Usury–Versions, Authorized

(wooded).

A son of Aram, (Genesis 10:23; 1 Chronicles 1:17) end consequently a grand son of Shem. (B.C. 2400-2300.) A son of Nahor by Milcah. (Genesis 22:21) Authorized Version, Huz. (B.C. about 1900.) A son of Dishan, and grandson of Seir. (Genesis 36:28) (B.C. after 1800.) The country in which Job lived. (Job 1:1) As far as we can gather, “the land of Uz” lay either east or southeast of Palestine, (Job 1:3) adjacent to the Sabaeans and the Chaldaeans, (Job 1:15,17) consequently north of the southern Arabians and west of the Euphrates; and, lastly, adjacent to the Edomites of Mount Seir, who at one period occupied Uz, probably as conquerors, (Lamentations 4:21) and whose troglodyte habits are described in (Job 30:6,7) From the above data we infer that the land of Uz corresponds to the Arabia Deserta of classical geography, at all events to so much of it as lies north of the 30th parallel of latitude.

(helpful),

The son of Ammihud, of the children of Pharez the son of Judah. (1 Chronicles 9:4) (B.C. 536.) One of the sons of Bigvai, who returned in the second caravan with Ezra. (Ezra 8:14) (B.C.459.)

(strength).

A Benjamite of the sons of Ehud. (1 Chronicles 8:7) (B.C. 1445.) Elsewhere called Uzza, Or Uzzah. (1 Chronicles 13:7,9,10,11) [Uzza, Or Uzzah] The children of Uzza were a family of Nethinim who returned with Zerubbabel. (Ezra 2:49; Nehemiah 7:51) (B.C. before 536.) Properly Uzzah. As the text now stands, Uzzah is a descendant of Merari, (1 Chronicles 6:29) (14); but there appears to be a gap in the verse. Perhaps he is the same as Zina or Zizah the son of Shimei. (1 Chronicles 23:10,11) for these names evidently denote the same person, and, in Hebrew character, are not unlike Uzzah.

(strong).

Son of Bukki and father of Zerahiah, in the line of the high priests. (1 Chronicles 6:5,61; Ezra 7:4) Though Uzzi was the lineal ancestor of Zadok, it does not appear that he was ever high priest. He must have been contemporary with, but rather earlier than, Eli. (B.C. before 1161.) Son of Tola the son of Issachar. (1 Chronicles 7:2,3) (B.C. 1706.) Son of Bela, of the tribe of Benjamin. (1 Chronicles 7:7) (B.C. 1706.) Another, or the same, from whom descended some Benjamite houses, which were settled at Jerusalem after the return from captivity. (1 Chronicles 9:8) A Levite, son of Bani and overseer of the Levites dwelling at Jerusalem, in the time of Nehemiah. (Nehemiah 11:22) A priest, chief of the father’s house of Jedaiah, in the time of Joiakim the high priest. (Nehemiah 12:19) (B.C. about 500.) One of the priests who assisted Ezra in the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem. (Nehemiah 12:42) Perhaps the same as the preceding. (B.C. 446.)

(strength of Jehovah).

