(in Greek Βιβλιον, the book), a name applied by Christians, by way of eminence or distinction, to the collection of sacred writings, or the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments; known also by various other appellations, as, the Sacred Books, Holy Writ, Inspired Writings, Scriptures, &c. The Jews styled the Bible (that is, the Old Testament) mikra; which signifies Lesson, or Lecture.
This collection of the sacred writings, containing those of the Old and New Testament, is justly looked upon as the foundation of the Jewish as well as the Christian religion. The Jews, it is true, acknowledged only the scriptures of the Old Testament, the correcting and publishing of which is unanimously ascribed, both by the Jews and Christians, to Ezra. Some of the ancient fathers, on no other foundation than that fabulous and apocryphal book, the second book of Esdras, pretend, that the scriptures were entirely lost and destroyed at the Babylonish captivity, and that Ezra restored them all again by divine revelation. What is certain is, that in the reign of Josiah there was no other book of the law extant besides that found in the temple by Hilkiah; from which original, by order of that pious king, copies were immediately written out, and search made for all the other parts of the scriptures, (2 Kings xxii.) by which means copies of the whole became multiplied among the people, who carried them with them into their captivity. After the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, Ezra got together as many copies as he could of the Sacred writings, and out of them all prepared a correct edition, disposing the several books in their proper order, and settling the canon of scripture for his time. These books he divided into three parts. 1. The Law. 2. The Prophets. 3. The Cetubim, or Hagiography, i.e. The holy writings.
I. The Law contains. 1. Genesis. 2. Exodus. 3. Leviticus. 4. Numbers. 5. Deuteronomy.
II. The writings of the prophets are, 1. Joshua. 2. Judges, with Ruth. 3. Samuel. 4. Kings. 5. Isaiah. 6. Jeremiah, with his Lamentations. 7. Ezekiel. 8. Daniel. 9. The twelve minor Prophets. III. And the Hagiographia consists of, 1. The Psalms. 2. The Proverbs. 3. Ecclesiastes. 4. The Song of Solomon. This division was made for the sake of reducing the number of the sacred books to the number of the letters in their alphabet, which amount to 22. At present, the Jews reckon 24 books in their canon of scripture, in disposing of which the law stands as it did in the former division, and the prophets are distributed into the former and latter prophets.
The former prophets are, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings.
The latter prophets are, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the 12 minor prophets.
And the hagiographia consists of, The Psalms, the Proverbs, Job, the Song of Solomon, Ruth, the Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, the Chronicles.
Under the name of Ezra, they comprehend Nehemiah. It is true this order hath not always been observed; but the variations from it are of little or no moment.
The five books of the law are divided into 54 sections. This division many of the Jews hold to have been appointed by Moses himself; but others, with more probability, ascribe it to Ezra. The design of this division was, that one of these sections might be read in their synagogues every sabbath-day. The number was 54, because in their intercalated years, a month being then added, there were 54 sabbaths. In other years, they reduced them to 52, by twice joining together two short sections. Till the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, they read only the law; but the reading of it being then prohibited, they substituted in the room of it 54 sections out of the Prophets; and when the reading of the law was restored by the Maccabees, the section which was read every sabbath out of the law served for their first lesson, and the section out of the prophets for their second. These sections were divided into verses, of which division, if Ezra was not the author, it was introduced not long after him, and seems to have been designed for the use of the Targumists, or Chaldee interpreters; for after the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, when the Hebrew language ceased to be their mother tongue, and the Chaldee grew into use instead of it, the custom was, that the law should be first read in the original Hebrew, and then interpreted to the people in the Chaldee language, for which purpose these shorter sections or periods were very convenient.
