I /- V ) : f * I i i h i Digitized by the internet Archive in 2019 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/ancestryofourengOOpric F.C.B. del. Hebrew Text on Papyrus from the Second Century (Cook). Exodus 20 ; 2-17 The Ancestry of Our English Bible An Account of Manuscripts, Texts, AND Versions of the Bible By / Ira Maurice rRicE, Pn.D. Professor of the Semitic T-anguages and Literatures in the University of Chicago EIGHTH EDITION PHILADELPHIA The Sunday School Times Company 1923 Copyright, 1906 By The Sunday School Times Co. First edition, February, 1907 Second edition, July, 1907 Third edition, March, 1909 Fourth edition, February, 1910 Fifth edition, November, 1911 Sixth edition, September, 1915 Seventh edition, January, 1920 Eighth edition, November, 1923 PREFACE Our English Bible is the descendant of a long line of ancestors. It is the gathering up, the localization, 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 Vll 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 finns 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. Preface • • • Vlll 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 Price. The University of Chicago, New- Year. 1907. CONTENTS (Parentheses enclose Ill\istrations.) CHAPTER I. THE ENGLISH BIBLE OF TO-DAY. I. 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. — 5. 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 i-ia CHAPTER II. THE BASES OF OUR PRESENT VERSIONS. 10. Available sources. — ii. 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 X 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. 72) 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. Xll 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 OF 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 OF 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 110-118 Contents Xlll 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. 1 13. 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.) — 1 19. Codex Alexandrinus (A) — contents. — 120. Co¬ dex Vaticanus (B) — history. -—121. Codex Vati- canus (B) — contents. — 122. Codex Ephraem (C). (*Codex Ephraemi (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 texts mixed. (*Codex Amiatinus, p. 166.) — 13 1. Cassiodorus’ revision and other peculiar texts. — 132. Revisions of Alcuin and Theo- dulf. (*Alcuin’s revision of Vulgate, p. 168.) — 133. Decline in text purity. — 134. Revisions in Paris. — 135. The official Vulgate of the Council of Trent. — 136. The Clementine text of 1592. — 137. Vulgate’s influence.~i38. 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 Ethiopia 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 OF MANUSCRIPTS, VERSIONS, AND OTHER WITNESSES. 149. The Textus Receptus. (*Codex Bezae (D), p. 190.) — 150. Classification of manuscripts. (*Bishop B. F. 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. — 155- 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. — 165. Caedmon. — 166. Aldhelm and Egbert. — 167. Bede. — 168. King Alfred. — 169. The Lindisfarne Gospels, (*Cotton XVI Contents Manuscript, or Lindisfarne 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. WYCLIFFE’s version of the BIBLE. 174. John Wycliffe. (* 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 XXL TYNDALE’s version of 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.) — 19 1. 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 prisonment and martyrdom. — 196. Crowning work of Tyndale. — 197. Tyndale’s influence on the version of 1611, 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 Coverdale 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. — 21 1. 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 XVlll Contents CHAPTER XXIV. THE AUTHORIZED VERSION OF l6ll. 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 texts. — 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 Committee’s task. — 248. Contract with Conte7its 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 . 315-319 Topical Index . 321-328 Scripture Index . 329,330 .• ?• iff - V :..-!.5'^ . ■ '■^ 1. ■■ ••:-'ji’ .' . . V’^'; :?:^^}- ...-^ v-5 • " • v . A-* •.*, /v'S •' i .■j ' k.1 .0 ILLUSTRATIONS AND DIAGRAMS [Numbers refer to pages ; arranged in alphabetical order.] FACING PAGE Alcuin’s Revision of the Vulgate . i68 From Anderson and Rule, “Biblical Monuments” Alexandrinus (A), Codex . 148 From “The Palseographical 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 Palasographical Society" Facsimiles, by per¬ mission of Sir E. Maunde Thompson, Editor Aquila’s Version, Palimpsest . 64 By permission of Cambridge University Press Ashburnham Pentateuch . 84 From “The Palaeographical Society's" Facsimiles, by permission of Sir E. Maunde Thompson, Editor Authorized Version of 1611, specimen page . . . . 278 From "Bible Illustrations," by permission of Oxford University Press Bezae (D), Codex . 190 From "The Palaeographical Society's" Facsimiles, by permi.ssion 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 Palaeographical 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 . 212 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 . 250 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 Ephrasmi (C), Codex, Palimpsest . 154 From “Bible Illustrations,” by permission of Oxford University Press Ethiopic Text, specimen page . 102 From Anderson and Rule, “Biblical Monuments” Geneva Bible, specimen page . 264 From “Bible Illustrations,” by permission of Oxford University Press Gothic Gospels . 187 From “The Palaeographical 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 Archaeology,” Vol. XXV Hort, F. 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 Diagra^ns XXlll FACING PAGE Latin Bible of Jerome . 78 From "Bible Treasury," by permission of Thos. Nelson and Sons, publishers Marchalianus (Q), Codex . 72 From Kenyon "Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts," by permission of the author Old Latin Gospels, Codex Vercellensis, specimen page . 162 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 Palaeographical 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 FACING PAGE 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 105 The General Relations of the Ancient Versions to the Hebrew . in The Beginnings of Modern 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- op. 286 Sion 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 E7iglisJi 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 Latin 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 understand 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 wc 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 1 ‘J2 » The Sept and Syriac have. r rt'rfil ifiu' rhoniK tU'ltOhf. ( ( 711’t 1. samtkl 2. Samuel given in •?« ho» ;>h FTnnnnli'^ Snng of Thank-pi \ ing The Sin of Kli’s Sons jirul his vfiw 22 Hut llannnh went, nut u]! ; fur slie siml unto tier linsband. / /<•/// ;/'■/ fid up until tlie child be \ve;nV-d ; and then 1 will “ brin;,' him, that he may appear before Jehovah, and ‘there abide for ever. 2i'> And ' hJkanah her husband said unto lier. Do what seemeth Ihee p'iiod; tarry until thou have weaned liim; onlj' ''Jehovah establish his word So the woin.in tarried and +;ave her son suck, until she weaned liim. 21 And when she had weaned him, ' she took him up with her. w itji ' three bullocks, and one cjihah of me.il, ami' a ' bottle of wine, and brought him unto -'the liouse of Jehovah in Shiloh; and the child waa’yount;. 25 And "they slew the bullock, and * brought the cliild to Kli. 2() And she said. Oh, my lord, ' as thy soul liveth, my lord, I am the woman tliat stood by thee here, prayini! unto Jehovah. 27 ' For lliia child I [irayed; atid .leliovah hath piven me my petition which ] a.sked of him: 2,S ' t lierrd’ori' also 1 have 'planted him to Jeho¬ vah; as long as lie liveth he is praiited to Jehovah. And he worshi|iped .leliovah there. iy .4nd Hannah prayed, and w saiil : My heart exultelli in .leliovah: * My horn is e.xalted in Jeho¬ vah; My mouth is 'cnlarped over mine enemies . llecause "1 rejoit e in thy s.d- vat ion. 2 '"I'lH.i'e is none holy as ,lcho- vah ; For '''lh(•^o is none besides t bee, 'Neither is there any rock like our tiod. 3 J'lilk no more S(i ixceediiip proud ly , 'Let not ai ropaiK come out of your nioiit h ; ' Fur .lelitivali is a ( iod ol k now 1- edpe, "■'And by him actions are weiplied 4 ' 'I'he bows of the iiiiphty men are broken : " Alnl they that sliimbleil are pirded w it li St reiipt h. r» They th.it were full have hired out Iheinsch es for bia ,id ; 2bf And they that ware hungry have ceased to tin nrp r : ; Or /.j.-, "Yea, the bairen hath borne seven; .-\iid -'she that h.ith many children lanpuisheth G “Jehovah killeth, and maketh alive ''He brinpoth down to Sheol and brinpi th up. 7 '■Jehovah ■ maketh poor, and maketh rich . '' He brinpeth low* he also lifteth U|l. S 'He i.dseth uji the iioor cult of the du>t, ■'’He lifteth up the needy troiii the diinphill, "To make them sit with princes. And inherit the throne r'f _ plory '■ For the pillars of the earth are .lehovah'-;. .■\iid he hath Set the world upon them. '.I 'He will keep the fett of his ^ holy ones ; • o, ' Hut the wicked shall fie put 'v.,,.ii,r to silence in darkness; rei.in.. n. ' I'Yu’ by slrelipth sh.ill no man prevail. If) '"They t hat strive w it h Jehovah sh.dl be broken to jiieees: '’.\paiiist them vv-ill he thunder in heaven : “.lehov.ili will judge the ends of 1 he earth : ''.\iid he will pive stiaiipth unto his kinp. ".Vnd exalt the horn i.f his anointed. 11 And FI kaiiali W( lit to ' H.i- niah to hjs house. '.And I he child did niiiiisler unto .b hov ,di belore Fli the |Uiesl. 12 Now the soii.s of F-li were base men; ''they knew iml .)eliov;di. Id “.\nd the ciislom of the priests with the peo|de ‘ vviis, I hat, w Ill'll any man olleied s.ieri lice, the priest s serv ,11 it came, w hile the llesli w;is boilinv, w ith li'/.' a llesli-hook of three teeth in Ins hand: 11 atid he struck' it into the Jiaii, or kettle, or (iildri'ii, or pot ; all that the llesh-liook liroupht up the priest took Ihete- with. So they did in Shiloh illilo all llie Lraehles that eaiiie thither. 1 .'i Yea. befi .re ’ t liev but 111 the 1.11, ihe priesl s sirvam " 1 k j vpr 1 1. 2^ ' Nhtii A- 1<> n '' vt-r IT * N mu '.I. I'' . I»tul 1.' 5, / t h 4 3, 4 . Josh 1 “ Lev 1 Lk '.i 2.’ ’ 2 K : J. 4. 4 \ I r 1 1 - !'{ ‘ >er II. H. iif 3 J ; }'a 72 2ih \cf J-l" I. k I 4b- 1 • 1 JJ IT , ,!ol» 117 l.'> , }’S K' 17 '■ Is 12 2, :i Kx I.*, n 2 S -22 ' ' l»eul s: .«• .tl * I'rov H 13 'IS |« 7 . 1 K 15 3‘J f'rov Mi. 2 . -24 12 ^ Pa J7 I d . 40 y ’ I’S IS ftl lUi. n 32- 14 >' 1 T. I n ; KuUj l l> ' Jer I . '.I . "licMii , 2 K [. 7 , f^cv 1 >' la 20 iy ' Iftul ^ 17. Ik « ,l(ih 6 11. .Ins 4 Ml ' .lob 42 1')- j. . I's 7s, / 2 S 7 h ; I'.iri 2 4K; Jd'k -2 f. IN .f I's 111 II. 12 , I Pet 4 'm‘| h 12 ' Ph .;J Ml, 17 Kx r, f.; Ph 2 fi ’■ « h 7 JO. • Ps M* I 1 1 *' ps Ni II. b. b. Ml : I . 'i : i's 21 1,7 ■/ IV .'l > li 1 1. I'.i * ' V r I- . eh. l 2b ' .kr 2 K , 0 'f. I. “ Lev, 7 '.n»- 31 l.iv 3 lo Page of fhe .'Ximrii an Staiulard Revised X’ersion. show ing Margin. il Relerences ancl X’ariant Readings 9. 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 the 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 Colossse ;” but in the margin we find, “ Or, to those that are at Colossse, 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 7 hiterpretative Margins 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 Life.” 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, “ Leb-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: ii, “ 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 Averse, 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: gi., 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 different 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 Variants 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, acc. 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-off 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 published, 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 muh tiplied by copyists, down to the fifteenth century, hence was subject to copyists’ errors. To secure M < <7 CM »CA.» no* H A t < t oy Kf * i«» » *n AX<.’(A7J *M< U ion HAfAi *(••• #AO * • I'll » KKX' t\IX'X'-f-: A A A A K A M < A.XTA' •1 uyoAf XtAl^'O-' :a,»i » <»Y<-M-* oyMC-Hoy 'lOYKAjOAcyoCKW YY < » >1 * < A< y'fCHXf AAt Hf< C<"M<>A<-> r 0<“ * 1 1 > * AC I At > KA> (OH. AfKoyClNKXl t ( (t »l nt‘< MOA AC f C< yr. K AtjAt-V XAstI <:< Wt'MAMOY'AtM' Jc Af AOOHTXtK-M » *r MAAAfMACXnMt n ( MCA* aka* f TN**- M XMAf C'Cft AC » R Kc 1 ACyC »■ * A M T I AO I I MIC A 1 1 I f f n ■(CORACtACI lOOfA ( maka-h I (0(i:t<- crf iYCA‘’ Af IA>< f 1 (Hrf mihi’“»»y*>.( < >YO loy (t»Y'C< K' MCfX'll'IAI lyi’JXriNl ' . . KAIAIX < (IA‘ M<»-’*’"^’"ACAA KXIXI 1 1 W At > I WAT ')«l>W» ; I A* ( tow Af xoAiycoM* ft-fcttA^ KA I M'f l^tlAW AKt >f K>><»''< AcXtfOAi'f'A'Yn Af ; T » »« (XT A M Mtro y t'l N > CJAXCTfCOeAl'IMACA) Tc»y'OA»4ifc«A^^y|-x » ■ Y«»»AAt5liC»YA»A«»<^^ •rtlTRACIAc'ArxrcA; ^ •; A? Ar< I'fR At'iAA (^i- KA** f aY* !'ftl>KA> I AlOYtWtTl-^cy*' 'MtlAtOWK All H 1> tOiWKAIMHAAA'- TCf * f t'AC'C >t*>A« list < U't AOtYtllY f I I I I f. A« -|A |cCAf*ftTC Ar-*t>A* KAI I ( IN KA < lAC! ANAy IHCAO ( tooKAt'iACYc* y ti Al K 1, 1 KJ’II ItlWl A-) ( I ICK Al AKoyCtMl lOHUItlMtH mlKi^ (.>•( KAfI ActncofO^ list t WOKAfl AtY*'‘’p’ ‘(tiY<»Yf I oyKAioy (Vt i l< f t MIH oil I !!•• A' I IWMMf IMtl WtyUTWOlAI AAAK ( AW KAItlICKAIt ffl Nl^WAf I IIWAAIt ( f »AMO*AI AKOA*-* , , yCXyRAfl At tOC/lt !xrnWA>H l tt> HITRAt * At IKtffAt IAsA‘JYe» fAKAAAroTt iaW AA* KA( AC**ICt-|0 K At I At yc KtilK^Jff XAOt MM Al'AlfXtlT f Alt I lit R At'lXt I At AY lOYKAItyjl At . A |i|)t AMAlTfA t I Al I A flit w Taka A A I 1 1 M I Vt It 1 1 t t >1 t'AW I I IMI l(>AI Wt I- lOWI '| fit KtON AN r I ApAAtTOn ItIK A Tun y Mi>YXti> I tiT RAl I At tot- ItOvj'Y A ANI I I tnwi yiMt AC W AntJCM 1 1 f At A*^ M.WMtT'AXKA! IK Cl ITAKfipAt'l at A Al I tTAt'f^l I Alt K* A Ay IT* t"K RAC I AC* KOYKAicxrnt'^l' Al (IIKAAUTOKAI jNUAM’Alt'ATl'f' t w ittfryWTK'U’fi' KKItTyK ylic All-f tCt'llf KHCNOt AJ IT I coy At- niwiiA I flAAOl AfMAl-AO XAIOt t Mt I |AA|- A'Y I M Alt! Al I Al I -I AAlKAOtNAt ItlW At (lAtfpAWtTAI Af AOXAlOfl It fit llA *C* KAI AIMW KTAII I M W f yHKIKI AW' ITICKO* ItOWTI* t OM pcyM K H‘ < 1^' tiyTOCAt IIWKA* ptH'! K O f At' 1 1 ' Y‘ > "A OC I W I I f O t' ItlW RA ClAC'AtT I AW AW a II AMftlft HlMfl^>< AtOAi KAOYTUTlAf AW Al lAMft'YWTK. ' Ml I M CpAI 1 I UT*C fxlllAt MMWAC • tT A A I vh O .-v* <• W AJ I M c Ki-y f Ki I NciT e \AltlAKAtMMW A' poyy oyt t am t itn- it»y (vt icAioyi A tWAMCRt WlAMtl' fX MMAI V WAXtU I tH Cf, J iT lA ►! »*W HXMAAti’ltyCt-W N A Rt f ’ t Of R At'IAt ifRA RYAUTWOt'KAIMW loy riiH I A icof t M M IOY> AllirAMI W AA AA.AAt M Al pot Ay ItTJlvAl IUOWOM AA'i Oil t-C i( I f 1 W At |U > MCJAAAAJAlAy ( »(f *oYc»x)W<-!f t flc At Yt't NAT IU»Nf* «=Ky lt*>t it'i ywAi KAKAIMW lOKOfA t'lOW KAAI I not lAl'ftyt^t'M W IOK-ApuTMA KAIcT *rH KOYt't'M’7».l^t:i M KjAlf M lOfO'Wftr -wttoYtM-IAt tin: M ACIW AAl'ItT TCAl- Yt^KtVfA'KK' f/ I lOft yc’IAMipcfC-' JtlM R ACIAt AAA* tiTt'AWcMIllllApA Atot’KAy iMWcy. , Ml-- 1 OFfTtc-CtfA I A| Va’Ai loytTyryW'- K(V|(|>w RXt'IAt'ltITMAC* ' VMt'tyfMofcyciM KAI* I ft'CM Mt pAfI Antt* pc'Xt It I* (- 'loloyKAfiAt tot I I poo l Al M At YMM XtfUC'AfYI M w no Ki Myiioxt ifArxi KAI HXOUt t lfM f nflTfl AJ.|OMvj>Y ARK A'ftifw r ywAiii'' KAMI f Cl't- H Ayrto ItTKOfACIOWAKl cy ft MxApiNcwto I I low Ay itTyN Al t-f M C yt < d A f 1 1 1 A* ' A 't« AAAr> I C(‘# Codex Sinaiticus (S). T-oiirth Century 12, 115-117) Esther i ; 1 5 to 2 : 14 Use of the Ancient Versions 17 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, h9wever, 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 obliged 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 i6. 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: ii. 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 20 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 PTittite, 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 Babylonia, 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. ii: 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 lion-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 change 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 2 5 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 Macc. 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 27 Origm of Textual Changes 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 death ; 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: lo, 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 (^), r (*n), read ‘‘ Nebuchadnezzar.” Another error of the same kind, where Hadadezer,” has been erroneously read “ Hadarezer,” a mistaking of the Hebrew d ("]) for 29 Origin of Textual Changes X (^). In Isaiah 39: i, we find “ Merodach-baladan,” where the parallel in 2 Kings 20: 12, reads, “ Bero- dach-baladan ” — a confusing of two Hebrew letters m (D) and b (D). (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 memory; 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: i 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 ii : 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: I7f.) when Jesus read from the prophet Isaiah (61: if.). P)Ut 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 the 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 pronunciation. 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 33 Vocalizing the Hebrew Text 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 earlier.” 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 -’3‘1^iB8^btJ'na3 •3=w<-iiiij>iffftbp’ii •p’7'i<*’‘ii<3'i‘njYp 3k«r>t»'‘^'7j\ii[>oy ’rtbijtWTkeniohK • yHk'ii^b'QiiiVe' •“vf^1\%ibjnfo •owbwybiiyiik^ is^Wf^t^SiXibi •rt)i»'v...^^,^^va3 •Tig'btn’'3#3K'7D 3Hiaxi{^' 1 j •*v^‘rife>Si‘7i)bn3"'j jh'|hTOytibij3jjiD ■Si> '3^/>feahi5n> oi^io'xaTjaWv'oj ■ftfnj»V<^X7733Sw‘> wWin3i\yi-uif5nbi T'7Mrf7b'ivtf'3n'’3i 3HVQ4V(t37voH'l|7 iL ^1 yr3X>th 'ir kb'ivVn #V5*wji7i>*')>y7P •<> •(li^^'Brj'»r'I'J»1»r""^»^’»’»'»B'»«»«‘'»''’»*t’'""''”"”’" “’'.’'C,^{,'4.'^l,’ vyj"’.v i,l^,'rr iWs St. Petersburg Hebrew Codex. A I). 916 isaiab 14 ; 31 10 16 ; 3 $f'ai 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 1010 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 37 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 vofiimes. 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 Maymscripts 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 or 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 £gooo 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 published 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. First American Kdition of the Hebrew F.ible. I’liila(leli)hia , 1814 CHAPTER IV THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH 27. The Samaritans were and are a peculiar peo¬ ple. Their idiosyncrasies are found on every page of Palestinian history since 400 B. C. Their friendship for, or antipathy against, the Jews rests upon definite historical facts. Their religious proclivities appear in some periods of history in strangely opposing rela¬ tions. When it was to their advantage to be Jews, they were Jews, when derogatory to such a claim^ they were not Jews. They seemed to stand alone for long centuries, and not to mingle freely with any people. In New Testament times they looked with disdain upon the Jews, and this spirit was heartily re¬ ciprocated. The few New Testament references to their beliefs and spirit classify them among the ene¬ mies of the Jews. It also locates their seat of wor¬ ship at Shechem in opposition to that carried on in Jerusalem. The clannish, provincial character of these people is doubtless due in large part to their composite origin. The same spirit that made them clannish also stimulated them in their opposition to the Jews, and whatever they believed and held sacred. 28. These strange peoples owe their origin to the governmental policy of the new Assyrian empire, established by Tiglath-pileser III (745-727 B. C.). 39 40 The Samaritan Pe7itateuch From a purely military control of his provinces, he established a civil government, imposing definite local responsibility. In order to compensate for the de¬ ported peoples of any province, and also to lessen the liability to revolt among new subjects, he imported peoples from distant provinces and compelled the two to reside side by side. This mingling and com¬ mingling of foreign peoples resulted, within a few years, in a confusion of customs, religions and nation¬ alities. Such conglomeration only served to make the province thus constituted less liable to stir up trouble for Assyria, and better able to take part in some local government. 29. The specific instances that brought about the beginnings of the Samaritans occurred in 722 B. C., when Sargon II captured Samaria, the capital of the northern kingdom of Israel. His own records tell us that he carried away 27,290 of its inhabitants. The Old Testament (2 Kings 17: 24) records read in these words : “ And the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon and from Cuthah, and from Avva, and from Hamath and Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of [the province of] Samaria instead of the children of Israel, and they possessed Samaria, and dwelt in the cities thereof.” Sargon himself in his own in¬ scriptions which were found in the ruins of his old palace at Khorsabad, just north of Nineveh (Annals, 95-97), says: ‘‘The tribes of the Tamud, Ibadid, Marsiman, Chayapa, the distant Arabians who inhabit the desert, whom no scholar or writer knew, who had Manasseh Migrates to Samaria 41 paid tribute to no king, I smote in the service of Asshur my lord ; the remaining inhabitants I carried away and settled in Samaria/’ In other words, Sargon and 2 Kings agree on the general policy that was carried out regarding the re-populating of the north¬ ern kingdom from which captives had been carried to the East. Both records together give the names of ten dif¬ ferent nationalities, including the Jews already there, who were settled down in the same territory together. Within a few generations they intermarried, they combined heathen and Jehovah worship, and formed a distinct and unique population (compare 2 Kings 17: 24-41). To this conglomerate, other peoples were added at a later time, as seen in Ezra (4: 2), where the Samaritans say to the Jews; “ Eet us build with you ; for we seek your God, as ye do ; and we sacrifice unto him since the days of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria [681-668 B. C.], who brought us up hither.” In the formal protest against the building activities of the Jews, sent to Artaxcrxes, king of Persia, the Samaritans give this astounding list of foreign peo]iles who made up their populace, imported at a still later date (Ezra 4: 9, 10): ‘‘Then wrote Rehum the chancellor, and Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their companions, the Dinaites, and the Apharsathchites, the Tarpelites, the Apharsites, the Archevites, the Baliylonians, the Shushanchites, the Dehaites, the Elamites, and the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Osnappar [Assurbanipal, 42 The Samaritan Pentateuch king of Assyria, 668-626 B. C.] brought over, and set in the city of Samaria, and in the rest of the country beyond the River, and so forth.” 