B»wWBII»Wlum»Mlli ii'MMMH fM

mm^M

.< HISTORIC ORI

;" TH E BIBLE*

 ¦" .;:  "¦"".'.':  ¦'

rMW^ifini'iiininiiiVii"

»Y^LE«¥MlMEKSIIinf" - ILHSlRiMSy •

DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE.

THE

HISTORIC ORIGIN

OF

THE BIBLE.

A HANDBOOK OF PRINCIPAL FACTS FROM THE BEST RECENT
AUTHORITIES, GERMAN AND ENGLISH.

BY
EDWIN CONE BISSELL, A.M.

WITH AN INTRODUCTION
By Prof. ROSWELL D. HITCHCOCK, D.D.,
OF UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK.

NEW YORK:
ANSON D. F. RANDOLPH AND COMPANY.
770 Broadway.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1873, by
ANSON D. e. RANDOLPH AND COMPANY,
In the Office of the Librarian of Cpngress, at Washington.

„ , Sittoero at
Press at ROBHRT RUTTER,
JOHN WILSON AND SON, 82 and 84 Beekman St.
Cambridge- Neiv York.

PREFACE.

~T^\ETERRED among other reasons by the fable of the boy
^-~^ and the wolf, we shall say nothing here concerning the
need the world has felt for such a book as ours. The far-
reaching, and, in certain respects, mysterious laws of supply
and demand properly govern in this as well as in a more
material merchandise.
Still, here are invaluable and urgent facts, directly bearing
on the most important of themes. They have been collected
from a wide and often obscure dispersion, and while crowded
close into one handy volume, are yet fully equipped and orderly
marshalled for instant use.
Other interesting questions concerning the Bible must. not
be suffered always to absorb attention away from this, of its
origin in human history ; there are few. even of the deepest
and weightiest, that would not gain from its due consideration
both a quickened interest and a clearer warranty of acknowl
edged truth.
As in the case of the one incomparable Life, whose gracious
advent in the stable at Bethlehem is the beginning of an
inspired gospel, the origin of the one incomparable Book
should attract our earliest attention : its humble starting-point
in the dim past ; what signs then attended it ; what wise men
welcomed it ; the process of its growth in strength and moral
beauty and in favor with God and with men.

yi PREFACE.
Our labors in this field have not been without their embar
rassments. One of the chief of these has been an almost
painful sense of responsibility touching accuracy of statement
where a failure to be accurate must be attended by such
lamentable results. We have faithfully endeavored to pre
serve the true historic mean, avoiding alike the peremptori-
ness of theological prepossessions and the looseness of an
unguarded liberalism. We have conscientiously aimed to get
at the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and
then to set it forth with no deceptive coloring of our own.
And in this aim we have ever been guided by the motto of
school-boy days :
" Seize upon truth where'er 'tis found,
On Christian or on heathen ground."
This has been our shining goal, but that we have never
swerved from it we should not dare affirm. Indeed, we pre
fer to tender our confession of conscious imperfections before
hand. We acknowledge, too, that it was an ambitious venture for
one hand to attempt to pluck the ripest and fullest ears of so
extended a harvest field. It should scarcely be expected,
therefore, that absolutely nothing would be gathered that is
not grain, or that what is gathered will always prove to be of
the fairest and best.
Still for any case of serious misstatement, or a faulty in
completeness of statement, more to be anticipated, the author
has provided at least a partial corrective in the book itself.
To such an extent do its pages disclose the way-marks both of
the sources and methods of its investigations, that ample
means are furnished alike for a speedy detection of errors and
a more complete tracing and supporting of all truths an
nounced. This feature of the work, adopted at the cost of
much additional labor, and the risk of seeming to court for
it the appearance of learning, it is believed will materially

PREFACE. Vil
serve to make it a convenient manual, and better adapt it to
the uses of those whose studies may lie in this direction.
I have not written solely for scholars, nor indeed solely for
the purpose of simplifying and popularizing valuable truths
which, though lying at the basis of all thorough Bible study,
are within the reach of but comparatively few persons and the
actual knowledge of a much smaller number. My object has
been, rather so to present these truths as to render them easily
accessible and intelligible to ordinary Bible readers, especially
to Sunday-school and Bible-class teachers, and at the same
time, with such conciseness and completeness as to make a
treatise not unworthy the notice of ministers, theological
students, and others who cultivate the higher learning.
Yet be the result of these many months of labor whatever
it may on other minds, one thing is already assured, — the
effort has been, in itself, delightfully rewarding, step by step.
One has said that he had got a new Bible through the furnace.
The writer feels that, even through the pleasing agency of
most attractive studies, the Bible has become to him almost
another book : something more human and tangible without
being any the less divine and authoritative ; that, in seeking to
discover where man's original connection with it begins, he
has come sensibly nearest to its diviner elements, — the awful
and the conclusive overshadowing of the Almighty.
Winchester, Mass., Jan. 1873.

CONTENTS.

PART I.
Pastors t\t fyt IStifllCsi) JSflblc.
CHAPTER I.
History of the English Bible to the time of Tyndale, tage i
How Christianity was introduced into Britain ; Old Latin original
of the first Saxon translations; first attempts at translation; the
Psalms in Saxon; Bede's work; translation of Alfred; an in
terlinear version; the Rushworth gloss; Danish incursions
prevent Bible translations in the eleventh century; a marked
peculiarity ofthe Saxon versions ; the Bible in English; first
literal translation; other translations; version of Wyclif; the
whole Bible in English for the first time; More's statement re
specting the translation of the whole Bible before the time of
Wyclif, how accounted for ; suggestion of George P. Marsh ;
opinion of Baber; outline of Wyclif 's life; first came into
prominence ; action ofthe Council of Constance; doctrines de
nounced in 1410; Wyclif a prolific writer; his work of translating;
has aid in translating the old Testament ; Wyclif 's facilities for the
work; character of the Vulgate, from which he translated; testi
mony of a contemporary; the translation baldly literal; char
acter of the English used ; wide circulation of the version ;
opposition to the translating and reading of the Bible; Wyclif
defended by the Duke of Lancaster; cost of a Bible at this
time; Purvey's recension; special honor due to Wyclif ; supposi
tion of still another version; influence of Wyclif 's version on
its successors ; work only recently printed ; the Lord's prayer as
translated by him.
CHAPTER II.
Version of Tyndale  17
First translation from the original; first frinted English Bible;
beginnings of the " Authorized Version ; " early life of Tyndale ;
meets Erasmus, who encourages his view concerning vernacular

CONTENTS.
translations; as tutor; applies to Tunstall; a year of doubt; is
not discouraged; sails for the continent, May, 1524; begins to
translate ; qualifications as a translator ; testimony of Spalatinus ;
of Sir Thomas More; of George Joye; witness of his work
itself; original letter of Tyndale; Westcott's crucial test of Tyn-
dale's scholarship; importance of the question; mistake of
Hallam, Froude, and others ; Tyndale's appreciation of his
responsibilities ; favorable linguistic developments of the period ;
study of the sacred languages, especially of Hebrew; grammars
and lexicons; Tyndale's favorable opportunities ; monkish oppo
sition to learning; first translation when published; interference
of Cochlseus ; Bible printed in several editions ; interference of
Joye; Tyndale states his grievances; translations of the Old
Testament; his marginal glosses and comments; the version in
England; More's attack; specific charges and Tyndale's reply ;
the hostile party resort to the fagot; example of their
extreme measures ; circulation of the Bible not suppressed;
Tyndale's heroic spirit; persecution unavailing; the government
at last succumbs ; general characteristics of Tyndale's version ;
was faithful to the text and sense of the sacred writers; English
style of the version ; opinion of G. P. Marsh, Ellicott and West-
cott; style and interpretation Tyndale's own; has left to later
translators the plan on which they should work; the Lord's
Prayer according to Tyndale.

CHAPTER III.
Versions of Coverdale, Matthew (Rogers), Taverner, and
the Great Bible  39
First complete edition of the -whole Bible translated from the original
tongues in print. Convocation forced to provide a version;
Coverdale enters into Tyndale's labors ; his life ; general estimate
of his character ; his work on the English Bible ; distrusts his own
competency and defers to Tyndale ; the first edition ; from what
the translation was made; influence on the " Authorized Ver
sion; " Matthew's Bible : first complete publication of Tyndale's
translations ; remarkable reception accorded it in England ; what
it really was; the publishers; the condemned translation sanc
tioned; the edition quickly disposed of; displeasure of many
bishops and priests ; sketch of the life of Rogers ; Taverner's
recension ; its aim and character ; the Great Bible : real
character of Matthew's Bible at last discovered ; work of Great
Bible done in Paris; interference of Inquisition; sometimes
called " Cranmer's Bible;" Coverdale projects a commentary,

CONTENTS. xi
but fails to introduce it; subsequent editions; its points of
special interest ; first appearance of italics in the English Bible;
course of the government with respect to the Scriptures.
CHAPTER IV.
The Genevan, Bishops', and Rhemish Versions .... 54
Reign of Edward VI. ; many printing presses employed in multiply
ing Bibles; reign of Bloody Mary; the reaction limited; many
persons become exiles ; those in Geneva address themselves to
the work of preparing a family Bible; a fit place for the object;
they are aided by the translators of other versions ; by whom the
work was principally done ; Sampson; when the Genevan New
Testament appeared ; its popularity and that of the whole.Bible ;
afterwards prohibited ; sources of popularity ; printed in Roman
type and with other peculiarities; true principles of translation
recognized ; Westcott's estimate ; the New Testament based on
Tyndale's; its influence on the "Authorized Version ; " the Bishops'
Bible: reign of Elizabeth; no preference expressed by government
forany particularversion ; the Genevan had supplanted the Great
Bible in some of the churches; Elizabeth very cautious; project
of Archbishop Parker for a new translation ; work when begun ;
its external characteristics ; royal authorization only tacitly
given; it supplants the Great Bible; a fact of importance;
failure of some of the translators to appreciate their responsi
bilities ; their chief aim ; Westcott's opinion of the work; inter
polations omitted ; its New Testament ; Rhemisli Bible : first
Roman Catholic version in the vernacular; translators' reasons
for the version ; constrained by circumstances; special motive;
how the way was prepared for its reception ; who the translators
were; from what original sources it was made; translators'
reasons for giving the Vulgate the preference ; followed it ver
bally and blindly; other peculiarities; critical value of this
version ; its later history ; great liberties taken with the text ; a
new version projected.

CHAPTER V.
The Authorized Version  70
Probable motives of King James for favoring a new version ; repu
diates his former professions ; the so-called Authorized Version
never authorized ; the king expects much; a beneficent Provi
dence manifest ; first broaching of the subject; the king persists

Xll CONTENTS.
in the scheme ; names of translators selected and provision
sought for their support; other scholars solicited to aid; the
remuneration which they actually received ; the expense of pub
lication borne by the publisher; sanctioned by Government
only as the Bishops' Bible; beginning of the work and number
of persons engaged ; the most distinguished named ; represen
tatives ofthe Puritan party; charges of a theological bias; the
preface disclaims the dominance of Puritans; testimony of
Trench; charges against Bancroft; general plan ofthe work;
list of rules; not strictly followed; work of final revision; ad
mirable principles adopted by the revisers among themselves;
did not confine themselves to the king's rules ; when the book
was published; revision in 1638; one projected by Cromwell's
parliament; why this version included the Apocrypha; a leading
principle ofthe revisers of 161 1; relation of this version to
those previously made in English; special influence of the
Genevan and Doway versions; some faults; a grand recommen
dation; objections of Romanists ; its marginal readings; testi
mony of Faber; the English style.

PART II.
Kty tKTcto STesstamfitt.
CHAPTER I.
The Written Text  89
Prevalence of the Greek language at the time of Christ; the Greek
at Alexandria; language of Palestine; of the New Testament;
most apparent influence of Hebrew and Christian thought ; effects
of the mixture of these various elements in the language of the
New Testament ; Winer's opinion of New Testament Hebraisms ;
Greek constructions ; language and style adapted to the mes
sage; Hebraisms' consciously adopted; writing materials; the
papyrus; writing by amanuenses; copies how multiplied; New
Testament MSS. extant; material, form, appearance of the
page; meaning of Uncial ; whence MSS. come; palimpsests;
names of MSS. ; how the prevalent system of notation origi
nated; defects ofthe method; fragmentary condition of New
Testament MSS.; lectionaries ; MS. fragments; number of
MSS.; Uncials; their age and value; witnesses for an earlier
period; age how determined; punctuation, chapters, sections,

CONTENTS. Xlll
titles and subscriptions, accentuation ; these marks the data for
determining the age of MSS. ; present locality of important
MSS.; their relative importance; account of certain Uncials,.
the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus; most important
of the Cursives, — Basiliensis, Colbertinus, Leicestrensis, and a
MS. of the Apocalypse ; importance of the Cursives generally ;
various "readings" of MSS.; the originals not required;
superiority of New Testament MSS. ; whole number of varia
tions and what they consist in; how they arose; in the main
simple and natural mistakes, and not really damaging; teaching
of the MSS. harmonious; testimony of Bentley and Davidson.

CHAPTER II.
Ancient Versions and Printed Text  115
Value of the ancient versions; their value in. apologetics; the
Peshito version, origin, proof of age, and characteristics; the
Philoxenian; a Syriac Evangeliarium ; an Ethiopic version ;
Egyptian, Thebaic, Memphitic, and still another; the Armenian;
Persic, Georgian, Arabic, Gothic, Slavonic, and Latin versions ;
date of the earliest of the Latin ; Vulgate of Jerome ; the New
Testament of this version ; revision under Charlemagne ; action
of the Council of Trent, &c. ; the Printed Text ; history of
printed text why important; first attempts at printing the Greek
New Testament; the Alcala Bible; late MSS. used; editions of
Erasmus; MSS. used, and text how treated; editions and num
ber of' copies; editions of Robert Stephens, his text; Beza's
Testament and its relation to the " received " text ; the Elzevirs ;
Walton's Polyglott; labors of Mill, of Bentley, Bengel, Wetstein,
Griesbach, Sholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford;
the questions concerning recensions not examined ; Westcott's
rules for a critical establishment of the text ; Lachmann's ; those
of De Wette, Tischendorf, Davidson, Tregelles, Scrivener;
Tregelles's tribute to the general integrity of the text.
CHAPTER III.
The New Testament Canon  140
Meaning of the terra Canon; of the terms authentic and genuine;
reasons for the order of treatment adopted; simplicity of the
historic method of proof; preliminary statements called for;
special need of New Testament not at first felt; period of deter
mining the Canon to be only approximately fixed ; not estab-

XIV CONTENTS.
lished by the Apostles; nor ecclesiastical convention; nor
miraculous interposition ; fixed gradually ; public announcement
later; causes acting to produce the final result; no ecclesiastical
pressure; dominance of certain fathers not a factor in the
problem ; early reverence for the New Testament books ; infre
quent quotations by Apostolic Fathers to be expected ; reasons
for scanty traces of the New Testament in the sub-Apostolic
age; testimony not to be too much depreciated; citations from
Apocryphal writings; fact of evident discrimination in favor
of New Testament works ; too much not to be made of the
omissions of early writers; aim of witnesses to be considered;
ancient writers not to be held to rules of modern criticism;
these investigations concern the genuineness of the New Testa
ment writings; point of departure; Marcion and his Canon;
how it was constituted; Canon of Muratori; Irenaeus and his
testimony; cites Apocryphal works; Clement of Alexandria and
his writings ; TertuUian and his treatment of the New Testa
ment ; the Old Latin version ; the Peshito version ; review of
evidence and its general nature; Origen and his testimony to
the New Testament books; general retrospect; Canon essen
tially determined at this time; other important facts remain;
Justin Martyr, his works and their import; desperation of those
who would break the force of Justin's testimony; epistle to
Diognetus and Clementine Homilies; Basilides the Gnostic;
special point of his testimony; the Apostolic Fathers; sum
and essential character of their references; traces here of the
disputed books; value of this kind of evidence; period of Euse-
bius, Athanasius, and the early councils ; Canon takes its present
form, first by general consent, then by announcement and final
ratification ; position of Origen ; the disputed books ; effects of
the Diocletian persecution ; Augustine ; Eusebius ; the Homo-
logoumena and Antilegomena; reasons for citing Apocryphal
works ; sum of the teachings of Eusebius ; contents of the Con-
stantinopolitan Bible; present history of Canon closes at this
point; it remains essentially the same ever afterwards; Jerome;
Augustine; relation of the Church and councils to the final
result; the Canon a result of Christian instinct overruled by
divine Providence; statements and inferences in conclusion;
catalogues, the crystallization of scattered references; slow
growth a basis of correctness; testimony of sceptics and
heretics; historical evidence all in one direction ; sufficient dis
cussion to prove care and research; doubts concerning one book
should not extend to the rest; a twofold Canon recommended
by some.

CONTENTS. XV
CHAPTER IV.
The Gospels and Acts  186
This chapter a proper sequel to the preceding ; Gospels and Acts
found together in MSS.; titles ofthe Gospels; the Synoptics,
their origin ; the apostles preachers, not writers ; necessity for
written Gospels afterwards arose; contents of the Synoptics;
Matthew : title, personal history of the writer, time when
written; special testimony to genuineness; Mark: his personal
history; date and genuineness of his work; Luke: who he was;
characteristics and date of his Gospel, with proofs of genuine
ness; direction of modern attacks; testimony of Justin Martyr,
Papias, Hegesippus, and the Canon of Muratori; John: his
Gospel peculiar; source and principle of objections to the
work; contents probably stand in the way of its reception;
illustration of unfair dealing with facts ; positive proofs of
genuineness; difficulties involved in a theory of spuriousness;
supposed forger not always on his guard ; character of the work
of forger does not agree with the age in which it was produced ;
the Gospel combats Cerinthus, its alleged author; testimony
of last two verses of the Gospel ; of Apostolic Fathers, Justin
Martyr, and many others ; Bleek's conclusion ; Acts of the Apos
tles: title; testimony of Irenjeus to authorship; internal evidence
confirmatory; various allusions to the work by early writers;
date and credibility.
CHAPTER V.
The Epistles of Paul  '  206
Advantages of the epistles with respect to proofs of genuineness ;
the churches addressed important witnesses ; difficulty in forging
such documents; Romans: Clement of Rome; Polycarp; the
" Elder; " Justin Martyr; early heretical sects never denied the
epistles to be Paul's; /. Corinthians: Paul's personality impressed
upon the work; it is acknowledged by the Church at Corinth ;
testimony of Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and others;
II. Corinthians: a sequel to the first; various witnesses to its
genuineness ; Galatians : genuineness generally admitted ; Apos
tolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, and others acquainted with it; date;
Bphesians: genuineness disputed by Davidson and others on
internal grounds; survey of historical testimony; Philippians :
supposed date; importance of allusions in other New Testament

xvi CONTENTS.
books to facts here recorded; basis of modern doubts; no
probable motive for forgery ; external testimony ; Colossians :
Colossas and Paul's relation to the Christian church there;
internal characteristics favor his authorship; Davidson and
De Wette admit its genuineness ; testimony of Justin Martyr and
others, with date; /. Thessalonians : Of Thessalonica; unde
signed coincidences; Apostolic Fathers do not quote it, but
make many allusions ; Polycarp, Dionysius of Corinth, Irenaeus,
and others testify; date; II. Thessalonians: first and second
epistles linked together and mutually supporting; source of
principal difficulty; date; I. Timothy: who Timothy was;
whither this letter was sent; alleged grounds for impugning its
genuineness; Paul's opportunities for writing the epistle abun
dant ; first and second Timothy historically stand or fall
together; testimony of Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Irenaeus,
and others ; II. Timothy : when and where written ; witnesses
in addition to those cited in first epistle ; Titus : its internal
characteristics; earliest traces in history; Philemon: needs but
little external support ; sufficient reason for infrequent allusions
to the work in history.

CHAPTER VI.
Epistle to the Hebrews, the Catholic Epistles, and the
Apocalypse  228
Authorship of Epistle to the Hebrews probably to be always matter
of doubt; the different authors suggested; Professor Kendrick's
conclusion; to whom the letter was first sent; its genuineness
as a revered product of the Apostolic age not doubtful ; no
opposition to the work developed in the earliest times ; list of
early writers who refer to it; Justin Martyr, Pinytus, Pantaenus;
partial summary of evidence; records of history during the
interval of doubt ; Dionysius of Alexandria, TertuUian, Cyprian,
&c. ; James: whence the name Catholic epistles; not certainly
known what James wrote this epistle ; different opinions con
cerning its authorship; doubtful authorship the occasion of
suspecting the work itself; traces of it in ecclesiastical lit
erature; evidence, on the whole, satisfactory; /. Peter: of
Simon Peter, the professed author ; his residence at Rome ;
to whom the letter is addressed and its date ; historical
proofs abundant; no doubts expressed in early times; the
second epistle witnesses to it, and nearly all the early Chris
tian literature; Clement of Alexandria, the "Shepherd," &c. ;
//. Peter: a" disputed" book; not found in the Peshito ver-

CONTENTS. XV11
sion or the Muratorian Canon ; its own testimony pertinent ;
what would follow from a supposition of imposture; evidence
of early writers; possible testimony of Irenaeus and Hermas;
important evidence from Cappadocia ; Origen the first to quote
the epistle as Peter's ; references to the work reasonably sufficient ;
grounds of hesitation on the part of early Christians ; /. John :
author the same as of the Fourth Gospel ; opinions of Bleek
and De Wette; author not definitely announced ; external testi
mony from Polycarp to Origen ; II. and III. John : they have not
the same fulness of evidence as the first; reckoned as "Anti-
legomena" by Eusebius; modern doubts based on internal
peculiarities; Johannine authorship defended; earliest notice in
the Muratorian Canon ; the two epistles possibly treated as one,
of which some examples are given ; Clement of Alexandria,
Origen, Alexander (Bishop of Alexandria), and Jerome; Jude:
the particular Jude not easily identified ; direct testimony of the
"Adumbrations"; internal evidence; first traces of the work;
Clement of Alexandria indisputably alludes to it; Malchion and
Eusebius ; Jerome explains reason of hesitation in its acceptance ;
The Apocalypse : historically one of the best supported of the
New Testament writings; what it claims for itself; differences
of style between it and other supposed works of John ; account
of its origin by Irenaeus; historical evidence for Johannine
authorship ; evidence of the Canon of Muratori, Old Latin
version, the Peshito, &c. ; Melito of Sardis an important
witness ; all the foregoing witnesses in favor of the authorship of
John; examples of alleged opposition to the current opinion;
contents of the work might furnish occasion for hesitancy;
Jerome and Augustine fully accepted the work as genuine and as
the production of John, and their opinion was ratified by the
early councils.

PART III.
Wtyt ©ttr QZttitament.
CHAPTER I.
Language, Manuscripts, Versions, and General Textual
History of the Old Testament  263
The Hebrew language; extent of the Hebrew literature, and origin
of term " Hebrew " ; the Hebrew language not the native tongue
of the " Hebrews "; its striking characteristics; changes in the
*

xviii CONTENTS.
language and their force; early date of alphabetic writing;
Manuscripts: number and age of Hebrew MSS. ; two principal
classes; private MSS. ; age how determined ; Versions: the Sep
tuagint, — value and uses of this version; version of Aquila; of
Theodotion; of Symmachus and others; Origen's Hexapla;
Targums : of Onkelos and Jonathan; General textual history :
earlier history of the text; internal evidence; history of the
text from the establishment ofthe Canon; its transmission;
labor of the Talmudists; the Masoretic text; review of the
sources from which the present Hebrew text is derived; mild
statement of defects by Dillmann.

CHAPTER II.
The Canon of the Old Testament  277
Meaning of the term Canon as here used and objects of the chap
ter; the Old Testament in the New; limits of the Old Testa
ment Canon generally defined ; character of the New Testament
references to the Old ; Apocryphal books of the Septuagint
version not quoted in the New Testament; confirmatory testi
mony by Josephus; his direct citations from Scripture; indirect
references; why twenty-two books mentioned; testimony of
Philo; does not acknowledge the Apocrypha; the Canon
among the various Jewish sects at the time of Christ; final
establishment of the Old Testament Canon ; general principles ;
methods of investigation ; earliest recognition of canonical
authority; the germ of other collections contemporaneous with
the Pentateuch; how the second collection probably originated;
the remaining books when canonized; agency of Ezra and his
collaborators in this work; the Old Testament Canon in the
Christian Church; Origen; individual citations unnecessary;
the Jews as witnesses to the extent of the Hebrew Canon.

