|he Ancestry t)ur English Bible r Ira Maurice Price BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME FROM THE SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND THE GIFT OF m^nvu M, Sage zSqx ^.-i^oust v5=i..l:3;^.i.«J.. 1357 Z36ld3SM -.•i-,K "IT -" Np- ^°^ eiye to the librarian. 7 n ^-ii*i^ 2 01981 f HOME USE RULES. AU Books subject to Recall. Books not used for instruction or research are returnable Within 4 weelcs. Volumes of periodi cals and of pamphlets ■are held in the library as much as possible. For special purposes they are givSn oUt for a limited time. Borrowers should not use their library privileges for the bene- fit of other; persons. Books not needed during recess periods should be returned to the lil^rary, or arrange- ments made for their Return during borrow- ir's absence, if wanted! Books needed by more than one person are held on the reserve list. Books of special value and gift books, when the giver wishes it, are not allowed to circulate. Readers are asked to report all cases of books marked or mutilated. ■ Do not deface books "by marks and wri^inlr. ' iH^ Cornell University Library BS44S .P94 1910 Ancestry of our English Bible : an accou olin 1924 029 271 Cornell University Library The original of tliis book is in tlie Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029271595 THE ANCESTRY OF OUR , ENGLISH BIBLE ] 2 3 4 6 7 8 10 11 16 17 18 19 20 -ii-y 24 ',>l*fWtUf^VAl Vt^Of^^^ Hebrew Text on Papyrus from the Second Century (Cook). Exodus 2o : 8-17 21 22 The Ancestry of Our English Bible An Account of Manuscripts, Texts, AND Versions of the Bible By Ira Maurice P^ice, Ph.D. Professor of the Semitic Languages and Literatures in the University of Chicago ^ FOURTH EDITION PHILADBLFHIA The Sunday School Times Company '■'l-k Copyright, 1906, By The Sunday School Times Co. First edition, February, 1907. Second edition, July, 1907. Third edition, March, 1909. TO THE MEMORir OF Jennie IRboabs iprice INSPIRING, DEVOTED WIFE AND MOTHER, DURING WHOSE LAST YEAR OF PATIENT AND PATHETIC SUFFERING THESE PAGES WERE PENNED, THIS VOLUME IS LOVINGLY DEDICATED PREFACE Our English Bible is the descendant of a long line of ancestors. It is the gathering up, the focalization, of the best that is found in all the manuscripts and versions extant. It is the result of the best efforts of about seventy-five of the leading scholars of the last quarter century. How did these scholars produce our English Bible? What were the sources of their materials? Where were these materials found ? What is their character ? Where are they preserved? How were they used by scholars in the production, for example, of our Re- vised Version ? These are a few of the questions that arise in the minds of every earnest, thoughtful student of the Bible. They can be answered only by a some- what extended description and by references to many books and articles. These questions were discussed in a popular vein in a series of eleven articles in The Sunday School Times during the first three-quarters of the year 1904. Their publication in book form was announced for the autumn of the same year. But long, distressing and fatal illness in the family of the writer, and the de- cision to expand the material to more than twice its original size, necessitated the postponement of its publication. The purpose of this volume is to present in as con- vi Preface cise and popular form as possible a description of the principal versions and texts of the Bible, from the earliest known translations and manuscripts down through the middle ages, even to modern times. Now and then a version or manuscript is prefaced by a statement of the historical background, where such is required to bring out more sharply the characteristics of such document. This has been done especially in the discussion of the early versions of the English Bible, for the Bible work is best understood if we ap- preciate the historical conditions of those days. The division of the book into three parts is natural, though it may, at first, seem to need justification. The earliest versions and manuscripts do not all contain both the Old Testament and the New. In fact, the originals of the two being written in different lan- guages, is sufficient ground for treating them in two parts. Then the existence of some versions, such as the Samaritan Pentateuch, in the Old Testament alone, calls for such a division of the theme. It soon becomes apparent, however, that the line between Parts I and II cannot always be sharply drawn ; for, as in the case of the Vulgate, both Testaments are in- cluded. There is consequently some almost unavoid- able overlapping, where the version is discussed both in Parts I and II. This disadvantage is partly overcome in the case of the Vulgate by devoting the chapter in Part I to early Latin Old Testament manu- scripts, and the Vulgate down to the ninth century, and that in Part II to early Latin New Testament Pr^ace vii manuscripts and the Vulgate down to modern times. In Part III, "The English Bible," no division is made between the Old Testament and the New, both being treated under each chapter. Some portion of each chapter descriptive of a ver- sion is given to an account of the principal manu- scripts. Only such facts are mentioned as serve prom- inently to distinguish those documents in the history of the text. Of some of the great manuscripts, such as the Sinaitic, a few essential facts regarding its dis- covery are given, that we may the better know the cost of some of our most valued treasures. The illustrations are designed to set vividly before the eyes of the reader facsimile specimens of some of the earliest and most important texts and versions now in possession of the great libraries of the world, and of some private collections. These have been gathered from a large variety of sources, as is indi- cated in the "List of Illustrations." Full acknowl- edgment is here made to the firms and individuals who have so generously granted permission to repro- duce them for this volume. The names of such grantors appear in full in the "List of Illustrations." The Bibliography gives merely a selection of the literature that will prove most helpful in further in- vestigation of the theme of each chapter. The Chronological Table is intended to present only such dates as are essential in the best scheme for fastening outline facts regarding Bible translations and texts. viii Preface The diagrams illustrative of the relations of the versions and transcripts present to the eye some pat- ent facts that should be remembered. The author acknowledges his indebtedness to many writers and Authors from whom the material of this volume has been gathered and reconstructed. The Bibliography cites almost in full the sources employed in its production. The thanks of the author are due his colleagues, Professor Ernest D. Burton, for his kindness in read- ing the manuscript of Part II, "The New Testament," and for making valuable suggestions ; and to Profes- sor C. W. Votaw for reading the proofs of the same, and for indicating points of improvement in the mat- ter and forms of statements. The author, however, is alone responsible for the method of treatment. To the Publishers, who have spared no pains in making the volume attractive in form and make-up, there is also due a debt of thanks. Ira Maurice Pricb. The University of Chicago, New-Year, 1907. CONTENTS (Parentheses enclose Illustrations.) CHAPTER I. THE ENGLISH BIBLE OP TO-DAY. X. Versions in use to-day. — 2. Reasons for these ver- sions. — 3. Variants in the Old Testament. (♦Amer- ican Standard Revised Version, specimen page, p. 4). — 4. Variants in the New Testament. — s- Interpre- tative marginal readings. — 6. Variant readings of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. — 7. Variant read- ings from ancient versions. — 8. Classes of marginal readings. — 9. Reasons for the variants . . Pages 1-12 CHAPTER II. THE BASES OP OUR PRESENT VERSIONS. 10. Available sources. — 11. The Hebrew and Greek texts used. — 12. The use of the manuscripts. (♦Co- dex Sinaiticus (S) from Mt. Sinai, p. 16). — 13. The use of the ancient versions. — 14. The Targums and quotations in ancient writers. — 15. The revisers' apparatus criticus Pages 13-19 PART I. THE OLD TESTAMENT. CHAPTER III. HEBREW WRITING, TEXT, AND MANUSCRIPTS. 16. The Hebrew of the Old Testament. — 17. Writing and writers in the Old Testament. — 18. Other He- brew documents in O. T. times. — 19. Probable ix Contents destruction of Hebrew books. — 20. Hebrew lan- guage. — 21. Origin of changes in the Hebrew text. — 22. Divisions of the Hebrew text. — 23. The vocal- izing of the Hebrew text. — 24. Hebrew manu- scripts. (* St. Petersburg Hebrew manuscript, 916 A. D., p. 34) — 25. Printed editions of the Hebrew Old Testament. — 26. Published list of Hebrew variants. (*First Hebrew Bible published in America p. 38) Pages 20-38 CHAPTER IV. THE SAMARITAN BIBLE: THE PENTATEUCH. 27. Samaritan peculiarities. — 28. Policy that originated the Samaritans. — 29. Composition of the Samari- tans. — 30. Manasseh's migration to Samaria. — 31. Mt. Gerizim a center of Jehovah worship. — 32. Pen- tateuch the Samaritan Scriptures. — 33. Samaritan manuscripts. (* Jacob ben Aaron, high priest of Samaritans at Nablous, p. 46). — 34. Printed texts. — 35. Significance of differences between the Samari- tan and Hebrew texts Pages 39-48 CHAPTER V. THE GREEK BIBLE: THE SEPTUAGINT. 36. The spread of Greek civilization. — 37. Jews in Alex- andria. — 38. Prevalence of the Septuagint. — 39. Time of translation of the law. — 40. Character of the translation. — 41. Purpose of the translation. — 42. Contents of the Septuagint. — 43 Septuagint manuscripts in general. (*Septuagint papyrus from Oxyrhynchus, Egypt, p. 56). — 44. The great Sept- uagint manuscripts. (*Psalter fragment of papyrus, Contents xi p. 58). — 45. The smaller Septuagint manuscripts. — 46. Printed editions of the Septuagint. — 47. Value of the Septuagint Pages 49-61 CHAPTER VI. RIVAL GREEK BIBLES, AND REVISIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT. 48. Reasons for rival Greek versions. — 49. Aquila's Greek version. (* Aquila's Version, p. 64). — 50. Theodotion's Greek version. — 51. Symmachus' Greek version. — 52. Origen and his Hexapla. — 53. Origen's purpose and method. — 54. Remains of Origen's work. — 55. Revisions of Eusebius, Lucian, and Hesychius. — 56. Some manuscripts of these re- visions. (*Codex Marchalianus (q.) p. 7s) Pages 62-73 CHAPTER VII. THE LATIN BIBLES, THE VULGATE. 57. The Roman world Latin, and Christian Church Greek. — 58. Early Latin versions. — 59. Origin of Old Latin texts. — 60. Classification of Old Latin texts. — 61. Jerome's early life and training. (♦Jer- ome's Vulgate, p. 78). — 62. Jerome's revision work. — 63. Jerome's translations. — 64. Jerome's personality. — 65. Criticism and reception of Jer- ome's translation. — 66. Adoption of Jerome's trans- lation. — 67. Latin Manuscripts. (*Ashburnham Pentateuch, p. 84) Pages 74-84 CHAPTER VIII. THE SYRIAC BIBLE, AND THE PESHITTA. 68. The demand for a Syriac Bible. — 69. Theories of the origin of the Syriac Old Testament. — 70. Earliest traces of the Syriac Old Testament. — 71. xii Contents Contents of the Syriac Old Testament. — 72. Manu- scripts of the Syriac Bible. — 73. Some critical value. (*Syriac Peshitta, p. 90). — 74. Printed editions Pages 85-91 CHAPTER IX. THE TARGUMS: JEWISH PARAPHRASES. 75. The Aramaic of Palestine. — 76. Written Targums. — 77. The first Targums. (*Targum interlined with Hebrew, p. 94). — 78. Targums of the Pentateuch. — 79. Targums of the Prophets. — 80. Targums of the Hagiographa. — 81. Some value of the Targums Pages 92-98 CHAPTER X. OTHER EASTERN VERSIONS OP THE OLD TESTAMENT. 82. Versions for far-away provinces. — 83. Coptic ver- sions. — 84. The Ethiopic version. (*Ethiopic text, p. 102). — 85. The Gothic Version. — 86. The Georg- ian version. — 87. The Slavonic version. — 88. The Armenian version. — 89. Arabic versions. Pages 99-109 CHAPTER XI. SUMMARY OP OLD TESTAMENT VERSIONS. 90. Direct and indirect translations. — 91. Charts of versions. — 92. The relation of Hebrew to other ver- sions. — 93. The Samaritan Pentateuch. — 94. The Septuagint and Greek versions. — 95. The Vulgate. (♦Complutensian Polyglot, p, 116). — 96. The Syriac version. — 97. The Targums .... Pages no- 11 8 Contents xiii CHAPTER XII. THE APOCRYPHA. 98. The existence of the Apocryphal Old Testament. — 99. "Apocrypha" defined. — 100. The apocryphal books. — loi. Historical and legendary Apocryphal books, — 102. Prophetic and didactic Apocryphal books. (*Ecclesiasticus, newly discovered Hebrew Manuscript, p. 124). — 103. The Pseudepigraphical books. — 104. The Apocrypha's existence and ex- pulsion from the English Bible. — 105. Reasons for rejecting the books of the Apocrypha . Pages 1 19-130 PART II. THE NEW TESTAMENT. CHAPTER XIII. WRITING AND MANUSCRIPTS IN GENERAL. 106. Comparative abundance of Old and New Testa- ment material. — 107. The character of the New Testament writings. — 108. Original documents all lost. — 109. Bases of the true text. (*Codex Vati- canus (B), p. 136). — no. Uncial manuscripts. — III. Fixing the date of uncial manuscripts. — 112. - Cursive manuscripts. (*University of Chicago, New Testament Manuscript, p. 140) . Pages 131-140 CHAPTER XIV. SOME GREAT NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS. 113. Uncials and cursives designated. — 114. The perils through which manuscripts pass. — 115. Tischen- dorf's discovery of Codex Sinaiticus. (*St. Catha- rine, Convent of, at Mt. Sinai, p. 144.) — 116. Codex xiv Contents Sinaiticus deposited in St. Petersburg. — 117. Char- acter of the contents. — 118. Codex Alexandrinus (A) — history. (*Codex Alexandrinus (A), p. 148.) — 119. Codex Alexandrinus (A) — contents. — 120. Co- dex Vaticanus (B) — history. — 121. Codex Vati- canus (B) — contents. — 122. Codex Ephraem (C). (♦Codex Ephrasmi (C), p. 154 ) — 123. Codex Bezae (D). — 124. Other New Testament manuscripts Pages 141-157 CHAPTER XV. THE OLD LATIN AND THE VULGATE. 125. New Testament versions and their evidence. — 126. Old Latin Texts. — 127. Manuscripts of Old Latin Gospels. (*01d Latin Gospels, p. 162.) — 128. Other Old Latin manuscripts. (* Codex Claromonta- nus, p. 164.) — 129. Old Latin and Vulgate side by side. — 130. Latin text's mixed. (*Codex Amiatinus, p. 166.) — 131. Cassiodorus' revision and other pecuUar texts. — 132. Revisions of Alcuin and Theo- dulf. (*Alcuin's revision of Vulgate, p. 168.) — 133. Decline in text purity. — 134. Revisions in Paris. — 13 5. The official Vulgate of the Council of Trent. — 136. The Clementine text of 1592. — 137. Vulgate's influence. — 138. Preparations for a critical edition of the Vulgate Pages 158-175 CHAPTER XVI. THE SYRIAC AND OTHER EASTERN VERSIONS. 139. The Diatessaron of Tatian. — 140. "The Gospel of the Separated;" and The Peshitta. — 141. Traces of Old Syriac epistles. — 142. Revisions of the Syriac Contents xv Bible. (*Syriac Palimpsest from Mt. Sinai, p. 182.) — 143. The Palestinian version. — 144. Egyptian versions. — 145. The Armenian version. — 146. The Ethiopic version. — 147. The Gothic version. (The Gothic Gospels, p. 187.) — 148. Arabic, Georgian, and Slavonic versions Pages 176-188 CHAPTER XVII. THE GROUPING AND CLASSIFICATION OP MANUSCRIPTS, VERSIONS, AND OTHER WITNESSES. 149. The Textus Receptus. (*Codex Bezse (D), p. 190.) — 150. Classification of manuscripts. (*Bishop B. P. Westcott, p. 192.) — 151. The Syrian group. — 152. The Western group. — 153. The Alexandrian group. (*Hort, F. J. A., p. 194.) — 154. The Neutral group. — 153. Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testa- ment Pages 189-196 CHAPTER XVIII. HOW MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS ARE USED. 156. The material at hand. — 157. Textual and higher criticism. — 158. Necessity of textual criticism. — 159. Significance of variations. — 160. Some rules for textual critics. — 161. Rules for textual critics continued. — 162. Rules for textual critics, con- cluded. — 163. Our Greek New Testament result of application of these rules Pages 197-206 PART III. ENGLISH VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE. CHAPTER XIX. EARLY ENGLISH MANUSCRIPTS. 164. Christianity in early England. — 163. Caedmon. — 166. Aldhelm and Egbert. — 167. Bede. — 168. King Alfred. — 169. The Lindisfarne Gospels. (*CQtton xvi Contents Manuscript, or Lindisfame Gospels, p. 212.) — 170. Tenth century Gospels and the Old Testament. — 171. The Ormulum. — 172. English Psalters of the fourteenth century. — 173. Intellectual awakening of England in the fourteenth century . Pages 207-217 CHAPTER XX. wyclipfe's version op the bible. 174. JohnWycliffe. (*John Wycliffe, p. 218.) — 175. The fourteenth century. — 176. Wycliffe's place in the controversies of the day. — 177. Wycliffe's resolu- tion. — 178. Wycliffe's translation of the Latin Bible. (*Wycliffe's Bible, specimen page, p. 222.) — 179. Wycliffe's plan for religious extension. — 180. Revision of Wycliffe's Bible. — 181. Adoption of the revision of Wycliffe's version. — 182. Some char- acteristics of Wycliffe's version. — 183. The Lord's Prayer in three tongues Pages 218-229 CHAPTER XXI. tyndale's version op the bible. 184. Wycliffe's version in the fourteenth century. (*William Tyndale, p. 230) — 185. Fifteenth century regeneration. — 186. Progressive events of the fif- teenth century. — 187. Tyndale's birth and educa- tion. — 188. Tyndale in London. — 189. Tyndale at Hamburg, Wittenberg, and Cologne. — 190. Tyn- dale at Worms. (*Tyndale's New Testament, p. 238.) — 191. Reception of Tyndale's New Testament in England. — 192, Success of Tyndale's opponents in England. — 193. Reasons for opposition to Tyn- dale's work. — 194. Tyndale's last published trans- lations. — 195. Tyndale's arrest at Antwerp, im- Contents xvii prisontnent and martyrdom. — ^196. Crowning work of Tyndale. — 197. Tyndale's influence on the version of 161 1, and on English style .... Pages 230-246 CHAPTER XXII. VERSIONS CLOSE TO TYNDALE'S. 198. Myles Coverdale. (*Myles Coverdale, p. 248.) — 199. Appearance of Coverdale's Bible. (♦Cover- dale's Bible, p. 250). — 200. Character of Coverdale's Bible. — 201. Tyndale and. Cpverdale , compared. — 202. John Rogers' "Thomas Matthew" Bible. — 203. Royal favor for the Matthew Bible. — 204. Coverdale engaged to edit another version. — 205. "The Great Bible" printed. (*The Great Bible, p. 254.) — 206. Contents of the Great Bible. — 207. Public use of the Great Bible. — 208. Influence of the Great Bible. — 209. Taverner's Bible Pages 247-259 CHAPTER XXIII. THE GENEVAN, BISHOPS', AND DOUAI VERSIONS. 210. The anti-reformation movement. — 211. Edward VI. — 212. Mary's persecutions and death. — 213. The Geneva New Testament. — 214. The Geneva Bible. (*The Geneva Bible, p. 264.) — 215. Its popu- larity and use. — 216. Appearance of the Bishops' Bible. (*The Bishops' Bible, p. 266.)— 217. Char- acter of the Bishops' Bible. — 218. The Rheims and Douai version. (*The Rheims New Testament, p. 270.) — 219. Character of the Douai Bible. Pages 260-271 xviii Contents CHAPTER XXIV. THE AUTHORIZED VERSION OF 161I. 220 Queen Elizabeth's reign. — 221. James I and Hamp- ton Court Conference. — 222. Steps toward a re- vision. — 223. Organization of the revisers. — 224. Work doing and done. (The Authorized Version of 1611, p. 278.) — 225. Sources of the version of 1611. — 226. Popularity of the Authorized Version. — 227. Abortive attempt at revision by Long Parliament. — 228. Private revisions and additions to the Author- ized Version. — 229. The sway of the Authorized Version Pages 272-282 CHAPTER XXV. THE REVISED VERSION. 230 Eighteenth century conditions. — 231. Private trans- lations and "teits; — 232. Formation of a Revision Committee. — 233. Organization and beginning of work. — 234. Organization of the American Revision Committee. — 235. Completion of the New Testa- ment. — 236. Reception given the Revised New Testament. — 237. Completion of the Old Testa- ment. — 238. Texts at the basis of the Revised Version. — 239. Improvements in the translations. — 240. Improvement in language. — 241. Improve- ments in make-up or form. — 242. Reasons for adoption of the Revised Version. (*American Standard Revised Version, Title-page, p. 298.) — 243. The American Committee and its restrictions. — 244. The American Appendix to the Revised Version. — 245. Anglicisms and Archaisms in the 1885 edition. — 246. Marginal references. — 247. The American Comniittee's task. — 24j8. Contract with Contents xix Nelson & Sons. — 249. The issuance of the American Standard Edition of the Revised Version. — 250. The reception of the American Edition . Pages 283-305 Bibliography 307-314 Chronological Table 3 15-31 9 Topical Index 321-328 Scripture Index 329.33° ILLUSTRATIONS AND DIAGRAMS [Numbers refer to pages ; arranged in alphabetical order.] FACING FAGB Alcuin*s Revision of the Vulgate i68 From Anderson and Rule, "Biblical Monuments" Alexandrinus (A), Codex 148 From "The Palasographical Society's" Facsimiles, by permission of Sir E. Maunde Thompson, Editor American Standard Revised Version, specimen page . 4 By permission Thos. Nelson and Sons, publishers American Standard Revised Version, Title-page . . . 298 By permission Thos. Nelson and Sons, publishers Amiatinus (A), Codex, best Vulgate Manuscript . . . 166 From "The Palaeographical Society" Facsimiles, by per- mission of Sir E. Maunde Thompson, Editor Aquila's Version, Palimpsest 64 By permission of Cambridge University Press Ashbumham Pentateuch 84 From "The Palseographical Society's" Facsimiles, by permission of Sir E, Maunde Thompson, Editor Authorized Version of 161 1, specimen page . . . . 278 From "Bible Illustrations," by permission of Oxford University Press Bezse (D), Codex ... 190 From "The Palaeographical Society's" Facsimiles, by permission of Sir E. Maunde Thompson, Editor Bishops' Bible, specimen page 266 From "Bible Illustrations," by permission of Oxford University Press Catharine, St., Convent of, at Mt. Sinai 144 From "Bible Treasury," by permission of Thos. Nelson and Sons, publishers Claromontanus (d). Codex 164 From "The PalEEographical Society's" Facsimiles, by permission of Sir E. Maunde Thompson, Editor xxi xxii Illustrations and Diagrams FACING PAGE Complutensian Polyglot, Specimen page .... ii6 From "The Jewish Encyclopedia," Vol. Ill, Funk and Wagnalls, publishers; by permission Cottonianus (D), Codex ai2 From Anderson and Rule, "Biblical Monuments" Coverdale, Myles, portrait .... 248 From Hoare's "Evolution of the English Bible." By permission of E. P. Dutton & Co., publishers Coverdale Bible, specimen page 25° From "Bible Illustrations," by permission of Oxford University press Ecclesiasticus, new Hebrew Manuscript of 124 From "Facsimiles of the Book of Ecclesiasticus," by permission of Clarendon Press Ephraemi (C), Codex, Palimpsest . . .... 154 From "Bible Illustrations," by permission of Oxford University Press Ethiopic Text, specimen page . 102 From Anderson and Rule, "Biblical Montiments*' Geneva Bible, specimen page 264 From "Bible Illustrations," by permission of Oxford University Press Gothic Gospels 187 Prom "The Paleeographical Society's" Facsimiles, by permission of Sir E. Maunde Thompson, Editor Great Bible, specimen page 254 From "Bible Illustrations," by permission of Oxford University Press Hebrew Bible, first published in America ..... 38 From Report of U. S. National Museum of 1896; by permission Hebrew Papyrus, Pre-Massoretic Frontispiece From "Proceedings of Society of Biblical ArchEeology," Vol. XXV Hort, P. J. A., portrait 194 From "Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort," The Macmillan Company; by permission Jacob ben Aaron, High Priest of Samaritans at Nablus 46 From collection of the Rev. W. E. Barton Illustrations and Diagrams xxiii FACING FAGB Latin Bible of Jerome 78 From " Bible Treasury," by permission of Thos. Nelson and Sons, publishers Marchalianus (Q), Codex 7 a From Kenyon "Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts," by permission of the author Old Latin Gospels, Codex Vercellensis, specimen page . xbz From "Bible Illustrations," by permission of Oxford University Press Psalter Fragment of Papyrus 58 From "Bible Treasury," by permission of Thos. Nelson and Sons, publishers Rheims New Testament, specimen page 270 From "Bible Illustrations," by permission of Oxford University Press St. Petersburg Hebrew Codex, 916 A.D 34 From Weir, "History of the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament," by permission of the author Septuagint Papyrus of Third Century 56 From "Biblical World," by permission University of Chicago Sinaiticus (S), Codex 16 From "The Palsographical Society's" Facsimiles by permission of Sir E. Maunde Thompson, Editor Syriac Peshitta 90 From Anderson and Rule, "Biblical Monuments," Syriac Codex, Palimpsest 182 From "Studia Sinaitica," X, by permission of Mrs. A. S, Lewis, the author Targum in alternate verses 94 From "Jewish Encyclopedia," Vol. Ill, Funk & Wag- nails, publishers; by permission. Tyndale, William, portrait 230 Tyndale's New Testament, specimen page 238 From "Bible Illustrations," by permission Oxford University Press University of Chicago, N. T. Manuscript 140 xxiv Illustrations and Diagrams PACING PAQB Vaticanus (B), Codex 136 From Kenyon's "Handbook to Textual Criticism of the New Testament," by permission of the author Westcott, Brooke Foss, portrait 192 From a photograph in possession of author Wycliffe, John, portrait 218 Wycliffe Bible, specimen pages 222 From "The Palaeographical Society's" Facsimiles by permission of Sir E. Maunde Thompson, Editor DIAGRAMS Form of Origen's Hexapla on 67 The Relation of the Rival Greek Bibles and Revisions to the Septuagint 72 The Sources in General of the Minor Eastern Versions 103 The General Relations of the Ancient Versions to the Hebrew iii The Beginnings of Modem Versions, Early in the Six- teenth Century 245 Principal Sources Employed by the Translators of King James Version of 1611 276 Main Sources of Old Testament of the Revised Ver- sion op. 286 CHAPTER I THE ENGLISH BIBLE AND ITS MARGINAL READINGS I. The English Bible holds a pre-eminent position in the worlds of religion and literature. For three centuries it has easily and gracefully occupied such a place among English-speaking peoples. Its power and influence to-day permeate every avenue of re- ligious and literary life. Its increasing importance has required that it represent the best scholarship and the best statements of its truths for the popular mind of this day. Endeavors to answer these re- quirements have provided us with more than one version of the English Bible. In fact, students and readers of the Holy Scriptures are confronted to-day with several editions or versions of the Bible, each claiming superior qualities of its own. The presence of these several versions is not an unmitigated evil for most Bible readers. They rather confuse than illu-- minate the questions that touch the origin of The Book. Some of the versions that lie all about us, and are found in every community, are The Author- ized or King James Version, The Revised Version of 1885, and The American Standard Revised Version of 1901. In addition to these we find several trans- lations and editions, which are the products either of private enterprise or of Bible translation societies. I 2 The English Bible Some of these are Spurrell's "A Translation of the Old Testament Scriptures from, the Original He- brew ;" Fenton's "The Bible in Modern English ;" and the translations of the American Bible Union. Then there are some editions which have for their purpose the presentation of the Authorized or Revised Ver- sions in an improved literary form, with introductions and notes. Notable specimens of this kind of work are found in The Temple Bible, an arrangement of the Authorized Version; and Moulton's "The Modern Reader's Bible," a literary distribution of the matter of the Revised Version of 1885. 2. An examination and comparison of these sev- eral versions point distinctly to the reasons for their production. The translators of the Hebrew and Greek of the Old and New Testaments respectively into English had no small task. They were obliged to translate texts that had been copied over and over again by the hand of man for hundreds, and, in the case of the Old Testament, for thousands, of years. There must inevitably have been mistakes by scribes and copyists that have never been corrected. No one of us could copy by hand ten pages of manuscript without making some errors. We would at least for- get to dot some "i's" or cross some "t's"; but the most of us would leave out words, write some words twice, leave out some lines, repeat some lines, and make many other blunders that would cause our copy to vary from the original. Just these things have happened with the manuscripts of the Bible. Variants in the Old Testament 3 Fortunately, at different periods in the history of Bible manuscripts, translations were made into other languages. Many of these translations, such as the Greek and L,atin and Syriac, are now available for scholars. By their help we can often detect and locate an error in the Hebrew or Greek text, and thus give a better rendering into English of what we estimate was the original text. Such variations and helps are noted in the margins of our Revised Version, and constitute a valuable source of aid in comprehending the real meaning of the original text. 3. The quantity of these variations is sometimes alarming until one begins to vmderstand the close relation they sustain to a true conception of the text. As a rule the more the marginal notes, the better a text is understood. They are a most welcome light to those of us who wish better to understand the meaning of some obscure passage in the text; and also an index to the industry of scholars in ascer- taining the readings of the text when corrected by the various ancient translations. So that we should always regard with careful discrimination every mar- ginal note if we are endeavoring to find out just what scholars have concluded as to the meaning of the text which we are reading or studying. These variant readings are not confined either to the Old or to the New Testament, but are found in every part of the Bible. A few examples may best illustrate this point: In Genesis 6: 3 we find, "My spirit shall not strive with man for ever ;" the margin 4 The English Bible reads for " strive," " Or, rule in ;" " for that he also is flesh," has as its alternative in the margin, " Or, in their going astray they are flesh." The margin then reads the verse in this way : " My spirit shall not rule in man [kind] for ever, for in their going astray they are [have become] flesh " — quite a different conception from that in the text, either of the Authorized or the Revised Version. Genesis 49 : 10, " Until Shiloh come ; And unto him shall the obedience of the peoples be," has a margin as follows : " Or, till he come to Shiloh ; having the obedience of the peoples." Again, in that passage that describes Samuel's first anointing of Saul, I Samuel 9 : 20, we find in the text, " And for whom is all that is desirable in Israel? Is it not for thee, and for all thy father's house?" the margin reads, " Or, on whom is all the desire of Israel ? Is it not on thee, and on all, etc. ? " That difficult pas- sage in 2 Samuel 5 : 8 presents some interesting varia- tions, " And David said on that day. Whosoever smit- eth the Jebusites, let him get up to the water-course, and smite the lame and the blind, that are hated of David's soul ;" the margin reads, " Or, and as for the lame and the blind, that are hated of David's soul — ;" "Another reading is, that hate David's soul." The text goes on to say : " Wherefore they say. There are the blind and the lame; he cannot come into the house;" the margin says, "Or, The blind and the lame shall not come into the house." These margins show the variant translations of the revisers of the original Hebrew describing this event. In Isaiah aetiont I. Snmuel given la Jchovnh IlnnnnI nnd his vow 22 But Hannnli went, not up; for she said unto her liiisband, / will not go up until the cliild be weaned; and Ikon I will "bring him, that he may appear before Jeliovah, and * there abide for ever. 2li And ' Elkanah her husband said unto her. Do what s-aeraotii thoc good ; tarry until tliou have weaued him; only"* Jeliovah establish hie word So the woman tarried and £ave her bod suck, until she weaned him. 24 And when she had weaned him, 'she took him up with her, ^\ith ' three bullocks, and one cphaK of meal, and* a ' bottle of wine, and brought him , unto ■'^the house of Jehovah in Shiloh: and the child waa'younfc'. 25 And " they slew the bullock, and * brought the child to Eli. 20 And she said. Oh, my lord, ' as thy soul liveth, mv lord, I am the woman that stood by thee here, prayin^j unto Jehovali. 27 *'For this child I prayed; and Jehovah hath given me my petition which I asked of him : 28 ' therefore also 1 have 'yi-anted him to Jelio- vah; as long as he liveth he is granted to Jehovah. And ho worshipped Jehovah there. 2 And Hannah " prayed, and said: My heart cxulteth in Jehovah; " My horn is exalted in Jeho- vah; My mouth is enlarged over mine enemies. Because "I rejoice in thy sal- vation, 2 "There is none holy as Jeho- vah; For » there is none besides thee, ' Neither is there any rock like our God. 3 Talk no more so exceeding proudly , •Let not arroganey come out of your moutli ; ' For Jehovah is a God of knowl- edge, • " And by him actions are weighed 4 ''The Dows of the mighty men are broken ; ' And they that stumbled are girded with strength. 5 They that were full have hired out themselves for bread; 8 Sone ot TlinnkNcIvlne Tlio Sin of Eli'B Sons And they that wurc hungry ' have ceased lo hiinr/rr ; "Or -j, " Yea, the barren hath Ixn'uo "'' spven ; And ' she that hath many children languisheth joBi'i.~iH,' i G ° Jehovuh killeth. and makuth alive ifKi'l*. *He bringeth down to Shcol and bringeth up, 7 'Jehovah maketh poor, and maketh rich . ''He bringeth low he also lifietJi up. 8 'He raiseth up the pooi oiu of the dust. '"He lifteth up the needy froTn the dunghill, "To make ihcm sit wiiji princes. And inherit the throne uf glory * For the pillars of the earth aie Jehovah's, And he hath set the world upon them. 9 'Ho will keep tlie feet of his 'holy ones ; 'Or a. *'But the wicked shall be put Anmii to silence in darkness . 'hfu'", 'For by strength shall no man "'^'' prevail. 10 ""They that strive with Jehovah shall be broken to pieces; "Against them -will he thunder in heaven: "Jehovah will judge the ends of the earth ; p And he will give strength unto his king, ■And exalt the honi of his anointed. 11 And Elkanah went to 'Ra- mah to Iijs house. 'And the child did minister unto Jehovah before Eli the priest. 12 Now the sons of Eh were base men; "they knew not lOi. h Jehovali. 13 "And the custom 5rCr,'| of the priests with the people ntri/n-' was, that, when any man offered f,ri,!H, sacrifice, the priest's servant came, ^'™,J'" while the flesh was boiling, with Wil'.n.n a flesh-hook of three teeth in hia """'*'^ hand ; 14 and he struck it into the pan, or kettle, or caldron, or pot ; all that the llesh-hook brought up the priest took there- with. So they did in Shiloh unto all the Israelites that catti' thither. 15 Yea, before ■^tln burnt the fat, the priest's servani. r.t Page of the American Standard Revised Version, showing Marginal References and Variant Readings Variants in the New Testament 5 there are many and striking variant readings. In chapter 8 : 20, we read : " if they speak not according to this word, surely there is no morning for them ;" the margin says, " Or, surely according to this word shall they speak for whom there is no morning." Isaiah 23: 13 reads: "this people was not; the As- syrian founded it for them that dwell in the wilder- ness ;" the margin reads : " This people is no more ; the Assyrian hath appointed it for the beasts of the wilderness." Isaiah 40 : 9, " O thou that tellest good tidings to Jerusalem;" margin, "Or, O Jerusalem, that bringest good tidings." Isaiah 53 : i, " Who hath believed our message ? " margin for " our message," " Or, that which we have heard." 4. The New Testament carries on its margins scores of important variations in translation from that in the text. Matthew 2 : 2 reads : " Where is he that is born King of the Jews ? " the margin says, "' Or, where is the King of the Jews that is born ? " In Matthew 25 : 41, we find, " Depart from me, ye cursed ; " but in the margin, " Or, Depart from me under a curse." Luke i : 4, " that thou mightest know the certainty concerning the things wherein thou wast instructed ; " the last phrase reads in the margin, " Or, which thou wast taught by word of mouth." Luke i: 35, last half: "The holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God ; " margin, " Or, that which is to be born shall be called holy, the Son of God." John 1:9," There was the true light, even the light which lighteth every man, 6 The English Bible coming into tlie world ; " margin, " Or, the true light, which lighteth every man, was coming;" another marginal rendering is, " Or, every man as he com- eth." Paul's epistles have striking variant render- ings of the original Greek : i Corinthians 2 : 13, " com- bining spiritual things with spiritual words ; " the margin reads, " Or, interpreting spiritual things to spiritual men." 2 Corinthians 2:17," corrupting the word of God ; " but in the margin, " Or, making mer- chandise of the word of God." Colossians i : 2 reads, " to the saints and faithful brethren in Christ that are at Colossi ;" but in the margin we find, " Or, to those that are at Colossae, holy and faithful brethren in Christ." These variant marginal renderings in the Old and New Testaments are sufficient evidence to the thought- ful reader that there may be more than one correct translation of the original text as we have it to-day. These variant renderings furnish us with one impor- tant class of alternative readings in our present day versions of the English Bible. 5. A second class of marginal notes consists of those that are interpretations or explanations of the original Hebrew or Greek ; some give a literal trans- lation of the Hebrew, the meaning of proper names, an explanation of some obscure linguistic idiom, or of some custom. Such readings contribute valuable aid to the understanding of the text, and bring the reader closer to the warmth of the original. The margins of the Revised Versions are replete with Interpretative Margins 7 such help. In Genesis i : 20, we find : " in the open firmament of heaven," where the margin gives, "Heb. on the face of the expanse of the heavens." In Gen- esis 3 : 20, " Eve " is explained in the margin, " Heb. Havvah, that is. Living, or L,ife." The word " South," in Genesis 12 : 9, is commented on in the margin, " Heb. Negeb, the southern tract of Judah." "Mesopotamia" in Genesis 24: 10, is treated in the margin as follows : " Heb. Aram-naharaim, that is, Aram of the two rivers." Genesis 43 : 9 gives the conclusion of Judah's vow to Jacob in these words, " then let me bear the blame for ever," whereas the margin reads, " Heb. I shall have sinned against thee for ever." Job 40: 15, for "behemoth" has in the margin, " That is, the hippopotamus ; " and Job 41 : i for " leviathan " has as its marginal note, " That is, the crocodile." Jeremiah 51:1 contains that strange name, " L,eb-kamai," explained in the margin, " That is, The heart of them that rise up against me." In Matthew 5 : 46, " publicans " is explained in the mar- gin, " That is, collectors or renters of Roman taxes." That passage in the Lord's prayer, Matthew 6: 11, " Give us this day our daily bread," has this mar- ginal note, " Gr. our bread for the coming day. Or, our needful bread." In Jesus' prayer, John 17: 2, " to all whom thou hast given him he should give eternal life," the margin reads, " Gr. whatsoever thou hast given him, to them he, &c." Such marginal notes are a kind of commentary, adding material that is often essential to the understanding of the text. 8 The English Bible 6. A third class of marginal readings is made up of those notes which are quotations from Hebrew or Greek manuscripts, other than those upon which the translated text is based. These variant manu- script readings often throw welcome light on the true meaning of a difficult verse, by furnishing some reading that could be substituted for that in the com- monly accepted Hebrew or Greek text. That diffi- cult passage in which Elisha sends word to Ben- hadad. King of Syria, through Hazael (2 Kings 8: 10), saying, '' Go, say unto him. Thou shalt surely recover, howbeit Jehovah," etc., has a marginal note that says, " Another reading is, Thou shalt not re- cover, for Jehovah, &c." In Isaiah 9:3," thou hast increased their joy," has a marginal note, " Another reading is, thou didst not increase the joy." Isaiah 52 : 2, " loose thyself from the bonds of thy neck," has in the margin, " Another reading is, the bonds of thy neck are loosed." In the Lord's prayer, in Matthew 6 : 13, there is a marginal note which says, " Many authorities, some ancient, but with variations, add, For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." To Mark 16: gf., there is this marginal remark, " The two oldest Greek man- uscripts, and some other authorities, omit from ver. 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a diflferent ending to the Gospel." In John 3 : 31b, 32a, . . . " he that cometh from heaven is above all. What he hath seen and heard, of that he beareth witness," is noted in the margin by, " Some ancient authorities read, he Varianis of Ancient Versions 9 that cometh from heaven beareth witness of what he hath seen and heard." Examples of this class of readings might be multiplied indefinitely to show that there are variant readings of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts which are worth careful study on the part of every diligent student of the Bible. 7. A fourth class of marginal readings reaches out still farther into the field of contributory litera- ture. These notes are made up of variations from the original texts, as we have them, of the Old and New Testaments, which are found in the best ancient versions, such as those of the Greek Bible or Septua- gint, the Latin Bible or Vulgate, and the Syriac Bible or Peshitta. The American Revised Version of the Old Testament usually names specifically the ancient version whose reading is quoted in the margin, but the New Testament conceals its sources under some such phrases as " Some ancient authorities," " Many ancient authorities," etc. Such sources are quoted rather sparingly in the Old Testament, and only where the contribution is of some genuine worth. In Genesis 6 : 3, " My spirit shall not strive with man for ever," the margin says, "Acc[ording] to Sept [uagint], Vulg[ate], and Syr[iac], abide in." Gene- sis 49 : 10, " until Shiloh come " has a variant in the margin, " Or, ace. to Syr., Till he come whose it is, &c." I Samuel 14: 18, where Saul says, "Bring hither the ark of God. For the ark of God was there at that time with the children of Israel," carries in the margin, " Some editions of the Sept. have, lo The English Bible Bring hither the ephod. For he wore the ephod at that time before Israel." In 2 Chronicles i : 13 the translators adopted the reading of three ancient ver- sions as against that of the Heb., as seen in the mar- ginal note, " So Sept., Vulg., and Syr. The Heb. has, to." This same policy was adopted in Psalm 22 : 16, " They pierced my hands and my feet," since the margin says, " So the Sept., Vulg., and Syr. The Hebrew text as pointed reads, Like a lion, my, &c." The fact that the New Testament does not name the ancient sources of its variants, allows us to pass by this class in that division of the Bible. We learn at least from this class of marginal notes that there is considerable matter, valuable both for the transla- tion and interpretation, found outside of the com- monly accepted original texts of the Old and New Testaments. 8. The marginal readings classified in the preced- ing sections bristle with questions concerning the " whence " of our English Bible. They point to scores of manuscripts which do not agree in all re- spects, to ancient versions that preserve in many places a different reading from that found in the com- monly accepted original text of the Old and New Testaments. At first thought these facts disturb the mind of the student of the English Bible. He finds at least four classes of marginal readings in the American Standard Revised Version. They are (i) a variant translation of the same Hebrew or Greek text; (2) an explanation, interpretation or literal Reasons for Variants 1 1 interpretation of some Hebrew or Greek word or proper name; (3) quotations from, or variants of, some other than the regular Hebrew or Greek text upon which the translation of the English Bible is based; (4) readings found in the ancient translations or versions of the Bible. 9. If the original texts of the Old and New Tes- taments were in each Testament one text, how could all these variations arise? How could there be such a vast collection of variants as that found, for exam- ple, in the Variorum Teachers' Bible? This question is easily answered. Before the invention of printing from movable types, books were multiplied solely by the hand of fallible man. A slip of the pen, an error of "sight, an error of hearing, or an error of memory, on the part of a scribe or copyist, would be preserved and perpetuated with the same care as that exercised in preserving the best text. Subsequent copyists and translators would not only perpetuate earlier errors, but would probably add the same kind of evidences of their own fallibility. This kind of multiplication of manuscripts, extending down through the centuries, opened the door to untold possibilities of many kinds of errors in the text that was thus treated. From the one original text of each of the two Testaments, copyists and translators multiplied copies and trans- lations for more than two thousand years. The ef- forts of biblical scholars to-day are aimed at discov- ering, if possible, what the errors are, and what the original text may have been. 12 The English Bible Subsequent chapters of this book will aim to look into the origin, character, and value of the principal ancient versions, and the early English Bibles, and to indicate approximately only the contribution that each has made to the up-to-date American Standard Revised Version of 1901. CHAPTER II THE BASES OF OUR PRESENT VERSIONS lo. The variety of the available marginal readings of our current versions of the English Bible point to several sources. We find references (i) to variant readings of manuscripts, and (2) to several ancient versions, such as the Septuagint, the Syriac, and the Vulgate. These versions were translated at an early date, and hence were made from texts that were in existence from fifteen hundred to twenty-two hundred years ago. They thus form an important evidence to the original texts as they existed in that far-ofif day. Our English Bible, with all its variants and readings, bases its best renderings and best thought, as we discover in its pages, upon at least four sources of supply: (i) the reconstructed original texts found in our best printed editions of the He- brew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament; (2) the manuscripts of these Testaments as either collated and pubhshed, or as preserved in various great libraries of the world; (3) the most im- portant ancient versions, whose translations were made- more than a thousand years before the inven- tion of printing; (4) paraphrases and quotations from ancient authors which may be valuable in the determination of some points in the text. 13 14 The Bases of Our Present Versions II. The first source of our English translation is the commonly received original Hebrew text of the Old Testament and the revisers' Greek text of the New Testament. The Hebrew text of the Old Tes- tament as a whole has remained practically un- changed for centuries. There are published lists of variations of manuscripts which are used in making a critical study or translation of the received text. Except where stated differently in the margin, the Revised Version is practically a translation of this common text. On the other hand, the best printed text of the New Testament has been constructed within the last half-century on the basis of the read- ings of the best manuscripts. The Greek text from which the revisers made the translation of the Re- vised Version was constructed by the use of all the best documentary sources which have been discovered within the last three hundred years. It was then a resultant of the work of the best scholarship engaged on the Revision Committee. It was not the text of Westcott and Hort or of any other recognized au- thority, but that which was worked out by the best talent of the Committee. The difference between the " textus receptus " used as the basis for the Authorized and other versions, and that prepared by the revisers, is slight in substance, but very much in form. The latter is " shorter, but it is also older, purer and stronger." But since these texts from which the translations were made, particularly the New Testa- ment, were prepared or reconstructed by the use of Use of the Manuscripts 15 manuscripts, let us pass on to inquire concerning this basis. 