyte from Christianity to Judaism, published a very literal translation, perhaps out of hatred to the Christians, who had excommunicated him. About 200, Symmachus, who by turns was a Jew, a Samaritan, a Christian, and Ebionite, or, according to another account, simply an Ebionite, published another version, adhering to the sense rather than to the letter. Not long after Aquila Theodotion, an Ebionite, published another, in which he took a middle position between the two former, his version being neither quite literal nor too far distant from it; and so preferable to them both. There were three other Greek versions, whose authors are not known. In the fourth century, Lucian Martyr, Hesychius, and Sophronius, made each of them a translation

The New Testament, in its original Greek, has had an infinity of editions. Those of the Complutensian Polyglot founded on the MSS. at Alcala, of Erasmus, Stephens, and Beza, have been generally copied by others. Those of Mill, Kuster, Wetstein, and Bengelius, with the various readings, are the most valuable ( Among the most recent editors of the New Testament are to be named Griesbach, Lachmann, Tichendorf, and Tregelles. New Testament criticism has advanced greatly, both in its principles and in its conclusions, since this paragraph was written . - Ed. ) Mill has shown surprising care to collect as many readings as he could, to the number of about 30,000, for which he has been abused by some critics, severely: chastised by Whitby, and candidly corrected by Bengelius. The two latter editors have omitted thousands of the most trifling. This vast number of various readings is so far from weakening the authority of Scripture, that it mightily confirms it. They have been collected by the friends of Christianity, an act which shows their scrupulous exactness in trying their own cause. Not one of the vast multitude tends to overthrow one article of faith, they deal with accents, letters, syllables, and things of smaller moment; and by comparing a multitude of copies the genuine reading is easily established. Of the books of the New Testament, the first five are historical, the next twenty-one epistolary, and the last is prophetic. Some heretics have attempted to add spurious gospels, acts, and epistles; but these were always rejected by the Christian church.

The Syriac version of the whole Scripture is important, ancient, and useful. It is pretended that Solomon procured for the Syrians a version of the inspired books then extant; and that Abgarus king of Edessa, soon after the death of our Saviour, had a version made of the rest of the Old Testament it is far more probable that the Christians of Antioch caused the whole to be translated about AD. 100. It is certain the version is ancient. In the Old Testament, it too often leaves the original Hebrew, to follow the Samaritan or Septuagint. It leaves out the titles of the Psalms, to insert their contents. Besides there is a Syriac version of the Old Testament done from the LXX.

In the first ages of Christianity, the Romans, and other Western churches, had a variety of Latin translations. One called the Vulgate, and translated almost word for word from the Septuagint, was most generally received. Jerome, the only father of the Latin church who seems to have understood the Hebrew language to purpose, formed a new version from the originals. This being better, was in some churches preferred to the Vulgate. Some contention about the two versions arising, the Vulgate was corrected by the version of Jerome, and so one made of both. This, a good deal corrupted by the scribes, is used by the Romish church, having received the sanction of authenticity from the Council of Trent.. Pope Sixtus, however afterward corrected some thousands of faults in it, and Clement VIII., his successor, added some thousands more of corrections, some of which are for the worse. Nor is Bellarmine mistaken in vowing, that a number of places need a farther amendment. Jerome's own version was published at Paris in 1693, ky Martianay and Pouget.

Chrysostom and Theodoret assure us, that the Old and New Testament were, in their time, found in the Syrian, Indian, Persian, Armenian, Ethiopic, Scythian, and Samaritan languages. About A.D 900 or later, Saadias Gaon, a Jew, translated the Old Testament into Arabic. Another Jew of Mauritania translated the Pentateuch; and Erpenius printed his work. A bishop of Seville formed an Arabic translation about 719. Risius, a monk and Romish bishop of Damascus, also translated the New Testament. Another Christian who lived in Egypt formed another translation. Who were the authors of the Arabic version in the London Polyglot, we know not. It has been generally done from the Alexandrian Greek copy, and is not exact, but nevertheless useful.
The Ethiopians of Abyssinia have a version of the whole Bible, which they ascribe to Frumentius,:a bishop of the fourth century. In that part of the Ethiopic Old Testament which we are acquainted with, it much corresponds with the Alexandrian copy of the Septuagint. The New is far from exact; but whether owing to the copy from which it was delivered or to the ignorance of the printer or the corrector, we dare not determine. It is certain the Ethiopian who inspected the printing of the Roman edition, 1548, complains grievously, that he understood not the art of printing, and that the workmen understood not the language, and scarcely the letters.