CHAPTER III.
Origin of the Separate Books: Pentateuch — Judges, 292
Subject how treated; something to be premised ; Pentateuch: its
origin according to the Jews; testimony of our Lord and his
Apostles; also of heathen writers; burden of proof lies with
opponents of Mosaic authorship; definite reasons for the ordi
nary view; admitted that Moses wrote parts; internal evidence
of genuineness; the work an harmonious whole; not needful to
suppose that Moses penned the whole work; it can properly be

CONTENTS. XIX
assigned to no other period; no unnatural or insuperable diffi
culties ; Joshua : its author not certainly known ; unsuccessful
attempts to invalidate the genuineness of the book; references
to the Pentateuch ; probable date and authorship ; Judges :
name, position, period included, &c. ; authorship.
CHAPTER IV.
Origin of the Separate Books {continued) : Ruth — the
Proverbs  .'  304
Ruth: canonical rank; date and internal marks of genuineness;
Books of Samuel: general characteristics ; origin and date ; too
Books of Kings : general characteristics and historical connec
tion with other books ; an independent and complete work ; make
appeals to specific authorities; date and supposed author; Books
of Chronicles : origin of title; the contents ; internal proofs of
genuineness ; minor diversities and their probable origin ; motive
of hostile assaults; authorship and date; Ezra : in general; time
of composition ; Nehemiah : contents ; canonical rank ; Esther :
general remarks; internal proofs of genuineness; objections of
Ewald and others ; date and authorship of the work ; Job : mat
ter and style; objections to the unity of the book; time of com
position ; the Psalms : title, divisions, &c. ; when written ; the
Proverbs : character, probable origin of the collection and date.
CHAPTER V.
Origin of the Separate Books {continued) : Ecclesiastes —
Malachi . . . . ,  321
Ecclesiastes: theory of personated authorship; arguments in its
favor; either theory consistent with the genuineness and canoni
cal rank of the book ; general drift and probable date ; Canticles :
outlying facts in favor of genuineness; an interpretation possi
ble consistent with its position among the Sacred Scriptures ;
Isaiah: who he was; contents of his work; assaults on its
integrity; proof of unity; additional; Jeremiah: date of
prophecy and general contents ; doubts respecting certain parts ;
external proofs of genuineness; Lamentations: name, date,
and author ; Ezekiel : personal history of the prophet and date
of his composition; its internal arrangement; Daniel: unity
of the book conceded, but authorship and date in dispute; ob
jections to the common theory, and a reply; other positive
reasons for the support of the traditional view ; the Minor
PropJiets: — Hosea: in general; when Hosea lived; his work

XX CONTENTS.
usually unquestioned; Joel: genuineness of his work not
doubted ; Amos : who he was, when he lived and where he
wrote; Obadiah: confusion of dates, but no doubt of genuine
ness; Jonah : proofs of historical truthfulness ; Micah : date
about 759-699 B.C. ; Nahum : probable date about 714-699 B.C. ;
Habakkuk : contents of the book and its date ; Zephaniah : sup
posed date about 642-611 B.C. ; Haggai : internal considerations
for fixing his epoch at about 520 B.C. ; Zechariah : contempora
neous with Haggai; unity of book vindicated; Davidson against
it ; De Wette in defence ; explanations ; Malachi : date about
432 B.C., as certified by the work itself.

APPENDICES.
A. — Leading Opinions on Revision  345
B. — The Apocrypha  398
INDICES.
Index of Authorities  411
Passages of Scripture cited or illustrated .... 421
General Index  426

INTRODUCTION.

/^\NE of the best arguments for the Bible, as for Chris
tianity itself, is simply its own history. When we
have vindicated our Hieronymian Canon against the
Augustinian, traced back the several books of the two
Testaments to the times, places, and authors claimed for
them, made it clear that these books have come down to
us through so many generations essentially unchanged,
and have shown the fidelity of our own English version
to the Hebrew and Greek originals, we have gone far
towards proving the whole Bible to have been Divinely
inspired and Divinely taken care of.
That so many books, of so many kinds, historic,
poetic, dogmatic, and prophetic, from the pens of so many
writers of such various culture and so far apart in history,
should yet be only One Book, with a unity as perfect as
that of any drama, is a phenomenon which no infidel
theory accounts for. The Apocryphal books, whether
ofthe Old or of the New Testament, do not trouble us.
The more they are studied, the more clear it becomes
that they deserve no place in the Canon. It is felt to
have been a sure instinct that ruled them out.

xxii INTRODUCTION.
As for the purity of the text, so much imperilled by
endless transcription, it is found that no other ancient
writings have suffered so little. Reverence for the Bible
has always guarded it like a flaming sword. The vari
ous readings, at first sight so formidable in number, turn
out to be quite harmless in character. The great facts
and doctrines of revelation remain intact.
The severest test to which a book can be subjected, is
that of translating it into other languages than the one
in which it was written. The Koran is not much of a
book in any language but the Arabic. Even Shake
speare is no longer Shakespeare in French. The Bible
is mostly Semitic and provincial ; and yet in every lan
guage its voice is clear, ringing, and majestic. It is
the only book that has ever made the circuit of the globe,
holding its own in every important language or dialect
of 'men.
Of all the versions, our own is probably on the whole
the best. If Moses and Isaiah can be made to speak in
any other language than Hebrew, or Paul and John can
be made to speak in any other language than Greek,
that language is our own mother tongue. Of this it
would ill become us to boast. Far better is it for us to
be awed and overawed by the sacredness of what is com
mitted to our trust. If the voice that spake from Sinai
in one language, and from Calvary in another, is now
most resonant in our own, it behooves us to rejoice with
trembling. Unto us are committed " the oracles of
God." It is of the Bible as a book amongst books, that

INTRODUCTION. xxiii
this volume undertakes to treat. It covers ground not
covered by any single volume which has yet appeared.
And, so far as I have examined, the work appears to
me to have been well done. The author, whom I have
known for some years as an ardent and critical scholar,
has spared no pains to be sound and accurate in his
conclusions. If he now wins the success he merits, it
will be all he has need to covet. ROSWELL D. HITCHCOCK.
Union Theological Seminary,
February 24, 1873.

PART I.
THE ENGLISH BIBLE.

© Christ! thg laiu is hfBBen in tf)c sepultljte; fafjen Sntlt thott
tun* thg angel to umobe the stone anS shofo thg truth unto tfjg
flotft? Wyclif at Lutter-worth.

T

CHAPTER I.

THE ENGLISH BIBLE TO THE TIME OF TYNDALE.
HE question of the earliest introduction of Christianity
into Britain is involved in no little obscurity. The
conquest of the country by the Romans (b.c. "J1? to How
/- x , , . , r ¦ • s Christianity
a.d. oo), and their subsequent sway tor a consider- wasintro-
ii .is-'ii *tii 1 duced into
able period, furnished an opportunity likely to be Britain.
improved by an active discipleship, for the announcement
of their weighty message. It is even affirmed that traders
of Asiatic origin, possibly entering by way of Gaul, were
the first Christian missionaries ; and that it was their efforts,
rather than those of Augustin and his coadjutors com
missioned for this work by Gregory the Great (a.d. 596),
that resulted in the conversion of the most of our Saxon forer
fathers to Christ.1 It is at least true that Christianity was
greatly promoted by Augustin, and during and following his
time acquired such thorough possession of the land as to
produce within about a century of his arrival such fruit as
Venerable Bede and the great German evangelist Boniface
(680-754). To Augustin, soon after his arrival in Britain, his patron
at Rome sent over a copy or copies of the ante- old Latin
¦s-r. ¦ /• ir- -r \t> • original of
Hieronymian (i.e., before Jerome) Latin version, the first
sometimes improperly styled the " Itala ;" 2 and from translations.
this text the first Anglo-Saxon translations of the Scriptures,
if such they may be called, were made. Copies of this ancient
Latin version are still preserved in England ; and one of them,
1 Soames's Latin Church, &c, p. 45. Cf. Lingard's Anglo-Saxon Church, pp. 18-40.
2 Craik's Hints and Suggest., p. 18. Cf. Michaelis, Int., vol. ii. 113 ; Westcott's Bib.
in Ch., pp. 128, 129.

4 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. I
now in the Bodleian Library, is reputed to be an original
once in the hands of the great missionary.1
Among the earliest attempts at translating the Scriptures
First into the vernacular was that of Caedmon, a pious
trarSatfon! monk in the seventh century (c. 680), who rendered
certain historical portions of the Old Testament into Anglo-
Saxon verse. It was less a translation, however, than a
paraphrase. Yet any vernacular rendering of Scripture was
so much a matter of wonder in those superstitious times, that
a miracle was invented to account for it. The monk, an
unlettered cowherd in the monastery of Whitby, mortified, it
is said, at his inability to equal the lyrical performances of his
fellow-monks, retired to his couch in the Abbey grange. In
his troubled dreams a heavenly visitant appeared and bade
him sing. Upon his confessing a want of skill, he was
encouraged to try, and took as his theme the Origin of
Created Things. At once the poetical inspiration fell upon
him ; his tongue was loosed ; the task was accomplished, and,
recalled and recorded on his waking, gained for him the
reputation of an inspired poet.2
A few years later two independent versions of the Psalms
The Psalms were produced in Anglo-Saxon : one by Aldhelm,
in Saxon, bishop 0f Sherborne ; the other by Guthlac, the first
Saxon anchoret.
Venerable Bede (a.d. 672-735) completed a translation of
Bede's the Gospel of John on the 27th day of May, a.d. 735)
work of .... ., ,,,, «i
translation, and lt is supposed by some that he had previously
translated the synoptical Gospels. Foxe, the historian, ac
cording to Johnson, and others probably on his authority,
explicitly assert that Bede translated the -whole Bible, but the
assertion rests on no rational or true historic foundation.8 We
are not even able to affirm positively that Bede was the first to
translate any part of the Gospels, or that of his work any
genuine specimen has come down to our day. Commentaries,
however, on most of the books of the Old and New Testa
ments were prepared by this industrious and devout scholar,
1 Pref. to Bosworth's Gothic and Anglo-Saxon Gospels.
2 Bib. Sac, April, 1868, p. 264.
3 Histor. Acct in Wat. Theo- Tracts, vol. iii. p. 62.

Before Tyndale. THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 5
and his Church History was widely popular, being among the
first products of the printing press in Germany (a.d. 1474).
A most touching account of the manner in which this holy
man closed his life, the moistened pen with which he had just
finished the translation ofthe Gospel of John still in his hand,
is given by an attendant and eye-witness of the scene, in
volume first of his collected works.1
The notable King Alfred placed a translation of the Ten
Commandments at the beginning of his Statutes, be- Translation
sides incorporating among them selected passages from re
the Evangelists. A translation of the Psalter also, was pro
jected by him, but his death occurring in the mean time
(c. 901), his purpose in this respect was defeated.
A Saxon version of uncertain date, but referred to this
period, interlinear with the previously transcribed Aninteriin-
x r t , • , ear version,
Vulgate of Jerome, was made by a priest named TheRush-
Aldred. Another interlinear version, known as the Gloss.
Rushworth Gloss, also of this age, and now in the posses
sion of the Bodleian library, has at the end of the Gospel of
Matthew the following record : " Farman, priest, this book
thus glossed (translated)." An interesting consideration con
nected with these interlinear versions is the probable con
jecture, that they were made for the use of such ignorant
priests as did not themselves understand the meaning of the
Latin which they read to the people. The common people
had not yet indeed, been forbidden the reading of the Script
ures, but their utterly illiterate condition was an obstacle to
their free circulation, even greater than the severest restrictive
legislation of subsequent times. For this reason, too, it
was, at least in part, that vernacular translations were so
few, of certain portions of the Bible only, and, when made,
attained but a limited diffusion and usefulness.
The eleventh century was marked, in Britain, by protracted
and bloody political disturbances. Repeated and sue- Danish in-
¦*¦ cursions
cessful incursions of the ferocious Danes prevented, prevent
.,,-,/- 1 1 Bible trans-
even in the monasteries, the tranquillity needful to the lationinthe
tvt • r« eleventh
pursuits of learning. INo translations of importance are century.
known to have been made in Saxon during this period, and
1 Pp. 82, 83.

6 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap I.
into the Normano-Saxon dialect, which succeeded, the Script
ures were but scantily rendered. Scarcely more than three
manuscript copies of the Gospel, all probably transcripts of
one original copy, now remain to mark this epoch ; and within
about a century after the Conquest (Battle of Hastings, Oct.
14, 1066), the last traces of a distinctively Saxon dialect, so
called, disappear from the field of Biblical literature.
One marked peculiarity ofthe Saxon versions ofthe Script-
a marked ures is worthy of mention, both as a matter of interest
peculiarity .... . ,.
ofthe in itself, and as bearing on the important subject of
versions. " revision," so much agitated in our time. Difficult
terms which, instead of being translated from the original
tongues, were transferred bodily by translators of a later day,
were by them characteristically rendered, through an ingenious
use of Saxon compounds. The centurion, for instance, was
"the hundred-man;" the disciple, a "learning-youth;" the
parable, a " big-spel," i.e., a near example ; the scribe, a
" book-man." The first attempts to translate the Bible into English, like
The Bible tne earliest Saxon versions, were simply metrical
m English. paraphrases, often distorting the very facts of Scrip
ture. A paraphrase of the Gospel and Acts in English, made
in the latter half of the twelfth century by Orme, or Ormin,
has received the name of the " Ormulum." The Saxon
character was employed.1
About the middle ofthe fourteenth century, Richard Rolle,
First literal °f Hampole, translated the Psalms, in connection with
translation. the hymns of the Church into English prose. This is
supposed to be the first literal English translation of Scripture.
Rolle's object, as stated by himself in the prologue to his work,
is interesting : " In this werke," he says, " I seke no straunge
Ynglys, but lightest and commonest, and swilk (such) that is
most like unto the Latyne ; so that thai that knowes noght the
Latyne, be thi Ynglys may come to many Latyne wordes."
Three different versions of the Psalms, dating from about
0thertrans_ the same period, are still extant; as also translations
lations. by various clergymen of such parts of the Bible as were
1 Cf. Marsh's Lects. on Eng. Lang., 2d Series, 1862.

Before Tyndale. THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 7
used in the Church Service. The British Museum contains a
manuscript translation in the northern dialect ofthe dominical
Gospels for the whole year, supposed to have been made at
this time. All these versions took as their basis such copies
of the Latin Vulgate, more or less imperfect, as the translators
might, at the time, happen to have before them.
No effort seems to have been made to provide a complete
version of the- Bible in English, until the time of Version of
Wyclif.
Wyclif, and with him the history of the English Bible, The whole
properly speaking, begins. Foxe, the historian, as English for
we have noticed, and with him, Johnson, Bishop time.
Newcome, and many others even to our own day, have
asserted that Bede effected a complete translation ol the
Scriptures into the vernacular. But aside from the bare af
firmation of the fact, no evidence of it whatever can be found.
During the progress of the Reformation in England, when
the work of translating and circulating the Scriptures was
violently opposed by the Conservative party, they were driven
to take the position, that versions in the vernacular were no
novelty. So, Sir Thomas More is credited with making the strange
statement in his "Dialogues," or reply to Tyndale, Sir Thos.
that " the whole Bible had been translated (into statement
English) long before Wyclif 's time." Several theories counted for.
have been formed to account for this unwarranted statement.
It has been thought, for instance, that More may have referred,
loosely, to the various versions of parts of the Bible, which,
at different times, had been made in Anglo-Saxon. Or his
language may have been falsely interpreted. He said :
" The hole byble was longe byfore his daies by virtuouse and
wel-learned men translated into the englysh tongue, and by
good and godly people with devotion and soberness wel and
reverently red." It is thought possible that by the word
"hole," More meant "holy," and not "whole."1 An "i"
may have been dropped if he wrote " holie," or an "e"
changed to an "i,'' if he wrote " holi."
Again, the Hon. George P. Marsh, a distinguished authority
1 Christ Ex., July, 1833, 391.

8 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. I.
on such a subject, suggests that the only legitimate basis discover-
Marsh,s able for More's assertion is the fact, that the language of
suggestion. Wyclif's version of the Scriptures is so different from
that of his other works.1 This might naturally give rise to the
error which is indicated by Lewis, in his History of Transla
tions, who says : " A mistake was made by Sir Thomas More in
saying that the Bible had been wholly translated long before
Wyclif. He took Wyclif's version for one that had been
made before him, and those made after him as his."2
The valuable opinion of Baber, who wrote the sketch of the
Opinion of translator's life prefixed to " Wyclif's version of the
Baber. New Testament," conducts to the same general con
clusion. He observes : " The author of the ' Elucidarium
Bibliorum ' or ' Prologue to the Bible,' alludes to a version
prior to his own. Some have supposed this prologue to be the
work of Wyclif, which is not the fact : hence, they judged
that there had been a previous version. A manuscript in the
Bodleian library, with a falsified date, has led some others to
the same conclusion." 8
Wyclif (1324-1384) was a native of Yorkshire. For about
WyciiTs twenty-five years he was, more or less, closely con-
K& nected with the University of Oxford, first as student,
then as tutor, head of a college, and professor of divinity. He
joined Queen's College at the age of sixteen, and became a fel
low of Merton College in 1356. To the Latin fathers he gave
great attention, studied Aristotle in a Latin translation, and
devoted a portion of each day to the careful examination of
the Scriptures.
Wyclif first came into special prominence (c 1360) by de-
First comes fending the University against the encroachments of the
into pronu-
nence. " begging friars." These friars attempted to establish a
distinct jurisdiction, and to draw away the younger students to the
monastery. About 1365, he was present in Parliament as an
adviser in ecclesiastical matters. In 1367 he defended Edward
III. against the Pope, in his refusal to pay him the accustomed
tribute. In 1372 he received the degree of doctor of theology,
J Lects. on Eng. Lang., ist ser. ad loe. a P. 54,
8 Memoirs, p. 68. Cf. Preface to Wye. Work by Forshall and Madden.

Before Tyndale. THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 9
and began to lecture on divinity at Oxford, " with so universal
an applause, that almost every thing he said was received as
an oracle." In 1374 he was an ambassador from the King to
treat with the Pope's nuncios concerning the provisions of
ecclesiastical benefices in England. In 1377 he was tried
before an ecclesiastical Parliament, but was rescued from its
hostility through the abrupt interference of powerful friends at
Court. The same protection, together with the schism of the
Roman See caused by a double election of Popes, doubtless
saved him from threatened death by violence. Through Papal
influence he was, however, finally banished from Oxford in 1382,
and two years later on the last day of December, died at
Lutterworth. A scurrile monk of the period provided him
with the following gratuitous epitaph, which Fuller says was
no worse, not for want of malice, but of invention : " The
devil's instrument, church's enemy, people's confusion, here
tic's idol, hypocrite's mirror, schisms broacher, hatred sower,"
&C.1 In 1415 the Council of Constance, the same which condemned
Huss and Jerome of Prague, passed an order for burn- council of
ing the bones of Wyclif. This decree was enforced by Constance-
Pope Martin V., who commanded Fleming, bishop of Lincoln,
to execute the harsh edict, which he did in 1428.. His honored
bones were consumed, and the ashes thrown into the neighbor
ing Swift. Previously, in 1406, some of Wyclif s friends at
Oxford had published a document under the university seal,
certifying his learning, probity, and godliness. Among other
things they said : " Neither was this doctor convicted of any
heresy, either burned of our prelates after his burial. God
forbid that our prelates should have condemned a man of such
honesty for a heretic, who amongst all the rest of the university,
had written in Logic, Philosophy, Divinity, Morality, and the
speculative arts without an equal." 2
But in 1410 his doctrines were mercilessly denounced in full
congregation at the same place. In 1 564, however, Doctrines
. , ¦ • , ,, , ,, ¦ denounced
this university decisively annulled all previous statutes in 1410.
1 Fuller's Hist, Book iv., p. 171. Cf. Babels Mem., p. 27,
8 Foxe's Acts and Mon., v. p. 233.

IO HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. I
which had been enacted against Wyclif. And recently his
Alma Mater, at her own expense, has published in four vol
umes quarto, a splendid edition of his translation of the Bible.
Twenty years were consumed by the editors in their grateful
task, and one hundred and seventy manuscripts collated and
described by them in the preparation of the work.
Wyclif was a most prolific writer. A full list of his works,
Wyclif stating where copies in manuscript may still be found,
writer. in what language written, &c, is contained in Baber's
introductory narrative.1 More than three hundred of his pas
toral sermons, partly or wholly preserved, still remain. He
denied the Pope's temporal authority, as well as his infallibility
on points of doctrine. He held that the church of Rome was
no more at the head of all the churches than any other church,
and that Peter had no extraordinary powers conferred upon
him. He was far in advance of his age, but yet not wholly free
from the taint of its extravagant superstitions. He believed in
purgatory, but not in celibacy, or in church music. In direct
opposition to the Pope and priesthood of his day, he fearlessly
advocated and insisted on the supreme authority of the Holy
Scriptures in all matters of faith, which he said were " the law
of Christ, infinitely surpassing any other writing, how authentic
soever it might appear, because the authority of Christ is infi
nitely above that of all mankind."
For nearly twenty years, in the bloom of his life, Wyclif was
Work of engaged in the congenial work of translating the
translating. Scrjptures. Beginning with the Apocalypse, which he
completed about 1356, he afterwards prepared a version of the
Gospels, with which he also connected a commentary. Still
later, the remaining books of the New Testament were under
taken and a new version of the Apocalypse. The whole was
completed about 1380, four years before his death.
In the Old Testament portion, Wyclif seems to have asso-
The Old ciated with himself one Nicholas de Hereford. His
Testament Specjai WOrk, however, extended only to Baruch iii. 20
of the Apocrypha, the order of books in the Vulgate naturally
having been followed. The testimony to this fact is very
1 Memoirs, pp. 38-54.

Before Tyndale THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 1 1
direct, as in a manuscript copy of this version, yet extant, there
are found at this place in the book of Baruch the words,
" explicit translacionem Nicholay de Herford." The occa
sion for the abrupt termination of Hereford's labors at this
point (1382), was that he was suddenly cited before Arundel to
answer for his religious opinions, and was by him excommuni
cated and obliged to flee the country.1 Consequently the
remainder of the work, as it is supposed, fell wholly upon
Wyclif, who had, however, the happiness of seeing it quite
completed within the brief period that remained before his
death. Wyclif's translations of the Scriptures, as well as those of his
time generally, were themselves made from a transla- Facilities
tion, the Vulgate of Jerome. Even if he had under- work.
stood Greek, — he occasionally uses Greek words, — it is not
likely that he could have found, in all England, a copy of the
Greek Testament accessible, from which to make his transla
tion. Copies of the New Testament manuscripts, and other
manuscripts in Greek, were almost unknown in Western
Europe until the capture of Constantinople by the Turks in
1543, and the consequent diffusion of Greek learning by the
wide dispersion of Greek fugitives. The Hebrew of the Old
Testament, too, was only known through the same Latin ver
sion. The excellences and the defects of Jerome's work are
elsewhere pointed out.2 The precise text, however, on which
Wyclif depended, can only in general terms be called that of
Jerome. The Vulgate, and the version of Jerome, although regarded
as one and the same, were far from being identical. The
A mixed and corrupt text had sprung up through per- v^te-
sistent efforts, on the part of Jerome's successors, to bring his
version into harmony with those which had preceded it, — the
old Latin, — and particularly by importing into it certain terms
and expressions from the more ancient versions which Jerome
had specially excluded. This unauthorized and unwarranted
procedure introduced the greater confusion, from the fact that
in the New Testament of Jerome, the Vulgate was not a new
1 Foxe's Acts and Mon., v. p. 229. 8 Section on "Ancient Versions."

12 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. L
translation from the original, but itself a revision of preceding
versions, brought into supposed harmony with the original
Greek. Without doubt Wyclif used the text of the Vulgate
current in his time, but, as we have reason to believe, in con
nection with it, he also collated such scanty Latin manuscript
copies as were accessible. Considerable evidence has been
adduced to show that he used a text which appeared to him
after a comparison of old copies to be on the whole the most
correct.1 The critical author of the Prologue {Elucidarium Bibli-
Testimony orum) to a version which immediately succeeded
temporary. Wyclif's, reasonably supposed to be Purvey, says of
the work of Wyclif: " The commune latyne bybles have more
nede to be correctyd . . . than hath the englyshe byble late
translated." Wyclif rendered word for word, paying but little attention to
The trans- idioms, and consequently his version is often obscure.
lation baldly TT ' , ,, ... o ¦ „„
literal. He translated Matt. vm. 29, for instance : " What to
us and to thee, Jesus thou Son of God ? " 2 This extreme literal-
ness, his supposed coadjutor and successor in the work, above
referred to, considered a defect. His opinion was — " the best
translating is . . . to translate after the sentence, and not only
after the words, so that the sentence be as opyn (either opener)
in Englysh as in Latyne, and go not farre fro the letter."
The English of Wyclif's version is pronounced much more
The Eng- intelligible than that of his other works and generally
lish used, superior to it. The grandeur of the truths communi
cated seems to have commanded a more excellent form of
expression. Yet the language is popular, the language of the
people and not of the court. Marsh says : Wyclif's language
in the Bible differs as much from that of Chaucer, his contem
porary and follower, as does that of our own Bible from the
best models of literary composition in the present day.8
. Henry Knyghton, a contemporary, and canon of Leicester,
Circulation thus ungracefully testifies to the wide circulation of
Of this
version. this first complete English version of the Scriptures :
1 Tref. to Eng. Hex., p. 21. Cf. Westcott's Hist. Eng. Bible, p. 17.
' Lewis's Hist, pp. 17, 18. * Leas, on Eng. Lang., 1st ser., p. 625.