12. The manuscripts of the New Testament date, at the latest, from the invention of printing from mov- able types in 1455, back to the fourth century A. D. They were written on paper and vellum of various kinds, generally by persons who were skilled in such writing. They were copied directly from some other manuscript, or were written at the dictation of some reader. The oldest manuscript of the Hebrew Old Testament whose date is positively known, touches 916 A. D., much more than one thousand years after the writing of the latest book of the Old Testament. The oldest New Testament Greek manuscript reaches back into the fourth century, or is about five hundred years older than the oldest Hebrew manuscript. In order to profit by these documents, scholars have started with some standard printed edition of the Old Testament as a basis, and then by a careful comparison of the various manuscripts with that printed text have collected all the variations in the readings supplied by these manuscripts. These docu- ments are found in scores of libraries, and their exam- ination and comparison involved long and patient work of a very taxing kind. In the Old Testament, particularly, there are two large collections of these variants which have not yet been embodied in any printed versions of the Hebrew. The revisers made use of these separate collections in preparing their Hebrew text from which they made their translation. 1 6 The Bases of Our Present Versions The best New Testament manuscripts have been thoroughly collated, and their valuable readings em- bodied in the text or margins of the latest and best printed texts of the Greek New Testament. Scholars who make use of these recently issued texts have at their disposal, in the margins, all the best variations of the New Testament manuscripts. In our Revised Version the marginal references to such variant read- ings are very numerous. They show the value which must be attached to the existence of a large number of manuscripts, and also to the nicety of discrimina- tion which must be exercised by scholars in dealing with these variants. Taken together, they must yield, by careful critical judgment, a text that de- serves the confidence of every earnest student of the New Testament. 13. Another and a very important basis of our present versions is made up of the contributions of the various ancient versions. As these will be treated in detail further on, the merest skeleton as to their value will be given here, (i) The Septua- gint was translated out of the original Hebrew prob- ably between 280 and 130 B. C. It was made at Alexandria under Hebrew-Greek influences, hence carries a distinctive Hebrew flavor. It sprang from an original Hebrew source more than a thou- sand years before the age of the oldest Hebrew man- uscript. But this Bible, like the Hebrew, was mul- tiplied by copyists, down to the fifteenth century, hence was subject to copyists' errors. To secure 1 x,>:-H-i MCfOMM (YTA'INI jvfxOH ni'Miuff"'!' J KAI>-rHA>tiNXr-.Oj rA.i'.Ki'iM'a>ii>."")X'J >.. v:<^n: M 1 *. Yn f\-( I I ttnU K M HtXlYfl N i^fi-yi-^oMoY*^ >T'"C»,COtl>^MFIAt t-K»oHt-oY<"tHn ' -KM KJ->fl O IOt.l I- AOYt:ior on Af XiiY*-"^***^ KAPXIMMXt 'INM vJ~>ii;'.<" onruuc KAI A,Ml>f*.lJIIOrHW ft>YAA»<.>rn^»:-o~|( lAtlKAt MMiocMnrMA'* (rt^fXKorAriMA AIIOA'-Air MtM>* AYTMCKRX<:rAFI XI |IIKAAilJt--KW rAi«.AK['Air>.ri»*' l.MHl>rYWCK-tt>N( lOYt^"!' tNOt'M r<»YTO-).« Mt I I lo-|tvf U'AliiYH i-S-YAlX Kl MtAM Oi llfJAI lorC;?!) ■1'.' • YKV l-^N KAKIK KAf '. t-^-' N»^NAy I riM-KAICf (iAWOIAt AKOM-I YOYRACI ACilX-'M •■■TM-oHRiJ ru>R>.t 1 Ai.- 1 K«pA,C I A A-f-ei* rAKAAATuX- lA&J KAtKATAcrtlccio (.K.IAi-YCKUJKj^ xAt^fWif ArXUTxm rXliI M( R AtrKt) AC AYrciYKA.^rn. M • .MiMOANKOpA lONI > M(-KU>M A^ f l^f AAOIXI tU>tA Tuit:YWOY>-l.l> AYHt t All i N > I III .1^1 I I JHHY' AIMtAMi NA^ Ah^KAiA.J5ii1- niti,-joM A*.-, tur (Li.ll-, WAl |U. MflAAAA' ^] K-J e r t i' AC^ YCtN AY TH^"* ' exT7"»t-'crYMAi '^•' KAK Ar M N" I OKOfA ClOMKAM nu-n^lA(l^-" KAIO rPHKOYt'OM7*iJ ') irinyKACPA^'-nc At MY'lOXftfArAf- KAIMXOM<^Ct>Hf nrw'/AJ-roMvhy- ^AKATC!>NrYf^XI»6-- KAlMft-i'l-NAYnn !flvOf'Al'll>N-KAl «->pt-NXAplN*--N*.l> iFioMAy rOTKAt ■f'ANi AOXAlOtlU !,- . OICKCM UltNTI* lOMftyAi Kl"> < lAl- 01['Tl'CA'..IIWKAI ^oc.KorAc;o■)'^"l••A C t KtAOT^.'^^W fi- ll K» r ptncHB-i '^ tO* A ( I > Af K*;Ot7ll» w AN Al I AMf tyv^J"' >^ Ml IMfPAl iMCCXS-. PAfll^CMHNAC ■ t'NCMYfigiWtOe AXIU^KAINIHNA^ ^e-J^AnTXCAfUl^A k CI M Ki>,ieN-ix>rc-UMr M ACI N KArttlT«fcj' I loff Yt--|A»ri7c*e-* "JON KAClAf AKAl U."- 1- AN 1 1 r 1 KF r Af A. -&^ I* eel AYTH N CYv : N t-T ceptcco A I A-|f T«'>AriOTO-)TYW ■ \H<"t-jfriof*"yt(A* KAinrt^C-HMCP^^J AnoTffxrft-i'^K ■,ivHfY"*'r^uit/ Codex Sinaiticus (S). Fourth Century (g§ 12, 115 117) Esther i : 15 to 2 : 14 Use of the Ancient Versions 1 7 a good text of the Septuagint scholars must use the same methods as those employed in fixing a Greek text of the New Testament. (2) The Syriac Ver- sion was made from the original Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New Testament in the second century A. D. It seems to have suffered somewhat from the doctrinal beliefs of its translators. But it represents the original of the Old Testament about three centuries later than the Septuagint, and that of the New Testament within about one hun- dred years after it was completed. Its true text, however, must be determined by the same processes as those employed to fix the New Testament Greek text. (3) The Vulgate, so-called, was for the most part the translation into Latin by Jerome of the orig- inal texts of the Bible at the close of the fourth cen- tury A. D. This version, then, represents the condi- tion of the original texts of the Bible about two cen- turies later than the Syrian, and about five to six centuries later than the Septuagint. The true text of the Vulgate, as of the Syrian and Septuagint, must be determined by the processes already mentioned. These three ancient versions are our most valuable aids, among the translations of the Bible, in ascer- taining just what the original text of the two Testa- ments must have been. The margins of our Revised Version of the Old Testament show that the transla- tors carefully followed the texts of each of these ancient versions, and in a few cases adopted their readings in preference to the Hebrew original, and 1 8 The Bases of Our Present Versions in a much more numerous list of cases regarded their readings of sufficient importance to quote them as valuable alternate readings or side-lights. 14. Before the careful translator has completed his preparation, he will consult for the Old Testament those notable Jewish paraphrases called the Targums. Though they are not always nor prevailingly accurate translations of the original, they still represent, often in fine form, the thought of the Hebrew. They sometimes aid, too, in giving a correct shade of mean- ing to a word whose form or meaning in the original Hebrew has become either obscure or altogether lost. Both of the Testaments are frequently quoted in ancient literature, especially by the church fathers. These quotations were made in some cases merely from memory, and sometimes poor memory at that. In other cases they aim to give only the sense of the original. In still others, the words seem to be a faith- ful quotation, either from the Septuagint or Vulgate. Occasionally only they were translated from the original Hebrew. Such quotations, either fragment- ary, or exact, furnish valuable material to the trans- lator of the Bible, and have contributed no insignifi- cant part to the proper understanding of some other- wise obscure passages of that Book. 15. It must be evident now that the translators of our present versions have had at their disposal an embarrassing amount of textual riches. It must be plain also that the abundance of this material has Revisers' Apparatus Criticus 19 imposed upon them heavy burdens. They have had to determine their texts of the Old and New Testa- ments on the basis of the manuscripts, ancient ver- sions, and quotations. And in doing this they were practically obhged to use the best printed texts of the ancient versions, which are by no means the re- sult of a collation of all the known manuscripts of those individual versions. This of itself, of course, deprived them of what may yet be valuable aids to future translators. Our translators have used as the basis of their re- vision, then, all the available material that could be treated by a small body of scholars, limited as to time and strength. Their work is seen in the text itself, in the marginal notes, and in the appendices. A treatment of each individual version, and its part in the work which culminated in our Revised English Bible, will be treated in succeeding chapters. Part I. The Old Testament CHAPTER III HEBREW WRITING, TEXT, AND MANUSCRIPTS 1 6. The Old Testament books were written in Hebrew, — the language used by Israel during all the years of its existence as a nation, in Egypt, the wil- derness and in Palestine, stretching down into the cen- turies between the Old and the New Testament. Within these books, however, we find another lan- guage, a kind of modified Hebrew, employed in part by the Jews in the centuries immediately pre- ceding, and during the Christian era. This is called Biblical Aramaic, and is found as the language of Daniel 2 : 4 to 7 : 28 ; Ezra 4 : 8 to 6 : 18 ; 7 : 12-26, and Jeremiah 10: 11. A few words of this same tongue are found scattered here and there throughout the Hebrew Bible. The oldest specimen of biblical Hebrew writing of any considerable size that we possess to-day is either that of the St. Petersburg codex of the prophets, dated 916 A. D., or a British Museum manuscript copy of the Pentateuch, which Ginsburg locates " at least half a century earlier." According to S. A. Cook the scrap which is figured in the frontispiece of this volume bears the palm for age. Both of these larger Hebrew Writing and Writers 2 1 manuscripts are written in the so-called square char- acter, similar to those found in our printed Hebrew Bibles. Prepared at that point in time, viz., 916 A. D., or even fifty years earlier, they represent the Hebrew script of at least a thousand years after the youngest book of the Old Testament was put into writing. One thousand years of multiplying books by the process of copying with the pen may introduce great changes in the character of the script. How many of us can read with ease English written documents of the fourteenth century? Again, the Hebrew found in the rabbinical writings of the last five centuries dif- fers quite materially from that in the Hebrew Bible and manuscripts. 17. Every trace of the original manuscripts, or rolls upon which the Old Testament was written has totally disappeared. That Israel wrote down descrip- tions of events, bodies of laws, lyrical poems, etc., is certain from hints and direct references in the body of the Old Testament. The origin of their alphabet is as yet a conjecture, but its use from the time of David down to Judas Maccabaeus is pretty definitely known to-day. There is no mention in all the book of Genesis of writing. Abraham (Gen. 23) bought the cave of Machpelah from Ephron the Hittite, but nothing is said of any written contract. The first mention of writing in the Old Testament is in Exodus 17: 14, where Moses is commanded to write down in a book an account of Israel's victory over Amalek. In Ex- 2 2 Hebrew Text and Manuscripts odus 24 ; 7, Moses reads in the audience of the people " the book of the covenant ;" that is, the laws con- tained in Exodus 20-23. Very soon thereafter he goes into the mount to receive the two stone tablets upon which the law had been inscribed. Thereafter we find frequent references to writing as a means of pre- serving records of events. In Jeremiah (32 : 9-15) we find that a deed for property was drawn up in two forms, one sealed and one open. Both of these docu- ments, which may have been made of clay, as they were in Bab)donia, were deposited in a jar for future reference. There is frequent mention, however, of certain classes who were skilled in writing. In that exquisite Song of Deborah (Judges 5 : 14) there is doubtless reference to " the staff of the scribe " (marg.). Dur- ing the beginnings and ascendancy of the monarchy, prophets, court officials and kings were able to record the events, decrees and wisdom of their day. Samuel (i Sam. 10: 25), David (2 Sam. 11: 14), Nathan the prophet. Gad the seer (i Chron. 29: 29)^, and a host of others, both inside and outside of court circles, were able to make records in writing. Thus before the close of the Old Testament, there is a su- perabundance of evidence to show that among the Hebrews there were not simply scribes, but men of distinguished literary ability. 18. With all these Old Testament references to writing and writers we do not possess a single Old Testament document in its original form. There was Extra- Biblical Hebrew Writings 23 writing, too, long centuries prior to Moses, among the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Susians, the As- syrians, the Hittites, and other contemporaneous peoples. And we possess great quantities of their literary products, stretching back almost, if not quite, to 5000 B. C. It is entirely reasonable to expect that among the remnants of ancient oriental writing we should find some scraps of old Hebrew. In this we are not disappointed. In 1868 there was found east of the Jordan, at the site of ancient Dibon, the now famous Moabite Stone. Its fragments are now put together, and it stands in the Louvre in Paris. It carried on its surface thirty-four lines, written in the Phoenician or archaic Hebrew of about 860 B. C, when this work was probably executed. It is the oldest dated Hebrew document known to-day, for its issuer was Mesha, King of Moab, mentioned in 2 Kings I : i and 3:4. It was rudely cut on a hard stone. Several Hon-weights found at Nineveh, and dating from the latter part of the eighth century B. C. also carry Phoenician and Assyrian characters. To bring the case closer home, an inscription in similar character was found in Jerusalem in 1880, cut in the wall of the tunnel connecting the Pool of Siloam with St. Mary's well. This short six-line in- scription is written in elegant Hebrew — a little more artistic in form than the Moabite Stone. It is thought to date from Hezekiah's reign, where a con- duit, probably this same one, was constructed (2 Kings 20: 20; 2 Chron. 32: 30; Ecclesiasticus 48: 17). 24 Hebrew Text and Manuscripts These two inscriptions are the best known examples of the written language of the children of Israel and their neighbors in Moab, during the regal period — that period when writing was prevalent among the prophets and court officials. Samples of the Hebrew and Phoenician of the fourth century B. C. (for ex- ample, the Carpentras stele found in Egypt), of the first three Christian centuries (In the Palmyrenian form) show the tendency of the letters of the alphabet to cliange as the centuries slide by. The oldest He- brew inscription in the square character, such as we have seen in the oldest Hebrew manuscript, is found in a short inscription in a cave at Araq al Ameer near Heshbon, which was used as a place of retreat in 176 B. C. A few other fragments and coins dis- tributed over a couple of later centuries show us how the letters gradually moved towards the later square character. 19. It is probable that the books of the Old Tes- tament were written in the same kind of script that we find on the Moabite Stone. As the centuries swept by, the value of these books to succeeding generations became more and more apparent. They were not only carefully preserved, but were copied time and time again to perpetuate their usefulness, and to avoid the possibility of their being lost or destroyed. The ravages of war and persecution very greatly en- dangered these Hebrew rolls. There were at least three events which threatened the very life of the cherished records of the Hebrews. The first and Destruction of Hebrew Books 25 most critical of all was the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadrezzar, in 586 B. C, though at this time it is probable that Ezekiel had carried some portions of the Old Testament with him when he was taken to Babylonia in 597 B. C, eleven years before the fall of the capital. Again, when Antiochus Epiphanes (in 167 B. C.) ordered all the copies of the law to be de- stroyed (i Mace, i: 56, 57), his decree did not reach to Babylonia, where Ezekiel and Ezra had been busy in earlier centuries instructing their people, and where doubtless copies of the Old Testament books were extant. Nor did it reach to Egypt, where, at least one hundred years before that day, translators had busied themselves to put into Greek some at least of the sacred books of the Hebrews. The destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 A. D. was a third disaster at that place, that threatened the life of the Old Testament. On the authority of the Babylonian Talmud, Titus destroyed copies of the law. Josephus (Wars 5 : 5, 7) states that one single copy of the law occupied a prominent place in the victory of Vespasian. This is the earliest mentioned manu- script of the Old Testament, and was said to have just thirty-two variations from the received text. This document was later deposited in the royal library at Rome, and later, in 220 A. D., was handed over to the synagogue of Severus, probably by the emperor, who was a good friend to the Jews. These perils to the manuscript of the Old Testa- ment did probably extinguish many of the sources of 26 Hebrew Text and Manuscripts some of the books. For we find to-day, mentioned in the books of the Old Testament now extant, the names and titles of twenty-four books that have per- ished. By far the largest number of these is found in Kings and Chronicles. It is not impossible that some of those works, if existent, would be found in our Bible, but they were probably blotted out by the dire disasters that befel Jerusalem and the Jews be- tween 600 B. C. and A. D. 100. 20. The alphabet of the Hebrew language is made up of twenty-two letters — all consonants. Four of these are called vowel letters, for their presence indi- cated the use of certain vowel sounds in the pronun- ciation of a word. On the Moabite Stone and the Siloam Inscription, the individual words are separated by a small point. This is found also between the words of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is probable that as soon as the writing became modified into the square characters, as seen in the St. Petersburg codex, that this dot was omitted. For there are many in- stances in the Old Testament where two Hebrew words have been written as one. The continuous multiplication of the biblical Hebrew rolls by the pen of a scribe opened the door for numerous errors. If any one is not convinced of this, let him try to make an exact copy, through one solid week, or one entire day, of any written or printed document. There were not in these manuscripts any verse, paragraph, or chapter divisions beyond small spaces. Even the Psalms were not separated, so that the Septuagint Origin of Textual Changes 27 and the Hebrew do not everywhere agree in their arrangement. Such facts only make it the more ap- parent that copyists had no sinecure in the very arduous and careful work which they were obliged to do. 21. The changes charged to the scribes who did the copying are of two kinds, intentional and unin- tentional. Their intentional changes were made (i) to correct what they conceived to be an error in state- ment, or an error of a preceding copyist, as Job 7 : 20, " I am become a burden to myself," for " I am be- come a burden upon thee," as the Septuagint reads: I Samuel 3 : 13, " because his sons made themselves vile," is not a possible reading of the Hebrew ; the Septuagint reads, " did revile God," — ^without doubt a rendering of the proper original text; (2) to insert some euphemistic word or phrase in place of an in- delicate one found in the text, the latter usually being dropped into the margin. The unintentional changes are the more numerous. Scholars have practically agreed on this classifica- tion: (i) Failure to see the sense of a passage, as where words were incorrectly divided. A good ex- ample is found in Amos 6: 12, "Shall horses run upon the rock? Will one plow there with oxen?" The word for " oxen " should doubtless be divided into two words, and then it will read, " Do men plough the sea with oxen ? " Another good illustra- tion is Psalm 73 : 4, " For there are no pangs in their xleath; but their strength is firm." Simply by sep- 28 Hebrew Text and Manuscripts arating the word translated " in their death " we can translate, " For they have no pangs, sound and firm is their strength " — a meaning that better fits both the thought in the context and the parallelism. (2) Errors due to the eye: (a) Repetitions: in Leviticus 20: 10, omit the five words repeated; i Chronicles 9: 35-44 has been repeated, doubtless through an error, from i Chronicles 8: 29-38. (b) Omissions: as where, in Proverbs 10: lob, the omis- sion is made up from verse 8b ; but the Septuagint and the Syriac read for lob, " He that rebuketh boldly is a peacemaker." (c) Transposition of letters or words: 2 Chronicles 3 : 4, represents the porch of the temple as one hundred and twenty cubits high. The Sep- tuagint reads twenty cubits, and the Hebrew, by a transposition of two letters and the two words reads twenty cubits, which is certainly correct. Psalm 35: 7 reads, " For without cause have they hid for me their net in a pit, without cause have they digged a pit for my soul." By simply transposing the words pit and net, we read : " For without cause have they hidden their net for me, without cause have they dig- ged a pit for my life." There are also numerous cases where one letter has been taken for another by the copyist. One of the familiar cases is that where " Nebuchadrezzar," the only correct reading, has been, by mistaking two Hebrew letters n (i), r (")), read " Nebuchadnezzar." Another error of the same kind, where " Hadadezer," has been erroneously read " Hadarezer," a mistaking of the Hebrew d (1) for Origin of Textual Changes 29 r ("1). In Isaiah 39: i, we find " Merodach-baladar," where the parallel in 2 Kings 20: 12, reads, " Bero- dach-baladan " — a confusing of two Hebrew letters m (0) and b Q). (3) Errors due to the ear, where one read to a number of copyists ; these are seen mainly in the use of one Hebrew word for another of almost or just the same sound. A good example is found in Psalm 100 : 3, where " and not we ourselves " should be "and we are his." In 2 Chronicles 10: 18, "Hado-_ ram" is " Adoram " in i Kings 12: 18. (4) Errors of menlory; these may be occasioned by the fact that the copyist sometimes carried in his mind the thought rather than the exact words of what he was copying. In such a case he would be apt to use synonyms, or nearly such, in place of the word contained in the original. As an example of this " Jehoiakim," in Jeremiah 27: i, should be " Zede- kiah," as in verse 3. (5) Errors due to carelessness or ignorance. Of this type there are many examples. In i Samuel 13:1 we find " Saul was — years old ;" some copyist care- lessly neglected to put down the number. In 2 Sam- uel 3:7," Ish-bosheth " is missing, but is found here in the Septuagint, Syriac and Vulgate. 2 Samuel 1 1 : 21 has " Jerubbesheth," a careless writing for "Je- rubbaal " (Judges 6: 32). In i Samuel 27: 8, " Gir- zites " is read in some manuscripts " Gizrites." i Sam- uel 12: II has "Bedan," where the word should be read according to the Septuagint, the Syriac, and the 30 Hebrew Text and Manuscripts original narrative as the story is told in the book of Judges 4, " Barak." Such errors as these crept into the text gradually, and were transmitted by copyists from one manuscript to another continuously down through the centuries. As a prevention against further errors the scribes counted the number of verses (though they were not yet formally numbered) and even letters in the various books, and then made note of the middle verse, the middle word, and the middle letter of each book. These are found at the end of each book in our Hebrew Bibles to-day. The middle verse of the Pentateuch is Leviticus 8: 7; the middle verse of Joshua is chapter 13: 26; of Judges, chapter 10: 8. The middle verse of the Hebrew Bible is Jeremiah 6:7. If a scribe, after he had finished his work, could not make his count tally with these notations, there was some error in his copy of the manuscript, which must either be corrected or his copy discarded. 22. The Hebrews classified the books of the Old Testament under three heads : ( i ) The Law, consist- ing of the first five books, or the Pentateuch; (2) The Prophets, subdivided into (a) the Earlier Proph- ets, consisting of four books, Joshua, Judges, Sam- uel and Kings ; (b) the Latter Prophets, containing four books, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah and The Twelve (one book) ; (3) the Hagiographa, containing eleven books, Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Daniel, Esther, Ezra (including Nehemiah) and Chronicles. Of these the Divisions of Hebrew Text 31 Five Rolls, so often mentioned, are Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes and Esther. The whole number according to the Jewish reckoning was therefore twenty-four books. Josephus and some others, by combining Ruth with Judges, and Lamenta- tions with Jeremiah, made them twenty-two — the same in number as the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Then the Law, after the exile at least, was arranged to be read in regular course. In Acts 15: 21, we read that, " Moses from generations of old hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath." This custom has con- tinued to the present day. In Palestine it was read through in three and one-half years. To facilitate this plan the law- was early divided into sections, called parashahs. There are now fifty-four of these sec- tions or paragraphs found in Hebrew manuscripts and printed texts, and since the fourteenth century an annual reading of the whole law has become universal among the Jews. After the Law was read in the synagogue a corre- sponding, or appropriate, passage was read from the prophets. An example of this is seen in the syna- gogue at Nazareth (Luke 4: iji.) when Jesus read from the prophet Isaiah (61: if.). But the sections into which the prophets were divided are not defi- nitely known. Some of the poetical portions of the Old Testa- ment (such as the Song of Moses, Exodus 15, the Song of Deborah, Judges 5, the Psalm of David in 32 Hebrew Text and Manuscripts 2 Samuel 22 (Psalm 18), are written in a peculiar form, to represent some phantasy of the scribes. In the Septuagint the Psalms are arranged in a form to represent the fact of Hebrew parallelism. There was no early division into chapters, nor into formal or numbered verses, though the latter became, in fact, a necessity for reasons of interpretation. When a reader in tlie synagogue in the time of Christ and for centuries thereafter, had read two or three verses, an interpreter would translate it into the spoken Aramaic, or language of the times (com- pare Nehemiah 8: 8) — an indication that there were regularly recognized divisions in the text. 23. The early Hebrew writing, as has already been stated, consisted of consonants only. Four of these possessed vowel values, and wherever any one or more of them happened to stand in a word, they gave some key to its pronuncia;tion. But all the known Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts and printed texts are supplied with a complicated and scientific system of points, which give us exact sounds and pronunciations for words, and some individual conso- nants. These are placed below, within, or above the consonants, as the varying sounds require. When were these vowel points first used? We know through hints in Jerome (who died 420), the Targums and the Talmud, that there was no pointed or voweled Hebrew at the end of the sixth century. On the other hand, we know that two of the greatest authorities on the use of the vowel points lived about Vocalizing the Hebrew Text 33 the beginning of the tenth century. Ben Asher, one of these men, was descended from a notable family of Massoretes, or students of the text, who had devoted at least one hundred and twenty years to that study. None of their records tell of the origin of these points. But popular tradition has so far connected that family with the origin of the Hebrew vowel points that the Hebrew text supplied with them is called the Masso- retic text. Since we know that at 600 A. D. there were no points, and at about 900 A. D. there was a full developed system, it is evident that its growth fell within those limits. Scholars are now practically agreed that it arose about the end of the seventh or the beginning of the eighth century. The reason for the invention of these vowel points lies in the fact that Hebrew, as a spoken tongue, was passing away. Its teachers, fearful lest its proper pronunciation should be lost, saw that some helps to preserve it were becoming necessary. Syriac had only recently adopted the use of vowel points, and the Greek language had just begun to make use of accents. It was then in accord with the tendency of the age that some system be devised to preserve the traditional pronunciation of the Hebrew language of the Old Testament. The Massorah means, " what is handed down," and as applied to the Old Testa- ment, its traditional text. When the Hebrew was supplied with those points, those voweled words bore the marks of the interpre- tation that the " pointers " gave them. The conso- 34 Hebrew Text and Manuscripts nants of many words in Hebrew can be pointed with vowels in more than one way, thus conveying differ- ent ideas. This may be illustrated by noting the use of the same consonants in English to mean different things, according to the vowels used. Take such con- sonants as f r; with different vowels we have f(a)r, f(i)r, f(u)r; c(a)p, c(o)p, c(u)p; b(a)d, b(e)d, b(i)d, b(u)d. Now and then in the Old Testament a slightly different pointing changes entirely the mean- ng of a word. In Psalm 50: 18, the word translated " thou consentedst " by different vowel points reads, thou didst run." Psalm 59: 10 reads as it stands " God with his lovingkindness ; " by the simple change o^ one vowel point we read, " My God, by his loving- kindness." The vowel points at best are simply the interpreta- tion of the text as fixed by the Massoretes at the end of the seventh or beginning of the eighth century A. D. 24. Manuscripts of the Hebrew Old Testament are comparatively young. The oldest dated docu- ment belonging, as we have seen, to 916 A. D., is called the St. Petersburg codex of the prophets. Dr. Ginsburg puts a British Museum manuscript (of the Pentateuch) (Orient. No. 4445), " at least half a cen- tury earher." This consists of 186 folios, fifty-five of which were added in 1540 A. D. Each page car- ries three columns of about twenty-one lines each. the Massorah magna has been put above and below the columns, while the Massorah parva has place in the side margins. The St. Petersburg codex consists of 3RS!sr£ 7i7^iriV3'n?in3Tr"i3^ ,.*W! .„i •• «.;..w;,r.4.^...u,,«m>».-,>.N"-^-"™ »::j:-C";;" ';";:. -^^^ St. Petersburg Hebrew Codex. A.D. 916 Isaiah 14 : 31 to 16 : 3 Printed Hebrew Texts 35 225 folios, each of two columns of twenty-one lines. Its system of punctuation is that called the super- linear, or sometimes Babylonian. It contains Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and The Twelve. The oldest manuscript of the whole Old Testament is another of the famous Firkowitzsch collection brought from the Crimea. This one dates from loio A. D., though its correctness is disputed. The num- ber of manuscripts of the entire Hebrew Old Testa- ment is very small, though partial or fragment docu- ments run up into the neighborhood of 1700. The most of the variant readings of these manu- scripts may be charged to scribal errors of some kind. For example, one manuscript omits nine words of Genesis 19: 20, and in Exodus 8 omits verses 10 and II. In I Chronicles 2, one manuscript has twenty- two variations from the common Massoretic text. Errors from mistaking one Hebrew letter for an- other as seen in Section 21, occur more frequently in Hebrew than in Greek and Latin manuscripts. The close resemblance of all existing Hebrew manuscripts has led scholars to conjecture that at some period before the invention of the Hebrew vowel points, all known Hebrew manuscripts were either reduced to one or all other existing documents besides the one model were destroyed. Every sub- sequent copy was then made from this model; and the variations after the letters received their vowels, were reduced to a minimum. 25. The first part of the Old Testament to be put 36 Hebrew Text and Manuscripts into print was the Psalter, in 1477. It was printed in Hebrew with the rabbinical commentary of Kim- chi, text and commentary alternating at every verse. The typographical difficulties were so great that only the first few psalms were printed with vowel points. The work was full of errors of many kinds. During the next ten years (1477-87), at least four editions, covering all the Old Testament were printed in as many different cities. The first complete edition of the whole Hebrew Old Testament with vowel points and accents was finished at Soncino, February 14, 1488. It was issued next at Naples, 1491-93; and a third time in the Brescia Bible in 1494 — ^the text used by Luther. A fourth edition appeared at Pesaro in 1511-17. All these editions were issued under the di- rection of Jewish authors. The first edition of the Hebrew text to be pub- lished under the direction and authority of Christian influences was that found in the so-called Compluten- sian Polyglot. This great work carried in parallel columns the Hebrew text, the Septuagint, the Vul- gate, and the Hebrew paraphrase, or Targum, of On- kelos, for the Pentateuch. It was edited by Cardinal Ximenes and printed at the University founded by him at Alcala, Spain, 1514-1517. The magnitude of this undertaking may be partially understood when it is said that the Cardinal had to cast all his own type before he began the printing. The critical value of this first polyglot was slight, because of its defects and frequent errors. Lists of Hebrew Variants yi The first Hebrew Bible with full vowel points and all the Rabbinic material for interpretation of the text, was printed by Daniel Bomberg at Venice, 1516-17. This is the first Hebrew text to divide Samuel, Kings and Chronicles, each into two books ; and the book of Ezra into Ezra and Nehemiah. The so-called " editio princeps " of the Hebrew Bible, with all Rab- binic helps, was Bomberg's second edition, edited by Jacob ben Chayim, a Jew of Tunis, 1524-25. This formed the standard edition of the Massoretic text of the Hebrew Bible. The great Paris Polyglot, found to-day in a few of our large libraries, was edited by le Jay, and printed 1629-45 in ten folio volumes. A rival of this stupendous work was the London Polyglot, edited by Walton in London, in 1657, in six folio volumes. The Hebrew Bible of to-day is divided into chap- ters and verses. This chapter division had its origin in the Vulgate, and is accredited to Lanfranc, Arch- bishop of Canterbury, who died 1089; to Stephen Langton, who died 1228; and to Hugo de Sancto Caro in the thirteenth century. The numbers of the chapters were first inserted in the margin, even in the Complutensian Polyglot. The first edition to insert the chapter numbers in the text was that of Arias Montanus, who edited an interlinear Latin translation at Antwerp in 1571. The first clear He- brew text to insert chapter numbers in the text ap- peared in 1573-4. 26. Naturally the printing of so large a number 38 Hebrew Text and Manuscripts of Hebrew Bibles at so many places, and based on the readings of so many different manuscripts, led to confusion in interpretation, and anxiety regarding the true text of the Old Testament. This led to the doing of just what appears in the margins of our English Bibles, viz: the collecting of the variants pr differences in the readings of the known manuscripts. Without giving the history of this kind of work, it is sufficient to say that the first great collector and pub- lisher of variants was Kennicott, an Englishman. He employed a number of scholars, and spent £9000 sterling in carrying on his work. At the conclu- sion he had succeeded in collecting and having collected the various readings of 694 manuscripts and almost numberless editions. These pertain to con- sonants only. His collection was pubHshed at Ox- ford, 1776-80, in two folio volumes. A professor in Parma, Italy, by name of de Rossi, collected the readings of 732 manuscripts and 310 editions. Of all this number Kennicott had seen only eighty, so that de Rossi compared 652 new ones. In 1784-88, he published in Parma four volumes quarto, and in 1798 a supplemental volume. Kennicott and de Rossi together compared 1,346 different Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament, and 342 reported editions, or 1,686 different manu- scripts. The value of their work is seen in that it showed that the underlying Hebrew of all the manu- scripts examined by these two scholars and their assistants was practically one and the same text. t^ r_ n ,' Ui ^- n P f"."^ - r n r- r/i: r F" ^ C i- ? n r r n C Cr ?^ r-J r 5- - - J" Ij ^ f^ ° n E ■!. t a g J s c f: c {-. i../- r a :; s p i; k ■: ^ t- c c f ^ >■- • ■ ; - - '-a - - ' - n .. -'■'-•n n c Dg m^ I- r-J? r P r. f! T- ESi-S ; 1 1 i ; 5

■ Hi «E3 It Q U 5 This was For those The first The most By the use The sec- p r a c tically who could anti-Ch.ris- artistic liter- of other ond rival the Masso- not read the tian version ary transla- manuscripts version of retic He- H e b rew. intended to tion of the and the He- the Septua- brew text that they displace the Hebrew into brew,Origen gint, so val- current to- might get as Septuagint Greek. tried to get uable that day. near as pos- among the ihe best pos- its Daniel is sible to the Jews. sible Sepiu- found in the original, and a g i n t ver- Septuagint to its correct sion. proper. pronuncia- tion. For some of the Old Testament books, chiefly the poetical, Origen added a fifth (Quinta), a sixth (Sexta), and even a seventh (Septima) Greek text. This made a seventh, eighth and ninth parallel col- umn. Then there seems to have been extant an edi- tion which consisted of the four Greek versions, the four columns to the right, as seen above, called the Tetrapla, or four-fold version. Such a version would give the reader a comparative view of the work of all previous translators into the Greek, and of Origen's text. 53. The real purpose of Origen's Hexapla was not a restoration of the original text of the Septua- gint, but to make it correctly and adequately represent the Hebrew original. The fifth column of the Hex- apla is the most important, touching Origen's work, for it was his revision of the Septuagint. He revised 68 Rival Greek Bibles the regular Septuagint text on this wise : If the manu- scripts of the Septuagint differed he chose that one that was the best translation of the Hebrew original. In case there were words in the Hebrew that had no adequate representation in the Septuagint, he in- serted in the Septuagint text such translation of these words as was found in one of the other three Greek versions, preferably from Theodotion. Such insertion was marked by an asterisk (* or *) at the beginning, and a metobelus (y) at the close of the passage. A passage which was found in the Septuagint, but had no equivalent in the Hebrew was marked in Origen's Septuagint by an obelus ( — ), or a horizontal line, but it was not expunged. These are a few of the critical marks introduced by Origen to specify the sources and variations of his version of the Septuagint. He did a large service for the biblical scholarship of his own and succeed- ing centuries. The magnitude of this Hexapla can scarcely be conceived until we realize that the whole Hebrew Bible carried out on that plan would have filled, according to Professor Nestle's calculation, more than 6,000 leaves, or 12,000 pages of carefully copied and critically worked over Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. 54. Our only descriptions of Origen's Hexapla, until recently, have been those of Eusebius, the his- torian, of Epiphanius, and of Jerome, and scattered specimens in biblical manuscripts. In 1896, however, Giovanni Mercati discovered in a palimpsest manu- Revision of Eusebius 69 script of the tenth century, in the Ambrosian library, in Milan, the first continuous fragments of a copy of the Psalter of the Hexapla. It gives us a good idea of the tremendous amount of close critical work neces- sary to finish one page of that Hexapla. Again, in 1898, there was found in the so-called Genizah col- lection of palimpsests brought to Cambridge from Cairo, Egypt, a Hexaplar fragment of Psalm 22, dating probably from the eighth century. Though this double leaf, containing 105 lines of Hebrew, is badly worn, enough remains to make it plain that Origen's method was to put one Hebrew word, and at most two in a line, in the first column, and its exact equiva- lent in the Greek column. This plan was followed in both the Milan and the Cairo palimpsests. The entire Psalter written as were these lines would cover about 450 leaves, and include 19,000 words. Origen's great Hexapla has survived only in frag- ments scattered here and there in the works of such ancient writers as Eusebius, or noted in the margins of manuscripts. The original manuscript seems to have been preserved in the library at Caesarea, and was seen there at the beginning of the seventh century. At this place Jerome consulted it; and here Bishop Paul of Telia in Mesopotamia translated Origen's fifth column, or his Septuagint revision, into Syriac, 617-618 A. D. In his translation he copied with care Origen's critical symbols. A part of Bishop Paul's work, written in the eighth century, is now found in the Ambrosian library at Milan. This contains the 70 Rival Greek Bibles prophets and the most of the Hagiographa. The Codex Sarravianus (G) at L,eyden, containing the Pentateuch, with portions of Joshua and Judges, is a manuscript of Origen's fifth column, partially provided with his critical symbols. It probably dates from the fifth century — less than 300 years after Origen laid down his work. Twenty-two leaves of this manu- script are in Paris (Codex Colbertinus), and one in St. Petersburg. The Codex Coislinianus (M) in Paris, from the seventh century, covering Genesis to I Kings 8 : 40, with some breaks, contains a Hexaplar text. Field carefully collated and published in two large volumes the various known material of Origen's Hexapla in 1875. 55. Origen's work did not unify existing Greek texts of the Old Testament, but rather opened the door for revisions. Three great scholars arose in the third century who gave themselves to this work: (i) Eusebius of Csesarea (260-340), the first church historian, assisted by Pamphilus or vice versa, issued with all its critical marks the fifth column of the Hex- apla, with alternative readings from the other columns, for use in Palestine. The Emperor Constantine gave orders that fifty copies of this edition should be pre- pared for use in the churches. (2) Lucian of Samosata prepared a revision of the Septuagint that far outstripped that of Eusebius in original methods. He supplied its omissions from other Greek versions, and sometimes modified its ex- pressions; where the translation, in his opinion, did Manuscripts of the Revisions 71 not correctly represent the Hebrew, he added a cor- rect translation of the passage in question. He did not hesitate to add explanatory clauses, and even to substitute synonymous words where it would make the meaning clearer. His revision was adopted throughout Asia Minor from Antioch to Constanti- nople. Lucian fell a martyr to the persecution of Maximus in 311. (3) The person and work of Hesychius are quite unknown. He is thought to have been the martyr- bishop mentioned in Eusebius, who fell under the per- secution that destroyed Lucian. His revision was adopted as the Septuagint in Alexandria and Egypt, for he was one of the Alexandrian school of learned men. These three revisers furnished Greek revisions for all the eastern coasts of the Mediterranean Sea. Eusebius for Palestine, Lucian for Asia Minor, and Hesychius for Egypt. 56. The manuscripts that preserve the above re- visions of the Septuagint are not numerous. There is in Trinity College, Dublin, a palimpsest, Codex Dublinensis Rescriptus, similar to the Codex Ephrasm, consisting of only eight leaves of Isaiah. It was written in Egypt in the sixth century, and is credited with relations with the revision of Hesychius The finest manuscript relative to this group of revisions is the Codex Marchalianus in the Vatican library at Rome. It was written in Egypt in the sixth century, and contains the books of the prophets. The editor 72 Rival Greek Bibles of this manuscript, Dr. Ceriani, shows that it was originally the text of Hesychius. Its value is greatly enhanced by marginal readings taken from a text of Origen's Hexapla, with initial letters indicating the source of the readings. -i\ -^ LuCi kM(BO0Ht3l(l Diagram showing tvh helaton of i>ie rival Greek Bims and revisions tothe SefiuaginKchapvI) Notes in the Syro-Hexaplar version of Paul of Telia and a statement of Theodoret led Field and Lagarde to identify the manuscripts of the Lucian text. This Lucian revision is of great value in the ^ VCXiTOTn-j rroKi i o\n it t oVwriiti um. rK-(^ '^lijKY'k'kaHOY-rrnh ri-if-milcov T' > n 1 i>n'j-i'M ji i ( i j t Ken n ( rnYuv- Kiinixtinti^KKtmlKtu lonrcuiM' -rcut i-i.'iif|M'rtAe(*i^lciir84Yf lo'tn-v. )£ k'UHOfi'Hn rin oYtiicin urJ KAuVi'ift :^ Liii'iciiin rirMH'Jtib?M«-iif Jtuk'tA! A 1^1 1 K"l ! 1 1 'Z^l'l Alt )l ! » V£ Wl ("t uyi n t • ■ Aft ii I u nu M i [i 1 -I'l ! in u Y n rj yt o Yt ' & >Ji/tih4T«"l t H-: 1 1 1 1 MTo'l t K'y'K.MJ m e Y- pi! tHYKYKALI »CI1Y(M"' vi «A« Vo MTo e-KxiE ti r {Tji;rxK*THV:ilJN.EIAXt''t-iJt;'l UlJ^liK^i wXruJ t « -^t'MTun n I V J< I 'i u Hw c ! kp >' nxmi-.-,t Ni»rrH)Ci<*viiUjxnu.ifk"Ali k- t'n E 14-Y Lit oYVreuic c eXia h e /f'u-i.-r. t ;>^JLT rt t -Tf 1 All L 1 1 Tit f, A 1 A 11 1 1 1 r lV All ie'Y\a in'roMii^it^eji itYToV^. Kl 1 f't S NTl 1 E Y ( Kit l\L','"'K4q TB tlvE -UUJ YTliAl 1(^ ") + e1 pil TLI if i-ri .!A HC ' t Y N ij«|iJ E (■ ) YijL|i|_c,KLi. e YKin-f r -1-B |> I rbh±p-« r { s Y, r 11 »j^,b m iHifricf'Aii.ioti.ici'DH iTTvn K».i'nLMYr.fit'M I \ u ' fit 1 1 TlAli ^ . . - >npiim»iin lA'm-i lui ipii c t Liiit t.kiiw'j'uTii t f 11 i 1 iJLi.\ 1 1 At Yi « Nxi I E'rn « ftoi wii ;. )iil I in ri'^U HTTl t't KYKTAO'^EN-i wyjyj^te'AA'Aiitx.''