In Greek, βιβλος, or ἡ βιβλος, the book,—a name applied by Christians since the fifth century to denote the collective volume of the Sacred Writings, which are designated also by various other appellations, as the Holy Scriptures, Inspired Writings, Holy Writ, &c. The names Scripture or Writing (2 Pet. i. 20), Scriptures (Matt. xxiii. 29; Acts viii. 24), Holy Scriptures (2 Tim. iii. 15), are those generally employed in the New Testament to denote the writings of the Old, which was styled by the Jews mikra, i.e. lesson, lecture, or reading.
The Bible is divided into the Old and New Testaments, so termed because they contain the history of the revelations which Jehovah has made to mankind, and of his dealings with them, under two dispensations or covenants. The former was written in Hebrew, with the exception of a small portion, which is Chaldee, and refers to Babylon, where that language was spoken, and where the Jews were held in captivity for seventy years. The Old Testament is divided into the Law, the Prophets, and Writings. This division, which is referred to in the New Testament (Luke xxiv. 44) under the terms, the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, is believed to be as ancient as the formation of the canon. It is mentioned in the prologue of Jesus the son of Sirach, and in Philo, and in the Talmud, as well as in the New Testament. The prophets were divided by the ancient Jews into the early prophets, containing Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings; and the later prophets, which were again subdivided into the greater, including Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,—and the lesser, comprehending the remaining twelve. The third division, called by the Greeks "Hagiographa," or "Holy Writings," contains all the other canonical books not included in the preceding parts. The Talmud and the modern Jews divide the sacred books into eight prophets and nine hagiographa.
Josephus enumerates twenty-two books, five of Moses, thirteen prophets, and four books of morality. This number is also mentioned by Origen and Jerome, but it does not seem to have been employed by the Jews themselves. According to the oldest catalogue extant in the Christian church, the Old Testament consists of the five books of Moses, viz., Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, and Ruth; four books of Kings and two of Chronicles; the Psalms of David; the Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, and Job; the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah; the twelve prophets; the books of Daniel, Ezekiel, and Ezra, under which head Nehemiah and Ezra seem to be included.
With regard to the order in which the different books were arranged, the Jews not only differed from the Christians, but they were not agreed among themselves. The Talmudists arranged the prophets thus: Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the twelve minor prophets. The hagiographa they placed in this manner: Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Lamentations, Daniel, Esther, Ezra, Chronicles. The Masoretic arrangement which is adopted in our modern Hebrew Bibles is as follows: The five books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, two books of Samuel, two books of Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, the twelve minor prophets, Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and First and Second Chronicles. Luther's arrangement, which is made entirely according to his own judgment, has been adopted by our English translators, and is generally followed by Protestants.
The Hebrew text is divided into smaller and larger sections, which have descended from a very remote antiquity. The sections called "parashas," or paragraphs, of which the Pentateuch contains 669, are of earlier origin than the Talmud, and probably belong to the time when the sacred books were first read in public. These divisions are of two kinds, called by the Jews "open" and "closed." The former are so called because they commenced a new line: the latter are called "shut" or "closed" because they were separated within the line by a space or break. It is supposed that the original purpose of the open sections was to denote the introduction of a new object, while the close sections were intended to point out the most natural and prominent paragraphs in the open ones, such as the change of speakers, the members of a genealogy, &c. The larger or ecclesiastical sections are believed to be of later origin than the smaller sections. They originated in the custom of reading every Sabbath in the synagogue a portion of the law. According to Maimonides, it was the received usage among the Jews to complete in this way the reading of the law in the space of one year, beginning with the Sabbath following the Feast of Tabernacles. Hence there are fifty-four of these divisions in the Pentateuch, corresponding to the Sabbaths in a Jewish intercalary year. At a later period, certain portions of the prophets were selected for public reading in the synagogue; they were termed, "Haphtaroth," and were written on separate rolls from the Pentateuch sections.
The division of the Old Testament into chapters, as they still stand in the English version, is of Christian origin, and has been ascribed by Bale, bishop of Ossory, the celebrated antiquarian, to Stephen Langton, archbishop of Canterbury, who died in A.D. 1227, and by others to Cardinal Hugo de Sancto Caro, who flourished about the middle of the same century. This arrangement was made for convenience of reference, in a concordance for the Latin Bible which was constructed at this time. But the subdivision of the chapters into verses had not yet been introduced, and for the purpose of referring more easily to a particular sentence, Hugo placed the first seven letters of the alphabet along the margin of each page. From the Christians this capitular division was borrowed by the Jews, and transferred to the Hebrew Bible. Rabbi Isaac Nathan made use of it in the preparation of a Hebrew concordance in 1438; and it was first inserted in the printed Hebrew text by Daniel Bomberg in his edition of 1525. The numbering of the verses was first employed in the Hebrew Psalter printed by Henry Stephens in 1509. In the Latin translation of the Bible made by Sanctus Pagninus of Lucca, and published at Lyons in 1528, there is a division throughout into verses, marked with Arabic numerals on the margin. The system of Pagninus was adopted by Robert Stephens in the New Testament in 1551, and in the whole Bible in 1555; after this time the practice of numbering the verses became general.
The sacred books of the Old Testament have come down to our times in MSS., the oldest of which date from the twelfth century. Nothing is known of the history of the text previous to that period after the return of the Jews from their captivity, when the canon was closed, and the separate books were formed into a completed whole. It is probable that the other sacred books, as well as the law, were preserved in or by the side of the ark of the covenant, and the well-known veneration of the Jews for their holy writings would lead them to watch carefully over the integrity of the text, although it has been exposed to the ordinary causes which deteriorate writings, and various errors have crept into it through the mistakes of transcribers. The existence of the Samaritan Pentateuch, however, whatever value may be attached to its peculiar readings, proves that the copy which we now possess of the five books of Moses is substantially identical with the original manuscript of the Jewish lawgiver. Various conflicting opinions have been entertained respecting the antiquity of the Samaritan copy of the Pentateuch, and the source from which it was derived. Usher maintained that it was the production of an impostor named Dositheus, who compiled this copy from the Hebrew and the Septuagint, a hypothesis which is manifestly untenable. Le Clerc and others have conjectured that the Israelitish priest who was sent by the king of Assyria to instruct the new inhabitants in the religion of the country, took with him a copy of the law, which became thenceforward the Samaritan Pentateuch. But this opinion is not supported by any historical testimony. It has been supposed by Hottinger, Prideaux, and others, that the origin of the Samaritan Pentateuch is contemporary with the erection of the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim, in the time of Ezra, and that Manasseh, the Jewish priest who went over to the Samaritans, took with him a copy of the law. Dr Davidson contends that the Israelites obtained a copy of the Pentateuch in the reign of Josiah, who carried his reforms not only throughout Judah, but Israel also; for we are informed that he broke down the altars and high places, and the images in Samaria, in the cities of Manasseh, Ephraim, Simeon, and Naphtali. In consequence of these vigorous measures, the Israelites, i.e., the Samaritans, served the Lord, and even sent money for the repair of the temple at Jerusalem. And when Josiah proclaimed a solemn passover at Jerusalem, the Israelites attended as well as the people of Judah, and heard the king read in the ears of his assembled people the words of the book of the covenant. This conduct, however, indicates a previous knowledge of the law on the part of... the Israelites, otherwise the urgent appeal of Josiah could scarcely have produced so powerful and wide an impression. Some are therefore of opinion with Morin, Kennicott, Michaelis, Stuart, and other eminent commentators, that copies of the Pentateuch must have been in the hands of the ten tribes from the time of Rehoboam. "The prophets, who frequently inveigh against the Israelites for their idolatry and their crimes, never accuse them of being destitute of the law or ignorant of its contents. It is wholly improbable, too, that the people when carried captive into Assyria took with them all the copies of the law. Thus we are brought to the conclusion that the Samaritan as well as the Jewish copy originally flowed from the autograph of Moses. The two constitute, in fact, different recensions of the same work, and coalesce in point of antiquity."
