Difference between revisions of "Bible"

<p> The name applied by Christians by way of eminence, to the collection of sacred writings, or the holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. </p> <p> I. Bible, ancient [[Divisions]] and Order of. </p> <p> After the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity. Ezra collected as many copies as he could of the sacred writings, and out of them all prepared a correct edition, arranging the several books in their proper order. These books he divided into three parts. I. The law. II. The prophets. III. The Hagiographia, 1:e. the holy writings. </p> <p> I. The law, contains </p> <p> II. The writings of the prophets are- </p> <p> The twelve minor prophets;- </p> <p> The [[Hagiographia]] consists of – </p> <p> 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 twenty-two. [[Afterwards]] the Jews reckoned twenty-four books in their canon of scripture; in disposing of which the law stood as in the former division, and the prophets were distributed into former and latter: the former prophets are Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings; the latter prophets are Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve 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: this order hath not always been observed, but the variations from it are of no moment. </p> <p> The five books of the law are divided into forty-five 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 fifty-four, because, in their intercalated years, a month being then added, there were fifty-four sabbaths: in other years they reduced them to fifty-two, by twice joining together two short sections. </p> <p> 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 fifty-four 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. </p> <p> 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 were very convenient. </p> <p> II. Bible, History of. </p> <p> It is thought that Ezra published the Scriptures in the Chaldee character, for, that language being generally used 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 preserved to this day. </p> <p> Prideaux is of opinion that Ezra made additions in several parts of the Bible, where any thing 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' time was called Laish, the name Dan being unknown till the Danites, long after the death of Moses, possessed themselves of it. </p> <p> The Jewish canon of Scripture was then settled by Ezra, yet not so but that several variations have been made in it. Malaachi, 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 that book mentions (chap. 12: 5: 22) [[Jaddua]] as high priest, and Darius Codomanus as king of Persia, who were at least a hundred 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, or at least this part of it, could not be in the canon in Ezra's days. </p> <p> It is probable the two books of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Ester, and Malachi, were adopted into the Bible in the time of Simon the Just, the last of the men of the great synagogue. The Jews, at first, were very reserved in communicating their Scriptures to strangers; despising and shunning the Gentiles, they would not disclose to them any of the treasures concealed in the Bible. We may add, that the people bordering on the Jews, as the Egyptians, Phoenicians, Arabs, &c. were not very curious to know the laws or history of a people, whom in their turn they hated and despised. Their first acquaintance with these books was not till after the several captivities of the Jews, when the singularity of the Hebrew laws and ceremonies induced several to desire a more particular knowledge of them. Josephus seems surprised to find such slight footsteps of the Scripture history interspersed in the Egyptian, Chaldean, Phoenician, and [[Grecian]] history, and accounts for it hence; that the sacred books were not as yet translated into Greek, or other languages, and consequently not known to the writers of those nations. </p> <p> The first version of the Bible was that of the [[Septuagint]] into Greek, by order of that patron of literature, [[Ptolemy]] Philadelphus; though some maintain that the whole was not then translated, but only the Pentateuch; between which and the other books in the Septuagint version, the critics find a great diversity in point of style and expression, as well as of accuracy. </p> <p> III. Bible, modern Divisions of. </p> <p> The division of the Scriptures into chapters, as we at present have them, is of modern 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 A.D. 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. </p> <p> 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 original from a famous Jewish Rabbi, named [[Mordecai]] Nathan, about 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 inventions as to the subdivision, and contrived that by verses: this being found to be a much more convenient method, it has been every 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 present order of the several books is almost the same (the Apocrypha excepted) as that made by the council of Trent. </p> <p> IV. Bible, rejected Books of. </p> <p> The apocryphal books of the Old Testament, according to the Romanists, are the book of [[Enoch]] (see &nbsp;Judges 1:14 , ) the third and fourth books of Esdras, the third and fourth books of Maccabees, 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, entitled the Shepherd; Jesus Christ's letter to Abgarus; the epistles of St.Paul to Senecca, 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. Protestants, while they agree with the Roman Catholics in rejecting all those as uncanonical, have also justly rejected the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, &nbsp;Baruch 1:1-21 st and 2 nd Maccabees. </p> <p> V. Bible, Translations of. </p> <p> We have already mentioned the first translation of the Old Testament by the LXX (# 2.) Both Old and New Testaments were afterwards translated into Latin by the primitive Christians; and while the Roman empire subsisted in Europe, the reading of the Scriptures in the Latin tongue, which was the universal language of that empire, prevailed every where; 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 be 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. </p> <p> Of the principal of these, as well as of some other ancient translation, and the earliest and most elegant printed editions, we shall now take notice in their order. </p> <p> 1. Bible, Armenian. There is a very ancient Armenian version of the whole Bible, done from the Greek of the LXX. by some of their doctors, about the time of Chrysostom. This was first printed entire, 1664, by one of their bishops at Amsterdam, in quarto, with the New Testament in octavo. </p> <p> 2. Bible, Bohemian. 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 1539. </p> <p> 3. Bible, Croatian. A translation of the New Testament into the Croatian language was published by [[Faber]] Creim, and others, in 1562 and 1563. </p> <p> 4. Bible Gaelic. A few years ago, a version of the Bible in the Gaelic or Ersc language was published at Edinburgh, where the Gospel is preached regularly in that language in two chapels, for the benefit of the natives of the Highlands. </p> <p> 5. Bible, Georgian. The inhabitants of Georgia, in Asia, have long had a translation of the Bible in their ancient language; but that language having now become almost obsolete, and the Georgians in general being very ignorant, few of them can either read or understand it. </p> <p> 6. Bible, Gothic. It is generally said that Ulphilas, a Gothic bishop, who lived in the fourth century, made a version of the whole Bible, except the book of Kings, for the use of his countrymen; that book he omitted, because of the frequent mention of the wars therein, as fearing to inspire too much of the military genius into that people. We have nothing remaining of this version but the four Evangelists, printed in quarto, at Dort, in 1665, from a very ancient manuscript. </p> <p> 7. Bible, Grison. A translation of the Bible into the language of the Grisons, in Italy, was completed by Coir, and published in 1720. </p> <p> 8. Bible Icelandic. The inhabitants of [[Iceland]] have a version of the Bible in their language, which was translated by Thoriak, and published in 1584. </p> <p> 9. Bible, Indian. A [[Translation]] of the Bible into the North [[America]] Indian language, by Elliot, was published in quarto, at Cambridge, in 1685. </p> <p> 10. Bible, Irish. About the middle of the sixteenth 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 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 with the English translation, compared the latter with the Hebrew, the LXX. and the [[Italian]] version of Diodati. When it was finished, the bishop would have been himself at the charge of the impression; but his design was stopped, upon advice given to the lord lieutenant and archbishop of Canterbury, that it would seem a shameful thing for a nation to publish a Bible translated by such a despicable hand as King: however, the manuscript was not lose, for it went to press in 1685, and was afterwards published. </p> <p> 11. Bible, King James. </p> <p> 12. See No. 24. </p> <p> 13. Bible, Malabrian. In 1711, Messers. Ziegenbald and Grindler, two Danish missionaries, published a translation of the New Testament in the Malabrian language, after which they proceeded to translate the Old Testament. </p> <p> 14. Bible, Malayan. About 1670, Sir [[Robert]] Boyle procured a translation of the New Testament into the Malayan language, which he printed, and sent the whole impression to the East Indies. </p> <p> 15. Bible, Rhemish. </p> <p> 16. See No. 23. </p> <p> 17. Bible, Samaritan. At the head of the oriental versions of the Bible must be placed the Samaritan, as being the most ancient of all (though neither its age nor author have been yet ascertained, ) and admitting no more for the Holy Scripture but the five books of Moses. This translation is made from the [[Samaritan]] Hebrew text, which is a little different from the Hebrew text of the Jews: this version has never been printed alone, nor any where but in the Polyglots of London and Paris. </p> <p> 18. Bible, Swedish. 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. </p> <p> 19. Bible, Anglo-Saxon. If we enquire 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 Edfrid, or Ecbert, bishop of Lindisferne, who lived about 730, translated several of the books of Scripture into the same language. It is said, likewise, the 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 say that king Alfred, who lived about 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 Elfric, abbot of Maimesbury: 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. Mr. [[Mill]] observes, that this version was made from a Latin copy of the old Vulgate. The whole Scripture is said by some to have been translated into the [[Anglo-Saxon]] by Bede, about 701, though others contend he only translated the Gospels. We have certain books or parts of the Bible by several other translators; as, first, the Psalms, by Adeim, bishop of Sherburn, cotemporary with Bede, though by others this version is attributed to king Alfred, who lived two hundred years later. Another version of the Psalms, in Anglo-Saxon, was published by Spelman in 1640. 2. The evangelists, still extant, done from the ancient Vulgate, before it was revised by St. Jerome, by an author unknown, and published by Matthew Parker in 1571. An old Saxon version of several books of the Bible made by Elfric, abbot of Malmesbury, several fragments of which were published by Will. Lilly, 1638; the genuine copy by Edm. Thwaites, in 1699, at Oxford. </p> <p> 20. Bibles, Arabic. In 1516, Aug. Justinian, bishop of Nebio, printed at Genoa an Arabic version of the Psalter, with the Hebrew text and Chaldee paraphrase, adding Latin interpretations: there are also Arabic versions of the whole Scripture in the Polyglots of London and Paris; and we have an edition of the Old Testament entire, printed at Rome, in 1671, by order of the congregation de propaganda fide; but it is of little esteem, as having been altered agreeably to the [[Vulgate]] edition. The Arabic Bibles among us are not the same with those used with the Christians in the East. Some learned men take the Arabic version of the Old Testament printed in the Polyglots to be that of Saadias's, who lived about A.D. 900: their reason is, that dias, quotes some passages of his version, which are the same with those in the Arabic version of the Polyglots; yet others are of opinion that Saadias's version is not extant. In 1622, [[Erpenius]] printed an Arabic Pentateuch called also the Pentateuch of Mauritania, as being made by the Jews of Barbary, and for their use. This version is very literal, and esteemed very exact. The four evangelists have also been published in Arabic, with a Latin version, at Rome, in 1591, folio. These have been since reprinted in the Polyglots of London and Paris, with some little alteration of [[Gabriel]] Sionita. Expenius published an Arabic New Testament entire, as he found it in his manuscript copy, at Leyden, 1616. There are some other Arabic versions of later date mentioned by Walton in his Prolegomena, particularly a version of the Psalms, preserved at [[Zion]] College, Loudon, and another of the prophets at Oxford; neither of which have been published. Proposals were issued for printing a new edition of the Arabic Bible, by Mr. Carlyle, chancellor of the diocese of Carlisle, and professor of Arabic in the university of Cambridge; but I am sorry to add that he has been called away by death, without finishing it. </p> <p> 21. Bibles, Chaldee, are only the losses or expositions made by the Jews at the time when they spoke the Chaldee tongue: these they call by the name of targumim, or paraphrases, as not being any strict version of the Scripture. They have been inserted entire in the large Hebrew Bibles of [[Venice]] and Basil; but are read more commodiously in the Polyglots, being there attended with a Latin translation. </p> <p> 22. Bibles, Coptic. There are several manuscript copies of the [[Coptic]] Bible in some of the great libraries, especially in that of the late French king. Dr. Wilkins published the Coptic New Testament, in quarto, in 1716; and the Pentateuch also in quarto, in 1731, with Latin translations. He reckons these versions to have been made in the end of the second or the beginning of the third century. </p> <p> 23. Bibles, Danish. The first Danish Bible was published by Peter Palladus, Olaus Chrysostom, John Synningius, and John Maccabxus, in 1550, in which they followed Luther's first German version. There are two other versions, the one by John Paul Resenius, bishop of Zealand, in 1605; the other of the New Testament only, by John Michel, in 1524. </p> <p> 24. Bibles, Dutch. </p> <p> 25. See No. 26. </p> <p> 26. Bibles, East Indian. </p> <p> 27. See No. 12, 13, 44. </p> <p> 28. Bibles, English. The first English Bible we read of was that translated by J. Wickliffe, about the year 1360, but never printed, though there are manuscript copies of it in several of the public libraries. A translation, however, of the New Testament by Wickliffe was printed by Mr. Lewis, about 1731. J. de Trevisa, who died about 1398, is also said to have translated the whole Bible; but whether any copies of it are remaining does not appear. The first printed Bible in our language was that translated by W. Tindal, assisted by Miles Coverdale, printed abroad in 1526; but most of the copies were bought up and burnt by bishop Tunstal and Sir [[Thomas]] More. It only contained the New Testament, and was revised and republished by the same person in 1530. The prologues and prefaces added to it, reflect on the bishops and clergy; but this edition was also suppressed, and the copies burnt. In 1532, Tindal and his associates finished the whole Bible, except the Apocrypha, and printed