-- i I , •• Codex Marchalianus (Q . Sixth Century Ezekiel 5 : 12-17 Manuscripts of the Revisions 73 criticism of tlie Hebrew Old Testament; for LrUcian used Hebrew manuscripts at Antioch that were different from those employed by Origen. He also differs from the Septuagint, and probably was well' acquainted with the Syriac version. These three revisions of the Septuagint, while not superseding that venerable text, added valuable ele- ments to the matter for textual bibHcal criticism, iot better determining the original text of the Septuagint, and of estimating with a good degree of probability the true readings of some difficult texts in the Hebrew Old Testament. CHAPTER VII THE LATIN BIBLES, THE VULGATE 57. The official language of the Roman empire was Latin. But this tongue was not at first, nor even at last, the language generally in use throughout all the provinces of the empire. In all those countries most contiguous to Rome it gradually became the lan- guage not simply of officialdom, but of all important public institutions. The Christian church in the first century, and well along into the second, seems to have made Greek its everyday tongue. The books of the New Testament were all first written in Greek, unless Matthew be an exception ; and Paul's preach- ing and writing were done in the same tongue. Even the early bishops of Rome were Greek. One of the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament — the Codex Alexandrinus — contains an epistle of Bishop Clement of Rome, written in Greek to the Corinth- ians. In fact, the early Christian church was Greek through and through, using the Septuagint as its Old Testament scriptures, and the Greek documents, the Gospels and Epistles, as its New Testament; that is, its Scriptures were all Greek. 58. But the constantly increasing influence of Rome gradually overcame the predominance of the Greek tongue. The Christian church, like all other 74 Early Latin Versions 75 institutions, finally adopted Latin as the language of its ritual and services. This soon led to the require- ment either of an interpretation into the Latin tongue by the leader of the church services, or of a transla- tion into that tongue. The current Latin Bible of to-day is the Vulgate, translated by Jerome at the close of the fourth cen- tury. But there is abundant evidence in the church fathers, in manuscripts, and in some other sources that there were Old Latin versions current before Jerome's day, as in Germany there were German translations of the Bible before Luther's day. Au- gustine (353-430 A. D.) says that "those who have translated the Scriptures from Hebrew into Greek can be numbered, but the Latin translators cannot, for every one into whose hands a Greek manuscript came in the first periods of the Christian faith, and who fancied that he had some skill in both languages, ventured to translate." It is now generally conceded that at the latest a Latin translation of the entire Bible was in circulation at Carthage 250 A. D. It is entirely probable that portions of the Bible, par- ticularly the New Testament, for its immediate value to the Christian church, were extant in Latin as early as 200 A. D. Of course, the New Testament was translated immediately from the original Greek, but the Old Testament of the Old Latin versions was' translated from the Septuagint — a translation of a translation of the Hebrew Bible. 59. From the fragments of manuscripts and other 76 The Latin Bibles, the Vidgate remains of the Old Latin versions it is evident that there were different versions current in different parts of Christendom. Then the question might well be asked, Where was the Bible first translated into Latin, — in Rome, North Africa or Syria? For these were all important centers of Christianity. The late Dr. Hort and a company of modern scholars, have independently come to the conclusion that the Old Latin version had its origin in Syria or Asia Minor, probably at Antioch, that powerful literary and re- ligious center in the early Christian centuries. Its faithfulness in some places to the Hebrew text, and its resemblances to Lucian's readings, and the certain knowledge of its translator of the administrative ar- rangements of Palestine in this period, are some of the many evidences for Dr. Hort's position. This Old Latin version made in Syria was carried to Rome, to the countries of Europe, and to North Africa, iri the region of Carthage. Cyprian (about (200-258 A. D.) quotes freely from it, and apparently always from the same text. Tertullian, Cyprian's teacher, likewise quotes Scripture in his writings, but in a man- ner that strips his quotations of value in seeking the true readings of a text. He apparently paraphrases, quotes from memory, and so uses the matter as to lead one to suspect that he discounted the authorita- tive value of the text he quoted. 60. The Old Latin material such as manuscripts of which there is not a complete one of the whole Bible, quotations from the fathers, and other frag- Classification of Texts 77 ments, are classified by Dr. Hort under three groups. The first is the " African," whose manuscripts and texts agree with the quotations of Cyprian. The second group is the " European," a text used in Western Europe and North Italy, and differing in many respects from the African. The third group was named " Italian," after a reference in Augustine (de Doct. Christ., vol. ii. 15) to a Latin translation which he called " Itala." This is smoother and more polished than the European, and is often supposed to be a revision of that text. The three groups are constituted of texts that were translations of the Greek Bible, made at different times between 200 and 400 A. D. Their original was probably the Septuagint in different manuscripts be- fore the preparation of the editions of Origen or the later revisionists already described. There are found to-day in various libraries of Europe about thirty man- uscripts, and long authoritative quotations from the Old Latin canonical books of the Old Testament, and several complete texts of the apocryphal books. The manuscripts date as far back as the fifth century, at the very beginning of which Jerome laid down his pen. We have to-day in complete form the Old Latin texts of Esdras, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the Maccabees, the Rest of Esther and the Additions to Daniel. All these books, unrevised by Jerome, are retained to-day in their Old Latin form in the Vulgate. 78 The Latin Bibles, the Vulgate 6i. The existence of several Latin versions, differ- ing greatly in their texts, occasioned either by care- less copying or translating, or both, soon aroused complaints and distrust in the authoritative value of the manuscripts. Jerome, a most accomplished scholar, who was born at Stridon, on the borders of Dalmatia and Pannonia about 340-342, came " to the kingdom for such a time as this." His parents were wealthy and he had the best school advantages of his day. His early training, his four years of travel in the East, his five years (374-379) spent in the desert of Chalcis in self-discipline, and a thorough study of the Hebrew language under a rabbi who had been converted to Christianity, prepared him for one of the great tasks of the ages. In this period, through correspondence and explanation of Scripture terms, he formed a close friendship with Pope Damasus. In 379 he moved to Antioch, where he was ordained presbyter. Later, at Constantinople, he became thoroughly imbued with the expositions of Gregory Nazianzen. In 382 he went to Rome, where he spent more than two years in close association witW Pope Damasus. 62. At the request of the Pope, who had dis- played large interest in the Scriptures, Jerome under- took a revision of the Old Latin version on the basis of the Greek text. He began by revising the Gos- pels which appeared in 383. This was followed very soon by the Acts and the rest of the New Testament. He seems to have confined his changes to as few pas- L_ IxrtlCIT fRAIfATlO l.<>j: uic^toiJ"". ttotun-roior- titirfcomiiuii inirtrij.xt xcSi^vfi^ih ctlafi^slwrtlioC (^iynfur-tx^tCr. Jduciiio offct-d'.sx \-iAt.-,c.\Lifi:.-^pf;rvr^i i.Tbenaii\.i'7nnzJ'nc-.\z,ob Jerome's Version, Latin. About A. D. 840. Job I : i-8a yerome's Revision Work 79 sages as consistent with faithfulness to the original text. Jerome's first work on the Old Testament was a revision of the Old Latin Psalter, probably of the " Italian " version. He did his work on the basis of the Septuagint and made only such changes as the sense required. This very mild revision (of 384) was called " the Roman Psalter," in distinction from the Old Latin Psalter. By a decree of Pope Damasus, this became the official version of the Psalter in the churches of Rome and Italy until Pius V (1566-1572). It is still the official Psalter in St. Peter's at Rome, and at Milan, and partially in the Roman Missal, and in one place in the Breviary in the Invitatory psalm 94 (95)" About the end of 384 A. D. Pope Damasus died, and in 385 Jerome left Rome for Palestine. After a prolonged study of its topography and cities, and a tour of Egypt, he, with his associates, settled in Bethlehem. Here in 389 he founded two monasteries over one of which he presided for at least fifteen years. Over the other, founded for nuns, Paula, the devout widow, was governess. Somewhere during these years, probably about 387 A. D., in answer to requests, Jerome again revised the Psalter. In this work he used, in addition to the Septuagint, the Greek text of Origen's Hexapla, to- gether with some of his critical symbols. This re- vision became known later as " the Galilean Psalter," for it was first adopted in Gaul. It was finally adopted 8o The Latin Bibles, the Vulgate and decreed to be the official version of the Psalter in the Latin Church, where it remains to-day. as the version of the Psalms embodied in the Vulgate. Jerome also translated or revised other books of the Old Testament on the basis of the Septuagint, but only the Psalter and Job of this revision have been preserved to this day. 63. More and more Jerome came to see that the work that he had been doing could be a better repre- sentation of the original Hebrew if it were not a revision, but a new translation. In his controversies with Jews, he saw the disadvantage of appealing to the Septuagint, for they denied that it truly repre- sented the original Hebrew. Jerome's friends, too, were urgent that he undertake a new translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew. In answer to these requests, as he says in his prefaces, he began little by little to translate the separate books, and to send copies of them to his friends. Thus the great biblical scholar was led gradually and almost casually into doing by piecemeal what later became his great life-work. His first translation (390 A. D.) dealt with the easier historical narrative Hebrew of the Old Testa- ment, the books of Samuel and Kings. These books were prefaced by the " helmeted prologue " (prologus galeatus), which is practically an introduction to the whole Old Testament, and one armed to meet his antagonists on the issue of a new translation. The next task that he set before himself was a new yerome's Personality 8i translation of the Psalter, he having already twice revised it. The prophets and Job followed in order; then Ezra and Chronicles — all the translations thus far falling within the years 390-396 A. D. For two years he was laid aside by severe illness. He was able to take up his task again in 398 and translate Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs. The Pen- tateuch followed in order, and (in 404) Joshua, Judges, Ruth and Esther. The death of Paula, head over the convent, occurred in 404 A. D. ; soon there- after appeared the apocryphal parts of Daniel and Esther. Later followed the books of Tobit and Judith, translated from the Aramaic. These com- pleted Jerome's translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew text. He neither revised nor trans- lated Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, the Macca- bees, and Baruch. 64. Jerome's personality as reflected in the pref- aces to his translations is extremely interesting. His profound scholarship did not deaden his sensitiveness to criticism and opposition. For fourteen years (390- 404) he labored almost incessantly to produce a faith- ful rendering of the Hebrew, only to meet the sharp- est, keenest antagonism of the churchmen all about him. These prefaces are defenses of his positions, and fairly ring with his denunciations of his ignorant, superstitious critics. He wielded a sharp pen, pos- sessed a hot temper, and did not fail to combine them into cutting and caustic retorts and criticisms. He gives us, besides, in these prefaces, an idea of how 82 The Latin Bibles, the Vulgate he worked, what difficulties he encountered, and how he finally succeeded in a task that gave to the church such a careful translation of the Hebrew text. 65. After the final work of translation was com- pleted, Jerome had to endure a storm of criticism and invective. His own tempestuous replies to his critics only added strength to the irritation. The Septua- gint's authority and accuracy being laid aside by Jerome's translation, the friends and devotees of the former version fiercely assailed him. Jerome as- serted his reverence for the Septuagint, but at the same time said that his effort was only to render clearly the Hebrew passages that were obscure in the Septuagint and the Old Latin. The conservatives at that day, as in this, clung to the older versions be- cause long use and familiarity had cast a halo of sanc- tity about them. But the wisest of the churchmen soon began to recognize the superiority of Jerome's work. As soon as the leaders expressed a prefer- ence for the best translation, the rank and file of the church fell into line. St. Augustine, who had ex- pressed fear of the consequences of such work, now wisely set to praising it. But poor old Jerome saw only contention and strife to the end of his life (in 420) at Bethlehem. He had no satisfaction of seeing his all-important service to the cause of biblical learn- ing publicly recognized for anything like its true worth. But its superior merit was enough to grant it a fair hearing, and win for it the place that it was destined soon to hold in the progress of Christianity. Jercnne's Translation Adopted 83 66. Jerome died almost broken-hearted because of the denunciations of his fellow churchmen for his new translation of the Bible. But that century, the fifth, did not pass by without public recognition on the part of church leaders of his real service to biblical learning. Pope Gregory's commentary on Job (about 580 A. D.) recognized Jerome's translation as on a par with the Old L,atin. In the next two cen- turies the church fathers quoted both the Old Latin and Jerome's versions, the latter gradually gaining favor over the former. The use of the two versions side by side led to the correction of one by the other, and finally to the mixing of the texts. In the sixth century, even, this corruption had gone so far that Cassiodorus took steps to correct the current ver- sions by the old and best manuscripts. The work of Alcuin, under commission from Charlemagne and of Theodulf of Orleans, will be noted in §132. Further consideration of the Vulgate's history will be found under Chapter XV. A few words con- cerning the earliest Old Latin and Vulgate manu- scripts will conclude our present discussion of this theme. 6"]. There are thousands of Old Latin and Vulgate manuscripts in the public and private libraries of Eu- rope. Professor Samuel Berger, of Paris, examined more than 800 in the libraries of Paris alone. It is thought that the total number will not be less than 8,000. The most of them are late thirteenth or four- teenth century documents that possess slight value. 84 The Latin Bibles, the Vulgate Mention can be made here of only a few of the oldest and most valuable of these documents of the Old Tes- tament: (i) One of the oldest of the Spanish texts is the " Ashburnham Pentateuch," now in the National Library at Paris (Nouv. acq. Lat. 2334), a beautiful Vulgate document with pictorial illustrations, from the seventh or eight century. (2) Codex Com- plutensis, in the library of the University of Madrid, Spain, belonging to the ninth or tenth century, an entire Vulgate Bible text, but Ruth, Esther, Tobit, Judith, and i and 2 Maccabees are from an Old Latin version. (3) Codex Amiatinus of the whole Bible at Florence, dating from the beginning of the eighth century. It was copied in England, either at Wear- mouth or Jarrow, and carried by Abbot Ceolfrid in 715 A. D. as a present to the Pope. The large list of known manuscripts, by far the greater number being of the Gospels, is arranged in ten classes: (i) Early Italian texts; (2) early Spanish texts; (3) Italian texts transcribed in Britain; (4) Continental manuscripts written by Irish or Saxon scribes, show- ing a mixture of two types of text; (5) texts cur- rent in Languedoc ; (6) other French texts ; (7) Swiss manuscripts; (8) Alcuinian Revision; (9) Theodulfian Revision; and (10) medieval texts. A discussion of the New Testament texts of the Old Latin and Vulgate, their confusion during the middle ages, and some attempts to reconstruct a pure text, and the Vulgate since the Council of Trent will be found in Chapter XV. ;uiig7Hi>*HHisersupjiiomH6f c|^lA^&eUApJJX)ce&e|^eHr^,SA^9H3rnoHum£uA)luanp6;2)ji>(n, ,^gU|>pAOc»HC9«]U)poTeiijHrai a«>!eesinr>oAn)j o ets up n.v 001 Hef -iaM>ppieii*WTABDclL.\pnocea«Kf- ■|£«»H*Hj»ujilLiiiHmili.v<}tiA !(iutofirsuppAt:' tmti'^;; ^ '.,% i', "K ■-*. ;. ■ ; -OeytliiE losepli f jMonumispJre^ poKge)a6K.MioH6S.ACjami I l4AS-e[BomoscogMaiio»unii"^ siaio4^Ho-eT£upnAocnufi» <^0ipoTen.iWTA0ceUapB0(» 13 aene^vtmjIiAnuiHqeHii'. 3 noniiopZjORUmtrtawAiJsepeji J AcT>0O-t0PetCOCJHAHOHUCt>Sl]A. ' miMAPiHqiiloRUi'nAUice-sioao*'^ A-HHoets upiuotwM esijuipo^jj TenAHi.iOiitUApiMceaenB',^"*'' ,Qnil4es<]uiauTeKtHi'«!t^Is>«t Vulgate Manuscript formerly in Earl of Ashburnham's Library. Seventh Century. Numbers i ; 2zb-38a CHAPTER VIII THE SYRIAC BIBLES 68. The Syrians were the population of Syria, the country northeast of Palestine, and northwestern Mesopotamia. Their language was the Syriac, a Semitic tongue very closely allied with the Hebrew of the Old Testament. So far as known, there was no call for the Old Testament in the tongue of these peoples until after the introduction into their country of Christianity. The establishment of Christian churches within the bounds of Syria very soon must have been followed by a demand on the part of the communities in which these churches were located, for the sacred books of Christianity in their own tongue. The fact that the Old Testament original was written in Hebrew would greatly facilitate its translation into Syriac, a sister Semitic tongue. Sim- ilar idioms could thus be readily translated, even by one who was not well versed in other languages. 69. The existence to-day of one complete Syriac Bible, and of several versions of the Syriac New Testament, leads us to inquire as to their origin. The Syriac Old Testament will claim our attention here, while the New Testament versions will be reserved for Chapter XVII. The one complete Syriac Old Testament had an obscure beginning. Some scholars 8S 86 The Syriac Bibles of prominence claim that it had a Jewish origin, be- cause of its faithfulness to the Hebrew, and the em- bodiment in the text of thoughts characteristically Jewish. On the other hand, it is thought that it must have had a Christian origin because of its faithful rendering of Messianic passages, that better agree with Christian than with Jewish ideas. In Leviti- cus II and Deuteronomy 14, there is a carelessness in translation, or ignorance of the details of ritual- istic observance, that would oppose any thought of a Jewish origin. The absence of the apocryphal books from the earliest copies bespeak Jewish origin. The absence of Chronicles points to a current dis- cussion of the canonical status of that book. The two groups of reasons given above regarding trans- lators could be admirably harmonized on the suppo- sition that it was the work of Jews who had been converted to Christianity. It is well known that this country was a favorite land for the abode of many Jews in the first Christian centuries, and that they, as at all times, were energetic promoters of learning. 70. If the Syriac Old Testament is of Christian origin, we must look for it at about 150 A. D. In the fourth century it was not simply extant, but was the basis of an elaborate commentary by Ephraem Syrus (who died in 373). He mentions the Syriac Old Testament as widely circulated in the churches of Syria in his time. It had been translated at so distant a day that some of the words had already be- come obscure to him, and required extensive com- Traces of Syriac Old Testament 87 ments. Aphraates, a churchman at Mosul, about the middle of the fourth century, quotes passages out of all the canonical books of the Syriac Old Testament, with the exception of Song of Songs ; though he gives none from the Apocrypha. Then still farther ba, K I" ;■> -: -'- '- |2 o o Tar gums of the Pentateuch 95 the Pentateuch, embracing about 850 verses, and known as Jerusalem Targum II. This Targum is thought to be due to the selection of certain pas- sages designed to interpolate or fill out the so-called Targum of Onkelos. Its language is the Aramaic of Palestine, and its form quite paraphrastic. It is inferior to Onkelos. (3) The Jerusalem Targum I, or Targum of Jona- than (pseudo-Jonathan). This complete Targum (only about a dozen verses lacking) on the Penta- teuch seems to owe its origin to a kind of compila- tion of the above Nos. (i) and (2). The text is handled freely, and the Targum is replete with popu- lar stories and marginal notes that have grown up around the text during the centuries. Figurative terms are displaced by literal, and all anthropo- morphisms are thrown out. The religious and dog- matic conceptions of Judaism are prominent through- out this Targum. Targum No. (i) was first printed without vowels at Bologna in 1482 A. D., and with vowels in 1491. The first edition of No. (2) was printed in Venice in 1517, and the first of No. (3) appeared in Venice in 1591. 79. The one great Targum on the Prophets is at- tributed to Jonathan Bar Uzziel, a pupil of Hillel in the first half of the first century B. C. It is conjec- tured, but wrongfully, to be the work of Rabbi Joseph bar Hiyya. It is thought to have received its final form in Babylon in the fifth century. The similarity of the Targum of Jonathan to that of the so-called 96 The Tar gums — Jewish Paraphrases Onkelos of the Pentateuch is striking. It agrees with the latter's method of avoiding figures, anthropo- morphisms, and of toning down difficulties by the insertion of words and brief expressions. It gives a more literal rendering of the historical books than of the prophetic. Some of the difficult poetic pas- sages are merely paraphrased. Occasionally a pas- sage, like that of Hosea i : 3f., is turned wholly from the meaning of the original, and is devoted to a mor- alizing upon Israel's career. Thus Isaiah 5 : if. is not translated at all, but interpreted. Geographical names are often transferred into the later place-names. This Targum on the Prophets is about midway in faithful- ness to the original, between the so-called Onkelos and Jerusalem Targum I on the Pentateuch. This Tar- gum was first printed at Leiria, Portugal, in 1494 A. D., with the Hebrew text and a rabbinical com- mentary. 80. The Targums on the Hagiographa are all comparatively late in origin. They seem to have arisen almost after the need for such paraphrases had passed by. The earliest authentic mention of them is found in the eleventh century. The Hagiographa are divided into three groups: (i) Psalms, Proverbs and Job ; Psalms and Job are very like in their trans- lation; Job, however, has a double rendering of about fifty verses, and a few have a third explanation or translation. These additional renderings were added by some interpolator in the eighth or ninth centuries, for his language is late and artificial, and distinctly Targums of the Hagiographa 97 marks his work as explanatory. Proverbs stands alone among the Targums. It is a strange mixture of Aramaic and Syriac. It is thought to have been made, not entirely from the Hebrew, but in large part from the Syriac version, for about one-third of it is almost identical with the Syriac version. (2) The Targums on the Megilloth ("Rolls," that is. Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesi- astes and Esther) are paraphrases rather than transla- tions of the Hebrew. They abound in citations of historical parallels, reasons are given for the occur- rence of certain events, words are philologically ex- plained, etc. Ecclesiastes, Esther, and Song of Songs almost touch the limits in paraphrastic free- dom. More than half of the so-called Targum of Esther contains legends about Solomon, the Queen of Sheba, etc. All these Targums were probably the work of different men. (3) There were no known Targums of Chronicles until after the issuance of the Polyglot Bibles. Two very imperfect texts have been discovered and edited. Of Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, no known Targums exist. 81. The Targums of the entire Old Testament preserve for us the earliest paraphrases and exposi- tions of that part of Holy Writ. They give us the Jewish rendering of that text into Aramaic, presum- ably at a time when its meaning was comparatively well-known. Where their renderings pass beyond paraphrase into comment we are to remember that 98 The Targums— Jewish Paraphrases the comments were by Jews who were sympathetic in language and thought with the Hebrew language, however fanciful now and then their interpretations may have been. These considerations give value to the Targums on the interpretative side, particularly of Jewish thought and life, of the Old Testament. Now on the text-critical side the value of these docu- ments is not great. But there is a value which even the editors of the Variorum Teachers' Bible recog- nized, as will be seen by consulting the " variant read- ings " at the bottom of their pages. However, we are still in need of critical editions of these old texts be- fore scholars can be sure of the accuracy of the text which is at their disposal. CHAPTER X OTHER EASTERN VERSIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 82. Christianity was not limited in its adherents to the peoples who bordered on the Mediterranean sea-coast. Many important races and tongues whose boundaries lay next the coast-peoples embraced the teachings of the Bible of Christians. Such adherency soon called for the Bible of the new truth, translated into the various native tongues of the believers. Local scholars soon arose to perform this important task, so that each people or race sooner or later possessed a copy of the Bible translated into its own tongue. These translations were usually made from the ver- sion of scriptures which had been introduced to each individual province or race. Their value to the peo- ple for whom they had been translated was, of course, very great ; but to us, of later times, it is only of com- parative importance. For we must estimate it on the answer to several questions, such as : Who was the translator ? How well equipped was he for that great work? From what version of the Bible did he trans- late ? How faithfully has he translated the text before him? Did he use more than 'one version as the basis of his translation? Did he use any undue liberty with the text before him? We can scarcely expect an an- swer to all these questions, but enough can usually be 99 loo Other Eastern Versions found to help us estimate, at least approximately, the value that we are to attach to these versions relative to the English Bible of to-day. 83. The Coptic Version: As soon as Egypt as a whole began to yield to the power of Christianity the country was filled with hermits and ecclesiastical offi- cials. Early in the fourth century Pachomius, the founder of monastic life, was converted, and estab- lished a monastery (322 A. D.) in Upper Egypt. The necessities of this monastic community called for a version of the scriptures in their native tongue, the Coptic. Scholars find five or six Coptic dialects in the remnants of ancient literatures. Scripture versions of Coptic are classified as follows: Sahidic, Fayyumic and Bohairic. The most important of these versions is the Sahidic, because of its greater age. It certainly reaches back to the sixth century, if not earlier, and had its origin in Upper Egypt. Its version of the book of Job is of especial interest, for it omits between three and four hundred lines or half verses that are supplied in Origen's Hexapla. Hence it is thought that the Sa- hidic version represents a pre-Origenistic text of the Septuagint, like the Old Latin. On the other hand, it is thought to be nearer the truth to regard the Sa- hidic Job as a translation of Origen's revised text of the Septuagint, with the omission of the second half of the verses under Origen's asterisk. There are sev- eral codices of Job, and some manuscripts that have value as aids in determining the Septuagint text. The Ethiopic Version loi The Bohairic version of the Old Testament prob- ably dates from the sixth century. It is thought to have been of Alexandrian origin, for that language at a later time was the ecclesiastical language of Alexan- dria. The larger part of its text, viz., the Penta- teuch, the Psalms, Proverbs and the Prophets, have been critically edited. This particular version is now used by the Coptic or Egyptian Christians, and is sometimes, though inaccurately, called the " Mem- phitic" version. The use of this version practically ceased in Lower Egypt after the Arab invasion. In fact, the Bohairic language yielded to the invaders, while the Sahidic was in use in Upper Egypt for sev- eral centuries later. The Fayyumic version pertains almost exclusively to the New Testament. 84. The Ethiopic Version : The existence of Chris- tianity in Abyssinia likewise produced a version of the Bible in the native tongue, the Ge'ez, or Ethiopic. Christianity in this country is thought to go back to the fourth century. But the current Ethiopic ver- sion cannot be traced back of the sixth or fifth. The translation was made from the Septuagint. The large collection of Ethiopic manuscripts in the Brit- ish Museum was acquired at the time of the Abys- sinian war in 1867. But these represent a late re- vision, made apparently from some Arabic or Coptic version, and even from the Plebrew, in the middle ages or later. We have the Bible of the Septuagint entire "except Maccabees in this version. In addition I02 Other Eastern Versions there are the Book of Enoch, Jubilees, 4 Esdras, Rest of the Words of Baruch, etc. There was no distinc- tion between canonical and non-canonical books of the Old Testament. The number of Old Testament books is usually 46, though there is some variation in the figures. Genesis-Kings, called the Octateuch, was edited by Dillmann (1853); Psalms by Ludolf (1701) ; Song of Songs by Nisselius (1656) ; Lamen- tations by Bachmann (1893). The Ethiopic version is usually a faithful translation of the Greek, but its critical value must await the discussion of other and more pressing versional questions. 85. The Gothic Version: The Goths of Dacia in Europe invaded Cappadocia in the third century. Among the captives carried away were some Chris- tians. Ulfilas was born in Dacia, of captive Christian parents, about 310 A. D. His sturdy, aggressive Christian character pushed him to the front, so that about 340 he was consecrated bishop either at Con- stantinople or Antioch. After maintaining his bish- opric in Dacia for seven years he was driven to Mcesia, the modern Servia and Bulgaria. In this country Ulfilas translated the Bible into the language of the Goths, the captors of his parents. He is sup- posed to have invented an alphabet before he could undertake the immense task of translating the Bible into the Gothic tongue. His work was certainly done about the middle of the fourth century, for he died by 383- A contemporary, Philostorgius, states that Ulfilas k H «w C rtv C1<0 •f'rfi CJTs A V «W: d> ?* fl> J?, : or /l yiaa»*: <« ^: /I -f*: «»^ Aon a. A 111 A 41 /J-.X j» X •11 ^ 6-. X ?i /^ — j"^':; — - LyciAN y • I ■A<~s, GEiJnGi. IN /I ;:;i-i 4^rT^ ^>''- fifii^ir. j -'.-r Slw^o^ Diagram showing sources in general of the minor Eastern Versions ^hapx) of the Old Testament. The Pentateuch (the Law)', the " Prophets " of the Jewish canonical division, the io6 Other Eastern Versions Psalter, Job, Ecclesiastes, Wisdom of Sirach, and Song of Songs were translated by diflferent persons from the Greek. The Book of Esther was translated from Hebrew; Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and such other books as are found in the Latin Bible, were translated from the Vulgate, just before the date of the Gennadius Codex of 1499. This version, when critically edited, will be useful in ascertaining the readings of the Greek of the original text of such as were translated from the Greek, and of the Vulgate where that was the basis of a translation, and of the Hebrew of the Book of Esther. 88. The Armenian Version served the purpose of supplying with the Bible the Christian communities of Asia Minor. An Armenian church is mentioned in the third century. The Armenians seem to have been evangelized by Syrian Christians. Their Bible was a translation at the close of the fourth and beginning of the fifth century, as maintained by F. C. Cony- beare, from the Septuagint. But its revision and cor- rection seem to have been made by the use of the Syriac and Hebrew texts. It is noticeable that the chapters and verses of Jeremiah are arranged, not as in the Septuagint, but as in the Syriac and Hebrew. Where the Syriac and Hebrew differ, it usually fol- lows the Hebrew. Such composite character of the Armenian Version is thought to be due to the use of Origen's Hexaplar text, whose symbols now and then seem to find place, in the addition from other ver- sions, in Armenian manuscripts. The Armenian Version 107 Conybeare says that the Armenian version is one of the most beautiful and accurate of all the versions. Its language is so closely allied, in grammar, syntax and idioms, to the Greek that its renderings very faithfully transmit the meaning of the original text. The Armenian version contains the books of the Septuagint in the same order up to i and 2 Esdras (where the latter is Ezra in the Greek) ; Nehemiah (called 3 Esdras in the margin), Esther, Judith, Tobit, I, 2 and 3 Maccabees, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes^ Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, Job, Isaiah, the twelve Prophets, Jeremiah, Baruch, Lamentations, Death of Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel and Death of Ezekiel. The following additional apocryphal books are found in the manuscripts : the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, the History of Joseph and his wife Asenath; and the Hymn of Asenath. These* latter are not found in the printed editions of the Armenian Bible, nor are they in all manuscripts. There are also some further irregularities in the arrange- ment of these various books. Each Old Testament book has a preface containing an introduction and summary of contents. In addition to the usual pref- ace some manuscripts have a special introduction, as a passage from David the Philosopher, from Athan- asius, from Epiphanius of Cyprus. Daniel is a trans- lation of Theodotion's version as found in the Sep- tuagint (§50). Printed editions of the Armenian Bible appeared first at Amsterdam in 1666; in Venice in 1733. The io8 Other Eastern Versions first critical edition appeared in Venice in 1805, edited by Zohrab, as a result of a collation of several manu- scripts. A later edition appeared in Venice in i860. 89. When the Arab invasion of Syria and Egypt had practically supplanted the native tongues by the Arabic, the Christians of these regions began to require and to secure the Bible in Arabic. Arabic versions of the Old Testament are based on several originals, Greek, Syriac, Hebrew and Samaritan. There are many manuscripts of various values, but scarcely utilized as yet for critical purposes. The whole Old Testament in Arabic appeared in the Paris Polyglot, and with slight variations in Walton's Poly- glot. The Pentateuch was the translation of Sa'adyai the Ga'on, a learned rabbi of the Fayyum, in Upper Egypt, made directly from the Hebrew ; Joshua was also translated from the Hebrew; Judges, Sam- uel, Kings, Chronicles and Job were made from the Peshitta ; the Prophets, Psalms and Proverbs were translated from the Septuagint. This strange mix- up was found by the editors of the Polyglot in an Egyptian manuscript of the sixteenth century. There are several manuscripts of the above trans- lations, which are available for students. An Arabic translation of the Coptic version of the Septuagint is extant. There are also several manuscripts of an Arabic translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch. But the most interesting for textual study is the Arabic translation direct from the Hebrew. This portion of the Arabic OH Testament, however, agrees so The Arabic Versions 109 thoroughly with the Hebrew that its variations are of slight textual value. Several individual portions of the Old Testament have appeared during the last three centuries, but much remains to be done to ascer- tain the real value of this version for the textual study of the Bible. CHAPTER XI OLD TESTAMENT MATERIAL SUMMED UP 90. In the preceding eight chapters (III-X) a bird's-eye view has been given of all the principal versions of the Old Testament except those in early English and the English language. We have seen that they stretch over a large area and have various values. Some are translations direct from the He- brew, and thus bring us within one step of that early sacred text; others are translations of translations, and consequently are two steps distant from the He- brew. If we should confine our attention only to translations direct from the Hebrew, our discussion would be either too brief or too technical for inter- esting reading. Such a restriction would rule out all early English versions, even down to Tyndale's work. Though a translation of a translation may not be of great importance, still its evidence is valuable when we are seeking the true reading of a text whose orig- inal is irrecoverably lost, as is the Hebrew of the Old Testament. Therefore we have included in these chapters a brief description of several versions that are rarely treated in a popular work. These versions were prepared for peoples whose homes were on the outer borders of the nations where Christianity first made large conquests. The influence of such ver- Relation of Hebrew to Versions iii sions on the English Bible may be slight, but they are nevertheless worth our consideration. Such ar^ the Coptic, Ethiopic, Gothic, Georgian, Slavonic, Ar- menian and Arabic. 91. The true relations of these versions may be best represented by the accompanying chart. Diagram showing general relations of the AncientVersions to the Hebrew ijiHARxi) MEonew I I ,1 ■ ■■ - — -^ T' 1 .**-' ^ ^ pk. .'• 1 ^,>?-. ^ K. ^% .^-, -A ,-" ^^^ I .^-v-^ V .'• .™„,:?*: ^. X 1 -V \ ; ^t ._ 1 ,. 1 , " f < 1 1 i p I I i ^ l! 92. The central shaft of the chart is the Hebrew text, from which several of the greatest versions of the Bible have been translated directly. This He- brew text itself has been multiplied by the same falli- 1 1 2 Old Testament Material Summed Up ble means as all other books of ancient times, by scribes and copyists, who not only repeated the mis- takes of their predecessors, but added thereto their own errors. Such repetition of errors through cen- turies without a check of any kind would result in a very corrupt text, for the tendency of errors to mul- tiply is evident in every ancient manuscript whose history we can trace. Now the best kind of checks on errors, and the best means of discovering them after they are made are the several ancient versions that were a copy of, or were translated directly from, the original Hebrew or Massoretic text as it existed in those days. We then have evidence that is valuable as to what the Hebrew text was at the times when these several translations were made from it. The degree of that value is, of course, dependent on the purity of the text that we possess of each several translation. For example, the Septuagint was translated directly from the Hebrew in the third and second centuries B. C. ; if our best text of the Septuagint is an exact repro- duction of the first translation from the Hebrew it can practically settle what the Hebrew text was at that time. If the Septuagint text is not pure, then the scholar's task is plain. By a study of ^every avail- able manuscript of the Septuagint, and of all the translations made directly from it, he must carefully weigh the evidence and as approximately as possible determine what that Septuagint original was. This is precisely what must be done for every trans- The Septuagint 113 lation from the Hebrew, before we may be sure that we are making any real progress in finding out the state of the Hebrew text when such translation was made. The work requires long and patient study and research if it avails for the best results in Bible study. 93. The Samaritan Pentateuch (Chapter IV) is a version of, but not a translation from, the Hebrew. It was doubtless a copy of the Hebrew text of the fifth century B. C, written in old characters. When it broke relations with the text preserved among the Hebrews it soon began to bear marks of its independ- ence. It contains the Pentateuch only, and its varia- tions from the Hebrew are enough to stamp it as the Bible of the Samaritans. These variations, as we have already seen, are attributable to various causes. Those which have the most interest for Bible stu- dents are such as presumably preserve a better text than our present Hebrew itself. These are not many, but they are useful. The agreement of some of these variations with those of the Septuagint, and of the other Greek versions, is confirmatory both of the correctness of its own readings and of the ver- sions with which it agrees. The fact that this is the earliest text of the Bible independent of the Hebrew makes it of interest to every one who not only visits Nablus, the home of a remnant of the ancient Sa- maritans, but delights in a study of every scrap of testimony to the early text of the Pentateuch. 94. The Septuagint is the first ancient translation made directly from the Hebrew of the Old Testa- 1 14 Old Testament Material Summed Up ment. It was made at Alexandria under the liberal- izing influence of Greek thought and Greek civiliza- tion. It was made from the Hebrew text that was current in those days (about 280-130 B. C), by men who were reasonably famihar with both languages. But their style of Greek and their inability to render certain expressions into an idiomatic Greek show that the translators were probably Alexandrian or Egyp- tian Jews. We must not forget, too, that the Hebrew at that time was probably not separated into words, nor was it provided with vowel points. These facts allowed the translators greater liberties in their use of the text, and consequently afiforded a larger liabil- ity to produce a version that should vary from the next translator's rendering of the Hebrew. Now, we must remember that the Septuagint started at this time on a course of its own. It was copied and re- copied over and over again during the succeeding centuries, by scribes of varying intelligence. Errors were made, re-made, and multiplied, as in the case of the Hebrew text. Every such error in either case carried the two texts farther and farther from each other. Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, rather than attempt to harmonize the two versions, pro- duced new translations into the Greek. Origen, how- ever, undertook the colossal task of collecting into one work the Hebrew, the three Greek versions named above, and the Septuagint; the last he thor- oughly revised on the basis of the Hebrew text. Even in his day the variations between the two texts The Vulgate 1 1 5 were many. When we consider that the Hebrew and Greek texts used by Origen were divergences from the same original text in the second or third century B. C, we begin to appreciate how rapidly the errors of the scribes must have multiplied. After Origen's time the Septuagint was several times revised in order to make it represent more faithfully the Hebrew text of the day. These re- visions were made on the basis of the best texts avail- able to the revisers. Scholars at the present time are busying them- selves about finding from all the Greek versions and parts of versions extant the true reading of the Sep- tuagint in Origen's time, in the first century, and at such other times as its text can be fixed. The best text to-day, that of Swete, is the result of a compre- hensive study of all the sources. A comparison with the Massoretic Hebrew will give us many readings, as seen in the margin of the Revised Version, that are preferable to those of the Hebrew text. 95. Jerome was a wise scholar. He soon saw that revisions of the Old Latin texts would be endless. And so he plunged into a most thorough study of the Hebrew original ; and out of it produced the classical Latin version of the Old Testament (390-404 A. D.). Though ridiculed and condemned by many leaders in the church, he pressed on, smarting under their lashes, until the work was done. His translations were made from Hebrew manuscripts current in Pal- estine in his day. It is probable that they had been ii6 Old Testament Material Summed Up guarded by one of the great Jewish schools in exist- ence at that time, and hence may have been free from many of the errors found in manuscripts of other countries. At any rate, Jerome's work furnishes us a Latin version of the Hebrew text of his day, prob- ably of the oldest and best manuscript that he could command. His translation then gives us a key to the condition of the Hebrew text at the beginning of the fifth century A. D. But before we can use Jerome's key we must ascertain as nearly as possible the very Latin text into which Jerome translated the Hebrew. To do this it is necessary to collect and compare all the Latin manuscripts extant, the Latin quotations of the church fathers, the modifications made in Jerome's text in later times, and any trans- lations of that text made during the centuries. Jerome's original Latin rendering has not yet been discovered. Scholars, however, are making progress, and the best Vulgate text is of some value, as seen in the marginal readings of the Revised Version. 96. The Syriac is closely akin to the Hebrew. When a Syrian translated the Old Testament into Syriac his task was not any greater than that of trans- lating a German document into Dutch. We should then expect to find the Syriac a good representative of faithfulness to the original Hebrew. To a certain extent we are not disappointed. But another ele- ment enters into the work that somewhat discounts what ought to be a valuable aid. The Syrians were so close to the Hebrews in modes of thought and ex- ffl^fla-Crc.lrr.cllintCrft.Iaruia. CrjDflj.E-.fiifro. MitT'ii.i ,.■,(,■. ti itnfMtfa 'ccliuiiVlcfiS . "Terr; K; amcni cOT«o«»«wa> 'ti J t'lju rij s";* V JO 1 .1 r^ii ten c Itc era 11 r"l'i] e'"hci c '':ibyiri;''ar(wruf'Jti T'..^j[.»i.; "ftrehjiiii'riipci- occoM iKMIiJ. rl II '.nlIL^(.'t)l^■lr.Jl'cl^lli, a.^!..,«.^l' • r-u t L-CCOtC.Vtf^-V-XJCCCOW "ilLV.'EEflCTlc'luJt.'t-t vi.Iit'Jdii'Iiiccm cOKCo n: CI i^m '.^c'rct'boiu.-WdniiJir iM,>.-ovnia a»J»M.lKl»\K XW.V.VXF ''tei.-iTi'"3 ■'rcnebrii: 'lo ^.W1.''«1T. fmBmMiW U.tV'-'t«" 'iicttciii . arovTOMJiTCU """ '^■' •^.'.'tl;]■.^p;■l^■^■ff^c^J; jTiuJCJiiTiJ'.liK n* ' ttio In IJjaJftflHv'; ^ .ii'?-'™u Oi^ia- ' ™aalt K rla. d BiJu Bra*;i^ tmd. n oini [ "■3if-lct.M,a-r Vtf 'mniirtlc'ic ' Dixit mo'.i- ■Gin^r,-.ra!! 'N Tob't'i-hfuiit I.TC mi'rniUM ■is t-Jl l'4i.M!'.i-cir.-rtej _irrrl.t /jrff ,u. » r«aaaa,u hey f ^/fc»:''f^'nlVi('';.(i! " i."Et^hiLi'tcrr.Vhcf UaJuif.-ElijnipcniifrT& rjdmi rruaijii , mi tuwBii(rfj:A7jj jrmisflifl 'drrj. ct j wftf.. 2>3n/la.£bar. * ^ ' ris'a''7ps'>c'y2p.'-\i's-i 1 ' i >V^■■V■)^;■^l">r^::A^J■^^^r,>n' *n"n''x''s"'|?'V''p'*,-i-i'' ;."p-i^' * > > ''s 'D"^u;'i>n:'ii;''0"3"i'n,o''' *i.''i r3'3U.V.S*ir-r-ps-S'N 'ClK >'^■^i:■:,■'|'v^',^^u■D'^ -I'i'j'"''"/ ■JiiKrf'xbJl'. it' m n.^ II rirrn jnintii id innl MM^ Ij^.