With regard to the formation and completion of the Old Testament canon, a very steadfast tradition of the Jews affirms that the collection of the sacred writings began with Moses, was carried on by the prophets, and was completed in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, under the auspices of those writers and of the men of the Great Synagogue,—a number of elders, amounting to one hundred and twenty, who, succeeding to others in a continued series from the return of the Jews again into Judea after the Babylonish captivity, to the time of Simon the Just, laboured in the restoring of the Jewish church and state in that country. In order thereto, the Holy Scriptures being the rule they were to go by, their chief care was to make a true collection of those Scriptures and publish them to the people." The first part of this tradition is confirmed by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures themselves. We are told (Deut. xxxi. 9) that when Moses had finished the writing of the law, "he delivered it to the priests the sons of Levi," and unto the elders of Israel." And the king was enjoined to "write him a copy of this law in a book; out of that which is before the priests the Levites" (xvii. 18). From Deut. xxxi. 26, we still further learn that this copy of the law was deposited in the side of the ark of the covenant. We are informed that Joshua, following the example of Moses, wrote in the book of the law of the Lord the history which bears his name (Josh. xxiv. 26); and this, as Havermick remarks, evidently refers to the passage in Deuteronomy, and hence must be understood as intimating that this document also found a place in the side of the ark of the covenant. Le Clerc conjectures with great probability that the membrane on which the words of Joshua were written was agglutinated to the volume of Moses, which had been deposited in the side of the ark. In later times also we find traces of this same custom. Thus Samuel, when he had told the people the manner (law, jus publicum) of the kingdom, "wrote it in the book, and laid it up before the Lord,"—language which plainly intimates that the documents of Samuel were appended to some particular well-known book. At a later period, in the reign of Josiah, Hilkiah the high priest is said "to have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord" (2 Kings xxii. 8), doubtless in its appointed place of deposit—the side of the ark. Isaiah, in calling attention to his own prophecies, says, "Seek ye out of the book of the Lord and read, no one of these shall fail" (xxxiv. 16); a passage on which Gesenius remarks, "the poet seems to contemplate the placing of his oracle in a collection of oracles and holy writings, from which posterity might judge of the correctness of his prediction." From these statements we are warranted to conclude that the books of the Old Testament which were successively sanctioned by Moses and the prophets, were acknowledged by the Jews before the exile as of divine authority; and that an authentic copy of each book, as soon as it was concluded, was laid up in the sanctuary, and placed under the care of the priests. As Abarbanel justly remarks on Deut. xxxi. 26, "God deposited there (in the side of the ark), the book of the law, to remain there as a true and abiding witness; and that no one might have the power of falsifying or disfiguring it. None could injure writings deposited among the genealogies and with the priests." This opinion respecting the formation of the canon is corroborated by the unvarying tradition of the Jewish rabbins from the earliest period. Thus, in one of the oldest portions of the Talmud, it is said, "Moses received the law at Sinai, and transmitted it to Joshua; Joshua to the elders; the elders to the prophets; the prophets to the men of the Great Synagogue." Again, in the Babylonian Gemara the rabbins enlarge at considerable length on the canon. "The wise men," they state, "have left to us the law, the prophets, and the hagiographia, combined into one whole." "Who," they go on to say, "has written these books?" To this it is replied, Moses wrote the Pentateuch and Job; Joshua, the book which bears his name, and eight verses of Deuteronomy; Samuel, the books of Samuel, Judges, and Ruth; David, the Psalms, assisted by ten men; Jeremiah, his book, Lamentations, and the books of Kings; Hezekiah and his College, Isaiah, Proverbs, Canticles, Ecclesiastes; the men of the Great Synagogue, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Esther; Ezra, his book and the genealogies in the Chronicles; and Nehemiah finished the Chronicles,—a passage which, as Havermick has shown, refers, not to the composition of these books, but to their insertion in the canon.
With regard to the time when the sacred canon was completed, Hengstenberg, Havermick, and Stuart are of opinion that this event took place under Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Great Synagogue. In support of this view, they adduce the testimony of the son of Sirach, who cites the three divisions of the canon, and refers to it as a completed whole; and of Josephus who divides the Old Testament into twenty-two books "which were justly esteemed divine," and affirms that from the time of Artaxerxes down to his own day, no one had dared either to add to, or to take from, or to alter anything in the sacred books. It was not every one, he says, who was permitted among the Jews to write therein; only the prophets were competent, in virtue of their divine inspiration. The thirteen prophets wrote their history from the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes. From Artaxerxes to our day, everything also has been recorded in books, but these have not been regarded as deserving equal credit with the former, because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets." It is also contended by these writers that the time of Ezra and Nehemiah was the most suitable period for such an undertaking: that, moreover, it was the latest period at which the canon could be fixed. "As the duty to be performed was not merely that of determining the genuineness of certain books, but of pointing out those which had been divinely ordained as a rule of faith and morals to the church, it was one which none but a prophet could discharge." Now, in the days of Nehemiah and Ezra there were several prophets living, among whom we know the names of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi; but with that age expired the line of prophets whom God had appointed "to comfort Jacob and deliver them by assured hope." As the men of the Great Synagogue were thus the last of the prophets, if the canon was not fixed by them the time was past when it could be fixed at all. Lastly, it is urged, that we find in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah the canon treated as a whole, and regarded with the utmost veneration; that all subse- quent references to the sacred writings presuppose the existence of the complete canon; and that of no one among the apocryphal books is it so much as hinted, either by the author or by any other Jewish writer, that it was worthy of a place among the sacred books, though of some of them the pretensions are in other respects sufficiently high. On the other hand, Dr Davidson adduces the opinion of the later Jews, who affirm that the canon was closed by Simon the Just, who died 202 B.C. He contends that some books were received into the Jewish canon after the time of Ezra and Nehemiah; and therefore concludes that the important work begun by these eminent reformers was continued after them by the most competent authority, till the entire collection was declared complete, about 200 B.C.