it abroad: but, while he was afterwards preparing a second edition, he was taken up and burnt for heresy in Flanders. On Tindal's death, his work was carried on by Coverdale, and John Rogers, superintendant of an English church in Germany, and the first Martyr, in the reign of queen Mary, who translated the Apocrypha, and revised Tindal's translation, comparing it with the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and German, and adding prefaces and notes from Luther's Bible. He dedicated the whole to Henry VIII, in 1537, under the borrowed name of Thomas Matthews; whence this has been usually called Matthew's Bible. It was printed at Hamburgh, and license obtained for publishing it in England, by the favour of archbishop Cranmer, and the bishops Latimer and Shaxton. The first Bible printed by authority in England, and publicly set up in churches, was the same Tindal's version, revised and compared with the Hebrew, and in many places amended by Miles Coverdale, afterwards bishop of Exeter; and examined after him by archbishop Cranmer, who added a preface to it; whence this was called Cranmer's Bible. It was printed by Grafton, of the largest volume, and published in 1540; and, by a royal proclamation, every parish was obliged to set one of the copies in their church, under the penalty of forty shillings a month; yet, two years after, the popish bishops obtained its suppression by the king. It was restored under [[Edward]] VI., suppressed again under queen Mary's reign, and restored again in the first year of queen Elizabeth, and a new edition of it given in 1562. Some English exiles at Geneva, in queen Mary's reign, viz. Coverdale, Goodman, Gilbie, Sampson, Cole, Wittingham, and Knox, made a new translation, printed there in 1560, the New Testament having been printed in 1557; hence called the [[Geneva]] Bible, containing the variations of readings, marginal annotations, &c. on account of which it was much valued by the purital party in that and the following reigns. Abp. Parker resolved on a new translation for the public use of the church; and engaged the bishops, and other learned men, to take each a share or portion: these, being afterwards joined together and printed, with short annotations, in 1568, in large folio, made what was afterwards called the Great English Bible, and commonly the Bishops' Bible. In 1589, it was also published in octavo, in a small but fine black letter; and here the chapters were divided into verses, but without any breaks for them, in which the method of the Geneva Bible was followed, which was the first English Bible where any distinction of verses was made. It was afterwards printed in large folio, with corrections, and several prolegomena in 1572: this is called Matthew Parker's Bible. The initial letters of each translator's name were put at the end of his part; e. gr. at the end of the Pentateuch, W.E. for [[William]] Exon; that is, William, bishop of Exeter, whose allotment ended there: at the end of Samuel, [[R. M]]  for [[Richard]] Menevensis; or bishop of St. David's, to whom the second allotment fell: and the like of the rest. The archbishop oversaw, directed, examined, and finished the whole. This translation was used in the churches for forty years, though the Geneva Bible was more read in private houses, being printed above twenty times in as many years. King James bore it an inveterate hatred, on account of the notes, which, at the [[Hampton]] Court conference, he charged as partial, untrue, seditious, &c. The Bishops' Bible, too, had its faults. The king frankly owned that he had seen no good translation of the Bible in English; but he thought that of Geneva the worst of all. After the translation of the Bible by the bishops, two of the New Testament; the first by Laurence Thompson, from Beza's Latin edition, with the notes of Beza, published in 1582, in quarto, and afterwards in 1589, varying very little from the Geneva Bible; the second by the Papists at Rheims, in 1584, called the Rhemish Bible, or Rhemish translation. These, finding it impossible to keep the people from having the Scriptures in their vulgar tongue, resolved to give a version of their own, as favourable to their cause as might be. It was printed on a large paper, with a fair letter and margin: one complaint against it was, its retaining a multitude of Hebrew and Greek words untranslated, for want, as the editors express it, of proper and adequate terms in the English to render them by; as the words azymes, tunike, holocaust, prepuce, pasche, &c..: however, many of the copies were seized by the queen's searchers, and confiscated; and Thomas Cartwright was solicited by secretary Walsingham to refute it; but, after a good progress made therein, archbishop Whitgift prohibited his further proceeding, as judging it improper that the doctrine of the church of [[England]] should be committed to the defense of a puritan; and appointed Dr. Fulke in his place, who refuted the Rhemists with great spirit and learning. Cartwright's refutation was also afterwards published in 1618, under archbishop Abbot. About thirty years after their New Testament, the Roman Catholics published a translation of the Old at Douay, 1609, and 1610, from the Vulgate, with annotations, so that the English Roman Catholics have now the whole Bible in their mother tongue; though, it is to be observed, they are forbidden to read it without a license from their superiors. the last English Bible was that which proceeded from the Hampton Court conference, in 1603; where, many exceptions being made to the Bishops' Bible, king James gave order for a new one; not, as the preface expresses it, for a translation altogether new, nor yet to make a good one better; or, of many good ones, one best. Fifty-four learned men were appointed to this office by the king, as appears by his letter to the archbishop, dated 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 forty-seven, who, being ranged under six divisions, entered on their province in 1607. It was published in 1613, with a dedication to James, and a learned preface; and is commonly called king James' Bible. After this all the 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. </p> <p> 29. The judicious Selden, in his Tabletalk, speaking of the Bible, says, "The best translation in the world, and renders the sense of the original best; taking in for the English translation the Bishops' 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 Downs:) 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, or Spanish, or 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 Britain.) Notwithstanding, however, the excellency of this translation, it must be acknowledged that our increasing acquaintance with oriental customs and manners, and the changes our language has undergone since king James's time, are very powerful arguments for a new translation, or at least a correction of the old one. There have been various English Bibles with marginal references by Canne, Hayes, Barker, Scattergood, Field, Tennison, Lloyd, Blayney, Wilson, &c.; but the best we have, perhaps, of this kind, are Brown's and Scott's. </p> <p> 30. Bibles, Ethiopic. The [[Ethiopians]] have also translated the Bible into their language. There have been printed separately the Psalms, Canticles, some chapters of Genesis, Ruth, Joel, Jonah, Zephaniah, Malachi, and the New Testament, all which have been since reprinted in the [[Polyglot]] of London. As to the Ethiopic New Testament, which was first printed at Rome in 1548, it is a very inaccurate work, and is reprinted in the English Polyglot with all its faults. </p> <p> 31. Bibles, Flemish. 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 [[Nicholas]] Vinck, printed at Louvain in 1548. The Flemish versions made use of by the [[Calvinists]] till 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 1637. </p> <p> 32. Bibles, French. The oldest French Bible we hear of is the version of Peter di Vaux, chief of the Waldenses, who lived about the year 1160. Raoul de Preste translated the Bible into French in the reign of king [[Charles]] V. of France, about A.D. 1383. 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 leMaitre de Sacy, published in 1672, with explanations of the literal and spiritual meaning of the text; which was received with wonderful applause, and has often been reprinted. Of 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 1666, 1667, and 1670. The author pretends he had searched all the libraries in Europe, and collated the oldest manuscripts: but, in examining his work, it appears that he has produced no considerable various readings which had not before been taken notice of either in the London Polyglot, or elsewhere. The New Testament on Mons, printed in 1665, with the archbishop of Cambray's permission, and the king of Spain's license, made great noise in the world. It was condemned by pope [[Clement]] IX, in 1668; by pope [[Innocent]] XI, in 1669; 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. Bohours, a Jesuit, with the assistance of F.F. [[Michael]] Tellier 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 adhering to strictly to the Latin text. There are likewise French translations published by [[Protestant]] authors; one by Robert Peter Olivetan, printed in 1535, and 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 Stapalenis 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, 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 by order of the states-general, as tending to revive the errors of [[Sabellius]] and Socinus. </p> <p> 33. Bibles, German. The first and most ancient translation of the Bible in the German language is that of Ulphilas, bishop of the Goths, in the year 360. 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 Nuremburg, in 1447; but who was the author of it 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 Ekeus in 1537, with Emzer's New Testament added to it; and one by Ulemburgius of Westphalia, procured by Ferdinand duke of Bavaria, and printed in 1630. Martin Luther having employed eleven years intranslating the Old and New Testaments, published the Pentateuch and the New Testament 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. 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 at Saxony, Switzerland, and elsewhere, are, for the most part, the same as that of Luther, with little variation. In 1604, John Piscator 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 Felbinger his at [[Amsterdam]] in 1660. </p> <p> 34. Bibles, Greek. There are many editions of the Bible in Greek, but they may be all reduced to three or four principal ones; viz. that of Complutum, or Alcala de Henares; that of Venice, that of Rome, and that of Oxford. The first was published in 1515 by cardinal Ximenes, and inserted in the Polyglot Bible, usually called the Complutension Bible: this edition is not just, the Greek of the LXX being altered in many places according to the Hebrew text. It has, however, been reprinted in the Polyglot Bible of Antwerp, in that of Paris, and in the quarto Bible commonly called Vatablus's Bible. The second Greek Bible is that of Venice, printed by Aldus in 1518. Here the Greek text of the Septuagint is reprinted just as it stood in the manuscript, full of faults of the copyists, but easily amended. This edition was reprinted at [[Strasburg]] in 1526, at Basil in 1545, at Frankfort in 1597, and other places, with some alterations, to bring it nearer the Hebrew. The most commodious is that of Frankfort, there being added to this little scholia, which shew the different interpretations of the old Greek translators. The author of this collection has not added his name, but it is commonly ascribed to Junius. The third Greek Bible is that of Rome, or the Vatican, in 1587, with Greek scholia, collected from the manuscripts in the Roman libraries by Peter Morin. It was first set on foot by cardinal Montalbo, afterwards pope [[Sixtus]] V. This fine edition has been reprinted at Paris in 1628, by J. Morin, priest of the Oratory, who has added the Latin translation, which in the Roman was printed separately with scholia. The Greek edition of Rome has been printed in the Polyglot Bible of London, to which are added at the bottom the various readings of the Alexandrian manuscript. This has been also reprinted in England, in 4to. and 12mo. with some alterations. It was again published at Franeker, in 1709, by Bos, who has added all the various readings he could find. The fourth Greek Bible is that done from the Alexandrian manuscript begun at Oxford by Grabe in 1707. In this the Alexandrian manuscript is not printed such as it is, but such as it was thought it should be, 1:e. it is altered wherever there appeared any fault of the copyists, or any word inserted from any particular dialect: this some think an excellence, but others a fault, urging that the manuscript should have been given absolutely and entirely of itself, and all conjectures as to the readings should have been thrown into the notes. We have many editions of the Greek Testament by Eramus, Stephens, Beza; that in the Complutensian Polyglot, the Elzevirs, &c.; and with various readings by Mill, Bengelius, Wetstein, &c. Those of Wetstein and Griesbach, are thought by some to exceed all the rest. </p> <p> 35. Bibles, Hebrew, are either manuscript or printed. The best manuscript Bibles are those copied by the Jews of Spain: those copied by the Jews of [[Germany]] are less exact, but more common. The two kinds are easily distinguished from each other; the former being in beautiful characters, like the Hebrew Bibles of Bomberg, Stevens, and Plantin: the latter in characters like those of Munster and Gryphius. F. Simon observes that the oldest manuscript Hebrew Bibles are not above six or seven hundred years old; nor does Rabbi Menaham, who quotes a vast number of them, pretend that any one of them exceeds 600 years. Dr. Kennicott, in his Dissertatio Generalis, prefixed to his Hebrew Bible, p. 21, observes, that the most ancient manuscripts were written between the years 900 and 1100; but though those that are the most ancient are not more than 800 or 900 years old, they were transcribed from others of a much more ancient date. The manuscript preserved in the Bodleian [[Library]] is not less than 800 years old. Another manuscript not less ancient, is preserved in the Caesarian Library at Vienna. The most ancient printed Hebrew Bibles are those published by the Jews of Italy, especially of Pesaro and Bresse. Those of [[Portugal]] also printed some parts of the Bible at [[Lisbon]] before their expulsion. This may be observed in general, that the best Hebrew Bibles are those printed under the inspection of the Jews; there being so many minutae to be observed in the Hebrew language, that it is scarcely possible for any other to succeed in it. In the beginning of the 16th century, Dan. Bomberg printed several Hebrew Bibles in folio and quarto at Venice, most of which were esteemed both by the Jews and Christians: the first in 1517, which is the least exact, and generally goes by the name of [[Felix]] Pratensis, the person who revised it: this edition contains the Hebrew text, the Targum, and the commentaries of several rabbins. In 1528, Bomberg printed the folio Bible of rabbi Benchajim, with his preface, the masoretical divisions, a preface of Aben Ezra, a double masora, and several various readings. The third edition was printed, 1618; which, though there are many faults in it, is more correct than any of the former. In 1623, appeared at Venice a new edition of the rabbinical Bible, by Leo of Modena, a rabbin of that city, who pretended to have corrected a great number of faults in the former edition; but, besides that, it is much inferior to the other Hebrew Bibles of Venice, with regard to paper and print: it has passed through the hands of the Inquisitors, who have altered many passages in the commentaries of the Rabbins. Of Hebrew Bibles in quarto, that