The division of the scriptures into chapters, as we at present have them, is of much later date. Some attribute it to Stephen Langton, archbishop of Canterbury, in the reigns of John and Henry III. But the true author of the invention was Hugo de Sancto Caro, commonly called Hugo Cardinalis, because he was the first Dominican that ever was raised to the degree of cardinal. This Hugo flourished about the year 1240. He wrote a comment on the scriptures, and projected the first concordance, which is that of the vulgar Latin Bible. The aim of this work being for the more easy finding out any word or passage in the scriptures, he found it necessary to divide the book into sections, and the sections into subdivisions; for till that time the vulgar Latin Bibles were without any division at all.
These sections are the chapters into which the Bible hath ever since been divided. But the subdivision of the chapters was not then into verses, as it is now. Hugo's method of subdividing them was by the letters A, B, C, D, E, F, G, placed in the margin at an equal distance from each other, according to the length of the chapters. The subdivision of the chapters into verses, as they now stand in our Bibles, had its origin from a famous Jewish rabbi, named Mordecai Nathan, about the year 1445. This rabbi, in imitation of Hugo Cardinalis, drew up a concordance to the Hebrew Bible, for the use of the Jews. But though he followed Hugo in his division of the books into chapters, he refined upon his invention as to the subdivision, and contrived that by verses: this being found to be a much more convenient method, it has been ever since followed. And thus, as the Jews borrowed the division of the books of the holy scriptures into chapters from the Christians, in like manner the Christians borrowed that of the chapters into verses from the Jews.
The order and division of the books of the Bible, as well of the Old as the New Testament, according to the disposition made by the council of Trent, by decree I. session iv. are as follow; where we are to observe, that those books to which the asterisks are prefixed, are rejected by the Protestants, as apocryphal.*
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges and Ruth, 1 Samuel, or 1 Kings, 2 Samuel, or 2 Kings, 1 Kings, otherwise called iii. Kings, 2 Kings, otherwise called iv. Kings, Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, (as the LXX and Vulgate call it), or the book of Ezra, Esther, or (as we have it) the book of Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, The book of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah and * Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Nahum, which we place immediately after Micah, before Habakkuk. Jonah, which we place immediately after Obadiah. Micah,
* See Apocrypha. Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees.
The books of the New Testament are,
St Matthew, St Mark, St Luke, St John.
The acts of the Apostles,
the Romans, the Corinthians, I. the Corinthians, II. the Galatians, the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, the Thessalonians, I. the Thessalonians, II. Timothy, I. Timothy, II. Titus, Philemon, the Hebrews, St James, St Peter, I. St Peter, II. St John, I. St John, II. St John, III. St Jude,
The Revelations of St John.
The apocryphal books of the Old Testament, according to the Romanists, are, the book of Enoch (see Jude 14.), the third and fourth books of Esdras, the prayer of Manasseh, the Testament of the twelve Patriarchs, the Psalter of Solomon, and some other pieces of this nature.
The apocryphal books of the new Testament are the epistle of St Barnabas, the pretended epistle of St Paul to the Laodiceans, several spurious gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and Revelations; the book of Hermas, intitled the Shepherd, Jesus Christ's Letter to Abgarus, the epistles of St Paul to Seneca, and several other pieces of the like nature, as may be seen in the collection of the apocryphal writings of the New Testament made by Fabricius.
The books which are now lost, and cited in the Old Testament, are these, the book of the Righteous, or of Jasher, as our version of the Bible has it, (Josh. x. 13, and 2 Sam. i. 18.) the book of the wars of the Lord, (Numb. xxii. 14.) the annals of the kings of Israel, so often cited in the books of the Kings and Chronicles. The authors of these annals were the prophets, who lived in the kingdoms of Judah and Israel. We have likewise but a part of Solomon's 3000 proverbs, and his 1005 songs, (1 Kings iv. 32.) and we have entirely lost what he wrote upon plants, animals, birds, fishes, and reptiles.
Ezra, in the opinion of most learned men, published the scriptures in the Chaldee character: for that language being grown wholly into use among the Jews, he thought proper to change the old Hebrew character for it, which hath since that time been retained only by the Samaritans, among whom it is preferred to this day.