^irL-dlBcaitl -r .l.iuJu 4 (TJTil CublcT r n ''^hi.,«_ t'l-^'Y-i ait*r *">"-»■ ikM i Y*'"''^'' "v't I rfci "III Y "'^"^ AiiTw^TnttAci [■i >^ Codex Vaticanus (E) (gg izo, 121). Fourth Century Uncial Manuscripts 137 This method of writing gave to subsequent scribes and copyists considerable liberty as to the divisions of words and sentences. In this very quotation there happens to be a case of this kind. In the margin pf the Revised Version we find : " Or, was not anything made. That which hath been made was life in him; and the life, &c." The text's reading puts the period after "that hath been made." This illustrates how the copyist, as soon as he should begin to depart from this endless-chain method of writing, could, by sepa- rating his words at different places, produce a different sense from the original. Just this thing occurred in numerous places in the New Testament, and it was perpetuated until we have a multitude of variant read- ings collated from the different groups of manuscripts. Another class of variants consisted of expansions of the text in order to explain certain events mentioned ; particularly is this frequent in the Gospels and the Acts. Again, it is evident that the same kinds of errors already enumerated in the Hebrew Old Testament (Chapter III) were operative in producing variant readings for the Greek manuscripts. Different schools of believers, located in different sections of the Chris- tian world, likewise perpetuated manuscripts that be- came tinged by their marginal notes which contained either their doctrinal tenets, their corrections or their deliberate alterations. These items crept into the text, and thus spread the error. The amount of such doctrinal variation, however, was relatively small. 138 Writing and Manuscripts in General These and other circumstances fostered a tendency to multiply variants, and thus complicate the prob- lem of restoring the original text. III. No manuscript earlier than the ninth century carries a date. The time of the writing of any par- ticular undated document is determined in one or more of several ways. Some of the means of fixing the date are (i) the material on which a document is written, (2) the form of the letters, (3) the style of writing, (4) the use or absence of the Ammonian sections of the Gospels, (5) the Eusebian references to the sections of Ammonius, after 340 A. D. (the year of Eusebius' death), (6) the system of Euthalius in the Acts and Epistles. Apparently the earliest extant attempt in Greek manuscripts to break up the text into paragraphs is found in the Vatican manuscript. Tatian, however, in his Diatessaron seems to have divided the Gospels into larger sections or " titles," to whose numerical designation was appended a summary of contents, either at the beginning of the Gospel or at the top or bottom of the pages or both. Ammonius of Alexandria, about 220 A. D., adopted a novel method of harmonizing the Gospels. He took Matthew as his standard, and marked off therein 335 sections ; in Mark he noted 236; in Luke 342, and in John 232. These sections were marked by Greek letters with a fixed numerical value. To make prac- tical his plan, ten lists were made, to which another letter written under the designation of the section Cursive Manuscripts 139 referred. In these lists all the parallel passages were classified. The first list contained all the passages common to the four Gospels ; the second, those com- mon to the first three of them; the third, those com- mon to Matthew, Luke and John; the fourth, those common to Matthew, Mark and John ; the fifth to the ninth lists, those common to different twos; and the tenth, those found in one only. Such designations introduced into manuscripts set one stake for the age of that manuscript. Eusebius adopted certain modifications of the Am- monian method. The use of these devices in a manu- script would place its production not earlier than the date of Eusebius' death (340 A. D.). In 458 A. D. Euthalius of Alexandria introduced into Acts and the Pauline and General epistles certain divisions which he called stichoi. These were indicated by a mark set at every fiftieth line. Though they were arbi- trary divisions they served as guides and checks for the copyist. The same term stichoi was later applied to another division, called also comma or colon, which was made according to the sense. These devices, however, were not universally adopted, nor are they present in any of our modern Bibles. Their use, however, for a considerable time, supplies us with a useful key for ascertaining the date of some of the uncial manuscripts. Nestle catalogued 127 such manuscripts in 1901. 112. The cursive manuscripts were produced from the ninth to the sixteenth century. They number 140 Writing and Manuscripts in General thousands, every great library possessing one or more, and copies being found even in some small public libra- ries. Some of these are only second in value to the uncials, but many of them are relatively unim- portant. They seem to have been written in great numbers by the monks in the middle ages. Every monastery, and there were hundreds of them, had its scribe or scribes, whose chief business was the copy- ing of the sacred Scriptures. So many of these copies have been carefully preserved that we have on our catalogues 3,702 (Nestle in 1901). Only a small pro- portion of them has been fully collated. They are designated by numerals in distinction from the capital letters that mark uncials. Some of the most valuable of these cursives will be indicated in a subsequent chapter. The accompanying cut is from the first page of a beautiful manuscript of the fifteenth century, now preserved in the library of the University of Chicago. wm ; m ^ §^fm^'^'^'""^^>JW^^^w^. OU-a ■ v^go ou-p oJOiij • QLLLOttafU ^ _ yn c^pj .5\i^ voVcxcrrnr-4n \prv|-<.-- 1< ^,vVl•|IOO^l^^M>-.vp-,^ f r.v<>-.-..: oi'OY'.ir' re i-:L')Cvic>or J I.) K-ivitiv ■rt.'ii>>H>n«^vvioY>-(VOV<.>iMtvni'i> Oy.. ,.^K.Np.,vOY.. p.. ...,,., lY"i">Yt>V^'v»<«.r PO(-VYf».lHKVio>.0» in fUto-,-v ^■■IIH? r'>>>>-Y'"tVyi.ll^,*.I.IC[ K>'l I <.",«ixivoYT.:<.rM4;t t kvhik-.u-si... OVtieC n-l*.li-i tOf I I I l'U>l<<:-| IM . Kvioiv;v.^onirc'tOYtot.; i iivi)-. fr-i vi-oi, ici)ci.-o>-n\v.. ^*-m><; I "ni-or i-i-(.iiv' >i>'v-,i . )-, f ?" '"'^"■'' ' '-"'^'"^Vi^'YC'-r .11 ,XM,i.i,.-*-- o.., ......-? •■'^1 t.*(x>ri '(^' 'p ^ ^'r.' "f .lUlti>. -^^i' M vrj tvt n:v]'" ><• 'I'.VOt. H J-Vl lOCl V I <>.<.> VI t t ti v.v,-,v.-| l^.l>^.^<.;T i vWi i vdVc t^vc^Y'"' "CO II M I r>-f-vii. t iMwn; ^.jkO v-y- 1 '(.'Y^Y 'tin C.n fMviic>cn3 I M--iVV(.m>oil KOYO.VTC.Virxr 'i\!Ci liMJf r-\OK^i:KtL>iiL-f-Je'^i"i O-,- tX.H.?i^i:-l'i r.i<,ii I vvr-Jtu: ivxtou^ X VV Vk -in;ooi II VuX; VM .vxgn(^' v<.-:c. :ji::;T,' Kfl KICM— '? t HIJ ov>-S (VrJ ClYK'/'j KHJt Jt»>rJCf~^ -tWiv. k,V' ll VI 1 1 I l-y-fj K"^ 1 1 (1 f 7 T^ OVIW , «.- ■lie i.;TXCi-t: ll'( I.Vt.V.V ' fO.-N -^'ivoo-^-"/ 1- t r-il d X«;^ K tivvK^f.vrn.:-! 1%V-, 1 I W A.IVV J- C «!-> VV' illM. V( •-.- •~; 1 o>-» Kv vvfn V. ..i-v IV.vf. ".^ > 1 • 1 :v 1 1- (- * 1^ Codex Alexandrinus (A). Fifth Century (^g ii8-iig) I John 5 : 9 to 2 John 13 Codex Alexandrinus {A) — Contents 149 ment and the New Testament, except the following passages, which are lost : Matthew i : i to 25 : 6 ; John 6: 50 to 8: 52, and 2 Corinthians 4: 13 to 12: 6. It contains also at the end the Greek Epistle of Clement of Rome, of which one leaf is lost, and a fragment only of the second Epistle. The New Testament portion of this codex was published in uncial type by C. G. Woide (London, 1786), and by B. H. Cowper in common Greek type (London, i860). The trustees of the British Mu- seum issued the whole manuscript in a magnificent photographic facsimile in 1879-1883, under the edi- torial oversight of Sir E. Maunde Thompson, prin- cipal librarian of the Museum. This was the first uncial manuscript that was used by biblical scholars. It stands about third or fourth in importance among the great uncials. In the Gos- pels it is thought to occupy a peculiar position, that of a revised text that was most circulated in the fourth century, whose readings are more in agree- ment with the Authorized than the Revised Version. In the remainder of the New Testament it stands next to the Sinaitic and Vatican codices, except in the case of the Apocalypse, where it is pre-eminent. It is provided with the Eusebian sections (§111), but not with those of Euthalius, hence it is located before the middle of the fifth century. Its agree- ment with the Vulgate in several respects led Dr. Hort to infer that Jerome made considerable use of a text related to A. 150 Great New Testament Manuscripts 120. Codex Vaticanus (B) is a manuscript of the Greek Bible now preserved in the Vatican Library at Rome. It was brought to Rome by Pope Nicholas V in 1448. It was entered on the first catalogue of the Vatican Library in 1475. Its earlier history is mere conjecture. Its real character and value were unknown for centuries because it was not ac- cessible to scholars. The Roman church guarded it so closely that no Protestant scholar of ability was allowed to study it for any adequate length of time until the middle of the nineteenth century. This codex (B) was first made known in 1533, when Sep- ulveda called the attention of Erasmus to it. In 1669, Bartolocci, librarian of the Vatican, made a collection of some of its variant readings, which re- mained unpublished. Abbate Mico collated it for Richard Bentley in 1720 (published in 1799) ; and Andrew Birch, of Copenhagen, in 1781 (published in 1788, 1798, 1801). Napoleon took this treasure to Paris, where Hug carefully examined it in i8og, and was the first to make known its great value and supreme importance (1810). In 1815, it was restored to Rome, and became practically inaccessible to scholars. Tischendorf in 1843, after several months' delay, was permitted to look at it for six hours. In 1844, de Muralt was allowed nine hours to examine it. In 1845, the English scholar Tregelles, even with Car- dinal Wiseman's introduction, was not allowed to copy a word. His pockets were searched and all writing material taken from him. If he looked too intently Codex Vaticanus (B) — Contents 151 at any passage the two attendants would snatch the volume from him. Other scholars who had traveled far, and were thoroughly competent to estimate its value, suffered the same disappointments in their efforts to examine it. In the meantime. Cardinal Angelo Mai printed (Rome, 1828-38) this manuscript, but it was not published until 1857 (in five volumes). The inac- curacies of the edition discounted its value from the first. In 1866, Tischendorf made a third attempt to see it, this time applying for leave to edit the docu- ment. He secured permission to study it under the supervision of C. Vercellone, for three hours a day. By the end of the eighth day he had, contrary to the conditions on which he was to use the manuscript, copied out bodily twenty pages. His permission was revoked, but upon entreaty he was given six more days. As a consequence of this opportunity, Tischendorf was able, in 1867, to publish, up to that time, the best edition of the text. Vercellone and his successors published a very complete edition in six folio volumes (Rome, 1868-81). But the best edition of all was a photographic facsimile of the entire work, issued in 1889-90, by which the manuscript itself is now made accessible to the scholars of the world. 121. Codex Vaticanus (B) was written in uncials on fine vellum, of three columns (of forty-two lines each) to a page 10 inches wide by ioj4 inches high. The character of the writing is plain and simple, such as leads scholars to locate this manuscript in the first 1 5 2 Great New Testament Manuscripts half of the fourth century. It contains no enlarged letters, no pauses, no divisions into chapters or sec- tions. Tischendorf thought that the scribe of the New Testament was the same one who wrote a part of Codex Sinaiticus. This supposed identity of one of the scribes is evidence of contemporary character. There are corrections by several hands, some of which are of real value. This codex originally contained the whole Greek Bible. In its present state, after all the ravages of time and use, it lacks Genesis i : i to 46 : 28 ; Psalms 106-138; all of Hebrews following chapter 9:4; the Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse. But there are some marked differences between the two great manuscripts (S and B), just described. These consist in the character of the corrections found in the manuscript and the notable difference in the order of the books of the New Testament (in Codex Sinaiticus, Paul's Epistles precede the Acts, and Hebrews is found between 2 Thessalonians and I Timothy ; in Codex Vaticanus the Catholic Epistles are between the Acts and Paul's Epistles, and the Hebrews precedes the Pastoral Epistles). Most New Testament textual critics agree that B is, upon the whole, the best and oldest of the known manuscripts, but it must not be given absolute au- thority over all others. Westcott and Hort made large use of it in their text of the New Testament. In fact, both the Sinaitic and the Vatican c6dices until very recent times have not been accorded their full Codex Ephrcem {C) 1 5 3 meed of authority. The Alexandrian codex had so long held the field almost alone, that only the strong- est of arguments could win for these new documents in the field of New Testament criticism their proper places. B gives us, as does S, "the simplest, short- est and concisest text." The charge that many im- portant words are omitted is imaginary, say West- cott and Hort (p. 557). If B and S agree there is usually strong evidence for the genuineness of a read- ing; if it is supported by ante-Nicene testimony it is conclusive. Such concurrent testimony gives us the most ancient readings, that may be traced to within a century of the time when the original autographs were penned. 122. Codex Ephrsemi Syri (C), or Codex Ephrsem, is found in the National Library in Paris. It was brought to Europe by Johannes Lascaris. At his death in Rome, in 1535, this codex, with his whole library, was purchased by Pietro Strozzi. The Med- ici family later bought it to add to their treasures. Catharine de Medici carried it with her to Paris in the first half of the sixteenth century, that she might read in it, as she could, the sermons of St. Ephrsem. This codex is a palimpsest (that is, " rubbed off again"). Its original writing had been partly rubbed off, and over it had been written the sermons of Ephraem. Near the end of the seventeenth century Peter Allix, a student in the Royal Library, thought he could see traces of a text underneath the sermons of Ephraem. Careful investigation proved the truth 1 54 Great New Testament Manuscripts of his discovery. A few pages were made out and used in Mill's Greek Testament (1710). But not until 1834 was any good progress made in reading the underlying text. The application of specially prepared acid brought it out more clearly. But Tischendorf (1840-41) was the first to read in a suc- cessful manner the basal text. In 1842, he published his results, having read almost every word, and even having discovered the notes of several correctors of the text. Codex Ephrsem is a manuscript of the Greek Bible of the fifth century almost entirely erased by some scribe, probably because of the scarcity of vellum, and the small regard for this copy of the Bible, and he had written over it somewhere about the twelfth century, the works of the Syrian father, Ephraem. It is written in medium-sized uncials on pages gj^^ inches wide by 1234 inches high, one wide column to the page. The original manuscript presumably carried the entire Greek Bible. But its present con- tents preserve only sixty-four leaves of the Old Tes- tament, and 145 out of an original 238 of the New. Parts of every New Testament book are found except 2 Thessalonians and 2 John. The "Eusebian sec- tions " and the division into chapters appear in the Gospels, but in no other books. Scholars generally locate the writing of this manuscript in the fifth cen- tury. As an aid to the textual study of the New Testament this codex is very valuable. Dr. Scriv- ener set it about " midway between A and B, some- ^ •*^»<^ .^- -Ma 3 ^ m OH 1' ' 1 4) M u « J) Jj so? U'2 Codex Bezeg {D) 155 what inclining to the latter." It does not belong to any one of the great families of texts, but rather par- takes of the peculiarities of several of them. Ref- erence to the Variorum Teachers' Bible shows how frequently textual critics make use of its readings as of real textual value. 123. Codex Bezse (D) is now in the library of the University at Cambridge. Theodore Beza, the disciple and friend of Calvin, procured it from the monastery of St. Irenseus at Lyons, in 1562, but made little use of it because of its wide variations from other manuscripts. Beza presented it to the Univer- sity of Cambridge in 1581. It was first published in facsimile type in 1793 (Cambridge) by Kipling, in two folio volumes. Dr. Scrivener issued it in common type with full introduction and critical notes in 1864. This codex dates from the fifth or sixth century, and was written probably in Prance (Gaul). Its pages are eight inches wide by ten inches high. It carries a single wide column of Greek on the left- hand page, and facing it on the right hand a column of Latin. This is the oldest known manuscript on which two languages are found. The script of the two tongues is very similar, both being in large uncials. The lines are of uneven length, because of an attempt to make each line conclude a sentence, phrase or clause. Several correctors have left their notes on this manuscript, some of whom were nearly contemporary with the time of the production of the manuscript itself. 156 Great New Testament Manuscripts The presence of the Latin text on this codex is evidence to scholars that this manuscript was written in western Europe, where Latin was the ruHng tongue. Indeed, such a manuscript would have been of little use in the East. But what relation do these texts bear to each other? Is the Greek a translation of the Latin, or vice versa ? Or are they independent texts? Or was one modified to suit the other? Opinions are divided on these points. Dr. Scrivener and most modern scholars have held that the Latin was modified to suit the Greek ; but Professor Harris now maintains that the Greek has been changed to suit the Latin, and therefore has slight value in Greek textual work. Its text is then of a peculiar kind. It often agrees with the Old Latin and Syriac versions, in that it has some bold additions, modifi- cations and interpolations. Dr. Hort says (Vol. 2, p. 149) : " At all events, when every allowance has been made for possible individual license, the text of D presents a truer image of the form in which the Gospels and Acts were most widely read in the third and probably a great part of the second century than any other extant Greek manuscript." 124. There are still more than one hundred uncial manuscripts, of secondary importance, dating from the fifth to the ninth and tenth centuries. These are mostly defective and fragmentary. No one of them is thought to have formed part of a complete Greek Bible, and only six of them contain more than one of the groups of New Testament books, if the Acts Other New Testament Manuscripts 157 and the Apocalypse be reckoned as two groups, — as held by the majority of New Testament scholars. The cursive manuscripts, dating from the ninth to the fifteenth century, form a great collection. About thirty of them contain the whole New Testament. There are more than 600 cursives of the Gospels; more than 200 of the Acts and the Catholic Epistles ; about 300 of the Pauline Epistles; and about 100 of the Apocalypse, A full catalogue both of uncials and cursives is found in Mitchell's Critical Handbook of the New Testament (1896) ; and a brief description by Dr. Ezra Abbott of many of the most important may be consulted in Schaff's Religious Encyclopaedia (Vol. i) ; and a more detailed and critical estimate in C. R. Gregory, Prolegomena to the eighth edition of Tischendorf's Greek Testament, published more recently in a revised edition in German. Prof. H. von Soden, of Berlin, has issued the first part of an elaborate work entitled, "Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments," which gives a fresh and complete sur- vey of the material of New Testament text criticism. CHAPTER XV THE OLD LATIN AND THE VULGATE 125. The last three chapters have treated the sub- ject of the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament as the principal bases of our present day Greek Testa-» ment. These do not exhaust our sources, as we have already seen in the various references to the church fathers. Very early in the history of the Christian church the New Testament was translated into the tongues of the peoples who inhabited and bordered on the Greek-speaking world. As rapidly as Christianity pushed into these outer regions, the gospel had to be presented in the language of its converts. To do this most effectively it was translated from the Greek into the languages of several of the most influential peoples. These several versions or translations furnish us only indirect evidence as to the readings of the orig- inal text. But the fact that some of them were made in the second century, almost two centuries back of the oldest Greek New Testament manuscript, gives them added value. They therefore stood nearly two hundred years closer to the autographs than Codex Vaticanus, our oldest manuscript, and were made, in fact, no more than a century, and perhaps a genera- tion, after the penning of the latest New Testament 158 Old Latin Texts 159 books. In order, then, to make proper use of them in textual work, one must re-translate them into Greek, to see what the basis of their translation was. But difficulty faces the scholar who attempts this kind of work. He must remember that these ver- sions have been subject to the same kind of scribal errors and corruptions as those found in Greek and all other manuscripts. If now we had the first trans- lation of each separate version from the Greek we should have a prize for determining the original Greek from which the translation was made. But we have neither this nor any manuscript of any of the versions reaching back of the fourth century. Of several of the versions there is not as yet any reliable critical edition. Scholars must either make scant use of what we have, or at great pains produce a text that gives us a consensus of the best readings of all the best manuscripts. The most valuable of the versions of the New Tes- tament are the Latin, the Syriac, the Coptic, the Ethi- opic, the Gothic and the Armenian. 126. The Latin Bibles of the Old Testament were discussed somewhat in detail in Chapter VII. We observed there that the Old Latin was a translation, for the Old Testament, from the Septuagint, while for the New it was made directly from the original Greek. Of the Old Testament, the Old Latin text exists only in fragments, but in the New Testament the text is substantially complete. The Vulgate of the New Testament is a revision of the Old Latin 1 60 The Old Latin and the Vulgate that was made by Jerome, one of the greatest bibHcal scholars of the early church, who did his work near the close of the fourth century. From quotations in the writings of the Latin church fathers, such as Tertullian, Cyprian, Lucifer of Cagliari, Hilary of Poitiers, Ambrose, Jerome, Ru- finus, Augustine and Pelagius, the Old Latin New Testament can be almost entirely recovered.. The prevalence of this version in the second century is unquestioned. It was doubtless modified and often corrected to bring it into harmony with some of the variant readings of the Greek manuscripts found in the different provinces and dependencies of the Roman Empire. It was just these wide divergencies that led to the revision of the Old Latin version by Jerome in the latter part of the fourth century. Thus scholars find three groups of the Old Latin texts: (i) African, or N. African; (2) European; and (3) Italian. The history of the origin or growth of these dififer- ent families of texts is but imperfectly known. They are classified and arranged largely on the basis of the quotations of the fathers. 127. As the Vulgate superseded the Old Latin versions, the latter lost their authority in the Church. As a consequence the manuscripts of these versions fell into disuse, and in course of time largely vanished from sight. But there are about forty manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts of the Old Latin New Testament extant to-day. Some of them are so frag- Old Latin Gospels i6i mentary as almost to be counted out. Of the Gos- pels there are no more than twenty-eight, fragments and all; of the Acts, seven; of the Catholic Epistles, five ; of the Pauline Epistles, nine, and of the Apoca- lypse, three. Manuscripts of the Old Latin text are indicated by small Roman letters of the Latin alpha- bet, a, b, c, etc. Some of the most notable of these manuscripts are : Codex Vercellensis (a), which contains the Gospels, with lacunae, or gaps, in the Western order; that is, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. It is written in silver letters, two columns to a page, on fine vellum. It is supposed to have been written by Eusebius, bishop of VercelH, about 365 A. D., and is thus equal in age to the Greek New Testament manuscripts. It is now in the cathedral of Vercelli, Italy. Codex Veronensis (b), contains, with some' lacunas, the Gospels, and belongs to the fourth or fifth cen- tury. It is of great value, and is preserved in Verona, Italy. Codex Colbertinus (c), contains the Gospels in Old Latin, and the rest of the New Testament in the Vulgate. It was written in the eleventh or twelfth century in Languedoc, where the Old Latin was used down to a late period in history. It is a valuable doc- ument, and is preserved in Paris. Codex Bezse (d), compare §123. Codex Brixianus (f), contains the Gospels, with a few lacunas. It seems to be an Italian text. It dates from the sixth century, and is now at Brescia. 1 62 The Old Latin and the Vulgate Codex Palatinus (e), a mere fragment, but African in type, of the fourth or fifth century. It is now in Vienna. Codex Bobiensis (k), a fifth or sixth century form of the African text. This and the preceding text(e) were pronounced by Tischendorf to have remarkable vakie. The manuscripts of the Gospels mentioned above and others in the list extant can be classified under the three texts already mentioned, viz. : the African, European and Italian; some, however, are so mixed as to be indeterminate. 128. The Acts is represented by Codex Bezae (d) (§123) ; by the Latin text of the bilingual Codex Laudianus (e), which has the Latin text on the left and the Greek. on the right-hand page, the reverse of Codex Bezas. It is written in large uncials in lines of uneven length, some of them containing no more than one or two words. The text is admittedly West- ern, sprinkled with Alexandrian readings. It dates from the sixth century, and was presented by Arch- bishop Laud to the library of Oxford in 1636. It is by far the most valuable biblical manuscript possessed by that library. Codex Gigas Holmiensis (g), said to be the largest manuscript in the world, contains the Acts and Apocalypse in the Old Latin, and the rest of the New Testament in the Vulgate, also some fragments of a palimpsest of the fifth or sixth cen- tury. The Pauline Epistles are represented by Codex " H^pttWSI^Ulb' "^ |i«ntfWT»$r-v T1TC^i?CVf>OPp^Or ■ftjCr(\Vr*iMC> TCj^UOSirsCc jy^iMCiViOS^x M Jf»^fXTCfL/V UITU0MSU5 o-eA amiyN ^niieei'vccipu- • irs(.uc\x.!bjci hu,HC*^ *-' N . is 4iui(fe,*40.1fsrr lytioT n^it.ao> fjeiiHS<-»«^{^r*" i\UiN^«»^"^<^ rr^.^T*y^lHU^ >»jMJ&U5{.f- > . .,. MietKofi^JUt tjpuljccccfjitw' JXrtTMON-^ eM5vf»^Jo =y © ^:... -'4^ ^-. •■ Ji- t - '•^ f f V l*" •■^, v .-*■ O S Latin Texts Mixed 165 sixth century, in Gaul, most of the books of the Old Testament are quoted from Jerome, while for the New Testament,the Old Latin holds its own " (White, Hastings' Diet, of the Bible, iv. 877). The sixth century saw the almost universal adoption of the Vul- gate by the leaders in the church, except in Africa. The real victory for the Vulgate was achieved when Pope Gregory the Great (590-604) put the new re- vision on a par with the Old Latin text. In his com- mentary on Job he even expresses a preference for Jerome's revision. 130. This substantial endorsement of Jerome's work by the Roman pontiff radiated its influence throughout the Roman Empire and gave it an im- petus that it had never before received by any high authority. Such supreme recognition, however, could not at once cast into the background a text revered like the Old Latin. In fact, Jerome's text in some provinces, notably in Gaul, had become distressingly corrupt, while in Italy it was kept comparatively pure. Among our minor sources of information, such as the late manuscripts, Lectionaries, quotations and selec- tions in service books of the church, we learn that the Old Latin text held its own for several centuries. One old manuscript from the ninth century (St. Germain) retains the Old Latin text of Judith, Tobit and Mat- thew. Codex Colbertinus (c), already noticed (§127), of the twelfth or thirteenth century, has the Gospels in Old Latin, and the rest of the New Tes- tament in the Vulgate. The Perpignan manuscript 1 66 The Old Latin and the Vulgate (of Paris) of the thirteenth century, has Acts i : i to 13 : 7, and 28: 15-31 in Old Latin, but the Gospels in the Vulgate. Christianity's conquest of Great Britain and Ire- land took place while the Old Latin still held sway. Augustine's mission to England introduced there the Vulgate. The scholars of Northumbria soon adopted this improved text, and later secured the great Codex Amiatinus, already mentioned (§67), one of the best manuscripts of the entire Vulgate now ex- tant. The Irish, too, until after Columba's time, used the Old Latin ; a single almost pure Old Latin text of the Gospels is extant in Codex Usserianus (r). After the year 700 the Vulgate text gained an increasingly strong foothold among the Irish, with the result that the Latin Bibles of Ireland and North Britain partook of a mixed type of manuscripts of which the Book of Armagh is an example. A discussion of the early texts in England is reserved for Chapter XIX. 131. There were early attempts to arrest the cor- ruptions of the Vulgate, — to purge from it the arbi- trary interpolations of scribes and scholars. Within about 150 years after Jerome's day Cassiodorus made a serious attempt to revise the current text of Jer- ome. The bulk of our information regarding his work is found in his own instruction to the younger brethren in the monastery at Vivarium, about 544. He desires that they study their Bibles in the " emended codices," and says that his nine codices, sisc ».iui*>^oi'.i? c r TiHi ib«.i ! (.■KPvnciic>cc ciTcvi xlmI Lo evil I vuiL.l.i.) Mbil.que lll-tKUNOCUlT -AO(S'<-ltCi;\n C^KXN US CfUI\ISpO[(:s [y^CTUIKtXnc. unpt^R.vrspiRii ir.tis Of *>(U ( il .t ;\i vvrtiR V' \a\\ 0*c i! J p * " iN'iiiOKin is'O'oaxinisKWisy TC\eB\TURU^\(.AIS|-.tURI('.- ' CI lioc-vucukiv r iU,au>pi-ioc\ C !■> LWShtipc RlUAa> ia->lX:!i\ Ml I |.:CIiRI «-■ iC^Kl-ilM I ll IaUI ■ ■^'TCo\ riN'uo success OMNISTRMVVr iLljs <.;tlU'>itii,AUlC\l->UCQlO|S5tT OOVVCS \Ni: eiivo-vC'XcaioNii.v \inul,TjjsclAa>wi iveici c\;nti\ viuivtues piLttisOi I u i\uinvr>*K-et.!-it.''-u-in\T S<, v>!s'..tv>l U< 1 MM. 1^ <,\-.\]u ilU v\r qtinv. r\l ih«--tui I viUvU-s <.>pot 1 1 1 ax. LCiXN (. UPW pUUO-K \^.•-!N'^"'N,\ > t Ot IS ^ V.I ll \*- M. * 1 (|Kt \e l\Utl,\S S\l.K>''^l VMCS MA\iss t vt.:su<\"' iiW! cilxt-iM'-v^'f ml i\ WlCM-i (.|UMC|UT !;o< UIll \UKX1> XlCafiV U'.\>(.KV13C pUSltJAKn t>CS\<.|lcaL\ I CIRHXS .(..ll CCSs\<. UT ,VaTCU>l O'vjtll C>tvn \i>SKnos\xv^ C^tic isxl ma^ c i i axvpa. 1 1\ UCSl U.XlNCAp I UUXCU el■!^c'^po^J^e'^s ski-)Ox C'l.vi-i lib pR.XCXXpTOR pt f^ rOTXUl \on uv. Lvuoi^vs ivs vihiLapitiHis KacRbo.xtiKxi-mio > - ! XXARO Rt^lV. cie<,ioilxx ^.ecbsesx a:)XcjrAis*,Rus'i pi-^*^ ■ itia> (i>ul:tiKiOiM.\ii i^opios.x'.n UUa^pCRXCUU XU K\l-> RC lL^~ Codex Amiatinus (§g 67, 130). Seventh Century. Leading Manuscript of the Vulgate Luke 4 : 32b to 5 : 6 Vulgate on the Continent 167 covering the whole Bible, were revised by him " with the collation of early codices," and that he left them a Greek pandect, or whole Bible, by which, as Jerome had done, they could correct the errors in their Latin version. We have no list of the corrections of Cas- siodorus, nor have we any fragment of his work, un- less it be part of the great Codex Amiatinus (of the eighth century), already described. The divisions of this codex and its introductory matter accord with Cassiodorus' own account of his work. The Vulgate carried to England, and thence also into Ireland, in Augustine's day and immediately thereafter, becoming somewhat modified by the Old Latin, was later carried to the continent, to France, Switzerland and Germany. It was copied and multi- plied by Irish and British monks in continental mon- asteries, and further changed to accord with other texts found in these several countries. To this con- dition of things we are indebted for the prolific crop of manuscripts from the ninth century. The Moors practically shut up northwestern Spain tO' itself. Closed in their mountain fastnesses the Spanish monks perpetuated their own Old Latin Bible, which they added to, interpolated, expanded to suit their fancy until their text became exceedingly corrupt. The Irish manuscripts that had been brought to Europe and the Spanish documents met in Gaul or France, and presented a double confusion to Bible students. This condition of things invited correction. 1 68 The Old Latin and the Vulgate 132. Charlemagne was fully aware of the existing confusion and set about to find a renledy, that the church might have a unified or uniform standard Bible. The records tell us that in 797 he put the task into the hands of an Englishman, Alcuin, abbot of St. Martin at Tours. Having at hand both Spanish and Irish manuscripts, he sent to his native place, Northumbria, for additional documents, and docu- ments of a less corrupt character. On the basis of these manuscripts, regardless of the Greek, Alcuin revised the current Latin Bible. On Christmas, 801, Alcuin presented to Charlemagne his revised edition of the Latin Bible. This is most nearly represented to-day in the fine Codex Vallicellianus at Rome. Others besides Charlemagne became conscious of the need of a revision of the Bible. Theodulf, bishop of Orleans (787-821), through his acquaintance with southern France and northern Spain; put himself in possession of both Irish and Spanish manuscripts. By a study of all these texts, with commendable zeal and industry, Theodulf produced a revised text of the Vulgate. But his revision is not of much critical value, because of its unevenness, and of his method of putting in the margin the variants which he had collected, and of thus giving a permanent place to many corruptions of the Spanish texts. This re- vision is best represented by a Latin Bible in the Na- tional Library at Paris, numbered Lat. 9380. Theo- dulf's privately undertaken revision exercised little influence on the history of the text. Vm, f IN CI PIT LIBER lSAl/\E-Pl^O TA ■K.cr> OS i SA.LecY-) In.' T>jeBas o ^ ?. T xe joxi K>^ fawn (-rr^/Tnu/^r-sce/epeJonitnifUt. /^J^et ri o ti CO TnoLt Wfne-. po puui frne^fnon irrcelle^' Alcuin's Revision of Vulgate, AD 8ot (g 132) Isaiah i ; i-4a Decline in Text Purity 169 133, The monastery of St. Gall, near Lake Con- stance in Switzerland, was the home of a particular!;^ zealous and active school of Bible students in the ninth century. Irish monks flocked to its retreat and took with them their own style of writing. Under the great scholar Hartmut, in the ninth century, this school produced many biblical manuscripts written by Irish scribes, and in imitation of the Irish style of script, by native scribes. This peculiar style seems to have prevailed in the upper Rhine valley. The text, however, perpetuated at this place came from Italy and Spain. But the close of the ninth century saw the decline of Charlemagne's influence, the deterioration of the biblical texts copied in the monasteries, and the deca- dence of the power of Christianity in France. The invasion of the Normans crushed the school at Tours, and the Danes broke up the famous schools at Wear- mouth and Jarrow in England. By these calamities, biblical scholarship of every kind received almost a death-dealing blow. Efforts to regain a footing seemed to be almost in vain. Lanfranc, the arch- bishop of Canterbury (1069-89) is said to have done some correcting of all the books of the Bible and to have taught his pupils the same. But unfortunately nothing of these labors remains. Stephen Harding, abbot of Citeaux, about the middle of the twelfth century collated good Latin and Greek manuscripts and made a revision of some considerable value that is now preserved in four volumes in the library at Dijon, 1 70 The Old Latin and the Vulgate France. Cardinal Nicolaus Maniacoria likewise issued a revision, now extant in a manuscript at Venice. 134. The thirteenth century was marked by an astounding spirit of revision in France, due in the main to the influence of the king, St. Louis, and to the vigorous scholarship generated by the new Uni- versity of Paris. There was most extraordinary activity in the production of new Latin Bibles. Roger Bacon tells us that theologians and booksellers com- bined to produce a fixed type of text, which he calls Exemplar Parisiense. The fame of the University created a large demand for these books, and they went far and wide. But the Exemplar Parisiense was a corrupt text which Bacon deplored. This de- fect scholars attempted to remedy by uniting their researches in the production of a list of corrections based mainly on Latin and Greek manuscripts and called Correctoria Bibliorum. Four separate bodies of men or individuals prepared as many lists of cor- rections to be employed by the Bible students and copyists in Paris and in Rome. These counters to the multiplication of degenerate texts of the Vulgate furnished a partial remedy to the growing evil. The most important contribution to the form of our Bible that sprang out of the Paris activity was the formal division of the Bible into chapters. Paragraph and section divisions had already existed for centuries. But Stephen Langton, a doctor in the University of Paris, and later archbishop of Canterbury, made the divisions of our Bible known as chapters, about 1228. The Council of Trent 171 135. The masses of corrections that had been collected were put to good use before the Vulgate was put into permanent form by the printing press. When the literary revival of the fifteenth century struck the various national coteries of biblical stu- dents, strenuous effort was made to find the best pos- sible text of each version. At the invention of print- ings steps were taken to put the Latin Bible into per- manent form. The first complete book to be issued from the printing press was a Latin Bible — the Vul- gate — printed in two^ volumes by Gutenberg and Fust, at Mayence (Mainz), in 1455. It is commonly known as the " Mazarin Bible," for it was first foun4 in recent times in the library of Cardinal Mazarin. It was made, however, from some inferior manuscripts, and, with all its beauty as a piece of mechanism, it is full of errors. Thenceforth Latin Bibles poured forth in profusion from the press. It is said that during the first half century of printing 124 editions were pub- lished. In 1514 ff. the Complutensian Polyglot pre- sented as one of its texts the Vulgate revised with the aid of several ancient manuscripts. In 1528, Ste- phanus' Vulgate Bible, a critical text based on three manuscripts, was issued at Paris; later (1538-40) a larger edition appeared, which had been prepared on the basis of seventeen manuscripts. This is in reality the foundation of the official Roman Vulgate, adopted at the Council of Trent, April 8, 1546. The first Latin Bible to contain the modern verse divisions was a small octavo edition of Stephanus, dated 1555. 172 The Old Latin and the Vulgate The authority granted by the Council of Trent for the publication of an official Vulgate was not imme- diately put to use. Professor John Hentenius, of the University of Louvain, by the use of thirty-one manuscripts and two printed copies, prepared a pri- vate edition (1547) that was often reprinted. Several of the popes bestirred themselves to prepare an offi- cial edition that would answer the requirements of the church. The oldest and best manuscripts were collected and a commission was appointed to edit an official text. The work lagged, however, until Sixtus V came to the pontificate in 1585 (-90). With great zeal and diligence both he and his commission pushed forward the work. Manuscripts, printed editions, and the original Hebrew and Greek were taken into consideration, the readings which agreed with the Hebrew and Greek receiving the preference where there was disagreement between authorities. The edition produced by the commission was printed and published by the Vatican press in three volumes in 1590, and was designated the " Sixtine Edition." It bore on its title page : " Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis, tribus tomis, distincta Romae, ex Typographia Apostolica Vaticana, M. D. XC." On the second page we meet the papal designation: "Biblia Sacra Vulgatas editionis ad concilii Tridentini pras- scriptum emendata et a Sixto. v. P. M. recognita et approbata." This edition was intended to be that authorized by the Council of Trent; and by the bull recited in the preface it was to be used in all the Clementine Vulgate of i^g2 1 73 churches in the Christian world. No other edition should be published without the permission of the Apostolic See, nor should this " Sixtine Edition " be reprinted in any other place than the Vatican for the next ten years. Such editions as should appear sub- sequently should be carefuly collated with the Sixtine edition, should be accompanied with an official attes- tation, and should have "no variant readings, scholia or glosses printed in the margin." Violation of these orders was to be punished by the greater excommuni- cation. 136. This first official Vulgate, the Sixtine edition of 1590, did not meet with a universal and enthusi- astic reception. Its requirements and its new trans- lations were unpopular, and the death of its great projector, Pope Sixtus V, in the same year were dis- tinct setbacks to the dissemination of the new edition. In January, 1592, after the death of a number of popes, Clement VIII occupied the pontifical seat. Having called in the Sixtine edition of the Vulgate, he published another official edition, claiming as a pretext that Sixtus V had intended both to recall the 1590 edition because of its many typographical er- rors, and to issue another in its place, but death had prevented it. In reality, his claim was only a pre- text, for the Sixtine edition had been carefully printed and published. The reasons for the publication of the Clementine text of 1592 are thought to have been either hostility to the author of the 1590 edition or a desire to produce a more faithful text as authorized 1 74 The Old Latin and the Vulgate by the Council of Trent. The text of this new edi- tion of 1592 contains about three thousand variations from that of 1590, and leans toward the text issued privately by Hentenius in 1547. H. J. White (Has- tings' Diet, of the Bible, Vol. iv. p. 881) concedes the superiority of the Clementine text. Pope Clem- ent VIII avoided the penalties of the Sixtine edition preface by inserting on the title page the name of Sixtus V, thus in reality issuing it as a new Sixtine edition. After 1604 Clement's name appears on the title page conjointly with that of Sixtus V. This Clementine Vulgate of 1592 is to-day the standard edition of the Roman Catholic church. The few modern editions that have been issued contain slight variations only from this Clementine text of 1592. Hetzenauer has pubUshed an edition of the New Testament Vulgate (1899) that correctly represents its great predecessor, the Clementine text. 137. The importance of the Vulgate in the history of Bible translations and of the church cannot be over- estimated. It has occupied the first place in the Roman church since the sixth century. It was early carried to England and was the basis of the Chris- tianity that took such deep root in that rich soil. Charlemagne made it his personal duty to scatter it far and wide in his realm. The monks of the middle ages multiplied its copies by the hundreds, so that manuscripts reaching into the thousands are found in numerous private and public libraries of Europe and the Orient. The invention of printing began to Critical Text of the Vulgate 175 fix certain texts, and the process culminated in the Clementine edition of 1592, the official Bible of the Roman church. The first English Bible — that of Wycliffe — was translated from the Vulgate. This ver- sion was the basis of the Rheims and Douai transla- tion of 1 582-1610, the official English Bible of the Roman church. There were later revisions of this version under the care of Challoner ( 1750 and later) , of the Douai institution, and of archbishop Troy (1791 and after), of Dublin. These editions were current in Great Britain about 1800. Slightly variant editions of these have held the field of the Roman church in America down to the present day. 138. Protestant scholars have expended long years in an attempt to construct a critical text of Jerome's Eatin. They have carefully studied and collated thousands of manuscripts, and many printed editions that thereby they may ascertain the original of that great version. Some of the most active in this research have been Richard Bentley, in the eigh- teenth century ; Bishop Wordsworth and H. J. White, in the nineteenth century — all in England ; Samuel Berger, in Paris, France, and P. Corssen, in Berlin, Germany. The contributions of these five scholars are monumental. The prosecution of just such work by many other devoted students of the multitude of manuscripts now available will go far to ascertain the original version of the revered scholar, Jerome. CHAPTER XVI THE SYRIAC AND OTHER EASTERN VERSIONS 139. The Syriac Old Testament occupied our at- tention in Chapter VIII. One of the first require- ments of the Syrian converts to Christianity was an edition of the New Testament in their native tongue. Just how early it was made is not known. Indeed, there are many questions regarding the origin of the Syriac New Testament which still remain unanswered. This chapter can give only in outline some of the most interesting points in the discussion. The easiest method of presenting the facts regard- ing the earlier Syriac texts will be to take up the usual divisions of the New Testament one at a time. The Gospels. — The earliest editions of the Gospels in Syriac that are now known to biblical scholars are (i) the " Diatessaron " of Tatian; (2) the Old Syriac Version or "Gospel of the Separated;" and (3) the " Peshitta." Just when, where, how, and why these versions came to be, are the puzzling questions that confront us. The existence of some of these texts was not known in Europe until the sixteenth century. Some of them have even come to light within the last seventy-five .years, showing us that there is still a great branch of biblical literature comparatively un- known and uncultivated. 176 ' V • The Diatessaron of Tatian 177 (i) The earliest version of the Syriac Gospels current in the early centuries of Christianity was the so-called Diatessaron of Tatian, who was a pupil of Justin Martyr (martyred about 165). This Diatessaron was a composite Gospel based on the four Gospels, to which the Syrian church became so wedded that the bishops in the fifth century took vig- orous steps to get rid of it. They were apparently entirely successful, for there is no known copy of this Syriac Diatessaron in existence to-day. Our chief authorities for the text of it are (a) the Arabic translation of it, of which there are two manuscripts in Rome, and (b) the commentary of Ephrsem Syrus (died 373), found only in an Armenian translation. A few quotations of this Syriac Diatessaron are found in some Syriac commentaries on the Gospels, — enough to indicate somewhat the character of the version. 