King of Judah B.C. 809-8 to 757-6. In some passages his name appears in the lengthened form Azariah: After the murder of Amaziah, his son Uzziah was chosen by the people, at the age of sixteen, to occupy the vacant throne; and for the greater part of his long reign of fifty-two years he lived in the fear of God, and showed himself a wise, active and pious ruler. He never deserted the worship of the true God, and was much influenced by Zechariah, a prophet who is mentioned only in connection with him. (2 Chronicles 26:5) So the southern kingdom was raised to a condition of prosperity which it had not known since the death of Solomon. The end of Uzziah was less prosperous than his beginning. Elated with his splendid career, he determined to burn incense on the altar of God, but was opposed by the high priest Azariah and eighty others. See (Exodus 30:7,8; Numbers 16:40; 18:7) The king was enraged at their resistance, and, as he pressed forward with his censer was suddenly smitten with leprosy. This lawless attempt to burn incense was the only exception to the excellence of his administration. (2 Chronicles 27:2) Uzziah was buried “with his fathers,” yet apparently not actually in the royal sepulchres. (2 Chronicles 26:23) During his reign a great earthquake occurred. (Amos 1:1; Zechariah 14:5) A Kohathite Levite, and ancestor of Samuel. (1 Chronicles 6:24) (9). A priest of the sons of Harim, who had taken a foreign wife in the days of Ezra. (Ezra 10:21) (B.C. 458.) Father of Athaiah or Uthai. (Nehemiah 11:4) Father of Jehonathan, one of David’s overseers. (1 Chronicles 27:25) (B.C. about 1053.)

(my strength is God).

Fourth son of Kohath, father of Mishael, Eizaphan or Elizaphan and Zithri, and uncle to Aaron. (Exodus 6:18,22; Leviticus 10:4) (B.C. before 1491.) A Simeonite captain, son of Ishi, in the days of Hezekiah. (1 Chronicles 4:42) Head of a Benjamite house, of the sons of Bela. (1 Chronicles 7:7) (B.C. 1706.) A musician, of the sons of Heman in David’s reign. (1 Chronicles 25:4) A Levite, of the sons of Jeduthun, in the days of Hezekiah. (2 Chronicles 29:14,18) (B.C. 726.) Son of Harhaiah, probably a priest in the days of Nehemiah, who took part in repairing the wall. (Nehemiah 3:8) (B.C. 446.) He is described as “of the goldsmiths,” i.e. of those priests whose hereditary office it was to repair or make the sacred vessels.

It is hardly necessary to state that these words signify a hollow sweep of ground between two more or less parallel ridges of high land. The structure of the greater part of the holy land does not lend itself to the formation of valleys in our sense of the word. The abrupt transitions of its crowded rocky hills preclude the existence of any extended sweep of valley. Valley is employed in the Authorized Version to render five distinct Hebrew words.

’Emek . This appears to approach more nearly to the general sense of the English word than any other. It is connected with several places. Gai or ge . Of this there is fortunately one example which can be identified with certainty—the deep hollow which compasses the southwest and south of Jerusalem. This identification establishes the ge as a deep and abrupt ravine, with steep sides and narrow bottom. Nachal . This word answers to the Arabic wady, and expresses, as no single English word can, the bed of a stream (often wide and shelving, and like a “valley” in character, which in the rainy season may be nearly filled by a foaming torrent, though for the greater part of the year dry). Bik’ah . This term appears to mean rather a plain than a valley, though so far resembling it as to be enclosed by mountains. It is rendered by “valley” in (34:3; Joshua 11:8,17; 12:7; 2 Chronicles 35:22; Zechariah 12:11) has-Shefelah . The district to which the name has-Shefelah is applied in the Bible has no resemblance whatever to a valley, but is a broad, swelling tract of many hundred miles in area, which sweeps gently down from the mountains Judah to the Mediterranean. It is rendered “the vale” in (1:7; Joshua 10:40; 1 Kings 10:27; 2 Chronicles 1:15; Jeremiah 33:13) and “the valley” or “the valleys” in (Joshua 9:1; 11:2,16; 12:8; 15:33; Judges 1:9; Jeremiah 32:44)

In treating of the ancient versions that have come down to us, in whole or in part, they will be described in the alphabetical order of the languages. AETHIOPIC VERSION.—Christianity was introduced into AEthiopia in fourth century through the labors of Frumentius and AEdesius of Tyre, who had been made slaves and sent to the king. The AEthiopic version which we possess is in the ancient dialect of Axum; hence some have ascribed it to the age of the earliest missionaries, but it is probably of a later date. In 1548-9 the AEthiopic New Testament was also printed at Rome, edited by three Abyssinians. ARABIC VERSIONS.—