of R. Stephens is esteemed for the beauty of the characters: but it is very incorrect. Plantin also printed several beautiful Hebrew Bibles at Antwerp; one in eight columns, with a preface by [[Arius]] Montanus, in 1571, which far exceeds the Complutensian in paper, print, and contents: this is called the [[Royal]] Bible, because it was printed at the expense of [[Philip]] II. king of Spain: another at Geneva, 1619, besides many more of different sizes, with and without points. Manasseh Ben Israel, a learned Portuguese Jew, published two editions of the Hebrew Bible at Amsterdam; one in quarto, in 1635; the other in octavo, in 1639: the first has two columns, and for that reason is more commodious for the reader. In 1639, R. Jac. Lombroso published a new edition in quarto at Venice, with small literal notes at the bottom of each page, where he explains the Hebrew words by Spanish words. This Bible is much esteemed by the Jews at Constantinople: in the text they have distinguished between words where the point camets is to be read with a camets katuph; that is, by o, and not an a. Of all the editions of the Hebrew Bible in octavo, the most beautiful and correct are the two of J. Athias, a Jew, of Amsterdam. The first, of 1661, is the best paper; but that of 1667 is the most exact. That, however, published since at Amsterdam, by Vander Hooght, in 1705, is preferable to both. After Athias, three Hebraizing [[Protestants]] engaged in revising and publishing the Hebrew Bible, viz. Clodius, Jablonski, and Opitius. Clodius's edition was published at Frankfort, in 1677, in quarto: at the bottom of the pages it has the various readings of the former editions; but the author does not appear sufficiently versed in the accenting, especially in the poetical books; besides, as it was not published under his eye, many faults have crept in. That of Jablonski, in 1699, in quarto, at Berlin, is very beautiful as to letter and print; but, though the editor pretends he made use of the editions of [[Athias]] and Clodius, some critics find it scarcely in any thing different from the quarto edition of Bomberg. That of Opitius is also in quarto, at Keil, in 1709: the character is large and good, but the paper bad: it is done with a great deal of care; but the editor made use of no manuscripts but those of the German libraries, neglecting the French ones, which is an omission common to all the three. They have this advantage, however, that, besides the divisions used by the Jews, both general and particular, into paraskes and pesukim, they have also those of the Christians, or of the Latin Bibles, into chapters and verses; the keri ketib, or various readings, Latin summaries, &c. which made them of considerable use with respect to the Latin editions and the concordances. The little Bible of R. Stevens, in 16mo. is very much prized for the beauty of the character. Care, however, must be taken, there being another edition of Geneva exceedingly like it, excepting that the print is worse, and the text less correct. To these may be added some other Hebrew Bibles without points, in 8vo. and 24mo. which are much coveted by the Jews; not that they are more exact, but more portable than the rest, and are used in their synagogues and schools. Of these there are two beautiful editions; the one of Plantin, in 8vo. with two columns, and the other in 24mo. reprinted by Raphalengius, at Leyden, in 1610. </p> <p> 36. Bibles, Italian. The first Italian Bible published by the Romanists is that of Nicholas Malerne, 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. </p> <p> 37. Bibles, Latin, however numerous, may be all reduced to three classes; the ancient Vulgate, called also Italica, translated from the Greek Septuagint; the modern Vulgate, the greatest part of which is done from the Hebrew text; and the new Latin translations, done also from the Hebrew text, in the sixteenth century. We have nothing remaining of the ancient Vulgate, used in the primitive times in the western churches, but the Psalms, Wisdom, and Ecclesiastes. Nobilius was endeavoured to retrieve it from the works of the ancient Latin fathers; but it was impossible to do it exactly, because most of the fathers did not keep close to it in their citations. As to the modern Vulgate, there are a vast number of editions very different from each other. [[Cardinal]] Ximenes has inserted one in the Bible of Complutum, corrected and altered in many places. R. Stevens, and the doctors of Louvain, have taken great pains in correcting the modern Vulgate. The best edition of Stevens's Latin Bible is that of 1540, reprinted 1545, in which are added on the margin the various readings of several Latin manuscripts which he had consulted. The doctors of Louvain revised the modern Vulgate after R. Stevens, and added the various readings of several Latin manuscripts. The best of the Louvain editions are those in which are added the critical notes of Francis Lucas, of Bruges. All these reformations of the Latin Bible were made before the time of pope Sixtus V. and Clement VIII.; since which people have not presumed to make any alterations, excepting the comments and separate notes. The correction of Clement VIII, in 1592, is now the standard throughout all the Romish churches: that pontiff made two reformations; but it is the first of them that is followed. From this the Bibles of Plantin were done, and from those of Plantin all the rest; so that the common Bibles have none of the after-corrections of the same Clement VIII. It is a heavy charge that lies on the editions of pope Clement, viz. that they have some new texts added, and many old ones altered, to countenance and confirm what they call the [[Catholic]] doctrine. There are a great number of Latin Bibles of the third class, comprehending the versions from the originals of the sacred books made with these 200 years. The first is that of Santes Pagninus, a Dominican, under the patronage of Leo X. printed at Lyons, in quarto, in 1527, much exteemed by the Jews. This the author improved in a second edition. In 1542 there was a beautiful edition of the same at Lyons, in folio, with scholia published under the name of Michael Villanovanus, 1:e. [[Michal]] Servetus, author of the scholia. Those of Zurich, have likewise published an edition of Pagninus's Bible in quarto; and R. Stevens reprinted it in folio, with the Vulgate, in 1557, pretending to give it more correct than in the former editions. There is also another edition of 1586, in four columns, under the name of Vatablus; and we find it again, in the [[Hamburg]] edition of the Bible, in four languages. In the number of Latin Bibles is also usually ranked the version of the same Pagninus, corrected or rather rendered literal, by Arias Montanus; which correction being approved of by the doctors of Louvain, &c. was inserted in the Polyglot Bible of Philip II. and since in that of London. There have been various editions of this in folio, quarto, and octavo; to which have been added the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, and the Greek of the New. The best of them all is the first, which is in folio, 1571. Since the reformation, there have been several Latin versions of the Bible from the originals by Protestants. The most esteemed are those of Munster, Leo Juda, Castalio, and Tremellius; the three last of which have been reprinted various times. Munster published his version at Basil in 1534, which he afterwards revised: he published a correct edition in 1546. Castalio's fine Latin pleases most people; but there are some who think it affected: the best edition is that in 1573. Leo Juda's version, altered a little by the divines of Salamanca, was added to the ancient Latin editions, as published by R. Stevens, with notes, under the name of Vatablus's Bible, in 1545. It was condemned by the Parisian divines, but printed, with some alterations, by the Spanish divines of Salamanca. Those of Junius, Tremellius, and Beza, are considerably exact, and have undergone a great number of editions. We may add a fourth class of Latin Bibles, comprehending the Vulgate edition, corrected from the originals. The Bible of Isidorus Clarus is of this number; that author, not contented with restoring the ancient Latin copy, has corrected the translator in a great number of places which he thought ill rendered. Some Protestants have followed the same method; and, among others, Andrew and Luke Osiander, who have each published a new edition of the Vulgate, corrected from the originals. </p> <p> 38. Bibles, Muscovite. </p> <p> 39. See Nos. 38 and 39. </p> <p> 40. Bibles, Oriental. </p> <p> 41. See Nos 12, 13, 15, 19, 20, 23, 35, 41, 42. </p> <p> 42. Bibles, Persian. Some of the fathers seem to say that all the Scripture was formerly translated into the language of the Persians; but we have nothing now remaining of the ancient version, which was certainly done from the Septuagint. The [[Persian]] Pentateuch, printed in the London Polglot, is without doubt, the work of rabbi Jacob, a Persian Jew. It was published by the Jews at [[Constantinople]] in 1551. In the same Polyglot we have likewise the four evangelists in Persian, with a Latin translation; but this appears very modern, incorrect, and of little use. Walton says, this version was written above four hundred years ago. Another version of the Gospels was published at [[Cambridge]] by Wheloc, in the seventeenth century. There are also two Persian versions of the Psalms made from the vulgar Latin. </p> <p> 43. Bibles, Polish. 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 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 Sesuit, had a principal share. The Protestants, in 1596, published a Polish Bible from Luther's German version, and dedicated it to Uladislaus, fourth king of Poland. </p> <p> 44. Bibles, Polyglot. </p> <p> 45. See Nos. 29, 31. </p> <p> 46. Bibles, Russian; or </p> <p> 47. Bibles, Sclavonian. The Russians or Muscovites, published the Bible in their language in 1581. It was translated from the Greek by St. Cyril, the apostle of the Sclavonians: but this old version being too obscure, Ernest Gliik, who had been carried prisoner to [[Moscow]] after the taking of Narva, undertook a new translation of the Bible into Sclavonian; who dying in 1705, the Czar Peter appointed some particular divines to finish the translation; but whether it was ever printed we cannot say. </p> <p> 48. Bibles, Spanish. The first Spanish Bible that we hear of, is that mentioned by [[Cyprian]] de Valera, which he says was published about 1500. The epistles and Gospels were published in that language by [[Ambrose]] de Montesian 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 Enzina, 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. After very violent opposition from the Catholic clergy, the court of Spain ordered Spanish Bibles to be printed by royal authority in 1796, and put into the hands of people of all ranks, as well as to be used in public worship. </p> <p> 49. Bibles, Syriac. There are extant two versions of the Old Testament in the [[Syriac]] language; one from the Septuagint, which is ancient, and made probably about the time of Constantine: the other called antiqua et simplex, made from the Hebrew, as some suppose, about the time of the apostles. This version is printed in the Polyglots of London and Paris. In 1562, Wedmanstadius printed the whole New Testament in Syriac, at Vienna, in a beautiful character: and since his time there have been several other editions. Gabriel Sionita published a beautiful Syriac edition of the Psalms at Paris in 1526, with a Latin interpretation. There is a Syriac copy of the Bible written in the Estrangelo character, and was brought from the Christians of Travancore, being a present from [[Mar]] Dionysius, the resident bishop at Cadenatte to Dr. Buchanan. The size is large folio in parchment: the pages are written in three columns, each column containing sixty lines. It is supposed to have been written about the seventh century. Dr. White, it is said, has for some time been engaged in reprinting the Syriac Old Testament. </p> <p> 50. Bibles, Turkish. In 1666 a Turkish New Testament was printed in London to be dispersed in the East. In 1721, it is said, the grand Seignor ordered an impression of Bibles at Constantinople, that they might be contrasted with Mahomet's oracle, the Alcoran. The modern Greeks in [[Turkey]] have also a translation of the Bible in their language. </p> <p> 51. Bibles, Welch. There was a Welch translation of the Bible made from the original in the time of queen Elizabeth, in consequence of a bill brought into the House of Commons for this purpose in 1563: it was printed in folio in 1588. Another version, which is the standard translation for that language, was printed in 1620: it is called Parry's Bible. An impression of this was printed in 1690, called [[Bishop]] Lloyd's Bible: these were in folio. The first octavo impression of the Welch Bible was made in 1630. </p> <p> 52. Bibles, Bengalee. It is with pleasure we add to all the above accounts, that a translation of the New Testament into the Shanscrit, and the last volume of the Bengalee Bible are now completed, by the missionaries resident in that part. Much has been done by the British and Foreign Bible Society, in printing new editions of the Scriptures in various languages. The reader will find much pleasing information of the subject, in the Annual Reports of that Society. </p> <p> 53. See Le Long's Bibliotheca Sacra; Wolfii Bibliotheca Hebraea, vol. 2: p. 338; Johnson's [[Historical]] Account of English Translations of the Bible; Lewis's Hist. of the Translations of the Bible into English; Newcome's Historical view of English Translations; Butler's Horae Biblicae; and the article Bible in the Encyclopaedia Britannica and Perthensis. </p>

