VOPHSI VOPHSI.— The father of the Naphtalitespy (Nu 13").

VOWS. — In common with most peoples of the ancient world, the making of vows was of frequent occurrence among the Israelites. The underlying idea in making a vow was to propitiate the Deity; this was done either by promising to do something for Him, or to please Him by the exercise of self-denial. Vows were made from a variety of motives: Jacob vows a vow according to which he will please Jahweh by becoming His worshipper, on condition that Jahweh will keep him safe during his journey and give him food and raiment (Gn 2S">-''). Jephthah vows to offer to Jahweh the first person he sees coming out of his house on his return from battle, provided he is victorious (Jg 11™- *'). Hannah vows that If Jahweh gives her a son, she will dedicate him to the service of God (1 S 1"). These cases are typical: in each something is promised to God, on condition that God will do something for him who makes the vow. But there was another class of vows which were of a more disinterested character; the most striking here would be the Nazlrite vow, according to which a man undertook to lead a strenuously austere life, which was supposed to approximate to the simple life of the patriarchs; that was done out of protest against the current mode of life, which|had been largely adopted from the Canaanites; indeed, the Nazirite vow implied, and was intended to be, a life of greater loyalty to Jahweh.

There are two words in Hebrew for a vow; — though they do not necessarily correspond to the two ideas just mentioned: neder, which is a vow whereby a man dedicates something, even himself, to God; Hssar, a vow by which a man binds himself to abstain from enjoyment, or to exercise self-denial, in honour of Jahweh.

Vows were clearly of very common occurrence in Israel, indeed it would almost seem as though at one time it was deemed generally incumbent on men to make vows; this would, at all events, explain the words in Dt 23^, 'But if thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee.' A vow having once been made had to be kept at all costs (Dt 23"- », Nu SO^, Jg ll^*) ; though, as regards women, they might be absolved by father or husband, under certain conditions, from fulfilling a vow (Nu 30'-'). From the expression used in connexion with the making of a vow, 'to bind the soul' (Nu 30^), it would seem that the idea was that if the vow was broken the life was forfeited to the Deity to whom the vow had been made; the warning, therefore, of Pr 20^, Ex 9 w , was needed.

In making a vow in which something was promised

» to Jahweh, only such things could be promised as were

truly the property of him who vowed ; for this reason a

man might not promise a firstling or the like, as that was

already the property of Jahweh (cf. Lv 27^-^').

In later times the spirit in which vows were observed appears to have degenerated; Malachi speaks sternly of those who make a vow, and in fulfilling it sacrifice unto the Lord 'a blemished thing' (1"). Another, and still worse, misuse of vows meets us in the Gospels: the spurious piety of some men induced them to vow gifts to the use of the sanctuary, but they neglected, in consequence, the most obvious duties of natural affection; when a man uttered the word 'Oorban' in reference to any possession of his, it meant that it was dedicated to God. Money that should have gone to the support of aged parents was pronounced to be ' Corban,' the son felt himself relieved of all further responsibility regarding his parents, and took honour to himself for having piously dedicated his substance to God (see Mt 15*, Mk 7"). W. O. E. Oesterley.

VULGATE.— 1 . The position of the Latin Vulgate, as a version of the original texts of the Bible, has been dealt with in the two articles on the Text of the OT and the NT. But its interest and importance do not end there. Just as the LXX, apart from its importance as evidence for the text of the OT, has a history as an integral part

VULGATE "

of the Bible of the Eastern Church, soilso does the Vulgate deserve consideration as the BibKof the Church in the West. Although the English Bible, to which we have been accustomed for nearly 300 years, is in the main a translation from the original Hebrew and Greek, it must be remembered that for the first thousand years of the English Church the Bible of this country, whether in Latin or in English, was the Vulgate. In Germany the conditions were much the same, with the difference that Luther's Bible was still more indebted to the Vulgate than was our AV; while in France, Italy, and Spain the supremacy of the Vulgate lasts to this day. In considering, therefore, the history of the Vulgate, we are considering the history of the Scriptures in the form in which they have been mainly known in Western Europe.

2. The textual articles above mentioned have shown that, when Jerome's Biblical labours were at an end, about A.D. 404, the Latin Bible as left by him was a very complex structure, the parts of which differed very considerably in their relations to the original Greek and Hebrew texts. The Canonical Books of the OT, except the Psalms, were Jerome's fresh translation from the Massoretic Hebrew. The Psalms were extant in three forms — (a) the Roman, Jerome's slightly revised edition of the OL, which still held its own in a few churches; (6) the Gallican, his more fully revised version from the Hexaplar text of the LXX; and (c) the Hebrew, his new translation of the Massoretic text; of these it was the second, not the third, that was taken into general use. Of the deutero-canonical books, or Apocrypha, Judith and Tobit, with the additions to Daniel, were in Jerome's very hasty version; the re-mainder, which he had refused to touch (as not recog-nized by the Massoretic canon), continued to circulate in the OL. The Gospels were Jerome's somewhat conservative revision of the OL; the rest of the NT was a much more superficial revision of the same. The Latin Bible, therefore, which we know as the Vulgate was not wholly Jerome's work, still less did it represent his full and final views on the textual criticism of the Bible; and, naturally, it did not for a long time acquire the name of 'Vulgate.' The 'vulgata editio,' of which Jerome himself speaks, is primarily the Gr. LXX, and secondarily the OL as a translation of it. It is not until the 13th cent, that the epithet is found applied to Jerome's version by Roger Bacon (who, however, also uses it of the LXX); and it was canonized, so to speak, by its use in the decree of the Council of Trent, which speaks of it as ' heec ipsa vetus et vulgata editio.' By that time, however, it differed in many points of detail from the text which Jerome left behind him; and it is of the history of Jerome's version during this period of some twelve hundred years that it is proposed to speak in the present article.

3. Jerome's correspondence and the prefaces attached by him to the several books of his translation (notably those prefixed to the Pentateuch, Joshua, Ezra and Nehemiah, Job, Isaiah, and the Gospels) sufficiently show the reception given to his work by his contempo-raries. He complains constantly and bitterly of the virulence of his critics, who charge him with deliberate perversions of Scripture, and refuse to make themselves acquainted with the conditions of his task. Especially was this the case with the OT. In the NT Jerome had restrained his correcting pen, and made alterations only when the sense required it [' Ita calamo tempera vimus ut his tantum quae sensum videbantur mutare correctis, reliqua manere pateremur ut fuerant' (Prcef. ad Damasum)]; and though even these were sufficient to cause discontent among many readers, the openings given to adverse criticism were relatively insignificant. But in the case of the OT the basis of the OL rendering to which people were accustomed was the LXX, the differences of which from the Massoretic Hebrew are often very wide. When, therefore, readers found whole

960