the version of Symmachus; and sometimes from two or three together. But, in every case, the initial letter of each translator's name was placed immediately after the asterisk, to indicate the source whence such supplementary passage was taken. And in lieu of the very erroneous Septuagint version of Daniel, Theodotion's translation of that book was inserted entire.

Further, not only the passages wanting in the Septuagint were supplied by Origen with the asterisks, as above noticed, but also where that version does not appear accurately to express the Hebrew original, having noted the former reading with an obelus,, he added the correct rendering from one of the other translators, with an asterisk subjoined. Concerning the shape and uses of the lemniscus and hypolemniscus, two other marks used by Origen, there is so great a difference of opinion among learned men, that it is difficult to determine what they were.

In the Pentateuch, Origen compared the Samaritan text with the Hebrew as received by the Jews, and noted their differences. To each of the translations inserted in his Hexapla was prefixed an account of the author; each had its separate prolegomena; and the ample margins were filled with notes. A few fragments of these prolegomena and marginal annotations have been preserved; but nothing remains of his history of the Greek versions.

Since Origen's time, biblical critics have distinguished two editions or exemplars of the Septuagint—the Kown or common text, with all its errors and imperfections, as it existed previously to his collation; and the Hexaplar text, or that corrected by Origen himself. For nearly fifty years was this great man's stupendous work buried in a corner of the city of Tyre, probably on account of the very great expense of transcribing forty or fifty volumes, which far exceeded the means of private individuals; and here, perhaps, it might have perished in oblivion, if Eusebius and Pamphilus had not discovered it, and deposited it in the library of Pamphilus the martyr, at Cæsarea, where Jerome saw it about the middle of the fourth century. As we have no account whatever of Origen's autograph, after this time, it is most probable that it perished in the year 653, on the capture of that city by the Arabs; and a few imperfect fragments, collected from manuscripts of the Septuagint and the Catena of the Greek fathers, are all that now remain of a work, which in the present improved state of sacred literature, would most eminently have assisted in the interpretation and criticism of the Old Testament.

As the Septuagint version had been read in the Church from the commencement of Christianity, so it continued to be used in most of the Greek churches; and the text, as corrected by Origen, was transcribed for their use, together with his critical marks. Hence, in the progress of time, from the negligence or inaccuracy of copyists, numerous errors were introduced into this version, which rendered a new revisal necessary; and, as all the Greek churches did not receive Origen's biblical labors with equal deference, three principal recensions were undertaken nearly at the same time, of which we are now to offer a brief notice.

The first was the edition, undertaken by Eusebius and Pamphilus about the year 300, from the Hexaplar text, with the whole of Origen's critical marks; it was not only adopted by the churches of Palestine, but was also deposited in almost every library. By frequent transcriptions, however, Origen's marks or notes became, in the course of a few years, so much changed, as to be of little use, and were finally omitted; this omission only augmented the evil, since even in the time of Jerome it was no longer possible to know what belonged to the translators, or what were Origen's own corrections; and now it may almost be considered as a hopeless task to distinguish between them. Contemporary with the edition of Eusebius and Pamphilus, was the recension of the Kown, or Vulgate text of the Septuagint, conducted by Lucian, a presbyter of the Church at Antioch, who suffered martyrdom A. D. 311. He took the Hebrew text for the basis of his edition, which was received in all the Eastern churches from Constantinople to Antioch. While Lucian was prosecuting his biblical labors, Hesychius, an Egyptian bishop, undertook a similar work, which was generally received in the churches of Egypt. He is supposed to have introduced fewer alterations than Lucian; and his edition is cited by Jerome as the Exemplar Alexandrinum. All the manuscripts of the Septuagint now extant, as well as the printed editions, are derived from the three recensions above mentioned, although biblical critics are by no means agreed what particular recension each manuscript has followed.

There are four principal printed editions of the Septuagint. The first in time and excellence was that of Cardinal Ximenes, printed in his Polyglott, in 1517.

The printing of this splendid and celebrated work, usually called the Complutensian Polyglott, was commenced in 1502. Though completed in 1517, it was not published until 1522, and it cost

the munificent cardinal Ximenes 50,000 ducats. This Polyglott is usually divided into six volumes. The first four comprise the Old Testament, with the Hebrew, Latin, and Greek, in three distinct columns, the Chaldee paraphrase being at the bottom of a page with a Latin interpretation; and the margin is filled with Hebrew and Chaldee radicals. The fifth volume contains the Greek Testament, with the Vulgate Latin version in a parallel column; in the margin there is a kind of concordance, referring to similar passages in the Old and New Testa

ments.

The second principal edition is called the ALDINE EDITION, published in Venice in 1518. It was called Aldine from the printer Aldus Manutius, though it did not appear till two years after his death, and was executed under the care of Andreas Asulanus, the father-in-law of Aldus Manutius. This edition was much copied by the protestants, who, therefore, endeavor to exalt it above the Complutensian text, but foundation is lacking for such excellence.

The third principal edition in order of time, though first in excellence is that called the sixtine edition. It was undertaken at the suggestion of Cardinal Montaltus, during the reign of Gregory XIII., and when, at the death of Gregory, Montaltus ascended the papal throne under the name of Sixtus V., he brought the work to completion and hence it bears his Its full title is Ἡ Παλαια Διαθηκη, κατα τους Ἑβδομη κοντα δι' αυθεντιας Ξυστου Ε. Ακρου Αρχιερεως εκδοθείσα. Vetus Testamentum Græcum, juxta LXX Interpretes, studio Antonii Cardinalis CARAFE, ope virorum doctorum adjuti, cum prefatione et scholiis Petri Morini. Romæ ex Typographia Francisci Zannetti, 1586, folio.

name.