<p> <strong> [[Bible]] </strong> </p> <p> 1. The Name . The word ‘Bible’ strictly employed is the title of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, though occasionally by a loose usage of the term it is applied to the sacred writings of pagan religions. It is derived from a Greek word <em> Biblia </em> originating in <em> biblos </em> , the inner bark of papyrus (paper) literally meaning ‘Little Books’; but since the diminutive had come into common use in late popular Greek apart from its specific signification, the term really means simply ‘books.’ It is the Gr. tr. [Note: translate or translation.] of the Heb. word for ‘books,’ which is the oldest designation for the Jewish Scriptures as a collection (see &nbsp; Daniel 9:2 ). The title ‘Holy Books’ equivalent to our ‘Holy Scripture’ came later among the Jews ( 1Ma 12:9 , &nbsp; Romans 1:2 , &nbsp; 2 Timothy 3:15 ). The Greek word <em> Biblia </em> is first met with in this connexion in the Introduction to Sirach, written by the grandson of Sirach, the phrase ‘the rest of the books’ implying that the Law and the Prophets previously named, as well as those books subsequently known specially as ‘the Writings,’ are included. It is used in the Hebrew sense, for the OT, by the unknown author of the Christian homily in the 2nd cent. designated <em> The Second Epistle of Clement </em> (xiv. 2). It does not appear as a title of the whole Christian Scriptures before the 5th cent., when it was thus employed by Greek Church writers in lists of the canonical books. [[Thence]] it passed over into the West, and then the Greek word <em> Biblia </em> , really a neuter plural, came to be treated as a Latin singular noun, a significant grammatical change that pointed to the growing sense of the unity of Scripture. The word cannot be traced in Anglo-Saxon literature, and we first have the English form of it in the 14th century. It occurs in <em> Piers [[Plowman]] </em> and Chaucer. Its adoption by Wyclif secured it as the permanent English name for the Scriptures, as Luther’s use of the corresponding German word fixed that for Continental Protestants. </p> <p> <strong> 2. Contents and Divisions </strong> . The Jewish Bible is the OT; the Protestant Christian Bible consists of the OT and the NT, but with the Apocrypha included in some editions; the Roman Catholic Bible contains the OT and NT, and also the Apocrypha, the latter authoritatively treated as Scripture since the [[Council]] of Trent. The main division is between the Jewish Scriptures and those which are exclusively Christian. These are known respectively as the OT and the NT. The title ‘Testament’ is unfortunate, since it really means a will. It appears to be derived from the Latin word <em> testamentum </em> , ‘a will,’ which is the tr. [Note: translate or translation.] of the Gr. word <em> diathçkç </em> , itself in the classics also meaning ‘a will.’ But the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] employs this Gr. word as the tr. [Note: translate or translation.] of the Heb. <em> berith </em> , a word meaning ‘covenant.’ Therefore ‘testament’ in the Biblical sense really means ‘covenant,’ and the two parts of our Bible are the ‘Old Covenant’ and the ‘New Covenant.’ When we ask why the Gr. translators used the word meaning ‘will’ while they had ready to hand another word meaning ‘covenant’ (viz. <em> synthçkç </em> ), the answer has been proposed that they perceived the essential difference between God’s covenants with men and men’s covenants one with another. The latter are arranged on equal terms. But God’s covenants are made and offered by God and accepted by men only on God’s terms. A [[Divine]] covenant is like a will in which a man disposes of his property on whatever terms he thinks fit. On the other hand, however, it may be observed that the word <em> diathçkç </em> is also used for a covenant between man and man ( <em> e.g </em> . &nbsp; Deuteronomy 7:2 ). The origin of this term as applied by Christians to the two main divisions of Scripture is Jeremiah’s promise of a New [[Covenant]] (&nbsp; Jeremiah 31:31 ), endorsed by Christ (&nbsp; Mark 14:24 , &nbsp; 1 Corinthians 11:25 ), and enlarged upon in NT teaching ( <em> e.g. </em> &nbsp; Galatians 4:24 , &nbsp; Hebrews 8:6 ). Here, however, the reference is to the Divine arrangements and pledges, not to the books of Scripture, and it is by a secondary usage that the books containing the two covenants have come to be themselves designated Testaments, or Covenants. </p> <p> The Jewish division of the OT is into three parts known as (1) the Law, (2) the Prophets, and (3) the Writings, or the [[Sacred]] Writings ( <em> [[Hagiographa]] </em> ). The ‘Law’ consisted of the first 5 books of our Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), ascribed to Moses; and it was treated as peculiarly sacred, the most holy and authoritative portion of Scripture. It was the only part of the Hebrew Scriptures accepted by the Samaritans, who worshipped the very document containing it almost as a fetish. But the name ‘Law’ (Heb. <em> [[Torah]] </em> , Gr. <em> [[Nomos]] </em> ) is sometimes given to the whole Jewish Bible ( <em> e.g. </em> &nbsp; John 10:34 ). The ‘Prophets’ included not only the utterances ascribed to inspired teachers of Israel, but also the chief historical books later than the Pentateuch. There were reckoned to be 8 books of the Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Minor Prophets) and 11 of the Hagiographa (Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, and Chronicles). Thus there were reckoned to be in all 24 books. Josephus reckoned 22 probably joining Judges to Ruth and Lamentations to Jeremiah. The list was reduced to this number by taking Samuel, Kings, Ezra and Nehemiah, and Chronicles as one book each, and by making one book of the Minor Prophets. Ezra is not divided from Nehemiah in the [[Talmud]] or the Massora. </p> <p> The books now known as the Apocrypha were not in the Hebrew Bible, and were not used in the Palestinian synagogues. They were found in the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] , which represents the enlarged Greek [[Canon]] of Alexandria. From this they passed into the Latin versions, and so into Jerome’s revisioo, the Vulgate, which in time became the authorized Bible of the Roman Catholic Church. They were not accepted by the Protestants as Divinely inspired, but were printed in some Protestant Bibles between the OT and the NT, not in their old places in the Septuagint and Vulgate versions, where they were interspersed with the OT books as though forming part of the OT itself. The Apocrypha consists of 14 books (1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, The Rest of Esther, The Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, [[Baruch]] with the Epistle of Jeremy, The Song of the Three Holy Children, The History of Susanna, [[Bel]] and the Dragon, The Prayer of Manasses, 1 and 2 Maccabees). </p> <p> The NT was slowly formed. Probably the first collection of any of its books was the bringing together of the Synoptic Gospels into one volume (called by Justin [[Martyr]] ‘The Memoirs of the Apostles’). Subsequently the Fourth Gospel was included in this volume; Tatian’s <em> [[Diatessaron]] </em> is a witness to this fact. Meanwhile collections of St. Paul’s Epistles were being made, and thus there came to be two volumes known as ‘The Gospel’ and ‘The Apostle.’ The [[Apocalypse]] was early honoured as a prophetical book standing by itself. Gradually the other NT books were gathered in probably forming a third volume. Thus the NT like the OT consisted of three parts the Four Gospels, the [[Pauline]] Writings, and the remaining books. The similarity may be traced a step further. In both cases the first of the three divisions held a primacy of honour the Law among the Jews, the Gospels among the Christians. The complete NT consists of 27 books, viz. Four Gospels, &nbsp; Acts 13:1-52 Epistles of St. Paul, Hebrews, &nbsp; James 2:1-26 Epistles of St. Peter, 3 of St. John, Jude, Revelation. </p> <p> Within the books of the Bible there were originally no divisions, except in the case of the Psalms, which were always indicated as separate poems, and elsewhere in the case of definite statements of differences of contents, such as the Song of Miriam, the Song of Deborah, ‘the words of Agur,’ and ‘the words of King Lemuel’ (in Prov.). For convenience of reading in the synagogues, the Law was divided into sections (called <em> Parâshahs </em> ). Selections from the Prophets (called <em> Haphtârahs </em> ) were made to go with the appointed sections of the Law. The first indications of divisions in the NT are ascribed to Tatian. They did not break into the text, but were inserted in the margins. The earliest divisions of the Gospels were known as ‘titles’ ( <em> Titloi </em> ); somewhat similar divisions were indicated in the Epistles by ‘headings’ or ‘chapters’ ( <em> Kephalaia </em> ), a form of which with more numerous divisions than the ‘titles’ was also introduced into the Gospels. [[Eusebius]] based his harmony on the references of the sections said to have been arranged by [[Ammonius]] of [[Alexandria]] in the early part of the 3rd cent., and therefore known as the ‘Ammonian Sections.’ These are much shorter than our chapters. Thus in Matthew there were 68 ‘titles’ and 355 ‘Ammonian Sections’; in Mark the numbers were 48 and 236, in Luke 83 and 342, and in &nbsp; John 18 and 232 respectively. The chapters in the Acts and the Epistles are ascribed to Euthalius, a deacon of Alexandria (subsequently bishop of Sulci, in Sardinia) in the 5th century. These chapters nearly corresponded in length to the Gospel ‘titles.’ Thus there were 40 in &nbsp; Acts 19:1-41 in Romans, etc. A still smaller division of the books of Scripture was that of the <em> stichoi </em> , or lines, a word used for a line of poetry, and then for a similar length of prose, marked off for the payment of copyists. Subsequently “it was employed for the piece of writing which a reader was supposed to render without taking breath, and the marks of the <em> stichoi </em> would be helps for the reader, indicating where he might pause. In Matthew there were 2560 <em> stichoi </em> ; the same Gospel has 1071 modern verses. Scrivener calculates 19,241 <em> stichoi </em> for the 7959 modern verses of the whole NT giving an average of nearly 2 1 / 2 <em> stichoi </em> per verse. Cardinal Hugo de Sancto Caro is credited with having made our present chapter divisions about a.d. 1248 when preparing a Bible index. But it may be that he borrowed these divisions from an earlier scholar, possibly Lanfranc, or Stephen Langton. The Hebrew Bible was divided into verses by Rabbi [[Nathan]] in the 15th century. Henry Stephens states that his father Robert Stephens made verse divisions in the NT during the intervals of a journey on horseback from Paris to Lyons. Whether he actually invented these arrangements or copied them from some predecessor, they were first published in Stephens’ Greek Testament of 1551. </p> <p> <strong> 3. Historical Origin </strong> . The Bible is not only a library, the books of which come from various writers in different periods of time; many of these books may be said to be composed of successive literary strata, so that the authors of the most ancient parts of them belong to much earlier times than their final redactors. All the OT writers, and also all those of the NT with one exception (St. Luke), were Jews. The OT was nearly all written in the Holy Land; the only exceptions being in the case of books composed in the valley of the [[Euphrates]] during the [[Exile]] (Ezekiel, possibly Lamentations, Deutero-Isaiah, or part of it, perhaps some of the Psalms, a revision of the Law). The NT books were written in many places; most of the Epistles of St. Paul can be located; the Gospel and Epistles of St. John probably come from [[Ephesus]] or its neighbourhood; but the sites of the origin of all the other books are doubtful. </p> <p> Probably the oldest book of the Bible is Amos, written about b.c. 750. A little later in the great 8th cent. we come to Hosea, Isaiah, and Micah. The 7th cent. gives us Nahum, Zephaniah, Jeremiah, and Habakkuk among the prophets, also Deuteronomy, and at the beginning of this century we have the earliest complete historical books, Samuel and Judges. The end of this century or beginning of the 6th cent. gives us Kings. In the 6th cent. also we have Obadiah (?), Ezekiel, part, if not all, of the Deutero-Isaiah (40 50), Haggai, Zechariah (1 8), Lamentations, Ruth. The 5th cent. gives us the completed Pentateuch or rather the Hexateuch, Joshua going with the 5 books of the Law, perhaps the latter part of the Deutero-Isaiah (51 60), Malachi, Books 1 and 2 of the Psalter. The 4th cent. has Proverbs, Job, Book 3 of the Psalter, and the Prophets Joel and Jonah. From the 3rd cent. we have Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, Zechariah (9 14), Ecclesiastes, Esther. Lastly, the 2nd cent. is credited with Daniel and Books 4 and 5 of the Psalter. Several of these later dates are more or less conjectural. Moreover, they refer to the completion of works some of which are composite and contain elements which originated in much earlier times. Thus Proverbs and the 5 Books of the Psalms are all collections which, though probably made at the dates assigned to them, consist of materials many of which are considerably older. When we look to the analysis of the books, and inquire as to the dates of their constituent parts, we are carried back to pre-historic ages. The [[Hexateuch]] contains four principal parts, known as J [Note: Jahwist.] (the Jahwistic prophetic narrative), E [Note: Elohist.] (the Elohistic prophetic narrative), D [Note: Deuteronomist.] (Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic notes in other books), P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] (the Priestly Code, represented especially by Leviticus, the author of which revised the earlier parts of the Law-books and inserted additions into them). But J [Note: Jahwist.] and E [Note: Elohist.] are closely intertwined an indication that they have both been revised and the result of this revision gives us the composite narrative known as JE [Note: Jewish Encyclopedia.] . Thus we have now three main strata, viz. (1) JE [Note: Jewish Encyclopedia.] , the prophetic element, written in the spirit of the prophets, dated about b.c. 700; (2) D [Note: Deuteronomist.] , the moral and legal element, seen especially in Deuteronomy, dated about b.c. 620; (3) P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] , the priestly element, dated about b.c. 444. The author of P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] appears to have revised the whole work and given it out as the complete Law. This may have been done by the Euphrates during the Exile, so that the Law-book brought up to Jerusalem would be the Pentateuch (or the Hexateuch), or it may have been after the Return, in which case the Law-book would be only P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] . But in any case the whole work after its completion underwent some further slight revision before it assumed its present form. See Hexateuch. </p> <p> If now we ask not what was the first complete book of the OT, but what was the first portion of the OT actually written, it is not easy to give a reply. The literature of most peoples begins with ballads. Possibly the Song of [[Deborah]] is a ballad which should have assigned to it the first place in the chronological order of Hebrew writings. Such a hallad would be handed down in tradition before it was put into writing. Then some of the laws in Exodus, those of the ‘Book of the Covenant,’ may have come down in tradition or even in writing, from a remote antiquity. The code of Hammurabi, king of Babylon, b.c. 2285 2242, was a written law nearly 1000 years earlier than the time of Moses. The striking resemblance between some of the laws of Israel and some of these [[Babylonian]] laws points to a certain measure of dependence. This might go back to patriarchal days; but, of course, it would have been possible for the jews in the Exile to have access to this venerable code at the very time P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] was being constructed. </p> <p> There is much less range of question for the dates of the NT books. The earliest date possible for any of them is a.d. 44 for James; although, as Prof. Harnack holds, perhaps this is almost the latest written book of the NT. Laying aside the much disputed question of the date of James, we have 1 Thess. as apart from this the earliest written NT book. Following the usually accepted chronology, the date of this Epistle is a.d. 53 (Harnack, a.d. 49; Turner, a.d. 51). The latest written NT book is 2Peter, which must be assigned to a late decade of the 2nd century. Apart from this Epistle, which stands quite by itself as a pseudonymous work, and James, which may be either the earliest or one of the latest NT books, the last written works are the Johannine writings, which cannot be earlier than near the end of the 1st century. Thus we have a period of about 50 years for the composition of the bulk of the NT writings, viz. the second half of the 1st cent. a.d. </p> <p> <strong> 4. [[Original]] Languages </strong> . The bulk of the OT was written in Hebrew, and without vowel points. Hebrew is the Israelite dialect of the [[Canaanite]] language, which belongs to the Semitic family, and is closely allied to Aramaic. Some portions of the OT (viz. documents in &nbsp; Ezra 4:7 to &nbsp; Ezra 6:18 and &nbsp; Ezra 7:12-26 , &nbsp; Daniel 2:4 to &nbsp; Daniel 7:28 and a few scattered words and phrases elsewhere) are in Aramaic, the language of Syria, which was widely known, being found in Babylonia, Egypt, and Arabia. After the Exile, since [[Aramaic]] then became the everyday language of the Jews, Hebrew was relegated to a position of honourable neglect as the language of literature and the Law, and Aramaic came into general use. Probably the earliest writings