Before Tyndale. THE ENGLISH BIBLE. I3
" The Gospel which Christ delivered to the clergy and doctors
of the church, that they might themselves sweetly administer to
the laity and weaker persons with the hunger of their mind
according to the exigency of the times and the need of persons,
did this John Wyclif translate out of Latin into English ; . . .
whence through him it became vulgar, and more open to the
laity and women who could read, than it used to be to the most
learned of the clergy." J The number of copies still extant of
this version, including Purvey's revision, notwithstanding the
severe measures taken for their extirpation, also indicates a
wide diffusion. Authorities differ somewhat with respect to
the exact number ; but there are probably not less than one
hundred and seventy, of which thirty-three, fifteen of the Old
Testament and eighteen of the New, are Wyclif's, and the
remainder the recension of Purvey.2
The Convocation of Oxford, less than twenty-five years after
Wyclif's death (1408), enacted the following oppressive
rule : " It is a dangerous thing to translate the text
of Holy Scripture out of one tongue into another. . . . We
therefore decree and ordain, that no man henceforth by his own
authority translate any text of the Scriptures into English or
any other tongue by way of a book, pamphlet, or treatise ; and
that no man read any such book, pamphlet, or treatise, now
lately composed in the time of Wyclif . . . upon pain of the
greater excommunication, until the said translation be approved
by the ordinary of the place, or, if the case so require, by the
council provincial." 8
So powerfully indeed was the influence of Wyclif and
his supporters felt, that the ecclesiastical movement wyclif de-
r -sii -1 fended by
towards the suppression of his version had been carried the Duke
1 , , of Lancas-,
even into parliament, where, however, the reformer ter.
found a bold and able champion in the Duke of Lancaster
and other representatives of the court. To the complaint that
the translation of the Gospel into English was the occasion of
running into error, the Duke and his party adroitly replied, —
that there were more heretics among the Latins than any other
1 Eng. Hex., p. to.
2 Smith's Bib. Diet, Art. "Versions." Cf. Westcott, id., p. 24.
3 Foxe's Acts and Mon. ad loe.

14 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. I.
race, the Decretals mentioning no less than fifty-six, hence, by
inference, the Gospel should not be read in Latin. The Duke
also said : " We will not be the dregs (tail) of all mankind,
seeing other nations have the law of God in their own
tongue." The cost of a manuscript Bible at this early period was not
Cost of a f*11" frorn five marks, equal to two hundred dollars of
BMeatnpt our money, and then a sufficient salary to maintain a
this time. curate f0r a twelvemonth. But so highly was the
holy Book esteemed that the general poverty of the people was
no insuperable bar to its circulation, an entire wagon-load of
hay being sometimes exchanged for only a fragment of a
Gospel or Epistle in the familiar tongue.
John Purvey, who had acted as Wyclif s curate at Lutterworth,
Purvey's a man of distinguished attainments for his day, whom
recension. a competent authority called "The library ofthe Lol
lards, Wyclif's glosser (translator), an eloquent divine, and
famous for his skill in the law,'' is supposed, by the best author
ities, to have prepared a revision of Wyclif's version, which ap
peared about 1388. What renders this recension of Purvey of
particular interest, is the fact that it seems to have supplanted to
a great extent, as noted above, the original one of Wyclif and
De Hereford, there being four times as many of the former
now extant as of the latter. And it is also an interesting cir
cumstance, that more than four-fifths of these extant copies
must have been prepared subsequently to the prohibitory legis
lation of Arundel and his convocation in 140S. That these
copies were made for use is evinced by their small size in
many instances, adapting them alike to circulation and the
frequent necessity of concealment.1
Purvey, however, but entered into the labors of Wyclif, and
Special the success of the pupil's work should not be suffered to
honor due
Wyclif. detract from the honor due to the originator and
master, who also was the probable adviser and promoter of
the revision. Perhaps it is too much to say, with a late writer,
that the alterations in Purvey's recension are confined mainly
to those parts of the Old Testament ascribed to Wyclif's
1 Cf. Eng. Hex., p. 31 ; Westcott, id.

Before Tyndale. THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 1 5
chief coadjutor Dr. Nicholas de Hereford ; * but, the principles
on which the work of revision was conducted, are fully set
forth in the prologue already alluded to.
It is asserted by some that John de Trevisa, another contem
porary of Wyclif, and vicar of Berkely in Cornwall, Supposi-
also translated both the Old and New Testaments into o™er°eariy
English. But it is likely that this theory was started from version-
no more definite information than that Trevisa was in sympathy
with Wyclif and his friends in their opposition to the friars. No
manuscript copies of the English Bible, of this period, discover
the work of more than the two master-hands already men
tioned, with perhaps the exception of some slight evidence of
a partial revision of Purvey's version.2 Baber's testimony on
this point seems decisive: "John de Trevisa, who flourished
toward the end of the fourteenth century, enjoys the reputa
tion, in the estimation of some men of letters, of having pro
duced an English translation of the whole Bible ; but his title
to this fame has hitherto eluded all the researches I have made
to trace it. The erroneous opinion arose from a loose asser
tion of Caxton, our first printer, in his preface to the editio
princeps of the Polychronicon ; and upon such authority alone
it has been handed down by all historians or biographers, who
have detailed the particulars which they have gleaned of the life
of Trevisa."8 Scholars most conversant with the subject are not agreed
with respect to the influence of the labors of Wyclif Influence
and Purvey on the versions that followed nearly ofWyciif's
a hundred and fifty years later. Marsh is very de- its succes-
cided in his opinion, and says, that " the influence
of Wyclif upon Tyndale is too palpable to be mistaken,
and cannot be disguised by the grammatical differences,
which are the most important points of discrepancy between
them." Such critical eyes, however, as those of Westcott
and Ellicott see no such dependence, and these writers
entirely dissent from such a view. That there should be
considerable agreement between the versions of Wyclif and
1 Mrs. Conant's Hist, of Eng. Bible, p. 96.
1 Cf. Westcott, id. » Mem, &c, p. 72.

l6 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. i.
Coverdale, it would be natural to expect, as both translate
literally from the Vulgate. But Tyndale seems to settle the
matter with respect to his own version. He says : " Them that
are learned christenly, I beseche for as moche as I am sure
and my concience beareth me recorde, that of a pure entent,
singilly and faythfully, I have interpreted itt as farre forth as
god gave me the gyfte of knowledge and understandynge :
that the rudeness off this worke nowe at the fyrst tyme offende
them not : but that they consyder howe that I had no man to
counterfeit, nether was holpe with englysshe of eny that had
interpreted the same or soche lyke thinge in scripture before
tyme." 1
It is a singular circumstance, that, although this version of 1384
Only re- was the only Bible in the English language for a hun-
cently r,. °o
printed. dred and forty years, no eflort was made to give it in
a complete form to the public through the press, until the re
cent issue of a magnificent quarto edition by the University
of Oxford.
The following is Wyclif's translation of the Lord's Prayer :
TheLord's " Oure fadir that art in heuenes, halwid be thi name:
Prayer. thi kyngdom cumme to ; be thi wille don as in heuen
and in erthe. Gif to vs this day oure breed, oure other sub
stance : and forgeve to vs our dettis as we forgeue to ouer det-
tours ; and leede vs nat into temptacion, but delyuere vs fro
yuele. Amen."
1 Tyndale's N. T. (Ep. to Reader). Cf. Westcott, id, p. 172 j Ellicott on Revision, p. 59,
n. ; Marsh's Lects. on Eng. Lang., 1st ser., p. 628.

CHAPTER II.

VERSION OF TYNDALE.

THE new era of translations into English from the original
tongues of Scripture and of a printed English Bible, as
well in fact as the remarkable history of the " author- F!rst trans_
ized version" itself, maybe said to begin with Wil- ^"original!
liam Tyndale. He was born about 1484, probably &^nte^
in Gloucestershire, one hundred years after the death Blb'e-
of Wyclif. His earliest life is quite unknown ; but, like his
distinguished predecessor in the work of Biblical translation,
he was connected almost from childhood with the Ear]yrjfe
university of Oxford, " where he by long continu- °f Tyndale.
ance grew up and increased as well in the knowledge of
tongues and other liberal arts, as especially in the knowl
edge of the Scriptures, whereunto his mind was singularly
addicted." x
On the nth of March, 1502 (? 1503), Tyndale was ordained
a priest, and in 1508 (?) became a friar in the monastery of
Greenwich. For some years after 1509 the distinguished Eras
mus was professor of Greek at Cambridge, and Tyndale Meets
being consequently attracted thither, enjoyed the instruc- Erasmus-
tions of this able master of Greek learning. Here probably he
received, or more likely was confirmed in his strong convic
tions concerning the importance of vernacular translations of
the Scriptures. The opinion of Erasmus was at least openly
avowed. " I differ," he said, " exceedingly from those who
are unwilling that the divine writings should be translated into
the language of the common people and read by private per-
1 Foxe*s Acts and Mon., viii., p. 542.
2

18 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. II.
sons : as if either Christ had taught things so obscure, that
they could be hardly understood by a very few theologians ;
or as if the fortress of the Christian religion be set in this, —
that it be not known." 1
From Cambridge, Tyndale seems to have gone into Glouces-
T dai as tershire, to act as tutor in the family of Sir John Walsh.
tutor. Here he nourished the project, already formed, to de
vote his life to the great work of making the Scriptures acces
sible to the common people. Once in controversy with the
ignorant priests whom he met at his patron's table, he openly
proclaimed his design. One of them had said: "It were bet
ter to be without God's laws than the Pope's." Tyndale indig
nantly replied, " I defy the Pope and all his laws ; " and added,
that if God would spare his life, ere many years he would
cause a boy that drove the plough to know more of the Script
ures than he (the Pope) did.
Tunstall, having been appointed bishop of London, Oct.
, .. 22, 1522, and being esteemed a special friend of learn-
Tunstaii. jng( Tyndale, at the close of the year, went up to the
metropolis seeking service under his patronage, and especially
aid for his great undertaking, now definitely in hand, a vernacu
lar translation of the New Testament. As a proof of his liter
ary competency, he carried with him a translation which he
had made from the Greek of Isocrates. The bishop, however,
turned away the impecunious scholar under the polite pretext
of a full house.
Tyndale, after about a year in London, spent in unavailing
efforts to find encouragement for his grand enterprise, resolved
A vear of a* ^as* *° cross *° tne Continent. The impressions
doubt. received at this time he himself thus forcibly describes :
" In London I abode almost a year, and marked the course of
the world, and heard our praters (I would say our preachers),
how they boasted themselves and their high authority ; and
beheld the pomp of our prelates ; and I understood, at last,
not only that there was no room in my Lord of London's
palace to translate the New Testament, but also that there
was no place to do it in all England." 2
1 Eng. Hex.,.p. 43. 2 Pref. to Pent, p. 396.

Tyndale's Version. THE ENGLISH BIBLE. ip
No obstacles, however, could divert him from a determina
tion based on an unalterable love of the truth and love T . ,.
Is not dis-
of man. " I perceived," he wrote afterwards, " by couraged.
experience how that it was impossible to establish the lay
people in any truth, except the Scriptures were plainly laid
before their eyes in their mother tongue, that they might see
the process, order, and meaning of the text." :
It was in May, 1524, that Tyndale left England for Ham
burgh, guaranteed a slender support — ten pounds a Sails for
year, equal to about seven hundred dollars at the pres- nent.
ent time — by a noble friend in London, Sir Humphrey Mun-
mouth. When Tyndale met his rebuff from Tunstall, and
knew not which way to turn, this gentleman, an alderman of
London, had taken him into his house " half a year : " " and
there he lived," as Munmouth afterwards testified, " like a good
priest as methought. He studied most part of the day and of
the night at his book ; and he did eat but sodden meat by his
good will, nor drink but small single beer. I did promise him
ten pounds sterling to pray for my father and mother, their
souls. I did pay it when he made his exchange to Ham
burgh." 2
At this point, Tyndale's work of translating the Scriptures
began to be carried forward through thirteen years of His work
painful exile; and within twenty-four months of his tion begins.
departure from England, the first-fruits of his absorbing
pursuit, a copy of the New Testament, in the vernacular,
reached his native land. All the swift remainder of his event
ful life is closely identified with the one engrossing aim.
Obliged to adopt the disguise of an assumed name, to do his
work by stealth, to flee from city to city, hunted everywhere
with a relentless animosity during all these years, the amount
and splendid quality of his literary achievements are quite
amazing. Finally, betrayed, under the guise of friendship, by
one Philips, agent of Gardner, bishop of Winchester, he
was imprisoned during eighteen months in the castle of Vil-
vorde, near Brussels, and on Oct. 6, 1536, was put to death
1 Id., p. 394-
2 App. to Strype's Ec. Mem., No. 89. Cf. Henry Walter's Biograph. Notice, prefixed to
Doct Tract (Park. Soc), p. xxiv.

20 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. II.
by strangulation, and his body afterwards, as it were in the
climax of malice, given to the flames. The order for his death
was indeed signed by the Emperor Charles V., but with the
probable connivance, at least without the dissent, of Tyndale's
inveterate enemy, Henry VIII., and his immediate advisers.
The martyr's last words, reminding us of the prayer of the
sainted Stephen, were : " Lord, open the eyes of the King of
England ! "
Tyndale is thought to have been well qualified for the task
Qualifies- of translating the New Testament, when his labors on
translator, it first began, and it is inferred that he became a
thorough Hebrew scholar during his sojourn on the Continent.
The diary of Spalatinus secretary of Frederick, elector of
Saxony at this time, shows the estimation for scholarship,
though perhaps, as is alleged, an extravagant one, in which
the distinguished English exile was held in the region where
his work was done. " Von Busche," he says, " professor of
Hebrew in the university of Marburg, a personal friend of
Tyndale, told us that six thousand copies of the New Testa
ment in the English language had been printed at Worms,
and that this translation had been made by an Englishman
sojourning there with two other natives of England, who was
so skilled in seven languages, — Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Italian,
Spanish, English, and French, — that whichever he might be
speaking, you would think it to be his native tongue." 1 The
word here translated "French" is Gallicse, and is falsely ren
dered "German" by Anderson and others. The mistake is
one of importance, as bearing on the question of Tyndale's
assumed dependence on Luther's translation.
Previous to his leaving England, Tyndale enjoyed a repu-
Testimony tation for learning as well as piety, to which even his
ofMore. distinguished opponent, Sir Thomas More, pays re
luctant tribute. "He was, 'as men say,'" observed More,
" well knowen or he went over the see for a man of ryght
good lyuing, studyous, and well lerned in Scrypture and in
dyvers places in England was very well lyked and dyd gret
good with prechying." 2
1 And. Ann., p. 179. Cf. Westcott, id., p. 42, n. ' Eng. Hex., p. 45.

Tyndale's Version. THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 21
George Joye, avowedly not a friend of Tyndale, editor of
a pirated edition of his New Testament, and hence, A1 f
both by his relations to the translator and his literary J°ye-
qualifications, an important witness, also writes : " I am not
afraid to answer Master Tyndale in this matter (of the surrep
titious publication of his New Testament) for all his high
learning in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin," &C1
But Tyndale's work itself bears direct witness to his inde
pendent scholarship. In his preface to the Old Testa- The work
ment, he says : " I submit this book to be disallowed witness.
and also burnt, if it seem worthy when they have examined it
with the Hebrew, so that they put forth of their own translat
ing another that is more correct." 2 To his translation of the
Pentateuch he prefixes a table of Hebrew words,3 and else
where makes critical remarks on the Hebraisms of the New
Testament writers. In disputation with Sir Thomas More, he
deals in a spirit of scholarly comprehension and acuteness
with nice points of Hebrew and Greek philology.4 " The
Greek tongue," he says in another place, " agreeth more with
the English than with the Latin. And the properties of the
Hebrew tongue agree a thousand times more with the English
than with the Latin." 6 Westcott has discovered what he con
siders a crucial test of Tyndale's acquaintance with Hebrew
in an Appendix to his New Testament of 1534, as also con
clusive proof of his thoroughly independent scholarship as a
translator, notwithstanding indications that he had the Vulgate
and the translation of Luther before him.6
But as though with a purpose of setting at rest this vexed
question of Tyndale's knowledge of Hebrew, Provi- An or;ginai
dence has recently brought to light an original letter ¦rmdaS'S
of his in Latin, addressed to the Governor of the Pnson-
Casde while he was a prisoner at Vilvorde, and preserved in
the archives of the Council of Brabant, in which, among other
things, he pathetically pleads that he may be allowed a candle
in his cell during the lonely evenings, and the solace of his
1 And. Ann., p. 179. 4 An Answer to Sir Thos, More, p. 148, et passim.
2 R 397- 6 Obed. of a Christ. Man, p. 148. Cf. note p. 145, id.
8 Prol. to Book of Gen., p. 405. 6 Id., pp. 204, 205.

22 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. II.
Hebrew Bible, grammar, and dictionary. The whole letter is
so full of interest that we give it entire in Demaus's transla
tion : : —
" I believe, right worshipful, that you are not ignorant
of what has been determined concerning me ; therefore I
entreat your Lordship and that by the Lord Jesus, that if I am
to remain here [in Vilvorde] during the winter, you will re
quest the Procureur to be kind enough to send to me from
my goods which he has in his possession, a warmer cap, for I
suffer extremely from cold in the head, being afflicted with a
perpetual catarrh which is considerably increased in the cell.
A warmer coat also, for that which I have is very thin ; also a
piece of cloth to patch my leggings ; my overcoat has been
worn out ; my shirts are also worn out. He has a woolen
shirt of mine, if he will be kind enough to send it. I have also
with him leggings of thicker cloth for putting on above ; he also
has warmer caps for putting on at night. I wish, too, his per
mission to have a candle in the evening, for it is wearisome to
sit alone in the dark. But, above all, I entreat and beseech
your clemency to be urgent with the Procureur that he ?nay
kindly permit me to have my [ f <z] Hebrew Bible, Hebrew
Grammar, and Hebrew Dictionary, that F may spend my
time with that study. (Maxime autem omnium tuam clemen-
tiam rogo atque obsecro ut ex animo agere velit apud dominum
commissarium quatenus dignari velit mihi concedere Bibliam
Hebraicam, Gra?nmaticam Hebraicam, et vocabularium
Hebraicum, ut eo studio tempus conteram.) And in return
may you obtain your dearest wish, provided always it be con
sistent with the salvation of your soul. But if any other reso
lution has been come to concerning me, that I must remain
during the whole winter, I shall be patient abiding the will of
God to the glory of the grace of my Lord Jesus Christ, whose
Spirit. I pray, may ever direct your heart. Amen.
W. Tyndale."
While the question of Tyndale's ability to translate from
the original Hebrew is thus disposed of, his ability to deal with
1 Demaus's Life of T., pp. 475-477.

Tyndale's Version. THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 23
scholarly accuracy with the Greek of the New Testament is
even more clear. It will be found, if his version is thoroughly
examined, that he often leaves the renderings of the His Greek
Vulgate to follow the Greek text of Erasmus, and ship.
when Erasmus himself varies from the Greek in his own Latin
translation, in subservience to the text of the Vulgate, Tyndale
does not blindly accept the guidance of his former instructor,
but still adheres closely to the original. Moreover, not only
was Tyndale not specially indebted to the Vulgate, but he was
equally independent of the German version. The translator
himself declares in his reply to More: "When he (More)
saith, ' Tyndale was confederate with Luther,' that is not
truth." A thoroughly trustworthy critic, moreover, affirms :
" The translation of the New Testament [of Tyndale] itself, is
the complete proof of its own independence : it is impossible
to read through a single chapter without gaining the assurance
that Tyndale rendered the Greek directly." 1
The point which we have thus enlarged upon is one of no
little importance, not only as a matter of justice to the a matter
.of impor-
memory of a noble martyr to the cause of vernacular tance.
translations, but as bearing directly upon the current English
version, which carries so obviously and powerfully the impres
sion of Tyndale's self-denying and scholarly work. The ques
tion of his lack of scholarship in the original tongues of
Scripture, may have been started at first through a simple
inadvertence. The historian, Fuller, more renowned for force
than accuracy or elegance, supposing Tyndale to be unac
quainted with the Hebrew, had remarked : " I presume that
he (Tyndale) translated from the Latin." And Sir Thomas
More's statement, that the translator had been confederate with
Luther, was, without doubt, first made on the basis of simple
conjecture. Inasmuch as Luther had been engaged on a ver
nacular translation, and Tyndale, flitting about the Continent
to escape his English pursuers, would be likely to fall in with
one so noted, and one with whom he would be likely to have
not a little sympathy, the natural surmise originated, that Tyn
dale's version of the Scriptures was only a reproduction of
1 Westcott, id., pp. 174, 179.

24 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. II.
Luther's. And this mere conjecture came subsequently to be
asserted as a fact by Lewis, Johnson, Macknight, and others ;
while we find some of the most popular of later historians
lending themselves, perhaps unconsciously, to a perpetuation
of it as such.
Hallam, in his " Constitutional History of England," 1 says
Mistake of t^ia'; whether Tyndale made his version from the
HaUam. original tongues or the Vulgate, is a matter of dis
pute. And Ellicott has noticed that the same author in his
" History of the Literature of Europe," said : " That from
Luther's translation and from the Latin Vulgate, the English
translation of Tyndale and Coverdale is avowedly made." 2
Froude, likewise, in his eloquent " History of England,"
Froude's says •' " Tyndale saw Luther, and under his immedi-
error- ate direction translated the gospels and epistles while
at Wirtemberg," a statement which, with many others of this
author, equally erroneous, Westcott has overwhelmingly dis
proved.8 Bishop Marsh also, held and promulgated the same opinion
Mso of of the special obligation of Tyndale to Luther, but his
Mars?, j. position was ably and successfully disputed by Henry
D.D.fand Walter, a former pupil of the bishop, in a public let-
j.h. Blunt ter addressed to him. Sir J. R. Beard, D.D., in a late
treatise on Revision (1857), eyen makes it one of his reasons
for advocating a new version of the English Bible that Tyn
dale translated from Luther, and the royal translators (King
James's) copied from Tyndale. He adds that he (Tyndale)
doubtless consulted also the Hebrew and the Vulgate: but
not seldom he followed Luther alone.4 And one of the most
recent writers on this subject, who, moreover, in a previous
work purporting to be a " History of the English Reforma
tion," has giv^n a most unhistorical estimate of Tyndale and
his influence, makes the utterly loose and misleading statement
that Tyndale's New Testament was " supposed to have been
translated from Luther's German Bible." 6 None of these
1 Vol. i., p. 114. s Id., Append, viii.
1 On Revis., p. 56. « A Revised Eng. Bib., &C., pp. 26-59.
5 J. H. Brunt's Plain Acct of Eng. Bib., p. 37. Cf. Hist, of Ret in Eng., pp. 506,
546, 548.