Arabic versions of the Old Testament were made from the Hebrew (tenth century), from the Syriac and from the LXX Arabic versions of the New Testament . There are four versions. The first, the Roman, of the Gospels only, was printed in 1590-1. ARMENIAN VERSION.—In the year 431, Joseph and Eznak returned from the Council of Ephesus bringing with them a Greek copy of the Scriptures. From this a version in Armenian was made by Isaac, the Armenian patriarch, and Miesrob. The first printed edition of the Old and New Testaments in Armenian appeared at Amsterdam in 1666, under the care of a person commonly termed Oscan or Uscan, and described as being an Armenian bishop. CHALDEE VERSIONS.—Targum, a Chaldee word of uncertain origin, is the general term for the Chaldee, or more accurately Aramaic, versions of the Old Testament. The Targums were originally oral, and the earliest Targum, which is that of Onkelos on the Pentateuch, began to be committed to writing about the second century of the Christian era; though if did not assume its present shape till the end of the third or the beginning of the fourth century. So far, however, from superseding the oral Targum at once, it was, on the contrary, strictly forbidden to read it in public. Its language is Chaldee, closely approaching in purity of idiom to that of Ezra and Daniel. It follows a sober and clear though not a slavish exegesis, and keeps as closely and minutely: to the text as is at all consistent with its purpose, viz. to be chiefly and above all a version for the people . Its explanations of difficult and obscure passages bear ample witness to the competence of those who gave it its final shape. It avoids, as far as circumstances would allow, the legendary character with which all the later Targums entwine the biblical word. Targum on the prophets,—viz. Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Kings, the twelve minor prophets,—called Targum OF Jonathan BEN-UZZIEL. We shall probably not be far wrong in placing this Targum some time, although not long, after Onkelos, or about the middle of the fourth century. 3 And 4. Targum of Jonathan ben-Uzziel and Jerushalmi-Targum on the Pentateuch .—Onkelos and Jonathan on the Pentateuch and prophets, whatever be their exact date, place, authorship and editorship, are the oldest of existing Targums, and belong in their present shape, to Babylon and the Babylonian academies flourishing between the third and fourth centuries A.D. EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.—Of these there are three,—the Memphitic, of lower Egypt, the Coptic, of upper Egypt, and the Thebaic, with some fragments of another. The Thebaic was the earliest, and belongs to the third century. GOTHIC VERSION. In the year 318 the Gothic bishop and translator of Scripture Ulphilas, was born. He succeeded Theophilus as bishop of the Goths in 548; through him it is said that the Goths in general adopted Arianism. The great work of Ulphilas was his version of the Scriptures. As an ancient monument of the Gothic language the version of Ulphilas possesses great interest; as a version the use of which was once extended widely through Europe, it is a monument of the Christianization of the Goths; and as a version known to have been made in the fourth century, and transmitted to us in ancient MSS., It has its value in textual criticism. GREEK VERSIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.