140. (2) The second version of the Syriac Gos- pels used in the early church was the " Gospel accord- ing to the Separated (Evangelists)," according to Burkitt's rendering (Ency. Biblica, col. 4999). This ifersion is known to-day in two codices : (a) The manuscript found at the Convent of St. Mary Deipara in the Nitrian Desert in 1842-47, now in the British Museum, and published by Cureton in 1858, and since known as the "Curetonian Syriac." (b) The palimp- sest discovered at the Convent of St. Catharine at Mt. Sinai by Mrs. Lewis in 1892, and only par- tially transcribed in the next year by Messrs. Bensly, Harris and Burkitt. The " Cureton " text is assigned 1 78 The Syriac and Other Versions to the middle of the fifth century, and contains the Gospels with many omissions in the order of Mat- thew, Mark, John, and L,uke. The Sinai palimpsest is thought to be a half century older than the " Cure- ton." Its contents are about three-quarters of the whole material, and supplement " Cureton," and par- allel it in such a manner as to give us a reasonably good text, with variations, of course, of the " Old Syriac." (3) The Peshitta, " the simple," version of the New Testament has been in use in the Syrian church continuously from the fifth century. This name, however, is not traced farther back than the ninth century. It has been conjectured that the name arose in order to distinguish the Syriac version proper from that version translated from Origen's Hexapla by Paul of Telia (§70). This version is extant in some manuscripts that are dated in the fifth century. These manuscripts differ slightly, however, from the texts of modern editions. The first printed edition was issued in Vienna, i555j ^'^ the expense of the emperor, Ferdinand I, by Albert Widmanstad. The latest and best edition appeared at Oxford, 1901, edited by Pusey and Gwilliam. West- cott and Hort called this version the " Syriac Vul- gate." Each new discovery of Syriac manuscripts of the Gospels has shifted the discussion as to the relation of these three versions. Burkitt (Ency. Biblica) now concludes, though all scholars do not agree with Old Syriac Epistles 1 79 him, that the Diatessaron of Tatian was the original form in which the Gospel circulated in Syria. The " Gospel according to the Separated," that is, the sec- ond early Syriac Version, is supposed to have been translated from the Greek about the year 200. The third of the three early versions, the Peshitta, is regarded as an edition of the " Gospel according to the Separated," " revised in closer conformity with the Greek," and published with authority, probably in the beginning of the fifth century (411 A. D.)^ with the purpose of superseding both the Diatessaron and all other Syriac texts. Both of those purposes were accomplished with such thoroughness that no Syriac version of the Diatessaron, and only two copies of the " Gospel according to the Separated," or Old Syriac, are known to-day. 141. The Acts and the Epistles. Up to the pres- ent time there is no manuscript or even text of the so-called " Old Syriac," of the Acts and the Paul- ine Epistles. There is no doubt that there was such a version, for it is distinctly confirmed in the quo- tations of Aphraates, and in the commentaries of Ephraem. These letters are current only in an Arme- nian translation, for the supremacy of the Peshitta must have forced out of use all rival Syriac texts. These portions of the New Testament are found, however, in the Peshitta version. The Gospels and the Acts and Epistles formed the entire New Testa- ment of the early Syriac church. _^ The Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse, therefore, J 80 The Syriac and Other Versions were not found in the Old Syriac version. Addai gives orders as follows : " The L^w and the Proph- ets .. . and the Epistles of Paul . . . and the Acts of the Twelve Apostles . . . these books read ye in the churches of Christ, and with these read not any other, as there is not any other, in which the truth that ye hold is written " (quoted by Nestle in Hastings' Diet, of Bible, Vol. iv. p. 647.) It is regarded as fixed that the Syriac canon in the middle of the fourth century contained neither the CathoUc Epistles nor the Apocalypse. A list of the canonical books recently discovered at Mt. Sinai gives an arrangement that dififers from that in the Peshitta. We find here Galatians at the head of Paul's letters as follows: Galatians, Corinth- ians, Romans, then Hebrews. Ephrasm seems to have had the same order. Another interesting item in Ephrsem's day is that the church at Edessa had in its canon of the Bible the "Apocryphal Correspond- ence of St. Paul and the Corinthians," which is now known to have belonged to the Acta Pauli. It is now certain that the four Antilegomena of the Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse were never a part of the Peshitta and never appeared in a printed edition of the Syriac New Testament until 1630. 142. The Peshitta was the supreme version in the Syriac churches in the fourth century; and since the Nestorian schism (about 431) has continued to be the New Testament of that body of believers. The Jacobite branch of the Syrian church, on the Revisions of the Syriac Bible 1 8 1 other hand, was not satisfied with the current authori- tative version. There were at least two attempts to carry over into the Syriac canon the full list of books found in the Greek New Testament, and used by the Greek-speaking churches. The first attempt to revise the Peshitta was made in 508, by Philoxenus, bishop of Mabbogh (485-519) in Eastern Syria, with the assistance of Polycarp. They endeavored to translate the whole Bible into Syriac. Authorities disagree as to whether any of this version is still extant, though the versions of 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude, that are now bound up with the Peshitta are thought to owe their origin to Philoxenus. A manuscript of the Apocalypse of this version was discovered by Gwynn and published in 1897. The Philoxenian version of the New Testament was revised in 616 by Thomas of Heraklea (Harkel) in Mesopotamia, and of the Old Testament by Paul of Telia (compare §70). This translation is ex- cessively literal and well supplied with critical notes. The work of Thomas of Heraklea was based on some Greek manuscripts found in Alexandria, and the notes contain important variants in some of these documents. Apparently the Greek manuscripts used by Thomas were late, and belong to the Western type. Some of the manuscripts of the Harkleian version lay claim to a considerable antiquity. There are at least thirty-six of them. Two in the British Museum date from the tenth century. Cambridge University 1 82 The Syriac and Other Versions has one dated 1170. Rome has one of the seventh and one of the eighth century. Florence has one dated 757. Both of these revisions contained all the books of the New Testament except the Apocalypse. Though there is scarcely a Syriac manuscript in all Europe that contains the twenty-seven books of the present New Testament, there are some manuscripts which contain books not found in our Greek New Tes- tament. Codex 1700 in Cambridge University library contains " The Epistles of St. Clement to the Corinth- ians in Syriac." These Epistles stand between the Catholic and Pauline Epistles, and have the same nota- tions for use in church services. Other manuscripts contain Clement's de Virginibus, or de Virginitate. These instances show the unique development of the Syriac church and scholarship. 143. The above noted versions complete the genu- ine Syriac texts of the New Testament. There is another fragmentary version, however, that is classi- fied as Syriac, on about the same grounds that the Targums are counted as Hebrew. The Aramaic lan- guage is divided into the classical Edessene, or East- ern Aramaic, and the Western Aramaic, covering Jewish Aramaic, Samaritan, etc. This version is used by the Malkite (Greek) church in Palestine and Egypt. It was discovered in a Lectionary in the Vatican library, and described by Assemani and Adler (1789), and published in two volumes by Count Erizzo (1861- 64), and by Prof. Lagarde (1892). Those two learned English women already referred to, Mrs. Lewis and ^>5ll3 .cij«io cp^ ^^}j^^^^ Codex of the Old Syriac Gospels over which was written in A. D. 778 a narrative of the Holy Women. Found at Convent of St Catharine in 1892. Matthew i : i-i7a The Egyptian Versions 183 Mrs. Gibson, republished (1899) the known fragments of the Gospels on the basis of, two new manuscripts found at Mt. Sinai. Fragments of Acts and the Epis- tles of Paul, with James and Hebrews have also been added to the known fragments of this version. The relation of the fragments of the so-called Pal- estinian version or Jerusalem Syriac, to the other Syriac versions is apparent. It contains a text that has been influenced by the Peshitta, but follows quite faithfully the Greek text. It is thought to have arisen in the sixth century, when an attempt was made by Justinian to root out the Samaritan beliefs and re- place them by supplying a version of the New Testa- ment in the vernacular of the Jews of Palestine. It is even asserted by some scholars that the language of this version is probably closely identiiied with that spoken by the peoples of Palestine in the time of Christ. 144. The Egyptian or Coptic versions of the Old Testament were noticed in §83. The three branches of the Egyptian versions of the New Testament are (i) the Sahidic, or dialect of upper Egypt; (2) the dialect of middle Egypt, as seen in the Fayyum; (3) the dialect of Alexandria, the Bohairic. The Sahidic was the dialect of the Christian com- munity whose headquarters was at Thebes. At the end of the eighteenth century (1799) Woide published the known fragments of the Sahidic New Testament. Within recent years large numbers of fragments have been discovered, almost enough to complete the New 1 84 The Syriac and Other Versions Testament. Some of these reach back to the fifth and possibly to the fourth century. They are very numerous in Paris, and when critically edited will form a useful apparatus in determining the character of the Greek New Testament from which they were translated, somewhere back in the fourth century. The second Coptic dialect is the Bohairic, the primi- tive Christian language of lower Egypt after the de- cline and disappearance of the Greek in the early Christian centuries. Its central city and home was at first Alexandria, and afterwards Memphis, hence this dialect has been called, though improperly, Memphitic. This was the literary language of Alexandria, express- ing with remarkable precision such ideas as may be translated from the Greek. While its age relative to the Sahidic is in dispute, Burkitt (Ency. Bibl., col. 5008) and many others are convinced of its late ori- gin. Its artistically complete language rapidly gave it supremacy throughout all Egypt, so that " Coptic " to-day means the " Bohairic " dialect. The oldest known codices of this tongue that can be certainly dated belong to the twelfth century, though there are some fragments that reach back to the ninth (888j. Of the Coptic dialects, the Bohairic is the only one which preserves a complete New Testament. Of this version Horner issued Vol. I, the Gospels, in London, 1898. Burkitt describes the peculiarities of the Bo- hairic as (i) greater faithfulness to the Greek; (2) a different choice of Greek words to be transliterated; (3) when it has a different Greek reading from The Armenian Version 185 others, it is almost always a specifically " Alexan- drian " reading. Both Sahidic and Bohairic carry the full Greek canon of the New Testament, though the Apocalypse Seems to have been regarded as non-canonical, for it is not part of these manuscripts of the New Testament. The existence of an Egyptian version occupying a place midway between the Sahidic and Bohairic is fully established. This seems to have been current in the Fayyiim, just west and southwest of Memphis and south of the delta. L^arge numbers of manu- scripts from this district have reached Europe in re- cent years. When these shall have been carefully edited, and a new text of the Sahidic New Testament published, we shall know where the Fayyumic version stands in the Coptic group. 145. The Armenian version of the New Testa- ment originated somewhere about 400 A. D. The earliest translations of the Gospels and the Epistles into Armenian were made from the Syriac, not from the Peshitta, but from the Old Syriac. About the middle of the fifth century this translation was so thoroughly revised by the use of a Greek text that we can scarcely recognize at its base, the first text. This Greek text was probably that of the Vatican and Sinai- tic, or one closely related to them. Armenian manuscripts of the Gospels usually lack Mark 16 : 9-20. Those that contain these verses have a break after 16 : 8, in which the colophon, " Gospel of Mark," is inserted, and it appears again after 1 86 The Syriac and Other Versions i6: 20. One manuscript, dated 989 A. D., contains the doubtful verses, with a heading ascribing them to the presbyter Aristion. It is thought that the scribe of the manuscript had authority for attributing the story of the resurrection to the presbyter who added it to the Gospel of Mark. This same manuscript like- wise, among all old Armenian manuscripts, is the only one that contains the story of the woman taken in adultery (John 8: i-ii). The oldest manuscript of the Armenian version is dated 887 A. D., and two others belong to the same century, while a half-dozen originated in the tenth century. The best critical edition of the Arpienian version is that of Zohrab (Venice, 1789). 146. The Ethiopic or Ge'ez version is that used by the Abyssinians. While Christianity secured a foot- hold in this country as early as the fourth century, the Ethiopic version probably does not reach back beyond the fifth century. There are traces of an older Ethi- opic version of the Gospels made from the Old Syriac, as was the case in the Armenian version. But the version now current was made from the Greek. There are many manuscripts of a late date, representing later revisions, which were made from the mediaeval Arabic text current in Alexandria. The Ethiopic New Testament was first printed in Rome in 1548-9, and was reprinted in Walton's Polyglot. The British and Foreign Bible Society issued (1830) an edition that had been prepared by T. P. Piatt. This was reprinted at Basle in 1874. It has no critical value for Gothic Gospels (gg 8s, 147) Mark 7 : 3-7 The Gothic Version 187 scholars. But it is ascertained at least that it is related to the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts in the type of text. It is colored also by Alexandrian and Western elements. These, however, cannot be cor- rectly estimated until we shall have a critical text. 147. The Gothic version prepared by Ulfilas has already been referred to in §85. The New Testa- ment fragments of this translation show that it was made directly from the Greek. The remnants that we possess seem to have belonged to northern Italy, somewhere about the time of the Lombard conquest in the sixth century. The largest fragments that we possess are portions of the Gospels preserved in a superb manuscript at Upsala, Sweden, written upon purple vellum in letters of silver and gold, and dating from the sixth century. Portions of the Pauline Epis- tles are found on a palimpsest in Milan. The re- mainder of the New Testament is lost. The Greek text from which Ulfilas made his New Testament translation was mainly of the so-called Syrian type. Westcott and Hort (N. T., vol. i, p. 158) conclude in these words : " The Gothic has very much the same combination as the Italian revision of the Old Latin, being largely Syrian and largely Western, with a small admixture of non-Western readings." 148. There are several other versions that may be mentioned by name only. The Arabic versions of the New Testament have been made, some from the Syriac and some from the Greek, in the eighth and ninth centuries. The current Arabic New Testament 1 88 The Syriac and Other Versions is a translation in the main from the Bohairic dialect, with corrections and additions from the Greek and Syriac. The Georgian New Testament was translated from the Greek, but at so late a period as to be of slight critical value. The Slavonic version exists in a goodly number of manuscripts. The New Testament is preserved both in manuscripts and in Lectionaries. These do not seem to reach back earlier than the eleventh century. While the best text of the Sla- vonic or Russian points to a Greek-text basis, that basis does not contain the readings of the oldest and best manuscripts. Hence this version has no con- siderable value as a critical aid in determining the original readings of the New Testament. No other versions of the New Testament are of sufficient value to deserve mention at this point. CHAPTER XVII GROUPING AND CLASSIFICATION OF MANUSCRIPTS, VERSIONS, AND OTHER WITNESSES 149. As soon as modern scholars began to com- pare different manuscripts, and to note the variations of each from the other they were obliged to adopt some one text as a standard. This necessity brought about the adoption of what has been known as the " received text," or " Textus Receptus." The earliest printed edition of the Greek New Tes- tament was that incorporated in the Complutensian Polyglot, printed in 1514-17 and published in 1522. Its text, however, was based on many manuscripts, put at the disposal of Cardinal Ximenes by the papal au- thorities at Rome. Erasmus, the Dutch scholar, was the editor of the first Greek New Testament pub- lished (1516). His text was based chiefly on two inferior manuscripts, preserved in Basle, Switzerland, one of the Gospels, and one of the Acts and the Epis- tles, and only one manuscript of the Apocalypse. None of them was complete, so that Erasmus was obliged to translate Latin into Greek to fill up lacunae in the Apocalypse. The first edition was full of errors ; but it was quickly succeeded by a second, third, fourth, and fifth, each presenting a better text than its predeces- sor, though Erasmus never had more than eight manu- scripts at his disposal. 1 89 1 90 Classification of Manuscripts The famous printer and scholar, Robert Stephanus (or Estienne), of Paris, published several editions of the Greek New Testament. His text was based on Erasmus (editions of 1527 and IS3S). the Com- plutensian Polyglot, and fifteen manuscripts in the Paris library. The third edition, a Paris folio, issued in 1550, is practically the " Textus Receptus " of the Greek New Testament, which has held its place in England from that day to this. The " Textus Recep- tus " on the continent has been the Elzevir edition printed at Leyden in 1624. It was based on Ste- phanus, revised by the use of texts published by Beza in 1565-1611. The name "Received Text"' is due to a statement in the preface to the second Elzevir edition, 1633, where it is claimed that this is the text now " received by all." The period of the dominion of the " Textus Recep- tus " extends from the Reformation down to the mid- dle of the eighteenth century. Its text then is that of Erasmus (based on eight manuscripts), improved by Stephanus (on basis of the Complutensian Polyglot and fifteen manuscripts) and Beza as printed in Eng- land. On the continent the Elzevir edition based on Erasmus and Stephanus constitutes the " Textus Re- ceptus." Scrivener republished the " Textus Receptus " at Cambridge in 1859; and a new edition (1877) with variations of Beza (1565), of the Elzevir edition (1624), of Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles. 150. It is plainly evident that such a text, based t f £: ; J - Z.i . S J 5- 'r - ? 3=- ■-C<-;^-'>-i-- < i X a \t--l .;cp. , r eseittJD secundum esoaoon eauTWatapscnn ueno pccDetuR-otgiurnxoUoree- pecocccDLinapdi eAccpu T^jomxem mspnscoeo quod ipsesinsnpRa. omnes Cotton Manuscript (g 169). Seventh Century and inter- linear Anglo-Saxon paraphrase of about A.U. 950. A summary prefixed to the Gospel of John Tenth Century Gospels 213 script of the British Museum is a Latin version of the Gospels copied toward the end of the seventh century by Eadfrith, bishop of Lindisfarne, from a text which Adrian, friend of archbishop Theodore, had brought to England in 669. About 950 Aldred, a priest, pre- pared and wrote between the lines of this Latin text, his Anglo-Saxon paraphrase. This is the earliest known version of the Gospels in the English language ; but its dialect is that of Northumbria. This text is now known under the names of " The Lindisfarne Gos- pels," " The Book of Durham," and " The Gospels of St. Cuthbert." The Bodleian library at Oxford possesses another interlineated copy, a gloss of the Lindisfarne version, known as " The Rushworth Gospels," which had its origin a little later in Ireland. The Latin text used in all these interlinear versions was not that of the Vulgate, but of the Old Latin, al- ready described in Chapter XV. 170. The earliest copies of translations of the Gos- pels, with no accompanying Latin text, are found in the tenth century. There are six known copies of such translation, varying slightly the one from the other. Of these, two are found in each of the libra- ries of Oxford, Cambridge, and the British Museum. The oldest of them, at Cambridge, was produced by abbot v^lfric, and written at Bath about A. D. 1000. The variants of these manuscripts may point to the same original text, whose identification is not yet made out. It is known, however, that one of these manu- 214 Early English Manuscripts scripts represents a text that was in general use in Wessex. This same ^Ifric, later archbishop of Can- terbury, made an Anglo-Saxon version of the Penta- teuch, Joshua, Judges, Esther, Job, a part of Kings, and the apocryphal books of Judith and Maccabees. He left out what he regarded as of least importance. Judith and Maccabees seem to have been included to fire the patriotic spirit of his countrymen against the invading Danes. One of the interesting phases of j^lfric's work is the fact that he says that he made use, in his translation, of older versions. Thus far, however, no such works have been discovered. The lack of any such versions to-day may be due to the terrific destruction which the Danes visited upon the country, and to the devastations of the Normans. Of .^Ifric's work there is one manuscript in Oxford and one in the British Museum. 171. In about a half-century after .^Elfric's day came the Normans (1066) to crush the Saxons and plant their scepter on the isles of Briton. Their in- vasion meant the dethronement of the Anglo-Saxon language and the substitution therefor of the Anglo- Norman. The Anglo-Saxon tongue was ostracized from the court, from books, and from schools. It was turned out of doors by royal decree, to find a refuge only with the cloistered monk, the priest, and the peas, ant. Its prohibition banished it from writing, and hence from a literary use. But its flavor could not be entirely destroyed. The new tongue, brought in by the conquerors and authorized by royal edict, Fourteenth Century Psalters 2 1 5 slowly but gradually percolated the conquered realm. The confusion of tongues thus brought about pre- vented the production of anything that could claim the name of literature until the thirteenth century. All activity, too, in the production of Bible transla- tions suffered almost extinction during this period of literary chaos. But we have one notable piece of Scriptures frorh the early part of the thirteenth century (121 5). An Augustinian monk by the name of Orm made a metri- cal version of parts of the Gospels and the Acts for use in church services, which is known to-day as "The Ormulum." This version is not a translation, but a paraphrase, accompanied with brief explanatory notes, designed for use in that day. The language of this version is a peculiar compound. Its vocabulary is Teutonic, but its cadence and syntax are colored by Norman characteristics. The " Ormulum " is pre- served in a fine manuscript of 20,000 Hnes in the Bod- leian library at Oxford. It seems to have been easier to make a paraphrase than a translation in the early thirteenth century. Following the Ormulum some one put Genesis and Exodus into verse for general use. 172. There was also produced, a little later, by an unknown author, a version of the Psalter, metrical in form, and almost a translation in its faithfulness to the original. It is curious, and yet explicable, that there was no real translation-version of any book of the Bible after the Norman conquest until about the middle of the fourteenth century, except of the Psal- 2 1 6 Early English Manuscripts ten Of it there were two prose translations that re- quire especial noti£e in any discussion of this period. So general was the use of the Psalter, and so uni- versal its character, that for more than a century it seems to have almost monopolized the attention of leading Christian scholars, and evangelical authorities. One notable translation sprung up in south England, and the other in the north. The translation attributed to south England is credited to the skill and scholar- ship of William of Shoreham, in Kent, and located in time about 1320. This man Shoreham was a poet of no mean proportions. His poems are in the Kentish dialect, while his Psalter is in the dialect of the West Midlands. The north England translation was pro- duced in about the same period by Richard Rolle, the so-called " Hermit of Hampole," near Doncaster, in Yorkshire. In Rolle's translation each verse is fol- lowed by a commentary in order thereby to make it of the utmost value to the common preacher of his day, who might not completely understand the significance of the translation. The original from which they translated was the Latin Vulgate, and their work fur- nishes us to-day admirable specimens of the English language of that time. The time of the work of these two biblical scholars falls before the middle of the fourteenth century. They are located by some students at 1320 for William of Shoreham and 1340 for Richard Rolle. In other words, their translations were completed, distributed, and in full use, about the time of the birth and youth Intellectual Awakening 2 1 7 of Wycliffe, about 1320-40. These translations of the Psalter, widely sown and known in England, created a thirst for larger portions of God's Word, and thus prepared the soil for the large service of Wycliffe, whose work will engage us in the next chapter. 173. The spread of the Shoreham-Rolle versions of the Psalter was the beginning of the conquest of the English language proper. The old Anglo-Saxon gradually faded out before the newcomer, which was given grace and favor through the Psalms that were so well beloved by the people at large. Political con- cessions to the common people had opened up before them the beauties of a liberty and independence that filled life with a new impetus and new inspiration. The production of such English literature as that of Lang- land, Gower and Chaucer presented a new side to the life of the awakening Englishmen of tire fourteenth century. These productions, together with the Psal- ters already noted, stirred up the appetite of the Eng- lish nation intellectually and religiously, so that Wyc- liffe, by his mental and religious instinct, could rightly divine the moment when a new translation of the Bible would satisfy the intellectual and spiritual hunger of a people. CHAPTER XX wycliffe's version of the bible 174. John Wycliffe stands out as one of the most illustrious figures of the fourteenth century. He was born in Yorkshire about 1320, and completed his edu- cation at Oxford. He is said to have become Master of Balliol College, and to have won a high place among the scholars of his day. In 1361 he resigned the ardu- ous post of Master, and settled on a living at Filling- ham, Lincolnshire. This mode of life gave him more leisure for the production of pamphlets and addresses on the stirring questions of those troublous days. With Oxford and its attractive circle of scholars close at hand, Wycliffe became deeply interested in the great ecclesiastical controversies of the times. His own personal knowledge of the conditions and needs of the common people, as seen among his parishioners, and his thorough acquaintance with the intel?bctual life of Oxford, prepared him for doing a large service for the people of his day. Wycliffe's public life may be divided for convenience into three periods: (i) His education and training at Oxford, and the begin- ning of his ecclesiastical activity (1336-66); (2) his semi-political and anti-papal, as well as purely eccle- siastical, work (1366-78); and (3) his open war against Rome, and his preparation from the Latin 218 John Wycliffe The Fourteenth Century 2 1 9 Vulgate of a translation of the Bible for the common people (1378-84). 175. The fourteenth century was a period of transition. It was neither the middle ages nor the reformation. It was a kind of middle ground between the two. Politics, society, and the church were strug- gling to hold on to the old order, and at the same time to make friends with new thoughts, ideals, and prog- ress. The " hundred years' war with France " had just been concluded, and had left on the country all the countless fruits of such bloody struggles. The papal quarrels at Rome, and lavish expenditures, had so depleted that central ecclesiastical treasury that the Pope issued demands for funds on the Britons. Par- liament refused to accede to such orders, and Wyc- liffe stood by the government. The immense wealth of the great dignitaries of the church and the organ- ized corporations through which they constantly added to their accumulations were the objects of some of Wyclifife's most determined assaults. The power of his attacks lay not so much in his enthusiasm as in the purity, spirituality, and unselfish- ness of his character, in his determination to crush the wrong and enthrone the right ; in his broad views of the questions of the day and the best method of solving them in the interests of the common people as over against the oppressions of church and state. 176. Wycliffe had reached middle life before he struck the keynote to his great life-work. In 1366, when he was forty-six years old, he publicly justified 2 20 Wy cliff es Version of the Bible and approved Parliament's action in refusing to hand over money at the demand of the Pope. This act soon drew him into the center of the fight against Rome. In 1 371 he was the most prominent reformer of the rehgious and social forces in England. Papal en- croachments and abuses of wealth in church quarters were vigorously exposed and resisted. As an inspi- ration to him, Wyclifife had the University of Oxford at his back, except when he promulgated some doc- trine distinctively heretical. Since Oxford had become, or was popularly regarded, the center of liberalism in thought for all Europe, Wyclifife could cut a wide swath without losing its moral support. With keen, logical argumentation he met and defeated his papal opponents. He had no peer in the lecture hall or the pulpit, and was the terror of the corruptionists and the promoters of the papal church. But Wycliflfe's logic and metaphysics, his scholasticism and poHtical views, are not the outstanding characteristics for which he is most largely remembered and honored in the church to-day. These were only elements of his symmetrical mind that helped him to divine the crying need of his times. He perceived that there was a gulf between the common people and church authorities, and that it should be bridged ; that they should be brought together on the Word of God. He saw, too, that the surest method of defeating Rome would be to put the Bible into the hands of the people. The ver- sion current in that day, except a few scattered frag- ments from earlier centuries, was the Latin Bible, Wy cliff es Resolzttion 221 which was used only by the clergy and high church officials. The learned only could make intelligent use of this text; and those whose duty it was to teach it and interpret it were indolent and careless, or haughty and exclusive so far as the common folk were concerned. 177. Wycliffe " came to the kingdom for such a time as this." He saw that- the true emancipation of the soul of man lay in his opportunity to read the Bible in his own tongue, in his own home, that such' a reversal of the prevalent condition of the people would mean the loss of Rome's power. The percep- tion of this method of procedure led Wycliffe to turn his whole attention to the work of putting the Bible into the language of the every-day man and woman, — the common people who had been spiritually fed, so far as they had been fed at all, by a careless, indolent and haughty priesthood. Wycliffe had already shown himself to be an open antagonist to the methods and officials of the church; and this resolve on his part made him still more unpopular, even an object of attack by the influential ecclesiastics of England. Though a schoolman, WycHffe laid supreme emphasis on the Scriptures as a basis for a religious life, and thus had no hesitation in throwing the weight of his energies into the production of a version of the Bible that could be read by the simplest peasant. 178. Wycliffe conceived the idea of translating the whole of the Latin Bible or Vulgate into the Eng- lish of his time. Just. when and where he began the 22 2 Wy cliff es Version of the Bible work is not known. But the New Testament was finished about 1380; and within two years (in 1382) the whole Bible appeared in English dress. Wycliffe, of course, did not do all the work himself. As rector of Lutterworth, in Leicestershire, he sustained close relations with the great centers of intellectual and spiritual thought, particularly of Oxford and London. He called into service other scholars whose sympathies and abilities were in accord with his own. Ample evidence is at hand to show that most of the Old Testament work was done by one of his devoted disciples and fellow workers, Nicholas of Hereford. There is a manuscript now in the Bodleian Library, at Oxford, which was doubtless written under the di- rection of Hereford; for its break in the middle of Baruch 3: 20 is thought to point to the time when he was suddenly summoned to London to answer to the charge of heresy. Hereford was excommunicated and Wycliffe is supposed to have completed his work on the Old Testament. Hereford's own work was scholarly, exact, and often stiffly literal. His training and surroundings made him rather unpractical, put his results in a rather stilted style, designed far more for scholars than for the ordinary, every-day reader. Wycliffe, on the other hand, had been trained in the practical field of the parish, had become accustomed to the plain, every-day parishioner and his needs ; and thus he strove so to translate the Latin into good every-day English that his translation could be read and understood by any plowboy. There is, therefore, •M nianiBIini iif, flJlicnSUctiOal lin! uf iic» ro Mil oifh'uiii: f uu; m'ciuuE tic 1)011 aliens pcrtj:iic0 roUf Icuiiira i ari' I'liijt mr coaau of jjBI uir» 01 of K 'Jifilus Kf DUiiion.lDT |iaf m ffaioftM eiiS muio: cr B woiit tolr , trai I'ci Wirfuiis ivifni lBimouf]Vi Dmanaa: IT iBiiirtit fiiKbi't f.iKi'fUio nor iM" TOOT iBrte<3>/ir Ki pr.lJfiti'f itSsjTuo'iiijsr |if unet muou'iistW aiim liiaa of iBniti'iiS"" liaa tufnttij BiTOu tfii-fl-(jf Ka» irwroujjWr'' laiiisamioulidSiwiittfSiftiif as '■ aia*ic uiaiHofanfcftitt Qrrtic uc ^tav I'uijt IS lucujiS of riinilicir fliis " faitf|)crtir,u>im'&!irfiUlip(i'"r('raf isrpou Crtial iior iiioisuUrrim j'f fioiuri)fi)i«ftiiiiorii)cfeu of' I'laff^^ istBtaiflM fl,g)i)cte.- I'Rii ciiwiw lin-.roaiftrriui'c mioicsof n^i IT rtiutfif. to rtOT 0! rtfiu 11 c i>{ltjB c fast 1)1 i'" Wfcu'of r'"P' t" 11 mpio iljcnicn.' lior of i'C.piuj''puni) ftoOT iBciioi ttiicrft! 1 fpui vc fnittl' 4g rauciiMtiViuc umtoXi&u iBWir IT ancnma of pw octet uc » (a»? V8t&ll(teflltBI'Cl.lOTnrlHl-|10U"? uTi-'iTftiiaitf moiPiTi «ii(ftlouaii'^ ofrtcogrDu-(criupf»f (jnii^atKL^ tt iifluicij' 0011 ituiaui**aff IT laf .vourtjr iTp ffflf CD lisii|ixta^'(5' aflf 'tcrafitaffiBfljaDiCpufciTiUfa-iKi Uf frainorof tiruiclKitof pdlpnioi! Y-i of liatcnjiiluiowf I'ftf to tEmpiicAJ^ iT viciiic uor ;if iTim (piiagw laii Ito " b> j^i«)>ftr.i of fii c/if iriBuic iiotB toj* J - pitciTf* I'oi oiw iB(|i|(c (|c dc tioin; i to |T (Jicmir (toitr t cft>c i?-iyftro£ j&sL, tialnilopiiciirOctoBiic iTmcii omi|W^v?Y«>- , Of itpiiplcmtoiciBmic iicii pflai^-.«S_ »- ^ali)i»lii(pticni*i8of rtrtqjTOgrofgt^':^^^ •' 'nasfofi'cdtiitmJjtoffnitiBfwufiMW^i. ; Iiou iiifiriic iiioic ;c(mim o paiilf < 'pS* > maoriicfoiiiulitiuoKJotliimaniii' "* par &i pcjifoif "ff /"O'ligv Inwli'd) incfiiipcs uiurfriigiii CO tntiilicm -.uicicciaMuCTBmti'iiiirtBrii:|fOTotr 'utf foi jfpmrrc n tiaii rwar f pc Un* upiigrofaOiMistmiigTicitrf'fiBi'', lEiijir fimimi purer ii^fr to p'rtiir S'/< cl|i9ofl|i of I'ffJinirtif of fotpniiiir' 37?^jciiiiu!iiaof Wycliffe's Bible, before 1397. Introduction to Isaiah and part of chapter i : 1 Wydiffes "Lollards" 223 a very noticeable contrast between the styles of the two translators. Hereford's dialect, so far as his work reveals one, is that of south England, while Wyclifjfe's is that of east-Midlands and of the north. 179. As soon as WycHffe had issued his translation he organized a kind of religious order of poor, though' not mendicant, preachers to preach and teach the English Bible to the common people. These were voluntary workers, not church clergy, who co-oper- ated, when possible, with the clergy. If these church' authorities opposed them, they carried on their work independently, and with all the vigor of their conse- crated leader, Wycliffe. His disciples or followers were called " Lollards," and increased so rapidly that one of his sharpest opponents said, " You cannot travel anywhere in England but of every two men you meet one will be a Lollard." This illustrates the im- mense popularity that soon greeted Wyclifife, and made him the chief advocate of personal religion and of loyalty to the Scriptures. This fact, too, gave him great influence with the church authorities, and made him the most successful reformer on English soil. The culmination of his translation marked the first serious defeat for the church's complete control of the people of England, and the beginning of the end of the rivalry between the Norman-French and Eng- lish languages. Henceforth the former waned and the latter increased in popularity and strength until it became established as the language of England. Wycliffe did not live to see the best fruits of his 224 Wy cliff es Version of the Bible translation. Two years (1384) after its completion (1382) he died of a stroke of paralysis, brought on by continuous and heavy work. But he had planted a tree whose fruits, spiritual and literary, would be the joy and the exaltation of the common people down through the centuries. 180. The disparity between the style of Wyclifife's and of Hereford's work in the English Bible required some harmonizing version. Within a short time after Wycliff e's death this work seems to have been under- taken by some of his followers or disciples. Fon siich a revision appeared in 1388. It is not known definitely who did the work, but it has been attributed, in part at least, to John Purvey, Wyclifife's former curate at Lutterworth. The prologue tells us on what principles the revision had been made, but omits all names of revisers, except to say that the writer was "a simple creature." A few lines out of , this pro- logue in modern spelling read : " Though covetous Clerks are mad through simony, heresy and many other sins, and despise and impede Holy Writ as much as they can, yet the unlearned cry after Holy Writ to know it, with great cost and peril of their lives. For these reasons, and others, a simple creature hath translated the Bible out of Latin into English. First,, this simple creature had much labor, with divers com- panions and helpers, to gather many old Bibles, and other doctors and common glosses, and to make a Latin Bible somewhat true, and then to study it anew, the text with the gloss, and other doctors, especially Revision of Wy cliff e Adopted 225 Lire [Nicolaus de Lyra] on the Old Testament, who gave him great help in this work." This prologue shows that the " simple creature " attempted to establish a Latin text on the basis of all the Latin versions and authorities that he could consult, and then to translate his corrected text — a good case of textual criticism at work. 181. This revision of Wycliffe's Bible soon took the place of the first translation. Within less than a century it became the regular edition of Wycliffe's Bible. Its popularity grew rapidly. It was eagerly sought for, and large sums were paid for it by the rich. Multiplied by transcription only, a copy was worth a large sum of money. Early in the fifteenth century a complete copy would have brought, in our money, about one hundred and fifty dollars. Foxe reports that a load of hay was given for the use of the whole New Testament for one day. Wycliffe's Bible was proscribed by archbishop Arundel in 1408, when he made it a penal offense to read any of Wycliffe's writings or translations within the province of Canter- bury. In 1414 a law was enacted that all persons who should read the Scriptures in the mother tongue should " forfeit land, catel, lif, and goods from their heyres for ever." Such prohibition could not smother the fire. There are now known to be in existence about one hundred and seventy manuscript copies of Wycliffe's Bible. Of these less than thirty contain the original translation of 1382, while the remainder are copies of Purvey's version, — all written before 226 Wy differs Version of the Bible 1430. Many of these copies were written in a small hand without ornamentation, and were used by pri- vate individuals or in families. Some of the finest copies known have been traced to the possession of such royal personages as Henry VI, Henry VH, Rich- ard, Duke of Gloucester, Humphrey, Duke of Glou- cester, Edward VI, and Queen Elizabeth. With all its popularity and treasured value, Wyclifife's Bible did not appear in printed form for almost 500 years after its first appearance in 1382. It was in 1850, when two hard-working English scholars, Forshall and Madden, after twenty years' labor on 170 manuscripts, published in four large quarto volumes a work with the title : " The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments, with the Apocryphal Books, in the earliest English Versions made from- the Latin Vulgate by John Wyclifife and his followers, edited by the Rev. J. Forshall and Sir P. Madden." 182. The production of the first translation of the whole Bible into English for the use of the common folk of England is to be accredited to the foresight, insight, and energy of John Wyclifife. Dr. Gasquet, an English Roman Catholic scholar, has recently (1894) challenged the authenticity of the Bible attrib- uted to Wychfife; but the evidence in favor of the great reformer's origination and completion of the work in 1382 is too specific and convincing to admit of such doubt. It is true that his translation was made, not from the original languages of the Bible, but from the Latin Vulgate current in England in his Peculiarities of Wy cliff e's Bible 227 day. Nevertheless, it provided an easy entrance into the secrets of the divine Word for all who could read ; and gave uneducated preachers and teachers an un- failing source of divine truth to set before those who could not read it for themselves. Wycliffe's work, and that of his co-laborers, has indelibly stamped itself on our present-day Bible. Some of the permanent words and expressions that are first found in his ver- sion are : " strait gate," "make whole," " compass land and sea," " son of perdition," " enter thou into the joy of thy Lord." Some compact methods of expres- sion also have remained with us : " I wente, and waisehid, and sai " (John 9 : 11); "all things ben nedeful to me, but not alle thingis been spedef ul " (i Cor. 6: 12). The great service done the English language and the English' people by Wycliffe's combination and crys- tallization of the various dialects of England in his translation cannot be overestimated. He practically unified the various related tongues of England, and made them one for the future use of the English speaking and writing world. 183. It is a matter of interest to make some com- parisons between the language of King Alfred's day (871^901) and of Wycliffe's time (1382), and of this time — three dates about 500 years apart. This may best be done by giving in the three dates the so-called Lord's Prayer; giving the earliest, that of King Alfred's day, first, Wycliffe's second, and the Ameri- can Revised Version third : 2 28 WycUffe's Version of the Bible Uren Fader dhic art in heofnas Our Fadir that art in heuenes Our Father who art in heaven Sic gehalyed dhin noma Halewid be thi name Hallowed be thy name To cymedh dhin ric Thi Kingdom comme to Thy Kingdom come Sic dhin willa sue is in heofnas and in eardhs Be thi wille done as in heuen so in erthe Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth Vren hlaf ofer wirthe sel us to daeg Gyve to us this dai oure breed ouer other substance Give us this day our daily bread And forgef us scylda urna And forgive to us oure dettis And forgive us our debts Sue we forgefan sculdgun vrum As we forgyven to oure dettouris As we also have forgiven our debtors And no inleadh vridk in costung And leede us not in to temptacioun And bring us not into temptation Als gefrig vrich fro ifle But delyvere us fro yvel But deliver us from the evil Lord's Prayer in Three Versions 229 This prayer breaks off where it does in Matthew in the King James Version, and where the Revised Version closes it, giving an interesting comment on the relation of the text used by Wycliffe to that one finally adopted by the Revisers of 1881-85. CHAPTER XXI tyndale's version of the bible 184. Wycliffe died in 1384. The translation of the Bible that he undertook, with Nicholas de Here- ford's assistance, was completed in 1384, and its un- likenesses harmonized and revised in 1388 by John Purvey. This stupendous task was undertaken and completed without any reference to the original lan- guages of the Bible. It was a translation of the Latin Vulgate current in that day. Its clothing was the first dawnings of the English language in anything like popular form. It took up and crystallized the some- what volatile form of the English tongue that was used at that time, and so made it semi-literary in char- acter. Wycliffe's work, however, was reproduced only by that slow, laborious and fallible method of the pen. Copies made by hand were expensive, rare, and not widely circulated until the lapse of years. Thus the natural antipathy of the ecclesiastical ma- chine of the country gradually waned, and the version was partially tolerated by the authorities. In convo- cation at Oxford in 1408, action was taken warning the people against a private translation, thus : " we therefore decree and ordain that no man hereafter by his own authority translate any text of the Scrip- ture into English, or any other tongue, by way of a 230 William Tyndale Fifteenth Century Awakening 231 book, pamphlet, or treatise; and that no man read any such book, pamphlet, or treatise, now lately com- posed in the time of John Wycliffe . . . upon pain of greater excommunication, until the said trans- lation be approved by the ordinary of the place, or, if the case so require, by the council provincial." In 1412 a more stringent law was enacted against heresy, and the Lollard party was apparently crushed. But Wycliffe's Bible was slowly, gradually, dissemi- nated, even without an act of approval as required in the convocation of 1408. Its distribution was, of course, very limited after the Lollards were sup- pressed. Its matter, being a translation of a transla- tion, in the English tongue, gave it popularity with certain classes down to the time of Tyndale. 