Tyndale's Version. THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 25
sweeping assertions have more than a shadow of critical and
historical support ; much less a foundation sufficient to justify
the explicitness and persistency with which they continue to
be reiterated. That Luther's work exerted some influence on
that of Tyndale cannot be denied, but it was chiefly Luther's
other writings that left their impression upon the Englishman's
mind. In his prologues, his vigorous marginal notes, and his
controversial writings generally, Tyndale was undisguisedly
Lutheran, not infrequently appropriating the very language
of the German reformer ; but in the translation of the Old
Testament, and especially the New, he was as conspicuously
himself. He seems, indeed, to have had a full appreciation of the
heavy responsibility of a translator of the Holy Scrip- Tyndale's
tures. Writing to his friend Fry th, then incarcerated tion of his
in the Tower, in reply to the charges of Sir Thomas biiities.
More against him, he said : " Against the day we shall all appear
before our Lord Jesus Christ to give a reckoning of our doings,
I call God to witness that I never altered one syllable of
God's Word against my conscience ; nor would this day, if all
that is in the earth, whether it be pleasure, honor, or riches,
might be given me."1
The period when Tyndale began his work was specially
propitious and more favorable to such an undertaking, Linguistic
. develop-
in some respects, than any which had gone before, ments of
r J ° the period
At about the beginning of the sixteenth century, the favorable
hitherto almost exclusive study of Latin had given dale's work.
place, notwithstanding the protest of ignorant monks, to the
earnest pursuit of the primitive tongues of the Bible, Hebrew
and Greek. And the study of these languages in turn, not only
provided the needful discipline to make good translators of
the original Scriptures, but stimulated the work of translation
itself, and furnished the opportunity which called forth the
noble efforts, in this direction, of such men as Lefevre in
France, Zuinglius in Switzerland, Luther in Germany, and
Tyndale in England.
At the University of Alcala, Cardinal Ximenes had made
1 Foxe's Acts and Mon., viii., p. 514.

26 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. II.
special provision for the study of Hebrew and Greek, leaving
study of the Polyglot as a notable monument of his own devo-
languages. tion to sacred philological studies. In 151 6 appeared
from an already busy printing-press at Basle, the Greek Testa
ment of Erasmus, with a Latin version, and notes. The same
year, a chair of sacred languages was endowed by Busleider at
Louvain. In 15 1 7, Fox, Bishop of Winchester, founded a chair of
Latin and Greek at Corpus Christi College, Oxford. In 15 19,
Woolsey founded a professorship of Greek at his own college
in the same place. Henry the Eighth, too, fully sanctioned
the new learning, declaring that not only should the study of
the Scriptures in the originals be permitted in future, but be
regularly incorporated as a department in the academical
curriculum. The Hebrew was studied with like zeal as the Greek.
Special About four years after the birth of Tyndale (1488), a
Hebrew, complete Hebrew Bible appeared from the printing-
press of Soncino. Not long after, within the limits of a single
year, four editions were published and distributed. Already
before the appearance of Tyndale's New Testament in Eng
land (1526), fourteen editions ofthe Old Testament in Hebrew
had been published and widely dispersed unchecked. Numer
ous grammars and lexicons, moreover, were in circulation,
some of them like that of Budaeus (Paris, 1529), commanding
respect at this day.
The first Hebrew grammar appeared in 1503 ; the first die-
Grammar Nonary of the language in 1506; the first Chaldee
ofth'elan-8 grammar in 1527. The Polyglot of Ximenes (1517),
guage- contained also a translation of the Targum of On-
kelos, a Hebrew grammar, and a Hebrew and Chaldaic lexi
con. The first Hebrew professor was appointed at Oxford,
in 1530, but the language had been previously pursued at that
institution. Pace, the secretary of Henry the Eighth, wag
reputed to be familiar with Greek, Hebrew, and Chaldee. The
Hebrew text accessible at this time, that of Ben Chayim (pub.
1525)i 1S ^d to have been °f a high order, being more in
harmony with the original Scriptures than was the Greek text

Tyndale's Version. THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 27
of the period, which was based almost solely on the later manu
scripts. Even before Tyndale had completed his student life at
Oxford, translations of the whole Bible had been made Tyndale's
into Spanish, .French, Italian, Dutch, and Bohemian. tiesforUiirT-
And though it is possible that he knew nothing of furl."0 °uI"
Hebrew previous to his going to the Continent, he had time
enough for its thorough study before his translation of parts of
the Pentateuch in 1530. The facilities for such studies, too,
among the scholars and especially learned Jews with whom
he must have mingled in Worms, Cologne, Hamburgh, and
Antwerp, were unsurpassed.1
It is not to be supposed that these efforts to diffuse more
widely a critical knowledge of the original text of Opposition
Holy Scripture, were made without the usual opposi- monks"*"
tion of a strong — i.e., strong in ignorance and prejudice —
reactionary party. In 153 1 Tyndale was moved to write in
the stark language of those rough times : " Remember ye not
how within this thirty years and far less, and yet dureth to this
day, the old barking curs, Dunn's disciples, and the like draff
called Scottists, the children of darkness, raged in every pulpit
against Greek, Latin, and Hebrew?" Monks declaimed from
their desks that there was now a new language invented called
Greek, of which people should beware as the source of all
heresies ; that in this language had come forth a book called
the New Testament, which was now in everybody's hands,
and was full of thorns and briers : that there was also another
language started up which they called Hebrew, and that they
who learned it were turned Jews.2 Sir Thomas More, also,
mentions a curious instance of the genius of a learned monk.
He " thorou out all ye gospels scraped out diabolus and wrote
Jesus Christus, by cause he thought the deuyls nam was not
mete to stande in so good a place." 3 Even the ^governing
power of England at this time, in its ideas of mental and moral
enlightenment, was not so far in advance of these examples.
1 "Das Studium der Hebraischen Sprache in Deutschland vom Ende des xv. bis zur
Mitte des xvi. Jahrhunderts. Breslau, 1870."
2 Lewis's History, &c, pp. 54, 55- s Dabney's Mem., p. 25.

28 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. II.
As late as 1542 an order was promulgated that " all men
might read the Scriptures except servants : but no woman
except ladies who had leisure and might ask somebody the
meaning." J
At such an epoch as this, and under the circumstances
First trans- already related, Tyndale left London for Hamburgh,
ifshedSmUb" where he entered at once upon his long-deferred work.
Js»5. it was ;n the summer of 1524 that he reached his place
of refuge, and before a year had passed, early in 1525, he had
completed, issued, and published a translation of the Gospels
of Matthew and Mark. It should be stated that Demaus holds,
contrary to the usual opinion, that Tyndale returned to Ham
burgh, where he had first landed, only long enough to receive
his remittance from Munmouth ; that his earliest work of
translating was done at Wittenberg, and that the printing
was done at Cologne. He even hesitates to accept as con
clusively proved the assertion that Tyndale published the
Gospels of Matthew and Mark during the first year of his
exile, thinking it possible that they may have been fragments
of Wyclif's version in circulation.2 The same 3'ear (1525) he
proceeded to Cologne, where he set about the publication of
the complete New Testament in English. Its translation he
had effected alone. William Roye was his amanuensis at
Worms, but was not even with him at Hamburgh. And Fryth
could not have joined him before the autumn of 1526. 3
At Cologne the work was interrupted by the interference
Work inter- of lohn Cochlaeus, an emissary of the anti-reform party
feredwithby ."L , , _ '. J . . ,,. , r /
Cochkeus. ot Lngland. Koye, in some satirical lines subsequently
published, thus describes him : —
"A little, praty, foolish poade,
But although his stature' be small,
Yet men say he lacketh no gall,
More venomous than any toad."4
Consequently Tyndale, taking Roye his present coadjutor with
him, fled to Worms, a city now almost wholly Lutheran, and
1 Selden's Works, iii., 2010, byNewcome.
2 Life of T., pp. 103-107.
8 And. Ann., p. 89. Cf. Westcott's Hist Eng. Bib., p. 36.
• Harleian Miscellany, vol. ix. Cf. Demaus's Life of T., p. 113.

Tyndale's Version. THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 2g
famous as the place into which, four years before, Luther had
made his triumphant entrance. But Cochlasus, having already
sent a warning to England, together with a description of the
forthcoming work, the translator, to mislead his persecutors, and
possibly also as a matter of convenience to his new printer,
adroitly changed the form of the book from a quarto to an
octavo, or rather prepared a second edition to be issued before
the first, and to be published without note or comment. The
quarto edition, however, containing marginal glosses was pub
lished almost immediately afterwards, and both editions reached
England at about the same time, early in 1526.
This was eighty years after the invention of printing, and
fifty-eight subsequent to the introduction of the art into Bible first
England. No part of the Scriptures had been printed English.
in English before this New Testament of Tyndale, except the
seven penitential Psalms by Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, in
1505.1 Both of these first two editions of Tyndale's English
New Testament were published anonymously ; but owing to
the advertisement of Cochlasus the more pretentious quarto
attracted immediate attention, while the unobtrusive octavo
began to circulate under its cover with but little public notice.
By 1530 six editions of the New Testament in English had
been published from various places on the Continent, 0ther
three of them pirated editions, on the basis of Tyn- *^ZS
dale's, and had been carried in ship-loads of wheat, lssuecL
bales of goods, and by other ingenious methods to their desti
nation, and were there covertly distributed. The surreptitious
editions were published by certain Dutch printers at Antwerp
merely for the purpose of gain, the text of Tyndale having been
boldly appropriated as also ignorantly mutilated. Another, a
fourth edition, these unscrupulous tradesmen also put forth in
1534, on which they employed George Joye, an Englishman,
in order that the more prominent errors of former editions,
which had injured their sale, might be corrected.
Joye seemed not unwilling thus to stand in the way of
Tyndale, and while he freely used his version, making joyeism.
it the substance of his own, he also took unwarrantable terference-
1 Westmin. Rev., Jan., 1857.

30 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. II.
liberties with it, and at last, even more unhandsomely sent it
forth as the work of Tyndale himself. As it would be natural
to expect, Tyndale was greatly tried by this unfriendly inter
ference of Joye, especially as he was at that very time engaged
on a revised edition of his own New Testament, which appeared
in November of the same year. In his preface to this edition
he thus declares his grievance : —
" Wherefore, I beseech George Joye, yea, and all other too,
Tyndale for to translate the Scripture for themselves, whether
grievance, out of Greek, Latin, or Hebrew. Or if they will
needs ... let them take my translations and labors, and change
and alter and correct at their pleasure, and call it their own
translation and put to their own names, and not to play bo-peep
after George Joye's manner. . . . But I neither can nor yet will
suffer any man that he shall go, take my translation, correct it
without name, and make such changing as I myself durst not
do, as I hope to have my part in Christ, though the whole
world should be given me for my labor." 1
Previously to the preparation of his revised New Testament,
His transia- Tyndale had already begun the work of translating
Old Testa- t^ie Old Testament. Genesis and Deuteronomy first
ment appeared separately, and the following year the remain
ing books of the Pentateuch. All were gathered into one vol
ume and published with a preface, early in 1530 or 1531.2
And three years later was published his version of the book
of Jonah, as well as the " Epistles of the Old Testament," the
latter in connection with the revised New Testament. Tyn
dale's remaining work on the Old Testament, which was not
inconsiderable, including a version of the historical books
succeeding the Pentateuch up to II. Chronicles, failed to be
published until after his martyrdom. Through the kindness
of his jailer at Vilvorde, he was enabled just before his death
to transmit his valuable papers to Thomas Poynitz of Antwerp,
through whose fidelity they fell into the hands of John Rogers,
{alias Matthew), by whom they were subsequently edited. In
his later studies, the laborious translator had the assistance of
the accomplished Fryth, whom, while yet a student at Cam
bridge, he had led to Christ.
1 Westcott, Id., p. 69. 2 Demaus's Life of T., pp. 229-233.

Tyndale's Version. THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 3 1
In connection with most of his translations, Tyndale incor
porated marginal comments and glosses, not infre- Tyndale's
quently of a highly controversial character. As he Solfesand
was obliged to publish his works by stealth, it might comnlents-
have been expected, indeed, that he would regard such an
opportunity for any good and hopeful effort to improve the
moral condition of his countrymen too precious to be lost.
But his main dependence was upon the simple, unadulterated
text of Scripture. " I assure you," he wrote to an ambassador
of the king sojourning on the Continent, " if it would stand
with the king's most gracious pleasure to grant only a bare
text ofthe Scriptures to be put forth among his people, I shall
immediately make faithful promise not to write more."1
But the hour had not yet struck for so great an advance in
the cause of religious liberty. The historian Fuller Reception
ttl6S6 V6r-
thus graphically describes the rage of Tyndale's oppo- sions met
nents upon the first appearance of his English New England.
Testament : " When Tyndale's translation came over to Eng
land, O how were the popish clergy cut to the heart ! How
did their blear eyes smart at the shining of the Gospel in the
vulgar tongue ! Hall heard the town-clerk of London swear
a great oath that he would cut his own throat, rather than the
Gospel should be read in English, but he brake promise and
hanged himself." 2
Even Sir Thomas More, as we have intimated, was induced
by his friend, Bishop Tunstall, to participate in the sir Thomas
attack on the new version. His work appeared in J£3atj£
the form of a dialogue. At the outset he felt obliged verslon-
to obtain a special dispensation to be allowed to read the
" heretical books " to which he was to make reply. More's
treatise, according to Lewis, " was written with humor and
a mixture of diverting stories, and the whole suited to the
capacity of the common people." In all, when printed in
black-letter, he wrote against Tyndale more than a thousand
folio pages.
One of his specific charges against the new version was that
it was " so changed and corrupted from the good and His specific
wholesome doctrine of Christ, to their own devilish charses-
1 And. Ann., p. 55. a Dabney's Mem., p. 33.

32 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. II.
heresies as to be quite another thing." In proof of this he
states that Tyndale has mistranslated three words of great
weight, and that they were often repeated and rehearsed in
his book. They were the words "priest," "church," and
" charity." " The first of them he never calls ' priest,' but
' senior ; ' the second he styles the ' congregation ; ' and the
third he nameth ' love.' "
Tyndale replied in detail to More's charges, and among
Tyndale's other things said : " Verily charity is not known Eng-
repiy- lish. in that sense which dycatrj requireth." 1 And in
this opinion he is supported by not a few modern scholars.
The late Dean Alford, it is especially to be noted, in his
" Revision of the New Testament," returns to Tyndale's ren
dering of the word. Speaking of Bishop Tunstall's bold asser
tion, that he had found two thousand mistakes in the version of
Tyndale, the latter answered : " There is not so much as one
i therein, if it lack a tittle over its head, but they have noted it
and number it unto the ignorant people for a heresy." 2
But the hostile party not content with weapons that could
The fagot De used equally by either side, at last resort to the
employed. flnaj argument of bigotry, — the fagot. Emissaries of
the prelates, under protection of an order procured from the
king, buy up or seize without compensation, all copies of Tyn
dale's translations which can be found, not only in England
but on the Continent, and straightway consign them to the
flames. The aid of diplomacy even is invoked, in order that
the printing of more copies in other countries may be peremp
torily stayed. Yet notwithstanding all these authoritative and
powerful attempts at suppression, the Word of God " exceed
ingly grew and prevailed." And the ultimate extraordinary
success of Tyndale's version " amidst the dangerous inconsis
tency of a tyrant, and the inveterate prejudice of a strong Rom-.
ish party, was largely due, under the providence of God, to
the native zeal and prudence of the friends of the Reformation,
— including of course the high character of the version itself, —
and to the supreme importance which he and his associates
ever attached to the matter of introducing and improving Eng-
1 Ans. to Sir Thos. More's Dial., p. 21. 2 pref. to pent.( p. Jg3.

Tyndale's Version. THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 33
lish translations of the Bible." Still the damaging effect of
persecution was not inconsiderable. Of the fifteen thousand
copies which composed the first six editions of Tyndale's ver
sion but a few imperfect representatives remain. One was
found bound up, as if for concealment, with an unimportant
religious tract.
As an example of the spirit which governed the hostile
movement a single instance may be given : John Tyn- Their extreme
dale, a younger brother of the translator, Thomas Put- measures.
nam, and another young man, were arrested under directions
from the bishop of London for having in their possession cop
ies of Tyndale's New Testament. By order of Sir Thomas
More they were thrust into prison. And subsequently the
Lords of- the Star Chamber pronounced against them this sen
tence : " That they should be sent to the Counter (a certain
prison) of London and there remain until the next market-day,
and there each of them to be set upon a horse, and their faces
to the horses' tails, and to have papers upon their heads, and
upon their outward apparel, that is to say upon their gown or
' cloaks, to be tacked or pinned thick with the said New Testa
ment and other books. And at the Standard at Cheapside
should be made a great fire whereinto every of them should
throw their said books ; and further, to abide such fines to be
paid to the king, as shall be assessed upon them." 1
Such unworthy efforts, however, to extirpate vernacular
translations, discountenance the free use of the Bible, The circu-
, lation of
and put checks on freedom of conscience, did not by the Bible
.... not sup-
any means answer the expectations of their originators, pressed.
Bibles, said Sir Thomas More in 1532, continued to be im
ported " thick and three-fold," " by the whole vats full at once."
The conclusion was soon reached, therefore, that to burn Bibles
and subject such as held them to all sorts of indignities and
annoyances was quite insufficient. They must also proceed
to burn the possessors of Bibles. And among the many
who at this time went on fiery chariots to heaven, were Bil
ney (Aug. 19th, 1530), and later in the year Bayfield and
Tewksbury. And three years afterward (July 4th, 1533) the
1 And. Ann., p. 141.
3

34 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. II.
noble Fryth was honored at Smithfield with a similar mar
tyrdom. Tyndale himself was by no means discouraged on account
Tyndale's of the animosity with which his work was assailed.
spirit Before he began it he seems fully to have counted its
cost. When the tidings of the furious opposition which his
New Testament had excited in England was brought to him
he wrote in a spirit of heroic patience : " Some man wil ask,
parouenture, why I take the laboure to make this werke, inso
much as they wil brunne it, seeing they brunt the Gospel. I
answer in brunninge the New Testament, they did none other
thinge than I looked for : no more shal the doo if the brunne
me also : if it be God's will it shall be so." x
All persecution in fact was unavailing to withstand the
Persecu- popular tendency towards a fuller liberty, or dispel an
vailing. almost universal hunger of the heart for the teachings
of the Bible. The cause was God's, who made the wrath of
men to praise Him. Two editions of Tyndale's version, subse
quent to 1530, were carried into England annually, and there
readily disposed of to eager friends. On the year of Tyndale's
death there were even as many as ten editions of these several
translations that found their way to his native land. The move
ment was too powerful, even for the government successfully
to cope with, and in its conflict with the Papacy, the occasion
soon came, under the providence of God, when it was discov
ered even to be politic to change front and foster that which
before it had so bitterly opposed.
In 1534, while the fugitive translator was yet alive to rejoice
The Govem- in the success of his work, a petition was presented to
ment at last ,,•,,, /-, .
succumbs. the king by the clergy in Convocation, praying that a
translation of the Scriptures might be made into English.
The matter, as we shall hereafter see, was pushed by Crum-
well. Influences from two directions not to be resisted, on the
one hand, from the masses of the people who demanded the
Word of God in their own language, and, on the other hand,
from the Papal party hostile alike to the free circulation of the
Scriptures and to the ruling power of England, conspired to
produce the mighty change. 1 Eng. Hex., p. 49.

Tyndale's Version. THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 35
We cannot perhaps, more profitably conclude this brief
account of Tyndale's great life-work, than by giving General
the estimate of it which has been formed by distin- ticsofTyn-
guished scholars, and for the most part in their own sion.
language. With respect to the generally unnoticed point of
the mechanical execution of his version, the following interest
ing notice appears in Dabney's Memoir : 1 " While the voices
of antiquarians and critics unite in the highest eulogiums on
the version itself, it is not to be disguised that, as to its mechan
ical part, every page is enstamped with marks of haste. The
harassed life of its unfortunate author is made present to our
thought ; and fancy paints, without effort, the bloodhounds of
a merciless church tracking his footsteps. Broken in upon in
the midst of the drudgery of the press in one city, he gathers
up his fragments in what condition he may, and flees to an
other to complete his interrupted labors. With this in full
remembrance, the orthography so curiously varying, even in
the same paragraph or sentence, the confounding of distinct
words through a single misplaced letter, the withholding or
bestowment of capitals ad libitum as it were, the unsightly
exchange of the leading vowels as initial letters, — as ' o ' for
'a,' &c, — the seeming disdain of rule throughout, all find a
prompt solution."
Tyndale felt not only the need of translating directly from
the original tongues, but also that a matter of great- Faithful to
6 " - . the text and
est concern was to give the exact sense ot the sa- sense of
tlie sacred
cred writer. " He looked on all the later theologi- writers.
cal associations that had gathered round the words of the New
Testament as hinderances rather than helps, and sought as far
as possible to get rid of them. ... In this, as in other things,
Tyndale was in advance, not only of his own age, but of the
age that followed him. To him, however, it is owing that the
versions of the English Church have throughout been popular
and not scholastic. All the exquisite grace and simplicity
which have endeared the authorized version to men of the
most opposite tempers and contrasted opinions is due mainly
to his clear-sighted truthfulness. . . . And throughout there is
the pervading stamp, so often wanting in other like works, of
'P.i.

36 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. II.
the most thorough truthfulness. , No word has been altered to
court a king's favor, or please bishops, or make out a case for
or against a particular opinion." x
Archbishop Trench, moreover, calls attention, as among
English many other excellences of this grand translation in
fationloThe point of style, to the remarkable felicities of language
version. z it contains, which have now become household words
wherever the English language is spoken. He particu
larly cites the expressions, " the Author and Finisher of our
faith ; " and the sublime passage closing the eleventh chapter
of Hebrews, including the words, " turning to flight the army
of the aliens," &c, without doubt wholly due to the genius of
Tyndale. Another close student of the old English language and liter-
Opinion of ature says, that, "in fact, with here and there an
Marsh.' exception, the difference between Tyndale's New Tes
tament and that of 161 1 is scarcely greater than is found be
tween two manuscript copies of most modern works which
have undergone frequent transcription ; " that " when we
study our New Testaments, we are in most cases perusing the
identical words penned by the martyr Tyndale, nearly three
hundred and fifty years ago ; and, hitherto, the language of
English Protestant faith and doctrine may be fairly said to
have undergone no change." 2
Bishop Ellicott entertains a similar opinion. " Our Eng-
Bishop lish Testament of the present day," he says, " after
concurs. all its changes, revisions, and remodellings, is still
truly and substantially the venerable version of Tyndale, the
martyr. On its pages are the enduring traces ofthe labors of
a noble and devoted life, and the seal with which it is sealed
is the seal of blood."8
And the candid and accurate author of the recent excellent
Westcott's "History of the English Bible," after pointing out
estimate. Tyndale's painstaking as a reviser of his own work,
proceeds to say : " This patience of laborious emendation com
pletes the picture of the great translator. In the conception and
1 E. H. Plumptre in Smith's Bib. Diet, Art "Versions."
2 Lects. on Eng. Lang., rst set, p. 625.
8 On Revision, &c, p. 85.

Tyndale's Version. THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 3*7
style of his renderings, he had nothing to modify or amend.
Throughout all his revisions he preserved intact the charac
teristics of his own great work. Before he began, he had pre
pared himself for a task of which he could comprehend the full
difficulty. He had rightly measured the momentous issues of
a vernacular version of the Holy Scriptures, and determined
once for all the principles on which it must be made. His
later efforts were directed simply to the nearer attainment of his
ideal. To gain this end he availed himself of the best help
which lay within his reach ; but he used it as a master, not as a
disciple. In this work alone, he felt that substantial inde
pendence was essential to success. In exposition or exhor
tation he might borrow freely the language or the thought
which seemed suited to his purpose, but in rendering the
sacred text he remained throughout faithful to the instincts
of a scholar.
" From first to last, his style and his interpretation are his
own ; and in the originality of Tyndale is included, in StyIe and
a great measure, the originality of our English, ver- "on'rvnt"
sion. For not only did Tyndale contribute to it dale's own-
directly the substantial basis of the Old Testament (in all
probability) and the whole of the New, but he established a
standard of Biblical translation which others followed. It is
even of less moment that by far the greater part of his trans
lation remains intact in our present Bibles, than that his spirit
animates the whole.
" He toiled faithfully himself; and, where he failed, he left to
those who should come after the secret of his success. His plan
. _ , _ , afterwards
Ihe achievement was not tor one, but tor many ; but adopted.
he fixed the type according to which later laborers worked.
His influence decided that our Bible should be popular
and not literary, speaking in a single dialect, and that
so by its simplicity it should be endowed with permanence.
He felt by a happy instinct the potential affinity between
Hebrew and English idioms, and enriched our language
and thought for ever with the characteristics of the Semitic
mind." 1 1 Westcott's Hist Eng. Bib., pp. 209-211.

38 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. II.
We append the rendering of the Lord's Prayer found in the
The Lord's first edition of Tyndale's New Testament published
Prayer ac- , , , , , .
cordingto in 1526. The points of resemblance and the variations
the version TTr ,._ . , r .
of 1526. between it and that of Wyclif, given above, furnish an
interesting study.
" O oure father which arte in heven, halowed be thy name.
" Let thy kingdom come.
" Thy wyll be fulfilled as well in erth as hit ys in heven.
" Geve vs this daye oure dayly breade ;
" And forgeve vs our treaspases even as we forgeve them
which treaspas vs.
" Leede vs not into temptacion, but delyvre vs ffrom yvell.
" Amen."

