Smith's Bible Dictionary

V

Vajezatha — Vulture

Vajezatha

Vajez’atha (strong as the wind), one of the ten sons of Haman whom the Jews slew in Shushan. Esther 9:9. (b.c. 473.)

Vale, Valley. 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.

1. ˒Êmek. This appears to approach more nearly to the general sense of the English word than any other. It is connected with several places. 2. Gâ or gê. 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 gê as a deep and abrupt ravine, with steep sides and narrow bottom. 3. 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). 4. Bik˒âh. 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 Deuteronomy 34:3; Joshua 11:3, Joshua 11:17; Joshua 12:7; 2 Chronicles 35:22; Zechariah 12:11. 5. has-Shefêlâh. The district to which the name has-Shefêlâh 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 of Judah to the Mediterranean. It is rendered “the vale” in Deuteronomy 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; Joshua 11:2, Joshua 11:16; Joshua 12:8; Joshua 15:33; Judges 1:9; Jeremiah 32:44.

Vaniah

Vani’ah (Jehovah is praise), one of the sons of Bani. Ezra 10:36. (b.c. 458.)

Vashni

Vash’ni (strong), the first-born of Samuel as the text now stands, 1 Chronicles 6:28 (1 Chronicles 6:13); but in 1 Samuel 8:2 the name of his first-born is Joel. Most probably in the Chronicles the name of Joel has dropped out, and Vashni is a corruption of veshênı̂, “and (the) second.”

Vashti

Vash’ti (beautiful), the “queen” of Ahasuerus, who, for refusing to show herself to the king’s guests at the royal banquet, when sent for by the king, was repudiated and deposed. Esther 1. (b.c. 483.) Many attempts have been made to identify her with historical personages; but it is far more probable that she was only one of the inferior wives, dignified with the title of queen, whose name has utterly disappeared from history.

Veil

Veil. With regard to the use of the veil, it is important to observe that it was by no means so general in ancient as in modern times. Much of the scrupulousness in respect of the use of the veil dates from the promulgation of the Koran, which forbade women appearing unveiled except in the presence of their nearest relatives. In ancient times the veil was adopted only in exceptional cases, either as an article of ornamental dress, Song of Solomon 4:1, Song of Solomon 4:3; Song of Solomon 6:7, or by betrothed maidens in the presence of their future husbands, especially at the time of the wedding, Genesis 24:65; or, lastly, by women of loose character for purposes of concealment. Genesis 38:14. Among the Jews of the New Testament age it appears to have been customary for the women to cover their heads (not necessarily their faces) when engaged in public worship.

Veil.

Veil of the tabernacle and temple

Veil of the tabernacle and temple. [TABERNACLE; TEMPLE.]

Versions Ancient of the Old and New Testaments

Versions, Ancient, of the Old and New Testaments. 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.

Æthiopic Version.—Christianity was introduced into Æthiopia in the fourth century, through the labors of Frumentius and Ædesius of Tyre, who had been made slaves and sent to the king. The Æthiopic 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 Æthiopic New Testament was also printed at Rome, edited by three Abyssinians.

Arabic Versions.—

1. Arabic versions of the Old Testament were made from the Hebrew (tenth century), from the Syriac and from the LXX. 2. 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 of 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.

1. 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 it did not assume its present shape till the end of the third or the beginning of the fourth century. So far, however, from supersecind 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 explanation 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. 2. Targum on the prophets—viz., Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and 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 gragments 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 348; 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.—

1. Septuagint.—[See SEPTUAGINT.] 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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.—[VULGATE.]

Samaritan Versions.—[SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH.]

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.—

1. 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 most 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. 2. 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.

Versions Authorized

Versions, Authorized.

1. Wycliffe.—The New Testament was translated by Wycliffe himself. The Old Testament was undertaken by Nicholas de 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 quasi-technical 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.

2. 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 octavo 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.

3. 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.

4. 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 the 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.

5. 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.

6. 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 be 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 Prayerbooks 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.

7. 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 1557, and the whole Bible in 1560. 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 Puritan 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 stablished 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 characteristically Swiss, not only in their theology, but in their politics.

8. 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 1572). 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.

9. 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 all 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.

10. 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 54 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 words 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, Whitechurch’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.]

Village

Village. This word, in addition to its ordinary sense, is often used, especially in the enumeration of towns in Joshua 13:15, Joshua 13:19, to imply unwalled suburbs outside the walled towns. Arab villages, as found in Arabia, are often mere collections of stone huts, “long, low, rude hovels, roofed only with the stalks of palm leaves,” or covered for a time with tent-cloths, which are removed when the tribe change their quarters. Others are more solidly built, as are most of the modern villages of Palestine, though in some the dwellings are mere mud-huts.