The Old Testament canon, as established in the time of Ezra, has remained unaltered to the present day. The following are the canonical books of the ancient economy, arranged in the order in which they are supposed to have been published, with the number of chapters in each:
| Books | Number of Chapters | |------------------------|--------------------| | Genesis | 50 | | Exodus | 40 | | Leviticus | 27 | | Numbers | 36 | | Deuteronomy | 34 | | Joshua | 24 | | Judges | 21 | | Ruth | 4 | | 1 Samuel | 31 | | 2 Samuel | 31 | | 1 Kings | 22 | | 2 Kings | 25 | | 1 Chronicles | 29 | | 2 Chronicles | 36 | | Ezra | 10 | | Nehemiah | 13 | | Esther | 10 | | Job (date uncertain) | 42 | | Psalms | 150 | | Proverbs | 31 |
The Old Testament contains in all, 39 books, 929 chapters, 23,214 verses, and 592,439 words.
Great care was taken by the Jews to preserve the accuracy of the sacred text, and from an early period they were in the habit of numbering the verses and words, and even letters, marking the sum-total at the end of each separate book and section,—a practice which, though in itself laborious and trifling, had a good effect on the purity of the text. The watchful care of Almighty God over the sacred hooks containing His revealed will, is strikingly manifested in the manner in which they have been preserved through the instrumentality of the Jews. "The reverent attention which this people gave to the Hebrew text, and the jealousy with which they guarded it from corruption, must have belonged to the wise arrangements of the Highest, who puts it into the heart of men to engage in works tending to promote his own glory." Very soon after its invention the Jews took advantage of that new and beautiful art which in the middle of the fifteenth century superseded the labours of the calligraphists; and copies of the Hebrew Scriptures were among the earliest printed books. So early as 1477 the Psalter was printed, probably at Bologna, with the commentary of Kimchi interspersed among the text. The Pentateuch was printed at the same place in 1482, with the Targum of Onkelos, and the commentary of Solomon Jarchi. Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther, appeared the same year. A few years later appeared the former prophets, viz., Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, with Kimchi's commentary; and these were soon after followed by the latter prophets, viz., Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor prophets.
The Hagiothrapha first appeared at Naples in 1487. The entire Hebrew Bible was first printed at Soncino in 1488; another edition, which has neither date nor place, is also supposed to have appeared at Soncino. The third complete edition is that of Brescia in 1494; it was edited by Rabbi Gerson, and was the edition which Luther used in making his German version. The first edition of the Hebrew Scriptures published under the auspices of Christians was the Complutensian Polyglot, prepared at the expense of Cardinal Ximenes. It was completed in the year 1517, but did not appear till 1522, at Alcala, in Spain. Daniel Bomberg's first edition of his Rabbinical Bible, in four vols folio, was published at Venice in 1518. His second edition, which was followed by several others, is the parent of our present Hebrew Bibles. The Antwerp Polyglot (1569), in eight vols. folio, contains the Complutensian text, collated with Bomberg's; and Hutter's edition (1587), presents a mixed text taken from the Antwerp, Paris, and Venetian editions. Other accurate editions were published by Buxtorf (1611 and 1618), by Moses Ben Simeon of Frankfort (the Amsterdam edition 1724), and by Athias (1661 and 1667), with a preface by Leusden. The second edition of Athias formed the basis of Van der Hooght's, published in 1705, and which may be regarded as the textus receptus. The elaborate editions of Kennicott, and De Rossi, contain an immense collection of various readings, as do also the editions of Munster, Michaelis, Houbigant, Jahn, and the polyglots.
THE NEW TESTAMENT.
The New Testament is written in what has been called Hellenistic or Hebraizing Greek, which is strongly tinged with a Hebrew colouring, derived partly from the country of the writers, partly from the original and peculiar ideas which they sought to convey to their readers. The language, idioms, and style of the sacred volume are all in accordance with the hypothesis that its authors were of Jewish extraction, and living at the commencement of the Christian era.
There is abundant evidence in favour of the inspiration of the various books of the New Testament, but it is difficult of the New Testament to point out the precise period at which they were collected, and included in the sacred canon. The weight of authority is decidedly in favour of the opinion, that each of the original churches made a complete collection for itself of those writings which could be proved by sufficient evidence to be the production of inspired men, and that the general accordance of these various collections as to the books admitted, furnishes conclusive proof of the accuracy of the existing canon.
The earliest reference to a collection of the New Testament Scriptures occurs in 2 Peter iii. 16, where the writer speaks of the epistles of Paul in such a way as to indicate that all, or the greater part of them, had been collected together at that time, and were regarded by the churches generally as entitled to equal reverence with the other Scriptures,—viz., the sacred writings of the Old and the New Testament.
Mention is made of the law, the prophets, the gospel, and the apostles, in the epistle to Diognetus—one of the earliest of the uninspired Christian writings. Ignatius classes the gospels and the apostles along with the prophets. Theophilus of Antioch frequently applies to the New Testament Scriptures the appellation of "the Holy Writings," and speaks of the law, the prophets, and the gospel, as alike divinely inspired; and Clement of Alexandria distinguishes them into the "gospels and apostolic discourses." About the beginning of the third century these two collections, viz., the gospels and the apostolic epistles had been put together under one name—the New Testament. Thus, Tertullian, in his treatise against Marcion, applies this desig-
---
1 Havermack's Introduction, pp. 23-45; Hengstenberg, vol. i. p. 237 seq.; Stuart's Critical History and Defence of the Old Testament Canon, p. 226; Bible Cyclop., vol. i. p. 379. 2 Davidson's Biblical Criticism, vol. i. p. 106. nation to the whole collection, which he distinguishes from the "ancient Scriptures;" and Irenaeus repeatedly calls the books of the New Testament "the Holy Scriptures," "the oracles of God," and puts them on a level with the law and the prophets. These and other similar statements warrant the conclusion that before the middle of the third century the New Testament Scriptures were formed into one collection, designated by one general title, and regarded by Christians as possessed of divine authority. This conclusion is corroborated by the testimony of Origen and Eusebius, who made careful inquiry respecting this subject, and have left an accurate record of the books which were received as canonical by the church in their day. "Of the ten ancient catalogues of the New Testament books still extant, six accord exactly with our present canon, while of the rest three omit only the Apocalypse, and one omits with this the Epistle to the Hebrews." The identity of these books with the present canonical Scriptures is proved by the copious quotations from them contained in the writings of the early fathers. It is evident from these observations that the formation of the New Testament canon was gradual; the collection was not made by one man, one council, at one time, or in one place. The adherents of the Christian religion in different lands came to agree in the same conclusion progressively, by tacit consent. They did so independently to a great extent, and in countries remote from one another. They judged by internal evidence, by tradition, by the fact of the writers being apostles or apostolic men. Slowly and surely did they arrive at the entire separation of the sacred Scriptures from the spurious imitations which were then current. And in the result of their judgment modern scholars commonly acquiesce.