CHAPTER III.
VERSIONS OF COVERDALE, MATTHEW (ROGERS), TAVERNER,
AND THE "GREAT BIBLE."
THE great desire of Tyndale's heart had been that the
whole Bible might be given to the people of Fir5t com.
England in their own language. To him belongs the oJ-^hoie
honor of the grand conception, as also of the inaugu- f^ 'fr™*-
ration of the work and of overcoming the principal ^""f1-^
obstacles to its accomplishment. But he was not per- prmt-
mitted in his lifetime to see its full realization. This priv
ilege was reserved for his legatees and successors.
As early as Dec. 19, 1534, two years before Tyndale's mar
tyrdom, Convocation had been forced, as we have seen, by the
impossibility of keeping out his translation, as well as the
desire to put a check on an obtrusive Romanism, to adopt a
resolution to the effect that the people might possess the Scrip
tures in the vernacular, provided they could be prevented from
disputing on doctrinal points, and should be allowed to have
only an authorized version. Cranmer, Crumwell, and the
king were all irretrievably committed against Tyndale, so that
when the reaction in favor of English translations of the Scrip
tures began, his translation, except it might be under cover,
could not be cdnsistently encouraged. But even in this partial
concession of the Government, the prayer of the banished
scholar was virtually answered : " If it would stand with the
king's most gracious pleasure to grant only a bare text of
Scripture to be put forth among his people, ... be it the trans
lation of what person soever shall please his Majesty, I shall
. . . most humbly submit myself at the feet of his royal

40 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. Ill,
Majesty, offering my body to suffer what pain or torture, yea
what death his grace will, so that this be obtained."
The first to pluck the fruit of these changed circumstances,
which now made the printing of the English Bible even a
matter of expediency, — a change due mainly to the efforts of
Tyndale and his coadjutors, and achieved only at the bitter cost
Miles Cov- which he had prophetically foreshadowed, — was Miles
erdale en- „, T ' . ,••
ters into . Coverdale. He was born in a district of the same
TvticIsIg' s
labors. name in Yorkshire, in the year 1488, and hence was
about four years younger than Tyndale. His education was
pursued in an Augustine Monastery, Cambridge, and he took
priest's orders in 15 14, under John, bishop of Chalcedon, at
Norwich. Being a diligent student of the Scriptures, he was
from the first, more or less at variance with the current
order of ecclesiastical affairs. In 1528 he preached against
auricular confession, as being necessary to forgiveness ; also,
against the worship of images and the doctrine of transub-
stantiation. In 153 1 he received at Cambridge the degree of Bachelor of
Bachelor Canon Law. Until 1535, however, when the first edi-
of Canon . ^^->
Law. tion of his Bible appeared, his life was a secluded one.
The short time during which Coverdale was engaged in the
preparation of this Bible, about eleven months, suggests the
probability that it had employed his energies during several
years of previous retirement. In 1538 he was in Paris for the
purpose of superintending, in connection with Grafton, the
publication of the so-called " Great Bible." And the same
year two editions of his own New Testament, with the Latin in
parallel columns, were carried through the press. In 1539 ne
was employed by Crumwell to prosecute heresy in Berkshire.
The next year, doubtless on account of the execution of his
patron, Lord Crumwell, he left England for Tubingen, Ger
many. Here he was subsequently married.
Soon after the accession of Edward VI., Coverdale re-
Accession turned to England. In 1550 he was appointed one of
ward vi. a commission against the Anabaptists. The same year
he published a new edition of his Bible. In 155 1 he was sent
to preach to the rebels in Devonshire ; was consecrated bishop

Coverdale's Version. THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 41
of Exeter Aug. 13, 155 1, and found himself too poor to pay
the "first-fruits" due to the king.
Edward VI. having in the mean time died, Coverdale was
deprived of his bishopric in 1553, and, by an order Reignof
dated August 20th of the same year, summoned to Mary-
appear before a Council to answer the charge of heresy.
For many months he was detained in prison, but through the
interference of the King of Denmark, Charles II., was finally
released, and went to Friesland, where he became preacher to
the exiles in Wesel.
In 1558 he was at Geneva, but returned to England the
same year, Queen Mary having been succeeded by her sister
Elizabeth. He received the degree of "D.D." from Rei f
the university of Cambridge in 1563, having been pre- Ellzabeth-
viously honored with the like dignity by the university of
Tubingen. The same year he was presented to the living
of St. Magnus, London Bridge, the " first-fruits " being again
remitted on account of poverty. This position he resigned in
1566 through conscientious scruples with respect to the wear
ing of gowns, &c. ; and in February, 1569, he passed away,
greatly lamented, an immense concourse of people following
his body to the grave.
A fair estimate of Coverdale's character is hardly possible
on account of its striking contrast with that of Tyn- Estimate
dale. He fell far behind the latter with respect to character.
originality, boldness, knowledge of the original tongues of
Scripture, and in the apparent motives leading to the work
of translation. His intimate connection with a government,
ordinarily so hostile to the Reformation, seems almost like
truckling, compared with Tyndale's independence, and not
infrequent defiance. But, undoubtedly, the two men were
differently constituted by nature, and the conception of the
reform to be accomplished was, in the one case, wholly seized
and operative at once ; in the other, a slow product of disci
pline and growth. Coverdale was nearly sixty years of age
before he reached Tyndale's standard of ecclesiastical inde
pendence, and then no honors or emoluments 'of office could
tempt him from the path of conscientious duty.

42 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. ill.
His work on behalf of the English Bible was of some
Work on importance. He himself, however, always took a
Bible.1'8"' depreciative and modest view of it. He undertook
the labor of translation at first very reluctantly, and with the
understanding that he would be allowed to retire from the field
when a better man should be found for the place. He seemed
fully to realize the value of Tyndale's translation as far as it
had gone, and made no effort to supplant it. At first the hope
may have been secretly entertained that the prisoner of Vil-
vorde would, even yet, be spared to complete the work he had
so well begun.
In the account which he gives of his own translation, he
Defers to writes: "Though Scripture be not worthily minis-
Tyndaie. tered to thee in this translation by means of my rude
ness ; yet if thou be fervent in thy prayer, God shall not only
send it in a better shape by the ministration of other that
began it before (Tyndale), but shall also move the hearts of
them which as yet meddled not withal, to take it in hand, and
to bestow the gift of their understanding thereon." 1
After what had already occurred, it would have been too
Position of P^am a confession of defeat on the part of the king for
the king, njm to order directly a translation of tire Scriptures
to be made into English ; and hence the movement emanated
from those high in authority, — who, however, were royal confi
dants, — especially from Crumwell. To supply the suddenly
discovered need, Coverdale was therefore pressed into the ser
vice. He, probably already furnished for the undertaking by
special studies in this direction, and by a not too scrupulous
attention to the quality of his work, was able to produce a
complete translation of the Scriptures within a year of the
time when the commission was first received.
The volume appeared in October, 1535, and began to circu-
First late as at least tacitly sanctioned by the king. Where
Coverdale's11 was Printed is not known. New editions of it
version. were Jssued in j^ j^ j^ &nd ^^ rp^ ^
tion of 1537 so far enjoyed the royal approval as to have the
words "overseen and corrected" printed on its title-page.
1 Remains, p. 20.

Coverdale's Version. THE ENGLISH BIBLE.

43

Tyndale's version, too, at this time, after ten years of conflict,
had conquered for itself the silent permission to exist in Eng
land. To render the translation of Coverdale attractive, it was
adorned with various wood-cuts, representing the six days of
creation, as also the several evangelists ; and in connection
with Paul's epistles there was a picture of the apostle sitting
at his desk writing. The book had no notes, no headings for
the chapters, and no divisions to mark verses. It was dedi
cated to the king in language fulsome enough to suit the sin
gular taste of the time, the corrupt Henry being favorably
compared with Moses, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, "yea a very
Josias ! "
This translation of Coverdale was avowedly not made from
the Hebrew and Greek, but from the Vulgate and the From what
German version of Luther. To this extent Hallam's ^V^13"
statement, before alluded to, was correct. On one of made'
the several different title-pages of the work, it is explicitly
declared that the book is " faithfully and truly translated out
of Dutch (German) and Latin into English." The authorities
used are supposed to have been, all together, the Vulgate,
Pagninus's version, Luther's German Bible, Leo Juda's German-
Swiss version, Sebastian Miinster's folio Hebrew Bible, pubJ
lished with a Latin version in 1534, and the work of Tyndale
as far as it had issued from the press. It possessed, of course,
none of the virtues of an original translation.
The influence of Coverdale's labors upon the translation of
161 1, as it would be natural to expect, was but slight. influence
His translation stands outside of the lineal history of ^au'thorized
the latter. The most that it did was to furnish a Tersion-"
few ecclesiastical words, some of which might perhaps have
been better omitted altogether. Westcott compares the rela
tion between the translation of Tyndale and Coverdale to that
between the translation of the Psalms, contained in the " au
thorized version," and that in the version of the Prayer Book.1
Ellicott says that Coverdale's version can hardly be considered
in the line of direct descent from Tyndale to the " authorized
version." 2 And another writer thus finely indicates the posi-
1 Hist. Eng. Bib., p. 217. a On Revision, &c, p. 79.

44

HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. III.

tion of this earliest successor of Tyndale : " It is with Tyndale
that the genealogy of our ' authorized version' begins. Cover-
dale's name stands on the roll much like that of a person, who,
dying childless, is counted in the list of predecessors, but not
properly among the ancestors of those who, in the course of
time, inherit his title." :
"MATTHEW'S" BIBLE.
The year 1537, which witnessed two reprints of the version
Matthew's °f Coverdale, also marks a more important advance
compiete1"' ln tne course of vernacular translations in England.
^fTyndaVs At this time there appeared in the form of a folio
translations. voiume dedicated to the king, all the translations of
the Scriptures, collected together, which Tyndale had been
able to make previous to his death. The work purported to
be edited by Thomas Matthew, which was probably the pseu
donym of John Rogers, Tyndale's friend and the legatee of his
papers ; or, possibly, the name of some patron of his work
which Rogers had put forward as being less likely to attract
attention than his own. There is at least but little doubt that
Rogers was the real editor. His initials, "J. R.," appear in
the preface. He was finally condemned by Gardner as
"Joannes Rogers, alias Matthew," his assumed connection
with the Bible evidently being thus stigmatized. Internal evi
dence, moreover, both of the version and its notes, points in
the same direction.
But the reception which this work met with in England
Remarkable was most remarkable, and only to be explained on
reception in , . . ~ *L
England. the supposition that Cranmer, Crumwell, and others
expected by its means to be relieved from the awkward dilemma
of needing very much a vernacular version of the Scriptures to
compete with Tyndale's, and answer the demand of the times,
while against Tyndale, in the public estimation, they stood in
pronounced opposition. How little did they suspect that they
were welcoming and obtaining royal approval for the very
translation, only in other covers, which had been so hunted
1 Letter of Henry Walter, p. 33.

Matthew's Bible. THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 45
and proscribed ! Or did they, suspecting the trutn, prefer to
seem unconscious of it?
One thing is certain, that this folio Bible of 1537, mysteri
ously introduced into England, and put in circulation under
the decoy of an unknown name, was, for the most part, What this
, , „ , , , , , . , . Bible really
no other than lyndale s, in part already printed in was.
various forms, and for the rest, as far as they extended, the first
publication of such manuscript translations as he had left in
the custody of his friends. The New Testament was Tyndale's
revision of 1535. The Old Testament was his translation of
the Pentateuch and his lritherto unpublished version of the
books from Joshua to II. Chronicles. The remainder, including
Jonah, which, although Tyndale had translated, Rogers did not
see fit — probably for reasons of policy — to use, as well as
the apocryphal books, were taken from the version of Cover-
dale. Even Tyndale's initials were retained at the end of the
Old Testament part, without apparently attracting attention.
The London publishers of Matthew's Bible were Grafton
and Whitchurch. Where it was printed is unknown. Publishers,
. . Grafton and
The clever publishers presented a ^uast-comp\waenta.ry Whitchurch.
copy to Archbishop Cranmer, who pronounced the translation
" very well done ! " Moreover, he immediately corresponded
with Crumwell concerning it, and urged the matter of pro
curing, at once, a royal license for its circulation. In this letter
he alludes to the translation in the following laudatory terms :
" And as for the translation I like it, so far as I have read
thereof, better than any translation heretofore made.'' Crum
well, shortly after, announcing to the archbishop that the
required license had been procured, Cranmer immediately
responded : " You have shewed me more pleasure herein than
if you had given me a thousand pounds."1
And so it came to pass that this edition of the Bible, two-
thirds of which was Tyndale's translation that had The trans-
•* . # lation, often
been again and again publicly stigmatized and con- condemned,
demned by authority of this same king, Henry VIII., tains the
and even actually prohibited seven years before, was cense.
now " set forth with the king's most gracious license," this
1 And. Ann., pp. 244-246.

46 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. III.
authorization being printed in red ink in each separate vol
ume. It was also ordered that a copy of this Bible should
be placed in every parish church, the necessary expense of
the same to be equally shared by parishioners and clergy. It
is not surprising that " certain there were who did not believe
that it had pleased the king to do as he had done." And
truly it is not difficult to recognize the superintendence of a
wise Providence in such a gathering of Tyndale's various trans
lations into one volume, edited, no doubt, with scrupulous
fidelity, and the assignment to that volume of so commanding
a position in the history of the English church, especially when
it is considered that it was adapted and designed to be the one
mould which should give shape to all subsequent English ver
sions of the Scriptures.
The first edition of Matthew's Bible, consisting of fifteen
This edition thousand copies, was soon exhausted, and the demand
quickly dis- _.. .. , , • 1 ,,.,
posed of. for lt became so great that its publishers were obliged
to seek the protection of the government against pirated
editions. The people, it is obvious, were not slow to discover
the merits of a translation of which they had previously enjoyed
more than a stolen morsel. Not less than twenty separate edi
tions of Tyndale's translations had already found their way to
England. But the Romanizing bishops were not equally satis
fied. In the quaint language of Foxe : " The setting forth of
this book did not a little offend the clergy, namely, the bishops
aforesaid, both for the prologue, and especially, because in the
same book there was one special table collected of the common
places in the Scriptures for the approbation of the same, and
chiefly about the supper of the Lord, and the marriage of
priests, and the mass, which there was said not to be. found in
the Scriptures." 1
Many of the priests, too, taking their cue from their eccle
siastical superiors, displayed with even ludicrous zeal, their
opposition to the new order of affairs. Obliged by injunction
of Crumwell to possess this Bible, and to read it in their con
gregations, still they " read confusedly the Word of God, and
the injunctions set forth and commanded to be read by them ;
1 Eng. Hex., p. 79.

Matthew's Bible. THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 47
humming and hawing and hawking thereat, that scarce any
could understand them. ' It was never a good world,' they
would say, ' since the Word of God came abroad ; ' ' and that
it was not meet for the people to have it or to read it, but they
must receive it at the priest's mouth : they were the nurses
that must chew the meat before the children ate it.'"1
We cannot properly conclude this account of Matthew's
version, so called, without a brief sketch of the life of sketch of
John Rogers, its actual editor. He was educated at Rogers.
Oxford taking the degree of " B. A.," in 1525. Soon after he
received an appointment as chaplain to the English factory at
Antwerp, where he met Tyndale, and was by him induced to
give up Popery. Subsequently he became minister to a con
gregation of exiles. In 1536, or a year later, he was married
to a German lady, who became the mother of his eleven chil
dren, eight of them born before his return to England. Upon
the death of King Henry he returned to his native land ; and,
among his earliest literary efforts, put forth a tract of Melanc-
thon which he had translated. He held several important
positions in the church during the reign of Edward VI.
After the accession of Mary, Rogers preached at St. Paul's
Cross, in such a manner as to give her great offence. Suffersun-
He had earnestly exhorted his hearers to remain stead- Mary."
fast in the faith of the Gospel. For this crime he was impris
oned for several months in his own house, and then sent to
Newgate. Here he was kept a prisoner from the 16th of
August, 1553, to Jan. 22, 1555. He was then brought before
Gardner, condemned and sentenced. The details of his execu
tion are familiar. Noaille, the celebrated French ambassador
at the court of London, thus alludes to it : " This day was per
formed the confirmation of the alliance, between the Pope and
this kingdom, by a public and solemn sacrifice of a preaching
doctor, named Rogers, who has been burnt alive for being a
Lutheran, but he died persisting in his opinion. At this con
duct the greatest part of the people took such pleasure, that
they were not afraid to make him many acclamations to
strengthen his courage. Even his children assisted, confirming
s Johnson's Hist. Acct, ad toe.

48 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. III.
him in such a manner that it seemed as if he had been led to a
wedding." TAVERNER'S RECENSION.
In 1539 a revision of Matthew's Bible appeared in two edi
tions, folio and quarto respectively, from the pen of Richard
Taverner. This revision seems to have originated in a desire
on the part of the publishers of Coverdale's Bible, who were
also the publishers of this, not to be wholly excluded from the
market through the popularity of Matthew's recension of Tyn
dale. Taverner was a graduate of Oxford in 1529. Even
while at the University he had shared the peculiar honor, at
this time paid to students of the Bible in England, having
been shut up in the cellar of Cardinal College, in company
with certain of his fellow-students, for being detected in read
ing the prohibited work of Tyndale. Subsequently, however,
under the patronage of Crumwell, he enjoyed considerable
honor at court, and was by him induced himself to undertake
the work of translating the Scriptures. The prime minister
had, at last, come to the conclusion that the speediest way to
circumvent the machinations of his Popish enemies was to flood
the country with Bibles. Taverner was learned in the Greek
tongue, and in other respects a person of varied accomplish
ments, having at different times occupied the position of
courtier, lawyer, lay-preacher, justice of the peace, and high
sheriff. He survived the two subsequent reigns, and was
offered the honor of knighthood by Queen Elizabeth, but
declined through poverty. He died July 14, 1575, aged
seventy. The aim of Taverner in this recension seems to have been
Aim in this to correct the errors of Matthew's Bible, and it has
recension. sometimes been called an " expurgated edition " of
the latter. In his dedication to the king, in which we mark
the absence, courtier though he was, of that fulsome adulation
so often met with in those times, he says : " Forasmuch as the
printers hereof were desirous to have this most sacred volume
of the Bible come forth as faultlessly and emendably [?] as the

The Great Bible. THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 49
shortness of the time for the recognizing of the same would
require, they desired me, your most humble servant, for default
of a better learned, diligently to overlook and peruse the whole
copy, . . . which thing, according to my talent, I have gladly
done." This recension, no doubt, shows the impress of Taver-
ner's cultivated pen. He aimed at perspicuity. His Character
changes were mostly for the sake of clearness and °fthework-
force. His New Testament, as was to be expected from his
familiar acquaintance with Greek, exhibits more variations
from the version of Matthew (Tyndale) than the Old. But
there are everywhere evident marks of haste. His employers
were eager to forestall the market. Another version was already
in press in Paris. So Taverner's work failed to aid, noticeably,
in the higher development of later translations. The pub
lishers, too, must have been disappointed in their anticipated
profits, as the book commanded but a limited sale.

THE GREAT BIBLE.
The real character of -Matthew's version, in view ofthe im
mense demand that had sprung up for it, together with Real char.
its patent and, to many, obnoxious annotations, could Matthew's
not long remain a secret. It was needful to meet j^ajs.*'
forthwith the opposition thereby awakened. Under covered-
the direction of Crumwell, therefore, certain scholars, now un
known with the exception of Coverdale, made haste to prepare
a new edition of the same, in which various alterations were
made, not the least of which was the omission of its trenchant
controversial notes. According to Westcott,1 who judges from a
careful survey of evidence both external and internal, Coverdale
was editor of the entire work. Whether he had the aid of others
is uncertain. According to Ellicott, however, Coverdale was
only press corrector and practical editor, without being :u tu-
ally employed in the work of revision.2 The title-page an
nounces that the book is " truly translated after the verity of
1 Hist Eng.' Bib., pp. 100, 236. ! On Revision, &c, p. 81.
4

50 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. hi.
the Hebrew and Greek texts by divers excellent, learned men,
expert in the aforesaid tongues."
The plan was to bring out the book in the form of a mag-
Work done nificent folio, and as the English press offered no ade-
in Pans. quate facilities for the undertaking, the privilege was
obtained from Francis I. of printing it in Paris. This privi
lege was granted, however, only under certain restrictions,
among which was specified " the communication of forbidden
opinions." This furnished sufficient ground for the omnipres
ent Inquisition to interfere and put a stop to the work.
The enterprise was fairly entered upon in Paris early in
interference 1538, — the publisher, Grafton, being on the ground
inquisition, with Coverdale, — and nearly completed before the
close of the year. Then, all at once, an order came from the
Inquisitor-General of France, not only forbidding the comple
tion of the work, but also the use of what had been already
printed. Coverdale, however, not wholly 'strange to the
methods of persecutors, had been too quick for the papal rep
resentatives, and previous to the reception of the order had
already forwarded copies to England. He and Grafton,
moreover, shortly afterwards, effected their own escape, besides
having the happiness of rescuing types, presses, and work
men from ecclesiastical ward and transferring them entire to
English soil. In the following April (1539), the book was
finished. This Bible is ordinarily known as the " Great Bible," al-
Caiiedthe though sometimes called " Cranmer's Bible," under a
Great . 7
Bible,; and mistaken notion that he was specially concerned in its
sometimes . A J
'Cranmer's.' production. There is no evidence that he had any
part either in the inception of the work or its subsequent
accomplishment. Undoubtedly he favored the circulation of
the recension when completed, and his name as Primate was
placed for its proper authorization on the title-page of the sec
ond and following editions ; and with the later editions too, as
will appear, he was in various ways, more closely identified.
Coverdale had designed to print, in connection with this
a critical Bible, a critical commentary on the text " without anv
commentary . _ . •* J
projected, singularity of opinions " or " contentious words," but

The Great Bible. THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 5 1
probably on account of the haste demanded, his project resulted
in nothing, and the book appeared, therefore, in the unusual
form of a simple text without note or comment. The royal
license for its publication had been early secured, and it was
privileged therefore to carry the announcement : " to be sett up
in summe convenyent place within the churche whereat the
parishioners may rede yt." For nearly thirty years, with the
exception of the period during the reign of Mary, this Bible,
in some one of its various revisions, was the " Authorized Ver
sion " of the English church.
Three new editions of the Great Bible, the first being some
what revised by Coverdale and the others generally foi- Subsequent
lowing it, were issued in the year 1540, and three in edltlons'
the succeeding year. Each of these editions contained a pref
ace by Archbishop Cranmer and two of them the direct
indorsement of Tunstall and Heath, bishops respectively of
London and Winchester. They were said to have " overseen
and perused the translation." This oversight, however, was
merely nominal, and announced for effect ; and afterwards, in
the time of reaction just before the death of Henry, these prel
ates denied any responsibility for the version. They declared
that " they had never meddled therewith." The occasion for
their names being attached to it at all, was the fact, that Lord
Crumwell having been executed for supposed political offences,
it was thought desirable that the book which had, at first, been
brought out by him, should be indorsed by such other persons
high in authority, as could not be supposed to have had collu
sion with him. But as the Great Bible was based on Mat
thew's recension of the version of Tyndale, we cannot but
mark the singular providence by which these two men, who
had been among the most influential and bitter against the
exiled translator, are here compelled to set their names in
ostensible approval, to that which they had previously con
demned and committed to the flames.
As far as the work of revision extended, Coverdale's princi
pal help in the Old Testament was a new Latin trans- Sources of
*- . Coverdale's
lation of the Hebrew text by S. Munster which had revision.
appeared in 1534-35- In the New Testament, he followed his

52 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. hi.
own previous revision of Tyndale (1535) in connection with
the Vulgate, Erasmus's Latin version, and the Complutensian
Polyglot. Westcott, in collating the text of the first epistle of
John with the text of Tyndale's version of 1534, has discovered
but seventy-one differences. Of these, forty-three are traced
to Coverdale's earlier revision ; seventeen to the Vulgate,
being places where Coverdale had not previously followed it ;
and eleven to other sources.1 One well-known error of our
own translation (John x. 16), was inherited from this version
of Coverdale through the Latin : " There shall be one fold
{flock) and one shepherd."
The Great Bible is a work of more special interest from the
Points of fact that sentences of Scripture in the Communion
interest service of the Book of Common Prayer, quotations in
the Homilies as well as other occasional phrases, and the
whole of the Psalter, are from this source. It was during the
reign of Edward VI., the Liturgy being then revised and
changed, that this translation was first adopted. Another
revision of the same taking place in the time of Charles II.
(1662), some of the translations of the Great Bible were
exchanged for those of a later version ; but the Psalter, and
other minor parts, as before mentioned, remained unchanged.
The. significant reason assigned for the retention of this version
of the Psalter was that it was familiar and also " smoother and
easier to sing." Smoothness of translation had been one of
the special aims of Coverdale ; sometimes, it is to be feared,
attained by the sacrifice of the higher excellence of scrupulous
accuracy. Some, however, have thought this version of the Psalter to
Supposed be so superior to Coverdale's work in gfeneral, that it
by some not - & '
to have could not be his. But it is probable that the already
translated . c J
the Psalms, noticed prejudice of familiarity has more to do with
this opinion than any actual superiority in the work itself.2
And it is worthy of observation, moreover, that a similar pref
erence for an older version of the Psalms, become familiar by
use, appears in the history of Biblical translations in the case
of Jerome's Vulgate.8
» Hist Eng. Bib., p. 258. * Eng. Hex., 84. = Smith's Bib. Diet, iii., p. 1703.