30. What a background for the Samaritans ! Out of this composite sprung the peoples who developed such rivalry with the Jews as appears immediately after the exile. The Samaritan antagonism to Israel on the latter’s return to Jerusalem, and their attempt to rebuild their temple and city, must have gradually cooled off. For Ezra and Nehemiah find the Jews had not only formed friendly relations with all the sur¬ rounding peoples, but had freely intermarried with them. This infraction of Jewish law grieved Ezra and angered Nehemiah. They adopted drastic and cruel measures to break off all domestic relations with these foreigners (Neh. 13: 23-27). In his investigations Nehemiah (13: 28) found that “one of the sons of Joiada, the son of Eliashib the high priest, was son- in-law to Sanballat the Horonite,” therefore he drove him out. Josephus (Antiquities ii, 8, 2) tells us that this grandson of the high priest was Manas- seh ; that he preferred rather to lose his wife than his prospects of the high priesthood in Jerusalem. His father-in-law promised him, however, if he would go with his wife and forsake Jerusalem that he (San¬ ballat) would build a temple for him on Mount Geri- zim like that in Jerusalem, and furthermore would see that the Persian king should bestow on him the high priesthood. Elated by such promises, Manasseh forsook Jerusalem, his prospects of promotion, and The Samaritan Bible 43 the temple, and followed his wife and his father-in- law to Samaria. 31. This expulsion of Manasseh from Jerusalem (in 433 B. C.) engendered only bitterness and enmity between the Samaritans and the Jews. It meant, too, for the former a new fixed religious trend. The temple is said to have been built on Mount Gerizim as a rival of that at Jerusalem. Its first high priest, Manasseh, had sufficient regard for the law of Jeho¬ vah to make it a basis for worship on Gerizim. It is generally believed that this was the time that the Pentateuch was adopted as the authoritative scrip¬ tures of the Samaritans. With Gerizim as a place for the worship of Jehovah, and influential officials and friends to support him, Manasseh could grad¬ ually crowd out and eradicate the various species of idolatry that had been dominant among these nations since the time of Sargon II. In fact, the worship of Jehovah and heathen divinities had existed side by side, and had even commingled for centuries. Manasseh’s great missionary endeavor had now given the worship of Israel’s God first place in the hearts and life of the Samaritans, and established the Pen¬ tateuch as their sacred book. It is thought that this was the only portion of the Old Testament at that time that had been recognized by the Jews as holy scriptures. When the Prophets and Hagiographa were adopted at a later time, the Samaritans refused to adopt them. 32. The Samaritan Pentateuch is not a transla- 44 The Samaritan Pentateuch tion of the original Hebrew, and so properly not a version. It is a Hebrew text, which has been main¬ tained independently since the fifth century B. C., but written in the old Hebrew characters that were ex¬ tant before the beginning of the use of the square characters. Hence it reaches back farther for its origin than any other except the Hebrew text itself. Its adoption by the Samaritans may have been at¬ tended by certain changes in the text conformable to their place of worship and their peculiar beliefs. One of the most striking deliberate changes in the text is the substitution, in Deuteronomy 27 : 4, of “ Gerizim for “ Ebal ’’ in the Hebrew text, thus pointing to the pre-eminence of Gerizim, the seat of their temple, over Ebal. The chief value of the Samaritan Pentateuch is that it is an independent text that has had its own transmission by copyists from the time of Manasseh without any known contact with the numerous He¬ brew texts. It is thus a check on the errors and cor¬ ruptions that may have crept into the Hebrew text in its numerous copyings from the fifth century B. C. down to the time of the printing of the Hebrew Old Testament. 33. The existence of the Pentateuch as the Bible of the Samaritans was known to European scholars in the sixteenth century. Joseph Scaliger, the famous linguist, complained that Christians traveling in the East took no pains to secure a copy of it. The first specimen of it to be seen in Europe was brought Samaritan Mannscripts 45 by the Italian traveler, Pietro de la Valle, in 1616. He spent twelve years in visiting the East, and pub¬ lished the best information then extant about Turkey, Persia, Egypt and India. The Samaritans, though now confined to modern Nablus, the ancient She- chem, consisted in his day of several small commu¬ nities, located at Gaza, Cairo and Damascus. Pietro de la Valle, at the urgent request of the French am¬ bassador at Constantinople, M. de Sarcey, attempted to secure a copy of the Samaritan Bible. After fail¬ ure at three of the places, he finally succeeded in buy¬ ing two copies from the Samaritan colony at Damas¬ cus. The first was the Hebrew text of the Penta¬ teuch in Samaritan characters on parchment. This he presented to the ambassador, who in turn depos¬ ited it in the library of the Oratoire in Paris. The second, a Samaritan version of the same, written on paper, he kept for himself. Since that day scholars and travelers have secured a goodly number of these sacred documents, and they are now found either as private possessions or in various libraries of Europe and America. The most sacred copy of the Samaritan law is se¬ curely kept and guarded in the synagogue at Nablus. It has this subscription : ‘T, Abishua, the son of Phi- nehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, wrote this copy in the court of the tabernacle, on Mount Gerizim in the thirteenth year of the settle¬ ment of the children of Israel in the land of Canaan.^' Scholars put no confidence in this subscription. 46 The Samaritan Pentateuch Kennicott, the textual critic (see §26), collated six¬ teen Samaritan manuscripts. None of these docu¬ ments stretches back into an extreme antiquity. The oldest manuscript is in Rome and is dated 1227 A. D., though there is another whose oldest portions claim as its date 656 A. D. Of modern prepared manu¬ scripts there are several in this country : Drew Theo¬ logical Seminary has one ; the New York Public Li¬ brary, one ; the Rev. W. Scott Watson, one ; and the Rev. W. E. Barton, of Oak Park, Ill., two. 34. The first edition of the Samaritan Pentateuch was printed under the supervision of John Morinus in 1632, and then in the Paris Polyglot in 1645. It was also included in the London Polyglot in 1657. It was later published in the square character by Blayney of Oxford, in 1790. Kennicott, who col¬ lated the known manuscripts, published the variants in his great work already referred to. In 1868, Peter- mann published a grammar of the language, including in it the whole book of Genesis, as it was read by the at-that-time high priest to the little Samaritan body at Nablus, consisting of about 165 persons at the present time (1906). 35. Now what is the value of this Samaritan Pen¬ tateuch? It diflers from the text of the Hebrew in about 6,000 items. A large part of these consists of insertions of vowel letters, insertion or omission of conjunctions, and such other variations as have no real effect on the sense. There are more than a thousand characteristic variations that have some real Jacob ben Aaron, present Hiyh-Priest of the Samaritans at Nablous, with Pentateuch Roll -I I I •."V; ». ’ *- . } '» . .• X . ' ' •* I '■■jL: •■ ••' ••''■It' ._• f ;7: '-', '■• " ”;.r .. -. _iUv' ^ \ 1 .'. < ■ „: i \ 47 Samaritan Differences significance. These variants from the Hebrew text are of several kinds : ( i ) explanatory additions to the text, as in Genesis 4 : 8, to the Hebrew, “ And Cain said to Abel his brother,’’ the Samaritan, as well as the Septuagint, adds, “ Let us go into the field.” Genesis 7 : 3, to ” of the fowls of the air,” the Sa¬ maritan adds, “which are clean.” Genesis 44: 31, to “ the lad is not,” the Samaritan adds “ with us.” (2) Conjectural emendations by changing a letter or two, either to improve the sense or avoid some diffi¬ culty as in Genesis 49 : 10, “ The sceptre shall not de¬ part from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet,” by the change of a single letter (r to d) the Samaritan reads, “from amidst his standards.” (3) Corrections to agree with some parallel passage. Genesis ii : lof., “ and he died ” is added to what is said of each patriarch, as in Genesis 5. In Exodus 4: 18, for the Hebrew “ Jether,” the Samaritan reads “Jethro,” as in Exodus 18: i. (4) Corrections to relieve some supposed historical difficulty ; thus in Exodus 12: 40, the four hundred and thirty years arc said to cover the whole period of wanderings by the additions for “ in Egypt,” “ in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan.” The most notable variation of this kind is found in the genealogical tables of Genesis 5 and ii. The Samaritans seem to have assumed that no one would have been more than one hundred and fifty years old at the birth of his first son ; when this number is exceeded, as in the case of Methuselah and Lamech, one hundred years or more 48 The Samaritan Pentateuch are taken from it. If the remaining years were un¬ changed they would survive the flood. But such changes are made as to allow them all to die in the year of the flood. (5) Variations made to present Samaritan ideas, and to remove anthropomorphisms. The chief passage is Deuteronomy 27 : 4, where “ Ebal ” is displaced by “ Gerizim ; ” and this is incor¬ porated in Exodus 20: 17, and Deuteronomy 5: 21. In Genesis 49: 7, Jacob's rebuke of Simeon and Levi, “ cursed be their anger," is changed to read, ‘‘ noble was their anger." These are the most important classes of variations for our study. They are so important that the edi¬ tors of the Teachers’ Variorum Bible mention more than thirty of them in their footnotes, and every com¬ mentator of the Pentateuch must reckon with them before he concludes his investigations. CHAPTER V THE GREEK BIBLE: THE SEPTUAGINT 36. The military campaigns carried into Western Asia and Egypt by Alexander the Great opened the door for a literary conquest. Alexander’s troops were the forerunners of Greek civilization. Wherever his invincible battalions beat down the enemy, there the Greek language secured a foothold. Its conquests, however, were most marked and permanent on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea. Here the Greek language displaced in some countries the native tongues, and became the language not only of cul¬ ture, but of commerce and religion. Greek literature secured a firm footing, and prepared in a most re¬ markable manner for the advent and expansion of Christianity several centuries later. Alexander’s conquest of Egypt meant an open door into that country for Greek settlers, commerce, cul¬ ture and religion. His magnificent foresight led to the founding of Alexandria, that soon became the most important of all ports on the shore lines of the eastern section of the Mediterranean Sea. Its attrac¬ tive features soon filled it with the strength of Greek civilization and learning. But it also became more or less a cosmopolitan city. Its commercial advan¬ tages drew to it tradesmen from all Oriental lands. 49 50 The Greek Bible : The Septuagint With their products and^artides of trade they also took with them their customs and religion ; and in turn themselves fell under the spell of Greek learning. 37. Egypt had been the home of some Jews at least since early in the life of Jeremiah the prophet (comp. Jeremiah, chapters 43 and 44). At various periods in their history they had gone down for one reason or another to sojourn in the land of sunshine. Famines, wars, trading facilities and governmental reasons had all conspired to bring about such migra¬ tions, Alexander’s liberal governmental policy en¬ couraged the settlement of Jews in Egypt, and they were industrious, thrifty, temperate, intelligent, and comparatively loyal to any ruler whose policy did not hamper their religious liberty. It is reported that in the times of the Ptolemies one- third of the population of Alexandria was Jewish. This large Jewish element was, of course, imbued with Greek culture and civilization. It spoke the Greek language, and adopted some Greek methods of thought and systems of belief. Its sympathies even were falling away to things Greek and to per¬ sons Greek. But among this multitude of Greek-speaking Jews there were some who tenaciously held to the beliefs of their fathers. While they believed in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, they were steeped in the language and culture of a foreign people. The re¬ quirements of these very Jews brought about an event most important to Bible students — the translation of Prevalence of Septuagint 51 the Hebrew Old Testament into the Greek language, the adopted language of these Egyptian Jews. 38. This is the first foreign tongue into which the Old Testament was translated. Therefore its why? how ? wherefore ? are of intense interest to every Bible student. This translation became not simply the Bible of the Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria and Egypt, but of all the Jews in the countries about the Mediterranean Sea, in the times of Christ and in the early Christian centuries. It was the Old Testa¬ ment of Paul and the apostles, and was in constant use by the church fathers in the first few centuries of the Christian church. It was the mother-text, too, for several translations which will be examined farther on in our discussion, and it has been the Bible of the Greek church from its organization to the present day. 39. There are several stories of the origin of this remarkable book. One based on the now famous letter of Aristeas, about seventy-two translators com¬ pleting the work in seventy-two days, has been shown to be a forgery. When all the stories have been sifted there still remain some kernels of truth. It seems to be a fact that the translation of the Law, at least, was made in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-247 B. C.). This bare fact, preserved by tradition, has been gorgeously arrayed in the spurious letter of Aris¬ teas, and imbedded as credible statements in the writ¬ ings of many of the early church fathers. The au¬ thority of the king doubtless made for this new trans- 52 The Greek Bible : The Septuagint lation a ready and willing acceptance among the Jews of that and succeeding centuries. The name “ Sep¬ tuagint/’ meaning “ seventy ” (often written “ LXX ”) was probably given it on the basis of a tradition of seventy translators, though some have thought it was derived from the sanction of the translation by an Egyptian Jewish Sanhedrin of seventy members. 40. It is now certain that the books were not all translated in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, nor were they all translated by the same person. The work was done by different men, extending over a period approximating 150 years, or from 285-130 B. C. The former fact is certain from the varying degrees of accuracy observable in the whole volume. The Pentateuch is a creditable translation, especially of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Ecclesiastes is so slavishly literal that it is little more than a Grsecized Hebrew. Daniel is so poor a translation that the church ruled it out and substituted for it the Greek translation of Theodotion. The book of Esther has a note attached to it stating that it was translated by Lysimachus of Jerusalem, and taken to Egypt in the fourth year of Ptolemy Philometer, 185 B. C. The prologue to the book of Ecclestiasticus speaks of the whole Old Testament as completed before 132 B. C. In some of the books, notably Proverbs and Jere¬ miah, verses and chapters, and even a body of chap¬ ters are transposed. For example, immediately after Jeremiah 25: 13, chapters 46-51 are introduced in the following order: 49: 34-39 i 46; 5i i 47 : i-7» 7-22; 53 Purpose of the Septuagint 49: 1-5, 28-33, 23-27; 48; then the Hebrew order is followed up from chapter 25 : 15. In i Samuel the Sep¬ tuagint either so cut the Hebrew text as to relieve it of difficulties, or had a dififerent original as the basis of its translation. 41. These liberties taken with the Hebrew text may be due in large part to the purpose for which the translation was made. The aim of these translators was to cast the Hebrew thought of the Old Testament into Greek moulds, so that it might be plain to ordinary Hebrew-Greek readers. Therefore fidelity to sense was more essential than fidelity to form. They seemed to be perfectly ready to make such slight changes or additions as were necessary to clear up the sense of any passage. They now and then sub¬ stituted literal for figurative expressions. ' They in¬ serted or omitted words and clauses, and added or changed clauses as they saw fit, as in Genesis 4 : 8, “ and Cain said unto Abel, let us go into the field ” (agreeing with the Samaritan reading). In 2 Samuel 6: 5, they read, for “on all manner of instruments made of fir wood,” “ with all [their] might and with singing.” In Jeremiah 15 : 19, the clause, “ bring thee again,” is read in the Septuagint, “ give thee a habita¬ tion.” Ezekiel 23 : 42, “ and the voice of a multitude being at ease was with her,” is read in the Septuagint, “ And with a loud noise did they sing therein.” The Septuagint omits in Ezekiel 32: 31, “even Pharaoh and all his army, slain by the sword.” In Ezekiel 34: 16, “ but I will destroy the fat and the strong,” is 54 The Greek Bible : The Septuagint made to read, “ and I will keep the fat and the strong.” Then in Exodus 12: 40, the same addition is made as already noted under the ” Samaritan Pen¬ tateuch.” These examples indicate a few of the multitude of variations that this, our oldest translation of the Hebrew Old Testament presents. Doubtless in many cases they were the translation of a Hebrew text differing from the one we possess to-day. This fact is made use of in many passages of the Revised Version as seen in the marginal notes and readings. 42. The Septuagint, as it has come down to us, embodies not simply a translation of our Hebrew Bible, but also of many of the so-called apocryphal books. This may be due to the fact that the Jews of Alexandria took a more liberal view of what con¬ stituted their sacred books than had the Jews at Jerusalem. It shows either that there was not yet a sharp distinction made between the sacred and secu¬ lar in Jewish literature, or that the Greek-Jews wished to include with their sacred books other portions of their writings. These apocryphal books are dis¬ tributed among the other books. In order properly to locate them, we present below the order of the books in the Septuagint. The so-called historical books, while differing from the order in the Hebrew Bible, follow in the same succession as they do in the English Bible, until 2 Chronicles is concluded. From this point the apocryphal books will appear among the regular books in the order found in the best manu¬ scripts, and will be numbered successively. Immedi- 55 Contents of the Septuagint ately following 2 Chronicles we find (i) Esdras, followed by Ezra (called 2 Esdras). Then follow in order, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solo¬ mon, Job, (2) Wisdom of Solomon, (3) Wisdom of Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus), Esther, with (4) The Rest of Esther, (5) Judith, (6) Tobit, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Isaiah, Jere¬ miah, (7) Baruch, Lamentations, (8) Epistle of Jere¬ miah, Ezekiel, Daniel, opened by (9) Susanna ; after Daniel 3: 23, (10) The Song of the Three Children, after the close of Daniel, (ii) Bel and the Dragon, (12) I Maccabees, (13) 2 Maccabees, (14) 3 Macca¬ bees, and in some manuscripts (15) 4 Maccabees. Sev¬ eral of the apocryphal books are not known to have existed in Hebrew. These are The Rest of Esther, a part of Baruch, The Song of the Three Children, and 2 Maccabees. On the completion of the canon of the Old Testament, even those written in Hebrew were left out. This fact left them outside the regard given the canonical books, and they practically ceased to be copied by the biblical scribes. Thus we know them almost exclusively in translations. Jerome’s fidelity to what he knew to be the canonical books led him to disregard them in his great work. Their appearance in the Vulgate was in spite of Jerome’s opinion of their real value. 43. We have already noted the fact that our old¬ est Hebrew manuscript dates from the tenth century — more than a thousand years after the last word of 56 The Greek Bible : The Septuagint the Old Testament was written. Though the original Septuagint translation was made after the close of the Hebrew canon, there are manuscripts of this version that antedate the oldest known Hebrew manu¬ scripts by five or six hundred years. This fact makes them of superior importance in determining the early text of the Hebrew Old Testament. Manuscripts of the Septuagint are fortunately quite plentiful in the. great libraries of Europe. They are written in two kinds of script. Those dating from the fourth to the ninth centuries were written in uncials, that is, in large, separate letters, practically capitals ; those from the ninth century to the close of pen transcriptions in cursives, that is, small, run¬ ning-hand script. The uncial manuscripts are desig¬ nated by capital letters, and the cursives by numbers. There are about thirty known uncials, more or less fragmentary, stretching over five centuries of time. The great importance of these documents requires some further notice. 