— Septuagint .—[See Septuagint] Aquila .—It is a remarkable fact that in the second century there were three versions executed of the Old Testament Scriptures into Greek. The first of these was made by Aquila, a native of Sinope in Pontus, who had become a proselyte to Judaism. It was made during the reign of Hadrian, A.D. 117-138. Theodotion .—The second version of which we have information as executed in the second century is that of Theodotion. He is stated to have been an Ephesian, and he seems to be most generally described as an Ebionite. Symmachus is stated by Eusebius and Jerome to have been an Ebionite; Epiphanius and others, however, style him a Samaritan. It may be that as a Samaritan he made this version for some of that people who employed Greek, and who had learned to receive more than the Pentateuch. Latin Versions VERSIONS.—[Vulgate, The] Samaritan Pentateuch VERSIONS.—[Samaritan Pentateuch Pentateuch, The] SLAVONIC VERSION,—In A.D. 862 there was a desire expressed or an inquiry made for Christian teachers in Moravia, and in the following year the labors of missionaries began among the Moravians. These missionaries were Cyrillus and Methodius, two brothers from Thessalonica. To Cyrillus is ascribed the invention of the Slavonian alphabet and the commencement of the translation of the Scriptures. He appears to have died at Rome in 868, while Methodius continued for many years to be the bishop of the Slavonians. He is stated to have continued his brother’s translation. SYRIAC VERSIONS.— Of the Old Testament. (a) From the Hebrew. In the early times of Syrian Christianity there was executed a version of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew, the use of which must have been as widely extended as was the Christian profession among that people. It is highly improbable that any part of the Syriac version is older than the advent of our Lord. The Old Syriac has the peculiar value of being the first version from the Hebrew original made for Christian use. The first printed edition of this version was that which appeared in the Paris Polyglot of Le Jay in 1645. (b) The Syriac version from the Hexaplar Greek text. The only Syriac version of the Old Testament up to the sixth century was apparently the Peshito. The version by Paul of Tela, a Monophysite, was made in the beginning of the seventh century; for its basis he used the Hexaplar Greek text—that is, the LXX., with the corrections of Origen, the asterisks, obeli, etc., and with the references to the other Greek versions. In fact, it is from this Syriac version that we obtain our moat accurate acquaintance with the results of the critical labors of Origen. It is from a MS. in the Ambrosian Library at Milan that we possess accurate means of knowing this Syriac version. The Syriac New Testament Versions . (a) The Peshito Syriac New Testament. It may stand as an admitted fact that a version of the New Testament in Syriac existed in the second century. (b) The Curetonian Syriac Gospels. Among the MSS. brought from the Nitrian monasteries in 1842, Dr. Cureton noticed a copy of the Gospels, differing greatly from the common text; and this is the form of text to which the name of Curetonian Syriac has been rightly applied. Every criterion which proves the common Peshito not to exhibit a text of extreme antiquity equally proves the early origin of this.