which are embodied in the NT were in this language. When [[Papias]] says that Matthew wrote ‘the oracles of the Lord in the Hebrew dialect,’ he would seem to mean Aramaic. Since Jesus taught in Aramaic, it is not likely that His discourses were translated into the more archaic language; it is more probable that they were written down in the very language in which they were spoken. Similarly, it is probable that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was in Aramaic. But, however far we may go with Dr. Marshall and Dr. Abbott in allowing that Aramaic writings are to be detected beneath and behind our Gospels, it cannot be held that any of these Gospels, or any other NT books, are translations from that language. Matthew, the most Jewish of the Gospels, contains quotations from the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] as well as direct translations from the Hebrew OT, which shows that while its author or at all events the author of one of its sources knew Hebrew, the Gospel itself was a Greek composition. All the NT was originally written in Greek. It was long held that this Greek was a peculiar dialect, and as such it was named [[Hellenistic]] Greek. But the discovery of contemporary inscriptions and papyri (especially the Oxyrhynchus papyri) shows that the colloquial Greek, used in commerce and popular intercourse all round the [[Mediterranean]] during the 1st cent., has the same peculiar forms that we meet with in the NT, many of which had been attributed to Semitic influences. These discoveries necessitate the re-writing of grammars on the Greek of the NT, as Prof. Deissmann and Dr. [[J. H]]  Moulton have shown by their recent studies in the new field of research. It must still be admitted that a certain amount of Hebrew influence is felt in the NT style. This is most apparent in the Gospels, especially Matthew and above all the earlier chapters of Luke (except the Preface), and also in the Apocalypse. The [[Preface]] of Luke is the nearest approach to classical Greek that we have in the NT. After this come Hebrews, the middle and latter part of the Gospel of Luke, and Acts. St. Paul’s writings and the General Epistles take an intermediate position between the most Hebraistic and the least Hebraistic writings. The Fourth Gospel is written in good Greek; but the structure of the sentences indicates a mind accustomed to think in Hebrew or Aramaic. Nevertheless, in spite of these differences, it remains true that the grammar and style of the NT are in the main the grammar and style of contemporary Greek throughout the Roman Empire. </p> <p> <strong> 5. Translations </strong> . The OT was first translated into Greek, for the benefit of Jews residing in Egypt, in the version known as the Septuagint (LXX [Note: Septuagint.] ), which was begun under Ptolemy II. (b.c. 285 247), and almost, if not quite, completed before the commencement of the Christian era. Another Greek version is ascribed to Aquila, who is said to have been a disciple of the famous Rabbi Aki0ba, and is by some even identified with Onkelos, the author of the Targum. This version, which is commonly dated about a.d. 150, is remarkable for its pedantic literalness, the Hebrew being rendered word for word into Greek, regardless of the essential differences between the two languages in grammar and construction. On the other hand, about the end of the 2nd cent. a.d., Symmachus, who, according to Epiphanius, was a Samaritan turned Jew, although Eusebius calls him an Ebionite, produced a version the aim of which was to render the original text into idiomatic Greek of good style, with the result, however, that in some places it became a paraphrase rather than a translation. Lastly may be mentioned the version of Theodotion, a Marcionite who went over to Judaism. This is really a revision of the LXX [Note: Septuagint.]; it is assigned to about the year a.d. 185. Other versions of all or parts of the OT are known as the <em> Quinta </em> and the <em> Sexta </em> ; there are doubtful references to a <em> Septima </em> . </p> <p> [[Oral]] paraphrases, the Targums, or ‘interpretations,’ were made in Aramaic for the benefit of Palestinian Jews; but the earliest written paraphrase is that known as the [[Targum]] of Onkelos the official Targum of the Pentateuch the compilation of which in whole or part is assigned to the 2nd or 3rd cent. a.d. Later. with indications at least as late as the 7th cent. a.d., in its present form is the Jerusalem Targum, known as the Targum of pseudo-Jonathan. This is more free and interpolated with ‘Haggadistic’ elements. The official Targum of the Prophets also bears the name of Jonathan. Originating in [[Palestine]] in the 3rd cent. a.d., it received its final shaping in [[Babylon]] in the 5th century. The Targums of the Hagiographa are much later in date. </p> <p> The oldest versions of the NT are the Syriac and the Latin, both of which may be traced back in some form to the 2nd cent. a.d., but there is much difference of opinion as to the original text of the former. First, we have the Peshitta, literally, the ‘simple’ version, which has become the standard accepted text in the [[Syrian]] Church. There is no doubt that in its present form this text represents successive revisions down to a late Patristic age. Two other versions, or two forms of another version of the Gospels, were discovered in the 19th cent., viz. the Curetonian, edited by Cureton, and the Sinaitic, found in a MS at the monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. Lastly, there is the version represented by Tatian’s <em> Diatessaron </em> , which may be distinct from either of these. While it is admitted that a primitive text underlying the Peshitta may be as ancient as any of these versions, scholars are fairly agreed that the Peshitta, as we know it, is considerably more recent than [[Tatian]] and the Sinaitic Gospels, both of which may be assigned to the 2nd cent. a.d. The earliest Latin Version appeared before the end of the 2nd cent. and probably in North Africa, where Latin was the language commonly used, while Greek was then the language of Christian literature at Rome. Tertullian knew the North African Latin Version. [[Somewhat]] later several attempts were made in Italy to translate the NT into Latin. The confusion of text induced Damasus, bishop of Rome, to commit to Jerome (a.d. 382) the task of preparing a reliable Latin version of the Bible. This came to be known as the Vulgate, which for 1000 years was the Bible of the Western Church, and which, since the Council of Trent, has been honoured by Roman Catholics as an infallibly correct rendering of the true text of Scripture. Augustine refers to a version which he calls ‘ltala,’ but it has been shown that this was probably Jerome’s version. The NT was early translated into Coptic, and it appeared in three dialects of that language. The Sahidic Version, in Upper Egypt, can be traced back to the 4th century. The Bohairic, formerly used at Alexandria, has been assigned to as early a date as the 2nd cent.; but Prof. Burkitt shows reasons for bringing it down to the 6th. It is the version now used ecclesiastically by the Copts. Lastly, there is the Fayumic Version, represented by MSS from the Fayum. The original Gothic Version was the work of [[Ulfilas]] in the 4th century. He had to invent an alphabet for it. This work may be considered the first literary product in a Teutonic language. The Ethiopic and Armenian [[Versions]] may be assigned to the 5th century. Subsequent ages saw the Georgian Version (6th), the Anglo-Saxon (8th to 11th), the Slavonic (9th). The [[Reformation]] period from Wyclif onwards saw new translations into the vernacular; but the great age of Bible translation is the 19th century. The British and Foreign Bible Society now produces the Scriptures in over 400 languages and versions. </p> <p> [[W. F]]  Adeney. </p>

<p> <i> Biblia. </i> This name is from the Greek through the Latin, and signifies 'The Books.' The whole is also called 'The Scriptures,' and once 'The Holy Scriptures,' that is, 'the Sacred Writings,' distinguishing them from all others. The advent of the Lord Jesus, who was the great subject of the scriptures, &nbsp;John 5:39 , and in whom as 'Son' God spoke, after a silence of 400 years, naturally led to a division of the sacred writings into two parts, called the Old and New Testaments. The 'Old Testament' is mentioned as being read in &nbsp;2 Corinthians 3:14; but the term 'New Testament,' as applied to the collection of books that commonly bear that title, does not occur in scripture. There was also a change in the language in which the various books of the two Testaments were written. The Old was written in Hebrew, except &nbsp;Ezra 4:8 to &nbsp; Ezra 6:18; &nbsp;Ezra 7:12-26; &nbsp;Jeremiah 10:11; &nbsp;Daniel 2:4 to &nbsp; Daniel 7:28 : these portions being written in Chaldee or Aramaic. The books of the New Testament were written in Greek (without now taking into consideration whether the Gospel by Matthew was originally written in Aramaic). The glad tidings of salvation was for the whole world, and the language most extensively known at that time was chosen for its promulgation. </p> <p> The Old Testament may be considered as dividing itself into: </p> <p> 1. The Pentateuch, or five books of Moses. </p> <p> 2. The Historical Books, including Joshua to the end of Esther. </p> <p> 3. The Poetical Books, Job to theend of Song of Solomon. </p> <p> 4. The Prophetical Books, from Isaiah to Malachi. </p> <p> The Jews divided the Old Testament into <i> three </i> parts: </p> <p> 1. The Law <i> (Torah), </i> the five books of Moses. </p> <p> 2. The Prophets <i> (Nebiim), </i> including Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2Samuel, 1 and </p> <p> 2Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve Minor Prophets. </p> <p> 3. The Writings <i> (Kethubim, </i> or <i> Hagiographa, </i> 'holy writings'), including </p> <p> <i> a, </i> the Psalms, Proverbs, Job; </p> <p> <i> b, </i> Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther; </p> <p> <i> c, </i> Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, 1 and 2Chronicles. </p> <p> The books are in this order in the Hebrew Bible. The above triple division is doubtless alluded to by the Lord, in &nbsp;Luke 24:44 , "All things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me;" cf. &nbsp;Luke 24:27 . 'The Psalms' being the first book in the third part, may have been used as a title to express the whole of the division. </p> <p> The Talmud and later Jewish writers reckon twenty-four books in the O.T. To make out this number they count the two books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles as <i> one </i> book each; Ezra and Nehemiah as one; and the twelve Minor Prophets as one. The earlier Jews reckoned the books as 22, according to the letters in the alphabet: they united Ruth with Judges, and Lamentations with Jeremiah. But all such arrangements are arbitrary and fanciful. </p> <p> The 'oracles of God' were committed to Israel, &nbsp;Romans 3:2 , and they have been zealous defenders of the letter of the O.T. For a long time it was thought that their great care and exactitude in copying had preserved the manuscripts from error; but it has been abundantly proved that those copyists erred, as all others have erred in this respect, and numerous errors have been discovered in the MSS, though many of them are seen at once to be mistakes of the pen, some doubtless caused through the similarity of the Hebrew letters, and are easily corrected. Other differences can be set right by the preponderance of evidence in the MSS themselves now that many of these have been collated. </p> <p> Besides such variations there are other deviations from the common Hebrew text that profess to have some amount of authority. They are commonly called <i> Keri </i> and <i> Chethib, q.v. </i> </p> <p> As to the text of the NEW TESTAMENTthere is no particular copy that claims any authority, though the [[Received]] Text (Elzevir, 1624) was for a long time treated 'as if an angel had compiled it,' as one expressed it. But the undue respect for that text has passed away, and every translator has to examine the evidence for and against every variation, in order to know <i> what </i> he shall translate. </p> <p> He has before him </p> <p> 1. Many [[Greek]] MANUSCRIPTS:some 40 being called <i> Uncials </i> because of being written all in capital letters (though some of this number are only portions or mere fragments), and are represented by capital letters, [[A, B, C]]  etc. They date from the fourth to the tenth century. There are also hundreds of <i> Cursives </i> (those written in a more running hand), for the most part of later date than the uncials, a few of which are of special value. They date from the tenth century to the fourteenth, and are represented by numerals. </p> <p> 2. [[Ancient Versions]]  which show what was apparently in the Greek copies used for the versions: the Old Latin, often called <i> Italic; </i> the Vulgate; Syriac; Egyptian, called the Memphitic and the Thebaic; the Gothic; Armenian; and AEthiopic. These Versions date from the second to the sixth century. </p> <p> 3. [[The Fathers]] which are useful as showing what was in the Greek copies from which they quoted: they date from the second century. </p> <p> The variations in the Greek [[Manuscripts]] are very numerous, yet the Editors (men who have attempted to discover what God originally caused to be written) — though each formed his own plan as to which of the above witnesses he would examine — have come to the same judgement in the great majority of the variations. In such cases we are doubtless safe in leaving the commonly received text. In other places their conclusions differ, and in a <i> few </i> cases nearly all the Editors have been obliged to declare the reading as doubtful. Though this is to be deplored, for we should desire to ascertain in every instance the actual words which God caused to be written, yet it is a matter of deep thankfulness that the variations do not in the least affect any one of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. These all stand forth in sublime and lucid grandeur as parts of the will of God Himself, notwithstanding all that men have done to obscure or nullify them. </p> <p> The above must suffice as to the text of the Old and New Testaments. Under the name of each book will be found what are considered the leading thoughts therein, but a few words are now added as to the whole Bible. </p> <p> It is 'the word of God,' an unfolding of unseen things — a revelation of the nature of God morally, and the history, divinely penned, of man His creature, first as innocent, and then as fallen, with its consequences. It shows man's responsibility and how man has been tested in various ways, each test resulting, alas, in his failure. It manifests that if man is to be saved and eternally blessed, it must be by a work done <i> for </i> him by another. This was graciously accomplished by the Son of God becoming a man and dying a sacrificial death on the cross, which glorified God and met the question of man's responsibility. </p> <p> The word reveals that there was a counsel respecting the second Man in eternity, it also reveals that when the mediatorial kingdom of the Lord Jesus as Son of Man has been finished, God will again in eternity become all in all. In the mean time, according to the eternal purpose of God, many are being brought to Himself through faith in the atoning death of the Lord Jesus, being quickened by the Spirit, and made new creatures in Christ Jesus. The Lord Jesus is awaiting the time when He will come to fetch His saints, to carry out all God's purposes, and to punish those that know not God, and who obey not the gospel. </p> <p> The Bible also reveals the character of Satan since his fall, as being a liar and murderer; he is the great enemy of the Lord Jesus and of man, and he deceived our mother Eve. It also details the future eternal punishment of that wicked one with those who are obedient to him. </p> <p> The choice of Israel and the wonders wrought for their deliverance from Egypt, together with their history in the land of promise, their expulsion and captivity, and their future tribulation and blessing in the same land, occupy a large part of the Bible. </p> <p> Christ in type, antitype, and prophecy, is the centre of the whole Book: "All things were made by him and for him." He is pointedly referred to in the 3rd chapter of Genesis, and gives His parting word to His saints in the last chapter of the Revelation. </p> <p> The N.T. brings out not only the history of redemption by the death of Christ, but gives the doctrine of the Church in its various aspects, showing that Christianity is an entirely new order of things — indeed a new creation. Those who form the church are instructed as to their true position in Christ, and their true position in the world, with details to guide them in every station of life. The Revelation gives the various phases of the church at that time (though prophetic of its condition to the end) with warnings of the evils that had already crept in. This is followed by the many and varied judgements that will fall upon [[Christendom]] and the world, reaching to the eternal state of the new heavens and the new earth. </p> <p> This is but a brief and incomplete sketch of the contents of the Bible, for who can in few or indeed in many words describe that wonderful God-made Book? It is an inexhaustible mine: the more it is explored, the more is the finger of God manifest everywhere, and new treasures are revealed to the devout, calling forth their praise and adoration. See INSPIRATION. </p>