Vine

Vine, the well-known valuable plant (Vitis vinifera) very frequently referred to in the Old and New Testaments, and cultivated from the earliest times. The first mention of this plant occurs in Genesis 9:20, Genesis 9:21. That it was abundantly cultivated in Egypt is evident from the frequent representations on the monuments, as well as from the scriptural allusions. Genesis 40:9-11; Psalm 78:47. The vines of Palestine were celebrated both for luxuriant growth and for the immense clusters of grapes which they produced, which were sometimes carried on a staff between two men, as in the case of the spies, Numbers 13:23, and as has been done in some instances in modern times. Special mention is made in the Bible of the vines of Esheol, Numbers 13:24; Numbers 32:9, of Sibmah, Heshbon, and Elealeh, Isaiah 16:8, Isaiah 16:9, Isaiah 16:10; Jeremiah 48:32, and of Engedi. Song of Solomon 1:14. From the abundance and excellence of the vines, it may readily be understood how frequently this plant is the subject of metaphor in the Holy Scriptures. To dwell under the vine and fig tree is an emblem of domestic happiness and peace, 1 Kings 4:25; Psalm 128:3; Micah 4:4; the rebellious people of Israel are compared to “wild grapes,” “an empty vine,” “the degenerate plant of a strange vine,” etc. Isaiah 5:2, Isaiah 5:4; Jeremiah 2:21; Hosea 10:1. It is a vine which our Lord selects to show the spiritual union which subsists between himself and his members. John 15:1-6. The ancient Hebrews probably allowed the vine to go trailing on the ground or upon supports. This latter mode of cultivation appears to be alluded to by Ezekiel. Ezekiel 19:11, Ezekiel 19:12. The vintage, which formerly was a season of general festivity, began in September. The towns were deserted; the people lived among the vineyards in the lodges and tents. Comp. Judges 9:27; Isaiah 16:10; Jeremiah 25:30. The grapes were gathered with shouts of joy by the “grape gatherers,” Jeremiah 25:30, and put into baskets. See Jeremiah 6:9. They were then carried on the head and shoulders, or slung upon a yoke, to the “wine-press.” Those intended for eating were perhaps put into flat open baskets of wickerwork, as was the custom in Egypt. In Palestine, at present, the finest grapes, says Dr. Robinson, are dried as raisins, and the juice of the remainder, after having been trodden and pressed, “is boiled down to a sirup, which, under the name of dibs, is much used by all classes, wherever vineyards are found, as a condiment with their food.” The vineyard, which was generally on a hill, Isaiah 5:1; Jeremiah 31:5; Amos 9:13, was surrounded by a wall or hedge in order to keep out the wild boars, Psalm 80:13, jackals and foxes. Numbers 22:24; Nehemiah 4:3; Song of Solomon 2:15; Ezekiel 13:4, Ezekiel 13:5; Matthew 21:33. Within the vineyard was one or more towers of stone in which the vine-dressers lived. Isaiah 1:8; Isaiah 5:2; Matthew 21:33. The vat, which was dug, Matthew 21:33, or hewn out of the rocky soil, and the press, were part of the vineyard furniture. Isaiah 5:2.

Vine.

Gathering Grapes.

Vine of Sodom

Vine of Sodom occurs only in Deuteronomy 32:32. It is generally supposed that this passage alludes to the celebrated apples of Sodom, of which Josephus speaks, “which indeed resemble edible fruit in color, but, on being plucked by the hand, are dissolved into smoke and ashes.” It has been variously identified. Dr. Robinson pronounced in favor of the ˒ösher fruit, the Asclepias (Calotropis) procera of botanists. He says, “The fruit greatly resembles externally a large smooth apple or orange, hanging in clusters of three or four together, and when ripe is of a yellow color. It is now fair and delicious to the eye and soft to the touch; but, on being pressed or struck, it explodes with a puff, like a bladder or puff-ball, leaving in the hand only the shreds of the thin rind and a few fibres. It is indeed filled chiefly with air, which gives it the round form.” Dr. Hooker writes, “The vine of Sodom I always thought might refer to Cucumis colocynthis, which is bitter and powdery inside; the term vine would scarcely be given to any but a trailing or other plant of the habit of a vine.” His remark that the term vine must refer to some plant of the habit of a vine is conclusive against the claims of all the plants hitherto identified with the vine of Sodom.

Vinegar

Vinegar. The Hebrew word translated “vinegar” was applied to a beverage consisting generally of wine or strong drink turned sour, but sometimes artifically made by an admixture of barley and wine, and thus liable to fermentation. It was acid even to a proverb, Proverbs 10:26, and by itself formed an unpleasant draught, Psalm 49:21, but was used by laborers. Ruth 2:14. Similar was the acetum of the Romans—a thin, sour wine, consumed by soldiers. This was the beverage of which the Saviour partook in his dying moments. Matthew 27:48; Mark 15:36; John 19:29, John 19:30.

Vineyards Plain of the

Vineyards, Plain of the. This place, mentioned only in Judges 11:33, lay east of the Jordan, beyond Arcer.