Prideaux is of opinion that Ezra made additions in several parts of the Bible, where anything appeared necessary for illustrating, connecting, or completing the work; in which he appears to have been assisted by the same spirit in which they were first written. Among such additions are to be reckoned the last chapter of Deuteronomy, wherein Moses seems to give an account of his own death and burial, and the succession of Joshua after him. To the same cause our learned author thinks are to be attributed many other interpolations in the Bible, which created difficulties and objections to the authenticity of the sacred text, no ways to be solved without allowing them. Ezra changed the names of several places which were grown obsolete, and instead of them put their new names, by which they were then called, in the text. Thus it is that Abraham is said to have pursued the kings who carried Lot away captive, as far as Dan; whereas that place in Moses's time was called Lashlo; the name Dan, being unknown till the Danites, long after the death of Moses, possessed themselves of it.
The Jewish canon of Scripture was then settled by Ezra, yet not so but that several variations have been made in it. Malachi, for instance, could not be put in the Bible by him, since that prophet is allowed to have lived after Ezra; nor could Nehemiah be there, since mention is made, in that book, of Jaddus, as high-priest, and of Darius Codomannus, as king of Persia, who were at least 100 years later than Ezra. It may be added, that in the first book of Chronicles, the genealogy of the sons of Zerubbabel is carried down for so many generations as must necessarily bring it to the time of Alexander, and consequently this book could not be in the canon in Ezra's days. It is probable, the two books of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and Malachi, were adopted into the Bible in the time of Simon the Just, the last of the men of the great synagogue.
As the Jews were very backward in having any intercourse with strangers, it was a long time before their sacred books came to be known and read in other nations. Josephus ascribes the little that is said of the Jews by Pagan writers to this, that the latter had no opportunity of being acquainted with their historians, for want of a translation of their books into the Greek language. Ariates indeed pretends, that there was an imperfect version of the Scriptures before the time of Demetrius Phalereus; and that Theopompus intending to insert a part of them in his verses, was deprived of his understanding; but of this there is no proof.
The Jews, upon their return from the Babylonish captivity, having brought with them their Chaldaic or Assyrian language, which from that time became their mother-tongue, gave birth to the Chaldee translations, or rather paraphrases of the Bible, called Targum. establishment of Christianity, some authors undertook new translations, under pretence of making them more conformable to the Hebrew text. The first who performed this design was the Jewish proselyte Aquila, of the city of Synope in Pontus, disciple to Rabbi Akiba, who put it in execution the twelfth year of the emperor Adrian, A.D. 128. St Epiphanius pretends, that being excommunicated after his conversion, for addicting himself to judicial astrology, he set about this version out of hatred to the Christians, and with a wicked design of corrupting the parables of the prophets relating to Jesus Christ. St Jerom lays, his version is made word for word, and with too scrupulous a nicety.
The second Greek version after the Septuagint is that of Symmachus, a Samaritan by birth, who first turned Jew, then Christian, and at last Ebionite. He composed it, according to Epiphanius, in the reign of the emperor Severus. His version was more free than the rest; for he applied himself chiefly to the sense, without translating word for word; wherefore his version comes nearer the Septuagint than that of Aquila. The third Greek version is that of Theodotion of Ephesus. It is said he was a disciple of Marcion, and that, having had some difference with those of his sect, he turned Jew. The version of this author was the best of the three, because he kept a just medium between Aquila and Symmachus, not confining himself so servilely to the letter as the first did, nor wandering so far from it as the second did.
There were, besides these, three other Greek versions, whose authors are unknown.