44. The oldest scrap of a Septuagint manuscript is a piece of papyrus found at Oxyrhynchus, in Egypt, in 1903, shown in the illustration (opposite page). There are also two others in the British Museum of the third century, containing Genesis 14: 17, and a fragment of a Psalter containing Psalms 12: 7 to 15: 4 respectively. There are four invaluable large, an¬ cient manuscripts of the Septuagint now available for the use of Bible students: (i) The oldest and most complete known manuscript of the Greek Bible, cov- Septuagint Papyrus of the 'I'hird Century, from Oxyrhyuclius, Kgypt Genesis 24 ; 38-43 i Great Septuagint Mayiuscripts 57 ering the Old and New Testaments, is Codex Vati- canus (marked “B” in catalogues), in the Vatican library at Rome. It was written in the fourth cen¬ tury. It lacks only Genesis i : i to 46 ; 28 ; 2 Kings 2: 5-7, 10-13; Psalms 106: 27 to 138: 6 in the Old Testament; the books of Maccabees are not in it. This manuscript formed the basis of our current crit¬ ical edition of the Septuagint. The next most valuable manuscript text is the Codex Alexandrinus (marked “A” in catalogues), in the British Museum. It is estimated to have been written in the first half of the fifth century. This, too, covers the entire Bible. But the following passages of the Old Testament are lacking: Genesis 14: 14-17; 15: 1-5, 16-19; 16: 6-9; I Kings 12: 20 to 14: 9; Psalms 1 : 20 to 80: ii. It contains all four books of the Maccabees, and “ the Epistle of Athanasius to Marcellinus on the Psalter ;” a summary of the con¬ tents of the Psalms by Eusebius stands before the Psalms. At the close of the 150 Psalms stands the apocryphal 151st Psalm, also some canticles or chants from other parts of the Old Testament, such as Deu¬ teronomy 32 and I Samuel 2: i-io. The third prize manuscript of the Septuagint is the Codex Sinaiticus (marked ‘‘S’’). Though this docu¬ ment ranks in age with the Vatican manuscript, its fragmentary character would rather give it third place in value. It was discovered in 1844 by Tischendorf in the monastery of St. Catharine, at Mt. Sinai (§115). In a later visit he secured one hundred and fifty-six leaves 58 The Greek Bible : The Septuagint of the Old Testament and the entire New Testament, aU of which ultimately found their home in the Im¬ perial Library at St. Petersburg. The parts of the manuscript intact for scholars are fragments of Gen¬ esis 23 and 24, of Numbers 5, 6 and 7; i Chronicles 9: 27 to 19: 17; Ezra 9: 9 to 10: 44; Nehemiah, Es¬ ther, Tobit, Judith, i Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations i : i to 2: 20; Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum to Malachi, Psalms, Proverbs, Eccle¬ siastes, Song of Solomon, Wisdom of Solomon, Wis¬ dom of Sirach, and Job. The fourth important manuscript Of the Septuagint is the Codex Ephraemi (marked *‘C’’), written in the fifth century, now in the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris. This is a palimpsest ; that is, the biblical manu¬ script has been partly erased, and over it is written a treatise in Syriac composed by St. Ephraem, of Syria, somewhere about the twelfth century. It is with great difficulty that some parts of the underlying bib¬ lical text can be made out. There are sixty-four leaves containing parts of the Old Testament. These are parts of Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, and the Song of Solo¬ mon. 45. The following are some of the most valuable smaller or fragmentary manuscripts of the Septuagint. The letter or number in parentheses following the name is the catalogue designation of the document : Codex Cottonianus (D) is a charred manuscript of the fifth century, now in the British Museum. It Fragment of Septuagint written in (Ireek Uncials on Pajiyrus, alxnp 'I'hlrd Century. Found in F.gypt in 1892. Now in the ISritish Museum l’a])yrus contains I’salms 11 ; 7 to 15 ; 4 Smaller Septuagint Manuscripts 59 was partially destroyed by a fire in the library of Sir R. Cotton in 1731. It was written in a beautiful uncial character, and furnished with 250 illustrations that carry the evidence of close relation to the mosaics of San Marco in Venice. Had not the text been carefully collated before the fire, its real value would have been greatly diminished. The Bodleian Genesis (E) at Oxford, was written in the eighth century. It contains in a good state of preservation Genesis i: i to 14 : 5 ; 18: 25 to 20: 13; 24: 55 to 42: 17. Codex Ambrosianus (F) at Milan, written in the fifth century. It carries three columns to the page, and is fully punctuated, accented and sup¬ plied with breathings. Its contents are Genesis 31:15 to Joshua 12: 12, with a few lacunae here and there; also fragments of Isaiah and Malachi. The Vienna Genesis (L), written in silver letters on purple vel¬ lum, belongs to the fifth or sixth century. It con¬ tains the whole of Genesis. Codex Basiliano-Vati- canus (N) at Rome and Venice, belongs to the eighth or ninth century. It consists of two volumes, some¬ what mutilated, and is written in sloping uncials. Its special importance is due to its having been used with the Codex Vaticanus (B) as the basis of the Roman edition of the Septuagint issued in 1587. These are a few of the more than thirty uncial man¬ uscripts of the Septuagint now known to be in exist¬ ence. Of cursives, there are more than 300 (Holmes and Parsons name 313, though it is known that their collators failed properly to describe the writing of 6o The Greek Bible : The Septuagint some of the texts). Many of these have not been carefully studied in connection with the issuance of Septuagint texts. 46. The first printed copy of the Septuagint was embodied in the Complutensian Polyglot, issued under the supervision of Cardinal Ximenes in 15 14-15 17. The Aldus edition, based on manuscripts in Venice, appeared in 1518. But the great edition of the Sep¬ tuagint in those centuries was that published under the patronage of Pope Sixtus in 1587. The Codex Alexandrinus, supplemented by other manuscripts, was published in 1707-1728 by Grabe. The greatest work of all was that issued at Oxford by Holmes and Parsons, 1798-1827. This gives us the Roman edition of 1587, with variant readings of about 325 manu¬ scripts. Tischendorf published a revision of the Roman texts with variants from S, A and C. Swete published a three-volume edition of the Septuagint (1887-1894), according to the best extant manuscript of each part of the Old Testament, with all the variants in three or four of the next best manuscripts. A new Cambridge edition is now being edited by Brooke and McLean that will give a much larger amount of variant material for critical work, collated from the different types of text. 47. What can be the inherent value of such a mass of manuscripts, dating from the third to the sixteenth centuries? They were inscribed in uncial and cursive writing, by various writers, and are preserved with the most scrupulous care. The whole purpose of Value of the Septuagint 6 1 scholars is (i) to determine as near as may be, by a study of all the best manuscripts, the text of the Septuagint as it was originally translated from the Hebrew; (2) to determine by the use of that best text of the Septuagint the text of the Hebrew Old Testament from which the Septuagint translation was made; (3) to determine, by a comparison of this text with the Massoretic text, as nearly as may be, the original form of the Hebrew books of the Old Tes¬ tament. Such determinations, even approximately, clear up many serious difficulties, and aid us greatly in translating the original text into good idiomatic English. Even a glance at the footnotes of the Variorum Teachers’ Bible shows how useful the Sep¬ tuagint variations are in the fixing of the meaning of the original text. The value of the Septuagint ex¬ pands as one studies it, and indicates that that will be one of the fruitful fields of research in the near future, for finding as near as possible the Hebrew text that was in use in the centuries preceding the Christian era, when from it the Septuagint was trans¬ lated. CHAPTER VI RIVAL GREEK BIBLES AND REVISIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT 48. The Septuagint was the Old Testament of the times of Christ and the Apostles. From its pages, in its language, the New Testament writers usually quoted. The early Christian church all about the shores of the Mediterranean Sea adopted generally that version of the Old Testament. It was by the use of it that they proved that Jesus was the prom¬ ised Messiah, that all the law and the prophets were fulfilled in him. Such general adoption and use of its form and thought by the leaders of the Christian church, naturally aroused the antagonism of the Jews, who could not agree with the new sect. This estrangement of the Jews from their formerly cher¬ ished Old Testament led them to consider very cau¬ tiously how they could avoid the adoption of the same thought and creed that inspired the followers of Jesus of Nazareth. Often when the Septuagint was quoted against them the Jews affirmed something wrong in the translation. Such opposition could not long re¬ main fruitless. The Jews finally repudiated the time- old translation as the Christians’ Old Testament, and resorted to other means to better their doctrinal rivals and secure for themselves an authoritative transla- 62 63 Aquila! s Greek Version tion of their own Hebrew Scriptures. In fact, it was not long before there were several rival translations, each bidding for favor as being the most faithful ren¬ dering of the Hebrew original. 49. The first scholar to respond to the call for a new translation of the Hebrew into Greek was Aquila. From the scanty information that we can find he was a proselyte to Judaism from Sinope in Pontus, Asia Minor, who flourished, on the authority of Epiphanius, about 128 A. D. He is reported by Jerome to have been a pupil of Rabbi Akiba between 95 and 135 A. D. Such training would have made him a reverer of the very letter of the text, as he, in his subsequent work, proved to be. Aquila’s translation of the Hebrew is slavishly literal, trying to translate every word and particle, regardless of literary form, the requirements of the Greek language, or the conveyance of clear thought. He often ‘‘ follows Hebrew idioms in vio¬ lation of Greek usage,” casts new words to suit his convenience, carries Hebrew words bodily over into Greek spelling, and generally violates principles of grammar and syntax to put the Hebrew into a cold, literal Greek. Such renderings have some value for the study of etymology, lexicography and the text, but are far from being helpful in an exegetical line. Aquila’s translation soon came to the front among the anti-Christian Jews, and became their official Greek version of the Old Testament. His transla¬ tion is known to have been in use by 177 A. D., as Irenaeus makes mention of it. Some writers identify 64 Rival Greek Bibles Aquila with Onkelos, the author to whom the princi¬ pal Targum of the Pentateuch is ascribed. But the evidence is not such as to convince the most careful or thoughtful of students of the literature of that early period of Semitic culture. 50. This rival Jewish translation aroused the Chris¬ tians of the second century, and a new translator appeared in the person of Theodotion, who is thought by every reference to him to have been an Ebionite Christian of Pontus, or of Ephesus. His translation is located between 180 and 192 A. D., in the reign of Commodus. It was based on the Hebrew, and in style and character, in some parts, closely followed the Septuagint. In fact, it is called by some scholars rather a revision of that venerable version than a new translation. It is clear that its purpose often seems to have been to make a correction of that work. Theodotion, in contrast with Aquila, gave a free ren¬ dering of the Hebrew, and had due regard to correct and idiomatic Greek. He is the only one of the three translators (Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus) that paid any attention to the Apocrypha. He in¬ serted the postscript to Job, and the additions to Dan¬ iel, viz. : Susanna, Song of the Three Children, and Bel and the Dragon. His translation soon won its way in the Christian church for its fidelity to the Hebrew and its improvement on the translations of some of the books of the Septuagint. Indeed, this translation became so much in favor that it exercised a large influence upon the further revisions of the ■■‘Jty ■r^f, i’"' *• - < ' il I ^ IH!«V5 ^1«re!(»wv^*9V 'oj»*wftaw«v^*9^ Ta.^w?wH»»'s'' '91^ w V^‘ »l \^4< K \' m» n>4T*«^ y y^ ’ ^ »' / ■ni^ frrpf mvi/iv ■/•# ■ ' \^in ~' . . .-v^vas iXilE>YCjAJC^.tV^ /. ‘^V s br r» •» ! ' ' ' i^l / >';{■■<;' -'i. 4; A(iuil;i’s Version of (jreek Hil)le (?^y). A I’alimpsest with Mehrew written over tlic Cireek. 2 Kings 23 : 15-19 65 Symmachus' Greek Version Septuagint. Theodotion’s own version of Daniel was so much superior to that of the Septuagint that it soon displaced that version in the Septuagint manu¬ scripts. The old Septuagint original of Daniel was so completely discarded that only a single copy, writ¬ ten in the ninth century, has come down to us. The book of Job in the Septuagint lacked about one-sixth of the matter found in the Hebrew text. These gaps have been filled out from Theodotion's translation. 51. The third great translator of the Hebrew into Greek in this period was Symmachus, who, on the authority of Eusebius and Jerome, was an Ebionite. His activity as a translator fell within the reign of Severus 193-21 1 A. D. His translation is remarkable for its fidelity to the original Hebrew, for its pure and even elegant Greek, and for its display of literary skill as a piece of good literature. Like Jerome, he had a high conception of a translator’s duty. Sym¬ machus’ translation is referred to in Jerome in a second edition. Jerome had high regard for Symmachus, and made use of him in his great work. In fact, Jerome characterized these three versions by saying “ Aquila translates word for word, Symmachus follows the sense, and Theodotion differs slightly from the Septuagint.” Symmachus’ influence on our English Bible came by way of Jerome’s Vulgate, upon which the translators of the Authorized Version leaned so heavily. 52. The greatest biblical scholar of the early Christian centuries was Origen. He was born at 66 Rival Greek Bibles Alexandria, i86 A. D., and was surnamed Adaman- tios because of his untiring energy. His early life and training, his skill as a schoolmaster, and the broad scope of his scholarship, were famed and lauded all down the Christian centuries, and are an inspiration to us of later days. His tremendous energy and skill in biblical lines of research laid the foundation for critical biblical study. Indeed, the first half of the third century marked an epoch in the history of bibli¬ cal textual study. Origen found in existence and in use in his day, besides the Old Testament in Hebrew, the Septuagint and the three Greek versions noted above. He complained that every manuscript con¬ tained a different text from its next. He conceived the idea of carefully studying by comparison all these different versions and manuscripts, and of producing therefrom the best possible manuscript or version. In order to accomplish this, not only for himself but for all who should study the Scriptures, he planned a stu¬ pendous work, called “The Hexapla,” upon which he, with helpers, occupied twenty-eight years of his life. It was the arrangement in six parallel columns of (i) the Hebrew text then current, (2) this same Hebrew text put into Greek letters, (3) the Greek translation of Aquila, (4) the Greek translation of Symmachus, (5) the Septuagint, revised by himself, and (6) the Greek translation of Theodotion. These versions were arranged so carefully and adjusted so nicely that the ordinary Bible student who could read Greek could make use of this Hexapla. 67 Origen's Purpose and Method origen’s hexapla (six-fold) / Hebrew. Hebrew in Greek Letters. Aquila. Symmachus. Origen’s Septuagint. Theodotion. This was For those The first The most By the use The sec- p r a c tically who could anti-C h r i s- artistic liter- of other 0 n d rival the Masso- not read the tian version ary transla- manuscripts version of retie He- Hebrew, 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¬ sible to the original, and to its correct p ro n uncia- tion. among the Jews. the best pos¬ sible Septu¬ agint ver¬ sion. its Daniel is found in the Septuag i n t proper. 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 re])rcsent 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 dillered 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 (v) 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 Eusebrns 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 centur>’. 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 4,50 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 Leyden, 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 Caesarea (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 31 1. (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 Ephnem, 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. Diagram showing the relation of the rival Greek Bibles and revisions tothe 5eptuagint(chapvI) 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 ' " «/ ‘■^Vr i*of<’*»j*'V*Mf', T**’»^^^^-<'**!'' * (fc. ^ -K < j*4 * J % A ^ -^ > • / \ tS^'Tf i T V tf»t^ «-V ^ ft' -r T ‘‘tj'^U a - ^ i, *u PI I ^xiTrreTJi rroM t o\i rt « o YMTiim ^jLU KYVkaH oY-vruThri'i f'lrilfcov ful l iVi Ti i 'm t .1 1 0 ! -I e K 6 p'l i i n > 1 Yi a‘«: 'S'f •3 ■I T !1T \ ’I - I, ^ K1 1 tilXLl Pi t I (^KKf l U l »it U »6 II HU :.vV 'rt u t i-r 1 1 1 Ytri'c A n f 1 1 I'l i fl &y tin hy- v:itAofrHn an «Yt;ivin i am K'AnVricft i irwu'Hi LAI rri in i >k tAt AlXi iKl tt r^uAll MJ ovn rrd hyi rrt ^tlt j 1 li mi u 0 f 1 'u It i f 8 Y n li yi'o yc ’ ti { e i tn c f EH 1 1> 1 1 1 ?fi i rvcjLi E j i sVin ^ jASiiliw'rU t l-Vt H 1 1 MTO t C K’yV Alt Jt « Y' Kiirrii t« vrj^rt m i toYK’YKAii koyim-' i||iiKi ri iiTC eKi eAiVo mto 1 1 u i . r 1 1 AC- 1 Aii'ri i M uiXh JCu ^ Hic,n ri-o"lCfH) i iscil|'i lurv 8 yi'm'I'i Tn vi n u i'l i ; tt'uce ?rri 1 1 H « p n'^i v: i ' f‘\ 1 ,1 ( i AK J 1 1 » H va1i iri It E i-ft-YkloVfVtOKCf aia 1 1 ? /f n'l*”' t >\i.i 1-8 1 T'( 1 All I i exit f, e A lA 1 1 1 J I ruY' At ! I rYYi“i mx VI V i ji li v;ro^ ^. Ki 1 ii 6 nri i t^iit q i u vi't Aini YTIAU^J P'l i TU I t ri lA hi: • Ywi^vii f ^)Y.i i|itc5K'n.e YNn'p \. V -a 1 cyi-i p I rori i' r-rm o y. vrti b i,o ^ n'« A 1 1 Hi) 11 cfA l V 1 0 1 1 .iCl'Df 11 P 1 IT H niT vi-vruri 1 I t I »Pii c 0 1. iii t iiciHU i rro t c i iii 1 u A 1 1 A f' Y { 0 MX'i 1 rrr i < r'KXi »« 1 1 5s- A- .A- ^ ■' S r* r » I .' ^ r '• I'.f -^1 •/ A I -p t1 '* ‘1 ' > # •) Ml ■•' V ^ » / , ■ 4i-» ' I ^ • ▼ Y^v **^T ^ -'Hi/, )i i I nn ri^nncTTi c t k’yKaSpih-v v/^:y^^c«AA'Aiie^ * m Codex Marchaliaiuis (Q . Sixth Century Kzekiel 5 : 12-17 4. •? Manuscripts of the Revisions 73 criticism of the Hebrew Old Testament; for Lucian 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 biblical criticism, fof 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 75 Early Latin Versions 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 Vulgate 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- 77 Classification of Texts 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 61. 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 witif 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- Ixr-LICIT f R C R \X I fsi rt^T'r'^cv h u r f-Jomtnclch Utf'-tllcihriplfK Cxmxtc^, Xcamcnf'^m tVr - f'-J.xri <1 *fci nc rt i^ri- c^n’'tff~ili.\c-'' Cxfxuv > o ff^i'fta A u ficp tcniiiixoutti 'rintxcjuoi'j: tu-Z'xhour'it Ct:cjinn<^;^W(: Xfifij^C Xcf^xtyiilix ^ruslr.xs^trmf' i.'r'xtirj: nij'ilLe^ t’Tf^Aeiywri'i>nuiuiu perAxmof . ou'lnf fuO' C"^ mttotnttfliocxhxfxt ■n'cr0t'or''ii'ilisi'isx comc~ xh'^xfryriSChihtrtr^ti.-ucff' C •■‘<71 i/utrhc/tf n'xj'iftffhjc: It At tf 'ccyf "I intm frxtcdyM xAiX-fioh izku fiCAly^sX' 11101" ("ani1'tr<$-mfpi diLwcitlo offtr'dyxt fu‘»locA<»^f.vp/' -^-Cun.&fdidAr . . . . ;., . . . tv Jerome’s Version, Latin. About A I), 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 Gallican 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. yero7ne 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 Latin. 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 Theodtilf 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. 67. 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 loss 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. ss'^y- ■.,y: ^tuSe9T»r>AS ajt»H I . juncp- ^i/ ^^ive)yL»rtv^ ii'-iy %1-- _ _ _ WS'/ j4f|2ATI0H6Somof a»q»l^t>Hurt>SuATi«m pecenfi TIS UHr|>6UHOt»>lHAP1H 9«l^ ' ^l^iHriAHHl^®TSwpiXAO‘^Her ¥ <|uiA&&eUA|))iOceD erren r;.vl^«»» Xia'2)dL' c>ejril«siu2>4'perx9eH6«A tl OH es 5i«j\ CT|AOCmLi AS ’ ACt> O .tr af 'co^HATTOHUmsuAIiUonpejaHom; 'AUJ ceSiaiA>AMHO )ai^Up|lAOcHH6S^UipOTen4.HTa3> j&tpUApnocefteKe-Recc'Nsensuiar* . lyC-^nroijliAsosceHiJ •<^ef 7ti»5 pei^HeRJtXlOH orpnul, » . %\C& ttOi> o Sc o i' H ^x 1 o H u < w«? I u\ • pCRH OOl I SI H c;n ^ "-x »ia«M oAhtj4 o ets up Tz-v ooi>h«P 3U» p (neTlA|4TAi>JlM=llAp TlO Ct55rtxt^ eCfiH*»X1««HxT^I7Mir»|LlA«|UA ¥iiR^9»^c^)epliisf;^luH pt^u . ‘g6^#et2.Wi3H«Wmp\atll4.\i?AcI>P t J; , mbiXsto csj^A^iON U cps UttRvi a\ tve- y,' '* ■'«* »-<^>4$X|r>cyjjjrip^womihas»Hi;ML:* costoooAiaHo ersuppA! Cei^enc Lvn u'>7i4A c^uAb liin * jDeif iliisios^pli pi4orzu pO»i^>16K.UJOHeS.ACp7fT» •, l4AS-et4&0iT>oSC09WAriONU«> suoRutnjieceHSiTi9uK*peR | H on>7HA f s j H^uion utx> AUicc" 9in>04HW0-eT£UpTlA0mWES i^oipoieRAHXAOBeUapnocB' 1 oent'pUoDliA^uiMCjewTj' ^ non)lOpljORUfr»rt'»aHASS«pCTi i -S-ri (MJ cm ■ t=TT.A cYk f 2 1AQ t , > A i. tT* '‘- CfC-HCjiATlOHCS 'jrfAaoiliAS AC^ocnoPfcHOOtJHAHOHuaiSnA. ♦ nua>>T2CH:eHi^Ji IS UNip eiiHo 1 rt>|W.lSlHC5UU>KUiy»AUlCC-Sinr>o 'I AMMOeT5UpR.XOmhl0St^Uipo reiiA HicXDo c-lLip Rocu D cue-; WOimiUAPucivii' ibkv^un^iM'peiz^t/Meruwia ^ f^^tiJcrfAaiiUA<^>ua>ortC05i j4aiiOHUu>su Aftutxi fjiecoHf'pi^ SukTHO <'v»iMlR>*,SlHt‘’,uLoinM^^ Ao»cosuT>eANKo eiS7uj»HA ;> QOT>H<;S‘|uipl>TCmMl'AJ>Ort^ - L\p7iSRC-.vmV' ‘77 •l|^V'‘j*f‘7 > d I ' t) epiUlS J>ai* J iiAtAn4»sa^fenpuwil|A^^ X>a*x>osco cp4 ATit?H lt^eHSfr|fJJO^ J - i^.. . Vulgate Manuscript I'ornierly in Marl of Ashbnrnliain’s Library, Seventb (Jentiiry. IM umbers i ; 22b-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 incpiire as to their origin. The Syriac Old Testament will claim our attention here, while the New Testament versions will be reserved for Chapter XVH. The one complete Syriac Old Testament had an obscure beginning. Some scholars 85 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 back, just after the middle of the second century, Melito of Sardis cites “ the Syrian ” in discussing the sacred books. It is not certain, however, that he refers to the Syriac Bible. Jacob of Edessa and Ephraem affirm, however, that the early Syriac Bible was the result of the labors of several translators. After some centuries a part of the Syrians threw aside their old Syriac Bible, translated from the Hebrew, for one of the several translated from the beloved old Sep- tuagint. Jacob of Edessa (about 704 A. D.) at¬ tempted to harmonize the old Syriac, or Peshitta (the “simple,” “literal”), and the Septuagint ver¬ sions. Another translation was that made by Poly¬ carp (in 508) at the instance of Bishop Philoxenus. Of more importance was the Syriac translation from the Hexaplar text of Eusebius and Pamphilus. This was executed by Bishop Paul of Telia in Mesopo¬ tamia, at Alexandria, 617-618 A. D. It contains not simply the critical symbols of Origen, but fragments of other Greek translations as marginal notes. Other comparatively unimportant Syriac editions and revis¬ ions were doubtless current during succeeding cen¬ turies, as seen among the various religious sects and orders of Syria. 71. The contents of the Syriac Old Testament 88 The Syriac Bibles cover about the same ground as the Hebrew or Mas- soretic text. Its number of books is twenty-two, and the arrangement of these books varies considerably in different manuscripts. The version current among the Nestorians lacked Chronicles, as did that among the Jacobites at Edessa. This book is found, how¬ ever, in the manuscripts of the sixth century, though with a division in most of them at 2 Chronicles 6: i. Esther is not found in the Nestorian version, nor is Ezra-Nehemiah in that of the Jacobites. In the latter version Esther, Judith, Ruth and Susanna form “ the Book of the Women.’’ The arrangement of the books has several points in common with the Septuagint. Indeed, the resem¬ blance is often so much nearer that of the Septuagint than of the Hebrew that one is led to suspect that the Septuagint was either freely used in making up the original order, or the Syriac at a later time was made to conform to that order. There is very slight probability that such revision was made after the time of Aphraates, the middle of the fourth century. In addition to the regular books of the Septuagint and Hebrew, complete Syriac manuscripts, like Codex Ambrosianus, contain the Apocalypse of Baruch, 4 Esdras and 4 and 5 Maccabees. 72. The extant manuscripts of this version are not numerous. One of the finest collections is found in the British Museum, secured mainly in 1842 from the monastery of St. Mary Deipara, which is situated in the Nitrian desert in Egypt. In this collection is 89 Manuscripts of Syriac Bible found one manuscript which bears the oldest date of any known manuscript of the Bible. This date is 464. It carries in it Genesis, Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. This very text has been copiously copied by Ephraem and Aphraates in the fourth century. Another notable manuscript is the Codex Ambrosianus at Milan, out of the sixth or seventh century. The preface to the Psalter in this manuscript says the Psalms were translated from the Palestinian language into Hebrew, from Hebrew into Greek, from Greek into Syriac. In Codex Rich (No. 7154 Brit. Mus.) this claim covers the whole Syriac Old Testa¬ ment, while it states that the (Syriac) Psalter was translated from the Palestinian language into He¬ brew, according to the translation of Symmachus, the Samaritan. One of the notable things in the Syriac Psalter is the freedom with which the superscriptions are omitted or changed — due, it is thought, to the influence of Theodore of Mopsuestia, a very original and aggressive biblical scholar of Asia Minor in the early Christian centuries. Besides the biblical, there are extant some valuable apocryphal and pseudepi- graphical manuscripts in the Syrian tongue. 73. The critical value of the Peshitta is not small, nor is it equal in every book, since they were mani¬ festly the work of different translators. It does not reach the high standard of excellence of the Septua- gint in its best parts, nor does it fall to the depths of some of the poorest parts of that version. Its read¬ ings almost always give good sense, which, if not 90 The Syriac Bibles found in the original, have been touched up from tradition or some other source. The natural inter¬ change between Hebrew and Aramaic idioms has likewise minimized its critical value. The freedorri used by translators in the changing of suffixes and paradigm forms rather violates a modern critic’s ideas of exactness. The dependence of the Peshitta on the Septuagint is often a difficulty in textual study. If both of them are against the Hebrew, it may be that the Syriac is merely a transcript of the Septuagint, hence greatly lowering the weight of au¬ thority against that original text. The Syriac Pentateuch, like that of the Septuagint, is a fair translation of the Hebrew text. Certain books, as Genesis, Isaiah, the Minor Prophets, and the Psalter bear marks of the influence of the Sep¬ tuagint. Ruth is a paraphrase. Job quite literal, while Chronicles is very like a Targum. Almost all the separate books of the Old Testament have been care¬ fully studied, and their critical value estimated in monographs published by various Syriac scholars of modern times. 74. There are no wholly reliable printed editions of the Syriac Old Testament. The two chief edi¬ tions or recensions are the Nestorian and the West- Syrian, represented respectively by the Urmia Bible of the American missionaries of 1852, and the text of the Paris Polyglot edited by Gabriel Sionita. This last recension, after the collation of additional manu¬ scripts, appeared in the London Polyglot, and later, Y3CV^ rClnivja ^-^03an vr^jJv r-r"^>V ‘ v^^-\cu r3kVvT<^ _ .03-V=v>a'y3iiw- r‘^^^^a3>*\<^yaL»Sacv C\ r'^CJbLKpi ^7^ Syriac Peshitta Text Deut. 19 : 2-5 Printed Editions 91 with few corrections, in Lee’s text, issued by the British Bible Society in 1823. The Urmia edition is in reality a reproduction of Lee in Nestorian charac¬ ters, with Nestorian vowels and better spellings. The three-volume Syriac Bible published (1887-92) by the Dominicans of Mosul is the latest edition of that work. Lagarde issued (in 1861) a Syriac text of the Apocrypha. Here is a large field for a few de¬ voted scholars to investigate and issue a reliable text of the Syriac Old Testament. There is an announce¬ ment from Berlin (1905) that a new Syriac text of the Bible is now in the course of preparation by Beer and Brockelmann. CHAPTER IX THE TARGUMS - JEWISH PARAPHRASES 75. The peoples of Syria in pre-Christian times spoke a language closely related to the Hebrew. It has been named Aramaic, since its users were called Aramaeans in the Old Testament. When a part of the children of Israel returned from the Babylonian exile they came into a land where Aramaic had made headway as the language of the people. This is seen in the fact that some portions of the Old Testament, written after the exile, are in the Aramaic tongue (see §16). It seems that either the Hebrew had de¬ generated, or that the Aramaic language had largely become the language of the common people. An evi¬ dence of this fact is seen in the public reading of the law by Ezra, in Nehemiah 8: 1-8, where it was neces¬ sary that interpreters follow him, and so put the words that he read into the language of the people as to make its meaning clear to them. This require¬ ment for a people who were fast forgetting their Hebrew soon grew into the necessity for a regular “ paraphrase,” that is “ Targum ” of the books of the Jewish scriptures. 76. It is not known how early these paraphrases were written down. There are traditions that push them back into pre-Christian times. They are 92 Writte7i Targicms 93 thought to be the resultant accumulation of long years of oral interpretations that began in Ezra’s day. Their present form was given them at some later date. It is noticeable that some of the quota¬ tions in the New Testament (Matt. 27: 46, with Psa. 22: i) accord with the readings of the Tar- gums, particularly among the spoken words of Jesus. These indicate that Aramaic was a common language among the peoples of Palestine in the first century, and also that it was freely used in connection with the Scriptures. Rules were given that one verse was to be read in the Hebrew, and then its Aramaic trans¬ lation was to follow. This required rule seems soon to have produced a written Targum that was used on every public reading of the Scriptures. These Tar- gums were first extemporaneous translations, then fixed written interpretations, for use in the syna¬ gogues and all public services where the Hebrew original was in use. 77. The first mention of a written Targum is found in a report (Bab. Shab. 115: i) that a Targum of Job was confiscated in the first century A. D. Au¬ thorities, however, would not recognize the use of them as Scriptures, because they were not a transla¬ tion, but a paraphrase of their sacred books. It is thought that Job could not have been the first of all the important Old Testament books to appear in this form, and hence that there must have been para¬ phrases of other books long before the first century. But all extant Targums are much later, perhaps none 94 Tar gums — Jewish Paraphrases dating back of the fifth or fourth century A. D. It is certain, however, that the Targums we possess are based on material that stretches far back into the centuries. But the laboratory apparatus of the higher critic cannot analyze it and point out the different strata. The Jewish schools of Babylonia and Jeru¬ salem, while pursuing similar lines, have left us works of two types, occasionally referred to below. There are extant seven Targums or paraphrases of the Old Testament. These are as follows: (i) Three on the Pentateuch; (2) one on the Prophets; and (3) three on the Hagiographa. 78. The Targums on the Pentateuch deserve the most attention, (i) The best known and the official Targum is that attributed to Onkelos. According to the Babylonian Talmud he was a proselyte of the first century. But it seems that the names Onkelos and Aquila (comp. §49) have been confused, so that it is quite generally conceded that the author of this famous paraphrase is unknown. It is attributed in its present form to later than the second century, based, however, on earlier material. It is also called the Babylonian Targum on the Pentateuch. Often it is a beautifully literal and simple translation, rather than a paraphrase of the Hebrew. When the mean¬ ing is obscure some explanatory word or clause is inserted, literal terms supplant figurative expressions in the Hebrew, and the commonly accepted interpre¬ tation of disputed passages finds place in the volume. (2) A fragmentary Targum of certain parts of From Erfurt Manuscript of the Hebrew Bible (Joshua i : 2-5), showing T-argum in alternate verses; iormerly property of Johann Reuchlin J r / . / ■ ’ ■ / • -•• ■-- *: N^vt/ ■ •"' /• ^‘£r. -‘- 'r ' > { •>i.f T,v r T * ;'j» •.' r'-. 1 \ : .'-•f / •i 95 Tar gums of the Pentateuch 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 glims — yewish 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 nof 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 97 Tar gums of the Hagiographa 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 P)iblcs. 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 Tar gums — -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 adhercncy 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 ICO Other Easterii 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 U'pper 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. lOI The Ethiopic Version 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 Gc‘cz, 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 Hebrew, in the middle ages or later. We have the Bible of the Septuagint entire except Maccabees in this version. In addition 102 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 Bthiopic 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 Moesia, 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 L idi ® ^ g; 0^ ll. ^ j; ll ISH ^ j stfiUi»»^d^^?A,f^/iq/l ja^flU-l'^K'.^r Xjl^ei#' A i*Cz0iy h"f\^iKc*h' Hsj: A i/ «»-in%je- %nn.h.^d%.c.t\ li. ft «ny ^ m- Cjr* A V^rA^jT^wr H, 4i’fl#fi,Cifl^A:-f-5;fl A V : ^ a> J?, 5 a>* A •f'sA ^•^: fl. -f: 05# #»^/isnAX*A^^ A= <2> H •#• /: ^: A'-' JJ ^ tic/ <0*:/n ^s ^ ATc!/ ^ ^ ^ tf-A^ A •A rfij h /: W-; :(f}oa A^m d 4ii*^5 ^ - A<»*A.AAsA4iA-.A5^ K 'rt ^ /r-i A A<^: A'^/IV .s A tfi ^ Ja^A- A #h £-. A ^ C7i diy i -A^. : y‘ 5^^- AK*Bir \Af&A.^AArfl-9w.7 ■• ';_*■ , /*? 5* «B 9* Jl ®* A-fcll ^ «w9’je t&o’fU’ihiOK #n'fI*^«/l/l:«»/WA,*.- a»*f *>19 -n arji nt-.a)7^’iz,u..a>^in ir : : a>* ft ^*.-f| /I. ;» ft. hj

ft : c 7. A h-ja>^ cy.€D'i*H}^, A>»£ft-AjK‘BU'f»».:HP«l '?:

*/l 4*5 ftft.^= Ajt fte>'4"-ATAu’o«^--H P «ft‘5iil>?wA5Aj>^ ft ^5je>w5i/<«A^*ft'ft-^ A--ft*4.ii-.(iD4*i'‘*'5^ fteift=AC'?:‘a>ft^’^ A ft ft ft. U*--

> / 1 ' 1 \ /: "f!' " 1 1 1 ' •X. > ^ X / c ? u < ft 1 1 5 1 ® J 5u*LonJc ? ' 1 ^ (§1 1 1 .^1 1 i ?i 1 1 h 1 < u) V i/> 1 tu . 1 ^ 1 tl * * j 1 f J' 1 ^ I 0 * 1 s> ^l*f 1 y 1 ^1 : Si <1 1 ' ' 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II — f— 1 — 1 1 L ■! Too-. doo> 1300- Diagram showing sources in general of the minor Eastern Versions Cchapx) 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 different 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. ^bis 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‘adya 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 Old 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- IIO Relation of Hebrew to Versions 1 1 1 sions on the English Bible may be slight, but they are nevertheless worth our consideration. Such are 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 or the AncientVersions to the Hebrew Charx!) I I A «00- iiO« 100- s. 'A ✓ _ _ i _ — I N -rvw - - , 1 1 1 • 1 1 <• — f! u ui H J 0 < (0 < s 0 O' ±> - L UJ I D > 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 tie- 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 1 1 3 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 (Chap. IV) is not a version, since it is 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 1 4 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 familiar 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 afforded 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 115 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 1 1 6 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- f« ss. SjaP.a.lvrc.kr.cu liucrf .Luina. C3.t. rr* WprfiJpujfccK t^nj ulut^ et tcni.^ {r->;«J'.5 -Uc '7^7 ?*» ‘ « t fcWHJUSi,' ct ifRipJcfa "i' Ttl-Ttr; |vr 'aiwiTemi « (p{nj«0 fsrcbawr fa Trx»i-r«c »^ir6y-v?»'3r»i?;^-x pff a^rfm. cf ^tt!i 5t7K» fiat for,' i U *TT r vV'flTSv>X3H i iTTi? 5 v»y*ii.rw !lK^f ' *>" i clii for. « v^rfo foc^-’-y b• /c A* *=•*'• 'r f x« «trt^i=r5* Tstf KrtfPatJ. t vccsou 5*os fo<€ f* uet efx.V-'v '' Ji.fo ».7iJ iv 5 6< 4/^ v{^. »>< '> 9ks bnsvc'caoa ly^i. ct ficc^i wf^r o fjKtSi rr:r,WrMf'%fCiev fnytf.ct t-jsu ' f^rma^n^rii w ■ptfwv !i*ir<» 5 i r fnfdi-.v t fJi fobfT jmJ T wf ■;f-^ •? s^ttj. 1 fc4t ftrfnam^.rou TV *34 3 Trt •^S-.xga fTSTittC' -y 'i 1-' -p nf V« if'l tJiijc ^CJ-J wrrr \mm'- Ait»^ X'J i it /; -r? r y f ijrrt-'-: «» v--sux-m r ftcBt4fr,v*fo.- ct fofof^ aqyi; qiar^ fopw yv^'^Axr.-t . Hyt ^ afotT'^c » i-tr A-j t'irRj4f5cwv» fir«7*i}>.‘r6 rtJ, T W li'i h:in.f{' vhUtX!iSMTl-5'»i i#‘ C-r.xX^ t'cwr a^aj osif fuJ> iVfo ^ tn i,rv'fi!^S'u^^'^CYifKrntrk'f-xm m ff\}xy’^ ' «54:%'/nJ;cf jpp.’n'4t.>ncla.t (iit&i iU. t ci- “.v, uki.K^i s t- yu ij/n tfrcaatae avT‘'»'foc fub^ ccfu3i?/‘t ftpp jruu 4rtfo.t‘-t’;• |&5T<«' W ffn« ktnxniU ftxaS tVi ^cnu# t f»» jiwyafjftflw liftiJiHi. tl^nttpomtffrfi fiKirwa fr«t^,onu\» k «'vaTri/iw ^wtfW^-iy/ciTvajf-ttf ■y^'»?5tV* T»f ‘V'lJ* t^J tfiTtv ■/D-ati/Ia-Cbar. Cratifij.SJ.'irro. qrN'pr'Jpio’crci .!. r* CCC-ass^cOOo *u-‘vdn%''iCTii , Ten .4 anren? coD^'wccocecco:? tcj i .: bre ervifiu e 'abyifi i '■*€< fjiirita^i " dci "'fcrcb.jttirbuper ccs>v'^ *T'U^,f.xocc‘Tft''tX)n.* : KeeiiXCki,vc;a\viXC3c^^^ ‘’renebns : '?.o veUmuv. v’X^'^^xco^xb '^irerteb: st ’jjc?ctc;n. ^^^^xc•Jc»JCc^» 'F-icMnuf. ert^vef^v?' 'j, l^manc* iio/vna-^.vWAv ^Dxyitcii'^.'kdoii Ri: ‘finn.inij;: m ‘ W) rr.c.is-j *^;5qi{ir ittn ;'’cC^ d} ; tul? r diqafu cv>>,\\’c^x\vo,*cw ^abaqir;i.‘'*:?^t;ar.tc!i-; *n.r;!utiten?;t ‘Uib «cc,\'Ca'sxxc';3Xc 'firn jtner-,' ;\L>bi', ''que crant'^fuiTr ccoc\vc:cp? *fint\j»fnr.-iru. ‘ HtfjrJn ‘Vi nctiNn c.V ViTp: ' '}n,i»c'*ul4i *rcciin;1ij<. ' f>t }ftnir 'i!i?cccA\') 'io4;;miiVnit{n;‘'-i 'ppi • rcu'mdtdfc-f tbetdme V'Kt\urM:ui*’n rid.^ r r.Mn; :coo -evjrxw ‘’cd^jrc^-tn'HuT.p'.ivpu nV:5ppHV{iHf'in im. ‘‘c< f iTef ’boj* numd'i.iif/ lirrmu' -t “fern 'b'’rbfv4'C'jc,'n i 'f,i:K’tc rcnK:f< "p- MnjfcnVfiociHWnr- cnVtuxMff^.'tjfiiruiVVti bic*Tctnd'ire»n,'fip'(»r»r Tup*rorr.^ ' H' ell *ifi.*£fpl'Mlit'rcrr.i‘ her WNirFf^S^Tvn.' re fern > ’^nisM ffc!ni> <'uV*iJs;nu qj V Kle/fructa' hH'-' vnu qaodv};' ferncMrcm ‘fmfpcrnfti.T.^Gr viviic ixjnx rrj K'oftrr x.^-i w jTO ’"V »«?’*' J,«5r7i|i > r SW)V T K r?’ T p^il'^rij'ifrtT} X!t T "^82 <”’? 8»i' V T'.' '' ^D2« >''^’ '*'!2\!2 i'5':'?H"8:?T'3B’T82*«‘;'x7or2tt",i:^”x::i'J,x;g 2T’^222,>'7?';>»~‘^ mni r‘??'7^Sr23’l'r8Al'T''^-?'’'^y‘’2 •’.?■’ Xiwsrixr'ivpx ’x-tri'".’ fr.p r H3wy r7|s3'q3PP,x,V"ix S' ri'3 rf'p I "iTi inyT^' fitnimnur X'82P7U;'? ,Tj T),7!T?r'25'’'3'ilV'8;ATjf? i'?"*!?' ‘Zet.H'Jcb. C ’ ’ r'r.N*! " £3,.. >> pN;>l':pN2'rN’'DT-"''' , 'T'” -1-1 ' ' ' ' •' =• 'D'-’£s-'nni3ci-p'' D'n*’}<‘K''v '3':’iC''^"'’P"'l' ■'i;-;')’ » pnTr’N'''3’'-iv;K-i' ar'*,'. --' ’’'"•n.Vai’ .■_■ •, v ' > ■i2,n3'i"p--''r'b',*'^N ■■''.'S' V >*” P'r.Y3V'"!2p''M-'' a'pp’ > > > p,nj>'^ PP.-N‘’a'Pp'i '.I ' 1' “^pp'Til'X 3' P"!'p'l’,,V'P''^’ » > > -n- ' ' 3 X' ’ R ' 3' '.' e ' '2 '3'’ ' >* a’n^x’prx.i’;*j-_-3ii »>*"3S n'PiPi’pi.'Vp cx“i'''P'’ * f P r3”''psim'’p n, .: bip f > ’ pPK' P'w’ j‘'*’''0'"l\vV"'P'2'':p' NPp3ax''N"2';"o'p8'-'pp’-'i' >* □'n^'"PPN’>':3'i.’''D'a'3'''N' >3 ij'P"’ '■’P pi-'' >'■'■' >• > ’Ti' ’•■'; » ’ PCC ' NU:P'pPX"'’N"':pi '.'p" riwC'jC'’ CPr'i''pr’;'' ;«;pp"' ,1- )’p"’'i3“c’'';''PC'X 'p^ Tltwrpxbiit ■ o.-'^iiiii'lvl'.i!'. {.vsBk !v4»>J*iMraa»-tH'ftn.>'iv-Mrj, .-tvt' I’.oi'i’ '* • I'JiNV'vKm Uv;rntq»iii'rvtn*-'ki»«.jl'.>tri'i‘ f,x<- r'" '" ' 1' .' {.'in ttHWii.OkJl'ir; t foil 1‘': • : ''i>i« Tn:-.’ kiV.}’*''bt{’oia<.'fpiintiirH‘uv'imfT M>v' ,' ;.jn-rrc t)ttH<.\t4‘.<.'if4«Vfriv':futiK>Jti<*T'v »'V(;-.v,e'i ri. *‘Hoc;j '.Cnffnc:r riPi !.a t»ncr i.jat ' r.ivV**{''^‘*^r^4‘m/irii»nfK-:U'! v: m’ji liii^r.7^ni.ut•" 4i'tJi>tf'ipfn mjmf»rti!rru(t«j. »;i.im<'t»tft «rlut. A: tf»uvrfiv : f'»i<)2' xir t'cei;i> \ a I W’ It ff ■*. If AjurctUti't vfovtr luU i.-fo »(U»: n f'.il vn(im.T4;»P'nf-K ■n<'fo-Jt’ri'uuin. M' ' ’Miir*«;v' vMi5,itiu42 tU-rtf‘Mtf junen'" ,' nMM.i tp'f iniHc; h-Tra^iominafu*!'.^ N iN-,.'i»'' •iV.x" »> ‘'‘.'ni' ,*'''7\”y“ 7' •“>••. ' fi,'HMH.\f jrl'ot»' wa<|3*5plKfl>f J *TS^w^<^3 D’SXJ •?yv< ^ D:53n/<1 7Tsj^t3ioyirvi^ ‘»Vjpji/;3lsr r/< r« iJ'IO’l T^VViw? vinrmp^ * :ji{so>»7ni7T jMftnL/jin V/cV nm Vac*hs"> ?*n‘;T r^nV^my rVrrin • Wtt^»V/cujT f mm r v •rTpiT dVu/V "/3i Tin^T nih Hebrew fragment of Ecclesiasticus. Taylor-Schechter collection of the University Library, Cambridge, England Ecclesiasticus 51 : 6c-i2 % % ■ . . K -• i V.'-^ '■^ ' fcw>' ■ 125 PseudepigrapJlical Books by an Alexandrian Jew in the first century, if we are to pass on the literary character and content of that wonderfully clever book of Jewish philosophy. 103. The above-named Protestant apocryphal books are those most familiar to us from their pres¬ ence in many old English editions of the Authorized Version, and in large family Bibles. But besides these there is a continually growing collection of pseudepigraphical books which Bible students must take account of. At least one of these, the Book of Enoch, is quoted in Jude (14b), and others are quoted in some of the church fathers as if authentic and authoritative. There are various classifications of these books, but that of M. R. James (in Encyclopaedia Biblica) is comprehensive, and followed for the main part here. This literature is (i) Legendary or Haggadic Nar¬ rative; (2) Apocalyptic; (3) Poetical; (4) Didactic. i) The Legendary: (i) The Testament of Adam, extant in Greek, Latin, Syriac, Arabic and Ethiopic ; (2) The Book of Jubilees (or Apocalypse of Moses), a commentary on Genesis, extant in Ethiopic; (3) Testaments of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, found in Greek, Slavonic, and Roumanian ; (4) Apocalypse of Abraham, extant in Slavonic, from the Greek; (5) Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, extant in Greek and Latin; (6) Life of Aseneth (wife of Joseph), extant in Greek, Syriac and Latin; (7) Testament of Job, extant in Greek; (8) Testament of Solomon, extant in Greek; (9) Book of Noah, a fragment found 126 The Apocrypha in the Book of Enoch; (lo) Penitence of Jannes and Jambres, extant only in Latin and Anglo-Saxon frag¬ ments. 2) Apocalyptic: (i) Book of Enoch, originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, extant in Greek, Ethi- opic and Latin; (2) Secrets of Enoch, extant in Sla¬ vonic only; (3) Sibylline Oracles, extant in Greek and Latin ; (4) Assumption of Moses, extant in Latin, quoted in Jude; (5) four Apocalypses of Baruch, ex¬ tant in Greek, Slavonic, Ethiopic and Syriac ; (6) The Rest of the Words of Baruch, or Paralipomena of Jeremiah, extant in Greek and Ethiopic; (7) Prophecy of Jeremiah, attached to the Epistle of Jeremiah in Ethiopic manuscripts ; (8) Ascension of Isaiah, extant in its entirety only in Ethiopic, but fragments exist in Greek, Latin and Slavonic ; (9) Apocalypse of Elijah, extant in Coptic; (10) Apocalypse of Zephaniah, ex¬ tant in Coptic; (ii) A Revelation of Moses, extant in Hebrew; (12) An Apocalypse of Esdras, extant in Syriac ; an Ethiopic manuscript of a book by the same name is in the British Museum ; there are several other books of less note under this classification that are either quoted or referred to in various ancient au¬ thors. 3) Poetical: (i) Psalms of Solomon, eighteen psalms in Greek that were once translated from He¬ brew; (2) Additions to the Psalter: Psalm 151 in the Greek ; three apocryphal psalms in Syriac— all probably of Jewish origin. 4) Didactic: (i) Magical Books of Moses, ex- 127 Reasons for the Apocrypha tant in papyri found in Egypt; (2) The Story of Achiacharus, the cup-bearer, steward, signet-keeper and overseer of accounts to Esarhaddon (Tobit 1 : 2if.). The above list, though it does not contain all known pseudepigraphical books, is being increased almost annually by the discovery of other books quoted and referred to by early ecclesiastical writers, These works are becoming more and more essential for Bible students, because they give many reflections of the pious mind of Jew and Christian in the early centuries of Christianity. 104. The books of our Revised Version are iden¬ tical with those that made up the ancient Hebrew Bible. All the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha were produced between about 250 B. C. and somewhere in the early Christian centuries. They were written by persons who doubtless had a pious turn of mind, but who wished to palm off on a credulous public, or credulous church, works which were intended to pro¬ mote some religious or philosophical idea. To get their works adopted and indorsed they gave them some title that carried the name of a glorious patri¬ arch or personage in early Jewish history. Such works appealed more readily to the non-Palestinian Jew, as we see in the translation and adoption of sev¬ eral non-Jewish documents in the Alexandrian or Sep^ tuagint translation. We have seen how these same books have been carried into the numerous editions of the Septuagint, into the Vulgate, and into several 128 The Apocrypha other versions of later date. The church fathers now and then quoted from these extra-canonical books, and the Roman church formally adopted many of them as part of their biblical canon. Somehow or other the spread of learning, and the quickening of a spiritual life in reformation times cut down the bibli¬ cal canon of the Protestant churches to the limits of the ancient Hebrew canon. This determination won its way until to-day we find no apocryphal book either ’ in the Revised Version or the American Revised Ver¬ sion. In 1892, the Rev. C. J. Ball issued the Variorum Apocrypha, the Authorized Version with variant readings, after the manner of the Variorum Teachers’ Bible. The Revised Version of the Apocrypha appeared in 1895. 