<p> The historical matters of Scripture, both narrative and prophecy, constitute as it were the bones of its system; whereas the spiritual matters are as its muscles, bloodvessels and nerves. As the bones are necessary to the human system, so Scripture must have its historical matters. The expositor who nullifies the historical groundwork of Scripture for the sake of finding only spiritual truths everywhere, brings death on all correct interpretation.: [[J. A]]  Bengel. </p>

<p> (Anglicized from the Greek '''''Βιβλία''''' , i.e. ''Little Books,'' libelli; Latinized ''Biblia'' ) '','' the popular designation (usually in the phrase "Holy Bible") now everywhere current for the Sacred Scriptures of the Old and New Testament in their present collected form. The sacred books were denominated by the Jews the [[Writing]] ( '''''כְּתִיב''''' , [[Kethib]] ' '', Written,'' or '''''מִקְרָא''''' , ''Mikra'' ' '', Recitation'' ) '','' a name of the same character as that applied by the Mohammedans ([[Koran]] ) to denote their sacred volume. (See [[Holy Scriptures]]). </p> <p> The Bible is divided into the Old and New Testaments, '''''Ἡ''''' '''''Παλαιά''''' , '''''Καὶ''''' '''''Ἡ''''' '''''Καινὴ''''' '''''Διαθήκη''''' ''.'' The name Old Testament is applied to the books of Moses by Paul (&nbsp;2 Corinthians 3:14), inasmuch as the former covenant comprised the whole scheme of the Mosaic revelation, and the history of this is contained in them. This phrase, "book of the covenant," taken probably from &nbsp;Exodus 24:7; &nbsp;1 [[Maccabees]] 1:57 ( '''''Βιβλίον''''' '''''Διαθήκης''''' ), was transferred in the course of time-by a metonymy to signify the writings themselves. The word '''''Διαθήκη''''' signifies either a testament or a covenant, but we now render it ''Testament,'' because the translators of the old Latin version have always rendered it from the Sept., even when it was used as a translation of the Hebrew, '''''בְּרִית''''' , [[Berith]] ' ([[Covenant]] ) '','' by the word ''Testamentum.'' The names given to the Old Testament were the Scriptures (&nbsp;Matthew 21:42), Scripture (&nbsp;2 Peter 1:20), the Holy Scriptures (&nbsp;Romans 1:2), the sacred letters (&nbsp;2 Timothy 3:15), the holy books ( ''Sanhed.'' 91, 2), the law (&nbsp;John 12:34), the law, the prophets, and the psalms (&nbsp;Luke 24:44), the law and the prophets (&nbsp;Matthew 5:17), the law, the prophets, and the other books (Prol. Ecclus.), the books of the old covenant (&nbsp;Nehemiah 8:8), the book of the covenant (&nbsp;1 Maccabees 1:57; &nbsp;2 Kings 23:2). '''''—''''' Kitto, s.v. (See Testament). </p> <p> The other books (not in the canon) were called apocryphal, ecclesiastical, and deuterocanonical. The term New Testament has been in common use since the third century, and is employed by Eusebius in the same sense in which it is now commonly applied (Hist. Eccles, 2, 23). Tertullian employs the same phrase, and also that of "the Divine Instrument" in the same signification. (See [[Antilegomena]]); (See Apocrypha). </p> <p> '''I.''' ''Appropriation Of The Term'' " ''Bible.'' " '' '''''—''''' '' </p> <p> '''1.''' ''In Its Greek Form. '''''—''''' '' The application of the word '''''Βιβλία''''' , the Books, specially to the collected books of the Old and New Testament, is not to be traced farther back than the 5th century. The terms which the writers of the New Testament use of the Scriptures of the Old are '''''Ἡ''''' '''''Γραφή''''' (&nbsp;2 Timothy 3:16; &nbsp;Acts 8:32; &nbsp;Galatians 3:22), '''''Αἱ''''' '''''Γραφαί''''' (&nbsp;Matthew 21:42; &nbsp;Luke 24:27), '''''Τὰ''''' '''''Ἱερὰ''''' '''''Γράμματα''''' (2 Timothy in. 15). '''''Βιβλίον''''' is found (&nbsp;2 Timothy 4:13; &nbsp;Revelation 10:2; &nbsp;Revelation 5:1), but with no distinctive meaning; nor does the use of '''''Τὰ''''' '''''Λοιπὰ''''' '''''Τῶν''''' '''''Βιβλίων''''' for the Hagiographa in the Preface to Ecclesiasticus, or of '''''Αἱ''''' '''''Ἱεραὶ''''' '''''Βίβλοι''''' in Josephus ( ''Ant.'' 1, 6, 2), indicate any thing as to the use of '''''Τὰ''''' '''''Βιβλία''''' alone as synonymous with '''''Ἡ''''' '''''Γραφή''''' . The words employed by early Christian writers were naturally derived from the language of the New Testament, and the old terms, with epithets like '''''Θεῖα''''' , '''''Ἃγια''''' , and the like, continued to be used by the Greek fathers, as the equivalent "Scriptura" was by the Latin. The use of '''''Ἡ''''' '''''Παλαιὰ''''' '''''Διαθήκη''''' in &nbsp;2 Corinthians 3:14, for the law as read in the synagogues, and the prominence given in the Epistle to the Hebrews (&nbsp;Hebrews 7:22; &nbsp;Hebrews 8:6; &nbsp;Hebrews 9:15) to the contrast between the '''''Παλαιά''''' and the '''''Καινή''''' , led gradually to the extension of the former to include the other books of the Jewish Scriptures, and to the application of the latter as of the former to a book or collection of books. Of the Latin equivalents which were adopted by different writers ( ''Instrumentum, Testamentum'' ) '','' the latter met with the most general acceptance, and perpetuated itself in the language of modern Europe. One passage in Tertullian ( ''Adv. Marc.'' 4, 1) illustrates the growing popularity of the word which eventually prevailed, "instrumenti vel quod magis in usu est dicere, testamenti." The word was naturally used by Greek writers in speaking of the parts of these two collections. </p> <p> They enumerate (e.g. Athan. ''Synop. Sac. Script.'' ) '''''Τὰ''''' '''''Βιβλία''''' of the Old and New Testament; and as these were contrasted with the apocryphal books circulated by heretics, there was a natural tendency to the appropriation of the word as limited by the article to the whole collection of the canonical Scriptures. Jerome substitutes for these expressions the term Bibliotheca Divina (see Hieronymi Opera, ed. Martianay, vol. 1, Proleg.), a phrase which this learned father probably borrowed from &nbsp;2 Maccabees 2:13, where Nehemiah is said, in "founding a library" ( '''''Βιβλιοθήκη''''' ), to have "gathered together the acts '''''‘''''' of the kings, and the prophets, and of David, and the epistles of the kings concerning the holy gifts." But although it was usual to denominate the separate books in Greek by the term ''Biblia,'' which is frequently so applied by Josephus, we first find it simply applied to the entire collection by St. Chrysostom in his Second Homily, "The Jews have the books ( '''''Βιβλία''''' ), but we have the treasure of the books; they have the letters ( '''''Γράμματα''''' ), but we have both spirit and letter." And again, ''Hom.'' ix ''In Epist. [[Ad]] Coloss.,'' "Provide yourselves with [[Books]] ( '''''Βιβλία''''' ), the medicine of the soul, but if you desire no other, at least procure the new ( '''''Καινή''''' ), the Apostolos, the Acts, the Gospels." He also adds to the word '''''Βιβλία''''' the epithet [[Divine]] in his ''Tenth [[Homily]] On Genesis:'' "Taking before and after meals the divine books" ( '''''Τὰ''''' '''''Θεῖα''''' '''''Βιβλία''''' ), or, as we should now express it, the Holy Bible. It is thus applied in a way which shows this use to have already become familiar to those to whom he wrote. The liturgical use of the Scriptures, as the worship of the Church became organized, would naturally favor this application. The MSS. from which they were read would be emphatically ''The'' books of each church or monastery. And when this use of the word was established in the East, it was natural that it should pass gradually to the Western Church. The terminology of that Church bears witness throughout (e.g. Episcopus, Presbyter, Diaconus, Litania, Liturgia, Monachus, Abbas, and others) to its Greek origin, and the history of the word Biblia has followed the analogy of those that have been referred to. Here, too, there was less risk of its being used in any other than the higher meaning, because it had not, in spite of the introduction even in classical Latinity of Bibliotheca, Bibliopola, taken the place of libri, or libelli, in the common speech of men. </p> <p> '''2.''' ''The English Form. '''''—''''' '' It is worthy of note that "Bible" is not found in Anglo-Saxon literature, though ''Bibliothece'' is given (Lye, ''Anglo-Sax. Dict.'' ) as used in the same sense as the corresponding word in mediaeval Latin for the Scriptures as the great treasure-house of books (Du Cange and Adelung, s.v.). If we derive from our mother-tongue the singularly happy equivalent of the Greek '''''Εὐαγγέλιον''''' , we have received the word which stands on an equal eminence with "Gospel" as one of the later importations consequent on the Norman Conquest and fuller intercourse with the Continent. When the English which grew out of this union first appears in literature, the word is already naturalized. In R. Brunne (p. 290), Piers Plowman (1916, 4271), and Chaucer (Prol. 437), it appears in its distinctive sense, though the latter, in at least one passage (House of Fame, bk. 3), uses it in a way which indicates that it was not always limited to that meaning. From that time, however, the higher use prevailed to the exclusion of any lower; and the choice of it, rather than of any of its synonymes, by the great translators of the Scriptures, Wickliffe. Luther, Coverdale, fixed it beyond all possibility of change. The transformation of the word from a plural into a singular noun in all the modern languages of Europe, though originating probably in the solecisms of the Latin of the 13th century (Du Cange, s.v. Biblia), has made it fitter than it would otherwise have been for its high office as the title of that which, by virtue of its unity and plan, is emphatically THE Book. </p> <p> '''II.''' ''The Book As A Whole. '''''—''''' '' The history of the growth of the collections known as the Old and New Testament respectively will be found fully under CANON. It falls within the scope of the present article to indicate in what way and by what steps the two came to be looked on as of co- ordinate authority, and therefore as parts of one whole '''''—''''' how, i.e. the idea of a completed Bible, even before the word came into use, presented itself to the minds of men. As regards a large portion of the writings of the New Testament, it is not too much to say that they claim an authority not lower, nay, even higher than the Old. That which had not been revealed to the "prophets" of the Old dispensation is revealed to the prophets of the New (&nbsp;Ephesians 3:5). The apostles wrote as having the Spirit of Christ (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 7:40), as teaching and being taught "by the revelation of Jesus Christ" (&nbsp;Galatians 1:12). Where they make no such direct claim their language is still that of men who teach as "having authority," and so far the old prophetic spirit is revived in them, and their teaching differs, as did that of their Master, from the traditions of the scribes. As the revelation of God through the Son was recognised as fuller and more perfect than that which had been made '''''Πολυμερῶς''''' '''''Καὶ''''' '''''Πολυτρόπως''''' to the fathers (&nbsp;Hebrews 1:1), the records of what He had done and said, when once recognised as authentic, could not be regarded as less sacred than the Scriptures of the Jews. Indications of this are found even within the N.T. itself. Assuming the genuineness of the 2d Epistle of Peter, it shows that within the lifetime of the apostles, the Epistles of Paul had come to be classed among the '''''Γραφαί''''' of the Church (&nbsp;2 Peter 3:16). </p> <p> The language of the same Epistle in relation to the recorded teaching of prophets and apostles (3:2; comp. &nbsp;Ephesians 2:20; &nbsp;Ephesians 3:5; &nbsp;Ephesians 4:11) shows that the '''''Πᾶσα''''' '''''Προφητεία''''' '''''Γραφῆς''''' can hardly be limited to the writings of the Old Testament. The command that the letter to the Colossians was to be read in the church of [[Laodicea]] (&nbsp;Colossians 4:16), though it does not prove that it was regarded as of equal authority with the '''''Γραφὴ''''' '''''Θεόπνευστος''''' , indicates a practice which would naturally lead to its being so regarded. The writing of a man who spoke as inspired could not fail to be regarded as participating in the inspiration. It is part of the development of the same feeling that the earliest records of the worship of the Christian Church indicate the liturgical use of some at least of the writings of the New, as well as of the Old Testament. Justin (Apol. 1, 66) places '''''Τὰ''''' '''''Ἀπομνημονεύματα''''' '''''Τῶν''''' '''''Ἀποστόλων''''' as read in close connection with, or in the place of '''''Τὰ''''' '''''Συγγράμματα''''' '''''Τῶν''''' '''''Προφητῶν''''' , and this juxtaposition corresponds to the manner in which [[Ignatius]] had previously spoken of '''''Αἱ''''' '''''Προφητείαι''''' , '''''Νόμος''''' '''''Μωσέως''''' , '''''Τὸ''''' '''''Εὐαγγέλιον''''' ( ''Ep. Ad Smyrn.'' c. 7). It is not meant, of course, that such phrases or such practices prove the existence of a recognised collection, but they show with what feelings individual writings were regarded. They prepare the way for the acceptance of the whole body of the N.T. writings, as soon as the Canon is completed, as on a level with those of the Old. A little farther on and the recognition is complete. [[Theophilus]] of [[Antioch]] (ad Autolyc. bk. in), [[Irenaeus]] (adv. Haer. 2, 27; 3:1), Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, 3, 10; 5:5), Tertullian (adv. Prax. 15, 20), all speak of the New Testament writings (what writings they included under this title is of course a distinct question) as making up, with the Old, '''''Μία''''' '''''Γνῶσις''''' (Clem. Al. [[''L. C'']]  ) '','' "totum instrumentum utriusque testamenti" (Tert. [[''L. C'']]  .), universae scripturae. As this was in part a consequence of the liturgical usage referred to, so it reacted upon it, and influenced the transcribers and translators of the books which were needed for the instruction of the Church. The Syriac [[Peshito]] in the 3d, or at the close of the 2d century, includes (with the omission of some of the '''''Ἀντιλεγόμενα''''' ) the New Testament as well as the Old. The Alexandrian Codex, presenting in the fullest sense of the word a