Syriac Bible. The Syrians have in their language a version of the Old Testament, which they pretend to be of great antiquity. A great part of it, they say, was made in Solomon's time, and the rest in the time of Abgarus king of Edessa. They relate, that Hiram king of Tyre desired Solomon to communicate the use of letters and writing to the Syrians, and to get translated for them the sacred books of the Hebrews; which Solomon complied with, and sent them the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Solomon's Songs, and Job, which were the only books then extant; the remaining books of Scripture, they add, were translated into Syriac after the death of Christ, by the care of Abgarus king of Edessa. But this account is looked upon as fabulous. It is true, the Syriac version which we have now must be very ancient, since it is often cited by the fathers. Dr Prideaux is of opinion, it was made within the first century; that the author of it was some Christian of the Jewish nation; and that it is the best translation of the Old Testament. This version is not always agreeable to the original; but in some places is more conformable to the Samaritan Pentateuch, and in some to the version of the Septuagint. In the Psalms, the translator has taken the liberty to leave out the ancient titles and inscriptions of each Psalm, instead of which he gives an abstract of the contents of each Psalm.
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 Austin gives this version the name of the Vulgate, and prefers it to all the rest; but we refer 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 fifth century it became as general, and in as great esteem, as the ancient Vulgate.
It was not till the 16th century that any new Latin translations were made of the Bible from the Hebrew text. Sanctus 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 Clarius, a monk of Mount Cassia, 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 8000 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 Munster. His version is more intelligible, and in much better Latin, than that of Pagninus. Huettius 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 Zuinglian, printed at Zurich in 1543, and afterwards by Robert Stephens in 1545, is written in a more elegant style than that of Munster; 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 to great liberty as Sebastian Cattalio, 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 Hebraisms 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 16th century. Sebastian Cattalio found fault with this version, and Beza wrote an apology for it about the year 1564.
Arabic Bible. The Arabic versions of the Bible are of two sorts; the one done by Christians, the other by Jews. There is one of the Old Testament, whose author is supposed to be Saadia Gaon, a Jew of Babylon, who wrote the same about the year of Christ 900. Of this whole work the Pentateuch alone is printed. The Jews have another Arabic version in Hebrew characters, which Erpenius published in Arabic characters at Leyden in the year 1622. Among the Arabic translations done by Christians, there is one printed in the polyglots of Paris and London; but both the author, and the time when it was written, are unknown. It must have been made since the publication of the Koran, because the author in many places has evidently followed it. In this version the Pentateuch is translated from the Hebrew text; Job, from the Syriac; and the rest from the Septuagint, and two other versions of the Pentateuch, the manuscripts of which are in the Bodleian library. There are also some Arabic translations of the Psalms; one printed at Genoa in 1576, the other at Rome in 1619: and there is a manuscript version of the prophets in this language preserved in the Bodleian library.
The gospel being preached in all nations, there is no doubt but that the Bible, which is the foundation of the Christian religion, was translated into the respective languages of each nation. St Chrysostom and Theodore both testify, that the books of the Old and New Testament had been translated into the Syrian, Egyptian, Indian, Persian, Armenian, Ethiopic, Scythian, and Samaritan languages. Socrates and Sozomen tell us, that Ulphilas bishop of the Goths, who lived about the middle of the fourth century, had translated the holy Scriptures into the Gothic language; and pope John VIII. gave his approbation to the version of the holy Scriptures made into the Slavonian.
Ethiopic Bible. The Ethiopic version of the Old Testament is made immediately from the Greek text of the Septuagint; and there is a very plain agreement between this translation and the Alexandrian manuscript: the order of the chapters, the inscriptions of the Psalms, and every thing else being exactly alike. The Ethiopians attribute this version to Frumentius, the apostle of Ethiopia, sent thither by Athanasius bishop of Alexandria.
Coptic or Egyptian Bible. The Coptic or Egyptian translation is likewise made from the Greek of the Septuagint, in which the Egyptian translator so punctually followed the Greek text, that he refused to make use of the labours of Origen and others, who had been at the pains to compare the Greek version with the Hebrew text. We are quite in the dark as to the author and the time of this version, but probably it is very ancient, since we cannot suppose the Egyptian church was long without a translation of the Scriptures in their mother tongue.