105. Why were the apocryphal books not received into the biblical canon of the Old Testament? What constitutes the real difiference between the two classes of literature? Who decided what should be Bible and what should not be Bible ? How many times these questions have been asked and remained unan¬ swered ! Answers to these questions are not easy to find. In the first place, no man and no body of men, so far as recorded, formally decided what should be the fixed canon of the Old Testament. There seemed to be a kind of unanimity of opinion, doubtless based on com¬ mon grounds, why such and such a book should be valid for Scripture and another should not. West- 129 Origin of the Canon cott, Canon of the New Testament, says rightly, p. 346f. : “ The collection of sacred books was brought about gradually, spontaneously, silently.” “The judg¬ ment appeared as a natural manifestation of the life of the Christian body, and not as a logical consequence of definite principles.” Scholars have been searching far and wide for a statement of the reasons inquired after. Some of the reasons produced for the acceptance of any book into the canon have been, (a) its antiquity, it must be known to be ancient; (b) its authenticity, it must have been regarded as authentic by those of early days ; (c) its authorship, each book must be connected with some great name; (d) its purpose, each book must present some distinct phase in religious thought and life; (e) its temper, each book must be in har¬ mony with the already accepted biblical books; (f) its religious tone, each book must make a religious im¬ pression that will be a determining element in its loca¬ tion. On the other hand, there were certainly many rea¬ sons why a book was not accepted as canonical. Some of them, as seen in a study of the temper of scholars in the early Christian centuries are : That book was rejected (a) whose ethical teachings were contrary to those of the accepted books; (b) which contained manifest errors of history and geography; (c) whose contents embodied silly, ridiculous, or trifling state¬ ments or stories; (d) which was largely compiled or made up of imitations of other writings; (e) which 130 The Apocrypha lacked the spiritual element; (f) which was not ac¬ cepted by the early Christians or Jews; (g) which appeared after the closing of the canon, and whose internal and external evidence locates it after the be¬ ginning of the Christian era. There are many state¬ ments in rabbinical writings that limit the canon to the regular books of the Hebrew Bible, and reject, as did the early Syriac version, every book not contained therein. Thus in this day we estimate that the par¬ tition between the two classes of literature was spe¬ cifically set up and maintained. Part II. The New Testament CHAPTER XIII WRITING AND MANUSCRIPTS IN GENERAL io6. The story of early Old Testament versions is a long one, for it deals with documents in many languages that stretch over a large area of time. The composition, canonization, and early transla¬ tions of the Old Testament are veiled in the mists of history. The meagerness of the manuscripts, the policy pursued in the multiplication of versions, and their value for critical study, arc problems which confront every thorough student of the Old Testa¬ ment. The present stage of Old Testament study is still far from satisfactory to those who are desirous of securing a good text, built on an abundance of early manuscript authority. On turning to the New Testament, however, we find an opposite condition of things. There is an abundance of manuscripts, several of them reaching to the fourth Christian century. They have been de¬ posited in many of the largest libraries of Europe, and are most valuable testimony. Besides these nu¬ merous witnesses, the versions of the New Testament are several centuries nearer the original than are those of the Old Testament; or, in other words, the space 132 Writing and Marius cripts in General of time between the date of the composition of the New Testament books and the earliest translations of those documents, is very much shorter than between similar documents of the Old Testament. This fact gives the versions of the New Testament much larger value than can be credited to those of the Old Testa¬ ment. On the other hand, the larger number of early and valuable manuscripts of the New Testament rather discounts the comparative value of the ver¬ sions. 107. The books of the New Testament come down to us in Greek, most if not all of them written in the first century. Most of the Epistles of Paul, the earliest of the books, were written as letters to the churches which he had founded and fostered, and not one of them was by him intended to be preserved as a permanent part of a collection of sacred books. Indeed, Paul does not seem to have given any direc¬ tions regarding his letters, except that occasionally he requested that they should be read before a church or interchanged with that sent to some other church (cf. Col. 4: 16). They preserve the epistolary form even when, as in the case of Romans, the treatment is more elaborate and systematic than usual with him. The individuality of the writer stands out in greater boldness, and the familiar handling of themes in such direct address, gives a certain personal touch and interest not found in formal literary documents. These letters of Paul are our earliest records of the progress and expansion of Christianity. Paul’s Character of New Testament Writings 133 intimate relationship with the early churches, and his daily burden of soul for them (cf. 2 Cor. ii; 28) give them a special value. From hints and direct statements in these letters Paul must have carried on an extensive correspondence with his churches (2 Thess. 3: 17; Phil. 3: 18). He received letters or messages from his churches (i Cor. 16: 3; 7: i) and sent to them other letters (cf. 2 Cor. 10: 10; i Cor. 5: 8) besides those preserved to us in the New Tes¬ tament. The so-called Catholic Epistles, James, I and 2 Peter, i, 2 and 3 John, and Jude have more of the form of literary epistles. Some of them were evidently intended, if not for general Christian read¬ ing, at least for large numbers of persons. The Gospels are the written reports of the facts known or gathered by their authors concerning the life of Jesus on earth. They used written records in their compilations, as direct discourse is introduced as if it were the identical words of the speakers. John’s Gospel stands quite alone, and presents a phase of the life of Jesus distinct from the first three — the Synoptics. Luke’s narrative in the Acts is a setting forth in their order of events connected with the beginnings of the church and stretching to the arrival of Paul at Rome. Of all these the Gospels and the Acts seem to have been the only books of the New Testament that were obviously records in¬ tended to be of permanent and historical value. 108. After the books of the New Testament were written they were scattered all over the Roman em- 1 34 Writing and Manuscripts m General pire. The Christians everywhere took care of them, copied and multiplied them in the century immedi¬ ately following their production. Marcion, who was a devout teacher during the reign of Antoninus Pius (138-161 A. D.), makes appeal to a rule of faith which consisted of “ the Gospel ” and ‘‘ the Apostolicon.” This latter is known to have contained ten epistles of Paul, which were recognized by Marcion as authori¬ tative. Soon after this date other writers, especially of the church fathers, quote and refer to various books of the New Testament. as if they constituted an authoritative collection of sacred documents. But we do not possess one of the original manu¬ scripts either of Paul’s letters or of any other one of the books of the New Testament. They were doubt¬ less multiplied by Christians who copied them pri¬ vately, and by slaves, professional scribes and monks in many places in the Christianized world. Scholars such as Origen, Eusebius and Jerome greatly stimulated biblical learning, and caused the multipli¬ cation and preservation of its sacred manuscripts. That sacred calling was later confined almost exclu¬ sively to monasteries, of which there were hundreds in the Orient. The profession of scribe was so revered that a writer of the sacred books was ex¬ empted from working in the gardens of a monastery, lest the skill of his pen be marred by injury to his hands. 109. Since these original manuscripts have been lost, how shall we proceed to recover their contents? 135 Bases of the True Text The process will be substantially that followed in re¬ storing the text of the Old Testament (Chapter II). In this case, however, we shall not be obliged to em¬ ploy such a wide range of matter. Here we shall examine the earliest extant manuscripts of the Greek, the versions which were translated directly from the Greek, and the quotations in the writings of the church fathers and others. The earliest extant Greek manu¬ scripts date from the fourth century (not more than three centuries after the writing of the New Testa¬ ment books) down to the invention of printing in the fifteenth century. In fact, a few were copied after the printer began his work. The versions began to be made in the second century, and continued to multi¬ ply until the tenth. Their evidence, however, in each case depends largely on the anticiuity of the manu¬ scripts still extant of such version. The use of the New Testament made by the church fathers either in quoting from the original Greek or from one of the versions, is valual)le evidence for the reading of that text at the given date. On the other hand, the care¬ lessness that some of the church fathers manifested in their quotations or references to current versions often diminishes their value for the textual critic. The diligent student of the text will, however, grad¬ ually discover the relative value of these ancient wit¬ nesses, and accord them their meed of regard. no. The known manuscripts of the New Testa¬ ment, produced prior to the invention of printing, now number several thousands. They are found in publiq 136 Writing and Manuscripts in General and private libraries and collections in almost every civilized country. They are divided according to the character of the writing into two classes; (i) Uncials, that is, those written in capital letters, and (2) Cur¬ sives, those written in a running hand. The former include for the most part the oldest manuscripts down to the ninth century, and the latter those written from the ninth to the fifteenth century. Besides the New Testament manuscripts, properly so-called, there are over four hundred Lectionaries, or service books, in which are found selections from some parts of the New Testament for use in church services. The oldest uncials are written on expensive and durable vellum or parchment ; on leaves about quarto or folio size, usually in two and occasionally in three or four columns on each page. They have as a rule no space between the words, no accents, and few pausal marks. There are no marks to indicate the end of sentences, except paragraph extensions. There are certain words that admit of an abbreviation, such being indicated by a superlinear stroke. The follow¬ ing in English letters will illustrate about the appear¬ ance of an early uncial manuscript (from John i: 1-4) : INTHEBEGINNING^ASTHEWORDAND T ^ W O R DWASWITHGDANDTHEWORDWASGD THESAMEWASINTHEBE GINNINGWITH G D A L L THINGSWEREMADETHROUGHHIM ANDWTTHOUTHIMWAS NOTANYTHIN G MADETHATHATHBEENMADEINHIM WA S eifeandthelifewastheeightofme N f. ii Wj4;IC*» *;CMfc*4l*»#' 4Uje» »«feM»^Ki* fcw*, I »tt^ ^ ^ w t#?tiift** i. Alt ^rrer f amIi^mmiy k4C J * A A An«« VM*^ r.«-Vy tiiw'» occiJy^ ' ^’* n ».<^,» I M Xl»l'M^IC-*.».*j« ^ t( k k j « HKkl fcti»«?l kf k« ha*c nerlo^r»*»t;irtfck ^'otfcYtM H^ •* <5 >*t «*• i Tcry ri r ti j;~r <3 »«» H- OY “K *1 * '*"’ (i..., i. auMkipf '5*,, ^©A*u3c*^'» I IT A MOT >*CMMUj>#%*irfTy i 'j- t i< A. » I A A M < iJ <: A. M M AlfcjM *, I Jk.O M*r *IC oy r ^ AV4 A4* -T'0<' A A A A n M C Y M A T*'** Tor •‘fkf r M A AriOAf'i M # *“*V%*1’ »j*' YA« A 7.1- rt n 9 1 If » *• *^0 » ♦ ■ vTc*Y*^N®T®j*’'^'* r*''* M A T' f M • 0 V M l> M r M O Q I C #Vr M H # » * • M A» ^ »«A&>C X« V4 M Jfe^i A«‘ 4»M iJT^kJIfklToyC-^tOYC (f »kMA^ICTOIirAJ»A»Y Ht If A 'r Ik fc: r i V # a? c A oy. A ^rtntpcc^Y** H AlAKCMIA-rMf AtitAl ocy WM A AoS vfAAlf A^ 6yi,.i»kO%*^Ci*^ rOA* Kowacima 'YU>'T^ M' t<% » H«|C* -t 'rHcynt ' k toy f4cVlrAr*ro*tf’T*J no A A f ’W.^iOMCVAftA fO-f *f AO A ^ rrt f M u> Y CM t v’ x ay MM aV ntxo»^if oc^ot^ now Ay 'I u Y f» fuCT'c>»A** ^nrt MM Ai royc yit>Y<3, icf AMA4'»CT0 r€AOk 1^ iCA'i'Art ayMCM ^ ^ytUJfM TAAIOMMA rv XY'r*r>-i>'-Kf*rir'r;pcc-- roM Acyolkyr* K a'a Y *4 k4 A « ► in. *4* m I A4 H X »l A A AAy f l*T O M ♦ MOM 6'T ' • A A r * M I I 1 ^ r X > k iuic CH»44 POM>fM**V * amX ha I ♦ I M lA 4, »• H TA • A40»Y*' AA>f •«4lAi Ml • IMf •f S I A M A >1 I t « • »4 ft I • I A » • I ». I* ► AAft.M .1.4 I I l*'0| j ft ftJII* (M^l* I I *' iVKA. . AyW J* tf Ml T 0'4 A fta 4 Y*r«UM K‘< I T AIM '4# .. K 4 A A ftf •’! I IA*T •t'm ri4Y''^r* * i I'l ‘ AY ft4A»4t*A^ * • u a^CT'iM^Y '%* MA V''yA*3A Y*^^f ** ftAAA4f« A4 M 4 *- Vft< Mkilftf OCUan Aft'CMM AO t 1^ « AT OM-f px- M* MOIT'M M A Y'tXMi’urk" M AA4 V X^AMOr A nOAAM4f4«k 4. 'Y'm C A A M 4> a'i AC C Y N ICl 4 mowtcca AyToycnp^* ‘ n ACA MCyftlc'lAMClftft 40 ft / 1L> flUft M 4* Ip r» I O M T ^ • V « I AV i aa rA Ay 44 M « MOft^^ ftj f>ic6a« -roy AMxftMOci^^Y nay , 4i'*1*Y <-b 4 (JU C 4 M T A »l 1»H ►.4 A*rii^rftt*ft4 A me TX4IM ricTowM Ayi aVaitom «4>u>T» c 4*<)MT*OY4yAr 1^ A I a Y T'ftft C A oy H CTt>Y xyo5*CTiMdi»iu'-, oyft Ar^AYToyf/-'** ^V- ^ .' Sjl CM AAA ATijN IM i ■> ^ ' *■* ^ '.I 1 •J > A'i -1 OVCA_' tOyAt* Y V4«i) ft4 A I A TmOT*! rtt 64| riUAft44 4 r IT ft-foyc AA M^Xe lOC J AAft« 4^** • ft* ;r A'irKArA « AiAftAflCir ripbc / ^ ,-• ••'■:■ JV 4^,^ -■• ■■ t- -;j5fe( ’- ■w>., 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 of 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 IMatthew as his standard, and marked ofif 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. 1 1 2. The cursive manuscripts were produced from the ninth to the sixteenth century. They number 140 Writmg a7id 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. l^rrrpornt^c^ i^^o cT 'y^p <^3 t^ojcr lu •yij ’ \^(iu • MOU oLiop. . a:u^ax^‘ ^' ffyfx^'X^y'lJLst.'u^. iJLto', (urrou. tf.v I ijj ^TOp cu ptxjAj - a^ctfij First page of a manuscript of tlie ('iosi)els in tlie T.ihrary of tlie Universilv ot Chicago. About A.D. 1500. Matthew i ; i-^a 'U- - - -• • ' r- > CHAPTER XIV SOME GREAT NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS 1 13. Uncial Greek manuscripts are assigned to dates from the middle of the fourth century to the ninth. At the present time only one hundred and twelve such documents are known ; and of that num¬ ber two only contain the entire New Testament. It seems that before the collection of all the New Testa¬ ment manuscripts into a single volume, there were four groups of those books: (i) The Gospels; (2) the Acts and Catholic Epistles; (3) the Pauline Epis¬ tles, and (4) the Apocalypse. A large number of the manuscripts now reflect this method of grouping. The uncial manuscripts are designated by the capital let¬ ters of the Latin, Greek, or Hebrew alphabets. Stu¬ dents of the footnotes of the Variorum Teachers’ Bible are familiar with such alphabetical designations. Many manuscripts, both uncial and cursive, have names as well as symbols. Cursive manuscripts are dated from the ninth to the sixteenth centuries. Of these there are about 3,500 known and catalogued, not by letters, but by numerals. The group system noted above is observed in this method of enumeration, that is, each group has its own system of successive numbers. They are indi¬ cated in lists of manuscripts as Evan, (the Gospels) ; 141 142 Great New Testame7it Manuscripts Act. (the Acts and Catholic Epistles) ; Paul, (the Pauline epistles) ; and Apoc. (the Apocalypse). Re¬ garding the Lectionaries, we find these abbreviations : Evst. (the Lectionary of the Gospels), and Apost. (the Lectionary of the Acts and the Epistles). The cursives, as a rule, occupy a small place in the con¬ siderations of the textual critic. Their evidence is mainly valuable when the sum total of testimony is collected, coming into prominence only where two great authorities disagree on a reading. 1 14. Among the most fascinating stories in bibli¬ cal lore are those connected with the discovery, trans¬ mission, and preservation of early manuscripts. Their production was sometimes a matter of imperial edict, as when Constantine the Great ordered from Eusebius, the famed historian and Bible scholar of the fourth century, for the churches of Constantinople, the prep¬ aration of fifty manuscripts of the Bible, to be written “ on artificially wrought skins by skilful calligraph- ists.” The persecutions and wars of the middle ages destroyed such documents in large numbers. Fire, flood and fanaticism combined to wipe out these per¬ ishable treasures of Christendom. But some were sheltered in out-of-the-way fastnesses, in monasteries upon the mountainside, in the sacred precincts of carefully guarded churches, and in the palaces of kings. They were given as presents, they were bor¬ rowed, bought, and stolen. Their intrinsic value was almost always underestimated, and they were sub¬ jected to inexcusable risks of being hopelessly lost. Tischendorf s Discovery 143 Fortunately, however, there were some haunts un¬ reached by the demons of destruction, wherein these treasures were preserved. Large-hearted benefactors and long-headed Christian statesmen secured many of these documents and deposited them where they are safe, and can be available for scholars through all time. In the succeeding sections a few only of these invaluable manuscripts will be described, and these, too, practically in the order in which they appear in the catalogues of manuscripts. 1 15. Codex Sinaiticus (S, generally designated, X) was in the monastery at Mt. Sinai, but is now in the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg. The story of its discovery and acquisition by Constantine Tisch- endorf of Leipsic is one of the most fascinating in the history of biblical manuscripts. Tischendorf set out in 1844 to make a tour of the Orient, particularly of monasteries, in search of biblical manuscripts. One of the out-of-the-way places visited by him was the monastery of St. Catharine, located at the base of Mt. Sinai. The monks graciously showed him their an¬ cient library. In glancing around he noticed in a basket, evidently for waste paper, a considerable quan¬ tity of leaves on which were written Greek inscrip¬ tions of a more ancient character than any he had ever seen. A brief examination showed that they were parts of the Bible. In this batch he found forty-three leaves, and was told by the librarian that two basket¬ fuls of such leaves had already been used to kindle the fire. He was readily given permission to carry 144 Great New Testament Manuscripts away what he had found, but was not allowed to see the remainder of the book from which these had been taken. Tischendorf told the monks their value, and then left for Europe. He presented the forty-three leaves to King Frederic Augustus of Saxony, who deposited them in the court library at Leipsic. Tisch¬ endorf published their contents (1846) under the title of Codex Friderico-Augustanus. These leaves contained parts of i Chronicles and Jeremiah, with Nehemiah and Esther complete. In 1853, Tischendorf returned to the monastery at Mt. Sinai, but without securing any further manu¬ scripts. With unquenchable zeal he made a third trip to the same place in 1859, with the sanction and sup¬ port of Czar Alexander II. At first he was met with the same kind of refusal that defeated him in 1853. Finally (on February 4), a few days before he left the monastery, he showed the steward his recently published edition of the Septuagint. At this the offi¬ cial said that he also had a copy of the Septuagint. Thus Tischendorf was led to the steward’s room, where a bundle of loose leaves of parchment wrapped in a cloth were unfolded and set before him. There was the treasure he had so long sought for! The dream of days, months and years materialized now before his eyes. With pent-up feelings he coldly ex¬ amined the leaves, and soon saw that it contained not only part of the Old Testament, but the New Testa¬ ment entire. He was permitted to examine it in his own room that night. He says : “ In the presence Convent of St. Catharine, Mount Sinai. Where T-schendorf found Codex Sinaiticjs (§ 115; i / ■i ) m S^. Petersburg' s Treasure 145 of the found treasure it was not possible for me to sleep.” He discovered in the mass parts of the Old Testament, including the poetical books entire, the New Testament entire, the Epistle of Barnabas, and part of the Shepherd of Hermas. He saw that if he could not get possession of the original he must copy the whole document. 1 16. Just at this point the influence of the Czar proved to be of immense advantage. Tischendorf showed the monks how gracious an act it would be to present this precious biblical document to the supreme head of the Greek Church. He was so far successful as to secure a “ temporary loan ” of the document. It was carried by Bedouin on a camel’s back from Mi. Sinai to Cairo, Egypt. At this place he, with the help of two of his countrymen, copied the 110,000 lines of the Codex, and noted the more than 12,000 changes by later hands. In October of the same year (1859) he was permitted to carry it to Europe as a “ conditional present ” to the Czar, merely for the purpose of publication. Tischendorf, while on his way to Russia, showed it to several royal heads of Europe, including the Emperor of Austria and the kings of Saxony and Prussia. In November he was permitted to lay it before the Czar of all the Russias and the Holy Synod at St. Petersburg. Tischendorf himself was then permitted to make use of it in Lcipsic in the preparation of his full edition of the Codex. Finally it was returned (in 1869) to the Imperial Library in St. Petersburg, where, in return for imperial presents 146 Great New Testament Manuscripts to the monks at Mt. Sinai, it found a permanent home, and may be seen to-day as the most precious biblical treasure of the Russian Government. The text of this great manuscript was printed at Leipsic, and published in four folio volumes at St. Petersburg at the cost of Czar Alexander II, as a celebration of the first millennium of the Russian Em¬ pire. The types were especially cast to bring out practically a photographic imitation of the original manuscript. The New Testament text, with the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas, was issued in a separate volume in Leipsic (in 1863) in smaller type, in four columns, and an octavo edi¬ tion in ordinary type (in 1865). 1 17. This Sinaitic Codex consists of 346^2 leaves of vellum, made from the finest and best quality of antelope skins. The leaves are 13^2 inches wide by 14J4 inches high, written in large uncials, with four columns of forty-eight lines each. It is the nearest complete, and the oldest, with the exception of the Vatican manuscript, among all the ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. It is assigned by Tischendorf to the middle of the fourth century, or about the time of the death of Eusebius, 340 A. D. Part of the evidence for this assignment is the pres¬ ence in the margin of the Gospels of the marks of the so-called “ Eusebian sections,” “ written in a hand evidently contemporaneous with the text.” Tischen¬ dorf thought it entirely possible that this might have been one of the fifty copies which Constantine had Codex Alexandrinus {A) — History 147 ordered for the churches of Constantinople in 331 A. D. and that it might have been sent by the Em¬ peror Justinian to the convent at Mt. Sinai, which he founded. As almost every ancient manuscript, the Sinaitic Codex has been corrected and modified by several later writers. (See cut facing p. 16.) This codex, in addition to being one of the most ancient, is at the same time one of the most valuable of New Testament manuscripts. It often agrees with the Vatican Codex as against the readings of many later manuscripts. A few of the most notable read¬ ings in which this manuscript and the Vatican Codex agree are in John i : 18, where these codices read “ God only begotten,” for the usual “ only begotten son;” Acts 20: 28, “church of God” for the usual “church of the Lord;” the omission of Mark 16: 9- 20; the omission of John 7 ; 53 to 8 : ii, the account of the woman taken in adultery. Sometimes it is in agreement with the Old Latin version. In other pas¬ sages it supports the readings of other texts, thus proving its independence as an authority. Its great importance will be recognized at once by any one who makes use of the variant readings printed in the New Testament in the Variorum Teachers’ Bible. 