Latin BIBLE. It is past dispute, that the Latin churches had, even in the first ages, a translation of the Bible in their language, which being the vulgar language, and consequently understood by every one, occasioned a vast number of Latin versions. Among all these, there was one which was generally received, and called by St Jerom the vulgar, or common translation. St Au-
stin gives this version the name of the Italic, and prefers it to all the rest: But we reserve a distinct article for this version. See VULGATE.
St Jerom undertook to revise and correct the Latin version of the Bible; but, having afterwards attained to a more perfect knowledge of the Hebrew language, he set about a new translation of some books of the Old Testament from the Hebrew; and continuing, at the solicitation of his friends, to translate the rest, he at last perfected an entire new version of all the books contained in the Hebrew canon. In his translation, he followed, as nearly as he could, the version of the Septuagint, and retained the very expressions of the ancient vulgar Latin, as far as was consistent with purity of style and true Latinity. This translation was so highly applauded by the Christian church, that some authors have pretended it was brought to perfection by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. But St Augustine looked upon the author to be so well skilled in the Hebrew language, as to be able to undertake, and bring to perfection such a work by the strength of his own abilities. St Jerom's version was soon received in many churches; and in the sixth century it became as general, and in as great esteem, as the ancient Vulgate.
It was not till the sixteenth century that any new Latin translations were made of the Bible from the Hebrew text. Sanctes Pagninus, a Dominican monk, was the first who undertook a new version of the books of scripture from the modern Hebrew text. His design was encouraged by pope Leo X.; and his version made its first appearance at Lyons in the year 1527. It adheres too scrupulously to the words of the text, which makes it obscure, and favour of barbarity in many places. He is likewise often misled as to the sense, having affected too much to follow the explications of the Jewish Rabbins. It is however a very useful work, and very proper to explain the literal sense of the Hebrew text. Arias Montanus, when he compiled the edition of the Biblia Polyglotta, revised this translation of Pagninus.
Cardinal Cajetan, though not versed in the Hebrew, undertook a translation of some parts of the Bible by the assistance of two persons well skilled in that language, the one a Jew, the other a Christian. After him Isidore Clarus, a monk of Mount Cassin, set himself to reform the vulgar version of the Bible after the Hebrew text; in the doing of which he pretends to have corrected above eight thousand passages of the Bible. Besides these translations, made by catholic authors, there are some likewise performed by protestant translators; the first of whom was Sebastian Münster. His version is more intelligible, and in much better Latin, than that of Pagninus. Huetius bestows on him the character of a translator well versed in the Hebrew, and whose style is very exact and conformable to the original. The translation of Leo Juda, a Zwinglian, printed at Zurich in 1543, and afterwards by Robert Stephens in 1545, is written in a more elegant style than that of Münster; but he often departs from the literal meaning of the Hebrew text for the sake of an elegant Latin expression. However, in this he has not taken so great a liberty as Sebastian Castalio, who undertook to give the world an elegant Latin version of
the Bible: But there are critics who censure him for departing from the noble simplicity and natural grandeur of the original, and deviating into an affected effeminate style, overcharged with false rhetoric, and not always true Latinity. The version of Junius and Tremellius, has much more of the true natural simplicity: The chief Hebrewisms are preserved in it, and the whole is strictly conformable to the Hebrew text. We must not forget the version of Theodore Beza, a protestant divine of Geneva, in the sixteenth century. Sebastian Castalio found fault with this version, and Beza wrote an apology for it about the year 1564.