Persian and Turkish Bible. There are several versions of the Bible in the Persian language, most of which are in manuscript. There is a translation of the Psalms by one father John, a Carmelite; and another of the same book done from the Latin by the Jesuits. Walton, in the London Polyglot, has published the Gospels, translated by one Simon son of Joseph, a Christian of Persia, who lived in the year 1341. We have likewise some manuscript translations of the Bible in the Turkish language, particularly a version of the New Testament printed at London in the year 1666.
Armenian and Georgian Bible. The Armenians have an old translation of the Scriptures in their language, taken from the Greek of the Septuagint. Three learned Armenians were employed about it, in the time of the emperor Arcadius, viz. Moses surnamed the Grammarian, David the Philosopher, and Mampræus. The Armenians, in 1666, procured an edition of the Bible in their language to be made at Amsterdam, under the direction of an Armenian bishop. Another was printed at Antwerp in 1670, by the procurement of Theodorus Patreus, and the New Testament separately in 1668.
The Georgians have likewise a translation of the Bible in the old Georgian language: but as this language is known only to a very few persons, and the people of the country are extremely ignorant, there is scarce any one who either reads or understands this version.
Whilst the Roman empire subsisted in Europe, the reading of the Scriptures in the Latin tongue, which was the universal language of that empire, prevailed everywhere. But since the face of affairs in Europe has been changed, and so many different monarchies erected upon the ruins of the Roman empire, the Latin tongue has by degrees grown into disuse: whence has arisen a necessity of translating the Bible into the respective languages of each people; and this has produced as many different versions of the Scriptures in the modern languages, as there are different nations professing the Christian religion. Hence we meet with French, Italian, Spanish, German, Flemish, Danish, Slavonian, Polish, Bohemian, and Russian or Muscovite Bibles; besides the Anglo-Saxon, and modern English and Irish Bibles.
French Bible. The oldest French Bible we hear of is the version of Peter de Vaux, chief of the Waldenses, who lived about the year 1160. Raoul de Prefe translated the Bible into French in the reign of Charles V., king of France, about the year 1380. Besides these, there are several old French translations of particular parts of the Scripture. The doctors of Louvain published the Bible in French at Louvain, by order of the emperor Charles V. in 1550. There is a version by Isaac le Maitre de Sacy, published in 1672, with explanations of the literal and spiritual meaning of the text, which was received with wonderful applause, and has been often reprinted. As to the New Testaments in French, which have been printed separately, one of the most remarkable is that of F. Amelotte of the oratory, composed by the direction of some French prelates, and printed with annotations in the year 1666, 1667, and 1670. The author pretends he had been at the pains to search all the libraries in Europe, and collate the oldest manuscripts. But, in examining his work, it appears that he has produced no considerable various readings, ings, which had not before been taken notice of either in the London Polyglott or elsewhere. The New Testament of Mons printed in 1665, with the archbishop of Cambrai's permission, and the king of Spain's licence, made a great noise in the world. It was condemned by pope Clement IX. in 1668, and by pope Innocent XI. in 1679, and in several bishoprics of France at several times. The New Testament published at Trevoux in 1702, by M. Simon, with literal and critical annotations upon difficult passages, was condemned by the bishops of Paris and Meaux in 1702. F. Bouchoux, a Jesuit, with the assistance of F. F. Michael Teller, and Peter Bernier, Jesuits likewise, published a translation of the New Testament in 1697; but this translation is, for the most part, harsh and obscure, which was owing to the author's keeping too strictly to the Latin text from which he translated.
There are likewise French translations published by Protestant authors; one by Robert Peter Olivetan, printed at Geneva in 1535, and since often reprinted with the corrections of John Calvin and others; another by Sebastian Castalio, remarkable for particular ways of expression never used by good judges of the language. John Diodati likewise published a French Bible at Geneva in 1644; but some find fault with his method, in that he rather paraphrases the text than translates it. Faber Stapalenus translated the New Testament into French, which was revised and accommodated to the use of the reformed churches in Piedmont, and printed in 1534. Lastly, M. John Le Clerc published a New Testament in French at Amsterdam in 1703, with annotations taken chiefly from Grotius and Hammond; but the use of this version was prohibited in Holland by order of the States-General, as tending to revive the errors of Sabellius and Socinus.