1 18. Codex Alexandrinus (A) is the name given to the greatest biblical treasure of the British Mu¬ seum. So much of its history as we know is not so romantic as that of the Sinaitic Codex. This manu¬ script was offered (in 1624) by Patriarch Cyril Lucar, 1 48 Great New Testament Manuscripts of Constantinople, to Sir Thomas Roe, British Am^ bassador to Turkey, to be presented to King James 1. This sovereign having died before it reached Eng¬ land, it was formally presented to Charles I (in 1627). It remained in the royal library until that was made a gift to the National Library in the Brit¬ ish Museum. Visitors to the manuscript room to-day may see the New Testament volume open under glass. The previous history of this manuscript is slightly known. Patriarch Cyril Lucar carried it to Con¬ stantinople from Alexandria. A preliminary note to the manuscript, written in Arabic, and signed by “ Athanasius the humble ’’ (thought to be Patriarch Athanasius III, whose death occurred in 1308), claims that the manuscript was presented to the official eccle¬ siastical cell of that town. A Latin note dates the gift in 1098. Cyril Lucar stated that it was written by Theda the martyr, a noble lady of Egypt, just before the Council of Nicea (325). These statements, however, are only traditional. The fact that the doc¬ ument has attached to it some of the work of Euse¬ bius and Athanasius (who died 376) would locate it probably in the fifth century. The style of writing seems at least to be more elaborate and ornamental than that of the Sinaitic or Vatican Codex. 1 19. Codex Alexandrinus is written on 776 leaves, each ioLJ inches wide by 12^ inches high, and carry¬ ing two columns of uncial writing (whereas the Sinaitic carries four). It contains the Old Testa- ■V, 1 o V ro v*- J fe I c » ■< > •I-^IVOVCMXVI-U roK/itrMitrr'ov*” •r<.ii v<-i’+«vc*i-! f ^Tl » e« I o 5 M Kc Xr «•'•■» i>-r «OVKe* I TC t-ev^iC-r-r ,» t V' T » » M *"< *- V ' ‘ ■ f ' ’'T •r V r * ‘ »<*-' »^* ' 1-' r " X>YVl^>Y^»''-) K xt vl^i ■> « w 1 ! K* ,v|»'rY- f s t O >M to » »<•' *V<11 KC- M U x< 1 *000 Kxixy t'oy OO- Ytl It I rO»^Y< ttt'tt'^'CC t 't-f t t->zuy I » n o >-« I f I'y ti > « >' t't, 1 1 »v»” •t xt v<.> V't • > 1 1 » > I n c> V’tio "<«» ' ' I ' xy"«*'YC< 'rx4 XYt-4 I n< t ' • ti'T'Yiy’t ’ tt^.xcrro.xiti >M «>»•<-»»>•> 'c‘« 'O-yo t'C.oc*,Krs'<,->Of-<<>xiYi t-'Y -• Y»OY'l'‘■■'Y<.^^' KxiXYtt JKO't-tf » ' H-, t P t < <-' s Y» * f-t OXt» » Yt et » n Pt >. ■Vy * ' Of l-t't'txft’to Y100X«’.vt-x -tXMt Hyt~f XVY* PYY'XKOVIJ t » I t'Ytl >t • • ^'oxt tx t 1 1 n Ytoit Yi i-xx- K-iC t lO' ( 1 1' Xct M C M'l xx rri « >v» X I V XU 'ft > K xxtc t It I xP-VYIY’Y XM'flOl V 1 1 »'X)n Yxc* x«J».>M x', I » )y XX^ XT'fXH ti M l 'XXX/t xY'l-IXt-l MUKp... ox ft XIY'IM X r I 'I Kxi X<1 11.H,IXY^ , 'fttf'xt'i • 1 1 fOix;xit iXMXj-'rvMt».-., XM VI" Y I XT in 1 I I 1 POCOXM X f Yin tjj tYj'll I XXT X p-i T X I 1 W>t;<>vi I V 1 11 I T r OV> t c j'KTKf 1 1 1 1 n>. »i » I vf I ixi;xxx ( i< ixxT jx r IT vt KXk'Ct ii ixxTx[>T’rxx->Y' > f’ttt •.>>rT IT I XllxXTIITMl I I IXT, XTTTt?Ct< 'rOY<> YOYX‘XT/1 v|* I 'V r T* I xxx'orxi in I n)<^ tx;c i OXCIC’ C 1 1 IXl » I 1 1) t I I I p « I > i< t I 1 XI Kx n,* I xxxTn^f TOT, TOY* ot,^ ioyot » I KT: I KXI t';XtLT I l<0 Ti I I XT I I 1.x #>tt- 'A fr I XI'O 1 I ITT JO l-'.iJX'lf TT'fO nv X. I OV' 1 1 lO f I o IT K'xiOOMO.turn lTt> XX| lT)o I nxoo t ITXitV ' Tl >XV' I < >•» OY' I > t lO VXl |f I IO<; M 'v . I I ^ » t> kkmh... ■ -s i\%i .» ^ ’v ^ i:; f I ft O- J-; V p V rc>. I ( tx c’ ■ i K" Vi - x? I f I vxt 1 I A. I 4'l 'OOo It'IJitllKOi ^ M-^Oi-V-M.vrv i*» II I w 1 1 OCi 'I'll Mi'TM Ci I !<<. >VVa' VI li- ? I » I j |<>x| ►.4 f I 1 1 1 l^'X' > A I V I n>r^ .V I u ) f j >x V I’ » viv'C 1 1*». *) t vpvoV* Kxn ix|' vi\'vvTW ^V*OV f OV* 1 POi.: r4 wi n. >c‘ O X |» I I fxi V » vr4 O'l ■iv»'* 'i‘,vc:c.: MX VI lOO) A i<.vovi ^ V» I r JO VVKt.> V40M.VI I C >'l V>V'I I p' ‘i |< -V I r iv M C rcUT<.^<.4 Iv VjT * AOVV* < t »0<.'.M'IXTV M T I 1< VI I I I I M »*p' * <><>1 -vv Vf * r » OlV v^./i c' I I v.» I % rx^ I f t \.vi Vi I >k4c: r * V V VI i vc'VO fC.Vl vV* '* ic^.vri M I I vrvi I I » I triiVixi»K/lC’‘4»wivi ‘xoi'i HI x> j VO VY" I x^v' ^ V * ^ 'C-f* f \>vi leciVjj I M VK VC>tl>0 I I KOVi'-A I'OV II 1 1 1 VO. t ixy* '» f 1 1 v'p't I V I I f I x‘ ■ I'l l lOV vt> I I 1 V XhJX>1v'>; » * Av ) vrxioiol I l<00 Vf C^M O* Al I li.> V4 0V«->l'*y;;J : K vii>x*4.| *f • I V JM I X>(* 5 AO» I o I I'*.' AY I ‘>v» I » M -VK< M V I i IL> v<. 'v; I ic v< I p vt- V€X.* X A V V K/1 K^OOi 1 1 I VI t I'M VI n,»K vsniit 'I I % C' <.>'1 I Pci VI '< I > 1*1 |< V » VI I I ► icrjo* * irn ivl VtVXii n.jvvS'oUtiYK^^'t^! c>K4 o r lo >• JO r J I 1 1 VI v.vv m <» V’»o“ . jc' «A. I I c> I 1 Y I f I ' • p AC' V<'/ i' I MU’* P X'X' « H V J JO. rxo K4 t:TxK> I J or v>'', ■ I I rxi<.> f I V vr jc><* !• o t-'OTXi' ' ■< ' * pAX-'N'i^ I AC^ MVtr'f' I I I I I V I V XX I 1 1 lO'l ‘I - t pM -VM f. Vf K. / C'V-^ I 11 If f 4 I o ic’mV j4 I r M pj* .. . I 1 1 r I M I! V .V M f . ivvix VI p'l r- X< .l-CM I I I Vp I VY‘ l4t>AM»A< 11 lO VY' • ‘ -v I p i: I r 4 r It I f cMt'<''j’ ‘ <'•<*' ay ' ' I|II|’<1U' IHlVVVC*VC\fV*-4 Y i< o K<.> VA I to » I r i V I vv A |- I x» A U * V V I ic >V' O. V I I I T C t ) I V p I C Mt » I I’OC'VA’AC'KVIl* ll>V.1vMp* t " I -o M K V VVI It' VI in ^IIVAp».YV^‘ Cl > A/1 C f J M I >.■ I 1 i< r J V M |< AC* I < • » •* III IC I » c.ipci \ C‘ 1 I V >^C- I vf t't • j ' ► 'Oc'nv I I CM .V^ % i J Codex Alexandriiii-s (A). Fifth CeiiHiry iiS-Tiy) I Jolin 5 ; y 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 (§iii), 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. 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 1809, 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, 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 {E) — Contents 15 1 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 iol4 inches high. The character of the writing is plain and simple, such as leads scholars to locate this manuscript in the first 152 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 codices until very recent times have not been accorded their full 153 Codex Ephrcem (C) 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. Ephriem. 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 154 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, Ephrsem. It is written in medium-sized uncials on pages 9^ inches wide by 12^4 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- Greek Uible. C^)(lc.\ I-'.ijliraem. Fifth Century. A palimpsest— Syriac written over the (ireek in the 'I'weH'tli Century. Matthew 20 : 16-23 '-■M - / \ Codex Bezce [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 Bezae (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. Irenaeus 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 France (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 Testame7it 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 ruling 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 I'estaments,” 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 0/d Latm 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 i6o The Old Latin and the Vulgate that was made by Jerome, one of the greatest biblical 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 differ¬ 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 1 6 1 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 Vercelli, 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 lacunae, 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 Bezae (d), compare §123. Codex Brixianus (f), contains the Gospels, with a few lacunae. It seems to be an Italian text. It dates from the sixth century, and is now at Brescia. i62 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 value. 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 Eatin 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 Bezae. 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 biblicaLmanuscript 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 ^w^mm :vv*^r-L- 'U,*f0S- ■(:■ a#5#isi^| ^ t>iliiii~yirii 1 i*^^lrr r '• •’ ^mmmk 5#Wtpii£ii^^ ►! :-m h . < MidiiiMiik Old Latin Oospels. Codex Vercellensis. Late Fouri.li Century, John i6 ; 23-30 Old Latin Epistles and Apocalypse 163 Claromontanus (d), a bilingual text after the style of D (§123), which holds an important place in the esti¬ mation of textual critics. It may belong to Codex Bezse, and is here classified under the same but with a small letter indicative of its relative position among manuscripts. The seven Catholic Epistles, which usually follow Acts in the Greek manuscripts, were not all incor¬ porated into the Latin canon until the fourth cen¬ tury. I Peter, i John and Jude were the only ones previously recognized and received. One of the best representatives of this division of the New Testa¬ ment is Codex Corbeiensis of James (ff), a manu¬ script of the tenth century. This text is now in St. Petersburg. This translation is thought to be as old as the early part of the fourth century. Cyprian sup¬ plies numerous quotations from what appears to be the African text of these epistles. The Apocalypse formed part of the Old Latin New Testament as far back as we can trace it. The Afri¬ can text of the Apocalypse does not seem to have been revised in the fourth century as were other parts of the New Testament except Acts. Hence the text found in Primasius’ commentary of the sixth century differs only slightly from the text quoted in Cyprian. The quotations from the Apocalypse in the writings of the church fathers are so numerous as almost to determine with certainty the character of the text from which they quoted. Of the manuscripts and fragments named in these 164 The Old Lathi and the Vulgate two sections, two are bilinguals, Codex Bezse (Evan, d), and Codex Claromontanus (Paul, d) ; four, as well as Evan, d, viz.: Codd. Vercellensis (Evan, a), Veronensis (Evan, b), Palatinus (Evan, e), and Bobiensis (Evan, k), are dated in the fifth or fourth century, when they were in use in the Christian church. 129. The above mentioned manuscripts were doubtless written just as the Old Latin was grad¬ ually receding from its position of influence and power in its competition with the revised New Testa¬ ment of Jerome. The fact that the two versions ex¬ isted side by side for a couple of centuries — the fourth to the sixth — contributed toward an intermixture of the two texts. Scholars and scribes who either stud¬ ied the two translations or copied them, were not always careful to refrain from either inserting on the margins or incorporating into the text, familiar ex¬ pressions or explanations from one or other of the texts. Such simultaneous use of two similar Latin versions led to a larger mixture of the two versions in the case of the New Testament than in the Old. The superiority of Jerome’s translation of the Old Testament doubtless led scholars to look with greater favor on his revised New Testament. Not only the faithfulness of its revision on the basis of the Greek, but its harmonistic character — an attempted union of the different Old Latin texts— also gave Jerome’s work a larger place in the thoughts of leaders in the church. Another fact in its adoption is significant : “ in the ^ ^ •!?; ■** yis. •>* V V ■*» 1 ^ 4 i= -fe s - f X. O 5 5 X/ *, ,* 2 r J? 2- - ry , - O > -■ — 7 <■. — ^ — y .. 1^ _ . ^ _ U« ^ ' ,.;• r^, ^ ? ... 5,$. ^ X S ' ^ C ■ i? ^ C - , X ~ ^ 2 ^ X ;i2 X 'i 5 ^ 2 ~ ~ - D -, c ^ p --2 :> , Ci 2 X 5 Z y e z •5 2 Z ^ z: 'y--^.-^- 'iz T ’i/ ’— Z", C y St z u ^ z. y Q '< y ' y . 5 ig-ii: ^ ^ y y z 6 z y H y Z I ^ i ^ ; a ‘U V i- ^ v: :2J ^ — Z ^ y' ^ C,^2^- r- ^ r“ /«. '^ Cv W — ii — > r-f V . w »J ’ ?■. 3 -3 ^ =4 i; y P P ‘2' =ii ir 'P ^ C 3 'O ^ i- '-2 ^ ^ 'w *7 Qii ^ ^ c 5 p -z - i; p p c p P p 2 5 2^ ^ ^ ^ 9 4 ? - — -^y_wy Z22 Ni^ O 5 Pr^ p — ,^ y X — j 17 -r» y P 7 y P d- ^ i y 2 2 S4 P y ■ V«. '• • g?-. L^ ~- .' *C . ''X >«/ ‘ 2_ ■ _ iz h: P •- iP -'. 5 I r I' 5 b - o,E --5 ^ . -r ~ 'p P'P jP ^ 7 ' ^-5^2 '■>- -T ■•— ■ “*» 4 It t P i^ << «*■ ' - -o (Ss. ~ ? :^c-2 o ^r az i ^5'zvls ^ !i< i: S -P P h P P A<:: y •■ @ rfi u S' -9-4 2' 2 2 o 4 - u „ '9'?,"'^2iz ^'0-^ ~ ^ i y/C 9 2-z u. y y ■ . Z. ■' ~ t. ^ - 2 Z, r' 4 '• . < ^ y- 5 i -• 'aj '.5 o a.-cn4r-: ^ C2

Kfp-z: p 5 ^-0 -5 ‘S 40 :< -i: 2 ^ t: u 4^2-4 9 i'P 4 <-'zj y u ■«<•.< -t - C ^ 2 4 <• 'o 2 ”5 if 4 -« ■■■O' ■ •■;•■■-':> Greek Codex Claromontanus (d) (? 128). Fourth or Fifth Cemurv Romans 7 ; 4-7 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 Latm mid 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, qciw.iNjxvres'rATet’fUT ' saioK-'ipsius • |;C< ' iN^ sxcoqx ei^xr Kktk? hxp>c)f . <>Am’>oN/ai»«^<'ixjsCKia"> C T cxcl , Al l >XU riH lO CC XXO N K diCCNS Sis’c cjtnC'N.'ows enini ibM R NxzxRC’N'cueKisii p€rcbKK\> iS exit ! XKtll-O K’(h!l,qUC lb llXxKl's >vX’>CUlT I':;' erpb-vuscsT lx\tK■>U!^;ovl>^:lly | ' ' eTcos!,,o<.|*.it’B\vruR I •; ' .. AdlXCHCtXn PKA'S' I I S b tjtSoOXXr boCXK'.UlHRR |! UUI\ l\|H>rC5I y^'ClXltR KiU: b Knf )eR.vi spi im 1 Rxis ^ i' i.sxntiN’bjs: e iexcti s- 1 i ^ C'l biunl .tAIUTOR p\U'i\<>C ll I ,o Ifbciii lNCia’>'sXX\> 1 XXXK1i>RXX’JONIt^ |?«vS yiAqeVSAU'IXXH bx^SV'NACCKA ‘ iN'nwKH'i iNOoa'jCKbsKvx'ssy :SocRCiSAxi'iexn >’Knx-)vis . TeNXHUXUR AIUC’N’IS {X’RRIl'R H ’ CTRiXACK.’IHIS' r t! I .UU') piXX'X trf^TANSStipcRtl J.va'* KI^IX.RV U1 I jX’iMil C IX^X\>1SI 1 ll I XU) ,X"tCA)M l\UO SURCU\>' • OiNISTRXIWl ll.ljs (,:ucp suIlAui cu) ocQidRst r XX|>,\’€)> tfAllb.AReH.VNT <>Ae,U)x^NIA I' Auxi!.ijisci,Aa)vs7 lAt roi fe tVN i’i\x|mA,itjes|:i!,ius.M 1; e'CtNXXiepVNH NA)SS)Neb\I Iv ■ e\ lx)qcii . ■ fe x>x.. ^ I ,w x]tT!x -x'leaAs'T jp«uax csx) xpS^ Wv I 'AtTxwnxxn^’tcx’CRC'S.^a^ 4 , * ixeescRTtitp Lx’.uox " ex I c iRjAxe Rcvpni’.eHAX i-ct u)> b t; { u A svm is’T ajx'C|Uc xOipsa" . C! Oo JNCHANT i! ,LaO'» N< x''tse<. xx<;Rt; r ah tax . cpilB> ill CXtT qul.X c r\l Tiv CiUl l AliRas t-^puRT eVOXCCUAK tX'l 7 /ARA- IXX- NiTU'i bl quiA ibex) OMSSAixxiu) e rcRAv pmc'C'K \N> isslsx tx>t:is exl.il vexe I ■ XCI CKli> C S V XCl'HXV) euux * ' T(1R{;\C tiVn<,K-ReN' I' ISOCKU C I ! AC le 1 Rc: N '? ( le lUK IU> 0 1 cn IjXSeSTXHXV SAC'US si ACjNCi' CXNXSXiHlb CTUfOl i NXUC'5S"I VN ICS sexxiss l AC SCHV* jXIseVK'RC S XCl U UsOlSCA Nee RW i c ! !• ACIXHAN i RA' l lX VSCX ScX NS XU KU-' INUN\U> VVUCX)^ CfllXCXRXT S1UX»\(S • RvX XCItl AU lsKnoN'cxv) C'dc: iwl max c i Kw.vrct i\ UCSI 1}AIN'C'A|vk1RVU) C 1 iU'S] '•ONPcNS S IUX)N bivnillj pRXCXCpV OR pt tVlOVXU) \xHi(0)lAix>RANres Nihii. et pioxis KdC’Ri.O XU ICO) icio , ' I XXXHU lAq iC < • icuuc 1 xK ^lecisseN i UiNcJxisCRUNI plsviKHVc UC' ii 1 1 1 UblNOOX C OpiOSAO) RUO. 'f X, RAl UR \u KXO RC IXXV>kX Codex Aniiaiimis 67, 130). Seveiitli Century. Letiding Manuscript of the V lilgate J.iikc 4 ; 32I) to 3 : 6 Vulgate ou 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 remedy, 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. IMartin 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 a'nd 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. INCIPITLIBEI^ ISAIAE’PKO PHETAE Tsiorsx I T^epiLii 'K.cn o s ‘ q Cl Acre’Ll I j u o Km OThlCRu S^Lecn J sf I ^iCBas o ^ T X e y(>A [ K> ervi^nmlufj^ei^ctp i q ^ m cf >7rJocumr ftLofenuc^-iiit e^^^l^n lprix-arem (pj^^^ej^tinTmer- C^c^iouttr lyoC poff^^for'^ fiiuyn eTrak./7naf^ eiclo rritn I fut . (fr~jkU^l non c^^Ti oti ixrme^. po puLu fmeti fnon t qtxtT»cx^ {hnin\ ftUif fce4^'rKx^f Alcuin’s Revision of Vulgate, A .D. 8ot (g 132) Isaiah i ; i-^a. 1 ■■ ■ 169 Decline in Text Purity 133. The monastery of St. Gall, near Lake Con¬ stance in Switzerland, was the home of a particularly 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. Lan franc, the arch¬ bishop of Canterbury (1069-89) is said to have done some correcting of all the l)Ooks 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, 170 The Old Latin and the Vzdgate 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 1 7 1 135. 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. commonly known as the “ Mazarin Bible,” for it was first found 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 Vulgatse Editionis, tribus tomis, distincta Romae, ex Typographia Apostolica Vaticana, M. D. XC.” On the second page we meet the papal designation : '‘Biblia Sacra Vulgatae editionis ad concilii Tridentini prae- 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 173 Clementine Vulgate of I^g2 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 Latm 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 published 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- estimiated. It has occupied the first place in the Rom.an 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 175 Critical Text of the Vulgate 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 1582-1610, 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 Latin. 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. 176 177 The Diatessaron of Tatian (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 Ephraem 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 Version 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 178 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 Luke. 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, 1555, at 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 179 Old Syriac Epistles 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 (41 1 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 arc 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, i8o The Syriac and Other Versions were not found in the Old Syriac version. Addai gives orders as follows : “ The Law 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 Catholic Epistles nor the Apocalypse. A list of the canonical books recently discovered at Mt. Sinai gives an arrangement that differs from that in the Peshitta. We find here Galatians at the head of Paul’s letters as follows : Galatians, Corinth¬ ians, Romans, then Hebrews. Ephraem seems to have had the same order. Another interesting item in Ephraem’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 i8i 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 th'e 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 Eectionary 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 aMb 'cuci^SaS 5aa:t'i<^ 5^Si***i**«*.Q^ \r* ’^^*0cr3JA5^J>^^^n■^ <^^r 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 Codex Bezac (D) (? 123). Fifth or Sixth Century Luke 6 : i-o ■ t ^ :r - Classification of Manuscripts 19 1 on a few comparatively late manuscripts, was not likely to be a very exact reproduction of the original autographs of the New Testament. As the years went by manuscripts of earlier dates were discovered on every hand. Documents reaching back to the sixth, fifth and even fourth century were brought to light. They stood several centuries nearer the orig¬ inals than any of those that formed the basis of the “ Textus Receptus.’’ Necessarily there would grow up a dissatisfaction with the basing of so important a work on such defective sources. Lachmann, Tischen- dorf, Tregelles, Scrivener and others had paved the way for the construction of a new text of the New Testament, based on the latest and best evidence. When Westcott and Hort began their work they had some severe opposition. The “ Textus Receptus ” had won almost a sacred place in the hearts and minds of some of the biblical scholars of the day. To set this aside, required a bold, heroic move. But it was done, and done in a scholarly, loyal and Christian manner. The great mass of Greek New Testament manu¬ script material at their disposal for the work they had in hand complicated their problem. Their first task was to find out just what available manuscripts were of sufficient importance to form a basis for a grouping or classification. They built more or less on previous classifications, but outstripped all other critics “ in tracing the transcriptional history of the text and in the application of the genealogical method as the only way to rise up to the autographic fountain- 192 Classification of Manuscripts head ” (Schaff, p. 271). After carefully noting their characteristics and value, they decided to classify the documents, irrespective of any printed editions, into four great groups: (i) the Syrian or Antiochian; (2) the Western; (3) the Alexandrian; and (4) thje Neutral. 151. The Syrian group. The early church fathers, such as Clement, Origen, Tertullian and Cyprian, have embodied numerous New Testament quotations in their writings, but none is a certain representative of Dr. Hort’s so-called Syrian Greek (or Graeco- Syrian) text. It seems to have been produced by the Greek and Syrian church fathers at about the close of the fourth century. Dr. Hort maintains that the so-called^ Syrian readings have been the result of combining non-Syrian readings ; in other words, the Syrian group is representative of a text that originated in a revision of existing texts in the vicinity of Antioch in the beginning of the fourth century. This text then originated later than those of the other groups, and consequently is not of equal authority with them. The uncial Codex A (§§ 118, 119) is a good repre¬ sentative, in the Gospels, as is the Syriac Peshitta (as revised). Chrysostom, archbishop of Constantinople (died 407) made use of it in his extensive homiletical works. The later Greek fathers, including even the great biblical scholar, Theodore of Mopsuestia (died 429) made liberal quotations from this text. The large mass of cursive Greek manuscripts (mainly written in Constantinople) also belong to this group. Bishop B. F. Westcott n ■%. -‘A"-./ - ’■;>'k' • #■ • ~ fi '■ I / > •-I'ti y- '■yr ..• 'V;;S_ " ' iif! . ^ '■rff- '-.S'*' V V 193 The Western Group Finally it is the text which is largely reproduced in the “ Textus Receptus.” “ It is an eclectic text, which absorbs and combines readings from the early texts of dilferent lands’’ (Schaff, p. 272). 