The following are the canonical books of the New Testament, arranged in the order in which they are given in our authorized version, with the number of chapters in each, and the time at which they are supposed to have been written:
| Number of Date | Number of Date | |---------------|---------------| | Matthew | 28 | 1 Timothy | 6 | | Mark | 16 | 2 Timothy | 4 | | Luke | 24 | Titus | 3 | | John | 21 | Philemon | 1 | | Acts | 28 | Hebrews | 13 | | Romans | 16 | James | 5 | | 1 Corinthians | 16 | Peter | 5 | | 2 Corinthians | 13 | Peter | 3 | | Galatians | 6 | 1 John | 5 | | Ephesians | 6 | 2 John | 1 | | Philippians | 4 | 3 John | 1 | | Colossians | 4 | Jude | 1 | | 1 Thessalonians| 5 | Revelation | 22 | | 2 Thessalonians| 3 | | |
The first part of the Greek Testament that was printed consisted of the hymn of Zacharias and Mary, published at Venice in 1486, and the first six chapters of St John's Gospel, which appeared in 1504. The first printed edition of the Testament was that of the Complutensian Polyglot, which was published at the expense of the celebrated Cardinal Ximenes. The printing of the New Testament in this edition was commenced in 1502, and was completed in 1514, but the work was not published till 1522. Before this edition saw the light, Erasmus published his edition at Basle in 1516; and four other editions followed successively between 1519 and 1535. Several editions were published by Robert Stephens, the third of which is called the Regia or royal edition, and is elegantly printed. The fourth edition is remarkable as being the first into which the division of verses was introduced. The first Elzevir edition, so called from the name of the printer, appeared at Leyden in 1624. The second, which issued from the same press in 1633, is the best of all the Elzevir editions, and has long formed the "received text." Other celebrated editions are those of Beza; the London Polyglot, edited by the learned Walton; Mill's critical edition (1707), which was the labour of thirty years; the splendid edition of John James Wetstein, which appeared in 1751; that of Griesbach, published in 1775-77, which has been said to have ushered in the "golden age" of criticism; the antagonistic edition of Professor Scholz, an eminent Roman Catholic critic, which appeared in 1830-35; and the recent editions of Tischendorf and Lachmann.
The text of the New Testament has of course suffered State of the from the mistakes of translators and from other obvious causes, text, but it is confessedly free from "gross and palpable errors." The researches of modern critics have conclusively shown that it has been preserved with great care, and does not materially differ from what it was 1700 years ago. The various readings which have arisen from the commutation of letters, the transposition of words, abbreviations, seeing and hearing incorrectly, and other causes, amounted in Mill's edition to 30,000, and have now increased to upwards of 100,000. This circumstance was at one time eagerly laid hold of by infidels, and excited no small alarm among religious men. But all apprehension on this point has long ago been removed, and it is now generally admitted that the greater part of these variations in the text of the Scriptures are not of the slightest importance as regards either the history or the doctrines of our religion. "Of the various readings of Various the New Testament," says Mr Norton, "nineteen out of readings twenty, at least, are to be dismissed at once from consideration, not on account of their intrinsic unimportance—that is a separate consideration—but because they are found in so few authorities, and their origin is so easily explained, that no critic would regard them as having any claim to be inserted in the text. Of those which remain, a very great majority are entirely unimportant. They consist in different modes of spelling; in different tenses of the same verb, or different cases of the same noun, not affecting the essential meaning; in the use of the singular for the plural, or the plural for the singular, where one or the other expression is equally suitable; in the insertion or omission of particles such as ἐστίν and ἦν, not affecting the sense, or of the article in cases equally unimportant; in the introduction of a proper name where, if not inserted, the personal pronoun is to be understood, or of some other word or words expressive of a sense which would be distinctly implied without them; in the addition of 'Jesus' to Christ, or 'Christ' to Jesus; in the substitution of one synonymous or equivalent term for another; in the transposition of words, leaving their signification the same; in the use of an uncompounded verb, or of the same verb compounded with a preposition—the latter differing from the former only in a shade of meaning. Such various readings, and others equally unimportant, compose far the greater part of all, concerning which there may be or has been a question whether they are to be admitted into the text or not, and it is therefore obviously of no consequence in which way the question has been or may be determined."
The oldest version of the Old Testament in any language is the Greek translation, commonly called the Septuagint, tugiait, either because it was approved and sanctioned by the Jewish sanhedrin, which consisted of seventy or seventy-two persons, or more probably from the Jewish fable that so many individuals were employed in the work. The history of this version is exceedingly obscure, and it is difficult to discriminate the genuine from the spurious traditions which are current respecting its origin. The earliest historical notice of the Septuagint is to be found in the writings of Arista- bulus, a Jew, who lived about the commencement of the second century before Christ. He states that "the entire interpretation of the law was made in the time of a king..." surnamed Philadelphus... Demetrius Phalerceus being actively employed about it." To this statement it has been objected, that Demetrius Phalerceus is represented as living in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, whereas he lived under his predecessor Ptolemy Lagus, and died soon after his death. This was undoubtedly the case; but it does not follow that the account of Aristobulus is therefore to be rejected as wholly undeserving of credit. Havermick contends that Aristobulus intended merely to say that Demetrius was the person who took an active part in the translation, or caused it to be undertaken, the whole being finished in the time of Philadelphus. Others are of opinion that Aristobulus made a mistake in the name of the king. Hody harmonizes the discrepancy by placing the translation of the Pentateuch in the two years during which father and son reigned conjointly, 286 and 285 B.C. An equivocal statement in the prologue of Jesus the son of Sirach has been supposed to intimate that "the law and the prophets and the rest of the books" were translated into Greek at the time he wrote; but it cannot be proved that the passage has any reference to the Septuagint. A minute account of the origin of this version has been given by Aristeas, an author who pretends to be a Gentile and a favourite at the court of Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt. In a letter addressed to his brother Philocrates, he relates that Philadelphus, when founding a public library at Alexandria at a great expense, was advised by Demetrius Phalerceus to apply to the Jewish high priest Eleazar for a copy of the book containing the Jewish laws. As a preliminary step, he purchased the freedom of all the Jews in his dominions who had been taken captive by his father or himself. He then sent Aristeas and Andreas with costly presents and a letter to Eleazar, requesting him to send to Alexandria seventy-two interpreters. They were accordingly despatched with a copy of the law, "consisting of different parchments, in which the law was written in gold in the Jewish letters;" and were received and entertained by the king for several days with great respect and liberality. Demetrius then conducted them to an island, which appears to have been Pharos, where they were lodged together in a splendid house near the shore. The translation was completed in seventy-two days, having been written down piece by piece by Demetrius, as agreed upon after mutual consultation. It was then publicly read by him to a number of the principal Jews whom he had summoned together for that purpose. They approved of the translation, and imprecatory were pronounced against any one who should presume to alter it. The Jews requested permission to take a copy for their own use; and the work was carefully preserved by command of the king, who sent home the interpreters loaded with presents. The substance of this narrative is repeated by Josephus; but the greater part of it is undoubtedly fabulous, and many glaring falsehoods were afterwards added to it in the days of Justin Martyr and Epiphanius, which were received by these credulous men without hesitation. The interpreters were said to have been shut up in separate cells, where, without any communication with one another, they composed seventy-two distinct versions, miraculously agreeing in every particular. Hence it was concluded that they were inspired, and their version was received as infallibly correct. This absurd story was believed both by the early Jewish rabbins and by most of the Fathers, and its credibility was not called in question till the latter half of the seventeenth century. It has now been proved to contain particulars improbable, incredible, and contrary to history. But there is good reason to believe that it is not wholly fictitious. Dr Davidson has shown that truth lies at the basis of the story contained in the narrative of Aristeas, and that in all probability the version was really made at the command of an Egyptian king; but that king was Ptolemy Lagus, not Philadelphus,—whether from a religious, a political, or a literary motive, it is impossible to say. When the version was made by royal authority, it is quite probable that the translators may have thought of the ecclesiastical purpose which it would serve, and that it fell in with their religious desires and wants, though they would not have undertaken it without an external impulse.