WYCLIFFE.—The New Testament was translated by Wycliffe himself The Old Testament was undertaken by Nicholas Deuteronomy Hereford, but was interrupted, and ends abruptly (following so far the order of the Vulgate) in the middle of Baruch. The version was based entirely upon the Vulgate. The following characteristics may be noticed as distinguishing this version: (1) The general homeliness of its style. (2) The substitution in many cases, of English equivalents for quasitechnical words. (3) The extreme literalness with which in some instances, even at the cost of being unintelligible, the Vulgate text is followed, as in (2 Corinthians 1:17-19) TYNDAL.—The work of Wycliffe stands by itself. Whatever power it exercised in preparing the way for the Reformation of the sixteenth century, it had no perceptible influence on later translations. With Tyndal we enter on a continuous succession. He is the patriarch, in no remote ancestry, of the Authorized Version. More than Cranmer or Ridley he is the true hero of the English Reformation. “Ere many years, he said at the age of thirty-six (A.D. 1520), he would cause “a boy that driveth the plough” to know more of Scripture than the great body of the clergy then knew. He prepared himself for the work by long years of labor in Greek and Hebrew. First the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark were published tentatively. In 1525 the whole of the New Testament was printed in quarto at Cologne, and in small octave at Worms. In England it was received with denunciations. Tonstal, bishop of London, preaching at Paul’s Cross, asserted that there were at least two thousand errors in it, and ordered all copies of it to be bought up and burnt. An act of Parliament (35 Hen. VIII. cap. 1) forbade the use of all copies of Tyndal’s “false translation.” The treatment which it received from professed friends was hardly less annoying. In the mean time the work went on. Editions were printed one after another. The last appeared in 1535, just before his death. To Tyndal belongs the honor of having given the first example of a translation based on true principles, and the excellence of later versions has been almost in exact proportion as they followed his. All the exquisite grace and simplicity which have endeared the Authorized Version to men of the most opposite tempers and contrasted opinions is due mainly to his clear-sighted truthfulness. COVERDALE.—A complete translation of the Bible, different from Tyndal’s, bearing the name of Miles Coverdale, printed probably at Zurich, appeared in 1535. The undertaking itself and the choice of Coverdale as the translator were probably due to Cromwell. He was content to make the translation at second hand “out of the Douche (Luther’s German Version) and the Latine.” Fresh editions of his Bible were published, keeping their ground in spite of rivals, in 1537, 1539, 1550, 1553. He was called in at a still later period to assist in the Geneva Version. MATTHEW.—In the year 1537, a large folio Bible appeared as edited and dedicated to the king by Thomas Matthew. No one of that name appears at all prominently in the religious history of Henry VIII., and this suggests inference that the name was adopted to conceal the real translator. The tradition which connects this Matthew with John Rogers, the proto-martyr of the Marian persecution, is all but undisputed. Matthew’s Bible reproduces Tyndal’s work, in the New Testament entirely, in the Old Testament as far as 2 Chron., the rest being taken with occasional modifications from Coverdale. A copy was ordered, by royal proclamation, to be set up in every church, the cost being divided between the clergy and the parishioners. This was, therefore, the first Authorized Version. TAVERNER (1539).—The boldness of the pseudo-Matthew had frightened the ecclesiastical world from its propriety. Coverdale’s version was, however, too inaccurate to keep its ground. It was necessary to find another editor, and the printers applied to Richard Taverner. But little is known of his life. The fact that, though a layman, he had been chosen as one of the canons of the Cardinal’s College at Oxford indicates a reputation for scholarship, and this is confirmed by the character of his translation. In most respects this may be described as an expurgated edition of Matthew’s. CRANMER.—In the same year as Taverner’s, and coming from the same press, appeared an English Bible, in a more stately folio, with a preface containing the initials T.C., which implied the archbishop’s sanction. Cranmer’s version presented, as might he expected, many points of interest. The prologue gave a more complete ideal of what a translation ought to be than had as yet been seen. Words not in the original were to be printed in a different type. It was reprinted again and again, and was the Authorized Version of the English Church till 1568—the interval of Mary’s reign excepted. From it, accordingly, were taken most, if not all the portions of Scripture in the Prayer books of 1549 and 1552. The Psalms as a whole, the quotations from Scripture in the Homilies, the sentences in the Communion Services, and some phrases elsewhere, still preserve the remembrance of it. GENEVA.—The exiles who fled to Geneva in the reign of Mary entered on the work of translation with more vigor than ever. The Genevan refugees-among them Whittingham, Goodman, Pullain, Sampson and Coverdale himself—labored “for two years or more, day and night.” Their translation of the New Testament was “diligently revised by the most approved Greek examples.” The New Testament, translated by Whittingham, was printed in 1667 and the whole Bible in 1660. Whatever may have been its faults, the Geneva Bible, commonly called the Breeches Bible from its rendering of (Genesis 3:7) was unquestionably, for sixty years, the most popular of all versions. Not less than eighty editions, some of the whole Bible, were printed between 1558 and 1611. It kept its ground for some time even against the Authorized Version, and gave way as it were, slowly and under protest. It was the version specially adopted by the great Puritian party through the whole reign of Elizabeth and far into that of James. As might be expected, it was based on Tyndal’s version. It presents, in a calendar prefixed to the Bible, something like a declaration of war against the established order of the Church’s lessons commemorating Scripture facts and the deaths of the great reformers, but ignoring saints’ days altogether it was the first English Bible which entirely omitted the Apocrypha. The notes were mere characteristically Swiss, not only in their theology, but in their politics. THE BISHOPS’ BIBLE.