152. The Western group, so-called, but inappro¬ priately, is made up of that body of texts which have been handled with great freedom. “ Words, clauses, and even whole sentences, were changed, omitted, and inserted with astonishing freedom, whenever it seemed that the meaning could be brought out with greater force and definiteness” (Hort. vol. 2, p. 122). This text seems to be most readily recognized in the Old Latin version, and in the bilingual uncials which were writ¬ ten in the West (cf. D §123). This text seems to have had its origin very early, before the copying of a text was done with adequate care, before it was re¬ garded as wrong to interpolate, expand, contract, or omit at will such passages as to the scribes seemed best. The Greek text used by the ante-Nicene fathers, where they did not come into contact with Egypt, was Western. These manuscripts contain many old and important readings, but the critic must carefully weigh every item of evidence before he can feel free to adopt them. Every mark of the characteristic license taken by the writers of this text must be purged ere it can be used as an authority. The scribes exercised the same freedom in their handling of the Western text as they had done in such “ post-apostolic writings, as the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Ignatian Epistles.” Therefore the 194 Classification of Manuscripts care exercised by critics had to be scrupulous and far- reaching. 153. The Alexandrian group or text is found in great abundance in the New Testament quotations of the church fathers of Alexandria, such as Clement, Origen, Dionysius, Cyril of Alexandria, Eusebius in part, and the Memphitic branch of the Coptic version. These readings are quite distinct from either the Syrian or the Western texts. They present a clean- cut Greek scholarship, such as might be expected to emanate from Alexandria, as a center of Greek learn¬ ing. There is an entire absence of such extraneous additions as one finds in texts that have been treated like those of the Western group. There is still, how¬ ever, a lack of those elements that would designate this as one of the earliest forms of the text. 154. The Neutral group is the purest text extant. It is almost entirely free from corruption and mixture with other texts, and is thought to represent the near¬ est approach, at the present time, to the New Testa¬ ment autographs. Its best representative is Codex Vaticanus (B), lacking the Pastoral Epistles, the Apocalypse, and four . chapters of Hebrews, and its second best is Codex Sinaiticus (S) which contains the whole New Testament. These two codices, the old¬ est and best extant, were apparently derived inde¬ pendently from a common original, at no great dis¬ tance from the autographs. When the readings of these two texts agree, their evidence is conclusive against overwhelming numerical evidence of later Fenton John Anthony Hokt [ # . Vi '1 V / t ‘i * 4 , ' ' t i 195 The Neutral Group texts, unless internal testimony contradicts. This text then had no home. It belonged to the entire Eastern world of Christianity. Dr. Hort conjectures (vol. 2, p. 267) that both of those great manuscripts (S and B) were written in the West, probably at Rome; ‘‘that the ancestors of B were wholly Western (in the geographical, not the textual sense) ; and that the ancestors of S were partly Alexandrian.” The corrections of these texts by later hands likewise have an important textual value. Among the church fathers the pre-Syrian and Neutral text elements are most numerous in Origen, Didymus, Eusebius and in Cyril of Alexandria. The relation of this neutral text to the “ Textus Receptus,” or Syrian text, is about that which exists between the Revised Version and the Authorized Version. Drs. Westcott and Hort were both members of the British Revision Committee, and by their textual ex¬ perience succeeded in establishing as the basis of the translation of the Revised Version a purer text than any other, ancient or modern. 155. The above grouping of the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, as proposed by Dr. Hort was made the basis of his and Dr. Westcott’s Greek New Testament. Though it has been severely, and perhaps justly, criticized, no superior scheme for classifying New Testament manuscripts has been proposed. It gave us the best text of the New Testament (1881) ever printed or published. It was received almost universally with favor and gratitude, as the first sue- 196 Classification of Manuscripts cessful breaking away in England and America from the traditional “ Textus Receptus,” and was a de¬ cided advance toward the reconstruction of a text that stands but a few generations at most from the New Testament autographs. Since the issuing of this text in 1881 several minor editions of the Greek New Testament have appeared, abundantly supplied with variant readings. Dr. Scrivener again published, in 1882, the “ Textus Re- ceptus,” with the variant readings of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and the Revised Version of 1881. For the English Bible student there is no edition of the New Testament that so inducts him into the value of ancient manuscripts as the Variorum Teachers’ Bible. Its variant translations, and the best readings of different manuscripts and versions are admirably gathered together at the bottom of the pages. Au¬ thorities are so cited as to give the reader assurance that the best that can be afforded is set before him. CHAPTER XVIII HOW MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS ARE USED 156. In the preceding chapters we have briefly described scores of manuscripts, versions, and quota¬ tions. This material is now available for biblical scholars and students. By the judicious use of them they can gradually detect and count out scribal errors, they can eliminate what were originally marginal notes made by copyists and ecclesiastics, which have since been incorporated into the text. By a careful com¬ parison and weighing of the evidence at hand they can, as it were, rub off the excrescences of the true text, and give us almost the polished shaft of the original, the very writings of the apostles and evan¬ gelists. This is the use that scholars are making of the in¬ valuable biblical treasures that are found carefully preserved in the great libraries of the world. There are certain principles, on which they work. They lay down certain rules, and by these rules every fact concerning a manuscript, its history and its read¬ ings, is judiciously investigated and weighed. The evidence for the readings of the versions is likewise tested in the same mental crucible and the refined resultant incorporated in the purest text. This branch of biblical research is called “Textual Criticism.” 197 198 How Manuscripts Are Usect 157. This textual criticism is usually looked upon as a dry and uninteresting study. But the science of biblical criticism is one of the most fascinating of all branches of investigation. Its importance for the Christian church and for Christian truth is beyond computation. For all Christian doctrines and teach¬ ings are based on the exegesis of the Scriptures. The character of this Scripture is then all-important. The careful student will not rest until he knows that he has the best and purest text possible, in order that what he extracts from it may be wholly reliable for the foundations of his beliefs. This criticism of the text, or textual criticism, which aims to secure as near as can be, the words of the original writers, or the lost autographs, is dis¬ tinct from “ higher criticism.^’ This latter, more properly termed historical and literary criticism, deals with such problems as the origin, composition, au¬ thenticity and literary characteristics of any document. It does not trespass upon the province of the inter¬ preter, but deals with matters that are preliminary to his work. Its field is that broad one of history, literary meth¬ ods, individual characteristics, all such questions as aid in -the determination of the general character of any document, and its proper place in the general lit¬ erary material of any given period of history. 158. Enough has been said of the great variety of texts and versions to show the necessity of textual criticism. Chapter I discussed several kinds of varia- Necessity of Textual Criticism 199 tions that are found on the margins of our Revised Version. These variants are a few of the thousands that are found in the manuscripts and versions which formed the basis of our English Bible. The methods or accidents which gave rise to these variants in the Old Testament were mentioned in §21. Practically the same reasons would obtain in the case of the variants of the New Testament. Such variants began to exist very early in the history of the biblical texts, probably with the very first copyist. And they never ceased to multiply until the printer’s art once for all did away with the very fallible work of the copyist. Origen and Jerome were greatly disturbed by the evident corruptions of the biblical texts in their days. After their times, as we pass on down through the middle ages, we find that copies prepared for private individuals, and for ecclesiastical use and authorities, had been written with a good degree of care — with more faithfulness than characterized the work of the first four centuries. It is ascertained by scholars that the changes of the later centuries are comparatively unimportant, and that these manuscripts perpetuate, on the whole, only such erroneous readings as arose from one cause or other in the preceding centuries. For example, when Erasmus first printed the New Testament, he stereo- typed a text that practically agreed with a text that was current in Antioch at the close of the fourth cen¬ tury (SchafT, Companion, p. 175). As we have already seen, Origen (§§ 52-54) was 200 How Manuscripts Are Used one of the first, followed by Hesychius (of Egypt), and Lucian (of Antioch), to attempt to restore a pure text, by a comparison of the different manuscripts. With their pioneer methods they took a step in the right direction, and noted the character of the variants found in the texts at their disposal. 159. As scholars began the more carefully and systematically to examine the sources, they made col¬ lections of the variant readings. Those found in the Old Testament manuscripts and published have been already referred to in §26. The variants in the New Testament manuscripts were estimated by John Mill, in 1707, to be about 30,000. Scrivener in 1874 stated that they would not fall far short of 150,000. This estimate includes such variants as the manner of spell¬ ing, the order of words, and the order of sentences. There is no other ancient book, even of the famed Greek and Roinan classics, that is current in so many manuscripts, nor that presents such a mass of variant readings. The mere existence of such an enormous number of variations in the readings of the text of the New Testament has rather startled some Christians. They fear that such a colossal list of variants throws the whole question of the discovery of the true text of the New Testament into hopeless confusion. On the other hand, these witnesses simply point out that the tremendous importance of the New Testament in the early centuries caused the production of this treasure- house of manuscripts, which certainly does not im- Rides for Textual Critics 201 pair, but rather guarantees, the integrity of the text. Only about 400 of the almost 150,000 variations ma¬ terially affect the sense. Of these 400 only about fifty are of real significance for one reason or other. And still, again, not one of these fifty “ affects an arti¬ cle of faith or a precept of duty, which is not abund¬ antly sustained by other and undoubted passages, or by the whole tenor of scripture teaching” (Schaff^ Companion, p. 177). Richard Bentley, the ablest of the classical critics of England, affirmed that even the worst of manuscripts does not pervert or set aside one article of faith or moral precept (Schaff, p. 175!.) • 160. Since the presence of a large number of var¬ iants in the manuscripts and versions necessitates textual criticism, scholars have laid down certain prin¬ ciples or rules along the lines of which this science proceeds. The following statements of the rules em¬ body substantially the principles generally adopted by New Testament critics down to the present day, as set forth by Schaff in the Introduction to the American edition of Westcott and Hort’s New Testament in Greek : (i) Before proceeding to critical work with any manuscripts the scholar must have acquired a general knowledge of what must be looked for in order to make a choice of readings ; in other words, his train¬ ing must have been such as to have prepared him to weigh evidence as between the value of the variants that he discovers. This rule emphasizes the fact that only men of scholarship who have especially trained 202 How Manuscripts Are Used minds are capable of prosecuting this close critical work. (2) Every kind of evidence, internal and external,, concerning a manuscript must be taken into account according to its intrinsic value. The place where a manuscript was discovered, the conditions under which it was found, the probable conditions under which it was preserved, the character of the writing, and the material upon which the writing was done — these and many other evidences must be carefully con¬ sidered by the textual critic, and be given due weight in the important work that he has before him. (3) The internal evidence or sources of the text must be sifted and classified, and the authorities for variant readings must be weighed rather than num¬ bered. One independent manuscript may be worth a score which were copied from the same original. More careful scrutiny may discover that the witnesses fall into certain groups or families, and that they repre¬ sent certain tendencies. (4) The restoration of the pure text must be founded on the history and genealogy of the textual variations. In other words, before the pure text can be determined scholars must carefully trace as far as possible the ancestry of the manuscripts. This may be a very simple or a very complex matter. It may be found, as an example, that ten manuscripts may be traced to one and the same original ; and that one hundred manuscripts were copied from a second original of good character. It would not be just to More Rules for Text Critics 203 give the hundred manuscripts ten times the weight in evidence as to variant readings as the ten manu¬ scripts. At first thought we should say that the evi¬ dence in the two cases is about equal. But before reaching a conclusion we should be required to ex¬ amine with great care all other available evidence bearing on the question of the readings. 161. (5) Briefly speaking, the reading of an older manuscript is preferable to that of a later, because it is presumably nearer the source. Now and then, how¬ ever, later copies may represent a more ancient read¬ ing, for their descent may be through an entirely dif¬ ferent genealogical line. (6) In general, the shorter reading is preferable 1 to the longer, because insertions and additions are more probable than omissions. Many illustrations of this case may be seen in the margin of the Revised Version. In Mark 3: 14, after “And he appointed twelve,” the margin says, “ Some ancient authorities add, whom also he named apostles in 9 : 49, after “ For every one shall be salted with fire,” the margin says, “ Many ancient authorities add, and every sacri¬ fice shall be salted with salt;” to ii: 25 the margin reads, “ many ancient authorities add ver. 26, But if ye do not forgive, neither will your father who is in heaven forgive your trespasses.” By this rule scores of readings are counted out as indicated by the state¬ ments in the margin of the Revised Version. (7) The more difficult and obscure reading is preferable to the one that is more easy and simple in 204 How Manuscripts Are Used construction. This is seen in many New Testament passages where an insertion or addition is made to explain an otherwise obscure passage, or one difficult to understand, or hard to believe to be true. In Luke 12: 31 we find, “Yet seek ye his kingdom,” to which the margin remarks, intending to clear up the obscur¬ ity, “ Alany ancient authorities read, the kingdom of God.” Romans 8 : 28b reads, “ all things work to¬ gether for good,” but the margin contains this : “ Some ancient authorities read, God worketh all things with them for good.” This latter is easier to believe and understand than that severe truth con¬ tained in the text of the Revised Version. (8) The reading which best explains the origin of the other variations is preferable ; or, in other words, that reading is to be preferred, from which all the other variations may have been derived, though it itself could not have sprung from them. 162. (9) That reading is to be preferred which best suits the peculiar literary style of the author, for copyists usually disregard the idiosyncrasies of an author. This is a difficult rule to make use of, for an author does not always express himself in a uniform manner, nor should we be required to rule out an expression because he uses it but once. Even the expert critic may abuse the license granted under this rule. (10) That reading which bears the ear-marks of doctrinal controversy should be ruled out in favor of one to which no such suspicion is attached. In Mat- These Rules Applied 205 thew 1 : 16 the Revised Version reads, '' and Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ;” the Curetonian Syriac is biased toward the miraculous conception, for it reads, “ And Jacob begat Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin, who bare Jesus Christ;” the Sinaitic Syriac, on the other hand, denies such conception, for it reads, “ And Jacob begat Joseph, and Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin, begat Jesus, who is called Christ.” Both of these quotations reveal changes and insertions that were made for doctrinal or controversial reasons, and they are rejected in favor of that text to which no such suspicion can be attached. (11) The agreement of the most ancient witnesses of all classes decides the true reading against all me¬ diaeval copies and printed editions. If all ancient testi¬ mony, manuscripts, versions and quotations agree on a certain reading, no mediaeval or modern witnesses can rule it out of court. (12) “The primary uncials, the Sinaitic (S), the Vatican (B), the Ephraem (C), and the Alexandrian (A) codices — especially S and B — if sustained by ancient versions and ante-Nicene citations, outweigh all later authorities, and give us presumably the orig¬ inal text.” 163. The application of these rules in dealing with manuscripts, versions, and quotations has given us the best texts in use to-day. They have ruled out, in the main, the Greek text of Textus Receptus, which was 2o6 How Manuscripts Are Used the basis of all Protestant versions of the New Testa¬ ment, in favor of another text based on the great un¬ cial manuscripts above referred to. As we have al¬ ready noted, the Textus Receptus was based on a few late cursive manuscripts, employed by Erasmus, Ste- phanus and Beza, before the discovery of the wealth of early documents which we now possess. The great New Testament critics of the nineteenth century, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Scriv¬ ener, Westcott and Hort, have had at their dis¬ posal all the wealth of documents now preserved in our great libraries. By the careful construction and application of the rules above recited they have been successful in giving us a Greek text that reaches back at least one thousand years before the date of the manuscripts that formed the basis of the Textus Re¬ ceptus. We now have a Greek text of the New Testa¬ ment dating at least from the fourth century, and rep¬ resenting the best that modern scholarship has been able to produce. Part III. English Versions of the Bible CHAPTER XIX EARLY ENGLISH MANUSCRIPTS 164. Christianity was introduced into Great Britain as early as the second century. Its progress was com¬ paratively slow before the sixth century, but in Ireland it had taken deep root. This Irish acorn grew to im¬ mense proportions, until in the sixth century it ex¬ tended to Scotland and northern England, where the invasions of the Teutons largely crushed out its earlier gains. The landing of Augustine at Kent, in 597 A. D., gave a new lease of life to the struggles of the few remaining Christians. The vigorous efforts of that giant saint soon pushed the gospel to the front. In spite of his rather irascible temper and occasional un¬ wise movements, Christianity made decided steps in advance, particularly in southern England. And by the loyalty of one of his own converts especial favors were granted to missionaries in Northumbria. Almost the entire progress of Christianity through¬ out Great Britain was due to the active preaching of the gospel. Few could read, and there were fewer copies of the Bible to be read. Therefore the most effective and rapid method of spreading the good news of the kingdom was through the heralding of 207 2o8 Early English Manuscripts the truth by the missionaries of the Christian church. The mingling and commingling of languages on the isles of Britain placed a barrier to the early transla¬ tion of the Bible into anything that could be popu¬ larly recognized as the one language of the country. The version of the Bible in use was, of course, the Latin ; and the preachers who traveled everywhere declared the truth in the tongues of their listeners. These preachers were usually the educated monks, or their pupils, who were able to interpret the Latin Bible to their auditors. 165. But the vigorous Briton mind very soon began to put its thoughts into writing. That quaint Celtic-Saxon poet-singer Caedmon began to attune his words to his native harp about the middle of the sev¬ enth century. At first merely a farmer, he was trans¬ formed, through a vision of the night, into a forceful poet. When the monks translated narratives out of the Latin Bible, Caedmon, with a sparkling genius, put them into a charming poetic paraphrase. These speci¬ mens of our earliest English literature are also the first known attempts to put the Bible into English dress. Its character and form give it no claim to be regarded as a translation of the Bible, but its an¬ tiquity and subject matter attract particular attention, for it is one of the forerunners of the English Bible. All that we know of Caedmon has been preserved by Bede. He tells us that this poet was an ignorant farmer of Northumbria, who worked for an official of the abbey of Whitby. At the festive gatherings Aid helm and Egbert 209 in the great hall it was the custom to pass around the harp, requiring each one present to play and sing. For several years Caedmon had left the hall just as his turn came, for he could not sing. One night, after he had thus gone out to care for his horses and cattle, he fell asleep in the stable ; and as he slept he heard a voice saying,^ Caedmon, sing to me.” And he said, “ I cannot sing, and for that reason I have come away from the feast.” Again the voice said, ” Sing to me.” And he answered, “What shall I sing?” “Sing to me the first beginning of created things.” Thence¬ forth words came to his lips, and he sang in his dreams a hymn of praise to God his maker. The next morn¬ ing the story of his dream brought him before the Lady-Abbess, and he was found to be possessed of a divine gift. For as soon as the monks translated any portion of the Bible story out of the Latin text he immediately sang it to the accompaniment of his harp in short lines of Saxon verse. Caedmon’s paraphrase appeared about 670, just as Christianity is said to have won marked triumphs in the conversion of Eng¬ land, though Caedmon’s authorship is in doubt. 