There can be no doubt that the version of the Septuagint was made by degrees, and that the Pentateuch was translated first. The precise time at which the separate portions of the version were made cannot now be ascertained; but it is probable that the interval between the translating of the law and the prophets was very short, and that the entire work was completed before the thirty-eighth year of Ptolemy Physcon. The version itself affords internal evidence that various hands were employed upon it; but nothing certain can be known respecting the number of translators. The tradition that there were seventy-two must be rejected as fabulous; but there must have been at least five or six individuals engaged on the entire work, which is consequently of unequal value. The translator of the Pentateuch was unquestionably the most skilful of all the interpreters; and that portion of the work far surpasses the others in fidelity and accuracy. Next to it in point of excellence is the version of the Proverbs. The Psalms and prophets have been but indifferently executed. The translation of Isaiah is exceedingly defective, and that of Daniel is the worst of the whole. It was probably on this account that the version of Theodotion was very early substituted for it by the Greek Church.
The well-known fact that the Septuagint harmonizes with the Samaritan Pentateuch in more than a thousand places where they differ from the Hebrew text, has given rise to various hypotheses to account for the agreement. Selden, Hottinger, Hassenschamp, and Eichhorn have supposed that the version of the Pentateuch was made from the Samaritan text rather than the Hebrew; others, that the one was interpolated from the other; but the irreconcilable enmity which subsisted between the Jews and the Samaritans, both in Egypt and Palestine, renders both of these conjectures in the highest degree improbable. Dr S. Lee accounts for the agreement by supposing that the early Christians interspersed their copies with Samaritan glosses, which ignorant transcribers afterwards inserted in the text. But, to say nothing of the reverence with which the early Christians regarded their sacred books, there is no evidence that they were acquainted with the Samaritan Pentateuch and its glosses. A much more plausible hypothesis has been proposed by Gesenius, viz., that the Samaritan Pentateuch and Septuagint version both flowed from a common recension of the Hebrew Scriptures, one older than either, and different in many places from the recension of the Masorites now in common use. Professor Stuart, by whom this supposition has been adopted, thinks that it will account both for the differences and for the agreements of the Septuagint and Samaritan versions; but other writers are of opinion that no satisfactory solution of the problem has yet been offered.
The Septuagint version is free rather than literal; and the translators have frequently mistaken the meaning of the original, and have indulged in many liberties with regard to the text. Its merits, however, are unquestionably great, and it has rendered important service not only in the criticism but also in the exposition of the Old Testament. It speedily acquired a high reputation among the Hellenistic Jews; and it was read publicly in the synagogues, not only of Egypt, but, sometimes at least, of Palestine itself. Josephus, though he was acquainted with Hebrew, made more use of the Greek version than of the original itself, and it was universally received by the early Christians. But the feelings of the Jews speedily underwent a change. In the controversies between them and the Christians, the latter were in the habit of appealing to the prophecies which this version contained respecting the Messiah, and which were fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth. The Jews, now worsted in argument, began to deny that the Septuagint agreed with the Hebrew original; and ultimately this version became so odious to them, that, according to the Talmud, a fast was appointed on the 8th day of the month Thbeth, the day on which the law was translated into Greek, to perpetuate the remembrance of this inauspicious event. It was owing to this feeling that the Jews had recourse to the version of Aquila, who is supposed to have undertaken a new translation from the Hebrew for the express purpose of supplanting the Septuagint.
Aquila was a Jewish proselyte, a native of Pontus, who undertook a translation of the Old Testament into Greek, probably about the middle of the second century of the Christian era. It appears from Jerome that there were two editions of this version, the second of which was more literal than the first; but it is impossible to determine whether it embraced the whole of the Old Testament or not. The version of Aquila was highly prized by the Jews, who called it the Hebrew verity, and probably this very circumstance tended to excite a prejudice against it among the Fathers, who accused him of perverting some prophecies relating to the Messiah. The translation adheres so closely to the original as to be in some cases unintelligible.
The second who composed a Greek version of the Scriptures was Tertullian, who, according to Irenaeus, was a native of Ephesus, and a Jewish proselyte. Jerome and Eusebius call him an Ebionite, or semi-Christian. He must have lived before A.D. 176. Only a few fragments of the work remain, but, according to the testimony of those who had the opportunity of examining it, the translation followed the Septuagint so closely, that it has been supposed that his intention was to make a revision of its text, rather than a new version. The numerous errors into which he has fallen, show that his knowledge of the original was not extensive or accurate.
The third Greek version was made by Symmachus, who like Theodotion, appears to have been an Ebionite, and is said to have been a Samaritan by birth. The remaining fragments of the work show that the style is good, and the diction perspicuous and intelligible. The ancient writers who speak of this version remark that the author translated freely, and gave the sense of the original rather than the words. As this translation was not known to Irenaeus, it is believed to be of later date than those of Aquila and Theodotion.
Three other Greek versions of the Scriptures were discovered by Origen when he travelled into Eastern countries for the purpose of collecting materials for his polyglot. They did not extend to the entire Old Testament, but only to several books, and are usually denominated the fifth, sixth, and seventh, from the position which they occupied in the columns of Origen's work entitled the Hexapla. Their authors were unknown to Origen himself, but they are supposed to have been Jewish Christians. These anonymous translations must have been made subsequently to those of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus; and judging from the scanty fragments of them which remain, their rendering of the original must have been somewhat free and paraphrastic.
Another ancient Greek version of several books of the Old Testament, which is deposited in St Mark's library at Venice, is supposed to have been made at Byzantium for private use, not earlier than the ninth century. It has been translated directly from the original, and is more literal than any other ancient version. It cannot be certainly known whether the author was a Jew or a Christian.
There is a version of the five books of Moses in the Samaritan dialect, made from the Samaritan copy of the Pentateuch, which it follows word for word. The author and the date of this translation are alike unknown, but Dr David-son is of opinion that it was probably made either in the second or the third century.
One of the oldest translations of the Bible made by Christians is the version commonly called the Old Syrian or Peshito, i.e., the simple, because it adheres to the literal meaning, in opposition to the allegorical translations and expositions. It was undoubtedly made at a very early period, but its precise age is involved in obscurity. The traditions of the Syrians themselves claim for the Peshito a very high antiquity; some of them even allege that it was made in the time of Solomon and Hiram, but no credit can be attached to such fabulous assumptions. Jacob of Edessa adopts the tradition that this version was made in the days of Thaddaeus the Apostle, and the Edessene king Abgarus; and Havermack is inclined to regard this account as entitled to credit. Michaelis assigns it to the first century of our era, while Dr Davidson is of opinion that it probably belongs to the second.