Italian Bible. The first Italian Bible published by the Romanists, is that of Nicholas Malerme, a Benedictine monk, printed at Venice in 1471. It was translated from the Vulgate. The version of Anthony Brucioli, published at Venice in 1532, was prohibited by the council of Trent. The Calvinists likewise have their Italian Bibles. There is one of John Diodati in 1607 and 1641, and another of Maximus Theophilus in 1551, dedicated to Francis de Medicis duke of Tuscany. The Jews of Italy have no entire version of the Bible in Italian; the inquisition constantly refusing to allow them the liberty of printing one.
Spanish Bible. The first Spanish Bible that we hear of, is that mentioned by Cyprian de Valera, which he says was published about the year 1500. The Epistles and Gospels were published in that language by Ambroise de Montefin in 1512; the whole Bible by Cassiodore de Reyna, a Calvinist, in 1569; and the New Testament, dedicated to the emperor Charles V., by Francis Enzinas, otherwise called Driander, in 1543. The first Bible which was printed in Spanish for the use of the Jews, was that printed at Ferrara in 1553, in Gothic characters, and dedicated to Hercules d'Este duke of Ferrara. This version is very ancient, and was probably in use among the Jews of Spain before Ferdinand and Isabella expelled them out of their dominions in 1492.
German Bible. The first and most ancient translation of the Bible in the German language, is that of Ulphilas bishop of the Goths, about the year 360. This bishop left out the book of Kings, which treat chiefly of war, lest it should too much encourage the martial humour of the Goths. An imperfect manuscript of this version was found in the abbey of Verden near Cologne, written in letters of silver, for which reason it is called Codex Argenteus; and it was published by Francis Junius in 1665. The oldest German printed Bible extant, is that of Nuremberg, printed in 1447; but who the author of it was, is uncertain. John Emzer, chaplain to George duke of Saxony, published a version of the New Testament in opposition to Luther. There is a German Bible of John Eckius in 1537, with Emzer's New Testament added to it; and one by Ulembergius of Westphalia, procured by Ferdinand duke of Bavaria, and printed in 1630. Martin Luther having employed eleven years in translating the Old and New Testament, published the Pentateuch in 1522, the historical books and the Psalms in 1524, the books of Solomon in 1527, Isaiah in 1529, the Prophets in 1531, and the other books in 1530; he published the New Testament in 1522. The learned agree, that his language is pure, and the version clear, and free from intricacies: it was revised by several persons of quality, who were masters of all the delicacies of the German language. The German Bibles which have been printed in Saxony, Switzerland, and elsewhere, are for the most part the same as that of Luther, with very little variation. In 1604, John Picator published a version of the Bible in German, taken from that of Junius and Tremellius: but his turn of expression is purely Latin, and not at all agreeable to the genius of the German language: the Anabaptists have a German Bible printed at Worms in 1529. John Crellius published his version of the New Testament at Racovia in 1630; and Fellinger his, at Amsterdam, in 1660.
Flemish Bible. The Flemish Bibles of the Romanists are very numerous, and for the most part have no author's name prefixed to them, till that of Nicolas Vinck, printed at Lovain in 1548. The Flemish versions made use of by the Calvinists till the year 1637, were copied principally from that of Luther. But the synod of Dort having in 1618 appointed a new translation of the Bible into Flemish, deputies were named for the work, which was not finished till the year 1637.
Danish Bible. The first Danish Bible was published by Peter Palladius, Olaus Chrysothem, John Symnius, and John Maccaeus, in 1550, in which they followed Luther's first German version. There are two other versions, the one by John Paul Refenius bishop of Zealand, in 1605; the other, being the New Testament only, by John Michel, in 1524.
Swedish Bible. In 1534 Olaus and Laurence published a Swedish Bible from the German version of Martin Luther. It was revised in 1617, by order of king Gustavus Adolphus, and was afterwards almost universally received.