166. South England at about the same time was receiving religious instruction through popular poetry attuned to the harp of Aldhelm, abbot of Malmes¬ bury. This shrewd official observed that the usual sermon had little attraction for the ordinary run of Englishmen. Being a skilful musician, he put on the garb of a minstrel, and took up a position on a bridge over which many people were obliged to pass. His 2 10 Early English Manuscripts artistic playing soon attracted a group of listeners. As soon as he had thus collected an audience he gave his music and words a religious turn, and by the strains of his splendid instrument and the persuasive form of his attractive language won many to Chris¬ tianity. This same Aldhelm, later bishop of Sherborne, who died in 709, was the first known translator of the Psalms into Anglo-Saxon English. There is a manu¬ script in Paris which is thought by some scholars to be the Psalter of Aldhelm ; but this document was written in the eleventh century, and bears on it some ear-marks of a later time. About the same time, it is thought, and at Aldhelm’s request, Egbert, bishop of Holy Island, produced a translation of the Gospels. This particular document is represented by a copy in the British Museum. These two bishops, one representing the Old Testa¬ ment and the other the New, are two important fore¬ runners of the complete manuscripts of the whole Bible in early English. 167. The most renowned Christian and scholar of this period was Bede, born 674, died 735. He is called the brightest light in Western Europe in the eighth century. He is the head of the long procession of translators of the Bible, stretching from the eighth to the twentieth century. One of his followers, Cuth- bert, has left us the story of the death of this good old monk of Jarrow. All through the day before As¬ cension Day, A. D. 735, he had been dictating his King Alfred 2 1 1 translation of the Gospel of John. For he said, “ I do not want my boys [monks] to read a lie, or to work to no purpose after I am gone.” On the evening of that day one chapter only remained untranslated. The great scholar seemed very near to death. Early on the morning of Ascension Day his amanuensis said, “ Dear master, there is one chapter yet to do.” “ Take thy pen and write quickly,” said Bede. All through that day, interrupted by saying farewells to the breth¬ ren of the monastery, he painfully translated on. Just as night began to wrap the earth in her shroud, his sobbing scribe leaned over, and whispered, ” Master, there is just one sentence more.” And he said, “ Write quickly.” The scribe wrote on, and then said, “ See, dear master, it is done now.” “ Yes, you speak truly ; it is finished now.” Then, by his request, they laid him down on the pavement of his cell, and he departed with the “ Gloria ” on his lips, to be with the dear Mas¬ ter whom he had so faithfully served during a long and devoted life. Of this translation, however, there is no trace left. It is supposed that it perished, with many other treasures of Northumbria, when the coun¬ try was laid waste by the Danes. But the part that the Venerable Bede had in the early translations of the Latin Bible into the vernacular language of Eng¬ land in the eighth century is undisputed. And hia profound influence upon the Christianity of England in its formative period cannot be overlooked. 168. One of the greatest patrons of religion and biblical learning in these centuries was King Alfred 2 1 2 Early English Manuscripts (848-901). His name stands with the best of Eng¬ land’s kings, as one who planned and promoted the intellectual and moral well-being of his subjects. Though Christianity was on the wane, he quickly in¬ stilled new life into it, and gave the use of the Bible a new impulse. He was so convinced of the genuine value of it that he translated, or caused to be trans¬ lated, and placed at the head of the laws of his coun¬ try, a copy of the ten commandments ; to these he added other laws of the Pentateuch. His activity did not cease here, for he seemed to have regarded him¬ self as one in the succession of Aldhelm and Bede. He is said to have produced, or to have caused the production of, a translation of the Psalter. But there is no known copy of this work in existence, though there is a manuscript in the British Museum which carries the name. King Alfred’s Psalter. This copy contains the Latin text with an interlinear English translation ; but it is now generally conceded to be¬ long to the eleventh century. There is, however, an¬ other Latin Psalter in the British Museum, thought to have been written about 700 A. D., which was sup- • plied with a word-for-word translation in the dialect of Kent at about the close of the ninth century. 169. This same period is thought to have pro¬ duced our earliest translation of the Gospels into Eng¬ lish. One would suppose that the earliest portion of the Bible to be put into English would be the Gos¬ pels, but no version is known older than that of the Psalter just mentioned. The so-called Cotton manu- feipioueu^ . ^scLoim t>in pozqoertt -^9pofi^ ffijLcm Alle^ picxaLgiintToinpi^ ^ohcLuues injssus uefswmn- W $pr ooKBeiim qmnea plem^1^epaot^p^lost)l pm^ictocan sucon I mdoieis lOnojiTJcs H^pDtge^csse - Ail ^fT^e- htTVsl^ bi»^ ;Wni sedmigsumi seowte- lamn uocem q;es8c - coMpomi 8 tut>cseRto ifA^aT secundum escactm ^ FtYA^tjW' Cpuntjaxupguiti umo pcnxtim cx^umtDUioii^e^ pecocmjLinaiidi C5u6ocpti »«isal ce- xat/iT^ ^^^iramnjspuscoea quod jpsesnjsnpRcL Ali-vm (t aXL$~ oirmes Cotton Manuscript (ji 169). Seventh Century, and inter¬ linear Anglo-Saxon paraphrase of about A. I ). 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 yElfric, 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 ^Ifric’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. 1 71. In about a half-century after ^Ifric’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 215 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 from the early part of the thirteenth century (1215). 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 lines 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 ) ter. Of it there were two prose translations that re¬ quire especial notice 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 hitellechial Awakening 217 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 Gang¬ land, Gower and Chaucer presented a new side to the life of the awakening Englishmen of the 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 intellectual 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 .c4: ; I The Fourteenth Century 219 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 ” was in progress and brought 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 de¬ mands for funds on the Britons. Parliament refused to accede to such orders, and Wycliffe stood by the gov¬ ernment. The immense wealth of the great dignitaries of the church and the organized corporations through which they constantly added to their accumulations were the objects of some of Wycliffe’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 220 Wy cliff e s 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 1371 he was the most prominent reformer of the religious 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, Wycliffe 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, Wycliffe could cut a wide swath without losing its moral support. With keen, logical argumentation he met and defeated his papal opponents. Ele 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 Wyclifife’s logic and metaphysics, his scholasticism and political 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, 221 Wyclijfe s Resolution 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, Wycliffe 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 222 Wy cliff e s 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. WycliEe, 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. Wyclifife, 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, r45fJ nm \»t!cu VC t^c (m l^fon ijFvfiv fVUCtl OJfifmS.’ luic ^ Qnm uf omi micm pc ct):«© toDc isrnmicttppiugc liitcotiaii Ofpmi umctiPtpc Wtcrkis (»f aiitwtt.'tw car m&avHim&uiaiUw: (rBmiitwit m/ltt itiiHwm i 'Pif diGimmt0)vi ftmaBJitw.'cc’asijifhc foi&j^f.iHirauo ttvr i»fr ivem iBc frjftcc » vc.|iftr()f }te time mm}}hi0tw^ ajioB mm 00 iiaa m(tMp mvm t fo# ofj^ap m& to ^ lain^fmiiouijetBrBuffi’for&cf av ■*' mi^ic man i 00 axtft &ivc £irfi)c tir t>eup 1*0105 IS iueu$i0 of dmiiidt Uno tm C^au^mim’^2 it faiuv c’^ir riif UEtveufrfiel nor »ioiButirc|Ki ).|C flotarofiitstoiioriUrftju 0|( cafr* aifof ioi»lJe{w3t8.c'{}oriuft:ciic {$ to ben ftid B^ip^cte: pHu cufUi^ lifT.fo ftiftce fU VC imCfuBofnf i 1*5 rijutlie^to rim* 01 rtcrU uc j^iirdc* ^»or n't c wa/ Of c«^ to ai to pio ilittl'tcn/'bor of cc.piujif^atrid fton’p iBOifti tboatbi 5 cpui I’c toittf* <1 itimm cVmc not touaii moiit' t Oaotmios of peu* Uflcraf to Mv IBC 611 dmij to (*5 Uft*ni.* f ttf iioiV to ofc'^i’cCfiictitv mo2o }'fi viiitoouflar of rc to fcOtt* ^ermpf of iiant & Ccimmcipoon ivumiolFiff rt^f ^ .voudjt j’cc emf to tjauj irdfi^t^ ^raptaffioarODtCjiufr ue Ccai nor of ©uicoot of r > of lifttcomftiioiBf I’fji^tomujptK*/^ fopc cfec.jjfctpfoc lu icrCftti ^ m it iBftK uor nf cf tcnlciiag^ laiitw of ftl C0{' triBuic iioto COgD^ %• iioiBc fcuc^iclico.’arcupit ccpio i}i)C(pc-if& ai*«* (jc be boiar foccptemitftotwtt^f pcarxfftroe ^ tiabotopiiciiicOCtofeiic }*ca>ni auujW^. , , of cr tnipic m to iciorn’C tmi pc ,^al lits Inipncajc lO of pf riqjouftr of ^ ' ous t of PC aim w£tf of mit iBliotifi,^ W ^ f»ou mfiriic moic ;e (otini 0 p aiUci > aiflofticfoimriic tiioicof imu onwe par foj pcpfttJf bai'UptpJigt In voiitd) utcciiip® uiitrfriigip to ertru- ]|C to .^uic >fcte mccti m oi’iuc ro dr. c’^iBotr ''me fttt f puupc to bait fumr f pe icn* upiigt of HOttugemugr left- pc leiiw*' iciigir fimiftii pmrr npfr w I’^^rijir rtiioof i}i of pefiiiflicocof impnimV muoim of go«» <* Wyclifife’s 15'blej before 1397. Introduction to Isaiah and part of chapter i : 1 i ; V . • • V' ... Wyclijfe s “ 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 Wycliffe’s is that of east-Midlands and of the north. 179. As soon as Wycliffe 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 Wycliffe, 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 2 24 Wyclijfe s 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 Wycliffe’s death this work seems to have been under¬ taken by some of his followers or disciples. Fon such 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 225 Revision of Wycliffe Adopted 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. i8i. 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 Wyclifife’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 Wyclijfe s 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, Wycliffe’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 F. 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 Wycliffe. Dr. Gasquet, an English Roman Catholic scholar, has recently (1894) challenged the authenticity of the Bible attrib¬ uted to Wycliffe ; 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 227 Peculiarities of Wy cliff e s Bible 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: ii) ; “all things ben nedeful to me, but not alle thingis been, spedeful ” (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: 228 Wyclijfe 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 Matthew closes it in the Revised Version, 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 'J'vndale 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 Wycliflfe’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 1503, 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 ^^lagellan 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 religions 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 Wyclifife’s translations and his death (1384) William Tyndale was born (1484). A native of Gloucestershire, “ about the borders of Wales,” Foxe 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 1510 he left Oxford and went to Cambridge, prob¬ ably to study under Erasmus, the renowned Greek New Testament scholar. His university 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 23^ Tyndale s 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. Cochlaeus, 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, Ty7idale 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 Roye, 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 affirm 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. Pauhs Cross. Hall, the chronicler. 0. iltatfxtr, So.f^viif croimB/w^ii^faUfrcmt^crcmafJfr^tAhlc^en^cfuaAtuf (trercb an^ wto ^cr.O tponran Create » t^j> fayt^ /bt |)tt ti,' t()c/cDf n ae t^cu &ct3?rcfi.2Jn& feccr ^cu0|)rcr tvod itio^ tr()oIcct>cn at rfeat fame rywe. , CCt)cn3fru® trentatraye from t|>c51c'c/an^ cam njfc rnf^ tf)c fee of 0al;rlc/an^t^cntrppcuttoa iiipurajrnc/anbfattK)^ unet^cre. 2In^nto<^e people cam ^aryn^e xvit^ tbcm/J>aIr/bI);'nbey^om/nia3micb/ anbctbbole /anb tbc f)atr r90o / tj)c blynb'fycbtbt 0obofifra|)cl. 1 3^at. |];3befu0 calUb bi9bl(ciplcd to b»tn anb faybe: 3 com# ^‘9- pafltonon tbcpcople/becaufc they bare contyntieb tritb me notre itj.bayed/anbbavf notbinge toeate:artb 3‘>®yll not let tbein beparte fafiin^e lefJc t^ey peryflbc in t^c traye. :Snb b(» bifcipleofaib ontobmnYrbece fpulbtve 0etfb iito^e breeb in tbetpyibcmeo a0fbuIbcfuffy(cfo0reacea multitube^anb3e# ftidfaib^ vntotbe: botremanylove^b^^v'l^ * (efo^ t»ebb ^He|BREw • 1 1 200— 3C0 - 1 1 1 1 1 - i'V -- S^RIAcfBlBLE <1/ ' ov 1 ; 1 1 - T - 1 1 - 1 ^i■— — 1 - - 1 - 1 VUL GATE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a: u u UJ 5 S 1 2' _ uu _ • 0 H Z RIAC < 0 .J £ (J if) UJ X > if) - I - . ... ■■ : - Diagram showing the beginnings of modern versions, ‘early in the sixteenth century of scholarship, led him so to translate the Greek New Testament into English as largely to determine the 246 Tyiidale s Vei^sion 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 1611. 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. Elowever 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 Plenry’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 Tyndale s 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 Mvles Covekdale .V V'^ ■:3 ■■■A ■i '' 15^''^ f*'" 7M ■J m V'l'f M’l :;;vVfi >-( - i ■■ ' H Character of Cauerdale 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 Zurich Bible of Zwingli and Leo Juda, com¬ pleted in 1529; (2) Luther’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 Latin 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^XJ-C^prer. ^ <6rt&ct^7P7W7(c60Dcrt^ctt?Ater6, fo f]^^(c t^oo fpn^e t^e after hta n^ Yearcs.CSTeucitflwaye amende (e wn oz cig^t, for t^n fticwcfi nor iv^acmilc r^ P7al come opo eart^.Y3Q^e t^c cbuOcs arc fall, peureout ra^ne vpon t\>c cavtl), 2ln^ ttJ^e f nrc fallec^,(ii^^r it be toivar Det^eroiit^crnort^>'n tvbat place fo cuer it f*U,t^cre It t^atregarOct^ p ir >^»i Of, (l7al not (owe : anO t^ot rej pectc »«co tl;e cIoaOc9, ft)al not reape . tT o w 1 1 tc eisc^cn tnowef^ nott^e veayeef t\)c rvyn- Of>ncr^ow y boneoaref^UcOmamot^erff rwembe: (^nen(bt|^ou (no weft nettle wo: («0Of <0>Ob,w|>i<^i5t^ewo:(etna(ler of»ilI. ^ Ceafe net t^oiitlierfbie wit^ ti}^ ^art- bestofowet^YleOCjW^et^entbem f mor DYngeoimt^e enen^ngeifort^ou (nowefi not w|)ct^er t^is or p(?all pio|pcrc,7 yf t^y bot^ t4(e,{t (ot^e better. iC^elig^t ia (wete,7 4 p(e4(^itttttbin9^ it foi t^^e eyes co(o(e vpon t^e Qotttte . Xf 4 man ly u e ma^ tiy ye4red,4nb begUb in tbeni aUSet l;im re iBcmbre t^ebayco of barcFneffe, w^td) p7al he many:t w^n conte^all twinges ft)al bebut V4nite»25eg(4bt^( ob \qal brmge t^e in totobgment (or ollt^et^mgeo. C'overdale’s Bible. A. D. 1535 Ecclesiastes ii ; 1-9 251 Work of John Rogers mendous energy and love of the right led him to translate into English the best biblical texts that he could find. Coverdale’s marvelous capacity for har¬ mony, in spite of his lack of scholarship, led him to compile and to publish the first complete Bible in the English language. Each man was a kind of comple¬ ment to the other, and together they were able to set forth the English Bible in such form and character as to command the English Bible-reading public. 202. Bible translation and revision were now* in the air. Popular demands and royal favor joined hands to aid such work. John Rogers, an Oxford graduate of 1525, went to Antwerp some years after¬ wards as chaplain to the “ English House,” in which Tyndale was making his home. Here he soon be¬ came a close friend of the translator, and, as some think, of Coverdale. When Tyndale was spending his last days in Vilvorde Castle, he turned over to John Rogers his unpublished work, his translation of Joshua to 2 Chronicles inclusive. Rogers doubt¬ less was acquainted with the version that Coverdale published in 1535. But now, being in possession of all that Tyndale had translated, both published and unpublished, he seems to have desired to give it to the public in a complete edition. Accordingly he prepared a Bible with Tyndale’s work from Genesis to 2 Chronicles inclusive, Coverdale’s version for the rest of the Old Testament and the Apocrypha, and Tyndale’s New Testament of his last revision in ^535- "This mass of material was revised with few 252 Versions Close to Tyndale s changes, furnished with introductions, summaries of chapters, illustrations, and some controversial mar¬ ginal notes. That the name William Tyndale ’’ should not appear on the title-page seemed essential to the pub¬ lic sale of the work, therefore it bears the name, “ Thomas Matthew,” supposed to be either a pseudo¬ nym for John Rogers, or the name of some merchant who backed up the enterprise in a financial way. At any rate, the book began to be printed, it seems, in Antwerp, where Rogers had for several years held the somewhat leisurely office of chaplain. When the printing reached Isaiah there was a stoppage for lack of funds. Two London merchants came to the res¬ cue and carried the work through to completion in 1537- 203. This Matthew Bible was 12 by 8 inches in size and printed in black letter. Its boldest stroke is its dedication to ‘‘The moost noble and gracyous Prynce Kyng Henry the Eyght and Queen Jane,” and signed “ Thomas Matthew.” The “ Prayer of Manasses,” omitted from Coverdale, was taken from the French Bible of Olivetan. The dedication may have been advised by such men as Cranmer and Cromwell, who seem to have welcomed its appear¬ ance. Cranmer in a letter to Cromwell says, “You shall receive by the bringer thereof a bible in Eng¬ lish, both of a new translation and of a new print . . . so far as I have read thereof, I like it better than any other translation heretofore made, . ♦ , 253 King Favors Matthew Bible I pray you, my Lord, that you will exhibit the book unto the King’s highness, and to obtain of his grace, if you can, a license that the same may be sold and read of every person, without danger of any act, proclamation, or ordinance, heretofore granted to the contrary, until such time that we bishops shall set forth a better translation, which I think will not be till a day after doomsday.” Within a week Crom¬ well replies that he had “ obtained of his grace that the same shall be allowed by his authority to be bought and read within this realm ” (Park. Soc. Let¬ ter, 194). Thus Henry VIII, who had proscribed Tyndale’s New Testament in 1525, who apparently made no effort to save the life of its translator in 1536, within one year after his martyrdom authorized the sale and use of Tyndale’s work, though under another name. Thus, by the influence of Cranmer, the co-operation of Cromwell, and the authorization of Henry VHI the Matthew Bible was given free course on English soil. Being a compilation, as it were, of Tyndale and Coverdale, it was the best English Bible in print. 204. There w'ere now two English Bibles, Coverdale’s and Matthew’s, which were sold on authorization of the king. But the decree had gone no further. Cromwell was a shrewd politician and a far-sighted churchman. He doubtless saw the deficien¬ cies of the two English revisions that were so freely circulated by royal decree. Coverdale’s Bible had been compiled from various sources, and not trans- 254 Versions Close to Tyndale' s lated from the original Hebrew and Greek. Mat¬ thew’s Bible was a compilation of translations of varying values, whose marginal notes carried here and there a sting of a controversial character. Be¬ sides, royal discovery of the Tyndale translations under the mask of “ Matthew,” might precipitate a storm in the court. Consequently Cromwell secured the services of Coverdale to prepare a revised Bible that should be free from the objections of the two already authorized. Coverdale was to make the trans¬ lation, as far as possible, more faithfully to represent the Hebrew and Latin texts of the Complutensian Polyglot. Coverdale’s deficiency in Hebrew and Greek learning seems to have been supplemented by his employment of scholars efficient in these languages. His editorial sagacity, his popular grasp of the needs of the times, his power to use others, and his favor at court, seem to have combined in him just those ele¬ ments of character that could produce a Bible that would be acceptable to all parties. 205. The editorial work having been done. Cover- dale could find no facilities in London for executing the work on the scale that he had marked out for it. With Richard Grafton, the London publisher, he went to Paris in the spring of 1538. With Regnault, the French printer, and under royal license, the print¬ ing began. But the inquisition uttered its voice, and ordered the work to be confiscated. By shrewd man¬ agement and trickery equal to that of the inquisitors, Coverdale safely transferred printed sheets, printers, C'lJe.w.Cliaptet. i* f?ctie,»ceceaueti) t!jc Cpgne of l)t8 If&tltlf. f)e ccceauctt) cetbacoes of a5enot>icD,f i9 cepebeitOco of yUf becauCe be (betbeb tjpm tbc tce3fuce.f)c DpctO aiib inhanaOeb t)i» (onne rapsnetb rn b>9 Heabc. ^outetI)attFncTXja^ foa fi>cbet)ntot^ Deett). 3linD t^e p?opl)ete 3f^l? tlK fonne of 3mo^ came to l)tm>anti fapDe t)ntof)i:'Ct)n;sfavtt)^ lo?t)c: _ CM, put t^pnc tJOulHolDe in an o^D^e> fo;^ t^u (bait bie, anb not Ipue . 3nD l^e^cbiaturnebljiiifaccto ptoall,^ p^pcb bnto tl)C Lo^be, fapcng ; 3 befecbe tbc nouj, £> lLo?b,rememb?e bom 3 bawe malbeb be=» fo;te tbe tn truetb anb mitb a pcrfecte berte,Qi bane bone tbatmbicb i0 saob m tbp fpgb^ anb I^e^ebia meptefo;{e. 3nb it fo^tuneb that ;>♦ af o;je 3fap majt gone out intopmpbble of pcourte,^U)o;ibe of f iozb came to \)u fapengiturne agapne, onbtelll^Kftta tbe captapne of mp people ; ^bnia> faptb tbc Lo^b (l5ob of ^amb tbp fa= 25 tber;3 baue bctb tbp pJapet , ^ fene tbp tea^* re)Bi.31nb bebolbe,3 mill bcale tbc, fo that ott tbc tbicb bape (bait go bp into tbc boufe of f Ho^b. 3llnb 3 mill abbe bnto tbp ba pejoi pet fpftene peare,anb mill belpuer tbc ^ tbi lal cptie out of tbcbanb of tbcbpngeof 3(rp = na,$ mpll befenbe tbis^ citic fo;t mpne amne fabe,$ foiiDanibmpreruauntesSfabc. 2|nD The (Ireat I’ihle. A.D. 1539 2 Kings 20 : 1-7 I- ' V. Vil’’"'--'; ) t I t X- V, 'i>'.' ,