The first author who mentions it is Ephraem Syrus, who died A.D. 376. In his time it had met with a general reception among the Syrian churches, and was employed by him as the basis of his commentaries on the Bible. The Peshito originally embraced only the canonical books of the Old Testament, but the Apocrypha must also have been translated into Syriac at a very early period, since they are cited by Ephraem Syrus, who, however, did not regard them as canonical books. With regard to the author of this version, some have contended that he was a Jew, but the weight of evidence decidedly preponderates in favour of a Christian origin. It has been made directly from the Hebrew, and adheres more faithfully to the original than any other of the ancient versions. The Old Syrian version of the New Testament wants the second and third Epistles of John, the second of Peter, that of Jude, and the Apocalypse. Some have accounted for this circumstance by supposing that the translator must have made his version either before these books were written, or at least before they were acknowledged in Syria as of divine authority; while others think the fact may be explained by the non-reception of these books in the district where the version was made.
Several versions of the Scriptures were made in the Arabic language, but all of these are supposed to be later than Persian of the Mahometan era. Three of these translations were made directly from the Hebrew, others were derived from the Peshito, while several have proceeded from the Septuagint. A version of the Old Testament in the Persian language seems to have existed at an early period, and is mentioned both by Chrysostom and Theodoret. But the Persian translation of the Pentateuch, printed in the London Polyglot, and which was made by a Jew, Rabbi Jacob, the son of Joseph Tawus, is undoubtedly of later origin than the eighth century. It was first printed at Constantinople in 1546. A version of the Bible in Persian was made a few years ago by the late Rev. Dr. Glen, who was sent to Persia for that purpose by the Scottish United Presbyterian Church.
The Memphitic or Coptic translation of the Bible, written in the dialect of Lower Egypt, was taken from the Septuagint, and belongs to the third century. The Thebaic or Sahidic version, in the dialect of Upper Egypt, was also made from the Greek, probably about the same period.
Chrysostom alludes to a version of the Scriptures which was in use among the Ethiopians in his day, and appears to have been made in the fourth century, during which Christianity was diffused among that people. This translation is written in the old sacred language called the Geez, and although made by Christians is likewise used by the Ethiopian Jews. It was unquestionably derived from the Septuagint, and embraces not only the whole of the canonical books of Scripture, but also the Apocrypha. The entire work is extant in Europe, but only detached portions of it have been printed.
The Armenian version of the Bible was made by Miesrob, the inventor of the Armenian alphabet, assisted by two of his pupils. It was taken from the Greek, and was completed in A.D. 410. The Georgian version, which belongs to the sixth century; the Slavonic, which was made by Cyril of Thessalonica, and his brother Methodius who invented the Slavic alphabet; and the Gothic, which was translated by Ulfilas in the fourth century,—were all derived from the same source.
There has been a Latin version of the Bible from the first ages of the Christian Church; but it is now impossible to discover when and by whom it was made. In opposition to Jahn, Hug, and Van Ess, Eichhorn is of opinion that there was only one distinct Latin translation, and that it was made in Africa in the course of the first century; but the first certain traces of this version, called the Vetus or old Latin, are found at the close of the second century. Some fragments of it still exist, which show it to have adhered literally to the Septuagint which existed before Origen's Hexapla, whose defects it preserves. In the year 382, Jerome, at the request of Pope Damasus, undertook to revise and correct this version, which had become exceedingly corrupt. He first corrected the Psalms, producing what is called the Roman Psalter, because it is used in the church of the Vatican. Subsequently, he undertook a second version of this part of the Scriptures, which bears the name of the Gallican Psalter, because it was subsequently adopted in the churches of Gaul. He afterwards revised in the same way the rest of the Old Testament, but the only portions of the work which have descended to our day are the two Psalters and the book of Job.
Jerome next, at the request of his friends, and for the purpose of assisting the Christians in their controversies with the Jews, undertook a new version from the Hebrew, between the years 385 and 405. Although not free from defects, principally caused by the haste with which some parts of the work were executed, it is undoubtedly the best translation of which antiquity can boast. But in spite of its great merits, it met with a very unfavourable reception in the Latin Church. The learned and laborious translator was denounced as a heretic, and the new version was declared to be a falsification of the Word of God. Its value, however, was recognised from the first by a few discriminating scholars, and it gradually won its way to public favour till it became the only received version, and this by tacit consent, in consequence of its intrinsic merits, for it obtained no official sanction until the Council of Trent.
In the course of time Jerome's version became exceedingly corrupt, both by a mixture of the old version, and by interpolations from liturgical books. In the ninth century (A.D. 802) a version of the text was undertaken by command of Charlemagne, who intrusted the task to the celebrated Alcuin. In the eleventh century a new version was undertaken by Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury; and another in the following century by Cardinal Nicolaus. After the twelfth century were begun what were termed correctoria biblica, in which the Latin text was furnished with marginal glosses from other MSS., the fathers, and other venerated teachers of the church. The Vulgate was the first book ever printed, and it issued from the press many times without date or place. The first that had a date was published at Mentz in 1462, and other editions quickly followed. The corruption of the text now became more apparent than ever, and the necessity of an attempt to correct its errors was acknowledged by the publication of the Complutensian Polyglot, and the critical editions of Isidore Clarius, Robert Stephens, Benoist, and others.
In the year 1546, the Council of Trent passed its famous decree respecting the Vulgate, ordaining that it "shall be used in public readings, disputations, sermons, and expositions, as authentic, and that none is to presume to reject it under any pretence whatever." The text of the Vulgate having become exceedingly corrupt, various attempts were made to revise and correct it. Two editions were issued under the sanction of the papal chair, termed respectively the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles, the variations between which amounted to above two thousand: the latter is the basis of all subsequent editions of the Vulgate, from those of Plantin, which appeared in 1599 and 1650, to that of Leander Van Ess, published by authority of Leo XII. in 1826.
After the downfall of the Roman empire and the gradual disuse of the Latin tongue, the Holy Scriptures were translated into all the languages of modern Europe.