The Copts, or remnant of the ancient Egyptians, have a pretty ancient translation of the Bible. The Old Testament is done with considerable exactness from the Alexandrian Septuagint, but never printed as a whole, that I know of. The New Testament was printed at Oxford in 1716. But Jablonski and La Craze have a low opinion of this work, especially of the Latin translation.
The Persians have some manuscript versions of the Bible. The Pentateuch by Rabbi Jacob, a Jew, and the Gospels by Simon, a Christian, are inserted in the London Polyglot. Neither are ancient; and the last is far from being correct.
The Armenians have a translation of the Old Testament, done from the Septuagint by Miesroh and two others, about 1400 years ago. It was done from the Syriac and Greek. In 1666, corrected or corrupted from the Vulgate, it was printed at Amsterdam, under the direction of an Armenian bishop. Theodorus Patreus issued an edition of an Armenian New Testament, at Antwerp, 1668, and of the whole Bible in 1670.

The Georgians have the Bible in their ancient language; but that being now almost obsolete, and themselves generally ignorant, few of them can either read or understand it. The Russians have the Bible in their Sclavonic tongue, done from the Greek by Cyril and Methodius, two brothers, their apostles. It was published in 1581 ; but being very obscure, Ernest Glrik, a. Swedish captive, about the end of the 17th century began to form another. He died before he had finished it. Peter, the emperor, ordered a number of his most learned clergy to complete the work. I suppose it was printed, and that the Bibles distributed by royal authority about 1722. were of this translation.

The most ancient German translation is that of Ulphilas bishop of the Goths, about 360; but he left out the books of Kings, lest they should have excited his savage Countrymen to war. In 1665 Junius professed to publish an edition of it, from a manuscript found in the abbey of Verden, written in letters of silver. An anonymous version was printed at Nuremberg in 1466; but Michaelis, La Croze, and Bayer, think this was not the Gothic version of Ulphilas, but one made about 200 years later. Between 1521 and 1532 Luther composed his translation, and published it in several parcels, as the work was ready. Some persons of quality,. masters of the German language, revised it. Two popish versions, the one by Eckius of the Old and by Emzer of the New Testament, and another of Ulembergius, were published, to sink the credit of Luther's; but the Protestants of Germany and Switzerland still use it, a little corrected. About 1660 a project was started to correct it; but I suppose the death of the great Hottinger rendered that design abortive. Simon, however, tells us that this work was carried through, and. that its sense is. much the same as that of Leo Juda. About 1604 Piscator turned the Latin translation of Junius and Tremellius into a kind of German, but too much Latinized. About 1529 the Anabaptists published. their German translation at Worms. In 1630 John Crellius, a Socinian, published his New Testament at Amsterdam, and Felbinger his in 1660. About 1680 Athias published a Hebrew-German translation of the Old Testament made by Joseph Josel, for the sake of his Jewish brethren, and another translation was made by Jekuthiel; but both, especially the latter, distorted. several texts relative to the Messiah, etc. Schmit's German translation appears to have been not much more prized.

The first Polish version of Scripture is ascribed to Hadewich, the wife of Jagellon, duke of Lithuania, who embraced Christianity A.D. 1390. In 1596 the Protestants published. another, formed on Luther's translation. About three years after, James Wiek, a Jesuit, and some of his brethren, published another, more to the Popish taste. The Socinians published two versions to their taste, in 1562 and 1572.

About 1488 the Bohemian Taborites published a Bible in their language, translated from the Vulgate. In the end of the 16th century eight Bohemian divines, after a careful study of the original languages, at Wittenberg and Basle, published a version from the original text

In 1541 Laurence Andreas and Laurence Pete published a Swedish Bible, done from Luther's
German translation. About 1617 Gustavus Adolphus ordered some learned men to revise it. Since which time, it has been almost universally accepted in that kingdom. The translation into the language of Finland, I suppose, was done from it. In 1550 Peter Pelladius, and three others, published a Danish version, done from the German of Luther. In 1605 Paul Resenius, bishop of Zealand, published another. In 1621 John Michel published his version of the New Testament.

The Flemish or Dutch Bibles, composed by Papists, are very numerous; but except that of Nicolas Vink, in 1548, are, for aught I know, all anonymous. The Calvinists of the Low Countries long used a version done from Luther's; but the synod of Dort appointed some learned men to make a new one from the originals. It was published in 1637. Nor do I know of another translation equally exact.

In 1471 an Italian Bible, done from the Vu]gate, by Nicolao Malermi, a Benedictine monk, was published at Venice. Anthonio Bruccioli published another in 1530. The Council of Trent prohibited it. The Protestants have two Italian versions; the one by the celebrated Diodati, published in 1607, and with corrections in 1641. He gives us a half paraphrase. rather than a translation, The other by Antonio Martini in 1769 and 1779.