It is a beautiful edition, of great rarity and value. It contains 783 pages of text, preceded by four leaves of preliminary matter, which are followed by another (subsequently added), entitled Corrigenda in notationibus Psalterii. This last mentioned leaf is not found in the copies bearing the date of 1586, which also want the privilege of Pope Sixtus V. dated May 9th, 1587, at whose request and under whose auspices it was undertaken by Cardinal Antonio Carafa, aided by Antonio Agelli, Peter Morinus, Fulvio Ursino, Robert Bellarmin, Cardinal Sirleti, and others. The celebrated Codex Vaticanus 1209 was the basis of the Roman or Sixtine edition, as it is usually termed. The first forty-six chapters of Genesis, together with some of the Psalms, and the book of Maccabees, being obliterated from the Vatican manuscript through extreme age, the

editors are said to have supplied this deficiency, by compiling those parts of the Septuagint from a manuscript out of Cardinal Bessarion's library, and from another which was brought to them from Calabria. So great was the agreement between the latter and the Codex Vaticanus, that they were supposed to have been transcribed, either the one from the other, or both from the same copy. Various readings are given to each chapter. This edition contains the Greek text only. In 1588, Flaminio Nobili printed at Rome in folio, Vetus Testamentum secundum LXX. Latine redditum. This Latin version was not composed by him, but compiled out of the fragments of the ancient Latin translations, especially the Old Italian. It is a splendid volume, and of considerable rarity. The Roman edition was re-printed at Paris, in 1628, in three folio volumes; the New Testament in Greek and Latin, forms the third volume. This reprint is in great request, not only for the neatness and correctness of its execution, but also for the learned notes which accompany it.

The fourth of these principal editions is that published by Grabe, at Oxford. This edition exhibits the text of the celebrated Codex Alexandrinus, now deposited in the British Museum. Though Grabe prepared the whole for the press, yet he only lived to publish the Octateuch, forming the first volume of the folio edition, in 1707, and the fourth volume containing the metrical books, in 1709. The second volume, comprising the historical books, was edited by Francis Lee, M. D., in 1719; and the third volume, including the prophetical books, by W. Wigan, in 1720. This edition gives a representation of the Alexandrian Manuscript where it was perfect; but where it was defective and incorrect, the passages supplied and the corrected readings are given, partly from the Codex Vaticanus, and partly from the Complutensian edition, in a smaller character than that employed in the text.

Tischendorf judged unfavorably of the work since the author gave excessive credit to Codex A, and imitated the Hexapla of Origen. The work has failed to obtain a lasting place as a great work of Scripture.

CHAPTER XXI.

VERSIONS DERIVED FROM THE SEPTUAGINT.

While the Covenant of God was restricted to the Jewish race, the Hebrew and Septuagint texts sufficed for the world. But when the Message of Christ spread abroad through the the nations, there arose a need for other versions of Scripture.

Among these old versions, the first in order of time and excellence, is the old Latin version, commonly called the VETUS ITALA.

The origin of this version is involved in obscurity, and like many questions of its kind, furnishes a theme for many different learned conjectures. We shall be content to briefly set forth the most probable data.

The language in which the message of Christ was first presented to the Roman world, was Greek. Sufficient evidence warrants the conclusion that the liturgical language of Italy for the first two centuries was Greek. De Rossi believes that

it was not till toward the close of the third century that Greek was superseded by Latin in the Western Church.* But in Pro-consular Africa, though the language of the masses was Punic, the liturgical language must have been Latin from the earliest times. This has led many to assign Africa as the place of origin of the Itala. Wiseman, Hug, Maier, Hagen, Lehir, Himpel and Cornely support such opinion. Reithmayr, Gams and Kaulen place the origin of the version in Italy. The supporters of the first opinion allege that the version would originate where it was needed, and it would be assigning too late a date to the version, to place it in the epoch of the decline of the Greek language in the West. They say, moreover, that the diction of the Vetus Itala, is like to that of Tertullian. Against this it may be urged that Greek never was the language of the masses in Italy, and that the low, humble diction of the Vetus Itala shows that it was not the work of savants; and it bears evidence that it was especially intended for the humbler classes, and was most probably made by men of limited literary ability. Its Latinity is exceedingly barbarous, so that Arnobius felt called upon to defend it against the ridicule of the pagans. This very fact proves that it was not made by the principal men in the Church, but by private individuals for private use, while Greek held the post of the authentic Scripture of the Church. Moreover, the barbarisms of the Vetus Itala, are by no means simply Africanisms, but are found in all the low Latin of the first centuries. I believe that if the edition were made in Africa, where Latin was the liturgical language, as they contend, it

*G. B. de Rossi (Roma Sotteranea, Roma 1867, II. p. 236 sq.): "L'uso costante della lingua greca in quegli epitaffi (dei romani pontefici) è prova manifesta, che greco fu il linguaggio ecclesiastico della chiesa romana nel secolo * Circa la fine del secolo terzo, o volgendo il quarto, la greca lingua ecclesiastica cedette in Roma il luogo alla latina."

terzo.

*

*