The oldest French Bible is the version of Peter de Vaux, French leader of the Waldenses, who lived about the year 1160. Raoul de Presle also translated the Bible into French about the year 1380; and besides these there are several old French translations of particular portions of the Holy Scriptures. The doctors of Louvain published an edition of the Bible in French at Louvain, by order of the Emperor Charles V., in 1550. The version of De Sacy, which was published in 1692, with explanations of the literal and spiritual meaning of the text, was received with great applause, and has often been reprinted. With respect to the versions of the New Testament in French, one of the best known is that which F. Amelotte of the Oratory executed by the direction of some French prelates, and printed with annotations in 1666, 1667, and 1670. The Mons New Testament, printed in the year 1665, with the permission of the Archbishop of Cambrai and the license of the king of Spain, was condemned by Pope Clement IX. in 1668, and by Pope Innocent XI. in 1679, and in several bishoprics of France at different 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. Another translation of the New Testament was published in 1697 by Bouhours a Jesuit, with the assistance of Michael Tellier and Peter Bernier, who were likewise Jesuits. This version, however, follows so closely the Latin text from which it is translated that it is for the most part harsh and obscure. The most approved French translations of the Scriptures are those of Descarrieres and De Vence. There are also several French versions of the Bible published by Protestants. The version of Olivetan, printed at Neufchâtel in 1535, has been frequently reprinted with the corrections of Calvin and others. A somewhat paraphrastic version was published at Geneva in 1644 by John Diodati. A translation of the New Testament executed by J. Faber Stapulensis was revised and accommodated to the use of the Reformed churches in Piedmont in 1534. Lastly, a version of the New Testament in French was published at Amsterdam in 1703 by Le Clerc, with annotations taken chiefly from Grotius and Hammond; but this version was prohibited in Holland by order of the States-General, as tending to revive the errors of Sabellius and Socinus.
The earliest Italian Bible published by the Roman Catholic Church is the version of Nicolas Malermi, a Benedictine monk, printed at Venice in 1471. It was made from the Vulgate. The translation of Anthony Braccioli, published at Venice in 1532, was prohibited by the Council of Trent. Martini's translation is now commonly used in Italy. The Protestants also have their Italian Bibles. There is the version of Maximus Theophilius, published in 1551; and another of John Diodati, published in 1607 and 1641. The Jews in Italy have no entire version of the Bible in Italian; the inquisition having constantly refused to allow them the liberty to print one.
The earliest Spanish Bible of which we have any notice is one printed at Valencia in 1478. The Gospels and Epistles were published in that language by Ambrose de Montesin in 1512; the whole Bible by Cassiodore de Reyna, a Calvinist, in 1569; and the New Testament by Francis Enzinas or Driander in 1543. An ancient version of the Bible for the use of the Spanish Jews was printed in Gothic characters at Ferrara in 1553.
The most ancient translation of the Bible in the German language is that of Ulphilas, bishop of the Goths, about the year 360. This version did not contain the books of Kings, which the bishop omitted, lest the wars mentioned therein should encourage the martial spirit of the people. An imperfect manuscript of this translation was found in the abbey of Verden, near Cologne, written in letters of silver, for which reason it is called Codex Argenteus. It was published by Francis Junius in 1665. The oldest German Bible extant is that of Nuremberg (1446), which was translated from the Vulgate by an unknown author. A translation of the Bible into German by John Eckins, was published in 1537, along with the version of the New Testament by Emser, chaplain to George, Duke of Saxony. Another version by Ulenbergius of Westphalia, procured by Ferdinand, Duke of Bavaria, was printed in 1630. But by far the most important version of the Scriptures in the German language was made by the great reformer Martin Luther, who spent eleven years in completing it. The New Testament was published in 1522, the Pentateuch in 1523, 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. This celebrated translation is clear and accurate, and the language pure and idiomatic. It has exercised a powerful influence on the language and literature of Germany.
The Flemish Bibles of the Romanists are very numerous. For the most part they have no author's name prefixed to them, till the version of Nicolas Vincx, which was printed at Louvain in 1548. Till the year 1637 the Flemish versions used by the Protestants were taken principally from the translation of Luther. In 1618 the synod of Dort appointed a new translation to be made of the Bible into Flemish, but the work was not finished till 1637.
The first Danish Bible was published in 1550 by Peter Palladius, Olaus Chrysostom, John Syningius, and John Maccabaeus, who followed the first German version of Luther. Another translation was made by John Paul Resenius, bishop of Zealand, in 1605; and a version of the New Testament by John Michel, in 1524.
In 1534 Olans and Laurence published a Swedish Bible from the version of Luther; it was revised in 1617 by order of King Gustavus Adolphus, and was afterwards almost universally adopted.
The Bible was printed in the Bohemian language at Prague in 1488, and another version made by eight Bohemian doctors, who were sent to the schools of Wurtemburg and Basle to study the original languages, 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 Jagellon, Duke of Lithuania, who embraced Christianity in 1390. A Polish translation of the Bible made by several Roman Catholic divines, and especially by James Wicke, a Jesuit, was published at Cracow in 1561. A translation made by the Polish Protestants from Luther's version, was published in 1596 and dedicated to Uladislaus IV., king of Poland. A version in the Russian language, made from the Greek by St Cyril, the apostle of the Slavonians, was published in 1581; but, in consequence of its obscurity, Ernest Gluck, who had been carried prisoner to Moscow after the taking of Narva, undertook a new translation of the Bible into modern Russian, which was printed at Amsterdam in 1638.
Various portions of the Bible were rendered into Saxon between A.D. 706 and 985 by Adelm, bishop of Sherbourn, Egbert, bishop of Lindisfarne, the Venerable Bede, and other translators. The first English version of the Bible known to be extant is that mentioned by Usher as supposed to have been made in 1290. Three MS. copies of it are still in existence. The next translation of the sacred Scriptures into English was made by the celebrated reformer Wickliffe about the year 1380. A complete copy of this work has recently been published for the first time.
The first printed Bible in our language was translated by Tyndale's William Tyndale. His version of the New Testament was printed at Antwerp in 1526, but the edition was bought up and burned by the Romanists in 1529. Other editions were brought out by him, however, in rapid succession, and in 1536, the year in which he suffered martyrdom at Vilvorde, there were no fewer than ten or twelve editions issued from the press. He also published at different times the five books of Moses, with Jonah and Nehemiah. During the reign of Henry VIII. the possession of a copy of Tyndale's translation of the New Testament was sufficient to condemn a person to the flames, but the desire of the people to possess it was irrepressible. "It was wonderful," says an old writer, "to see with what joy the book of God was received, not only among the learned sort, and those who were noted for lovers of the Reformation, but generally all England over, among all the vulgar and common people; and with what greediness God's word was read, and what resort to places where the reading of it was; everybody that could, bought the book, or busily read it, or got others to read it to them if they could not themselves, and divers more elderly people learned on purpose, and even little boys flocked among the rest to hear portions of the Holy Scriptures read."
Tyndale's translation forms the basis of all subsequent English versions of the Bible, and in spite of the unfavourable circumstances in which it was made, its high excellence has been acknowledged by the most competent judges. "The language is pure, appropriate, and perspicuous, and the work forms altogether an astonishing monument of the indomitable zeal and great learning of the author."
An English version of the entire Bible was made by Coverdale Myles Coverdale, and was published in 1535. It owed its Bible origin to the patronage of Lord Cromwell. As a whole, it must undoubtedly be reckoned inferior to the translation of Tyndale.