Bohemian, Polish, Russian or Muscovite, and Slavonian Bibles. The Bohemians have a Bible translated by eight of their doctors, whom they had sent to the schools of Wirtemberg and Basil, on purpose to study the original languages. It was printed in Moravia in the year 1539. The first Polish version of the Bible, it is said, was that composed by Hadewich wife of Jagello, duke of Lithuania, who embraced Christianity in the year 1390. In 1599, there was a Polish translation of the Bible published at Cracow, which was the work of several divines of that nation, and in which James Wieck, a Jesuit, had a principal share. The Protestants, in 1596, published a Polish Bible from Luther's German version, and dedicated it to Vladislaus IV., king of Poland. The Ruthenians or Muscovites published the Bible in their language in 1587. It was translated from the Greek by St Cyril, the apostle of the Slavonians; but this old version being too obscure, Ernest Gliick, who had been carried prisoner to Moscow after the taking of Narva, undertook a new translation of the Bible in the Slavonian; who dying in 1705, the Czar Peter appointed some particular divines to finish the translation: but whether it was ever printed, we cannot say.
English-Saxon, and modern English Bibles. If we inquire into the versions of the Bible of our own country, we shall find that Adelm bishop of Sherburn, who lived in 709, made an English-Saxon version of the Psalms; and that Eadfrid, or Ecbert, bishop of Lindisfarne, who lived about the year 730, translated several of the books of Scripture into the same language. It is said likewise, that venerable Bede, who died in 785, translated the whole Bible into Saxon. But Cuthbert, Bede's disciple, in the enumeration of his master's works, speaks only of his translation of the Gospel; and says nothing of the rest of the Bible. Some pretend, that King Alfred, who lived in 890, translated a great part of the Scriptures. We find an old version in the Anglo-Saxon of several books of the Bible; made by Elric abbot of Malmesbury: it was published at Oxford, in 1699. There is an old Anglo-Saxon version of the four Gospels, published by Matthew Parker, archbishop of Canterbury, in 1571, the author whereof is unknown. Dr Mill observes, that this version was made from a Latin copy of the old Vulgate.
As to the English versions of the Bible, the most ancient is that of John de Trevifa, a secular priest, who translated the Old and New Testament into English, at the request of Thomas lord Berkeley: he lived in the reign of Richard II., and finished his translation in the year 1357. The second author, who undertook this work, was the famous Wickliff, who lived in the reigns of Edward III. and Richard II. The manuscript of his version is in several libraries in England. In the year 1534, an English version of the Bible, done partly by William Tindal, and partly by Miles Coverdale, was brought into England from Antwerp. The bishops found great fault with this translation; upon which a motion was made in convocation for an English translation of the Bible to be set up in all churches. This motion, though opposed by bishop Gardiner and his party, succeeded at last. The king gave orders for setting about it with all possible haste, and within three years the impression of it was finished. Cromwell procured a general warrant from the king, allowing all his subjects to read it; for which Cranmer wrote his thanks to Cromwell, "rejoicing to see the work of reformation now risen in England, since the word of God did now shine over it all without a cloud." Cromwell likewise gave out injunctions, requiring the clergy to set up Bibles in all their churches, and to encourage the people to read them. In 1542, an act passed for restraining the use of the Bible. The preamble sets forth, that "many sedulous and ignorant people had abused the liberty granted them for reading the Bible; and that great diversity of opinions, animosities, tumults, and schisms had been occasioned by perverting the sense of the Scripture. To retrieve the mischiefs arising from hence, it is enacted, that a certain form of orthodox doctrine be set forth, as a standard of belief; and that Tindal's false translation of the Old and New Testament be suppressed, and forbidden to be read in any of the king's dominions." In the reign of Edward VI., Fuller mentions another translation of the Bible, printed in two editions; the first in 1549, the other in 1551, but neither of them divided into verses.