185. The fifteenth century— the next after Wycliffe's day — was full of the most astonishing surprises, of epoch-making events. Political, national, and material questions were to the fore, while the religious remained in the background. The intellectual world suffered an upheaval, for the cloistered learning of the monasteries had to yield to the liberalism and freedom of the schools and universities. The forti- fied faith and civilization of the middle ages was forced to recognize a newer and wider basis of thought and ideas. We face here the breaking down of the faulty methods of the dark ages and the incep- tion of revolutionary principles and practises. It was the renaissance, the regeneration of the nations of Europe. It was the emancipation of the mind, of 232 Tyndale's Version of the Bible thought, and of literature. It was the unshackling of the soul, the beginnings of the reformation, penetra^ ting every country of Europe. 186. Some of the great facts that helped to usher in that marvelous century must be enumerated and kept constantly before the mind. In 1453 the Turks captured Constantinople, and thus drove out scores of Greek and Christian scholars who fled westward and took refuge in the various countries of Europe. Their learning and presence became forceful elements in the intellectual and religious awakening of the fif- teenth century. In 1455 Gutenberg printed from movable types the first complete Bible, the Vulgate, later called the Mazarin edition. In 1458 the Greek language was first taught in the University of Paris. The first Greek grammar was published in 1476, and the first Greek lexicon in 1480. In 1488 the first printed Hebrew Bible appeared. In 1492 Grocyn be- came the first teacher of Greek in Oxford. The first Hebrew grammar appeared in 1 503, and the first lexi- con in 1506. Erasmus edited the first Greek New Testament in 1516; and in 1514-17 the great Complu- tensian Polyglot, edited by Cardinal Ximenes and printed at Alcala, Spain, made its appearance in six magnificent volumes. Before the end of the fifteenth century it is asserted that no less than eighty editions of the Vulgate were printed in Europe alone. Besides this enormous growth and popularity, there were ver- sions translated and printed in the languages of the chief countries of Europe, and circulating more or Advance in Discovery 233 less freely among their population. Some of these were : German,. Russian, Slavonic, Bohemian, Italian, Spanish, French, Dutch and Danish. But no one had yet printed a Bible in the English language. In this same period there was great enterprise and activity in material things. The printing press began its work in Germany in 1454, and in 1470 Caxton first introduced it into England. In 1492 Columbus dis- covered America; in 1497 Vasco da Gama rounded the Cape of Good Hope; and in 1520 Magellan sailed around the world. In 1473 Copernicus was born, and his epoch-making work, revolutionizing the sci- ence of astronomy, was finished in 1530, though not published until 1543, the year of his death. These intellectual, literary and material advances gave a new impetus to life and living and so stirred the progressive peoples of that day as to provoke the most vigorous research into many and hitherto un- known realms of knowledge. 187. Such marvelous progress in intellectual and material lines inspired the forces of the religious and spiritual spheres. New motives and new men arose who championed with vigor the cause of religious liv- ing. Just about one hundred years after the appear- ance of WycHfife's translations and his death (1384) William Tyndale was born (1484). A native of Gloucestershire, " about the borders of Wales," Poxe says he was " brought up from a child " in the Uni- versity of Oxford, and was " singularly addicted to the study of the Scriptures." He studied in Mag- 234 Tyndale's Version of the Bible dalen Hall under the famous classical teachers, Grocyn, Latimer and Linacre. Somewhere about 1 5 ID he left Oxford and went to Cambridge, prob- ably to study under Erasmus, the renowned Greek New Testament scholar. His tmiversity career seems to have covered about ten years, for about 1520 he returned to his native heath, and for two years was a tutor in the family of Sir John Walsh. The inspira- tion that he had received at Oxford and Cambridge fired his soul to action, for during these years he car- ried on vigorous thinking and discussion with the con- servative and unthinking clergy regarding the work of the church. In one of these controversies with a churchman, according to Foxe, Tyndale said, " if God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth a plough shall know more of the Scrip- tures than thou doest." Tyndale's thorough prepara- tion for handling the Greek of the New Testament, for Erasmus' Greek New Testament appeared in 1516, while he was still studying at Cambridge, and his familiarity with the needs and requirements of the times, furnished him the stimulus and inspiration to produce an English Bible translated directly out of its original languages. 188. When his opponents became too numerous, and even began to endanger his life, Tyndale went' to London. Here he sought out Tunstall, bishop of London, of whose love of learned pursuits he had heard through Erasmus, to secure, if possible, his ap- proval and support for his plan of translating the Tyndale in London 235 Bible into English. But the bishop discovered ex- cuses enough not to receive him. Tyndale, however, soon found a friend and helper in Humphrey Mon- mouth, an alderman of London, who for his favor to Tyndale was afterward incarcerated in the Tower of London. This Monmouth gives a description of Tyn- dale in which he says : " I took him into my house half a year; and there he lived like a good priest as methought. He studied most part of the day and of the night at his book ; and he would eat but sod- den meat by his good will, nor drink but small single beer, I never saw him wear linen about him in the space he was with me. I did promise him ten pounds sterling, to pray for my father and mother, their souls and all Christian souls. I did pay it him when he made his exchange to Hamburg" (Demaus, p. 103). His life of almost a year in London was an eye-opener to Tyndale. Brought up comparatively in the coun- try, he soon learned that the city was cosmopolitan in character. Here he met tradesmen and merchants from many countries, and through them secured much valuable information regarding the progress of thought in political and religious lines. Doubtless he learned the possibilites, too, of finding a place where he could put into print the translation that he was making. His experiences with churchmen and poli- ticians in London for almost a year seem to have driven him to the following conclusion : " I under- stood not only that there was no room in my lord of London's palace to translate the New Testament, but 236 Tyndales Version of the Bible ■also, too, that there was no place to do it in all Eng- land." 189. Though he left London practically as an exile, he was given assurance that means would be provided to print his translation, and that it would be secretly imported into England, and distributed where it would serve its high and noble purpose. In the springtime of 1524 he went to the free city of Hamburg. Contemporary evidence goes to show that the most of the year following the spring of 1524 was spent in Wittenberg, in close relations with Luther, the giant reformer of Germany. Early in the spring of 1525 he returned to Hamburg to re- ceive a remittance of funds from his London friend, Monmouth. In April, 1525, he went to Cologne to put into print his completed translation of the New Testa- ment. Here he found Quentel, an expert printer, who undertook the work. But the enemies and spies of the anti-reformation party were busy, especially in Germany. Cochlseus, an open enemy of Luther and the reform movement, was now in Cologne, carrying a book through the same press as that where Tyndale was at work. By some accident he heard the printers boasting of the new successes about to be won for Lutheranism in England. To be certain of his ground, he invited to his home, and dined and wined, these same printers until they talked freely, and gave away the secret, viz., that they were printing 3,000 copies of the New Testament in English for Tyndale, Tyndale at Worms 237 to be secretly distributed throughout England. Coch- laeus immediately informed the authorities at Cologne, who put a stop to the work. Tyndale, however, with Royev his amanuensis, took their printed sheets and escaped by boat on the Rhine up to the city of Worms, already famed for its Lutheran strength. 190. Tyndale found a welcome refuge in this hos- pitable city, and also put his work into the hands of the printer Schoeffer. Cochlseus had already sent to England a description of the work done in Cologne, so Tyndale laid it aside temporarily, it being quarto in form, with marginal notes, and first issued an octavo edition of 3,000 copies, without either intro- duction or notes. This edition was soon followed by the completed quarto begun in Cologne. Both edi- tions were shipped into England hidden away in cases of merchandise, so that they might be successfully distributed from the very first. Being completed late in 1525, it is probable that they reached England early in 1526. Henry VIII had been informed by Lee (De- cember 2, 1525), later archbishop of York, who was then on the continent, " that an Englishman, at the solicitation and instance of Luther, with whom he is, hath translated the New Testament into English, and within few days intendeth to return with the same im- printed into England." A German scholar, Spala- tinus, records in his diary of August, 1526, some in- teresting facts regarding Tyndale. Among other things he says that Tyndale " was so skilled in seven languages, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish, 238 Tyndale's Version of the Bible English, French, that whichever he spoke you would suppose it his native tongue " (Demaus, William Tin- dale, p. 153). He further adds: "that the English, in spite of the active opposition of the king, were so eager for the Gospel as to afiSrm that they would buy a New Testament even if they had to give a hundred thousand pieces of money for it." 191. As soon as Tyndale's English New Testa- ment reached England there was a rushing demand for it by the common people, that they might read it, and by the ecclesiastical authorities, that they might burn it. Archbishop Warham issued a decree for its destruction. Bishop Tunstall added fuel to the fire by saying that he could find 2,000 errors in it. De- crees and denunciations, however, were of little avail to stay its popularity. By order of the ecclesiastical authorities the books were bought up and burned in London, Oxford and Antwerp. No attempt to check the printers succeeded. An effective organization of distributers in England was supplied by numerous clandestine shippers from the continent. The fight was desperate on both sides, one to disseminate Tyn- dale's New Testament as widely as possible, the other to annihilate it. The bishops liberally contributed to buy up whole editions to consign to the flames. Pack- ington, an English merchant at Antwerp, was a friend both of Bishop Tunstall and of Tyndale. The bishop made a contract with Packington to buy all the books he could, at any cost, send them to him and he would burn them at St. Paul's Cross. Hall, the chronicler, jr5mea/tt>ti(^f«Ilfr«nit^crcma(Ifr6taBk.UtB3tfu»aiu» fa>mi> «n& (ayit two ^«r.(D TOoiiian flrcatt is tj))- fayi J / 6c (it tiAe/cvtn ae t^cu bcfjircfi.Ztni) ^.tr bou0j)tcr icae lltoa ^e ipfioltcvcn at tb«t famt tymc. , Cl^cn 3cfiie trciit areaye from t^tiirt /«n^ cam ny« rnt» t|)e (Vtcf 0alj?lc/an»ircfitrppeiii roa niputa)rnc/an&fatt>o* utut^crt. 21i.iAnio<^c people cam vntobiint ^arrn^c wii^ tbcm/^alr/blynde/bctn/majmicb/anbctbcrnicny.-anbcafl tbcm ^ollne at 3e|ije fete. Znb ^c (lealeb t^cm /in fo itte^ie »baf tjc people lt>cn^re& /to fe t^eboiii fpeafe /t Je niayme> «)bole/an{itbe^aItt'freMht 0o^oflfra^cl. 1 :fyir. (r3be(ua calleb 6isb)'IliiotIct tbeiii bcparte fafiin^e (cfie tbe)> perj^fl^c in t^e icajic. ^nbbw bircipleefaibcnto^imiw^eceflwlbiveoetfoniod^ebrecbiii tbeai]»K)emeea6f>ulbcfuff)>|cfo0reatcamuItitnbr;anb3e4 fuftfaibicntotbe: bowemanj'Iooce^avejre fanb t^c^ feybet (eve anb a feau>ef)if1^ee.2(nb^cc8maunbebt^e people tofyt >oiiiicontbedroanbcanbtoFerbcreveIorc»/anbt(e^f]be« onb gave tbonFf / anb braFc tbcm/anbgave tb^)i«bifinple«/ (inb^);ebif<:iplce0avct^etot^epeople.2(nbtbe)iallate/an> tecre fiiffjifcbanb tbc)^ tcFe vppecf t^ebiofe meate tbat W* lefre v^.baeFetf ful|. i^ty tbat ate were ii^. ifn.mcn/befybc .iremenanbcbyIbrcn.2(t^^efentaira)^ct^epeoDb/ftnbt^ fpvppeanbcani in tot^ parties of magbafa: CtifittJuCiiajitfr* iilbm mm to Iittn Anpimitm I wititjefabuceftalfo /anbb)ibtJpt«bi«»/b«ffr« 1 ingctbat betDolbe(l|)ei»etb£romef)i0nefrd ^f ^ IL m ^rwftrerti) anb faibe wito tjiem: .at eren ye faye;i»e(baHbai|>efayretrebber.enbt^atbec«ufetbe (Fye )i6reeb:7itbemorni8e:vefa)»t/tobayt(b«Ibefoi!ftirebbtr/» Mttcti. t^atbecAufet^c fFj>eietr5bcIcn«ttibitcb.(D]i'eypoa7rr/fO (b Q "^ Tyndale's New Testament. A.D. 1525 Matthew 15 : 27 to 16 ; 3 Tyndales English Opponents 239 describes the case as follows : " So Packington came to William Tyndale, and said, ' William, I know thou art a poor man, and I have gotten thee a merchant.' 'Who?' said Tyndale. 'The Bishop of London.' ' He will burn them,' said Tyndale. ' Yea, marry,' quoth Packington. And so forward went the bar- gain. The Bishop had the books, Packington the thanks, and Tyndale the money " (Hoare, Evolution of Eng. Bible, p. 148). 192. With persistent energy the enemies of Tyn- dale's translation tried to obliterate it. All the machinations of the court seem to have been employed to stamp out so dangerous a heresy. Even King Henry, who had paid no heed to Tyndale's appeals, described the works as "imagened and onely fayned to enfecte the peopull." The success of their cam- paign of destruction may be partially inferred from the scant remnants now extant of Tyndale's transla- tion. Of the quarto edition begun at Cologne and completed at Worms, there is known to be in exist- ence just one Httle fragment, now in the Grenville Library in the British Museum. It consists of thirty- one leaves and contains a prologue, a list of New Testament books, a wood-cut of an angel holding up an inkstand into which Matthew is dipping his pen^ and Matthew i : i to 22 : 12. Eight of these sheets were printed by Quentel in Cologne in 1525, and car- ried by Tyndale to Worms. Of the octavo edition one copy, perfect except for a missing title-page, is now preserved in the Baptist College at Bristol, Eng- 240 TyndaUs Version of the Bible land ; another copy, very imperfect, in the Hbrary of St. Paul's, London. The fierceness and destructive- ness of the opponents of Tyndale's translation sys- tematically followed up and destroyed the thousands of copies that had been widely sold throughout Eng- land and Scotland. Of the estimated 18,000 copies printed between 1525 and 1528, the two copies just mentioned are the only known fragments. 193. Tyndale's English New Testament is unique. It is not a translation of a translation, as is Wycliffe's, but is rendered out of the original Greek text of the New Testament, probably as published by Erasmus in .1516, and revised in 1522. He made use of such helps as the Vulgate, Erasmus' Latin translation of his own Greek text, and Luther's German translation. Many of the errors charged against Tyndale's Eng- lish New Testament are due to the differences be- tween Erasmus' Greek text and the Latin Vulgate. The violent opposition of the church authorities was due to causes other, than the mere putting of the Bible into the hands of the common people. Tyndale had followed the custom common in the issuance of the Vulgate, and had incorporated marginal notes in his earlier editions. These were largely controversial, and only served to fire the wrath of his adversaries. In later editions, however, they were omitted. Again, he was not careful to retain in his translation the long- cherished words of the Vulgate and of the church, but freely translated the Greek into words that seemed to him best to convey the thought of the orig- Tyndales Last Translations 241 inal. Such freedom brushed away many age-long cherished ecclesiastical terms, and launched upon the public words that sounded strange in so dearly be- loved a book as the Bible. Then the determination and persistency of Tyndale's friends in their clandes- tine methods of importing his New Testaments into England, and their success in giving it a wide distri- bution, only inflamed the church authorities to more desperate methods of suppression. But its real value, despite all opposition, was so great as to make it a really dangerous weapon against many of the hollow claims of the church. Its close-fitting faithfulness to the Greek established its importance as the best and truest translation of the Bible for all classes. 194. As soon as Tyndale's New Testament had been well launched upon the English reading public, he took up the work of translating the Old Testa- ment out of the Hebrew text. In 1530 he published a translation of the Pentateuch, accompanied witli marginal notes that are severely controversial. Their form would indicate that they were printed sep- arately, for Genesis and Numbers appear in black- face type, as over against the other three, which are plain Roman. In 1531 the book of Jonah ap- peared in translation, — the Pentateuch and Jonah being the only portions of the Old Testament pub- lished during Tyndale's lifetime. He spent the next* three years busily engaged in a revision of his earlier work. In 1534 he published a revision of his Penta-^ teuch, 1530 edition, and of the New Testament of the 242 Tyndale' s Version of the Bible 1525 edition. The motives that led him to revise his translation of the New Testament rather than to com- plete that of the Old Testament, were (i) to meet the sharp criticism that had been hurled at his first edition, and (2) to checkmate a revision, wholly un- authorized, by his old amanuensis, George Joye, which appeared the same year. Joye had corrected some of the earlier printers' errors, made changes that more closely harmonized with the Vulgate, and his own theological opinions. Tyndale made several impor- tant improvements upon his earlier editions. He sup- plied brief introductions to each of the New Testa- ment books, except Acts and Revelation, took the sting out of many of his marginal notes, and at the end of the volume added the " Sarum " epistles, ex- tracts from the Old Testament to be used in the church services " upon certain days of the year." In this collection Tyndale also included several passages from the Apocrypha. This was the end of Tyndale's printed work. 195. The persistent and continued efforts of Tyn- dale and his friends had made a distinct gain in the distribiJtion of the New Testament. Though the op- position to his work had somewhat lost strength he dared not return to England. In fact, his work had already so impressed Cromwell and Cranmer that they began to agitate a translation of the Bible into English under royal patronage. Tyndale, however, took up his residence at the "English House," an English merchants' club, in Antwerp. Here he Tyndales Martyrdom 243 worked, apparently safe, amid a lot of his merchant friends. But the bitterness of the opposition now showed itself by sending or employing an English- man, Henry Philips, a Romanist, to do the treacher- ous deed. After pretending to great friendship for Tyndale, he stealthily and murderously betrayed him, in May, 1535, into the hands of officers of Emperor Charles V. They seized him and carried him off and thrust him into a dungeon in Vilvorde Castle, near Brussels. While confined in this place he was per- mitted, it is thought, in response to an appeal to the governor of the castle, to use his Hebrew Bible, gram- mar, and dictionary, and possibly his Greek New Tes- tament. For during his imprisonment he is credited with having once more revised his New Testament, adding headings to the chapters of the Gospels and the Acts. While here he is also thought to have translated Joshua to 2 Chronicles, though its publica- tion was left in the hands of his friend, John Rogers. There is no evidence that Henry VHI or Cromwell had anything to do with his arrest or imprisonment, nor, on the other hand, is there any scrap of evidence to show that either of them lifted a finger to release him from the grasp of his enemies. On October 6, 1536, Tyndale was brought to trial, and being proved a heretic, was condemned to death. He was tied to a stake, praying in these, his last words : " Lord, open the King of England's eyes," and then was strangled and burned. ' 196. But Tyndale won his battle. In the face of 244 Tyndale's Version of the Bible fierce opposition on the part of the church author- ities, he determined to give the Bible to the common people in their native tongue, the English language. With slight regard for self, his whole purpose con- centrated on the one task, he made himself an exile, fled from place to place to accomplish his task, and finally succeeded, by the help of close friends, in printing and having distributed in England, in large numbers, his New Testament in the English language. Though the books were bought up and burnt in quan- tities, their very appearance and use created an appe- tite for the Bible in English that could not be satisfied. The flames might burn, and annihilate the books, but the appetite created thereby was inextinguishable. Popular requirements soon reached the throne, and, in spite of earlier adverse action towards Tyndale's work, made an impression that could not be erased. The court and the government wisely recognized the necessity of providing some edition of the English Bible for popular use. Even in 1534, before Tyndale's death, a convocation under the presidency of Cran- mer petitioned the King that he would " vouchsafe to decree that a translation of the Scriptures into English should be made by certain honest and learned men whom the King should nominate; arid that the Scriptures so translated should be delivered to the people according to their learning." This was one of the fruits of the life and labors of the indefatigable and immortal Tyndale. 197.' Tyndale's victory had far-reaching results. Influence on AutJiorized Version 245 He was a master of a simple and forceful literary style. This, combined with exactness and breadth 3REW [^^ ^,. ' ~'^"~-'c°-°^-~-"., ,''''" 1 SyriacTBible "^*^^^ ^•"'^^ - — u 1 Vui axTE 1 .? Z % 1 1 X -.-^ """==: ^^Z^^^^ 1^ — DlAGRAMSHOWlNGTHEBEGINNINGSCf MODERN VERSIONS, EARLY IN THE SIXTCEWH CENTURV; of scholarship, led him so to translate the Greek New Testament into English as largely to determine the 246 Tyndales Version of the Bible character, form, and style of the Authorized Version. There have been some painstaking calculations to determine just how large a part Tyndale may have had in the production of the version of 161 1. A comparison of Tyndale's version of I John and that of the Authorized Version shows that nine-tenths of the latter is retained from the martyred translator's work. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians retains five-sixths of Tyndale's translation. These proportions are main- tained throughout the entire New Testament. Such an influence as that upon the English Bible cannot be attributed to any other man in all the past (De- maus, William Tindale, p. 162). More than that, Tyndale set a standard for the English language that moulded in part the character and style of that tongue during the great Elizabethan era and all subsequent time. He gave the language fixity, volubleness, grace, beauty, simplicity, and di- rectness. His influence as a man of letters was per- manent on the style and literary taste of the English people, and of all who admire the superiority and epochal character of the literature of the sixteenth century. CHAPTER XXII VERSIONS CLOSE TO TYNDALE'S 198. Tyndale's last words and prayer, "Lord, open the king of England's eyes," as he was being strangled by the executioner, to be burnt at the stake were even at that moment being fulfilled. The one man upon whom was laid the burden of carrying out the spirit of the petition of the convocation of 1534 was Myles Coverdale. Now, this man Coverdale attempted through the liberal members of the old party to work "out a reformation from within through them." He was early an intimate friend of Cromwell and More, and it may be that under their encouragement he began to prepare for his transla- tion of the Bible. If Foxe is to be believed, Cover- dale met Tyndale in Hamburg, and helped him on his translation of the Pentateuch. However this may be, one thing seems certain, viz., that he was busily engaged in preparing a translation of the Bible into English, though it is positively asserted that he was neither a Hebrew nor a Greek scholar. King Henry's antipathy to Tyndale and his work, on the one hand, and the growing popular demand for the Bible in English, on the other, may have led the monarch to approve of the plan of his friend Cover- dale, thus encouraging him to complete his transla- 247 248 Versions Close to Tyndales tion. Besides, Cromwell, Secretary of State, gave him his active support in getting his work before the public. 199. The moral and financial support of high offi- cials immediately brought Coverdale's work into pub- licity. While Tyndale was incarcerated in Vilvorde Castle, in Belgium (in 1535), an English Bible sud- denly appeared in England. It had evidently crept in from the continent. It was printed in black letter, small folio size, and dated, "fynished the fourth daye of October." Either Coverdale's relation to the au- thorities or his desire to court their approval is seen in an effusive dedication to Henry VIII, signed by his " humble subjecte and dayle oratour, Myles Cov- erdale." It gave neither printer's name nor place of printing. The title-page of the original edition stated that this Bible had been "translated out of Douche [German] and Latyn in to Englishe/' The first im- print of this edition left out " Douche and Latyn." It has been ascertained that the printed sheets reached London in the winter of 1535-36, and that they were bound and supplied with a new title-page by Nycol- son, which carried on it "faythfully translated in Englysh and newly oversene and corrected." The cutting out of " Douche and Latyn " from the title- page, as in the second issue mentioned above, prob- ably avoided the current antagonism in the church to Lutheranism, and also may have led the reader to suppose that the book was translated out of the original Greek and Hebrew. At any rate, the book Myles Coverdale Character of Coverdale's Bible 249 seems not to have been arrested in its circulation, though there does not seem to have been either any royal prohibition or sanction for the earlier editions. 200. Myles Coverdale must be credited with hav- ing published the first complete Bible in the Englisli language. In contrast with the incomplete work of Tyndale, it was not translated from the original Hebrew and Greek texts, but was based on (i) the Ziirich Bible of Zwingli and Leo Juda, com- pleted in 1529; (2) L,uther's German; (3) The Vul- gate; (4) the Latin text of Pagninus (1528); and (5) probably on Tyndale's work in the Pentateuch. In the New Testament Coverdale's main sources of help were Tyndale's latest (1534-5) revision and Luther's German (1522). In that part of the Old Testament of which Tyndale had published no trans- lation, viz., the historical books, Joshua to 2 Chron- icles, the poetical and prophetical books, Coverdale made the most familiar use of Zwingli's Zurich Bible. It is apparent then that Coverdale was essentially an editor, who gathered together the best materials within reach, and so selected and so modified them as to construct a Bible that would meet both the demands of the public and those of the ecclesiastical authorities. His great good sense, as shown in the use of lan- guage to secure beauty, harmony, and melody, made him a wise editor. His essentially peaceful nature led him to restore many beloved ecclesiastical terms that Tyndale had thrown out for new and more exact translations of the original Greek and Hebrew texts. 250 Versions Close to Tyndale*s Indeed, so happy are some of the translations of Cov- erdale that they were perpetuated in the Authorized Version. 201. Coverdale's Bible so met the requirements of all parties that it immediately achieved popularity. In 1537 — one year after the martyrdom of Tyndale — two revised editions appeared, carrying this state- ment, " set forth with the king's most gracious license." In 1538, he published a revised New Tes- tament with the I^tin in parallel columns. Thus within twelve years from the issuance of Tyndale's New Testament, which had to be printed abroad and clandestinely carried into England, we find the entire Bible, translated, printed, and distributed with royal approval — and this within one year after the treach- erous destruction of Tyndale. The character and position of the men who fos- tered the enterprise doubtless aided in the reception accorded Coverdale's work. Tyndale was a genius, was self-poised, original, and creative. He was every whit a scholar, and stood absolutely on his convic- tions, regardless of consequences. Coverdale was an imitator, a follower in the tracks of others, har- monistic, sympathetic, and gentle. He was modest, dependent, and regarded, always and everywhere, the interests of others in his decisions. Tyndale had the conviction that he had a great mission in this world and bent everything to accomplish that end. Cover- dale apparently came into his own without any burn- ing zeal that could not be quenched. Tyndale's tre- C|>eXI.(C^Apter. gfi&etb'? v";M"fU60i»ertl)e tcMas, i rtiib (o ftfaW t^ou fynbe t\)e afut nu tiert oj eig^t, fo: ti)OU eno«»f(? not nj^atmife r^ |l;al come ppo can^.YC^e t^e clou&es are full , c^e<; pcure out ro^ne vpott t^e e4rel;. an& vo^e fat fallet^.Cwbet^er it be towar Ce tl^tfom^ oj noit^)m wbrtt pl« ctfoeuet ic f(»!I,t^8re It ('{ttt'- ^3* t^«tregarb(*t> ^ ir fii &e, (l^fll not (owe : onto ^e t^«t ^(ttl; refpecte rnw t^e cIo»&es, fljal not rcttpe. tlow lite ost^ou Cnowefl nottt)e wnyeof tt>e wfu- te,ner^Oi» y boncsarcf^llc&i'rtdmot^ers njcm'be: i^ucn fot5outnowe|tnott|)e wo: f ea of p?*! be nwnv:* w^en t|)e v comwil twinges (^*I be but vanitc , 3&e glab t^en ( (D t^ow fonge inan)i» t^v f^"*^^ > on^ '<*t^ ^^i"^ ^^<^ ''^ n*^' irf in t^f o;(be of ^ Lo2b came ton!, fapengrtutncasapne, anb tell I^^eKia toe captapne of mp people : '3:0us; rapti) tt)c Lo;b (Bon of 2)aatb ttip f a= 25 ttftt:3 baue I)erb t|>p pzapec , $ fene ttip tea« re!E(3nb bet)olbe.3txiill$eaIett)e,(o tbat on tbe tbitb bapei) Quit go \)p into tbe tioufe of ^ !Lo;b. 2[lnb 3 mil abbe Vnto t^p bapesf pet f pf tene peace,anb TDill belpuec tQe 9 Q)t)S cptie out of tl)e ^anb of tl)e bpnge of 3^ffp - cta,f VDpll befenbetDiiei citiefo; mpne awne latte,$ foi^iaDanibrnpfecnauntcjaifabe. T^ni The Great Bible. A.D. IS39 2 Kings 20 : 1-7 " The Great Bible " 255 presses, type and other outfit to London. In April, 1539, Coverdale's new revision was completed. Be- cause of its splendid proportions and magnificent form it was called "The Great Bible." It was in large folio, black letter, and carried neither notes nor dedication. Its unique title-page reads : " The Byble in Englyshe, that is to saye the content of all the holy Scripture, both of ye Olde and Newe Testa- ment, truly translated after the veryte of the Hebrue and Greke Textes, by ye dylygent studye of dyverse excellent learned men, expert in the forsayde tonges. Printed by Rychard Grafton and Edward Whitchurch. Cum privilegio ad imprimendum solum, 1539. . . . Fynisshed in Apryll, Anno MCCCCCXXXIX. A Dno factu est istud." One of the remarkable features of this book is its artistic frontispiece. It consists of a design of Hans Holbein, nine by fourteen inches, in which the king's' authority is set forth with startling definiteness. The galaxy of worthies here delineated — the king hand- ing the Bible to Cromwell and Cranmer — was appar- ently one of the methods of Coverdale for securing royal patronage and favor in the distribution and use of this new work. 206. What now were the biblical contents of this Great Bible ? The title-page specifies that Cov- erdale had made use of Hebrew and Greek experts in its preparation. But the short space of time be- tween the appearance of his own revision and the Great Bible would scarcely permit much expert work 256 Versions Close to Tyndales to be done. The *01d Testament is Matthew's (Rogers-Tyndale-Coverdale) edition, revised on the basis of Sebastian Miinster's Latin translation of 1535. In the New Testament, Tyndale's translation was the basis, revised by making comparison with* the Latin translation of Erasmus, and also of the Vulgate. So that the result of Coverdale's careful editorial supervision, " The Great Bible " was only a revised edition of John Rogers' " Matthew " Bible, which was the most complete presentation of the translation work of William Tyndale, whose mar- tyrdom had occurred only three years earlier (in October, 1536). 207. The hand of Cromwell had been supporting Coverdale in his great work, so that without fear of interference he could prosecute his plans on a large scale. In fact, " the King's most honourable Coun- cil " had taken enough active interest in the enter- prise to cut out all marginal notes. The publication of the so-called exti'a volume of annotations was postponed indefinitely. Furthermore Cromwell, as the king's right-hand officer, showed his interest in the work by promulgating in 1536, but not issuing until September, 1538, an order to the clergy through- out the kingdom to provide before a specified day " one boke of the whole Bible, in the largest volume, in Englyshe, sett up in summe convenyent place within the churche that ye have cure of, whereat 3'our parishioners may most commodiously resort to the same and rede yt." What a revolution! In 1525-6, Use of the Great Bible 257 Tyndale's New Testament was publicly burned at St. Paul's. In 1538 the same book, under another cover and name, was ordered by sanction of royal authority, if not decree, to be placed in public places, where all could read it. Tyndale had been martyred, but his battle had been won. The Bible in English was commanded to be put in every parish church in the land. The church historian CoUier says that a paper dating from 1539 declares: "Englishmen have now in hand, in every church and place, the Holy Bible in their mother "tongue, instead of the old fabu- lous and fantastical books of the "Table Round," "Lancelot du Lake,'" "Bevis of Hampton," "Guy of Warwick," etc., and such other, whose impure filth and vain fabulosity the light of God has abolished utterly" (After Hoare, p. 194). 208. Although Archbishop Cranmer was not actively engaged in the production of the Great Bible, he soon championed its cause. King Henry Vni gave to Cromwell the absolute right of licensing the publication of the Bible for five years. For the second edition Archbishop Cranmer prepared a Pref- ace, and this edition appeared in April, 1540. In July and November two other editions (third and fourth) followed. In 1541 three editions (May, No- vember, and December) were issued from the London presses. Six of them carry Cranmer's Preface ; and tbe third and fifth have on their title-pages the names of Tunstall and Heath, who had " overseen and perused " the book " at the commandment of the 258 Versions Close to Tyndales King's Highness." So Bishop Tunstall, who had so vigorously condemned, bought up, and burned Tyn- dale's New Testament, now formally, on the title- pages indorses its publication and use. Suspicion had been attached to Cromwell's acts and name, for he was sent to the executioner's block in July, 1540. But the Bible had free course for a time. The seveq editions of the Great Bible within two years testified to its immense popularity and the public demand for it. Indeed, so firm a hold did it take upon the church authorities that it formed the basis of the English Prayer-Book, and was secure in its authority as the Bible of the English people for thirty years. Its presence in the churches where every one could approach and read it, became an actual menace to the preacher and the public services. For readers would crowd about it, read and discuss it, while the preacher was trying to deliver his sermon. These events be- came so aggravating to the clergy that Henry VIII issued a warning or injunction that every preacher charge his congregation to use this Bible " most hum- bly and reverently," not "having thereof any open reasoning in your open taverns or alehouses," using it " quietly and charitably every one of you to the edifying of himself, his wife and family" (Strype's Cranmer, Vol. II, p. 735-6). Whatever else may be said of the open Bible, it is perfectly plain that the authorization of Cromwell, in putting it within the reach of every one, aroused the English nation to a new conception of Taverner s Bible 259 the meaning of Bible truth, and of their own per- sonal relation to a forgiving and redeeming Saviour. It also widened the breach between the stern ecclesi- astical sustainers and those who looked askance at the wornout tenets of the church, clinging rather to the more liberal personal type of religion. 209. During the same year that Coverdale was completing the printing of his Great Bible, an Oxford scholar, a layman and lawyer, R. Taverner, was print- ing another revision. Taverner was a good Greek scholar, but apparently was unacquainted with He- brew. He dedicated it to King Henry in dignified, courteous, and straightforward language. The Old Testament followed the Matthew revision with only slight changes, occasioned by comparison with the Vulgate. The New Testament revision bears some marks of his Greek scholarship. Taverner's Bible appeared in 1539, in two editions, a folio and a quarto; his New Testament appeared the same year, separately in two editions, a quarto and an octavo. The whole Bible was but once re- printed; his Old Testament was adopted in a Bible of 1551. Otherwise his revision was entirely super- seded by the Great Bible, now circulated and used by royal authority. CHAPTER XXIII THE GENEVAN, BISHOPS', AND DOUAI VERSIONS 2IO. Cromwell's political and religious policy had caused his downfall and execution. His wholesale confiscation and destruction of shrines, images, and other religious symbols ; his forcible plundering of abbots, monks, and monasteries ; his wrecking of even the buildings connected with worship, stirred up a revolution among the Roman Catholic subjects throughout the kingdom. Cromwell's head was only one of their demands. The exalted place that he had given the English Bible and the reformation movement could not long be maintained. A most determined reaction set in against everything that looked like Lutheranism or the reformation that had made such" astounding progress on the continent, particularly in Germany. King Henry VIII was in danger. He was forced not simply to modify, but almost to re- verse the policy inaugurated by Cromwell. In 1543 " Parliament proscribed all translations bearing the name of Tyndale." It also required that the notes in all other versions should be expunged. Further- more, it was enacted that no laboring men or women " should read to themselves or to others, publicly or privately, any part of the Bible, under pain of im- prisonment." In 1546 King Henry proscribed every 260 Edward VI and Reform 261 iJible and every separate New Testament, except th5 Great Bible. The reading and use of this was re- stricted to the upper classes — to the people of leis- ure, as it were. At this time Bibles and Testaments were burned by the hundreds to satisfy the anti- reform movement, which had taken off the head of Cromwell. Tunstall and Heath, who had caused their names to be printed on the title-pages of the Great Bible in approval thereof, now said " they never med- dled therewith " ( Strype, Eccles. Memorials, Vol. I, p. 633). At the climax of this reaction against the reformation King Henry died (January 28, 1547). It looked as if Bible translation work had received its death blow. 211. With the accession of Edward VI, the sun rose on the reformation. This young king, even at his coronation, affirmed his devotion to the Bible, commanding that it be carried before him. His re- ligious and political policy was that of the reform party. During his reign of six and one-half years (1547-53) the English Bible was reprinted many times and in many editions. Thirty-five editions of the New Testament and thirteen of the Old were issued from the press. The king's attitude and policy were set forth in certain injunctions issued at his coronation. Among these we find that every bene- ficed person shall provide " one book of the whole Bible of the largest volume in English, . . . the Paraphrasis of Erasmus also in English upon the Gospels," and shall set up the same " in some con- 262 Genevan, Bishops', and Douai Versions venient place within the . . . church, . . . where their parishioners may most commodiously resort unto the same and read the same." What a reversal of the last policy of King Henry ! Reform- ers, too, who had fled to the continent to escape the wrath of King Henry, now came back to meet the welcome of the new ruler, and of Archbishop Cran- mer. These warm friends of the new king formed a choice group for promoting the reform. Cal- vinism and Lutheranism were flourishing under the new protectorate, as over against the policy of the last years of Henry's reign. 212. At the close of Edward's all too short reign, Mary Tudor came to the throne (1553). England again fell back into the hands and power of Roman Catholicism. Mary quickly turned the tables upon Protestantism. She inaugurated a reign of terror, by lighting the fires of Smithfield. Archbishop Cranmer and John Rogers, with hundreds of others, were burnt at the stake. Myles Coverdale, now Bishop of Exeter, escaped with difficulty to the continent. Scores of reformers took the same road to safety. But the fierceness of Mary's persecution defeated its own purpose. The burning of such men as Arch- bishop Cranmer caused a revolt in the hearts even of his opponents. The use of the English Bible in public was prohibited, and the copies placed in churches by the order of Edward VI were removed and burnt. But there was no searching nor spying out hidden copies in order to destroy them. The hor- The Geneva New Testament 263 rors of Smithfield and the suppression of the Eng- Hsh Bible had driven into voluntary exile some of the best biblical scholars of England. These men drifted to Germany and Switzerland, and naturally took up the cause they loved so dearly. After five years (1553-58) of bloody persecution and terror, in which some of the best men of England had suffered martyrdom, Mary died. 213. One of the direct results of the persecution of Mary was the flight of some of the reformers to Geneva, Switzerland, the home of Beza, the most noted biblical scholar of the time, and of Calvin, the theologian. The city of Geneva was the home of free thought, hampered by no political or religious restrictions. It was a home of biblical scholars of more than one nationality. Beza's critical and exe- getical work had done much to clear up some of the difficulties of translation and interpretation. The company of English scholars now improved their long desired opportunity to revise the Great Bible and bring it up to the new standards of scholarship. Whittingham, a brother-in-law of Calvin, seems to carry the credit for the preparation and printing of the Genevan New Testament in 1557, with an intro- duction by Calvin. The reviser's preface contains some instructive information. He says, " I have divided the text into verses [first marked on the mar- gins of Stephanus' Greek Testament of 1551] arid sections according to the best editions in other lan- guages." He provided marginal notes wherever he 264 Genevan, Bishops', and Douai Versions could thereby explain obscure Hebrew or Greek phrases. He also introduced in italics words required to complete the sense, but lacking in the original tongues. This was the most complete and accurate Elnglish New Testament that had yet appeared. Its merits soon won for it a hearty welcome, even in England. Its notable reception led its promoter to engage in a larger work for the cause of the reformation and of biblical learning. 214. Whittingham, with the aid of a group of scholars, whose names we know only in part, and Coverdale was probably one of them, assiduously worked on a revision of the Great Bible. This work continued " for the space of two years and more day and night." It is reported that " Whittingham, with one or two more, did tarry at Geneva an year and a half after Q. Elizabeth came to the Crown [Nov., 1558], being resolved to go through with the work" (Woods, Athenae Oxon.). Thus it is evident that not all the group of scholars worked during the entire time of revision. The work was completed and the new Bible published in 1560, dedicated to Queen Eliz- abeth in simple, dignified language. The printing was done at the cost of the congregation at Geneva, among whose members we find John Bodley, the father of the founder of the Bodleian Library, at Oxford. He secured from Queen Elizabeth the exclu- sive right to print the Bible in England for seven years. In 1 561 he printed a folio edition in Geneva. Aul'an ApoftlcCaot 'of I men,necherby >■ ma^but byiEtVS CHRIST, I and God cbe Father 4i hache raifed hint from ' the dead} And all ihc bsechren vi are with el ofChnli 6 But thogh that wc, or an 'Angel from heauen preache vmo you other wif^: , the that which we hauc preached vnto you, let himbs'itccurled^ y As we^d before/o fay I ncwagainc.If an ie man preache vnco you otherwire.the y ye haue recciued,Iet him be accur/ed. The Geneva Bible. A.D J560 Galatians 1 : 1-9 Its Popularity and Use 265 The size of the Genevan version was a quarto, — small in comparison with the folios of Coverdale, Matthew, and the Great Bible. Another innovation was the abandonment of black letter for the plain, sim- ple Roman type. As in the New Testament of 1557, the chapters were divided into verses. The margins carried terse, sensible, explanatory notes, that smacked somewhat of Calvinism, though without con- troversial bitterness. 215. The Geneva Bible immediately sprang into full-grown popularity. Its superiority to every other preceding version, and the silent assent of Queen Elizabeth to its distribution and use, gave it a tre- mendous impetus as an instrument of popular re- ligious reform. In the Old Testament the learned revisers took as their basis the Great Bible, and thor- oughly revised the translation oh the evidence of the best texts. The most sweeping changes were made in the prophetical and hagiographical books — ^books unrevised by Tyndale. The New Testament work, based on Tyndale's last revision, was largely affected by Beza's Latin translation and commentary. The Geneva Bible, however, did not displace the Great Bible, which had been once more required in the churches for ecclesiastical use, though its pres- ence everywhere soon instituted comparisons that were detrimental to this long-established Bible of the parish church. Thus the two books were used side by side from the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, until the appearance of the Bishops' Bible in 266 Genevan, Bishops', and Douai Versions 1568. Thenceforth the Geneva Bible was required in increasing ratio, so that by 161 1, one hundred and twenty editions had appeared. Between 1568 and 161 1 sixteen editions were issued in octavo, fifty-two in quarto, and eighteen in folio. 