complete Bible, may be taken as the representative of the full maturity of the feeling which we have seen in its earlier developments. The same may be said of the Codex Sinaiticus, lately brought to light by Prof. Tischendorf. </p> <p> '''III.''' ''Order Of The Books. '''''—''''' '' The existence of a collection of sacred books recognised as authoritative leads naturally to a more or less systematic arrangement. The arrangement must rest upon some principle of classification. The names given to the several Looks will indicate in some instances the view taken of their contents, in others the kind of notation applied both to the greater and smaller divisions of the sacred volumes. The existence of a classification analogous to that adopted by the later Jews and still retained in the printed Hebrew Bibles, is indicated even before the completion of the O.T. Canon (&nbsp;Zechariah 7:12). When the Canon was locked upon as settled, in the period covered by the books of the Apocrypha, it took a more definite form. The [[Prologue]] to Ecclesiasticus mentions "the law and the prophets and the other books." In the N.T. there is the same kind of recognition. "The Law and the Prophets" is the shorter (&nbsp;Matthew 11:13; &nbsp;Matthew 22:40; &nbsp;Acts 13:15, etc.); "the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms" (&nbsp;Luke 24:44), the fuller statement of the division popularly recognised. The arrangement of the books of the Hebrews text under these three heads requires, however, a farther notice. </p> <p> '''1.''' The LAW, [[Torah]] ' '','' '''''תּוֹרָה''''' , '''''Νόμος''''' , naturally continued to occupy the position which it must have held from the first as the most ancient and authoritative portion. Whatever questions may be raised as to the antiquity of the whole Pentateuch in its present form, the existence of a book bearing this title is traceable to a very early period in the history of the Israelites (&nbsp;Joshua 1:8; &nbsp;Joshua 8:34; &nbsp;Joshua 24:26). The name which must at first have attached to those portions of the whole book was applied to the earlier and contemporaneous history connected with the giving of the law, and ascribed to the same writer. The marked distinctness of the five portions which make up the Torah shows that they must have been designed as separate books; and when the Canon was completed, and the books in their present form made the object of study, names for each book were wanted and were found. In the Hebrew classification the titles were taken from the initial words, or prominent words in the initial verse; in that of the Sept. they were intended to be significant of the subject of each book, and so we have </p> <p> '''(1.)''' '''''בְּרֵאשִׁית''''' . . '''''Γένεσις''''' , Genesis. </p> <p> '''(2.)''' '''''שְׁמוֹת''''' ( '''''וְאֵלֶּה''''' ) . '''''῎Εξοδος''''' , Exodus. </p> <p> '''(3.)''' '''''וִיּקְרָא''''' . . . . '''''Λευϊτικόν''''' , Leviticus. </p> <p> '''(4.)''' '''''בְּמִדְבִּר''''' . . . '''''Ἀριθμοί''''' , Numbers. </p> <p> '''(5.)''' '''''דְּבָרִים''''' . . . '''''Δευτερονόμιον''''' , Deuteronomy. </p> <p> The Greek titles were adopted without change, except as to the fourth, in the Latin versions, and from them have descended to the Bibles of modern Christendom. </p> <p> '''2.''' The PROPHETS. '''''—''''' The next group presents a more singular combination. The arrangement stands as follows: </p> <p> Nebiim'. '''''נְבִיאִים''''' Prophetae. </p> <p> '''1.''' '''''רִאשׁוֹנִים''''' (priores) Joshua. Judges 1 and 2 Samuel 1 and 2 Kings. </p> <p> '''2.''' '''''אִחֲרוֹנִים''''' (posteriores) </p> <p> '''a.''' '''''גְּדוֹלִים''''' (majores) Isaiah. Jeremiah. Ezekiel. </p> <p> '''b.''' '''''קְמִנִּים''''' (minores) The twelve minor prophets. </p> <p> The Hebrew titles of these books corresponding to those of the English Bibles; so also in the Septuagint, except that this version (like the Vulgate) reckons 1 and 2 Samuel as 1 and 2 Kings,, 1 and 2 Kings as 3 and 4 Kings. </p> <p> The grounds on which books simply historical were classed under the same name as those which contained the teaching of prophets, in the stricter sense of the word, are not, at first sight, obvious, but the O.T. presents some facts which may suggest an explanation. The sons of the prophets (&nbsp;1 Samuel 10:5; &nbsp;2 Kings 5:22; &nbsp;2 Kings 6:1), living together as a society, almost as a caste (&nbsp;Amos 7:14), trained to a religious life, cultivating sacred minstrelsy, must have occupied a position as instructors of the people, even in the absence of the special calling which sent them as God's messengers to the people. A body of men so placed naturally become historians and annalists, unless intellectual activity is absorbed in asceticism. The references in the historical books of the O.T. show that they actually were such. Nathan the prophet, Gad, the seer of David (&nbsp;1 Chronicles 29:29), [[Ahijah]] and Iddo (&nbsp;2 Chronicles 9:29), Isaiah (&nbsp;2 Chronicles 26:22; &nbsp;2 Chronicles 32:32), are cited as chroniclers. The greater antiquity of the earlier historical books, and perhaps the traditional belief that they had originated in this way, were likely to co-operate in raising them to a high place of honor in the arrangement of the Jewish canon, and so they were looked upon as having the prophetic character which was denied to the historical books of the Hagiographa. The greater extent of the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, no less than the prominent position which they occupied in the history of Israel, led naturally to their being recognised as the Prophetae Majores. The exclusion of Daniel from this subdivision is a more remarkable fact, and one which has been differently interpreted, the Rationalistic school of later criticism (Eichhorn, De Wette, Bertholdt) seeing in it an indication of later date, and therefore of doubtful authenticity, the orthodox school on the contrary, as represented by [[Hengstenberg]] (Dissert. on Daniel ch. 2, '''''§''''' 4, 5), maintaining that the difference rested only on the ground that, though the utterer of predictions, he had not exercised, as the others had done, a prophet's office among the people. Whatever may have been its origin, the position of this book in the Hagiographa led the later Jews to think and speak slightingly of it, and Christians who reasoned with them out of its predictions were met by remarks disparaging to its authority (Hengstenberg, 1. c.). The arrangement of the Prophetae Minores does not call for special notice, except so far as they were counted, in order to bring the whole list of canonical books within a memorial number, answering to that of the letters in the Hebrew alphabet, as a single volume, and described as '''''Τὸ''''' '''''Δωδεκαπρόφητον''''' ''.'' </p> <p> '''3.''' The HAGIOGRAPHA. '''''—''''' Last in order came the group known as ''Kethubim'' ' '','' '''''כְּתוּבַים''''' (from '''''כָּתִב''''' , to write), '''''Γραφεῖα''''' , '''''Ἁγιόγραφα''''' , '''''Ι''''' . '''''Ε''''' . "holy writings," including the remaining books of the Hebrew canon, arranged in the following order, and subordinate divisions: </p> <p> '''(a)''' Psalms, Proverbs, Job. </p> <p> '''(b)''' The Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther. </p> <p> '''(c)''' Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, 1 and 2 Chronicles. </p> <p> Of these, (a) were distinguished by the memorial word '''''אֶמֶת''''' , " ''Truth,'' " formed from the initial letters of the three books; ( ''B'' ) as '''''חָמֵשׁ''''' '''''מְגַלּוֹת''''' , ''The Five Rolls,'' as being written for use in the synagogues on special festivals on five separate rolls. Of the Hebrew titles of these books, those which are descriptive of their contents are: '''''תְּהַלַּים''''' , ''Tehillim'' ' '','' the Psalms; '''''מַשְׁלֵי''''' , ''Mishley'' ' '','' Proverbs; '''''אֵיכָה''''' , ''Eykah'' ' '','' Lamentations (from the opening word of wailing in 1:1); the Song of Songs, '''''שַׁיר''''' '''''הִשַׁירַים''''' , ''Shir Hash-Shirim'' ' '';'' Ecclesiastes, '''''קֹהֶלֶת''''' , ''Kohe'' ' ''Leh, The Preacher;'' 1 and 2 Chronicles, '''''דַּבְרֵי''''' '''''הִיָּמַים''''' , ''Dibrey'' ' ''Hay-Yamim'' ' '', Words Of The Days'' = records. The Sept. presents the following titles of these last: '''''Ψαλμοί''''' , '''''Παροιμίαι''''' , '''''Θρῆνοι''''' , '''''Ασμα''''' '''''Ἀσμάτων''''' , '''''Ε᾿Κκλησιαστής''''' , '''''Παραλειπόμενα''''' (i.e. things omitted, as being supplementary to the books of Kings). The Latin version imports some of the titles, and translates others: Psalmi, Proverbia, Threni, Canticum Canticorum, Ecclesiastes, Paralipomenon, and these in their [[Translated]] form have determined the received titles of the book in our English Bibles '''''—''''' Ecclesiastes, in which the Greek title is retained, and Chronicles, in which the Hebrew and not the Greek title is translated, being exceptions. The Sept. presents also some striking variations in the order of the books (we follow the Sixt. ed. '''''—''''' MSS. differ greatly). Both in this and in the insertion of the '''''Ἀντιλεγομενα''''' , which we now know as the Apocrypha, among the other books, we trace the absence of that strong reverence for the Canon and its traditional order which distinguished the Jews of Palestine. The Law, it is true, stands first, but the distinction between the greater and lesser prophets, between the Prophets and the Hagiographa, is no longer recognised. Daniel, with the Apocryphal additions, follows upon Ezekiel; the Apocryphal 1st or 3d book of [[Esdras]] comes in as a 1st, preceding the canonical Ezra. [[Tobit]] and [[Judith]] are placed after Nehemiah, Wisdom ( '''''Σοφία''''' '''''Σαλομών''''' ) and Ecclesiasticus ( '''''Σοφία''''' '''''Σειράχ''''' ) after Canticles, Baruch before and the Epistle of Jeremiah after Lamentations, the twelve lesser prophets before the four greater, and the two books of Maccabees at the close of all. The common Vulg. follows nearly the same order, inverting the relative position of the greater and lesser prophets. The separation of the doubtful books under the title of Apocrypha in the Protestant versions of the Scriptures left the others in the order in which we now have them. (See Septuagint); (See Vulgate). </p> <p> '''4.''' The history of the arrangement of the books of the [[New Testament]]  presents some variations, not without interest, as indicating differences of feeling or modes of thought. The four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles uniformly stand first. They are thus to the New what the Pentateuch was to the Old Testament. They do not present, however, in themselves, as the books of Moses did, any order of succession. The actual order does not depend upon the rank or function of the writers to whom they are assigned. The two not written by apostles are preceded and followed by one which was, and it seems as if the true explanation were to be found in a traditional belief as to the dates of the several Gospels, according to which Matthew's, whether in its Greek or Hebrew form, was the earliest, and John's the latest. The arrangement once adopted would naturally confirm the belief, and so we find it assumed by Irenaeus, Origen, Augustine. The position of the Acts as an intermediate book, the sequel to the Gospels, the prelude to the Epistles, was obviously a natural one. After this we meet with some striking differences. The order in the Alexandrian, Vatican, and Ephraem [[Mss. (A, B, C]] ) gives precedence to the catholic Epistles, and as this is also recognised by the Council of Laodicea (Can. 60); [[Cyril]] of Jerusalem (Catech. 4, 35): and [[Athanasius]] (Epist. Fest. ed. Bened. 1:961), it would appear to have been characteristic of the Eastern churches. Lachmann and Tischendorf (7th ed.) follow this arrangement. (The Sinaitic MS. places Paul's Epistles even before the Acts.) The Western Church, on the other hand, as represented by Jerome, Augustine, and their successors, gave priority of position to the Pauline Epistles; and as the order in which these were given presents, (1.) those addressed to churches arranged according to their relative importance, (2.) those addressed to individuals, the foremost place was naturally occupied by the Epistle to the Romans. The tendency of the Western Church to recognize Rome as the center of authority may perhaps, in part, account for this departure from the custom of the East. The order of the Pauline Epistles themselves, however, is generally the same, and the only conspicuously different arrangement was that of Marcion, who aimed at a chronological order. In the four MSS. above referred to, Hebrews comes after 2 Thessalonians (in that from which Cod. B was copied it seems to have stood between Galatians and Ephesians). In those followed by Jerome, it stands, as in the English Bible and the Textus Receptus, after Philemon. Possibly the absence of Paul's name, possibly the doubts which existed as to his being the sole author of it, possibly its approximation to the character of the catholic Epistles, may have determined the arrangement. The Apocalypse, as might be expected from the peculiar character of its contents, occupied a position by itself. Its comparatively late recognition may have determined the position which it has uniformly held as the last of the sacred books. </p> <p> '''IV.''' ''Division Into Chapters And Verses. '''''—''''' '' As soon as any break is made in the continuous writing which has characterized in nearly all countries the early stages of the art, we get the germs of a system of division. But these divisions may be used for two distinct purposes. So far as they are used to exhibit the logical relations of words, clauses, and sentences to each other, they tend to a recognised punctuation. So far as they are used for greater convenience of reference, or as a help to the memory, they answer to the chapters and verses of our modern Bibles. At present we are concerned only with the latter. </p> <p> '''1.''' ''The Hebrew Of The Old Testament. '''''—''''' '' It is hardly possible to conceive of the liturgical use of the books of the Old Testament without some kind of recognised division. In proportion as the books were studied and commented on in the schools of the rabbins, the division would become more technical and complete, and hence the existing notation which is recognised in the Talmud (the [[Gemara]] ascribing it to Moses [Hupfeld, Stud. und Krit. 1830, p. 827]) may probably have originated in the earlier stages of the growth of. the synagogue ritual. The New-Testament quotations from the Old are for the most part cited without any more specific reference than to the book from which they come. The references, however, in &nbsp;Mark 12:26, and &nbsp;Luke 20:37 ( '''''Ἐπὶ''''' '''''Τῆς''''' '''''Βάτου''''' ) '','' &nbsp;Romans 11:2 ( '''''Ἐν''''' '''''῾Ηλίᾷ''''' ) '','' and &nbsp;Acts 8:32 ( '''''Ἡ''''' '''''Περιοχὴ''''' '''''Τῆς''''' '''''Γραφῆς''''' ), indicate a division which had become familiar, and show that some, at least, of the sections were known popularly by titles taken from their subjects. In like manner, the existence of some cycle of lessons is indicated by &nbsp;Luke 4:17; &nbsp;Acts 13:15; &nbsp;Acts 15:21; &nbsp;2 Corinthians 3:14; and this, whether identical or not with the later rabbinic cycle, must have involved an arrangement analogous to that subsequently adopted. </p> <p> '''(1.)''' The Talmudic division is on the following plan. </p> <p> [1.] The Law was, in the first instance, divided into fifty-four '''''פִּרְשַׁיּוֹת''''' , ''Parshiyoth. =Sections,'' so as to provide a lesson for each Sabbath in the Jewish intercalary year, provision being made for the shorter year by the combination of two of the shorter sections. Coexisting with this, there was a subdivision into lesser parshiyoth, which served to determine the portions of the sections taken by the several readers in the, synagogues. The ''Lesser Parshiyoth'' themselves were classed under two heads-the "open" ( '''''פְּתוּחוֹת''''' , pethuchoth'), which served to indicate a change of subject analogous to that between two paragraphs in modern writing, and began accordingly a fresh line in the MS., and the "closed" ( '''''סְתוּמוֹת''''' , ''Sethumoth'),'' which corresponded to minor divisions, and were marked only by a space within the line. The initial letters '''''פ''''' and '''''ס''''' served as a notation, in the margin or in the text itself, for the two kinds of sections. The threefold initial '''''פפפ''''' or '''''ססס''''' was used when the commencement of one of the parshiyoth coincided with that of a Sabbath lesson (comp. Keil, Einleitung in das A.T. '''''§''''' 170, 171). </p> <p> [2.] A different terminology was employed for the Prophetme Priores and Posteriores, and the division was less uniform. The tradition of the Jews that the Prophets were first read in the service of the synagogue, and consequently divided into sections, because the reading of the Law had been forbidden by Antiochus Epiphanes, rests upon a very slight foundation; but its existence is, at any rate, a proof that the Law was believed to have been systematically divided before the same process was applied to the other books. The name of the sections in this case was '''''הִפְטָרוֹת''''' ''(Haphtaroth','' from '''''פָּטִר''''' , to dismiss). If the name were applied in this way because the lessons from the Prophets came at the close of the synagogue service, and so were followed by the dismissal of'the people (Vitringa, ''De Synag. 