By an order of King James of Aragon to burn them, we find that there were a number of Bibles in Spanish about 1270; probably the work of the Waldenses. About, 1478 a Spanish version was published, but the translator is unknown. In 1543 Driander published his version of the New Testament, and dedicated it to King Charles the Fifth. After long private use of it, the Jews published their Spanish version of the Old Testament in 1553 Cassiodore, a learned Calvinist, published his Bible in 1569. Cyprian de Valera corrected and republished it in 1602 About A.D. 1160, Peter deVaux. chief of the Waldenses, published the first translation of the Bible in French. About 1290 Guiars de Moulins formed a translation, which, it is probable, Menard published in 1487 ( This was not a version of the scripture but an epitome of Scripture history.-Ed. ). About 1380 Raoul de Presles made another. By order of the Emperor Charles the Fifth, the doctors of Louvain published another, but F. Simon says it scarce differed from that of I 'Empereur, in 1534. Renat Benoist published his French Bible, 1567, and Corbin his in 1643. The first is said to be pirated, and the other to be harsh in its style, adhering too closely to the Vulgate. In 1672 Father Quesuel published his version, with short notes, to point out the literal and spiritual sense. It was received with great applause. The New Testament of Isaac le Maitre de Sacy, sometimes called the Testament of Mons, because it was printed for a bookseller of that town, was founded on the Vulgate, and published in 1667, with the king of Spain and archbishop of Cambray's license. It is in a very clear and agreeable style; but Pope Clement the Ninth and Innocent the Eleventh, with a number of French bishops, prohibited it.

About 1670 Amelotte, pretending to have ransacked the various libraries of Europe, and with great care to have collated the ancient manuscripts, published his New Testament. To his shame, it was found that he had scarcely found any new various readings of. consequence. He himself was obliged to own that he had made the, assertion to procure a sale for his book. In 1697, Bohours and other two Jesuits, published their New Testament; but their strict adherence to the Vulgate has rendered their language harsh and obscure. In 1702 F. Simon published his New Testament, with some literary and critical notes. The archbishop of Paris and Bossuet bishop of Meaux quickly condemned it. Martianay published his New Testament in 1712. There are a number of French: Bibles translated by Protestants. Faber's version of the New Testament was printed for those of Piedmont, in 1534. Next year Peter Olivetan's Bible was published at Neufchatel; and being often reprinted, with the corrections of Calvin and others, is now a work of considerable accuracy. After some struggling among the French Protestant clergy, a version of the Italian Bible of Diodati was published in 1662; but, like his Italian and Latins versions, the translation is too free, and. near to the nature of a paraphrase.Castalio published a translation. in 1655; but both version and language have too much of a foppish levity. Le Clerk published his New Testament at Amsterdam, 1703, with notes, mostly borrowed from Grotius and. Hammond. The States - General prohibited it, on the ground that it inclined to the Sabellian and Socinian heresies. Le Cene published another, which shared much the same fate, on account of its fancies and errors.

About A.D. 709, Adhelm translated the Psalms into Anglo-Saxon. About the same time Eadfrid, translated other parts of Scripture ; and the Venerable Bede translated the Gospels, if not the whole Bible. About 890 King Alfred translated a great part of the Psalms. An Anglo-Saxon version of same books by Elfric, was published in 1699. A version of the Gospels was published by Parker, Archbishop of Canterburry in 1571 ; but the author is unknown.. At the request of Lord Berkeley; John Trevisa translated the Bible into English, and finished his version A.D.1357, or according to others, in 1398. [ It is doubtful whether he translated more than short portions. Ed.] About 1380 John Wickliffe composed his version, which is still extant in several libraries of England. In 1526 Tindal published his New Testament. Most of the copies were bought up for the fire, by Bishop Tonstal and Sir Thomas More. The price enabled Tindal to proceed in the translation of the Old Testament. He was strangled and his body burnt in Flanders, just as he had prepared his Bible for a second edition. John Rogers, afterwards martyr, finished the correction, and printed the Bible at Hamburgh under the name of Thomas Matthew; Cranmer and Miles Coverdale further correcting it. Cranmer got it printed by public authority in England; and King Henry ordered a copy of it to be set up in every church, to be read by every one that pleased. By advice of the popish bishops, he soon after revoked this order, and prohibited the Bible. When Coverdale Knox, Sampson, Woodman, Gilby, Cole, and Whittingham, were exiles, during the Marian persecution, they framed another translation, with short notes, and got it printed at Geneva. It was much valued by the Puritans, and in about thirty years had as many editions. The bishops heartily hated it, and made a new one of their own, which was read in the churches, while the Geneva translation was generally read in families. About 1583 Laurence Thomson published a translation of Beza's New Testament, and annotations. In the end of the 16th and Beginning of the 17th century the English Papists at Rheims published a version of the whole Bible. It was crowded with. barbarous terms, and accompanied by notes calculated to support the papacy nor durst the popish people read even this bad translation without a license from their superiors.