216. Archbishop Parker, who was a devoted and learned biblical scholar, took steps in 1563-4 for a revision of the Great Bible. His plan involved the dividing of the whole Bible into parts, and the assign- ing of one part to each of a large number of scholars. He assigned to himself the offices of general editor and of overseer of the printing of the text. At least nine of the revisers were bishops, hence the re- 'sultant Bible was to be called "The Bishops' Bible." The directions given the revisers included specifica- tions that they were to follow the Great Bible, except where " it varieth manifestly " from the Hebrew and Greek. They were to regard especially the Latin ver- sions of Miinster and Pagninus. " Bitter notes " and controversial matter were to be omitted. " Genealo- gies " and other non-edifying passages were to be so indicated as to be passed over by the reader. Language that gave offense to good taste was to be " expressed with more convenient terms and phrases." Several of the bishops engaged on the work carried on a frank correspondence with Archbishop Parker. The work was evidently done without conference or consulta- tion among the revisers, so that we may be prepared for a considerable degree of unevenness in the out- come. On the completion of the revision, the edi- J •3l6optemet!)(nU)(n)etnc(rc:\2i?cpace tljEibapoftDcILoiDe, niafee llrapgtjt t^Epatl) of out (EioDintDe Defect. 4 ail baticps fljalbe eialtcD , aiiD t utVp moimtapntanDl)?!! lapDeloiDe: \\)ljat fo (0 ctoftED n)albe matte Ocapgl)t, anD tlje cougt) Ojalbe niaDe plapnc. 5 *f o; tl)c gio?(c of rtje JLozDe fljall apj peace, fo; all fleQ^e fl^all at once fee tijat t\)t niout!) of t\)t "jLo^t \]M) fpotien it. 6 %iit fame bopcc fpafte ; iBotbc tcpe. Znn t!)e p;opliete auitfiDeceD, naijat 0)811 3 ccpe? *Xl)at all fleOje is grafle, ant) tliat all tlje gooDlmcITe tjjecof is as tDeflouceoftljcftelDe. 7 %i)t gcaffe is tt)it|)eteo , tftc flouce 23 failett) aibap,fo; tt)e b;catl) of t|)e !Lo;D "* Wolbctt) Upon tl)em: of a tcuertj tlje people nee gcalTe. 8 "J^t gtaflc iDDtti)eretI),anD t[)c flouce fanett) atbap: 'pet tt)e ibo;&e of our = .S 3 > C Vu --^ 3 ^"-S ° ^ 2 ^ H_ ^ "2 '^ -c "^ 3 C c "B U «> _ OJjJX u > u u ^— w « > ^ u c •-* > u u B "t: a iS C C o 60 < "« " o .y — a i; c C: "<^ «s «a s Character of the Douai Bible 271 carried over into English words and phrases that are stiff, formal, wooden and often meaningless. The Psalter is the most defective part of their Bible, for its translation was made not from Jerome's I^tin translation, but from his second revision of the Old Latin, that is found incorporated in the Latin Bible adopted by the Council of Trent. The Rhemish New Testament, however, through its popularity attained through Fulke's publication, exer- cised some influence in the preparation of the Au- thorized Version of 161 1. CHAPTER XXIV THE AUTHORIZED VERSION OF 161I 220. The reign of Queen Elizabeth (1558-1603) was replete with great events. In the rehgious sphere we have (i) the appearance (1560) of the Geneva Bible that soon attained large popularity and use; (2) the publication (1568) of the Bishops' Bible that immediately displaced the Great Bible as the eccle,si- astical version in use in the churches; (3) the Rhem- ish New Testament (1582) as the product of the English Catholic college at Rheims, Flanders, and its completion, the Douai Old Testament (1609-10) at Douai; (4) the tolerance enjoyed by the reform party in England, securing for them practically un- restricted growth. The two events in the political sphere that contributed to the success and liberties already achieved were the execution of Mary Stuart (1587) and the overwhelming defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588. In the literary world there arose a galaxy of scholars and writers which has made the period unique in England's history, and given the language a purity, style, and beauty that has never been surpassed by any subsequent age. Among these worthies may be mentioned Shakespeare, Spenser, Bacon, Hooker, Jonson, and Richard Hakluyt. The religious and intellectual forces set to work greatly 272 jfames I and Hampton Court 273 stirred up and molded the desires, aspirations, and endeavors of the Englishmen of the close of the six- teenth century. Scholarship had achieved a high standard of excellence and was not satisfied with any- thing small or less than the best. 221. James I came to the throne in 1603. His. early life and training had made him a student of the Bible. He had even tried his hand at authorship, having written a paraphrase of the book of Revela- tion, and translated some of the Psalms. The be- ginnings of the movement that ended in the transla- tion of the so-called " Authorized Version " were apparently unpremeditated. King James had sum- moned a Conference to meet at Hampton Court in January, 1604, to consider complaints by the Puritans. The item of importance for our consideration is found in the Preface of the Authorized Version : "The very historical truth is that upon the importunate petitions of the Puritans, at his Majesty's coming to this crown, the conference at Hampton Court having been ap- pointed for hearing their complaints : when by force of rea- son they were put from all other grounds, they had re- course at the last to this shift, that they could not with good conscience subscribe to the Communion [Prayer-] book, since it maintained the Bible as it was there trans- lated [in the Great Bible], which was, as they said, a most corrupted translation. And although this was judged to be but a very poor and empty shift, yet even hereupon did his Majesty begin to bethink himself of the good that might ensue by a new translation, and presently after gave order for this translation which is now presented unto thee." 274 The Authorized Version of 1611 The one man who presented this question to the Conference was Dr. Reynolds, president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford. His examples of " a most corrupted translation " were cited from the Great Bible and the Bishops' Bible, for from the translation of the former of these the Prayer-Book had been constructed. So far as is known the Conference adjourned with- out taking any definite steps towards meeting the issue, of the Puritans. But the strong words of the Oxford president had been sown in fruitful soil. 222. The charge of the Puritans that mistransla- tions of the Scriptures were found in the Prayer-Book was the first definite step towards a revision. James I was thoroughly in accord with the idea of a new revision of the Bible, for he himself is cited concern- ing the best translation of that day, the Genevan, by Bancroft, in these words, "but the worst of all [the translations] his Majesty thought the Geneva to be." James entered heartily into the preparation and exe- cution of a plan to provide a uniform translation " by the best learned in both the Universities; after them to be reviewed by the bishops and the chief learned of the church ; " to be ratified by the Privy Council, and by royal authority. James seemed to regard this as the opportunity of his life to do a popular and permanent piece of work on the Bible. He entered into the plan with energy, enthusiasm, and a determination to carry it through to a successful issue. His own Bible-trained spirit Organization of Revisers 275 and his theological turn of mind made the whole en- terprise congenial to him. The extemporized sug- gestion of Dr. Reynolds soon sprang forth into full fruition. It is not known with whom James made all the plans and arranged all the details. But about six months later, not only the general plan of pro- cedure, but the list of scholars who were to do the work, had been fully prepared. By July 22, 1604, James wrote to Bancroft that he had " appointed cer- tain learned men to the number of four and fifty for the translating of the Bible." The only prerequisite for the position of translator seems to have been proved efHciency as biblical scholars. The list in- cluded Anglican churchmen, Puritans, and laymen. Though James' letter mentions iifty-four, the list that has been preserved contains only forty-seven. The discrepancy between the original number and the actual workers is supposed to be accounted for by resignations and deaths between the time of appoint- ment and the time when the real work began. 223. The revisers were organized into six groups, — two at Westminster, two at Oxford, and two at Cam- bridge. Each of the six groups worked on a speci- fied portion of Scripture, separately at first. The Westminster group revised Genesis to 2 Kings in- clusive, and Romans to Jude inclusive; the Oxford group took Isaiah to Malachi inclusive, and the Gos- pels, the Acts, and the Apocalypse; the Cambridge group revised 1 Chronicles to Ecclesiastes inclusive, and the Apocrypha. 276 The Authorized Version of 161 1 The competency of the revisers was undoubted. Nevertheless, such an array of scholarship could not do the work harmoniously without stringent rules. To guide them fifteen specific rules were provided by The Principal SOURCES empixiyed by the translators of KingJames VfeasioNOF laj ^ ^ tCHAP.XX]Vj the scheme for work. Some of the most important things required were that (i) the Bishops' Bible should " be followed, and as little altered as the truth of the original will permit; " (2) the old ecclesiastical words should be retained; (3) there were to be no marginal notes at all, except such as should be needed for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words; (4) whenever Tyridale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's [The Great Bible, here named after one The Work Completed 277 of its printers] or the Geneva translation, agreed bet- ter with the original text than the Bishops' Bible, it was to be used. It was provided, too, that a compar- ison of translations of each individual translator with every other one in each company should be made, and when any book was completed by any group it was sent to all the other groups for review and sugges- tion. Translators, too, were authorized to call on any other scholars outside of the regular list, if they deemed it wise so to do. Thus every man of the entire company of forty-seven passed upon the work of every other man in the company. Very little is known as to the strictness with which the fifteen specifications were followed. It seems evident that there must have been practical harmony in their methods of procedure, for the work sped on at a commendable rate until completed. 224. The group work having been finished, two members of each of the three companies were chosen to pass upon the final revision of the work for the press in London. It is said that a copy of the whole Bible was sent to London by each of the three com- panies. The six final revisers thus chosen put the fin- ishing touches, the harmonistic elements, upon the work submitted by the three companies, and made the final preparations for the press. The entire time for carrying out the great enter- prise is sometimes divided into two periods, (i) the first three years (1604-07) were occupied in perfect- ing the preliminary arrangements, and, on the part of 278 The Authorized Version of 16 11 some of the translators, in carefully working over in private study the material soon to be handled by the entire body of revisers ; (2) the next two to three years were consumed in the individual and co-opera- tive labor of the six groups of revisers, during which the revision work was finished. Then the following nine months were occupied upon the final revision in London. At the conclusion of this work the revised version appeared from the press of R. Barker in 1611. It was a folio volume in black-letter type, without notes. 225. The revision carried on its title-page, "newly translated out of the original tongues; and with for- mer translations diligently compared and revised by his Majesty's special command." This "translation," as has been already mentioned, was really a revision based on the Bishops' Bible, with a free use by the revisers of the Genevan, the Rheims New Testament, and the material of Tremellius (1579), Beza (1556, 1565 and 1598), and other Latin versions. When we consider that the Bishops' Bible was based on the Great Bible, and the Great Bible was a slightly revised edition of Tyndale's work, we begin to appreciate the part that Tyndale's work occupies in this new version of 161 1. There was no standard or " received " He- brew text of the Old Testament, hence the revisers were obliged to use the four current Hebrew Bibles and the Complutensian and Antwerp Polyglots ; in the Greek New Testament they had Beza's improvements on Erasmus and on Stephanus. The Old Testament far surpassed any English translation in its faithful iBo 3 tsxot tt)l)en t!)e fUntbe opetieD one of t^e (eaies,anD3l!)eatiiastt Tbete tl)e noile of tt)nnDer, one of ^e fonte beaOes, idfttiQj Comeanbftr. z ;Snii3)raiii,attbbeDon),an)l)tte ^ojk, anD 0^ ttjot fate on Dki l)aD a boibe, and acroitme ibas guten bnto l^ni,anl) i)ee Ibent fioo^tt) conqnecftig, anbtoconquere. 3 auibfbt)enl)ee|iai>openebtl)efe$ conbfeaic'll ^^acb toefeconb beattfiip, Comeanb&e. 4 ^ :5nb tt)ete ibent out anott)et Me tl^ lba£! teb : ano poTbet ibag giuento Dtni t^at (Satetljereon to take peace from t^e eard), ano tDat 0)ep fl)Ottio irai one another : anb tDere tbas ginenbmot^agreatfroo;b. 5 ^:anb tbt)en t)ee |)ab openeb tl)e tI)itl>(i»le,3iDearbtf)etDttbbea(t(iaip, Comeanbfte. :anb^bdt)eib,anbioe, a biatttel)o;te : anb i)ee tljat fate on bim 6ab apaive ofbaiantes m t)fs tmn- King James', or the Authprized Version. A.D. i6tT Revelation 6 ; 1-5 Popularity of Version of i6 1 1 279 representation of the Hebrew text, and did it in a simplicity of language admirably representative of the Elizabethan age. The New Testament is so chaste and expressive in language and form that it is even said to surpass the original Greek as a piece of litera- ture. 226. Another significant statement appeared on the title-page of the version attributed to the activity of King James, hence often called " King James' Ver- sion," or the " King's Bible." This is, " appointed to be read in the churches." Although the promotion and preparation of this Bible was under a direct order of the King and his chief advisers, there is no record of any order, act, or decree, authorizing or sanctioning its use as implied in the above statement. Neither parliament, convocation, privy council, nor king, is known to have laid down any law that would entitle this version to be named what, for long centuries, it has been called, " the Authorized Version." Notwithstanding its royal and scholarly paternity, its birth occurred without any blast of trumpets, any royal edict or public proclamation. It seems that the mere fact of its almost national character was re- garded as a sufficient guarantee of its rapid adoption and use in the churches and in private reading. At any rate, the King's name, and the eminence of the many great scholars who brought about its produc- tion, gave it an immediate hearing. It met opposi- tion, of course, as does any new revision, even in these days. It soon outran in popularity the Bishops' Bible, 28o The Authorised Version of i6n that had not been reprinted since 1606. With the Genevan Version it waged a running fight for a full half-century. But character and merit won the con- test, and the " Authorized Version " completely took the field. 227. The first edition of the " Authorized Ver- sion " appeared in 161 1. In 1614 another edition was printed which contained more than 400 variations from the first. But the sharp criticisms that were hurled at the new version, largely by Hugh Broughton, whose irascible disposition had deprived him of a place, as his scholarship deserved, on the translation commit- tee, forced a revision in 1629. The so-called final re- vision of the Authorized Version was printed in 1638. Within less than fifty years after the appearance of King James' Version, agitation was begun for a new revision of the Bible. In 1653 the Long Parliament submitted a bill calling for such revision. The rea- sons that lay back of the bill were in part errors, mainly printers', and some in translation, and also the so-called prelatical language of the version. The mat- ter went so far as to be put into the hands of a com- mittee appointed especially to take charge of the scheme. Some preliminary work was begun, but the dissolution of Parliament put an end to the proposed concerted action. Some of the most noted men of the century were on the committee which was dis- solved. Among these may be named Walton, bishop of Chester, who, with the active support of Oliver Cromwell, edited the colossal Polyglot Bible, and also Private Revisions 281 through his arduous .textual studies, pointed out the variations existent between manuscripts, particularly of the New Testament. Cudworth, the eminent theo- logian and philosopher, was another whose work has given him a permanent place in history. 228. The King James Version was winning the day. Its rivals had fallen out one by one, and the popular agitation for revision had dwindled into in- significant proportions. Private attempts either at bet- terment" or radical revision were not infrequent, but they remained almost private, and rarely exercised any large influence. Explanatory notes were called for, and editions like that of 1649 began to appear, with more or less of this additional matter. Bishop Lloyd's Bible in 1701 was the first to incorporate in it the biblical chronology that had been worked out by Arch- bishop Ussher (who died 1656). This system, which fixed the creation at 4004 B. C, has been generally followed by biblical scholars until recent times, when extensive discoveries of chronological material in the Orient have shown conclusively that it is greatly in error in all of its earlier calcula- tions, and in most of its later dates before the fall of Samaria (722 B. C). In 1762 the Cambridge Bible, by Dr. Paris, introduced 383 marginal notes and other changes; and in 1769 Dr. Blayney introduced into the Oxford Bible 76 changes, including many on weights, measures and coins. These were practically private changes made to elucidate the text as it had been preserved from its final revision. As late as 282 The Authorized Version of i6 1 z 1873 the Cambridge Paragraph Bible gave a Hst of variations from the text of the King James Version as it first appeared in 161 1, that covered sixteen closely printed pages. The Oxford Parallel Bible of 1885 made a selection from these variants and put them in the margin. 229. For almost three centuries the Authorized, or King James, Version has been the Bible of the English- speaking world. Its simple, majestic Anglo-Saxon tongue, its clear, sparkling style, its directness and force of utterance, have made it the model in lan- guage, style, and dignity of some of the choicest writ- ers of the last two centuries. Added to the above characteristics, its reverential and spiritual tone and attitude have made it the idol of the Christian church, for its own words have been regarded as authoritative and binding. It has endeared itself to the hearts and lives of millions of Christians and has molded the characters of the leaders in every walk of life in the greatest nation of the world. During all these cen- turies King James' Version has become a vital part of the English-speaking world, socially, morally, re- ligiously, and politically. Launched with the endorse- ment of the regal and scholarly authority of the sev- enteenth century, its conquest and rule have been supreme. No version of private origin, even in the face of advances in scholarship, could compete with it. Only when such another organization as pro- duced it came to the field was it obliged to yield the day — to the Revised Version. CHAPTER XXV THE REVISED VERSION 230. The Authorized Version held undisputed sway in the English-speaking world for more than two centuries. There were only occasional efforts now and then to improve that version, and they were purely personal and unauthorized. In fact, after the abortive effort of the Long Parliament to secure a new translation, the main ecclesiastical and national interests pursued other lines of action. The early half of the eighteenth century was submerged religiously in controversies that dealt with theological questions more from a dogmatic and philosophical point of view than from that of the Scriptures. The second half of that century was largely occupied by the English in political and economic questions. The ecclesiastical life of the nation in this century was at a low ebb, awaiting some thunderbolt of discovery or invention to arouse it to new energy and action. The beginnings of the nineteenth century^ saw new movements in every line of activity. Discovery, invention, scholarship, poli- tics, religion — all aroused to new life as the century advanced, promising not only larger action, but a wider horizon for the future. 231. Biblical scholarship, though confined to com- paratively a few men, had made some decided prog- 283 284 The Revised Version ress, particularly on the textual and philological side during the preceding century. The most prominent workers in this line were Kennicott, de Rossi, and Davidson, who carefully collated critical material of great value. New international relations, new incen- tives to travel and investigate, also took possession of biblical students. In 1844 Tischendorf's discovery of the Sinaitic manuscript (Codex Sinaiticus), Tre- gelles' publication of a critical text of Revelation based on many manuscripts in the principal libraries of Eu- rope; and in 1857 and thereafter, his Greek New Tes- tament opened the eyes of scholars to the immense possibilities of improvements in translations of the Bible. The number of biblical scholars was increas- ing, and the textual material which could be used in Bible study, particularly of the New Testament, was multiplying as rapidly as old manuscripts were dug out of the old libraries of Europe and the monasteries of the East. These " finds " revealed some of the most glaring defects of the Authorized Version and initiated efforts to produce new revisions or transla- tions of parts or of the whole Bible. In 1857 five English clergymen published translations of the Gospel of John and of Paul's Epistles. Of these translators, Dean Alford and Bishop Ellicott were afterwards chosen to be members of the Committee of Revisers. Four English scholars, Drs. Gotch, Davies, Jacob and S. G. Green, prepared a Revised English Bible. G. R. Noyes, of Harvard University, published a translation in 1869, with some notes by Revision Committee Formed 285 Ezra Abbot in 1870. The American Bible Union, too, gathered together a choice biblical exegetical library at large expense, and prosecuted a new transla- tion of the Bible. The New Testament was translated and published in full. Parts of the Old Testament were published with comments by T. J. Conant, a leader in American biblical scholarship. All these efforts on both sides of the sea were indicators of the drift of scholarly opinion and movement in the last half of the nineteenth century. The large amount of new textual material, particularly of the New Testament, brought to light by the investigations of scholars, pushed the sentiment for a new revision of the Bible to the front. 232. The first public move towards a new revision was made February 10, 1870, in the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury. Bishop Wilberforce (of Winchester) presented a resolution that a com- mittee of both Houses be appointed to report on the desirableness, on the basis of certain principles named in the document, of a revision of the Authorized Ver- sion of the New Testament. By an amendment the Old Testament was included. This irnportant reso- lution was seconded by Bishop Ellicott (of Gloucester and Bristol), and it was adopted by the body. Two such names at the head of such a proposal were sure to give it a strong impetus. The committee provided for in the resolution was appointed to report in the following May. After due consideration this com- mittee almost unanimously recommended, and both 286 The Revised Version Houses of Convocation adopted, a resolution that a revision should be undertaken. It also provided that a body of its own members should be nominated to undertake the work of revision, who should " be at liberty to invite the co-operation of any, eminent for scholarship, to whatever nation or religious body they may belong." The Church of England took the lead in the management of the movement, and a com- mittee of sixteen men was appointed to carry out the letter and spirit of the resolution. This committee decided to invite about forty biblical schol- ars to become members of the Revision Committee. With Episcopalians in the lead, the committee was made up of members of nearly all evangelical bodies, including Baptists, Congregationalists, Methodists, Presbyterians and Unitarians; but no Roman Catho- lics accepted. The full number of this committee was fifty-four, the same as that originally named on King James' Revision Committee. 233. According to the Preface of the Revised Version, some of the general principles which were agreed to on May 25, 1870, by the Revision Commit- tee of Convocation for their guidance were: "(i) To introduce as few alterations as possible into the Text of the Authorized Version consistently with faithful- ness ; (2) to limit as far as possible, the expression of such alterations to the language of the Authorized and earlier English Versions . . . . ; (4) that the Text to be adopted be that for which the evidence is decided- ly preponderating ; and that when the text so adopted HebIrevw — \ — ^ ^ -^^L. 77\ 500- fflo- ..f? -^ Main sources of Old' ESTAMENTOFTHE REVISED VfeRSION, 1901 An American Revision Committee 287 differs from that from which the Authorized Version was made, the alteration be indicated in the margin; (7) to revise the headings of chapters and pages, par- agraphs, itaHcs, and punctuation." A discussion of the method of carrying out these instructions follows like- wise in the same Preface. The general committee was organized into two Com- panies, the Old Testament and the New Testament, of twenty-seven members each. The New Testament Company was formally organized and began work in the famous Jerusalem Chamber of Westminster Deanery, London, June 22, 1870, and on the 30th the Old Testament Company began its long and arduous toil. Each Company was required to work through its portion of the Bible twice. These Com- panies met together in sessions at stated intervals, and these sessions were for the most part of ten days each — and they generally sat six hours a day. On the first revision the readings tc> be retained were settled by a majority vote, but on the second revise it required a two-thirds vote of those present to fix the new text. 234. In 1870 Dr. Angus visited America, and, at the request of Bishop Ellicott, held a conference with some American scholars on the possibility of co-oper- ation with the British Revision Committee. A plan of such co-operation was framed, and a list of Amer- ican biblical scholars representative of the leading re- ligious bodies and denominations of the country was drawn up. The British Revision Committee approved 288 The Revised Version the plan and list of names. Accordingly a body of thirty men was organized December 7, 1871, which first began active service October 4, 1872, as Old and New Testament Companies, after the pattern of the British organizations. These two American Com- panies after beginning their service, met for com- mittee work one session every month, except July and August, in the Bible House in New York. Of the New Testament Company, ex-President Woolsey of New Haven was chairman, and Professor William Henry Green, of Princeton, occupied the same posi- tion for the Old Testament Company. The details of the plan of co-operation with the British Revision Committee were not easily arranged or adjusted. It was not until 1875 that a mutually agreeable and workable scheme was concluded. Dr. Schaff's statement of the substance of the agreement is sufficiently clear (Companion to Greek Testament and Revised Version, pp. 400-1) : "The English Re- visers promise to send confidentially their Revision in its various stages to the American Revisers, to take all the American suggestions into special considera- tion before the conclusion of their labors, to furnish them before pubhcation with copies of the Revision in its final form, and to allow them to present, in an Appendix to the Revised Scriptures, all the remain- ing dififerences of reading and rendering of import- ance, which the English Committee" should decline to adopt ; while, on the other hand, the American Revis- ers pledge themselves to give their moral support to Completion of the New Testament 289 the authorized editions of the University Presses, with a view to their freest circulation within the United States, and not to issue an edition of their own, for a term of fourteen years." 235. The New Testament Companies were natur- ally the first to complete their task. The whole time devoted to the work by the British Company was ten and one-half years. The first revision was completed at the end of six years. The second by the end of two and one-half more. The remainder of the time was occupied in the consideration of the suggestions from America on the second revision, and of many details, and of special questions that had arisen. As a rule the British Company held a session of four days every month, except August and September, in each year from June, 1870. The average attendance of members of the Revision Committee for the whole time was sixteen each day, out of the original of twenty-seven ; but the actual number of the Company was twenty-four — the changes occurring either from death or resignations having lowered the average. Thus after about 400 days of sittings on their work? the British New Testament Company affixed their names to the Preface to their version, November 11, 1880. On May 17, 1881, Bishop Ellicott, one of the two original movers of the resolution in 1870, to undertake the work of revision, laid the first copy of the Revised New Testament before the Convocation of Canterbury, and then gave in a brief address an ac- count of the production of the volume. On that Tues- 290 The Revised Version day, May 17, the Revised New Testament was pub- lished and put on sale in England, and on Friday, May 20, in the United States. 236. The reception accorded this work has been unprecedented in the history of the Bible. One mil- lion copies were ordered in advance from the Oxford University Press, and nearly as many from that of Cambridge. Dr. Schaff reports that a telegram from London, May 21, 1881, reported the sale of two mil- lion copies of the Revised New Testament in that one city. The pressure for copies in New York and Phila- delphia began before daybreak of May 20. The agent of the Clarendon Press in New York alone sold 365,- 000 before the end of the year, largely, however, dur- ing the first few days. Other agents in Philadelphia sold about 110,000 copies. Within a few days after its appearance more than a score of reprints of differ- ent kinds were thrown on the market. Two firms sold during the summer of 1881 about 165,000. It is estimated that almost three million copies of the Re- vised New Testament were sold in England and America in all editions within less than one year after its publication. In addition to these recorded sales there were various periodicals and papers that did large service, either by the publication of a part or the whole of the new volume. The Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Times published the book entire in their issues of May 22, 1881. The Gospels, Acts, and Romans, containing about 118,000 words, were tele- graphed from New York, and the remainder of the Completion of Old Testament 29 1 book was set up from copies received in Chicago on the evening of May 21. Thus the Revised New Testament sprang at once into a full-fledged popularity, and was widely and, for a time, eagerly read by the religious and literary elements of the English-speaking world. 237. The work of revising the Old Testament was greater and more extensive in time. It was not con- cluded until 1884, fourteen years after the beginning of the task. This space of time wrought many changes in the personnel of the British Old Testament Company. Only fifteen of the original twenty-seven lived to see the completion of their work; ten had died and two had resigned; their places being filled by others until 1875, after which no one was added to the Company. The Revision was completed in eighty-five sessions, ending June 20, 1884; and it occupied 792 days, or more than two and one-half years of working days. The greater part of the ses- sions were for ten days each, and each day the Com- pany generally sat six hours. The British Company had gone twice through the Pentateuch before co-operation with the American Company had been arranged. The first revision of the British Company was submitted to the American, and in every case except that of the Pentateuch, the British had the benefit of their criticisms and sugges- tions before they took up their second revision. The second revision was also submitted to the Americans and their latest thoughts were in the hands of the 292 The Revised Version British Company at their final review. As in the case of the New Testament, the Revised Old Testament carries an Appendix that contains many of the Amer- ican preferences which were not adopted by the Brit- ish Company. The Preface of the completed Old Testament was signed by the British Old Testament Company in Jerusalem Chamber, July lo, 1884; and the entire Revised Version appeared bound in one volume, May 19, 1885. Its reception was general, cordial, and thoughtful. There was no such phe- nomenal and popular demand for the entire Revised Bible as there had been just four years before for the Revised New Testament. But there was a healthy and encouraging call for the product of such long years of toil on the part of such an eminent body of biblical scholars. 238. The real bases of the Revised Version were the original texts used by the revisers. ( i ) The Old Testament text was the Massoretic Hebrew, substan- tially the same as that used by the Company that pro- duced the Authorized Version. The additional ma- terial at the command of the Revisers was due to the collation of the variant readings of Hebrew manu- scripts and of such early versions as the Septuagint and the Vulgate. It should be no surprise, then, that there are so few striking changes between the Old Testament of the Authorized and that of the Revised Versions. (2) The Greek text of the New Testa- ment used by the Revisers presents the greatest im- provements over that used by the revisers of King Improvements in Translation 293 James. Since 161 1 all the great New Testament manuscripts (Chapter XIV) had been discovered. As members of the British New Testament Company were Drs. Scrivener and Hort, two of the most able textual critics of the New Testament. The text used by the revisers was the result of a critical examination and estimate of all the known Greek New Testament manuscripts. The differences of the Greek text used by the revisers from that used by those who pre- pared King James' Version, according to Dr. Scrive- ner's notes (as cited by Dr. Schaff, Companion, p. 419, note) are seen in the case of 5,788 readings. Only about one in four of these makes any material differ- ence in the substance of the text. Another estimate placed the number of changes in the English text at 36,191, or an average of four and one-half changes in each of the 7,960 verses. In other words, the Re- vised Version of the New Testament differs in more than 36,000 places from the Authorized Version — at first thought almost a revolutionary change. 239. There is a remarkable contrast apparent when the translations of the Authorized and Revised Ver- sions of the Old and New Testaments are compared. In 161 1 the Hebrew language was quite imperfectly understood, while the Greek had been well mastered. Consequently the Hebrew Old Testament was often inaccurately rendered into English, and beautiful Eng- lish it was; while the New Testament was a fairly good and accurate translation of the Greek text. But the Old Testament of the Revised Version, although 294 '^^^ Revised Version 6ased on practically the same Hebrew text as that used for the 1611 version, is a much clearer transla- tion of the Hebrew, making sense of many passages that were obscure in King James. This improvement is very marked in the prophetical and poetical books, where obscurities, as we all know, were frequent and many. The New Testament of the Revised Version shows its greatest gains over its predecessor in the purity of the Greek text used as already mentioned (§238) and in the rendering of such passages as require a more discriminative recognition of the principles of the grammar and of the syntax of New Testament Greek. This one fact has introduced large improve- ments in the translation of some of the most difficult passages in the cogent arguments of Paul in his epis- tles. Readers cannot but note the excellent improve- ments of the Revised Version over the Authorized in these very particulars. 240. Two hundred and seventy years wrought a noticeable change in the English language. The Au- thorized Version has been in use nearly three hundred years, and, of course, contains scores and hundreds of words and expressions whose meanings have become greatly modified, or entirely changed. One of the urgent tasks of the revisers was to weed out these obsolete words, archaisms, and expressions that do not now mean what they did originally, nor what the original text now means. The archaic character, and bald expressions of the Authorized Version have Improvements in Form 295 been some of the targets at which scoffers have aimed their shafts — evidently forgetting, or winking at, the entirely different modern sense of the Hebrew and Greek originals. Again, many of the apparently plain and even immodest expressions of the Authorized Version, though entirely common and proper three centuries ago, are quite barred from good literature to-day. The revisers were required to translate the origi- nals into modern, modest, and yet forcible language that would properly represent the original texts, and at the same time give no needless offense to any thoughtful reader. This modernization of the lan- guage of Scripture, and, as far as possible, the trans- lation of the same original by the same English word, were two of the hard tasks of the revisers. Such' changes in words were made as " Holy Spirit " for "Holy Ghost," " Sheol" or "Hades" for "hell," " strange " for " outlandish," "smooth " for "peeled," " inwards " for " purtenance," " condemnation " for " damnation," " falsehood " for " leasing." The sec- ond task had been disregarded by the 161 1 revisers ; in fact, they often rather tried to use synonyms for the same Greek word, and thus give variety and beauty to the English language, and in this they were marvel- ously successful. 241. The Revised Version also possesses other qualifications for its claim to pre-eminence. The old arbitrary chapter and verse divisions — almost always misleading — have been relegated to the margin, so 296 The Revised Version that the text reads continuously like any other regular book. The narrative is broken up into paragraphs corresponding to the divisions and sub-divisions of thought. The chapter headings, chronological mate- rial, and antiquated marginal references, that have come to occupy so prominent a place in the Author- ized Version and have been the direct cause of so much misunderstanding and misinterpretation, have been omitted. In short, the Revised Version w^as intended to reproduce as faithfully as possible in Eng- lish the best original texts of the Old and New Testa- ments, abandoning the man-made and fallible chapter and verse breaks, the chapter headings, the chrono- logical material, and the marginal references. In ad- dition, some of the poetical sections in the Old Tes- tament are put into verse-formation, the better to show forth the character of the original thought. This fact is observed particularly in the so-called poetical books, and but rarely in the prophets, though there are in these latter books many beautiful poetic sections and passages where such formation would better rep- resent the original. 242. The Revised Version was produced by the hearty co-operation and skill of about seventy-five of the leading biblical scholars of Great Britain and America, who represented the most prominent relig- ious bodies of the two great English-speaking coun- tries. The age of the Authorized Version, its antiquated language, and its recognized defects of several kinds, were some of the reasons for the production of a Why Adopt the Revised Version ? 297 modem version of the Bible. Thus the sentiment and scholarship of the age demanded a revision, and the best critical and exegetical scholarship of the times produced it. What more could we ex- pect than that the churches of the day would gladly welcome such a revision as would remove the defects of the Authorized Version, and at the same time rep- resent the best scholarship of the times? These existing conditions brought about for the Revised Version a hearty welcome by most of the bet- ter trained and more intelligent Bible students of the day. They early recognized its merits as more truly representing the original texts, and its clearness of statement in language that accords more nearly with such language as we use in the simple, dignified tongue of to-day. But these linguistic and literary improve- ments did not everywhere meet instant approval. There were critics with sharp pens, who found many defects in the version. Then the tender and sacred associations with King James' Version held any varia- tion therefrom as almost sacrilegious, and refused to let go of so precious a volume for a new and modern version. All these considerations, however, as in the history of earlier versions were not sufficient to out- weigh in the minds of the more intelligent readers the recognized superiority of the Revised Version. From its first appearance it has won favor and has increased in use and in influence throughout the English-speaking world. Not many years hence the Authorized Version will be put on the shelf as the 298 The Revised Version most venerable and influential among all the past ver- sions of the Bible. 243. The production and merits of the American Standard Revised Version of 1901 deserve some especial notice. It will be remembered (§234) that an American Revision Committee vi^as not organized until 1 87 1, and that its work did not begin until Octo- ber 4, 1872, more than two years after that of the Brit- ish Committee. Its task was to pass in review the two revisions of the British Committee and to make any suggestions or emendations that seemed to be re- quired from the viewpoint of American scholarship, or from the needs of the American churches. But the actual terms on which the two committees finally jointly prosecuted their work were not concluded until 1875. This agreement provided that the sug- gestions of the American Committee should be duly considered by the British Committee before the final conclusion of their labors, and that they (the British Committee) should allow the American Committee to present in an Appendix to the Revised Scriptures, all the remaining differences of reading and rendering of importance which the British Committee should decline to adopt. This Appendix was to be published in every copy of the Revised Bible during a term of fourteen years. " The American Committee on their part pledged themselves to give, for the same limited period, no sanction to the publication of any other editions of the Revised Version than those issued by the University Presses of England." THE HOLY BIBLE CONTAINING THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS TRANSLATED OUT OF THE ORIGINAL TONGUES BEING THE VERSION SET FOETH A D 1611 COMPARED WITH THE MOST ANCIENT AUTHORITIES AND REVISED A.D. 1881-1885 Wctulg lESiteti bg ttje 9mcriran Ktbtsion Committee A.D 1901 SIAKDARD EDITION NEW YORK 37 EAST ISrii STREET Title-Page of the American Standard Revised Versio.n Appendix to Revised Version 299 244. The pledge of the American Committee tied its hands, for a period of fourteen years from 1885. Even the possibility that the British Committee might in some subsequent edition make use of the Appendix Suggestions of the American Committee disappeared at the disbanding of the former Committee very soon after the publication of the Revised Version in 1885. The American Revision Committee, however, con- tinued its organization, for it saw the possibility that an " American recension " of the Revised Version might be called for. This Committee suspected, too, that some person or persons would probably, in the near future, transfer the American preferences in the Appendix to the main body of the text and thus issue a so-called American edition of the Revised Version. Such an edition in the thought of the public would be the product of the American Committee, or at least be attributed to it as its originator. Such a conclusion manifestly would be unjust, for the Appendix which contained the American preferences " had been pre- pared under circumstances which rendered fullness and accuracy almost impossible." Such a list of dif- ferences, even reduced to its smallest compass, as ap- peared in the Appendix to the regular Revised Ver- sion evidently could not be compiled until the Revision proper had been concluded. And its compilation re- quired long and careful consideration of many points involved in previous discussions. But the British pub- lic had become impatient at the long delay in the issu- ance of the revision of the Old Testament, and de- 300 The Revised Version manded of the University Presses a speedy delivery. The Presses, on their part, insisted on a prompt trans- mission by the American Committee of the Appendix. " Prepared under such pressure, and in such haste, it was obviously inevitable that it should be marked by grave imperfections" (Preface to Am. Rev. Ver.). Evidently then the mere incorporation of this Ap- pendix in the text could not in any true sense produce an " American recension " of the Revised Version. 245. Another pressing need of an American Re- vised Version is seen in the use in the 1885 edition of a large number of wrords and phrases whose mean- ing and whose strange spellings are wholly antiquated. Some of these are, " bewray," " grisled," " holpen," " hough," " marish," " pourtray," " sith," " strowed." Then there are many words that are English but not American in meaning. " Corn " means grain of all kinds in England, but only maize or Indian corn in America. " Chargers " are not " platters," but " horses " here. " Traders " are not " chapmen " with us, nor are " merchants " " occupiers." " Fat " is not " vat " here, nor is " the capital " of a column called a " chapiter." Our soldiers are not arrayed in " har- ness," nor do we take our shoes " to be clouted." What is " go to " ? To retain such words in our Bible would necessarily require a glossary to explain them. Some other characteristics of the 1885 version re- quired Americanizing. The use of " a " and " an " before strong aspirates and vowels is in utter confu- sion. " My " and " mine," " thy " and " thine " suflfer Marginal References 301 likewise at the hands of the revisers. " Which," meaning " who," is an archaism that should be thrown out ; " the which " belongs to the same class. " God forbid " and " would God " are not a translation of the Hebrew. They are simply " far be it " and " would that." These and scores of other Anglicisms are found in the 1885 edition — many of them puzzling and confusing to American readers. 