3:'' 2, 20), its history would pre. sent a curious analogy to that of "Missa," "Mass," on the assumption that this also was derived from the "Ite missa est," by which the congregation was in. formed of the conclusion of the earlier portion of the service of the Church. The peculiar use of Missa shortly after its appearance in the Latin of ecclesiastical writers in a sense equivalent to that of haphtaroth (" sex Missas de Propheta Esaia facite," [[Caesar]] Arelat. and [[Aurelian]] in Bingham, Ant. 13:1) presents at least a singular coincidence. The haphtaroth themselves were intended to correspond with the larger parshiyoth of the Law, so that there might be a distinct lesson for each Sabbath in the intercalary year as before; but the traditions of the German and the Spanish Jews, both of them of great antiquity, present a considerable diversity in the length of the divisions, and show that they had never been determined by the same authority as that which had settled the parshiyoth of the Law (Van der Hooght, Profat. in Bib. '''''§''''' 35). </p> <p> '''(2.)''' Of the traditional divisions of the Hebrew Bible, however, that which has exercised most influence in the received arrangement of the text was the subdivision of the larger sections into verses ( '''''פְּסוּקִים''''' , ''Pesukin').'' These do not appear to have been used till the post Talmudic recension of the text by the Masoretes of the 9th century. They were then applied, first to the prose, and afterward to the poetical books of the Hebrew Scriptures, superseding in the latter the arrangement of ( '''''Στίχοι''''' , '''''Κῶλα''''' , '''''Κόμματα''''' , lines and groups of lines, which had been based upon metrical considerations. The verses of the Masoretic divisions were preserved with comparatively slight variations through the Middle Ages, and came to the knowledge of translators and editors when the attention of European scholars was directed to the study of Hebrew. In the Hebrew MSS. the notation had been simply marked by the " SophPasuk" (:) at the end of each verse; and in the earlier printed Hebrew Bibles (Sabionetta's, 1557, and Plantin's, 1566) the Hebrew numerals which guide the reader in referring are attached to every fifth verse only. The Concordance of Rabbi Nathan, 1450, however, had rested on the application of a numeral to each verse, and this was adopted by the Dominican Pagninus in his Latin version; 1528, and carried throughout the whole of the Old and New Testament, coinciding substantially, as regards the former, with the Masoretic, and therefore with the modern division, but differing materially, as to the New Testament, from that which was adopted by Robert Stephens, and through his widely circulated editions passed into general reception. </p> <p> '''(3.)''' The chief facts that remain to be stated as to the verse divisions of the Old Testament are that they were adopted by Stephens in his edition of the Vulgate, 1555, and by Frellon in that of 1556; that they appeared, for the first time in an English translation, in the Geneva Bible of 1560, and were thence transferred to the Bishops' Bible of 1568 and the Authorized Version of 1611. In Coverdale's Bible we meet with the older notation, which was in familiar use for other books, and retained, in some instances (e.g. in references to Plato), to the present times. The letters [[A B C D]]  are placed at equal distances in the margin of each page, and the reference is made to the page (or, in the case of Scripture, to the chapter) and the letter accordingly. </p> <p> '''2.''' The [[Septuagint]] translation, together with the, Latin versions based upon it, have contributed very little to the received division of the .Bibles. Made at a time when the rabbinic subdivisions were not enforced, hardly perhaps existing, and not used in the worship of the synagogue, there was no reason for the scrupulous care which showed itself in regard to the Hebrew text. The language of Tertullian (Scorp. ii) and Jerome (in &nbsp;Micah 6:9; &nbsp;Zephaniah 3:4) implies the existence of "capitula" of some sort; but the word does not appear to have been used in any more definite sense than "locus" or "passage." The liturgical use of portions of the Old Testament would lead to the employment of some notation to distinguish the '''''Ἀναγνώσματα''''' or "lectiones," and individual students or transcribers might adopt a system of reference of their own; but we find nothing corresponding to the fully organized notation which originated with the [[Talmudists]] or Masoretes. It is possible, indeed, that the general use of Lectionaria-in which the portions read in the Church services were written separately - may have hindered the development of such a system. Whatever traces of it we find are accordingly scanty and fluctuating. The sticho-metric mode of writing (i.e. the division of the text into short lines generally with very little regard to the sense) adopted in the 4th or 5th centuries (see Prolegom. to Breitinger's Septuagint, i, 6), though it may have facilitated reference, or been useful as a guide to the reader in the half-chant commonly used in liturgical services, was too arbitrary (except where it corresponded to the parallel clauses of the Hebrew poetical books) and inconvenient to be generally adopted. The Alexandrian MSS. present a partial notation of '''''Κεφάλαια''''' , but as regards the Old Testament these are found only in portions of Deuteronomy and Joshua. Traces exist ''(Monum. Eccles. Coteler.'' in Breitinger, ''Proleg.'' ut sup.) of a like division ins Numbers, Exodus, and Leviticus, and Latin MSS. present frequently a system of division into " tituli" or "capitula," but without any recognised standards. In the 13th century, however, the development of theology as a science, and the more frequent use of the Scriptures as a text-book for lectures, led to the general adoption of a more systematic division, traditionally ascribed to Stephen Langton, archbishop of [[Canterbury]] (Triveti Annal. p. 182, ed. Oxon.), but carried out by Cardinal Hugh de St. [[Cher]] (Gibert Genebrard, Chronol. 4:644), and passing through his [[Commentary]] (Postilla in Universa Eiblia, and Concordance, cir. 1240) into general use. No other subdivision of the chapters was united with this beyond that indicated by the marginal letters [[A B C D]]  as described above. </p> <p> '''3.''' As regards the Old Testament, then, the present arrangement grows out of the union of Cardinal Hugo's capitular division and the Masoretic verses. It should be noted that the verses in the authorized English Bible occasionally differ from those of the Heb. Masoretic text, especially in the Psalms (where the Heb. reckons the ''Titles'' as &nbsp;Zephaniah 3:1) and some chapters of the Chronicles (perhaps through the influence of the Sept.). A tabular exhibit of these variations may be found at the end of the ''Englishman'S'' Heb. Concordance (Lond. 1843). Such discrepancies also (but less frequently) occur in the N.T. The Apocryphal books, to which, of course, no Masoretic division was applicable, did not receive a versicular division till the Latin edition of Pagninus in 1528, nor the division now in use till Stephen's edition of the Vulgate in 1555. </p> <p> '''4.''' The history of the [[New Testament]] presents some additional facts of interest. Here, as in the case of the Old, the system of notation grew out of the necessities of study. </p> <p> '''(1.)''' The comparison of the Gospel narratives gave rise to attempts to exhibit the harmony between them. Of these, the first of which we have any record was the [[Diatessaron]] of Tatian in the 2d century (Euseb. [[''H. E'']]  4:29). This was followed by a work of like character from Ammonius of Alexandria in the 3d (Euseb. Epist. ad Carpianvm). The system adopted by Ammonius, however, that of attaching to the Gospel of Matthew the parallel passages of the other three, and inserting those which were not parallel, destroyed the outward form in which the Gospel history had been recorded, and was practically inconvenient. Nor did their labors have any direct effect on the arrangement of the Greek text, unless we adopt the conjectures of Mill and Wetstein that it is to Ammonius or Tatian that we have to ascribe the marginal notation of '''''Κεφάλαια''''' , marked by [['''''Α''''' '''''Β''''' '''''Γ''''' '''''Δ''''']]  , which are found in the older MSS. The search after a more convenient method of exhibiting the parallelisms of the Gospels led Eusebius of [[Caesarea]] to form the ten canons ( '''''Κάνονες''''' , registers) which bear his name, and in which the sections of the Gospels are classed according as the fact narrated is found in one [[Evangelist]] only, or in two or more. In applying this system to the transcription of the Gospels, each of them was divided into shorter sections of variable length, and to each of these were attached two numerals, one indicating the canon under which it would be found, and the other its place in that canon. &nbsp;Luke 3:21-22, e.g. would represent the 13th section belonging to the first canon. This division, however, extended only to the books that had come under the study of the Harmonists. lihe Epistles of Paul were first divided in a similar manner by the unknown bishop to whom [[Euthalius]] assigns the credit of it (cir. 396), and he himself, at the instigation of Athanasius, applied the method of division to the Acts and the Catholic Epistles. Andrew, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, completed the work by dividing the Apocalypse (cir. 500). (See Harmonies) ''(Of The Gopels).'' </p> <p> Of the four great uncial MSS. extant prior to the recent discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus by Dr. Tischendorf, A presents the Ammonian or Eusebian numerals and canons, C and D the numerals without the canons. B has neither numerals nor canons, but a notation of its own, the chief peculiarity of which is, that the Epistles of Paul are treated as a single book, and brought under a continuous capitulation. After passing into disuse and so into comparative oblivion, the Eusebian and Euthalian divisions have recently (since 1827) again become familiar to the English student through Bishop Lloyd's edition of the Greek Testament, and other critical editions. </p> <p> '''(2.)''' With the New Testament, however, as with the Old, the division into chapters adopted by Hugh de St. Cher superseding those that had been in use previously, appeared in the early editions of the Vulgate, was transferred to the English Bible by Coverdale, and so became universal. The notation of the verses in each chapter naturally followed the use of the Masoretic verses for the Old Testament. The superiority of such a division over the marginal notation [["A B C D'"]]  in the Bible of St. Cher led men to adopt an analogous system for the New. (See [[Chapters]]). </p> <p> In the Latin version of Pagninus accordingly, there is a versicular division, though differing from the one subsequently used in the greater length of its verses. The absence of an authoritative standard like that of the Masoretes left more scope to the individual discretion of editors or printers, and the activity of the two Stephenses caused that which they adopted in their numerous editions of the Greek Testament and Vulgate to be generally received. In the preface to the Concordance, published by Henry Stephens, 1594, he gives the following account of the origin of this division. .His father, he tells us, finding the books of the New Testament already divided into chapters ( '''''Τμήματα''''' , or sections), proceeded to a farther subdivision into verses. The name ''Versiculi'' did not commend itself to him. He would have preferred '''''Τμηματία''''' or sectiunculae, but the preference of others for the former led him to adopt it. The whole work was accomplished " inter equitandum" on his journey from Paris to Lyons. </p> <p> While it was in progress men doubted of its success. No sooner was it known than it met with universal acceptance. The edition in which this division was first adopted was published in 1551, another came from the same press in 1555. It was used for the Vulgate in the [[Antwerp]] edition of Hentenius in 1559, for the English version published in Geneva in 1560, and from that time, with slight variations in detail, has been universally recognised. The convenience of such a system for reference is obvious; but it may be questioned whether it has not been purchased by too great a sacrifice of the perception by ordinary readers of the true order and connection of the books of the Bible. In some cases the division of chapters separates portions which are very closely united (see e.g. &nbsp;Matthew 9:38; &nbsp;Matthew 10:1; &nbsp;Matthew 19:30; &nbsp;Matthew 20:1; &nbsp;Mark 2:23-28; &nbsp;Mark 3:1-5; &nbsp;Mark 8:38; &nbsp;Mark 9:1; &nbsp;Luke 20:45-47; &nbsp;Luke 21:1-4; &nbsp;Acts 7:60; &nbsp;Acts 8:1; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 10:33; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 11:1; &nbsp;2 Corinthians 4:18; &nbsp;2 Corinthians 5:1; &nbsp;2 Corinthians 6:18; &nbsp;2 Corinthians 7:1), and throughout gives the impression of a formal division altogether at variance with the continuous flow of narrative or thought which characterized the book as it came from the hand of the writer. The separation of verses has moreover conduced largely to the habit of building doctrinal systems upon isolated texts. The advantages of the received method are united with those of an arrangement representing the original more faithfully in the structure of the Paragraph Bibles, lately published by different editors, and in the Greek Testaments of Lloyd, Lachmann, and Tischendorf. The student ought, however, to remember, in using these, that the paragraphs belong to the editor, not the writer, and are therefore liable to the same casualties rising out of subjective peculiarities, dogmatic bias, and the like, as the chapters of our common Bibles. Practically the risk of such casualties has been reduced almost to a minimum by the care of editors to avoid the errors into which their predecessors have fallen, but the possibility of the evil exists, and should therefore be guarded against by the exercise of an independent judgment. (Davidson, in Horne's Introd. new ed. ii, 27 sq.; Tregelles, ibid. 4:30 sq.; Davidson, Bib. Criticism, i, 60; ii, 21.) (See Verses). </p>