In the reign of queen Elizabeth came out the bishops Bible, so called, because several of that order were concerned in that version. The work was divided into several parcels, and assigned to men of learning and character. Most of the divisions are marked with great initial letters, signifying either the name or the titles of the persons employed. Archbishop Parker had the principal direction of this affair; he revised the performance, and perhaps put the finishing hand to it. He likewise employed several critics in the Hebrew and Greek languages, to review the old translation, and compare it with the original.
The last English Bible is that called King James's Bible, which proceeded from the Hampton-court conference in 1603, where many exceptions being made to the bishops Bible, king James gave orders for a new one, not, as the preface expresses it, for a translation altogether new, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, but to make a good one better; or of many good ones, one best. Fifty-four learned persons were appointed for this office by the king, as appears by his letter to the archbishop, dated in 1604, which being three years before the translation was entered upon, it is probable seven of them were either dead, or had declined the task, since Fuller's list of the translators makes but 47, who, being ranged under six divisions, entered on their province in 1607. It was published in 1610, with a dedication to king James, and a learned preface, and is commonly called king James's Bible. After this all other versions dropped, and fell into disuse, except the Epistles and Gospels in the Common-prayer book, which were still continued, according to the bishops translation, till the alteration of the Liturgy in 1661, and the Psalms and hymns, which are to this day continued as in the old version.
The judicious Selden, in his Table Talk, speaking of the Bible, says, "The English translation of the Bible is the best translation in the world, and renders the sense of the original best, taking in for the English translation the bishop's Bible, as well as king James's. The translators in king James's time took an excellent way. That part of the Bible was given to him who was most excellent in such a tongue, (as the Apocrypha to Andrew Downes), and then they met together, and one read the translation, the rest holding in their hands some Bible either of the learned tongues, or French, Spanish, Italian, &c. If they found any fault, they spoke; if not, he read on."
King James's Bible is that now read by authority in all the churches in England.
Irish Bible. Towards the middle of the 16th century, Bedell, bishop of Kilmore, set on foot a translation of the Old Testament into the Irish language; the New Testament and the Liturgy having been before fore translated into that language. The bishop appointed one King to execute this work, who, not understanding the oriental languages, was obliged to translate it from the English. This work was received by Bedell, who, after having compared the Irish translation with the English, compared the latter with the Hebrew, the LXX., and the Italian version of Diodati. When this work was finished, the bishop would have been himself at the charge of the impression, but his design was dropped upon advice given to the lord-lieutenant and the archbishop of Canterbury, that it would prove a shameful thing for a nation to publish a Bible translated by such a despicable hand as King. However, the manuscript was not lost, for it went to press in the year 1685.
Some years ago, Dr Kennicott made a proposal for procuring a more correct copy of the Hebrew bible, by collecting and comparing together all the ancient manuscripts of it to be found in the British dominions. This was eagerly embraced by the learned, not only in Britain, but throughout all Christendom; and persons of the most eminent stations encouraged the work by liberal subscriptions. The work was begun in 1763, and in 1776 one volume was published in folio. To this work is prefixed such a list of subscribers as, we believe, never appeared in favour of any literary performance whatever. In this list are included no fewer than seven crowned heads, besides princes, cardinals, archbishops, bishops, universities, public libraries, and many of the most eminent literati in different parts of Europe. What is very extraordinary, Dr Kennicott's work seemed equally to draw the attention of Protestants and Papists, and was recommended and encouraged both by the church of Rome and of Geneva. The labour attending it must appear astonishing, when we consider that the Doctor collected, from all parts of the world, almost 700 MSS. and that these were compared together, and with the common Hebrew bible, not only word by word, but letter by letter. Certainly no undertaking ever deserved greater praise, nor promised to be of more important utility. In particular, the numerous various readings which he hath supplied cannot fail to demonstrate the expediency of a new translation of the Old Testament, or at least of an amendment of the present translation, at the same time that they will furnish the proper means of accomplishing it.