The Great Bible. THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 53
This Bible was the first to print words not found in the origi
nal Hebrew or Greek, and thought needful to complete First ap-
the sense in English, in a different type. In size, it Italics.
was too unwieldy, and too expensive in price, to command a
general circulation, if it had been otherwise acceptable ;
although of the seven editions issued about fifteen thousand
copies were disposed of. The, fact of its similarity, in many
respects, to Coverdale's previous recension did not escape the
attention of the keen-eyed Puritans, with whom it was never
widely popular.
Lest a too favorable view of the present and subsequent
patronage of the work of translating and circulating vacillating
the Scriptures on the part of the government of Eng- ,he Govem-
land should be entertained, certain other facts must, ment-
at this point, be stated. We 'have already noted that in 1537,
Henry had been forced by circumstances to announce that it
had pleased him to permit and command the Bible, which "had
been translated into the mother tongue, to be openly set forth
in every parish church, that Bible being no other than Tyn
dale's translation published by his friend John Rogers under
the pseudonym of Matthew.
Less than six years afterwards (1543), it was enjoined by
order of the same king, that no women but noble women, no
artificers, apprentices, journeymen, servingmen, husbandmen,
nor laborers were to be allowed to read the Old or New Testa
ment in English. The same year Parliament proscribed all
versions to which the name of Tyndale was attached ; and,
in 1546, the versions' of Coverdale were likewise included in
the prohibition. In 1546, too, an order was promulgated that
" it ought to be deemed certain that the reading of the Old and
New Testaments is not necessary for all those folks that of duty
ought to be bound to read it, but as the Prince and the policy of
the realm shall think convenient to be tolerated or taken from
it." And, about six months before his death, the king sought to
destroy every extant copy of Tyndale's New Testament, pro
nouncing it " crafty, false, and untrue," notwithstanding it could
not well have been otherwise than notorious at this time, that
this very translation of Tyndale was the basis of several succeed
ing ones which had been publicly and repeatedly authorized.

CHAPTER IV.
THE GENEVAN, BISHOPS*, AND RHEMISH VERSIONS.
THE reaction which through political changes and the
caprice of the ruling monarch set in against vernacular
translations of the Scriptures towards the close of Henry's
reign, resulted in a very general destruction of Bibles through
out the realm, even of some which had received direct royal
sanction. The Great Bible alone was permitted, under severe
restrictions, still to be used.
The accession of Edward VI., however, brought back
Reign of again, for a limited period, an era of prosperity for
favorable, the English Scriptures. On the very day of his coro
nation, he took special pains to pay them honor. His first
parliament repealed the obnoxious laws against the Bible,
which had been enacted during the reign of his father. He
enjoined that the Scriptures in English should be provided for
the use of all the churches. " All beneficed persons," the
order ran, " shall provide within three months next after this
visitation, one book of the whole Bible, of the largest volume
in English, — the Great Bible, — and within one twelve months
next after the said visitation, the ' Paraphrasis ' of Erasmus
upon the Gospels, also in English, and the same set up in
some convenient place within the . . . church . . . whereat
their parishioners may most commodiously resort unto the
same and read the same." 1
A large number of printing establishments were at once
started for the express purpose of multiplying copies of the
Muitipiica- Holy Scriptures. Of the fifty-seven presses then in
tlon °f . • • i-i i i , •
Bibles. operation in England, thirty-one were thus employed.
1 Cardwell's Doc. Ann., vol. i., p. 9.

Genevan Version. THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 55
During this short reign of six and one-half years, no less than
thirteen editions of the whole Bible and thirty-five of the New
Testament were published. Of these, one was Coverdale's,
one Taverner's, seven of the Great Bible, and, according to
Anderson, twelve of Matthew's recension of Tyndale.1 With
the exception, however, of a fragment of the Gospels translated
by Sir John Cheke, professor of Greek at Cambridge, no new
versions of the Scriptures were undertaken during this reign.
Mary ascended the throne of England, July 6th, 1553.
Her influence was as bitterly hostile as Edward's had Reign of
been propitious to the freedom ofthe Scriptures. Not Mary."y
a single copy of the Bible found its way to the press during
her sovereignty. The public use of the same in the churches,
moreover, was prohibited, and such as were already found
there were burnt.
But owing to a marked revolution in the public sentiment
of England, during the few previous years, the reaction Reaction
against the Bible did not proceed to such extremes as limlted
might otherwise have been expected. No general destruction
of the books themselves was either ordered or attempted.
The queen's relentless hostility found vent rather in the more
relished persecution of the persons of her intractable subjects.
During her reign of five years, nearly four hundred suffered
death in England on account of their religious principles, two
hundred and eighty-eight by flames. Among the victims
were Rogers and Cranmer, and many others " of whom the
world was not worthy."
A much larger number of persons, multitudes indeed, were
obliged to find safety in lonely exile. But under M
the wise government of Him who is able to bring exiled-
good out of evil, it is from these very exiles, thoughtful of
their country's good even in banishment, that we receive the
next English version of the Scriptures.
What England especially lacked at this time was a family
Bible. The Great Bible, now most prominently before No family
the public, both on account of its large size and its prepared.
lacking a commentary and notes, then deemed quite essential,
1 Annals, &c-, p. 360.

56 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. IV.
as well as for other reasons, could not meet the urgent want.
It is to this necessity, therefore, that the expatriated scholars
in Geneva especially address themselves. The English
church, at this principal rendezvous of fugitives from Mary's
cruelty, numbered several hundreds of persons, and among
them were not a few already distinguished for learning and
piety. Their circumstances, moreover, were in many respects
unusually favorable to literary undertakings.
Geneva was itself an acknowledged centre of sacred learn
ing on the continent, where the knowledge of Greek
and Hebrew had greatly increased sinc.e the publica
tion of the earlier translations. Leo Judah's Latin version of
the Old Testament, left unfinished by him at his death, had
just been completed by able scholars. Erasmus's Latin Testa
ment had undergone revision. A version of the Bible in ele
gant Latin, by Castalio, had appeared in 1551, and Stephen's
third edition of the Greek text of the New Testament one year
earlier. Beza's Latin Testament was issued in 1556.
But what was more important than all, there were certain
Valuable persons, including Calvin himself, who were at that
translators, very time engaged in perfecting a French version of
the Scriptures, revisions of which appeared in 1545, 1551,
1558, and 1588. A version of the Italian Bible was also then
going on at the same place, which was finally published in
1562. In the address to the reader prefixed to the Genevan
New Testament of 1557, the translators thus recognize their
indebtedness to the position .they occupied : " Being moved
with zeal, counselled by the godly, and drawn by occasion
both of the place where God hath appointed us to dwell, and
also of the store of heavenly learning and judgment which so
aboundeth in this city of Geneva, that justly it may be called
the patron and nurse of true religion and godliness."
Of the translators of the Genevan version, William Whit-
Bywhom tingham, who married Calvin's sister, appears to have
was done, been chief, and there were associated with him,
according to Westcott and Anderson, Thomas Sampson and
Anthony Gilby ; others say, also Christopher Goodman,
Thomas Cole, and Coverdale. The New Testament, there is

Genevan Version. THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 57
little doubt, was almost solely the work of Whittingham,
while he had assistants, more or less, in preparing the Old
Testament. All of these persons were distinguished as
scholars ; and some of them were subsequently advanced to
important positions during the reign of Elizabeth. Whitting
ham himself, on his return to England, was several times
impleaded in the ecclesiastical courts on account of non-con
formity, and especially for his presbyterian ordination at
Geneva. At last, having been excommunicated by the Arch
bishop of York, a commission with reference to the matter,
appointed by the queen, declared that " Wm. Whittingham
was ordained in a better sort than even the Archbishop him
self." Whittingham died in 1579. Sampson was dean of
Christ Church, Oxford, and in the paper soliciting his appoint
ment to the office the men of that college gave him the follow
ing excellent recommendation : " After well considering all
the learned men in the land, they found none to be compared
to him for singular learning and great piety, having the praise
of all men. And it is very doubtful whether there is a better
man, a greater linguist, a more complete scholar, a more pro
found divine." He died in 1589, aged seventy-two.
The New Testament of this version made its appearance
from a press in Geneva, June 10th, 1557, and#the whole when the
Bible three years later. An introduction to the former New Testa-
was written by Calvin, entitled : " The epistle declar- peared.1""
ing that Christ is the end of the law." The New Testament
of the completed Bible of 1560 was so much changed from the
original version of Whittingham, — which is the one printed
in Bagster's Hexapla, — as to be regarded by some as almost
a new recension." x The translation of the Old Testament
employed the able company of scholars engaged upon it " two
years and more, working day and night." And notwithstand
ing the accession of Elizabeth to the throne permitted their
return to England in 1558, these devoted men voluntarily
endured the hardships of exile for many months longer, with
the sole purpose of bringing to a fit conclusion their great
undertaking. The expense of publication, no small matter in
• 1 Craik's Hints and Suggest, p. 43.

58 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. IV.
the straitened circumstances of these men, was borne by the
whole congregation at Geneva, a special patron, however,
being John Bodley, father of the noted founder of the Bod
leian library. To this same Bodley a patent of monopoly
was given by Elizabeth, for the sale of the book.
The popularity of the Genevan version on its appearance
Popularity was immense, and the demand for it unparalleled in
version. the previous history of English Biblical translations.
Ninety editions of the whole or a part of this Bible — more
than double those of all others — were required during the fifty-
four years intervening before the completion of the " Author
ized Version" of 1611 ; and by this time so firm was the hold
which it had acquired of the popular feeling, that it long
disputed rank and reputation with that version itself. From the
beginning, it became pre-eminently the household edition of
the Bible. Its notes, anti-episcopal though they often were1
(Rev. ix. 3), were eagerly sought after, and thirty-eight years
after the publication of King James's version, were published
in connection with several editions of that version to give it
attractiveness. In the reign of Charles I., however, Archbishop Laud made
Afterwards tne vending, binding, or importation of the book a
prohibited, high-commission crime, on the ground that it was
opposed to the established order and the version authorized.
But it had already achieved its appointed work, essentially one
of preparation for its more distinguished successor, not less
than one hundred and fifty editions in all having been put in
circulation during the eighty-seven years in which it was
current. Some of the sources of the popularity of this version have
Sources of been already indicated. It was adapted to use in the
popularity. fam;iy. The form of the unwieldy folio had been dis
carded for the neat quarto. Full notes were placed on the mar
gin where they might easily catch the eye. And these notes,
though " characteristically Swiss, not only in their theology,
but in their politics," making allegiance to kings dependent on
their soundness of faith, were yet " on the whole neither unjust
1 Caldwell's Doc Ann., vol. ii., p. 30, n. »

Genevan Version. THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 59
nor illiberal." 1 They, at least, to some extent, answered a gen
eral desire for a simple and clear exposition of the Word of
God. The translators themselves said of them that they " had
omitted nothing unexpounded whereby he that is any thing
exercised in the Scriptures of God might justly complain of
hardness." This version, too, was printed in clear Roman type in place
of the usual black-letter. After 1578, the different printed in
editions were accompanied by a Bible Dictionary of type, &c.
considerable value. This translation of the Bible, moreover,
was the first to complete the division of chapters into verses.
The Genevan scholars going a step beyond Robert Stephens,
who, a short time before (1551), had indicated such division by
numerals on the margin, broke up the text into minute sub
divisions as at present, with the numerals placed at the begin
ning of each verse ; a change also introduced by the Elzevirs
into the Greek in their edition of 1633. Difficult Hebrew
idioms and diverse readings were printed in the margin, and
italics were employed to indicate words not found in the
original. On account of the rendering given to Gen. iii. 7,
"and made themselves breeches (aprons), this version has
sometimes been called the " Breeches Bible."
The Genevan Bible was the first to be made on the prin
ciple of associated labor, afterwards adopted in the Trueprin.
version of 161 1, and still deemed absolutely essential tranlarion
to unity and harmony in the general execution of ««>gm«!d-
such a work. More attention than had been customary was
also given, on the part of the translators, toward procuring a
text as critically correct as possible, although Beza's influ
ence, whom Ellicott calls " a good interpreter, but a bad and
inexperienced critic," 2 weighed perhaps too much with them.
Westcott, who has made a careful collation of the text of the
Genevan with that of other versions, says of its Old Westcott's
Testament : " In all parts they took the Great Bible «stimate-
as their basis, and corrected its text without even substituting
for it a new translation. ... At the same time there is abundant
evidence to show that they were perfectly competent to deal
1 Cardwell, Id. 2 On Revision, p. 82.

60 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. IV.
independently with points of Hebrew scholarship ; and minute
changes in expression show that they were not indifferent to
style." 1
In the New Testament the Genevan translators followed
The New Tyndale's version, selecting the text of Matthew, and
w'don"' use(l pretty freely in connection with it Beza's version
Tyndale. anc] commentary. The author last quoted deems the
influence of Beza's Latin text upon the Genevan scholars, al
though in certain particulars to be deprecated, to have been on
the whole beneficial, his recension being far superior to any
which had preceded it.2
Notwithstanding the work of the translators of Geneva was
influence of on^y conditionally included in the list of such as might
onthe"Au- ^e authoritatively consulted by the collaborators of
thonzed." King James's version, still it undoubtedly exercised an
influence only inferior to that of the standard text; viz., the
Bishops' Bible, not yet passed under review. A critical exam
ination and comparison of certain parts of the Old Testament
have disclosed that seven-eighths of the variations from the
Bishops' Bible owe their origin to the Genevan. And in the
New Testament, the impression that it has left is scarcely less
observable.8 A somewhat important revision of the New
Testament of this version, which appeared in 1576, was exe
cuted by L. Thomson.

THE BISHOPS' BIBLE.
During the reign of Elizabeth (1558-1603), the English
The Bible Bible enjoyed peculiar favor, more, however, from the
re1^Igofhe fact that the preferences of the people for special ver-
Ehzabeth. s;ons were unconstrained, and the general circulation
of the Scriptures not interfered with, than from any extraor
dinary patronage of the government. This statement should,
perhaps, be limited by the important fact that the right to
print any book was held as a royal prerogative, and the privi
lege was granted only by royal patent to be sued for and pur-
1 Hist Eng. Bib., p. 287. 2 Id., p. 2g?. 3 I(j.

Bishops' Bible. THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 6l
chased. Previous to 1573, for thirty-seven years, the right to
print Bibles and Testaments had been common to all printers,
the only restriction being the securing of a license. But on
Sept. 28, 1577, there was granted by Queen Elizabeth to one
firm, Robert and Christopher Barker, the exclusive privilege
of printing " all Bibles and Testaments whatsoever in the
English language, of whatever translation, with notes or with
out notes, printed before then, or afterwards to be printed by
our command."
It is to be particularly noticed, that in this order no prefer
ence is expressed on the part of the government for any No prefer-
£T1C€ ex*-
one translation above another, although the Bishops' pressed for
Bible had been issued in 1568, and so had already lar version.
been before the public for nearly ten years. Previously, how
ever (1559), the queen had enjoined that Bibles of the largest
volume, thereby specially designating the Great Bible, should
be placed in the churches, and had appended no restrictions
to hinder their being freely read and consulted, except that, all
were to " read the same, with great humility and reverence, as
the very lively Word of God." 1
Notwithstanding this order, it is interesting to note the fact,
as indicating an era of unusual freedom, that, when The Gen6.
the Bishops' Bible came to be printed, the Genevan ™° '^™
version had already crept into the churches and was 3^^^
beginning to supplant, even there, its older rival.2 <*"«i>»'
Archbishop Parker's letter to Cecil, asking for a royal authori
zation of the new candidate for favor, said : " that in certain
places be publicly used some translations which have not been
labored in your realm, having inspersed divers prejudicial
notes which might also have been well spared."
All the movements of Elizabeth, however, in this direction,
were characterized by a spirit of extreme caution. On Elizabethexcessively
the day after her coronation, a gentleman remarked cautious.
to her somewhat publicly, that she had released several per
sons from undeserved confinement, but that there were still
four prisoners of excellent character who craved liberation.
1 Cardwell's Doc. Ann., vol. i., p. 214.
2 Westcott's Hist. Eng. Bib., p. 137, note. Cf. Cardwell's Doct Ann., vol. ii., pp. 31, 32.

62 HISTORIC ORIGIN QF THE BIBLE. Chap. iv.
On her asking who they were, the courtier replied that they
were the Holy Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,
and he prayed that they might be allowed to walk abroad as
formerly in the English tongue. She replied guardedly and
adroitly, that she would first know whether they desired any
such liberty.
Among the special influences at work to excite a demand
Project of for a new version, resulting in the so-called Bishops'
Parker. Bible, were the great popularity of the Genevan ver
sion, in connection with its obvious anti-episcopal bearings;
and the plain defects of the Great Bible, now become more
glaring in the midst of sharp competition, while yet it remained
the only Bible really authorized to be read in the churches.
It was about 1563-64, that the work was really undertaken.
The whole version was superintended, and finally revised by
Archbishop Parker, and consequently has sometimes received
the name of " Matthew Parker's Bible." The Archbishop
engaged the services of various learned men in carrying for
ward the work, — fifteen in all, eight of whom were bishops, —
sending to each one a certain portion of the Bible to be trans
lated, together with instructions respecting the precise method
to be pursued. Among other things, for instance, they were
to add short, marginal notes, for the correction or illustration
of the text. In 1568, or about four years from the time when
it was begun, the work was completed and published.
No expense was spared to make the volume, externally, as
External attractive as possible. It was published in the form
character- r . _
istics. ot a magnificent folio, with one hundred and forty-
three copperplate engravings of maps, portraits, coats of arms,
&c. Among the portraits were those of Elizabeth, of Dudley,
Cecil, and Lord Burleigh. It was accompanied with brief,
pithy notes, generally dealing with points of interpretation,
but not without occasional dogmatic statements of importance.
With respect to the division of the text into verses, it adopted the
style of the popular Genevan version. Passages to be emitted
in public reading were definitely indicated, and the various
books of the Old and New Testaments were classified as legal,
historical, sapiential, and prophetical.

Bishops' Bible. THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 63
Royal authorization from Elizabeth was sought for this
version, but it does not appear that any answer was R , an_
returned to the petition. Convocation, however, with *°"^t°y
the possible acquiescence of the queen, ordered (1571), 8iven-
though without rigorously enforcing the decree, that " every
archbishop and bishop should have at his house a copy of the
Holy Bible of the largest volume as lately printed at London,
and that it should be placed in the hall or the large dining-
room, that it might be useful to their servants or strangers."
Each cathedral was also to have a copy, and all the churches,
" as far as it could be conveniently done."
These special efforts of its friends were sufficient to bring
the Bishops' Bible into general public use, in place of The Bish-
s.~i Ti-,ti ti . ,• r -si °PS' Bible
the Great Bible, but did not seriously interfere with the and the
popularity or circulation of the version of Geneva Bible.
where it had been before used. Bishop Ellicott says of the
work that, it "never succeeded in thoroughly commanding
the respect of scholars, or in securing the sympathies of the
people, maintaining its authority during the forty-three years
of its existence more by external authority than any merit of
its own." x
The one fact of special importance in connection with this
recension is, that it was made, by King James's appointment,
the basis of our present so-called " authorized version," Fact of
so that its defects and its excellencies are the more unPortanc<!-
worthy of particular examination. In general, it may be said,
that it was a revision of the Great Bible, not uninfluenced by
the version made at Geneva ; while the Great Bible, as we
have seen, was based on Matthew's recension of Tyndale. It
is thought to illustrate pointedly, in its own defects, the supe
riority of work of this kind, done through conference and local
union, to that done by different scholars separately. In the
equality and harmony of its translation, the Genevan greatly
surpasses it.
Some, at least, of the scholars engaged on the Bishops'
Bible seem to have had strange notions of their respon- Unappreci-
sibilities and the qualities, moral and intellectual, re- latofs.
1 On Revis., &c, p. 84.

64 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. IV
quired in a translator of the Scriptures. Guest, Bishop of
Rochester, speaks of changing the preter-perfect tense into the
present, because, otherwise, the sense would be too harsh.
And he translated some portions of the Psalms according to
their rendering in the New Testament, so as not to give
offence to the people on account of divers translations.
The ostensible aim of the translators was to correct the
errors of the Great Bible, which was their standard, and make
of it a popular, in distinction from a literary, version. An
author much relied upon in this volume, says of the critical
Westcott's labors of these men, that " there is little to recommend
the work, the original renderings of the Bishops' Bible in the
Old Testament. As a general rule they appear to be arbitrary
and at variance with the exact sense of the Hebrew text. In
the New Testament, the translation shows considerable vigor
and freshness, . . . the Greek scholarship of the revisers being
superior to their Hebrew scholarship." x In the historical
books of the Old Testament, the text of the Great Bible was
very closely followed. The Psalms were frequently corrected ;
and so, too, the prophets, where, especially, the influence ofthe
Genevan version is very perceptible. In twenty-six variations
from the Great Bible, in the New Testament, discovered by the
same critic, seventeen are original, and nine due to the version
of Geneva. The additions to the Hebrew text, transferred from the
interpoia- Vulgate into the Great Bible were omitted from that of
tions omit- , . '
ted, &c. the Bishops . The word " ecclesia," which had gen
erally been rendered by " congregation," from Tyndale down,
even in the versions of Coverdale and Cranmer, Was, by these
revisers, translated " church," and through them has been
introduced into our own version. The Genevan version had
given both renderings.
In 1572, the New Testament of the Bishops' Bible was
. . carefully revised ; Laurence, " a man of great fame
Revision. .,.-,,, to
in those times for his knowledge in the Greek," mak
ing the largest contribution to the emendations. It was this
edition — the Old Testament of 156S remaining unaltered —
1 Hist Eng. Bibj, lio,izi,.et passim.

Rhemish Bible. THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 65
which was taken as the standard version by the revisers of
161 1. Twenty-nine editions of the Bishops' Bible were pub
lished in all, most of them of large size for public use, the last
appearing in 1608.