After the death of Tyndale, a new edition of his translation was undertaken by his intimate friend John Rogers, Bible superintendent of an English church in Germany, and the first martyr in the reign of Queen Mary. He revised the whole work, and completed the translation of the Old Testament, probably with the assistance of Coverdale's sheets. The whole was completed in 1537, and dedicated to Henry VIII. by the editor, under the assumed name of Thomas Matthews. A license was obtained for publishing the work in England, through the influence of Archbishop Cranmer. A revised edition of this translation was published in London, April 1539, under the superintendence of Richard Taverner, a learned layman.
The first Bible printed by authority in England was a revised edition of Matthews' or Tyndale's version, with a preface by Archbishop Cranmer, and hence it has been called Cranmer's Bible. In 1540 a copy of this Bible was required by royal proclamation to be placed in every parish church. Two years later, the Popish bishops succeeded in obtaining its suppression by authority of the king. It was restored under Edward VI., suppressed again under Queen Mary, restored again in the first year of Queen Elizabeth, and a new edition of it issued in 1562.
A revision of Tyndale's version of the New Testament, Geneva by William Whittingham, was printed at Geneva in 1557; and three years later a new translation of the entire Bible was published by Whittingham, Coverdale, Goodman, John Knox, and other exiles. This was the first English Bible printed in Roman letter and divided into verses. Archbishop Parker's, or the Bishops' Bible, was published at London in 1568, and was so named because it was superintended by Archbishop Parker, and eight out of the fifteen translators were bishops.
An English translation of the New Testament, made from the Latin Vulgate, and accompanied by annotations, was published at Rheims in 1582. In 1609–10 a translation of the Old Testament from the Vulgate was published at Douay, also with notes. This, which is commonly called the Douay Bible, is the standard version of the Roman Catholics.
The proposal to undertake a new translation of the Bible originated with Dr John Reynolds of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, in 1603, and was favourably entertained by King James VI., who appointed fifty-four learned men to perform the work. Only forty-seven, however, were actually engaged in the labour. They were divided into six companies, who met at different places, having their respective tasks assigned them. They entered upon their task in 1607, and for three years they were closely engaged in the work. "The translators in King James's time," says Selden, "took an excellent way. That part of the Bible was given to him who was most excellent in such a tongue, 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, or Italian. If they found any fault they spoke, and if not they read on." When the work was completed, the whole was revised by twelve of the translators, two having been chosen out of each of the six companies. The copy thus revised was again examined by Dr Myles Smith (who wrote the preface), and Dr Bilson, bishop of Winchester. It was first published in 1611, in a folio volume. As the translators were enjoined to follow "the ordinary Bible read in the church, commonly called the Bishop's Bible," and not to make alterations unless the meaning of the original could be more accurately conveyed, the authorized version may be regarded as a revision of the Bishop's Bible, rather than a new and independent work.
It is unnecessary to pronounce any eulogium on this translation, which, it has been justly said, "far surpasses every other English version of the entire Bible, in the characteristic qualities of simplicity, energy, and purity of style, as also in uniform fidelity to the original." Selden, Lowth, Horsley, Walton, Middleton, Geddes, Doddridge, Beattie, Scott, Clarke, Stuart, and a host of other eminent divines of different communions, have borne testimony to its general accuracy and high excellence. "A revision of it, however, is now wanted, or rather a new translation from the Hebrew and Greek, based upon it." Since it was made, criticism has brought to light a great mass of materials, and elevated itself in the esteem of theologians as an important science. Hermeneutics, too, have been cultivated, so as to assume a systematic, scientific form. We require, in consequence, a new English version suited to the present state of sacred literature. It need scarcely be stated, that King James's translators have failed to apprehend the true meaning in many passages. Of the merit attaching to their version, a considerable share belongs to Tyndale. Parker's Bible was the professed basis, and that was a version of Cranmer's. Cranmer's Bible was chiefly a correction of Matthew's, or, in other words, of Tyndale's, so far as Tyndale had translated. Thus King James's translation resolves itself at last in no small measure into Tyndale's; and when we consider the adverse circumstances continually pressing upon that noble-minded man, with the little assistance he could obtain, the work which he produced assumes a pre-eminent position amid the immortal monuments of human learning and skill." (Biblic. Cyclop., vol. ii., p. 919.)
See Davidson's Biblical Criticism, 2 vols.; Havermick's Introduction to the Old Testament; Hengstenberg's contributions for the Introduction to the Old Testament, 3 vols.; Moses Stuart's Critical History and Defence of the Old Testament Canon; Bishop Marsh's History of the Translations which have been made of the Scriptures from the earliest to the present age; Anderson's Annals of the English Bible, 2 vols. (J.T.)
Bible Societies, associations for extending the knowledge of the Holy Scriptures. For a long period this object has been pursued to a considerable extent by several religious institutions, such as the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Wales, formed by the Rev. Thomas Gouge, one of the two thousand ministers ejected by the Act of Uniformity in 1662; the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, founded in 1698, and which has continued to the present time as the chief Bible Society of the Church of England; the Society for sending Missionaries to India, established in the year 1705 by Frederick IV., king of Denmark, and which has numbered among its agents the celebrated missionary, Christian Frederic Schwartz; the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, formed in Edinburgh in 1709; the Moravian Missionary Society, founded in 1732; and the Book Society for Promoting Religious Knowledge among the Poor, which was formed in London in 1750, and numbered among its earliest friends Dr Doddridge and the Rev. James Hervey. But the first British association which had in view the single purpose of disseminating the Scriptures was the Naval and Military Bible Society, established in the year 1780, which has done immense service to the army and navy of Great Britain. The sphere of its operations, however, was comparatively limited, and it was not till 1804 that the British and Foreign Bible Society, the great institution for the diffusion of the Word of God, was founded. The proposal to institute this association originated with the Rev. Mr Charles of Bala, whose labours in Wales were greatly impeded by the scarcity of the Scriptures in the principality, and it was carried out mainly by the members of the committee of the Religious Tract Society. The exclusive object of the British and Foreign Bible Society is to promote the circulation of the Scriptures, without note or comment, both at home and abroad, and its constitution admits the co-operation of all persons disposed to concur in its support. The committee of management consists of thirty-six laymen, six of them being foreigners resident in or near the metropolis, and of the remaining thirty, one-half are members of the Church of England, and the other half members of other Christian denominations. Every clergyman or dissenting minister who is a member of the society is entitled to attend and vote at all meetings of the committee. Among the early friends of the society were Lord Teignmouth, its first president, Dr Portens, bishop of London, Admiral Gambier, Charles Grant, now Lord Glenelg, Zachary Macaulay, William Wilberforce, Granville Sharp, and Henry Thornton the first treasurer, and the Rev. Joseph Hughes and John Owen the first secretaries.
The proceedings of the British and Foreign Bible Society have given rise to several controversies, one of which related to the fundamental law of the society to circulate the Bible alone without notes or comments. On this ground it was vehemently attacked by Bishop Marsh, and other divines of the Church of England, who insisted that the Prayer-Book ought to be given along with the Bible. Another controversy, in which the late Dr Andrew Thomson of St George's church, Edinburgh, took a prominent part, related to the circulation on the Continent, by the society, of the Apocrypha along with the canonical books of Scripture. In 1826 it was resolved by the committee that the