Viol

Viol. [PSALTERY.]

Viper

Viper. [SERPENT.]

Vophsi

Voph’si (rich), father of Nahbi, the Naphtalite spy. Numbers 13:14. (b.c. before 1490.)

Vows

Vows. A vow is a solemn promise made to God to perform or to abstain from performing a certain thing. The earliest mention of a vow is that of Jacob. Genesis 28:18-22; Genesis 31:13. Vows in general are also mentioned in Job 22:27. The law therefore did not introduce, but regulated the practice of, vows. Three sorts are mentioned: 1, vows of devotion; 2, vows of abstinence; 3, vows of destruction.

1. As to vows of devotion, the following rules are laid down: A man might devote to sacred uses possessions or persons, but not the first-born of either man or beast, which was devoted already. Leviticus 27:26. (a) If he vowed land, he might either redeem it or not. Leviticus 25, Leviticus 27. (b) Animals fit for sacrifice, if devoted, were not to be redeemed or changed. Leviticus 27:9, Leviticus 27:10, Leviticus 27:33. The case of persons devoted stood thus: A man might devote either himself, his child (not the first-born) or his slave. If no redemption took place, the devoted person became a slave of the sanctuary: see the case of Absalom. 2 Samuel 15:8. Otherwise he might be redeemed at a valuation according to age and sex, on the scale given in Leviticus 27:1-7. Among general regulations affecting vows, the following may be mentioned: (1) Vows were entirely voluntary, but once made were regarded as compulsory. Numbers 30:2; Deuteronomy 23:21; Ecclesiastes 5:4. (2) If persons in a dependent condition made vows, as (a) an unmarried daughter living in her father’s house, or (b) a wife, even if she afterward became a widow, the vow, if (a) in the first case her father, or (b) in the second her husband, heard and disallowed it, was void; but if they heard without disallowance, it was to remain good. Numbers 30:3-16. (3) Votive offerings arising from the produce of any impure traffic were wholly forbidden. Deuteronomy 23:18. 2. For vows of abstinence, see CORBAN. 3. For vows of extermination, see ANATHEMA, and Ezra 10:8; Micah 4:13. It seems that the practice of shaving the head at the expiration of a votive period was not limited to the Nazaritic vow. Acts 18:18; Acts 21:24.

Vulgate The

Vul’gate, The, the Latin version of the Bible. The influence which it exercised upon western Christianity is scarcely less than that of the LXX upon the Greek churches. Both the Greek and the Latin Vulgate have been long neglected; yet the Vulgate should have a very deep interest for all the western churches. For many centuries it was the only Bible generally used; and, directly or indirectly, it is the real parent of all the vernacular versions of western Europe. The Gothic version of Ulphilas alone is independent of it. The name is equivalent to Vulgata editio (the current text of Holy Scripture). This translation was made by Jerome—Eusebius Hieronymus—who was born in 329 a.d. at Stridon in Dalmatia, and died at Bethlehem in 420 a.d. This great scholar probably alone for 1500 years possessed the qualifications necessary for producing an original version of the Scriptures for the use of the Latin churches. Going to Rome, he was requested by Pope Damascus, a.d. 383, to make a revision of the old Latin version of the New Testament, whose history is lost in obscurity. In middle life Jerome began the study of the Hebrew, and made a new version of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew, which was completed a.d. 404. The critical labors of Jerome were received with a loud outcry of reproach. He was accused of disturbing the repose of the Church and shaking the foundations of faith. But clamor based upon ignorance soon dies away; and the New translation gradually came into use equally with the Old, and at length supplanted it. The vast power which the Vulgate has had in determining the theological terms of western Christendom can hardly be overrated. By far the greater part of the current doctrinal terminology is based on the Vulgate. Predestination, justification, supererogation (supererogo), sanctification, salvation, mediation, regeneration, revelation, visitation (met.), propitiation, first appear in the Old Vulgate. Grace, redemption, election, reconciliation, satisfaction, inspiration, scripture, were devoted there to a new and holy use. Sacrament and communion are from the same source; and though baptism is Greek, it comes to us from the Latin. It would be easy to extend the list by the addition of orders, penance, congregation, priest; but it can be seen from the forms already brought forward that the Vulgate has left its mark both upon our language and upon our thoughts. It was the version which alone they knew who handed down to the reformers the rich stores of mediæval wisdom; the version with which the greatest of the reformers were most familiar, and from which they had drawn their earliest knowledge of divine truth.

Vulture

Vulture. The rendering in the Authorized Version of the Hebrew dââh, dayyâh, and also in Job 28:7 of ayyâh. There seems no doubt that the Authorized Version translation is incorrect, and that the original words refer to some of the smaller species of raptorial birds, as kites or buzzards. [KITE.] But the Hebrew word nesher, invariably rendered “eagle” in the Authorized Version, is probably the vulture. [EAGLE.]