—The facts just stated will account for the wish of Archbishop Parker to bring out another version, which might establish its claims against that of Geneva. Great preparations were made. Eight bishops, together with some deans and professors, brought out the fruit of their labors in a magnificent folio (1568 and 1672). It was avowedly based on Cranmer’s but of all the English versions it had probably the least success. It did not command the respect of scholars, and its size and cost were far from meeting the wants of the people. RHEIMS AND DOUAY.—The successive changes in the Protestant versions of the Scriptures were, as might be expected, matter of triumph to the controversialists of the Latin Church. Some saw in it an argument against any translation of Scripture into the spoken language of the people. Others pointed derisively to the want of unity which these changes displayed. There were some, however, who took the line which Sir T. More and Gardiner had taken under Henry VIII. They did not object to the principle of an English translation. They only charged the versions hitherto made with being false, corrupt, heretical. To this there was the ready retort that they had done nothing; that their bishops in the reign of Henry had promised, but had not performed. It was felt to be necessary that they should take some steps which might enable them to turn the edge of this reproach. The English Catholic refugees who were settled at Rheims undertook a new English version. The New Testament was published at Rheims in 1582 and professed to be based on “the authentic text of the Vulgate.” Notes were added. as strongly dogmatic as those of the Geneva Bible, and often keenly controversial. The work of translation was completed somewhat later by the publication of the Old Testament at Douay in 1609. AUTHORIZED VERSION.—The position of the English Church in relation to the versions in use at the commencement of the reign of James was hardly satisfactory. The Bishops’ Bible was sanctioned by authority. That of Geneva had the strongest hold on the affections of the people. Scholars, Hebrew scholars in particular, found grave fault with both. Among the demands of the Puritan representatives at the Hampton Court Conference in 1604 was one for a new, or at least a revised, translation. The work of organizing and superintending the arrangements for a new translation was one specially congenial to James, and accordingly in 1606 the task was commenced. It was intrusted to 64 scholars. The following were the instructions given to the translators: (1) The Bishops’ Bible was to be followed, and as little altered as the original would permit. (2) The names of prophets and others were to be retained, as nearly as may be as they are vulgarly used. (3) The old ecclesiastical welds to be kept. (4) When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most eminent fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place and the analogy of faith. (5) The division of the chapters to be altered either not at all or as little as possible. (6) No marginal notes to be affixed but only for the explanation of Hebrew and Greek words. (7) Such quotations of places to be marginally set down as may serve for fit reference of one Scripture to another. (8) and (9) State plan of translation. Each company of translators is to take its own books; each person to bring his own corrections. The company to discuss them, and having finished their work, to send it on to another company, and so on. (10) Provides for differences of opinion between two companies by referring them to a general meeting. (11) Gives power in cases of difficulty, to consult any scholars. (12) Invites suggestions from any quarter. (13) Names the directors of the work: Andrews, dean of Westminster; Barlow, dean of Chester and the regius professors of Hebrew and Greek at both universities. (14) Names translations to be followed when they agree more with the original than the Bishops’ Bible, sc. Tyndal’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, Whitchurch’s (Cranmer’s), and Geneva. (15) Authorizes universities to appoint three or four overseers of the work. For three years the work went on, the separate companies comparing notes as directed. When the work drew toward its completion, it was necessary to place it under the care of a select few. Two from each of the three groups were accordingly selected, and the six met in London to superintend the publication. The final correction, and the task of writing the arguments of the several books, was given to Bilson, bishop of Winchester and Dr. Miles Smith, the latter of whom also wrote the dedication and preface. The version thus published did not at once supersede the versions already in possession. The fact that five editions were published in three years shows that there was a good demand. But the Bishops’ Bible probably remained in many churches, and the popularity of the Geneva Version is shown by not less than thirteen reprints, in whole or in part, between 1611 and 1617. It is not easy to ascertain the impression which the Authorized Version made at the time of its appearance. Selden says it is “the best of all translations, as giving the true sense of the original.” [For REVISED VERSION (of 1881), see under Bible]