At the Hampton court conference the Puritans suggested unanswerable objections to the Bishops Bible; while King James heartily hated the Genevan translation. He therefore appointed fifty-four learned persons to translate the Scriptures anew, or at least compose a better translation out of the many existing ones. Forty seven of them ranged into six divisions, actually engaged in it, A.D. 1607. After each had translated the portion assigned him, they met together. One read the new version, all the rest meanwhile holding in their hands either copies of the original or some valuable version. Whenever anyone made a remark the reader stopped, till the assembly had considered and agreed on it. in three years they finished their task: and their translation was published in 1610. It is still of public authority in the British dominions, and, next to the Dutch, is the best version extant. Since that time Ainsworth, Doddridge, Wynne, Campbell, Haweis, Lowth, and others, have published their own English versions of part of the sacred books. The Dutch version and the annotations attached to it, have also been translated into our language. About 1630 Bishop Bedell of Kilmore employed a man named King to translate the English Bible into Irish. After it was finished and Bedel had examined it, he was preparing to print it at his own charge, but Archbishop Laud and Lord Strafford prevented him, pretending it would be a reproach for the nation to use the version of so despicable a fellow as King.The manuscript however was not lost, but printed in 1685. Whether the Erse or Gaelic Bibles used in the Highlands of Scotland be nearly the same, I know not.

The Turks have some manuscript translations of the Bible in their language. In 1666 a Turkish New Testament was printed at Oxford, to be dispersed in the East. In 1721 it is said the Grand Signior ordered an edition of Bibles to be issued at Constantinople, that they might be confronted with the Koran, the Mahometan sacred book. About 1661 John Eliot published his translation of the Bible into the language of the Virginian Indians About twenty years after, the honourable Robert Boyle procured a version of the New Testament in the Malayan language, and sent the impression to the East Indies. In 1711 Ziegenbalg and Grindler, Danish missionaries, published their version of the New Testament in the Malabrian language; and afterwards proceeded to translate the Old; but whether it is yet published I know not. The modem Greeks in Turkey have also a translation of the Bible in their language.

Since the Reformation a vast number of Latin versions have been formed by the Papists. Pagnin published his in 1527: it is very literal, and generally exact. Montanus corrections render it still more useful. By the assistance of two persons skilled in Hebrew, Cardinal Cajetan translated part of the Old Testament. Isidorus Clarius undertook to correct the Vulgate from the Hebrew, and asserts he has rectified above 800 passages. Of Protestants, Sebastian Munster published a literal but judicious translation. That of Leo Juda is in more elegant Latin, but is less accurate. Castalio often regards his pompous, if not sometimes foppish Latinity, more than the mind of the Holy Ghost. The translation made by Junius, Tremellius, and Beza is very exact, and has been frequently reprinted. Piscator's version, which he published a little before his death, along with his commentary, is still more so. Schmidt's version is somewhat harsh in the language, but very literal; and, by its numerous supplements, also serves as a kind of commentary. It has been printed along with a coarse edition of Van der Hooght's Hebrew Bible.

For the more ready comparison of different versions, several of them have been sometimes joined together. In his octapla, or eightfold Bible, Origen arranged, in different columns, a Hebrew copy both in Hebrew and Greek characters, with six different Greek versions. Elias Hutter, a German, about the end of the 16th century, published the New Testament in twelve languages, viz., Greek, Hebrew, Synac, Latin, Italian, Spanish, French, German, Bohemian, English, Danish, Polish; and the whole Bible in Hebrew, Chaldaic, Greek, Latin, German, and a varied version. But the most esteemed collections are those in which the originals and ancient translations are conjoined. Such as the Complutensian Bible by Cardinal Ximenes, a Spaniard; the King of Spain's Bible directed by Montanus; the Paris Bible of M. le Jay, a French gentleman, in ten huge volumes folio; copies of which were published in Holland, under the patronage of Pope Alexander the Seventh; and that of Brian Walton, afterward bishop of Chester. This last is the most regular and valuable. It contains the Hebrew and Greek originals, with Montanus interlineary version; the Chaldee paraphrase; the Septuagint; the Samaritan Pentateuch; the Syrian and Arabic Bibles; the Persian Pentateuch and Gospels; the Ethiopic Psalms, the Song of Solomon, and the New Testament, with their respective Latin translations; together with the Latin Vulgate, and a large volume of various readings, to which is ordinarily joined Castell's Heptaglot Lexicon, all included in eight volumes folio.