RHEMISH BIBLE.
During the sovereignty of Elizabeth, many Romanists be
came refugees from England ; and for their sake, and First Ro-
- . man Catho-
to raise up missionaries for the propagation of the He version
. . 1 1 ¦ 1 1 TA m l^e Ver"
faith, an English seminary was established at Doway, nacuiar.
by Cardinal Allen (156S), as also at Rheims, at Rome, and in
Spain. Within these seminaries were collected the principal
English scholars ofthe Romish faith, and two of them, Rheims
and Doway, are specially distinguished as sources whence the
first, and to this day only complete, Roman Catholic translation
of the Scriptures into English, proceeded. The New Testa
ment appeared at Rheims in 1582, and the Old Testament at
Doway twenty-seven years later, the singular reason of the
want of sufficient funds to defray expenses of publication, " our
poor estate in banishment," being given to explain the long
interval between them.1
If the flight of these Romanists from England had been
involuntary, their task" of translating the Scriptures can Reasons
scarcely be regarded as less so. The translators, in the work.
preface to their work, very candidly announce their reasons
for it. " They do not publish it upon the erroneous opinion
of its being necessary that the Holy Scriptures should always
be in our mother tongue, or that they ought to be read indif
ferently of all, or could be easily understood of every one who
reads or hears them in a known language ; or that they gener
ally, or absolutely, judged it more convenient in itself or more
agreeable to God's Word or honor, or the edification of the
faithful, to have them turned into vulgar tongues, than to be
kept and studied only in the ecclesiastical languages.
" But they translate this sacred book upon special con-
1 Cf. Shea's Biographic. Acct, &c, p. *.
s

66 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. IV.
sideration of the present time, state, and condition of their
Constrained country, unto which divers things were either necessary
stances'"11 or profitable and medicinable now, that otherwise in
the peace of the church were neither much requisite, nor
perchance wholly tolerable." What this present particular
necessity by which they felt compelled to undertake such an
extraordinary work was, they subsequently state. " In pure
compassion, therefore, to see their beloved countrymen, with
extreme danger of their souls, to use only such profane trans
lations and erroneous men's mere fancies, and being also much
Special m°ved thereto by the desire of many devout persons,
motive. t]iey have set forth the New Testament, trusting that
it might give occasion to them, after diligently perusing it, to
lay away, at least, such their impure versions as hitherto they
had been forced to use."
An attempt, moreover, to prepare the way for the new-
Way pre- comer was essayed in the year preceding its publica-
pared. tion, by organizing an elaborate attack upon the sev
eral English versions then current. Gregory Martin, one of
the principal scholars engaged on the Rhemish Bible, was the
champion especially put forward to make the assault. His
work was entitled, " A discovery of the manifold corruptions
of the Holy Scriptures by the heretics of our days, specially of
the English sectaries." He was at once conclusively answered
by Fulke, under the patronage of Archbishop Parker.
As has been above intimated, Gregory Martin was the
The trans- person principally concerned in the translation both
lators. of the old and the New Testament of this version,
although the former did not appear till some years after his
death, which occurred in 1583. His New Testament, it is
said, was revised and annotated by Cardinal Allen, and Drs.
Richard Bristow and John Reynolds,1 while the notes of the
Old Testament were executed by Dr. Thomas Worthington.
These notes throughout were of an extremely controversial
character, and, as they themselves stated, intended to show
that the Romish church was conformable to Scripture. The
first complete edition of the whole Bible, according to this
recension, was published at Rouen, 1633-35.
1 Shea's Biographic. Acct

Rhemish Bible. THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 6>J
The translation, it is well known, was made from the
so-called " authentic text " of the Vulgate, and not from origma]
the original Hebrew and Greek. The " Vulgate " had sources-
been pronounced authentic by the Council of Trent ; but the
combined wisdom of that Council did not see fit to distinguish
and declare just what they considered the Vulgate to be.1
The translators assign reasons apparently satisfactory to
themselves why they took as their standard the version Reasons for
. , • • , a giving the
of Jerome, instead of the original tongues. Among Vulgate the
other advantages : " It was so ancient ; Augustine had nence.
commended it ; it was that used in the Church's service ; the
Council of Trent had declared it authentic ; it was the gravest,
sincerest, of greatest majesty ; it was not only better than all
other Latin translations, but better than the Greek text itself
when they differed." In support of the very startling state
ment last made, they advance the assumption that, as the first
heretics were Greeks, the Greek Scriptures suffered much at
their hands. While in the Old Testament they used the Latin
in preference to the Hebrew, because the original text had
" been foully corrupted by the Jews." The possible corrup
tions of the Latin text, however, through a thousand years of
ignorant, monkish transcription is not even hinted at.
Not only was the current Latin Vulgate adopted as an
original authority, but it was followed verbally and The Vulgate
blindly, with but little apparent effort on the part of blindly.
the translators to make their renderings intelligible. In fact,
not infrequently, no meaning whatever can be obtained from
the version, except by collating it with the Latin. But little
else could have been expected from those who announced at
the outset, that the Scriptures are too mysterious and profound
I for ordinary readers. The passage in Eph. vi. 12, they render
" against the spirituals of wickedness in the celestials."
A marked peculiarity of this version was the transference,
without translation, of many terms and phrases, having, 0ther pecu.
by usage, specific reference to the forms and ceremo- Uanties-
nies of the Romish church. We find in it, for the first time,
such expressions as " ihe advent ofthe Lord," the "imposition
1 Fulke's Defence, &c, p. 70. Cf. below, — Ancient Versions.

68 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. IV.
of hands" which they declared came out of the very Latin
text of Scripture. So, too, " penance," " doing penance,"
" chalice," " priest," " deacon," " tradition," " altar," " host,"
some of which the translators of the " authorized version," in
fluenced as well by a special injunction of King James, as by
their own natural conservatism and ecclesiastical affiliations,
afterwards adopted in their own work. But happily, they
did not show the same partiality for the words " azymes,''
" pasche," " neophyte," " longanimity," also found in the trans
lation of Rheims and Doway.
It should not be supposed, however, that, in general, the
No inten- text °f tne Bible was dishonestly perverted to sustain
verskmPof" preconceived opinions. The translators were without
the text, doubt ordinarily loyal to the Latin copy which they
had chosen to follow. But in one instance, at least, their an
tipathy to heretics overpowered their customary candor, and
they substituted "our Lord" for "the Lord," wherever it
occurs in the Scriptures, " because the heretics use the ' simple
phrase.'" Obviously, the version of Gregory Martin and his collabora-
Criticai *ors ^as n0 special value as representing the original
value. text 0f Scripture.1 Its chief merit consists in the fact
that it has added to the English vocabulary from the Latin some
words of importance, among others that might better have
been omitted. Occasional English phrases also, subsequently
domesticated in our ecclesiastical literature, are due to the
same source. This is almost the only claim which the
begrudged version of Romanists, in the beginning of the seven
teenth century, possesses to the honor of being mentioned in
connection with the history of English translations of the
Scriptures. Archbishop Trench speaks of it as a " Latinized
version, whose authors might seem to have put off their loyalty
to the English language with their loyalty to the English
crown." The later history of the version of Rheims and Doway,
Later witn respect to its limited circulation ; its publication,
history, for the most part, in large and expensive quartos and
1 Cf. Henry Craik's Hints and Suggest, p. 22.

Rhemish Bible. THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 69
octavos ; the slight attention paid to the matter of preserving
the text uncorrupted ; and the general indifference of the higher
ecclesiastics to it, — is of the same quality with the spirit that
prompted the undertaking at the beginning.
There having been no standard and specially authorized
edition, the greatest liberties have been taken with the Liberties
English text, so that Cardinal Wiseman is reported as the text
saying, that to call the Roman Catholic version now in use
the version of Rheims and Doway, is " an abuse of terms. It
has been altered and modified, till scarcely any verse remains
as it was originally published ; and, so far as simplicity and
energy of style are concerned, the changes are in general for
the worse."1
Dr. Kenrick, Archbishop of Baltimore, has within a few
years past prepared a new edition of the Rhemish and Anew
Doway version, how far revised we are unable to say. jected.
It is announced also, that Dr. Newman, Superior of the
Oratorians in England, has been selected, with the approbation
of the Holy See, and at the request of many of the most dis
tinguished among the Roman Catholic hierarchy of Great
Britain, to prepare a new English version of the Scriptures.2
But, with a singular want of appreciation of what constitutes
the fundamental conditions of such a work, it is still proposed
that it shall be a version of the Latin Vulgate.
1 Dublin Rev., ii., pp. 476, 477, quoted by O'Callaghan, A List of Ed., &c, Introd.
P- 53- 2 O'Callaghan, id.

CHAPTER V.
THE "AUTHORIZED VERSION."
THERE is reason to fear that the motives of King James I.
in favoring early in his reign the project of a new
version of the Scriptures, first publicly introduced to his
Probable notice by the hated Puritan party through one of their
motives of , _^ . , ,
King James principal scholars and leaders, Reynolds, at the
a'newversion Hampton Court Conference, Jan. 16, 1604, were not
tures6 cnp" the most creditable. It is highly probable, indeed,
that they were much the same as led him in general, and for
the most part, to prosecute and proscribe that large and worthy
portion of his subjects ; viz., the maintenance of his royal
prerogative, and, as conducing thereto, the enforcement
throughout his realm of uniformity in religious matters.
Bred a Presbyterian, and professing the strongest adhesion
Repudiates to that system of faith and of church order up to the
professions, time of his accession to the throne of England (1603),
he then promptly and publicly renounced it, repudiating past
professions, and declaring that, from the age of ten years, he
had ever " disliked their opinions." At a General Assembly
in Edinburgh in 1590, with head devoutly uncovered, he had
" praised God that he was born in the time of the light of the
Gospel, and in such a place as to be king of such a church
[the Presbyterian], the sincerest [purest] kirk in the world."
And then and there he expressed the determination to main
tain its principles as long as his life should last. But before
he was fairly recognized as king, addressing the bishops at the
Conference above referred to, in the hearing of a number of
learned and pious Puritan divines, — Reynolds, Sparks, Knews-

Authorized Version. THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 7 1
tubbs, and Chaderton, whom for five weary hours he had done
his best to humiliate and cower, — he candidly, though roughly,
said : " If once you were out, and they [the Puritans] in place,
I know what would become of my supremacy. No bishop,
no king, as I before said. Neither do I thus speak at random,
without ground ; for I have observed, since my coming to Eng
land, that some preachers before me can be content to pray
for James, King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland,
Defender of the Faith ; but as for supreme Governor in all
cases and over all persons (as well ecclesiastical as civil), they
pass that over with silence ; and what cut they have been of, I
after learned." 1
It is quite likely, therefore, that James, who exulted in
what he called " kingcraft," was shrewd enough to see Asufficient
that by a new version of the Scriptures, royally sane- ^ringa
tioned and patronized, he might the better control the ¦»" version.
troublesome elements opposed to his supremacy in ecclesiasti
cal matters, and make of it an instrument to perpetuate the
same. It should here be stated, however, in correction The so-
r .. it 1 • i, called "au"
of a very common error, an error crystallized in the thonzed
very title — "authorized version" — itself, that King never actu-
James I. never actually employed any authority Led.3"
whatever, for the purpose of enforcing the introduction or
the use of the particular version made during his reign. The
proceedings at the wholly informal assembly at Hampton
Court are the only approach, indeed, to such authorization
that we are able to discover.2
Yet there can be no doubt, from the zest with which he
entered into this movement, that the king cherished The king
great expectations from it. " Sent out with a prestige great ex-
of scholarship which should silence the reproachful f>omait°ns
claims of the Puritans and eclipse their favorite Presbyterian
version, — the Genevan, — yet charged with conservative influ
ences, and linked indissolubly with the church and the throne,
the new version promised to become the chief agent in main
taining the established order." 8
1 Mrs. Conant's Hist Eng. Bib., p. 417. 2 Cf. Ander. Ann., p. 410.
8 Mrs. Conant, id., p. 426.

72 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. V.
If this were the ruling motive of the king, God, notwith-
Abenefi- standing, as often before happily in the history of this
dence.™"" book, so directed the issue of events that his own be
neficent and wise purposes were still accomplished. And
purposes so magnificent were these, as appearing in the retro
spect of the two hundred and sixty fruitful years elapsed since
this translation was put forth, that we can scarcely believe the
most ardent lovers of the Bible in that olden time could have
grasped them in their largest hopes.
In the conference at Hampton Court, King James had
The king's expressed his antipathy to the Genevan version, saying
to the that he had never seen a Bible well translated into
version. English ; but the worst of all he thought the Genevan
to be. Of its notes he declared that they were very "partial,
untrue, and seditious, and savoring too much of traitorous
conceits." He cited especially, Ex. i. 19, where, in the mar
gin, disobedience to kings, in certain contingencies, was advo
cated.1 But four times as many editions of this Genevan
version were required to satisfy the demand of the English
people as of the Bishops' Bible, which had now supplanted
the Great Bible in public use, and was the only one author
ized to be placed in the churches. And many scholars of
note, too, had highly commended it as a correct and faithful
representative of the original. Under these circumstances, a
sufficient reason was at hand, if there had been no other, why
the sagacious monarch, even against the wishes of friends and
advisers less observant, should heed the petition of his Puritan
subjects, and give them a new translation of the Bible in the
vernacular. Dr. Reynolds, the spokesman of his party, it is likely,
desired and anticipated the displacing of the Bishops' Bible,
perhaps by the Genevan or some revision of it ; but the king
adroitly turns the tables and makes it appear as though it were
the Genevan version itself of which the suppression was de
sired.2 When the matter was first broached, Reynolds had pointed
out a number of mistranslations in the then authorized ver-
1 Cardwell's Doct Ann., vol. ii., p. 31, n. 2 Eng. Hex., p. 149.

Authorized Version. THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 73
sion, but Bancroft, bishop of London, immediately interposed
by saying that " if every man's humor should be foi- First broach-
lowed there would be no end of translating." The subject
king, however, at once took up the matter, and " wished that
some pains should be taken in that behalf, for one uniform trans
lation, and this to be done by the best learned in both universi
ties ; after them to be revised by the bishops and the chief
learned of the Church; from them to be presented to the1
Privy Council ; and, lastly, to be ratified by his royal author
ity ; and so the whole Church be bound to it and no other.
Marry withal, he gave this caveat upon a word cast out by my
lord of London, that no marginal notes should be added."
No further action was taken at the Conference, and if the
matter had been wholly left to the king's ecclesiastical Theking
advisers, it is improbable that it would have been g°veesUp°,he
again agitated.1 But the scheme had fairly fixed itself scheme'
in the mind of James, and in due time seems to have fully
ripened, so that in four or five months afterwards he begins
personally to interest himself in its execution.
By June 30, 1604, the names of persons selected as suitable
to be intrusted with the work had been submitted to Translators selected*
and approbated by the king; and on the 22d of July &c.
following he wrote to Bancroft, advising him to make provi
sion for honoring, by church preferment, the men so chosen.
" Therefore we do heartily require you, that presently you
write in our name, as well to the Archbishop of York as to
the rest of the bishops of the province of Canterbury, signify
ing unto them, that we do will and straitly charge every one
of them, as also the other bishops of the province of York, as
they tender our good favor toward them, that (all excuses set
aside) when a prebend or parsonage being rated in our book
of taxation, the prebend at the twenty pounds at the least, and
the parsonage to the like sum and upwards, shall next upon
any occasion happen to be void, and to be either of their pat
ronage or gift, and the like parsonage so void to be of the
patronage and gift of any person whatsoever ; they do make
stay thereof, and admit none unto it until certifying us of the
1 Cardwell's Doc. Ann., vol. ii., p. 85, n.

74 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap.V.
avoidance of it and of the name of the patron (if it be not in
his own gift), we may commend for the same such of the
learned men as we shall think fit to be preferred unto it ; not
doubting of the bishops' readiness to satisfy us herein, . . .
we ourselves having taken the same order for such prebend
and benefices as shall be void in our gift." 1
In the same letter the king writes : " Furthermore, we
others also require you to move all our bishops to inform them-
mquiredfor. seives 0f a\\ such learned men within their several
dioceses, as, having special skill in the Hebrew and Greek
tongues, have taken pains in their private studies of the Scrip
tures for the clearing of any obscurities either in the Hebrew
or in the Greek, or touching any difficulties or mistakings in
the former English translation which we have now com
manded to be thoroughly viewed and amended, and therefore
to write unto them, earnestly charging them and signifying
our pleasure 'therein, that they send such their observations
either to Mr. Lively, our Hebrew reader in Cambridge, or to
Dr. Harding, our Hebrew reader in Oxford, or to Dr. An
drews, Dean of Westminster, to be imparted to the rest of
their several companies ; that so our intended translation may
have the help and furtherance of all our principal learned men
within this our kingdom." Bancroft, bishop of London, the
see of Canterbury being vacant by the death of Whitgift
(Feb. 29, 1604), communicated the wishes of the king to his
fellow-suffragans, calling their special attention to the fact,
" how careful his majesty is for the providing of livings for
those learned men."
It should seem, moreover, that James in a less public man-
Provision ner, perhaps orally, had desired Bancroft and the other
solicited for
maintenance bishops to make some provision for the immediate
oftransla- . ,
tors. maintenance and remuneration of those to be engaged
in the work, a contribution having been solicited from the
clergy in his Majesty's name for that purpose. A thousand
marks was suggested as the smallest sum admissible to insure
the completion of the undertaking.2 The different colleges
also were expected to entertain such persons as had been
1 Cardwell, id. pp. 84-87. 2 Id., pp. 87, 88.

Authorized Version. THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 75
appointed to the work from the country, " without any charge
to them either for their entrance, their chamber, or their com
mons." But in fairness, it should be distinctly stated that this free
entertainment at the Colleges was about all the remu- Theyactu.
neration, notwithstanding such promising prelimina- ^J"6^
ries, that the most of these devoted and laborious thelr boari
scholars actually received for their many months of perplexing
toil. Some few of them were afterwards advanced to promi
nent positions in the church — seven, it is said, became bish
ops — and in the universities ; and the final revisers were paid
a small weekly stipend during their nine months' labor: but,
beyond this, the work itself, as perhaps after all was most
fitting, was suffered to be its own reward.
The expenses attending the publication of this version of
1611 were wholly borne by Barker, who owned the Expet)seof
patent for printing it. It is a noteworthy fact, in view PubIication-
of popular impressions, that nothing was ever drawn from the
royal exchequer on its behalf, and with the exception of the
interest taken in the starting of the work, as already noticed,
no special effort was made on the part of the king, by procla
mation or otherwise, to give the new version currency. After
1606, however, the Old Testament of the Bishops' Bible was
not allowed to be published ; and after 1618-19, the New
Testament was included in the prohibition. But the Genevan
version was not interfered with.
The title-page of the new revision did indeed bear the
inscription, " by his Majesty's special commandment," R.
and, " appointed to be read in the churches ; " but sanc'ion-
this was only the position accorded to the Bishops' Bible in
the time of Elizabeth. The so-called " authorized version,"
in fact, was never approved by Parliament, or even submitted
to it ; nor to Convocation, nor the Privy Council. Long after
its publication, the Genevan Bible successfully disputed with
it the claim to be the version most approved, and the royal
printers supplied their patrons with either indifferently, accord
ing to the demand. But gradually, on the ground of sheer
merit, together with the weight of influence carried by its dis-

76 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. V.
tinguished and scholarly translators, it won its way to the
front, and after forty years of competition held the field undis
puted. Some discrepancy exists with respect to the exact time
Work when when the translators of the " authorized version " set
uponf about their delegated work. The difference of opinion
probably arose from the fact that a part of them began as soon
as their appointment was announced (1604), while the main
body did not become fully engaged before 1607. The number
of persons originally appointed as revisers was fifty-four, but
only forty-seven of these can now be accounted for ; the other
seven may have been the " certain divines " alluded to in the
fifteenth rule, as general supervisors of the work ; or their
names may have been dropped during the interval of three
years, elapsing after their designation, before actual service
began. Among the most distinguished of these men were Bedwell,
Most distin- a noted Arabic scholar ; six celebrated Hebraists,
the revisers, either at that time, or subsequently, professors of
Hebrew at Oxford or Cambridge ; also the several professors
of Greek at the two universities ; and Dr. Saravia, prebendary
of Canterbury, a proficient in the modern languages. The
fact is mentioned, as indicating that there could have been
no lack of Hebrew scholarship, that Boys — especially distin
guished for oriental learning — was set at work on the Apoc
rypha.1 The Puritan party was worthily represented among the
Represen- revisers by Reynolds, President of Corpus Christi
thePuriL College, Oxford ; Lively, regius professor of Hebrew
party. at Cambridge ; and Chaderton, who was master of
Emanuel College, Cambridge. Reynolds and Lively both died,
however, before the completion of the work, the latter in
1605 when it was not as yet fairly begun. The " higher"
party in the church (Smith's Bib. Diet., Art. "A. V.") was
present in the persons of Dr. Lancelot Andrews, Dean of
Westminster, Dr. Saravia, Dr. John Overall, Dean of St.
Paul's, and Dr. Barlow, Dean of Chester. Hugh Broughton,
1 Cf. Westcott's Hist. Eng. Bib., p. 150.

Authorized Version. THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 77
one of the most thorough Hebrew scholars of the age, was
purposely omitted from the list, as it should seem, on the sole
ground of his utter intractableness.
Inasmuch as charges have been brought against our present
version to the effect that it bears the impression of Charges of
... , . . , theological
the sectarian bias, both theological and ecclesiastical, and eccie-
. 1 • i s, r siastical
of its authors, it may be well to state certain facts, bias.
Passages are cited, as Acts ii. 47, Heb. x. 38, to show that an
unfair Calvinistic prejudice crops out in the revision. But if
this is the case, it can scarcely be candid to charge it upon
the representatives of the Puritan party among the revisers.
Plumptre, in Smith's Bib. Diet.,1 says: "Dogmatic interests
were in some cases allowed to bias the translation ; and the
Calvinism of one party, the prelatic views of another, were
both represented at the expense of accuracy." It is more
likely, that, if this version really received a slight tinge of
Calvinistic doctrine, it was due to the fact of the very general
prevalence of such doctrines in those times. They were con
fined to no one section of the church. Even Hooker was not
free from their influence.2 Besides, the two men of princi
pal weight among the revisers from the Puritan side died
before the work was completed : Lively, as we have seen,
before it was fairly begun ; and Reynolds, May 21, 1607.
Moreover, the Preface of the work, written by Dr. Miles
Smith, even unhandsomely disclaims the permission Bearif
of any such preponderance of Puritanism. It asserts the Prefacl!-
that they have " avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who
leave the old ecclesiastical words and betake them to others."
And in the Dedication again, royal support is craved both
against the Papists, " and against the slanders of self-conceited
brethren who run their own ways and give liking unto noth
ing but what is framed by themselves and hammered on their
anvil." Archbishop Trench declares that the " charge of a Calvin
istic leaning of the translators, as against Arminianism, Testimon,
is entirely without foundation."8 That there is some rfT,«™*-
1 Art. "A. V." s Cardwell's Doc Ann., vol. ii., pp. 51, 52, n.
8 Author. Ver. of N. T., ch. x.

78 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap.V.
ground for a charge of another sort, however, cannot well be
denied. Undoubtedly " polemical considerations were allowed
to intrude " in the treatment accorded by the board of revisers
to old ecclesiastical words.1 Their preferences and their prac
tice, in, this respect, are even boldly announced in the Preface,
as we have seen ; although therein they but followed a rule
definitely made for them by the king.
And " my Lord of London," who is probably the one
Bancroft referred to in the Preface as chief overseer of the
with alter- work, was publicly charged at the time, with having
j 1 1 .-. the
version. altered the version on his own sole authority in fourteen
places, the rendering of I Pet. ii. 13, " to the king as supreme"
being instanced as one of them. Whatever else James I. might
tolerate he would not allow any weakening of the doctrine of
the supremacy of kings. And no other version of the English
Bible betrayed such definite leanings towards that tenet as the
one made under his own direction.
But the company of revisers having been determined upon,
General and the preliminaries settled as before stated, the
work. whole number was divided into six sections varying
somewhat in size and were instructed to hold their sessions
at Oxford, Cambridge, and Westminster, two of the divisions
in each place. Those to whom was assigned that part of the
Bible extending from Genesis to II. Kings, and the division
to which was given the portion extending from the Epistle to
the Romans, to the Epistle of Jude, were sent to Westminster.
Those revising from I. Chronicles to Ecclesiastes, and the
Apocrypha, respectively, assembled at Cambridge. And the
remainder, with what was left of the Scriptures for their -spe
cial task, gathered at Oxford.
The following rules, specially supervised, it is supposed, by
Bancroft, were given to each section for its guidance : —
1. The ordinary Bible read in the churches, commonly
List of called " the Bishops' Bible," to be followed, and as
Rules. i;tt]e altered as the truth ofthe original will permit.
2. The names of the prophets and the holy writers, with
1 Ellicott on Revis , &c, p. 93. Cf. The Study of the Bible, by Henry Dunn. New
York, Putnam, 1871.

Authorized Version. THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 79
the other names of the text to be retained, as nigh as may be,
accordingly as they were vulgarly used.
3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept ; videlicet, the
word " church" not to be translated " Congregation," &c.
4. When a word hath divers significations, that to be kept
which has been commonly used by most of the ancient fathers,
being agreeable to the' propriety of the place and the analogy
of the faith.
5. That the divisions of the chapters be altered either not
at all, or as little as may be, if necessity so require.
6. No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the
explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words which cannot
without some circumlocution so fitly and briefly be expressed
in the text.
7. Such quotations of places to be marginally set down, as
shall serve for the fit reference of one scripture to another.
8. Every particular man of each company to take the same
chapter or chapters, and having translated or amended them sev
erally by himself, where he thinketh good, all to meet together,
confer what they have done, and agree, for their parts, what
shall stand.
9. As any one company hath despatched any one book in
this manner, they shall send it to the rest to be considered of
seriously, and judiciously ; for his majesty is very careful on
this point.
10. If any company, on the review of the book so sent,
doubt or differ upon any place, to send them word thereof,
note the place, and withal send the reasons ; to which if they
consent not, the difference to be compounded at the general
meeting, which is to be of the chief persons of each company
at the end of the work.
n. When any place of special obscurity is doubted of, letters
to be directed by authority to be sent to any learned man in
the land for his judgment of such a place.
12. Letters to be sent from every bishop to the rest of his
clergy, admonishing them of this translation in hand, and to
move and charge as many as be skilful in the tongues and have
taken pains in that kind, to send his particular observations to
the company either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford.