246. The Revised Version of 1885 swept away all the excrescences of the Authorized Version, such as chapter headings, chronology, marginal references, etc., and began anew. Its sole marginal references were such as cited the readings of the ancient ver- sions. The American Committee voted against the British selections for the margin, because, as Dr. Osgood of the Old Testament Company states, out of the two hundred and forty references, one hun- dred and fifty-one are not supported by the versions, and in thirty-three places not a version supports the reference. The American Committee therefore took in hand the matter of reducing and largely reduced the number of references to versions. Early in the work of revision the British Committee considered the matter of furnishing the Revised Ver- sion with a complete set of marginal references. After considerable progress had been made in that direction, especially by Dr. Scrivener, it was decided to issue the Revision without any such helps. But "in 1895 the University Presses undertook to meet the increasing demand, both at home and in America, for 302 The Revised Version an edition of the complete Revised Version with mar- ginal references." A committee was appointed to superintend the work. The general editorship was put into the hands of Dr. Stokoe, of Oxford. The Revised Version " with revised marginal references " appeared from the University Presses in 1898. In the preface to this edition this statement occurs: "The marginal references given in the original edition of the Authorized Version of 161 1 have been retained as far as possible, and the contributors have availed themselves largely of the references in Dr. Scrivener's Paragraph Bible, which they were instructed to make the basis of their work." 247. The surviving members of the American Re- vision Committee were keenly conscious of the defects of the Version of 1885, and early after its appear- ance began to plan the preparation of an edition that v/ould fully represent the results of their own research and the requirements of the American Bible- reading public. Their task was not simply to incor- porate in the body of the Bible their preferences as expressed in the appendices to the Revised Version, but thoroughly to revise those preferences in accord- ance with their own opinions. Their published list of preferences was so condensed as not fully to repre- sent them. Being now untrammeled by any relations with the British Committee they went well beyond that published list, and introduced into the text emenda- tions, corrections, and changes (originally adopted by a two-thirds majority of their own committee), neither Contract for Publication 303 approved by the British Committee nor inserted in the Appendix. Again, this American Committee freely revised the translation, language, phrases, and thought where it seemed to them best for the better expression for American readers of the original lan- guages. With their practical ideas of simplicity, clearness, and value, the Committee made ample preparations to issue a complete edition. Accordingly they prepared, with the aid of scholars not members of the Commit- tee, a full set of new marginal references; they revised and greatly reduced the references to ancient versions or texts ; they printed at the top of each page in a brief, succinct form the contents of that page; they re-paragraphed the whole Bible; and sought to remove inconsistencies of punctuation. An outline of the enormous task undertaken and completed by the surviving members of the American Committee is given in the " Preface to the American Edition." 248. About two years before the expiration of the period of fourteen years, already noted (§243) the American Revision Committee entered into an agree- ment with Thomas Nelson & Sons, of New York City, by which that firm was authorized to publish, in or after the summer of 1899, the American Standard Edition of the Revised Bible. The members of the Committee, who had been at work for some years, agreed on their part to prepare the text for the press. Their work on this edition, as on that that appeared 304 The Revised Version 1881-1885, was purely a gratuitous service, rendered the cause of religion in general and Christianity in particular. Just before the expiration of the fourteen years, the University Presses of Oxford and Cambridge, issued the " American Revised Version," an edition in which the American Appendix had been taken and incor- porated into the text, and accompanied by the mar- ginal references prepared by the special British Com- mittee already described. In other words, the Uni- versity Presses took the precaution to supply the American market with an " American Revised Ver- sion," while the American Committee were still restrained by their pledge to those Presses from issuing or sanctioning the issuance of any other than the Revised Version, of 1885. Naturally a storm arose, which gradually calmed down upon the advance to the front of the work of the American Revision Committee. 249. The Standard American Edition of the Re- vised Version, authorized by the American Committee of Revision, was published August 26, 1901, by Thomas Nelson & Sons, of New York City. It em- bodies the ripest scholarship of Great Britain and America (1881-1885), fully revised and corrected (1901) to suit it to the demands and requirements of American Bible students and readers. As it now stands it is the most perfect English Bible in existence, and will be the standard version for English readers for decades to Reception of American Revision 305 come. It is the crystallization of the best elements of ripe scholarship and sound learning, and is a fitting climax to the tremendous advances made in biblical learning during the last half of the nineteenth cen- tury. The hearty reception given it, and the readiness' with which it has been adopted by scholars and the churches are a glowing tribute to its excellence and its adaptability to the requirements of the religious life of America. 250. This American Revised Version has achieved an ever-increasing popularity since its appearance five years ago (igoi). The fact that it has been indorsed almost universally by religious teachers and leaders of all shades of belief, has given it a secure foothold. Its value is now being recognized by every one who has taken the trouble to compare its readings with those of the Authorized Version. Its adoption, too, by the American Bible Society, has given its transla- tion a new value among Bible students in general, and promises for it general acceptance among the Ameri- can Bible-reading public in far less years than the most sanguine had dared to hope. So constant has been the demand for this unrivaled Bible that the en- terprising publishers who own the copyright have issued it in more than 100 different styles. The American public is quick to appreciate its real worth, and within a few short years will surely see its general adoption in every line of biblical and religious service. BIBLIOGRAPHY INTRODUCTION CHAPTER I Kenyon, F. G., Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, 1895, Chap I; Variorum Teachers' Bible, in Foot-Notes. CHAPTER II Kenyon, F. G., Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts,,^ Chap. II; Variorum Teachers' Bible. Part I. The Old Testament CHAPTER III Weir, T. H., A Short History of the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, 1899; Ginsburg, C. D., Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, 1897; Merrill, G. E., Parchments of the Faith, 1894, Chaps. Ill, IV; Briggs, Study of Holy Scrip- ture, Chaps. Ill and VII. CHAPTER IV Mills, Three Months' Residence at Nablus, 1864; Pri«e, Ira M., The Monuments and the Old Testament, 1905, Chap. XXIV; Eckstein, A., Geschichte und Bedeutung der Stadt Sichem, 1886; Green, W. H., Introduction to the Old Testament: The Text, pp. 129-141; Barton, W. E. "The Samaritan Pentateuch," in Bibliotheca Sacra, October, 1903; Watson, W Scott, "A Critical Copy of the Samari tan Pentateuch, written in A. D. 1232," in Hebraica, Vol IX (1892-93), pp. 216-225; Vol. X (1893-94), pp. 122-156; Margoliouth, G. Descriptive L,ist of the Hebrew and Sa- 307 3o8 Bibliography maritan Manuscripts in the British Museum, 1893; Konig, Ed., "The Samaritan Pentateuch," Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, Extra Volume. CHAPTER V Swete, H. B., An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, igoo; Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, Article "Septuagint" by Nestle; Cheyne, Encyclopedia Biblica, Art. "Texts and Versions," §§ 46-55; Merrill, G. E., Parch- ments of the Faith, Chap. V; Briggs, Study of Holy Scrip- ture, Chap. VIII. CHAPTER VI Swete, Introduction to Old Testament in Greek; Burk- itt, F. C, Fragments of the Books of Kings according to the Translations of Aquila, 1897; Field, Origenis Hex- aplorum quae Supersunt, 1875; Art. "Hexapla" in Diction- ary of Christian Biography; in same see "Symmachus," "Theodotion." CHAPTER VII Article by H. J. White on "Vulgate" in Hastings, Dic- tionary of the Bible; Berger, S., Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers siecles du moyen age, Paris, 1893; Art. "Hieronymus" (Jerome) in Dictionary of Christian Biography; Life of Jerome in Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VI, pp. xvi-xxv, 1903; Copinger, W. A., Incunabula Biblica, or the First Half- Century of the Latin Bible, London, 1892; White, H. J., "The Latin Versions" in Scrivener-Miller, Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th ed., 1894, Vol. 11, pp. 56-90; Kenyon, F. G., Handbook to the Textual Criti- cism of the New Testament, 1891, pp. 184-203; Smith, H. P., "The Value of the Vulgate Old Testament for Textual Criticism" in Presbyterian and Reformed Review, April, 1891. Bibliography 309 CHAPTER VIII Article by Eb. Nestle on "Syriac Versions" in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, for list of monographs on the books of the Old Testament; Barnes, W. E., "On the In- fluence of the Septuagint on the Peshitta," Journal of Theo- logical Studies, II, 186, 187; Wright, W., A Short History of Syriac Literature, London, 1895; Barnes, W. E., "The printed editions of the Peshitta of the Old Testament," in Expository Times, Sept., 1898, pp. 560-562. CHAPTER IX Article by T. Walker on "Targum" in Hastings, Dic- tionary of the Bible, for literature in general, and on the three divisions of Old Testament; by Schiller-Szinessy in Encyclopaedia Britannica; Green, W. H., Introduction to Old Testament: The Text, pp. 102-110; Merrill, Parch- ments of the Faith, Chap. VI. CHAPTER X Articles on "Egyptian Versions,'' "Ethiopic Version," "Armenian Version," "Arabic Versions," under these heads; and "Georgian Version," "Gothic Version," and "Slavonic Version" under "Versions (Georgian, Gothic, Slavonic)" in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible; Kenyon, F. G., Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, pp. ^2,-^^. CHAPTER XI Article on "Texts and Versions" in Encyclopedia Biblica; Kenyon, F. G., Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, Chap. V, § 5. CHAPTER XII Articles on "Apocrypha," by M. R. James, in Encyclo- paedia Biblica; by F. C. Porter in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible; by G. F. Moore in Jewish Encyclopedia; Churton, Uncanonical and Apocryphal Scriptures, 1884; 3IO Bibliography Bissell, The Apocrypha of the Old Testament, 1890 (Com- mentary in the Lange series); Ball, C. J., Variorum Apoc- rypha, 1892; The Revised Version of the Apocrypha, 1895. Part II. The New Testament CHAPTER XIII Westcott and Hort, Introduction to the Text of the Greek Testament, Vol. II, §§ 98-106; Scrivener-Miller, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the Nevir Testament; Mitchell, E. C, Critical Handbook of the Greek New Tes- tament, new ed., 1896, pp. 87-113; Sitterly, Praxis in Manu- scripts of the Greek Testament, 1898; Lake, K., Text of the New Testament, 1900; Merrill, G. E., The Parchments of the Faith, Chaps. VIII-X; Schaff, Introduction to the Amer- ican Edition of Westcott and Hort's The New Testament in the Original Greek, pp. xiii-xxxv. CHAPTER XIV In addition to the citations under Chapter XIII, Merrill, Parchments of the Faith, Chaps. XI-XV; Abbot, Ezra, "Comparative Antiquity of the Sinaitic and Vatican Manu- scripts" in Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. X, pp. 189-200; Kenyon, F. G., Facsimiles of Biblical Manuscripts in the British Museum, 1901, Chap. Ill; Har- ris, J. R., The Annotators of the Codex Bezae, 1901. CHAPTER XV Schaff, P., Companion to the Greek Testament of the English Version, pp. 208-224; Murray, J. O. F., "Textual Criticism (of New Testament)," Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, Extra Vol. §§ 24-68; Westcott and Hort, In- troduction to New Testament in Greek, 1882; Warfield, B. B., Textual Criticism of the New Testament, 1890. Bibliography 311 CHAPTER XVI Article, "Vulgate" by H. J. White, Hastings, Diction- ary of the Bible; Burkitt, F. C, The Old Latin and the Itala (Cambridge Texts and Studies, iv. 3, 1896) ; Article "Latin Versions— The Old," by H. A. A. Kennedy, Hast- ings, Dictionary of the Bible; Berger, S., Histoire de la Vulgate, 1893; Kaulen, Handbuch zur Vulgate, 1870; Ken- yon, F. G., Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, Chaps. VIII and IX; and other articles cited under Bibliography, Chap. VII. CHAPTER XVII The literature on Chaps. VIII and X, and additional thereto; Bewer, J. A., The History of the New Testament Canon in the Syrian Church, 1900; English trans- lation from the Arabic of Tatian's Diatessaron by H. W. Hogg, in Ante-Nicene Christian Library, additional Vol. (1897), pp. 35-138; Zahn-Hjelt, Die altsyrische Evangelien- iibersetzung und Tatians Diatessaron, 1903; Murdock, James, The Syriac New Testament translated into Eng- lish from the Peshitto Versions, Boston, 1893. Burkitt, F. C, on "Coptic and other Versions,'' in Encyclopaedia Biblica, Vol. IV, cols. 5006-5012. CHAPTER XVIII The literature on Chapter XV, and additional thereto: Scrivener-Miller, Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th ed., 1894; Gregory, C. R., Textkritik des Neuen Testamentes, 1900; Nestle, Eb., Introduction to the Greek New Testament, 1901; Vincent, M. R., History of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, 1900; Ken- yon, F. G., Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, 1901; Lake, K., The Text of the New Testament (elementary), 1900. 312 Bibliography Part III. English Versions of the Bible CHAPTER XIX Article by J. H. Lupton on "Versions (English)," in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, Extra Vol., pp. 236- 238; Kenyon, F. G., Our Bible and the Ancient Manu- scripts, pp. 189-199; Watson, R. S., Casdmon, the First English Poet, 187S; Turk, M. H., The Legal Code of Alfred the' Great, 1893, pp. 33-37; Skeat, W. W., The Holy Gospels in Anglo-Saxon, Northumbrian, and Old Mercian Versions, 1871-77; White, R. M., The Ormulum, 2d ed., 1878; Wright, T., The Religious Poems of William de Shoreham, 1849; Bramley, H. R., The Psalter or Psalms of David and Certain Canticles ... by Richard Rolle, of Hampole, 1884. Eadie, J., The English Bible, 1876, Vol. I, pp. 3-36; Pattison, T. H., Hist, of the English Bible, 1894, Chap. I. CHAPTER XX Article by Lupton, "Versions (English)," in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, Extra Vol., pp. 238-241; Kenyon, F. G., Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, pp. 199-208; Forshall-Madden, The Holy Bible of the Wycliffite Ver- sions, 4 vols., 1850; Lechler, John Wycliffe, 1878; Bender, W., Der Reformator J. Wiclif als Bibelubersetzer, 1884; Matthew, F. D., J. Wyclifs English Works, 1880; Skeat, W. W., Preface to the .New Testament in English (Pur- vey's revision), 1879, and "Dialect of Wyclifs Bible"' in Transactions of Philological Society, Part I, for 1895-96; Westcott, History of the English Bible, Chap. I and App. I; Eadie, J., The English Bible, Vol. 1, Chaps. I-V; Pattison, Hist, of Eng. Bible, Chap. IL CHAPTER XXI Demaus, R., William Tindale, ed. 1904; Article by Lup- ton, "Versions (English)," in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bibliography 3 1 3 Bible, Extra Vol., pp. 241-244; Westcott, History of the English Bible, Chap. II, § i, and III, § i; Hoare, H. W., Evolution of the English Bible, 1901, Chap. V; Kenyon, F. G., Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, pp. 311-218; Anderson, C, Annals of the English Bible, 1845, Vol. I, pp. 1-551; Ery, Fr., A Bibliographical Description of the Edition of the New Testament, Tyndale's Version in Eng- lish, 1878; Eadie, J., The English Bible, Vol. I, Chaps. VI- XVI: Tyndale's Works, by Parker Society; Pattison, Hist. of Eng. Bible, Chap. III. CHAPTER XXII Fry, Fr., The Bible by Coverdale, 1867; Westcott, His- tory of the English Bible, Chap. II, §§ 2-5, and App. IV; Chap. Ill, §§ 2-5; Anderson, C, Annals of the English Bible, Vol. I, pp. SS1-S92, Vol. II, pp. 1-252; Hoare, Evolution of the English Bible, Chap. VI; Coverdale's Works, by Parker Society; Eadie, J., The English Bible, Vol. I, Chaps. XVII-XXXI. CHAPTER XXIII Hoare, H. W., Evolution of the English Bible, Chap. VII; Kenyon, F. G., Our Bible and the Ancient Manu- scripts, pp. 224-229; Anderson, C, Annals of the English Bible, Vol. II, pp. 253-532; Eadie, J., The English Bible, Vol. II, Chaps. XXXII-XEII; Westcott, History of the English Bible, Chap. II, §§ 7 and 8, and Chap. Ill, §§ 6-8; Article by Lupton, "Versions (English)" in Hastings, Dic- tionary of the Bible, Extra Vol., pp. 249-253; Carleton, J. G., The Part of Rheims in the Making of the English Bible, 1902. CHAPTER XXIV Scrivener, F. H. A., The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), 1884; Article by Lupton, "Versions (English)," in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, Extra 3 1 4 Bibliography Volume, pp. 2S3-2S7; Westcott, History of the English Bible, 1868, Cliap. II, § 9, HI. § 9; Anderson, Annals of the English Bible; Eadie, J., The English Bible, Vol. II, Chaps. XLIII-XLIX; Kenyon, F. G., Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, pp. 234-245; Hoare, H. W., Evolution of the English Bible, Chaps. VIII and IX; Pattison, Hist, of Eng. Bible, Chap. VI. CHAPTER XXV Article by J. H. Lupton, "Versions (English)," in Hast- ings, Dictionary of the Bible, Extra Vol., pp. 258-271; Hoare, H. W., Evolution of the English Bible, Chap. IX; Kenyon, F. G., Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, pp. 235-245; Kennedy, Ely Lectures on the Revised Ver- sion of the New Testament, 1882; Westcott, Some Les- sons of the Revised Version of the New Testament, 1897; Documentary History of the American Committee on Re- vision, 1885; Burgon, J. W., The Revision Revised, 1883 (a sharp arraignment of the Revisers) ; Whitney, S. W., The Revisers' Greek Text; Schafl, P., Companion to the Greek Testament and English Version, 1883; Chambers, T, W., A Companion to the Revised Old Testament, 1885. CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE Carrying the most important dates mentioned in the text of the book. B. C. About 432. — Expulsion of Manasseh from the priesthood at Jerusalem, and probable establishment of Jehovah worship at Samaria, with the Pen- tateuch as the Scriptures of the Samaritans. 284-132. — Probable date of the translation of the Septuagint. A. D. 128. — Aquila's Greek translation of the Old Testa- ment. About ISO. — The Syriac Old Testament. 180-192. — Theodotion's Greek translation of the Old Testament. 193-211. — Symmachus' Greek translation of the Old Testament. In 200. — The Old Latin Version of the Bible extant. 186-254. — Origen: Hexapla of the Old Testament. 260-340. — Eusebius of Csesarea: Revision 'th help of Pamphilus of Origen's Greek text, with other readings. Before 311. — Lucian's revision of the Septuagint. Before 311. — Hesychius' revision of the Septuagint. 310-383. — The Gothic Version of Ulfilas. 383-404. — Jerome's revisions and translations. About 400. — The Ethiopia Version. About 400. — The Armenian Version. After 400. — The Targums in written form. 400-500. — The Georgian Version. 31S 3i6 Ckr analogical Table About 590.- S97-- About 670- About 700- 674-735.- Before 709.- Before 709.- 848-901-- About 950.- 970- ■1000- 1 (1066.- About 121S.- About 1320.- About 1320.- 1338.- About 1340.- 1361.- I374-- 1380.- 1382.- 1384. 1388. •The Sahidic Version. -Augustine, the monk, lands at Kent, Eng- land. -Csedmon's paraphrases of the Bible. -The Bohairic Version. •Venerable Bede — the Gospel of John. -Aldhelm of Malmesbury — first Anglo-Saxon translation of the Psalms. -Egbert — a translation of the Gospels. -King Alfred — embodied Pentateuchal laws in his national code. -Aldred — interlinear Anglo-Saxon paraphrase of the Gospels (Lindisfarne Gospels). -Abbot ^Ifric produced "the Durham Gos- pels," also an Anglo-Saxon version of the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, etc. -The Norman Invasion — Battle of Hastings.) -The Ormulum — metrical version of parts of the Gospels and the Acts. -Psalter in English prose, credited to Wil- liam of Shoreham. -Birth of John WyclifiEe. -Wycliffe entered Oxford. -Rolle of Hampole translated the Psalter into English, with Commentary. -Wycliffe made master of Balliol College, Oxford. — Wycliffe appointed to a living at Lutter- worth. , — Wycliffe's translation of the New Testament completed. . — Wycliffe's Bible with help of Nicholas of Hereford completed. —Death of Wycliffe. — Purvey's harmonization of Wyclifle and Hereford's work, Chrojtological Table 3 1 7 1408.— Action forbidding use of unauthorized Bibles. (1453. — Constantinople captured by the Turks.) 1454. — Printing from movable types invented. 1455. — First complete Bible — the Vulgate — printed. (1458. — Greek language first taught in the Univer- sity of Paris.) (1470. — Printing press introduced into England by Caxton.) (1476. — First Greek grammar published.) (1480. — First Greek lexicon published.) 1484.— Birth of William Tyndale. (1488. — First Hebrew Bible printed.) (1492. — Grocyn became first teacher of Greek at Oxford.) (Columbus discovered America.) (1497. — ^Vasco da Gama rounded the Cape of Good Hope.) (1503. — First Hebrew grammar published.) (1506. — First Hebrew lexicon published.) 1516. — First Greek New Testament — Erasmus' — ap- peared. (1520. — Magellan sailed around the world.) 1522. — Luther's New Testament in German. 1523. — Tyndale goes to London to translate the Bible. 1524. — Tyndale withdraws from London to Ham- burg and Wittenberg. 1525. — Tyndale's New Testament printed at Col- ogne and Worms. 1526-9. — Tyndale's New Testaments burned at St. Paul's in London. 1528. — Latin Bible of Pagninus. 1529. — Zfirich Bible completed. 1530. — Tyndale printed his translation of the Pen- tateuch. 3 1 8 Chronological Table IS34-S- — Sebastian Miinster's Latin Version of the Old Testament. Tyndale's revision of his Pentateuch and New Testament. 1535- — Olivetan's French Bible. Tytidale treacherously arrested and im- prisoned. Coverdale's Bible reaches England. 1536. — Tyndale strangled and burned at Vilvorde Castle, October 6. 1537 — Coverdale's Bible licensed by royal author- ity. John Rogers' "Matthew" Bible distributed by authority of Henry VIII. 1539. — "The Great Bible," edited by Coverdale, au- thorized by Cromwell. Taverner's Bible. ■ 1540. — The Great Bible issued with Cranmer's Pre- face. 1543. — Royal restrictions on public and private reading of the Bible. 1545-6. — Council of Trent, establishing Roman Cath- olic canon of the Bible. 1546. — Wholesale destruction of Bibles. 1547. — Death of Henry VIII, and accession of Ed- ward VI. 1551. — Castalio's Latin Bible. Stephanus' Greek New Testament. ISS3- — Death of Edward VI, and accession of Mary Tudor. ISS3-8. — Persecution and" martyrdom of Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, John Rogers, and hundreds of others. 1557. — Geneva New Testament, by Whittingham. 1558. — Death of Mary Tudor, and accession of Elizabeth. Chronological Table 319 1560. — Genevan Version of the Bible. 1568.— The Bishops' Bible. 1579. — The Latin Old Testament by Tremellius. 1582. — ^The Rheims New Testament. (1588. — The Spanish Armada defeated.) 1603. — Death of Elizabeth, and the accession of James I. 1604. — Hampton Court Conference. 1609-10. — The Douai Old Testament. 161 1. — The Authorized Version. 1614. — Slightly altered edition of Authorized Ver- sion. 1629. — A revision of the Authorized'Version. 1701. — Bishop Lloyd's Bible with Ussher's chronol- ogy. 1762. — Cambridge Bible by Blayney. 1844. — Tischendorf's discovery at Mt. Sinai. 1857. — Tregelles' critical Greek text of Revelation. 1870. — ■First definite step toward revision. 1881. — Revised Version — New Testament. 1885. — Revised Version of Bible complete. 189s. — Revised Apocrypha. 1901.— American Standard Revised Version. TOPICAL INDEX Figures refer to pages, and those in heavy type give the main descrip- tion. Stars indicate illustrations. Abbot, Ezra, 157, 285 Abishua, reputed writer of Sam. roll, 45 Abraham, Apocalypse of, Pseude- pig. book, 125 Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Testa- ment of, Pseudepig. book, 125 Achiacharus, Story of, Pseudepig. book, 127 Act., abbreviation for Acts and Epistles of cursive Manuscripts, 142 Acta Pauli, 180 Adam, Testament of, Pseudepig. book, 1 25 Adler, see Assemani Adrian, brought original of Cotton Manuscript to England, 213 iElfric, translates Gospels into the Anglo-Saxon, 213; archbishop of Canterbury translated parts of Old Testament, 214 *Alcuin, revised Vulgate for Charle- magne, *168 Aldhelm, abbot of Malmesbury, minstrel preacher, 209; first known translator of Psalter into Anglo-Saxon, 210 Aldred, a priest, wrote interlinear Anglo-Saxon paraphrase in Cot- ton Manuscript, 213 Alexander II, Czar, patron of Tischendorf, 144; published Codex Sinaiticus, 146 Alexander the Great, 40 Alexandria, home of Jews, 50 Alexandrian type of New Testa- ment Manuscript, 194 Alford, dean, co-translator of John and Epistles, 284 Alfred, king of England, to whom a Psalter was attributed, 211-12 Allix, Peter, discovered Codex Ephr^m in Paris, 153 Ambrose, on Old Latin, 160 ♦American Standard Revised Ver- sion. 293-305 ; specimen page, *4; title page, * 298 Ammonjus of Alexandria, sections of the Gospels, 138 American Revision Committee, or- ganization, 288; co-operation with British Com., 288-91; prepara- tion of American Revision, 298- 30s; expunging archaisms, 300' new marg. refs., 301; issuance of American Standard Revised Ver- sion, 304 Angus, Dr., enlists American schol- ars in Bible Revision, 287 Aphraates, Syrian church father, quotes New Testament, 87 Apoc, abbreviation for Apocalypse in New Testament cursive Manu- script, 142 Apocalypse, absent from Peshitta, 180 Apocrypha of Old Testament, Chapter XII Apocryphal books of Old Testament, 121-2; classified and described, 122-3; why not in Canon? 129- 130 Apocryphal books in Septuagint, 55 Apocryphal books in the Vulgate, 77 "Apocryphal Correspondence of St. Paul and the Corinthians," in Syriac, 180 Apost., abbreviation for the Lec- tionary of Acts and Epistles in cursive Manuscripts, 142 ♦Aquila, translator of Greek Ver- sion, *64 Arabic Versions, 108, 187-8 Araniaic, Old Testament text, 92 ff.; geographical divisions, 182 Aristeas, letter of , 51 Aristion, presbyter, to whom Mark 16:9-20 is assigned, 186 Armenian Version, 106-7 Aseneth, Lif eof , Pseudepig. book, 1 25 ♦Ashbumham Pentateuch, *84 Assemani and Adler, describe Syriac Lectionary in Vatican, 188 Athanasius, St,, Epistle of, S7; the humble, 148 Athos, Mt . , Iberian Monastery on ; 1 03 Augustine, St., and Old Latin Bible, 160; on Vulgate, 166, lands at Kent, England, 207 321 322 Topical Index ♦Authorized Version, Chap. XXIV; specimen page, *278 Ball, C. J., edited Variorum Apoc- rypha, 128 Barnabas, Epistle of, 145 Bartolocci, G., librarian Vatican, ISO Barton, W. E., owner of Sam. Manuscripts, 46 Baruch, Apocryphal book, 124 Baruch, Apocalypses of, Pseudepig. book, 126 Baruch, Rest of the Words of, Pseudepig, book, 126 Bede, tells of Caedmon, 208; story of his death, 210-11 Beer and Brockelmann, editing new Syriac Bible, 91 Bel and the Dragon, part of Apocry- phal Additions to Daniel, 123 Ben Asher, 33 Bensly, with Harris and Burkitt transcribed Old Syriac text, 177 Bentley, R,, 150, 175, 201 Berger, S., on Old Latin and Vulgate Manuscripts, 83, 17s Beza, T., owner of Codex D, biblical scholar at Geneva, iss. 190, 263 Biblical Aramaic in Old Testament, 20 Birch, A., New Testament scholar of Copenhagen, 150 ♦Bishops' Bible, appearance and character, *266-8 Blayney, Dr., of Oxford, 46, 281 Bodley, John, member of Geneva group of scholars, 264 Bohairic Version, "101 Bomberg ed. of Hebrew Bible, 37 Brescia Hebrew Bible, 36 British and Foreign Bible Society, issue Ethiopic New Testament, 186 Burkitt, F. C, with Bensly and Harris transcribed Old Syriac text, 177; views on the Diates- saron and Old Syriac, 178; on origin of Bohairic dialect, 184. CjBdmon, Celtic-Saxon poet singer, 208-0 Cairo, Egypt, former center of Samaritan colony, 45; Tischen- dorf copied Codex Sinaiticus, 145 Canon of the Jews, 30 Cassiodorus, textual work of, 83, 166-7 •Catharine, St., monastery of, at Mt. Sinai, 57. *143-5, 177 Chajim, Jacob ben, 37 Challoner and Troy, revised Douai Bible, 17s Charlemagne, 83; employed Alcuin to revise Vulgate, 168, 174 Charles I, and Codex Alexandrinus, 148 Chrysostom, St., of Constanti- nople, -192 Classification of New Testament Manuscripts, Chap. XVII Clement, St., Epistles of, to Cor- inthians in Syriac, 182, 192, 194 Clement VIII, pope, edited official Vulgate, 173-4 CochlEEUs, enemy of Tyndale at Cologne, 226-7 *Complutensian Polyglot, 36, 60, *ii6, 189 Conant, T. J., translator for Ameri- can Bible Union, 285^ Conybeare, F. C., opiiuon of Ar- menian Version, 106 Cook, S. A., 20 Coptic Versions, 100, 183-S Corssen, P., Vulgate scholar in Ger- many, 175 ♦Coverdale, Myles, ed. first com- plete English Bible, *248-9; specimen page, *2so; two re- visions, 250; *Great Bible, *254-8 Cranmer, archbishop, aid to Cover- dale's Bible work, 252-8; burnt at stake, 262 Cromwell, T., friend of Coverdale, 252-8 Cureton, W., edited Old Syriac text, 177 Cuthbert, St., story of Bede's death, 210-11 ; 'gospels of. 213 Cyprian, and Old Latin Version, 160, 163, 192 Cyril, with Methodius, translated Slavonic Bible, 104 Cyril, of Alexandria, 194-5 Damascus, former center of Samari- tans, 45 Damasus, pope, friend of Jerome, 78 Daniel, Additions to. Apocryphal book, 123 David the philosopher, cited in Armenian Version, 107 Demaus, author of life of Tyndale, 238, 246 ♦Diagrams: Origen's Hexapla, *67 Relations of rival Oreek Bibles and revisions to Sept., ^72 Sources of Minor Eastern Ver- sions, ♦105 Topical Index 323 General relations of ancient versions to the Hebrew, *111 Beginnings of modem versions in i6th century, *245 Sources of revisers of Author- ized Version, *276 Sources of Old Testament Re- vised Version, opp. *287 Diatessaron, of Tatian, 176-7 Didymus, 195 Dillmann, A., edited Ethiopic text of Gen.-Kings, 102 DionysJus, 194 Discoveries in the fifteenth and six- teenth centuries, 233 Douai Version, 269-71 Durham, Book of, 213 Eadfrith, bishop of Lindisfame, copied Cotton Manuscript of Gospels, 212-13 ♦Ecclesiasticus (Wisdom of Jesus, son of Sirach), Apocryphal book, *I24 Egbert, bishop of Holy Island, translated Gospels, 210 Elijah, Apocalypse of, Pseudepig. book, X26 Elizabeth, queen of England, 263-71 Ellicott, bishop, co-translator of John and Epistles, 284; seconded move for Revision, 285; presented copy of Revision, 289 Enoch, Book of, Pseudepig. book, 126 Enoch, Secrets of, Pseudepig. book, Z26 Ephr^m Syrus, commentary of, 86, 177; sermons of, 153 Epiphanius of Cyprus, 68 Erasmus, edited first Greek New Testament, 189, 190, 224 Erizzo, count, edited Syriac Lec- tionary, 182 Errors of transcription, classes of, 27-30 Esdras, Apocalypse of, Pseudepig. book, 126 I Esdras (3 Esdras in Vulg.), Apocry- phal book, 123 4 Esdras (2 Esdras in A. V.), Apocryphal book, 124 Esther, Additions to. Apocryphal book, 123 Estienne, see Stephanus ♦Ethiopic (or Ge'ez) Version, 101, *io2, 186 Eusebiuc, of Caesarea, 68, 70; with Pamphilus revises Origen, 70, 87; adopts Ammonite sections of New Testament. 139 Euthalius of Alexandria, stichoi of, 139 Evan., abbreviation for Gospels in cursive Manuscripts, 141 Evst., abbreviation for Lectionariea of Gospels in cursive Manuscripts, 142 Exemplar Parisiense, a text of the Vulgate in Paris, 170 Fayyumic version, 185 Fenton, Bible in Modem English, 2 Field, F., Hexapia, 70 Forshall and Madden, edited Wy- cliffe's Bible, 226 Fulke, reply to notes in Rheima New Testament, 269 Gall, St., monastery of, 169 Gasquet, challenges authenticity of Wycliffe's Bible, 226 Gaster, M., discovers Hebrew text of Song of Three Children, 123 Gaza, former center of Samaritans, 45 Geneva, Switzerland, center of biblical scholars, 263 ♦Geneva Bible, completed, *264-5 Georgian version; 103, 188 Gerizim, Mt., site of Samaritan temple, 42, 43 Gibson, Mrs., with Mrs. Lewis dis- covered Syriac Manuscripts at Mt. Sinai, 177; edited fragments of the Gospels, 182—3 Ginsburg, C... author of Massoretic version, 20 Gospels, written reports, 133 Gotch, Dr., co-reviser of English Bible, 284 ♦Gothic version, 102, ^187 ♦Great Bible, ♦264-9 Green, S. G., co-reviser of English Bible, 284 Green, W. H., chairman American Old Testament Revision Com,, 28S Gregory, C. R., author Prolegomena to Greek New Testament, 157 Gregory, pope, put Old Latin and Vulgate on a par, 165 Griesbach, J. J., New Testament textual critic, 206 Gutenburg^ and Fust, printed first Latin Bible at Mayence, 171 Gwilliam, G. H., with Pusey edited latest ed. of Peshitta, 178 Gwynn, J., discovered and edited Apocalypse of Syriac Bible, zSx 324 Topical Index Hampton Court Conperesce, 273- 4 Harding, Stephen, abbot of Citeaux, 169 Harris, J. R., on Codex Bez^, 156; with Bensly and Burkitt tran- scribed Old Syriac text, 177 Hartmut, abbot of St. Gall, 169 Hebrew Language, alphabet, rolls, 26; pointed, 32-34; Manuscripts, 34-5; printed texts, 36-7 ♦Hebrew Bible, first printed in America, *38 ♦Hebrew Papyrus, *Frontispiece Henry VIII, and the Bible, 237-g, 253, 261-2 Hentenius, J., edited Vulgate, 172 Hereford, WyclifTe's aid in transla- tion, 222-3 Hesychius, of Egypt, version of, 71, 200 Hetzenauer, edited Vulgate, 174 Hexapla of Origen, diagram of, 67 Hilary of Poitiers, and Old Latin Bible, 160 Hoare, H. W., Evolution of English Bible, 239, 257 Holmes and Parsons, 59 Homer, G,, edited Bohairic Gospels, 184 *Hort, F. J. A., with "Westcott on Greek New Testament Manu- scripts, Chap. XVll, and often; portrait, *i94 Hug, L., examined Codex B in Paris (1809), 150 ♦Jacob ben Aaron, high-priest of Samaritans to-day, +46 Jacob, of Edessa, 8^ Jacob, Dr., co-reviser of English Bible, 284 Jacobite branch of Syrian Church, 181 James I, King of England, Chap. XXIV James, M. R., classification of Apocryphal and Pseudepigraph- ical books, 122-7 Jason, of Cyrene, author of sources of 2 Mace, 122 Jerahmeel, Chronicle of, Pseudepig. book, 123 Jeremiah, Epistle of, Apocryphal book, 124 Jeremiah, Prophecy of, Pseudepig. book, 126 Jerome, St., education, 78; revision work, 79-81 ; personality, 81 ; criticism of, 82 Jesus, son of Sirach, Wisdom of. Apocryphal book, 134 Jews in Egypt, 50 ff . Job, Testament of, Pseudepig. book, Joye, Geo., Tyndale's amanuensis, 242 Jubilees, Book of, Pseudepig. book, 125 Judith, Apocryphal book, 123-4 Kennicott, collector of variants of Old Testament text, 38 Kenyon, F. G., author of Criticism of New Testament, 311 Kipling, T., edited codex Bezs, 155 Lachmann, K., New Testament textual critic, igo-i Lagarde, P. de, 72; edited Syriac Lectionary, 182 Lanfranc, archbishop of Canter- bury, 37, 169 Langton, S., archbishop of Canter- bury, divided Bible into chapters, 170 Lascaris, J., brought codex Eph- rsem to Europe, 153 ♦Latin Bible of Jerome (Vulgate), ♦78 Latin versions. Chaps. VII and XV; printed Bibles, 171-5 Laud, archbishop, once owned codex Laudianus (e), 162 "Leda Bible," 268 Lee, edited Syriac Bible, 91 Lewis, Mrs., see Mrs. Gibson Lindisfame Gospels, 213 Lloyd, bishop, issued Bible in 1701 with Ussher's chronology, 281 Lollards, established by Wyclifle, 223 Lord's Prayer in language of King Alfred, Wycliffe, and Am. Rev. Version, 228 Lucar, Cyril, of Constantinople, 147-8 Lucian, of Samosata, revision of Origen, 70, 200 Lucifer, of Cagliari, and Old Latin, z6o Lysimachus, translator of book of Esther, 52 1 Maccabees, Apocryphal book, 123 2 Maccabees, Apocryphal book, laa 3 Maccabees, Apocryphal book, 123 4 Maccabees, Apocryphal book, 123 Madden, see Forshall. Topical Index 325 Mai, cardinal, edited codex B, iji Malkite (Greek) church uses degen- erate Syriac Bible, 182 Manasseh, supposed founder of Samaritan Pentateuch as Bible of Samaritans, 42 Manasses, Prayer of, Apocryphal book, 124 Maniacoria, cardinal, revised Vul- gate, 170 Manuscripts, biblical, list of — ♦Codex Alexandrinus (A), 57, 147, *i48, 149 Ambrosianus, (F), 69, 88-9 * Amiatinus (A), 84, »i66- 1 - Basiliano-Vaticanus (N), S9 •164 ■ Bezffi (D), 155-6, *i9o ■ Bezae (d), 161 ' Bezae (Evan, d), 164 ■ Bobiensis (k), 162 ■ Bodleianus (E), 59 ' Brixianus (f), 161 - Claromontanus (d) 164 163, - Claromontanus (Paul, d), - Coislinianus (M), 70 Colbertinus (c), 70 Complutensis, 84 Corbeiensis (ff), 163 Cottonianus (D), 58, *212-3 Dublinensis (O), 71 Ephraemi (C), 58, *163-6 Firkowitch, Hebrew, 35 • Friderico-Augustanus, 144 - Gennadius (Slavonic) , 104-106 Gigas Holmiensis (g), 162 Laudianus (e), 162 Marchalianus (Q), 71, '73 Orient. 4445, 34 Palatinus (e), 162 Perpignan Manuscript, 165-6 Hich, 89; (Kvan. e), 164 Samaritan, 46 Sarravianus (G), 70 Sinaiticus (S), 57, *i6, 143-7 Usserianus (r), 166 Vallicellianus (V), 168 - Vaticanus (B), 67, *i36. 150-3, 194 - Vercellensis ♦162 (a), £61, Vercellensis (Evan, a), 164 Veronensis (b), 161 Veronensis (Evan.b), 614 Vindobonensis ( Vienna Genesis) (L), 69 1700 (Syriac), 182 Manuscripts, number of New Testament, 134-40 Marcion, biblical scholar, 134 Martin, abbfi, translator on Douai Bible, 269 Mary Deipara, St., Monastery of, 88, 177 Mary Tudor, queen of England, 262-3 Massoretes, 33 Mazarin Bible, printed I4SS, 171 Medici, Catharine de, once owner of Codex C, 153 Melito of Sardis, 87 Memphitic version, 1S4 Mercati, G., discovered palimpsest of Hexapla, 68, 69 Mesrop, St., reputed translator of Georgian version, 103 Methodius with Cyril, translated Slavonic version, 104 Mico, abb^, collated Cod. B for Bentley, 150 Mill, J., edition of New Testament, 154; on variants, 200 Mitchell, E. C, Critical Handbook to New Testament, 157 Montanus, Arias, 37 Moses, Apocalypse of, (same as Book of Jubilees) Pseudepig. book, 125 Moses, Magical Books of, Pseudepig. book, 126 Moses, Revelation of, Pseudepig. book, 126-7 Moulton, R. G.t Modem Reader's Bible, 2 Miinster, S., Latin text, 256 Muralt, de, examined Cod, B in Rome (1844), 150 Nablus, modem home of Samari- tans, 43 Napoleon took Cod. B to Paris, 150 Nestle, Eb., catalogue and number of New Testament Manuscripts, 139. 140 Nestorians, 88; New Testament of, 180 Neutral type of New Testament Manuscripts, 194- New Testament, writing. Manu- scripts, versions, criticism. Part II, 131 ff. 326 Topical Index Nicholas V, pope, secured Cod. B, 150 . Nitrian deseft, Egypt, source of Syriac Manuscripts, 88, 177 Noah, Book of, Pseudepig. book, 125 Noyes, G. R., translator of Bible, 284 Old Latin version, 7S; classification of texts, 76-77; Chap. XV; 160 Old Syriac version, 176-8 Old Testament, Hebrew, writing. Manuscripts, versions, printed edi- tions, Chap, III Onkelos, author of Targum, 64, 94 Origen, Hexapla ed. of Sept. ,65-70, 192, 194-5. 199 Ormulum, metrical version of parts of Gospels and Acts by Orm, 215 Oxford Parallel Bible, 282 ♦Oxyrhynchus papyrus of Sept., 56, *S8 Packington, merchant friend of Tyndale, 238-9 Pagninus, Latin text of, 249 Palimpsest Manuscript, meaning of word, 58; Cod. Bezae, 163 Pamphilus, co-reviser with Eusebius of Origen's Sept., 70, 87 Paris, Dr., edited Cambridge Bible, 281 Paris Polyglot, 37 Paul, bishop of Telia, translated Origen's fifth col. into Syriac, 69, 178, 181 Paul., abbreviation for Pauline Epistles of cursive Manuscripts, 142 Pelagius and Old Latin text, 160 Pentateuch adopted by Samaritans, 43 Peshitta Syriac version, 17, 178, 192 Petermann, author of Samaritan gram., 46 Philostorgius, authority on Ulfilas, 102 Philoxenus , bishop of Mabbogh , revised Peshitta, 181 Piatt, T. P., edited Ethiopic New Testament, 186 Polycarp, translated Syriac Bible, 87; revised with Philoxenus of Mabbogh, 181 Polyglot Bibles: Complutensian (1514-17), 36, 60, 1S9 Paris (1629-45), 37 London (Walton) (1654-7), 37 Primasius, commentary on Apoc- alypse, 163 Psalter, Additions to, Pseudepig. book, 126 ♦Psalter fragment of papyrus, *58 Pseudepigrapha, defined, 121-2; books of, 125-7 Purvey, John, harmonized Wy- cliffe's and Hereford's work, 224-5 Renaissance of Bible languages, 232-3 Revised Version, Chap. XXV Revisers of 16 11 version, organized, 275; rules for work, 276-7; re- vision completed, 277-8 Revision Committee of 1870; repre- sentation, 286; rules for work, 286-7; completed New Testa- ment, 289; completed Old Testa- ment, 291-2; texts used, 292-3; improvements, 293-5 ; improve- ments in form, 295-6 Reynolds, Dr., a Puritan, incited James I to Bible revision, 274 *Rheims New Testament, 268-9, *270 Roe, Sir T., presented Cod. A to Charles I, 148 Rogers, John, edited "Matthew" Bible, 250-3; burnt at stake, 262 RoUe, Richard, translated Psalter, 216 Rossi, G. B. de, compiled variants in Hebrew Manuscripts, 38 Roye, Tyndale's amanuensis, 237 Rushworth Gospels, 213 Sa'adya the Ga6n, translated Arabic Pentateuch, 108 Sahidic version. Old Testament, 100; New Testament, 183-4 *St. Petersburg Hebrew Manu- script, 916 A.D., 15, 20, *34 Sale of Revised Version, 290 Samaritan Pentateuch, Chap. IV, Manuscripts, text variants Samaritans, 39-44 Sancto Caro, Hugo de, 37 Sarcey, M. de, French diplomat, 45 Scaliger, J., linguist, 43 Schaff, P., on New Testament text criticism. 199 ff, 288, 290 Scrivener, F. H. A., classif. of texts, 154; edited Codex Bezs, 15s; edited Textus Receptus, 190-1; on variants in New Testament, 200 *Septuagint, Chnp. V; translation, 62; purpose, 53; order of Jer, Topical Index 327 62| 53; canon, 54* 55; ^papyrus of third century, *s6; first printed, first great edition, Holmes and Parsons, printed editions, 60 Sepulveda made known Cod. B, 150 Shepherd of Hermas, 145 Shoreham, William of, made trans- lation of Psalter, 216 Sibylline Oracles, 126 Sixtus V, pope, published Sixtine ed. of Vulgate, 172 Soden, H. von, surveys New Testa- ment criticisms, 157 Slavonic version, 104, 188 Solomon, Psalms of, Pseudepig. book, 126 Solomon, Testament of, Pseudepig. book, 125 Solomon, Wisdom of. Apocryphal book, 124 Spalatinus, tribute to Tyndale, 237 Stephanus, R., edited Vulgate, 171; edited Greek New Testament, 190 Strozzi, P., once owner of Cod. C, 153 Swete, H. B., text of Sept., 60 Syromachus' Greek version, 65 *Syriac Palimpsest at Mt. Sinai, *l82 Syriac versions, Chaps. VIII. and XVI ♦Syriac Vulgate, Westcott and Hort's designation of Peshitta, *9o, 178 Syrian type of New Testament Manuscripts, 192-3 Syro-Hexaplar version of Paul of Telia, 69, 72, 87 *Targum of Onkelos, 94; Jeru- salem II, of Jonathan, Jonathan bar Uzziel, 95; of prophets, 96; rolls, 97; value, 98; in alternate verses, *94 Tatian, Diatessaron of, 138; 176-7 Tavemer, made translation of Bible, 259 Tertullian, gives Old Latin quota- tions, 160, 192 Textual criticism, Old Testament, Chaps. III-X; New Testament, Chaps. XIII-XVIII, rules for, 201-5 Textus Receptus, origin and char- acter, 190, 195, 196 Thecla, supposed writer of Cod. A, 148 Theodore of Mopsuestia, 89, 192 Theodotion, Greek version of Old Testament, 64 Theodulf, revised Vulgate, 168 Thomas of Heraklea, revised Syriac Bible, 181 Thompson, Sir E. M., edited Cod. A, 149 Three Children, Song of the, part of Apocryphal Additions to Daniel, 123 Tischendorf, L. C. F., discovery at Mt. Sinai, 57, 143-5; edited S, and C, 154, 190-1 Tobit, Apocryphi.1 book, 123 Tregelles, bibl, critic, 150, 1 90-1 , 2S4 Tremellius, Latin text of, used by revisers 161 1 version, 278 Trent, Council of, 119, 171 Troy, archbishop of Dublin, revised Douai Bible, 17s Tunstall, bishop of London, Tyn- dale's eiiemy, Coverdale's friend, 234-58 Twelve Patriarchs, Testament of, Pseudepig. book, 125 *Tyndale, W., Chap. XXI; *23o; birth and education, 233-4; in London, 235- in Hamburg and "Wittenberg, Cologne and Worms 236; books destroyed, 238-40, kidnaped and destroyed, 242-3 ; Ulfilas, translator of Gothic ver- sion, 102 Uncial texts, meaning of, 136-40 ♦University of Chicago New Testa- ment Manuscript, *i40 Urmia Syriac text, 91 Ussher, archbishop, author of bib- lical chronology, 281 Valle, p. de la, Italian traveler, 45 Variants in Old Testament, Chap. Variorum Apocrypha, edited by Ball, 138 Variorum Teachers' Bible, 11 Vercellone, C, edited Cod. B, 151 Versions, value of, 110-8 Vulgate version, Chaps. VII and XV Walton, B., Polyglot Bible, 37 Watson, W. S., owner of Samaritan Manuscript, 46 Wearmouth and Jarrow, schools at, 169 *Westcott, bishop B. F., with Hort, New Testament textual critics, edited text, Chap. XVIII; por- trait, *I92 Western type of New Testament Manuscripts, 193-4 White, H. J., studies of Vulgate, 175 328 Topical Index Whittingham, prepared Geneva New Testament, 263-4 Widmanstad, A., -edited Peshitta, 178 Wilberforce, bishop, resolution on new revision, 28s Woide, C. G., and Cowper, edited New Testament of Codex A, 149 ; also known fragments of Sahidic New Testament, 183 • Woolsey, Ex-Pres., chairman Amer- ican New Testament Revision Company, 288 Wordsworth, bishop, student of Old Latin and Vulgate texts. 175 ♦Wycliffe, J., version of. Chap. XX; sketch of life, *3i8; clash with Rome, 220; translated Bible into English, 221-2; specimen page. ♦222; Hereford's help, 222-3; Lollards, 223; death, 224 XiMENES, cardinal, editor Complu- tensian Polyglot, 36, 60, 189 Zephaniah, Apocalypse of, Pseu- depig, book, 126 Zohrab, edited Armenian Bible, 108, 186 Zwingli, edited Zurich Bible, 249 SCRIPTURE INDEX Numbers refer to pages. Stars refer to illustrations on which text is found. GENESIS I ; 1-13 I : 20 3 : 20 4:8 . S . . 6:3 . 7:3 . 11 : lof 12 :9 . 14: 17 19 : 30 23 . . 21 : 10 24 : 38-43 40:1s 43 :9 • 44:31 49 : 7 . 49 : 10 .*ll6 7 7 47, S3 47 ■ 3.9 . 47 • 47 7 S6 • 3S 7 *S6 7 7 . 47 48 4,9.47 EXODUS 4:18 47 8 : 10, II ... . 35 12 : 46 .... 47.54 IS 31 17 : 14 21 18 : I 47 19 : 24-20 ; 17a . *34 20 : 2-17 *Frontispiece 23 : 17 48 2Z-23 aj 24: 7 ■'I 29 : 9-2Z *io2 LEVITICUS 8:7 30 II 86 20 : 10 28 NUMBERS » : 22b-38a . . . *84 DEUTERONOMY J : 21 48 14 86 19 : 2-s *9o 37 : t 44,48 27 : s-aS .18 . . *38 33 57 JOSHUA 1:1-2:5 • • *94 13 ; 26 ... . 30 JUDGES 4 . . . .30 5 31 5 : 14 ... . 22 6:32 29 10 : 8 . . . 30 1 SAMUEL 2 : i-io .... 57 J : 13 27 9 : 30 4 10 : 25 ... . 23 12 : 11 . . . 29 13 : i„ 29 14 : iS . . . 9 37 : S 2.9 2 SAMUEL 3 : 17 . ... 29 s:8 4 6:5. . .53 11 : 14 . . . 22 21 29 22 32 I KINGS 1:1-3:4 . . 12 : 18 .... . 23 • 29 2 KINGS 8 : 10 8 17 : 24 40 17 ; 24-41 ... 41 20 : 1-7 *2S4 20 : 12 . ... 29 20 : 20 23 23 : 15-19 . . . . *64 1 CHRONICLES 3 35 8 : 29-38 .... 28 9 : 35-44 .... 28 29 : 29 23 2 CHRONICLES I : 13 lu 3 4 .... 28 10 18 29 32 30 . 23 33 EZRA 124 4 2 . . . . . 41 4 8-6 : 18 20 4 9. 10 . 41 7 12-26 . . NEHEMIAH 20 8 1-8 8 8 . . . . 33 13 23-27 . . . 42 13 28 43 ESTHER I : 15-2 : 14 . "16 JOB I : i-8a. . *78 7 : 20 . . . 37 40 : IS .... 7 4' : I . 7 PSALMS II ; 7-iS : 4 . . 56.*58 18 ... 32 22 69 22: I . . .93 22 ; 16 10 35 : 7 28 50 : 18 34 59: 10 ... 34 73 : 4 27 100 : 3 39 ECCLESIASTES 11:1-9 *350 ISAIAH 1:1. . I : i-4a 8 : 20 . 33 : 13 . 39 : I • ■ 40 : 3-9 . 40 : 9 . . 53 : 3 . . .^222 .*l6S 5 5 '.. '9 .*266 5 8 329 330 Scripture Index .■is : I . . . . . . 5 6l : if ... ■ ■ 31 JEREMIAH 6 :? . ■ 30 lo : II ... . . 20 IS :i9 . . . - S3 25 : 13 ... ■ 52 27 : I . . . . 29 .12 :9-iS 22 4.1 and 44 . . SO 46- SI • ■ . 52 51 1 7 EZEKIEL 5 12-17 . . . *72 23 42 . . S3 .12 31 . . . • S3 34 i6 . . . . a DANIEL 2 4-7 : 28 . AMOS 20 6 12 . . . . 27 MATTHEW I i-4a . .*I40 I i-i7a . . .*l82 I 16 . . . . 20s 2 2 . . . . 5 ,■! 46 . . 7 6 II . . 7 6 13 • . ■ . 8 15 37-16 : 3 .*238 20 16-33 • • .*I54 25 41 . . . ■ S 27 46 . . . ■ 93 MARK 3 : 14 . 7:3-7 . 9:49 • 11 : 35 . 16 : 1-20 i6:9ff 16 : 9-30 203 *l87 203 203 147 S i8s LUKE 1:4 5 I : 35 5 4: I7f 31 4:32b-s:6 . .*i66 6 : 1-9 *i9o 13 : 31 204 JOHN 1:1-4. . . . 1:9..... I : 18 3 : 3it>, 33a i-ii . . . 8 136 5 147 8 1S6 9 : II 337 16 : 23-30 . . . .*i62 17 : 3 7 ACTS 13 : 1-6 *27o IS : 31 31 30 : 28 147 ROMANS 7:4-7 *l64 8 : 28b 304 1 CORINTHIANS 3 : 13 6 S : 8 133 6 : 13 7:1. 16 : 3 . 327 133 133 2 CORINTHIANS 2 : 17 , , 6 3:1-4:6 "'136 10 : 10 . . . . 133 11 : 28 . . 133 GALATIANS 1:1-9 ... .*364 COLOSSIANS 16 6 132 PHILIPPIANS 3 : 18 133 2 THESSALONIANS 3 : 17 133 I JOHN S : 9-3 John 13 "148 REVELATION 6:1-5 *378 APOCRYPHA ECCLESIASTICUS 48 : 17 . . . 23 51 : 6C-I3-I- . . *i34 BARUCH 3 : 30 ... 223 I MACC. I : 56, 57 . 35 By the same axxthof A Syllabus of Old Testament History Seventh edition, zgo8 The Monuments and the Old Testament Fifth edition, 1907