80 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. V.
13. The directors in each company to be the dean of West
minster and Chester for that place, and the king's professors
in the Hebrew or Greek in either university. These transla
tions to be used when they agree better with the text than the
Bishops' Bible ; videlicet, Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's,
Whitchurch's (the Great Bible), the Genevan.
14. Besides the said directors before mentioned, three or
four of the most ancient and grave divines in either of the
universities, not employed in translating, to be assigned by the
vice-chancellor, upon conference with the rest of the heads, to
be overseers of the translations, as well Hebrew as Greek, for
the better observation of the fourth rule [? third also] above
specified. That these rules were not strictly obeyed by the revisers
These rules will be apparent from what follows below ; that they
if actually , rL , .,,.,,. J
given were were the exact rules prescribed indeed, is even open
followed. y to doubt. At the Synod of Dort (Nov. 20th, 1618),
where an account was given of the manner in which this
revision was effected by one who was himself engaged in it, —
Dr. Samuel Ward, — it was stated that seven rules only were pre
scribed, and that twelve men, instead of six, were engaged in the
final revision. But the above rules show, at least, the general
method of procedure. Each part of the Bible was passed in
critical review a number of times. And when the work ofthe
several companies was finished in the specified manner, a com
plete copy of the Bible was prepared by each respectively, and
two of their number were delegated, making six in all, or per
haps twelve, including six appointed directly by the king, to
attend to the work of final revision and prepare a single Bible
from the three tentative ones.
These editors were engaged nine months in their difficult
Final task, and received from the publisher each thirty
revision. p0unds for his pains, the first and only money, as far
as we know, that was actually paid for the years of literary
exertion involved in this immense undertaking. From the
hands of these final revisers the work passed into those of
Bilson, bishop of Winchester, and Dr. Miles Smith, for any
other correction which it might be supposed to need, and to

Authorized Version. THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 8 1
be prepared for the press. Dr. Smith wrote the Preface as
also the dedication, and should alone be held responsible for
the sickening adulation of the king which the latter contained.
It was at this point, moreover, that Bancroft, now Archbishop
of Canterbury, found an opportunity to step in ; and that he
did so, with the evil result of marring the version in a number
of places, is generally admitted. Dr. Miles Smith said that
there " was no contradicting him."
The admirable principles, as set forth in the excellent Pref
ace to the work, which, aside from or above any pre- Admirable
scribed rules made for them by others, governed the which gov-
revisers within themselves are well worthy of attention, revisers.
They had not gone over the work, they declared, in " posting
haste," taking only seventy days, the time employed by the Sep
tuagint, but it had " cost the pains of twice seven times seventy-
two days and more." They had not condemned the labor of
those who had before engaged in translating during the differ
ent reigns of Henry, Edward, or Elizabeth, but acknowledged
" them to have been raised up of God for the building of his
church, and that they deserve to be- had of us and of posterity
in everlasting remembrance." All had been " sound for sub
stance" in these various versions, and the worst of them was
better than the Romanists', but even gold shines more brightly
when rubbed. " Truly, good Christian reader,- we never
thought from the beginning that we should need to make a
new translation, nor yet to make a bad one a good one, . . . but
to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one
principal good one, not justly to be excepted against."
They had consulted different translations, and commenta
tors, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, Latin, Span- Went out-
ish, French, Italian, and German. They did not " dis- list of au-
dain to revise that which had been done and bring prescribed.
back to the anvil that which they had hammered ; but having
and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no re
proach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we
have, at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon
us, brought the work to that pass which you see."
This last of the notable Hexapla of English versions, begin-
6

82 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. V.
ning with Tyndale's New Testament issued in 1526, was pub-
Whenpub- lisbed in 161 1 from the press of Robert Barker, in
hshed. whose family was retained the right of printing it until
1709, or for nearly a hundred years. In form it was a folio in
black-letter. The next year, however, an edition in quarto
was published, and, within three years, five different editions
were called for.
In 1638, by order of Charles I. the text of this version was
Revision revised by eminent scholars, including Dr. Samuel
of 1638. Ward and Mr. Boys, two of the original revisers, for
the purpose of correcting the typographical errors which might
have crept into it, and preparing a standard edition. Again,
in 1769, Dr. Benjamin Blayney, under the special direction of
the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford and delegates of the Clarendon
press, prepared a revised and corrected edition, which was
published both in folio and quarto and was regarded as the
standard text until 1806. At that time the text was again su
pervised by Eyre and Strahan, printers to his Majesty, and
many errors which had defaced previous editions removed.
A more radical revision, to include the substance as well as
Moreradi- the form of the so-called king James's version, was pro-
cal revision . , , _,
projected, jected during the time of Cromwell s supremacy, the
subject having twice been brought into Parliament, in 1653,
and again in 1656. By order of that body the matter was in
trusted to the most distinguished scholars ofthe time, who gave
it considerable attention ; but owing to the sudden dissolution
of Parliament the movement resulted in nothing of importance.
The committee, however, have left on record their deliberate
judgment of the " Authorized Version," that " it is the best of
any translation in the world," although having " some mis
takes." It has been noted that the Apocryphal books were among
How this the parts assigned to one of the divisions of revisers
version .
came to in- employed on this version. They were actually trans-
elude the
Apocrypha, lated and bound up with the rest in the edition of
1 61 1. Coverdale, doubtless with some measure of subser
viency to the Romanizing tendencies of the day, and following
the Vulgate, from which his translation was made, had inserted

Authorized Version. THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 03
these books in his Bible of the year 1535. Matthew's version
followed suit. And so they came to be regularly inserted in
succeeding editions, and finally, though not without opposition,
in the version of 161 1. As early as 1643, Dr. Lightfoot, in
preaching before the House of Commons, denounced it as the
" wretched Apocrypha," and again in 1645. But without any
special act of authority, it came finally, as by common consent,
to be left out of new editions of the Bible.1
One ofthe leading principles which characterized this latest
version, viz., that of combined labor with the least pos- A [eadmg
sible change from preceding revisions, was an ad- ^""l^sers
vance in the right direction and a marked improvement °f l6tI-
upon any thing which had preceded it. But it is thought that
the work of these scholars bears the unfavorable marks of
having been done by several distinct parties, and that a much
better plan would have been to divide the whole number into
two bodies, one for the Old and one for the New Testament,
and then suffer each to do their work about a common table.2
With respect to aids for getting at the pure original text at
this time, it may be said in general that, " the Latin Philological
texts of the first half of the 16th century were indiffer- sibfe.
ent. The Greek texts of the New Testament, and this is most
important, were without exception based on scanty and late
manuscripts, without the help of the oriental versions and the
precious relics of the Old Latin. As a necessary consequence
they are far from correct; and if the variations. are essentially
unimportant as a whole, yet the errors in the text of our Eng
lish Testament inherited from them are considerably more im
portant than the existing errors of translation." 3
The special text made use of here, was that found in the
editions of Stephens's and Beza's Greek Testament, standard in
which virtually agreed with the fourth (and fifth) Testament.
edition of Erasmus. Into this text Erasmus had imported,
on his own sole authority, several distinct interpolations (Acts
viii. 37, and words in Acts ix. 5, 6), and its history in other re-
1 Cf. And. Ann., p. 470, f. ; Westcott's Bib. in the Church, p. 286, f.
1 Ellicott on Revis., &c, p. 86, n.
" Westcott's Hist. Eng. Bib., p. 170. Also Art. New Test in Smith's Bib. Diet

84 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. V.
spects, when we consider it to be the " mother text" of the
current version, is not such as to inspire our highest confi
dence. In 15 1 6 Erasmus published at Basle, after only six months
The of special study, his first edition of the Greek Testa-
text." ment, pushing the work in order to get the start of the
Complutensian Polyglot of Ximenes, already in press. The
editor himself stigmatized it as a "precipitated" edition. He
did not avail himself of the aid of the most valuable manu
script then within his reach, — the codex Basiliensis, a cursive,
— because, as he affirmed, it differed so much from others.
He made no effort to secure a transcript of the very important
Vatican Codex (B), although he could probably have done so
with less difficulty than it has cost subsequent Biblical students.
His main dependence was on a manuscript which originated
in the 16th century. And as this manuscript lacked a part of
the text of Revelation, he supplemented it by translating the
Vulgate into Greek.
Of the subsequent editions of this Greek Testament, the
Later edi- second had four hundred alterations from the first;
Erasmus's the third, one hundred and eighteen from the second ;
Greek .
Testament, and the fourth, issued in 1527, but ten (others say six
teen) from the third, except in Revelation, where there were
ninety changes. A fifth edition was also published, in which
only four alterations of the text were made.1
It is supposed, from statements found in the Preface of this
other ver- work, that the scholars engaged on the revision of 161 1
nacular , .
translations, used to some extent the several vernacular translations
which had been previously made in a number of the Euro
pean languages ; viz., in addition to that of Luther, the French,
Italian, and Spanish, respectively, the first having appeared in
1587-88, the second by Diodati in 1607, and the two Spanish
in 1569 and 1609. And in the Old Testament, beside the valu
able helps for the elucidation of the text already mentioned on
preceding pages, there had been published, not long before
(1572), a new interlinear Latin version of the Hebrew with a
commentary by a distinguished Spanish scholar, named Arias
1 V. fuller acct below: Hist. Printed Text. Cf. Ellicott on Revis., &c, pp. 30-37.

Authorized Version. THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 85
Montanus ; and, seven years later, one by TremelHus, a native
Jew. The relation of the revision of 161 1 to the several English
versions which had preceded it, has been succinctly Relation of
,.. _. ss,~ss. iai tms version
stated in the preface to Bosworth s " Gothic and Anglo- to those
Saxon Gospels," &c, as follows : "Our present Eng- made.
lish version was based on the Bishops' Bible of 1568; and
that upon Cranmer's (the Great Bible) of 1539 ; which was a
new edition of Matthew's Bible of 1537, partly from Cover-
dale's of 1535, but chiefly from Tyndale ; in other words, our
present ' Authorized ' translation is mainly that of Tyndale
made from the original Hebrew and Greek."
It is a fact worthy of notice that the scholars to whom the
work of revision had been delegated by King James Revisers
did not so far yield their freedom of action as to con- whatinde-
fine themselves invariably to the rules which had been their rules.
made for them, especially the thirteenth rule respecting ver
sions to be consulted. They seem, indeed, to have moved in
a much higher sphere of liberality and catholicity. While
taking the Bishops' Bible as their standard, and collating with
it the other versions particularly designated, they also made a
very free use of the Genevan, and of that of Rheims and Doway,
the two with which the spirit of the'ir rules at least, was most
at variance. A chapter in Isaiah which has been critically
examined, although affording only an approximate test, shows
that seven-eighths of all the variations from the Bishops' Bible
are in agreement with the Genevan. And in the New Tes
tament this agreement is no less marked. Of thirty-seven al
ternative renderings, inserted in the margin of the Gospel of
Mark, one-half are traceable to the Genevan version or to
Beza.1 It may be said in general, that of all the versions previously
made in English, aside from the Bishops' Bible, that Special im-
of Geneva most influenced the renderings of the ffeGerTevan
" Authorized Version," and tbat of Rheims and Doway version™7
the vocabulary. It is not to be supposed, however, that a
conscientious and minute attention to the details of their work
1 Cf. Westcott's Hist Eng. Bib., pp. 345, 361.

86 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. V.
is not everywhere manifest, or that, in making use of the labors
of others, they do not show themselves capable of exercising
and applying the results of an independent scholarly judgment.
It is related of Dr. Kilby, one of the revisers, that, soon after
the publication of the revision, he, by chance, heard a young
preacher inveighing against it, giving three reasons why a cer
tain word should not have been translated as it was. The doc
tor afterwards meeting the preacher, told him that he might have
preached more useful doctrine and not have filled his auditors'
ears with needless exceptions against the late translation.
He aud others had not only considered the three reasons men
tioned by the preacher why the word should not have been
translated as it was, but also thirteen besides which were favor
able to the rendering finally given.
Doubtless the version has many faults, very few of which
it is likely will escape the keen-sighted criticism of
Some faults. , . _ , . . ,
modern times : faults appertaining to the lack of text
ual criticism ; varying translations of the same word in the
original ; of an ultra-conservatism, especially relating to eccle
siastical terms ; mistranslations ; obscurities ; faults arising
from the interference of others with the revisers' proper work,
as well as from the method by which their work itself was car
ried on, especially in the determination of disputed points by
a plurality of voices ; and others to which attention is called in
an appendix to this work.1
But this version, unlike that of Jerome or Luther, or even
a grand Tyndale, has the grand recommendation of being a
recommen- , , ,., ,, .,
dation. growth, the highest bloom indeed, of all the versions
which had been made in the century preceding. It represents,
too, the ripest scholarship of England at that time, not only in
one, but in all branches of the church, and " when every de
duction is made for inconsistency of practice and inadequacy
of method, the conclusion yet remains absolutely indisputable
that the work of these revisers issued in a version of the Bible
better — because more faithful to the original — than any which
had been given in English before." 2
This work being distinctly a Protestant one, as it respects
1 App. A. 2 Westcott's Hist Eng. Bib., p. 365.

Authorized Version. THE ENGLISH BIBLE. c»7
the ecclesiastical auspices under which it was made, naturally
did not find favor with the Romanists. " Was their objections
(the Protestant) translation good before ? " they asked, ists.
"Why did they now mend it? Was it not good? Why was it
obtruded upon the people?" They also objected, with better
reason, to " the senses of. words being placed in the margin,"
such examples being " suckers to be pruned off, because they
rob the stock of the text of its due credit and reputation." J
These marginal readings, however, it might be said in de
fence of the revisers of 1611, when the peculiar cir- Margjnai
cumstances of the case are taken into account, — as, readmss-
for instance, that their work was only one of revision, and that
they must have felt themselves hampered by a long list of pre
scribed rules made for them by those who could not under
stand the demands of the work, — serve greatly to enhance our
admiration for these men, and increase equally our sense of
their philological ability and their scrupulous fidelity to the text
as they understood it.2
As a sufficient offset to the ill-tempered criticisms of
Romanists of two and a half centuries aero, we may Testimony
. . of F. W.
cite the eloquent words of a modern disciple of that Faber.
church, who, being himself a pervert, might be expected to
know whereof he speaks : " Who will not say that the un
common beauty and marvellous English of the Protestant
Bible is one ofthe great strongholds of heresy in this country?
lt lives on the ear like a music that can never be forgotten,
like the sounds of church bells which the convert hardly knows
how he can forego. Its felicities often seem to be almost
things rather than mere words. It is a part of the national
mind and the anchor of national seriousness. . . . The memory
of the dead passes into it. The potent traditions of childhood
are stereotyped in its verses. The power of all the griefs and
trials of a man is hidden beneath its words. It is the repre
sentative of his best moments, and all that there has been about
him of soft, and gentle, and pure, and penitent, and good,
speaks to him for ever out of his English Bible. It is his
1 Johnson's Histor. Acct, p. 97.
* Cf. Bib. Sac, July, 1869. Art. by Prof. Schaeffer.

88 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. V.
sacred thing, which doubt has never dimmed and controversy
never soiled. ... In the length and breadth of the land there is
not a Protestant with one spark of religiousness about him
whose spiritual biography is not in his Saxon Bible."
An analysis of the style of our present version has been
English rnade in connection with that of fourteen eminent
style. writers, from Spencer to Johnson, and it has been
found the best representative of pure English among the whole
number. One twenty-ninth part of its words only have a for
eign origin, while one-third of Gibbon's, and one-fourth of
Johnson's, originally came from abroad.1
1 G. P. Marsh's Lects. on Eng. Lang., ist ser., sect. 28.

PART II.
THE NEW TESTAMENT.

O trumpet of peace to tlie soul that is at -war ! O -weapon that
puttest to flight terrible passions I O instruction that quenchest tlie
innate fire of the soul ! The Word exercises an influence that does not
make poets ; it does not equip philosophers nor skilled orators, but by its
instruction it makes mortals immortals, mortals gods; and from the
earth transports them to the realms above Olympus.
Discourse to Greeks.

CHAPTER I.
THE WRITTEN TEXT.
AT the beginning of the Christian era, the Greek language
was generally spoken througl^out the civilized world.
By the conquests of Alexander (b. c 334-323), this The Greek
language considerably modified from classic models, Jhe^mnerf
was carried as widely as his arms prevailed. Such a Christ-
wide diffusion of the language, bringing it into contact with
other tongues and civilizations, would naturally in itself, de
velop new forms and constructions.
At Alexandria, in Egypt, where it was used as the ordinary
medium of communication by the various nationalities AtAlex.
gathered for purposes of commerce, its modifications mdr!a'
became most marked. And it was the Greek spoken at Alex
andria in turn, which to a great extent represented and gov
erned that used by the Jews generally both of Palestine and of
the dispersion. Here originated the Septuagint version of the
Hebrew Scriptures, which it is thought exercised an influence
upon the spoken language of the Jewish people similar to that
of Luther's translation upon the German vernacular, and of the
common English version upon our own tongue.1
In Palestine itself, although there were regular synagogues
of Jews making use of the Greek tongue, — Hel- Language
lenists, — the people generally, especially out of the ofPaIestme-
cities, employed the Aramaic or Syro-Chaldaic, a dialect made
up from a mixture of Hebrew with the Chaldee and originat
ing in the captivity at Babylon. The pure Hebrew was at this
time only the language of scholars, of books, and of religious
1 Smith's Bib. Diet, Art. "N. T." Cf. Reuss's d. Gesch. Heil. Schrift. N. T., sect. 46.

92 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. L
ceremonies. An argument worthy of attention has been con
structed (Rev. A. Roberts, " Discussions on the Gospels,"
Lond. 1862) to prove that the inhabitants of Judea at this time,
including Christ and his Apostles, were bilinguists, speaking
besides the Aramaic, the Greek tongue, a position of great
importance, if it be tenable, with respect to some perplexing
questions now in dispute.1
The whole New Testament, with the possible exception of
Language the Gospel of Matthew, was written in the current
of the New _, . . — ,•,,,*-
Testament. Greek. It was the Attic Greek, which had first
adapted itself to the Macedonian dialect, and then been
still further changed through the several causes indicated,
and in the New Testament particularly, in addition to other
influences, by Hebrew forms and new Christian ideas.
The impress of Hebrew thought and expression in the New
influence of Testament is considerably more apparent in some
andbChris- portions than in others, specially predominating in
tian thought tne historical and prophetical parts. The new Chris
tian element manifests itself specifically in the higher uses to
which it puts old words, naturally lifting' them to its own high
level of thought, and so requiring on the part of their interpret
ers the stand-point of a Christian consciousness as well as a
knowledge of grammatical rules. A significance new to the
world, not less the Jewish than the Pagan, was introduced into
such Greek words as are now translated by the terms, life,
light, truth, resurrection, atonement, redemption, Saviour,
apostle, faith, love, hope, peace, humility, liberty, and many
others.2 This mingling of various elements in the language of the
Effects of New Testament has been the source of not a little dif-
the mixture _ . , ... ,
of these ficulty to students and critics, and, since the seven-
elements, teenth century, of hot discussions, involving with itself
the subject of inspiration and other profound questions of the
ology. While some have sought to hold the New Testament
writers to the standard of even Attic elegance, others have
yielded too much to supposed modifications and Hebraistic
coloring. " A too hasty assumption of Hebraisms," says De
1 Cf. Reuss, id., sect 41, n. 2 Cf. id., sect. 46, n. 6.

Written Text. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 93
Wette, " has to quite a late period, been one of the vices of
exegesis." 2 The truth lies between the two.
According to Winer, the grammatical Hebraisms of the New
Testament which are of the most importance are few, winer»s
much fewer than are found in the Septuagint, the in- "p™™-
fluence of the Hebrew showing itself principally, in extending
the signification of words, imitating phrases, and forming by
analogy new words to express corresponding Hebrew terms.2
The constructions are generally Greek, the writers continu
ally obeying rules of syntax quite opposed to their Constrm>
vernacular idiom. But whether the syntax be Greek tlon Greek-
or not, some kind of grammatical rules are to be presupposed,
that liberality being quite too broad which would absolve the
Apostles and their amanuenses from the ordinary laws of com
position. Attic nicety, however, was not only then unknown to the
popular speech, but was ill adapted to the homely style Language
which the sacred writers adopted as most conformable ajaptedeto
to their message, which was to be a Gospel not for one themessase-
people, but for the entire world. The Greek of the New Tes
tament, moreover, presents no difficulties not shared with all
the Greek written at that period, nor any that are insuperable.
Hebraisms were no doubt consciously adopted. Defective
forms are not necessarily connected with ambiguity or Hebraisms
obscurity of thought. The New Testament writers adopted.
simply appropriated to their use what they found needful to
express their ideas. So far from being unconscious blunders,
therefore, the peculiar dialectic coloring of their style may even
be regarded as a desirable and necessary enrichment of the
Greek for the higher uses to which it was to be applied. By
a Hebrew-Aramsen tinge especially, it received a capacity
for " graphic expressiveness, and circumstantiality," which, so
far from being a defect, is one of its crowning beauties and
excellences.8 The New Testament writings, it is supposed, were produced
at intervals in the apostolic age, during a period of about
1 Introd- to N. T., p. 4. - Gram, of N. T. Diction, pp. 40, 47, 52.
8 Home's Introd., vol. iv., pp. 8-18. SchafPs Apostol. Ch., pp. 608-613.

94 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. i.
sixty years. The materials principally used for writing at that
Writing time were the reed-pen {calamos, 3 John 13), papyrus-
materials, _ . 1 « , rrss
&c. paper {chartes, 2 John 12), and ink. Ihe ink was
made of a mixture of lamp-black, or a black obtained from
burnt ivory and prepared in the sun without the aid of fire.
The papyrus employed was of different qualities, most of it
coming from Egypt, but to be found also in Syria and Babylon.
The reed from which this papyrus came, grew in vast quan
tities in the stagnant pools formed by the annual inun-
Papyrus. . ° r .
dations of the Nile. Every part of it was regarded as
of value. The harder portion was manufactured into cups ;
the upper, into staves or ribs for boats ; the sweet pith was a
common article of food ; while the fibrous remnant was made
into cloth, sails for ships, ropes, strings, shoes, baskets, wicks for
lamps, and especially paper.1 For historical productions, the
Egyptians made use of a certain variety noted for its durability.
The Romans named another distinguished species fine and
pliable, much used in letter writing, Charta Augusta, from
their emperor. The best of this material, however, was very
perishable. Jerome notices the fact that in his day the library
of Pamphilus, at Caesarea, was already in part destroyed, al
though not a century had passed since its formation. An effort
was then making to transfer its valuable documents to parch
ment, which from the first century had come into very limited
use.2 The oldest specimens of papyrus now extant were pre-
oidest served only under the most favorable circumstances,
specimens. as ;n Egyptian tombs or the ruins of Herculaneum.
In general use, especially when such use was emphasized by
curiosity or devotion as in the case of the New Testament
writings, this material could not be expected to last during
more than a single generation.
Literary productions at this early period did not ordinarily
Literary take the written form, until they had been previously,
g reductions . ,
rst recited, and in most cases often, recited. Writing was by
dictation, through amanuenses, who were of different kinds :
1 Cf. I. Taylor's Trans, of Anct. Books, p. 44.
3 2 Tim., iv. 13. Cf. Reuss, id., sect. 353, also sect. 373, citing Hieron. de Vir. 111., c 113.

Written Text. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 95
the rapid writer, notarius ; the beautiful writer, librarius or
calligraphist, who carefully transcribed what the former
had hastily taken down ; and the corrector, answering some
what to the modern proof-reader. Paul notices, as an excep
tion to a common rule with him, the fact that he had written
without the aid of an amanuensis.1 In the first centuries of
the Christian era, including the period within which the oldest
extant MSS. of the New Testament were produced, capital
letters alone were used in writing, and the text was continuous,
without divisions of words, marks of punctuation, accents, or
breathings. This circumstance became the source, in subse
quent times, of serious difficulties and warm disputes, when
the breaking up of the text into its constituent parts came to
be made ; but, on the other hand, it was and is an important
aid also, with other distinctions, in determining the age of
ancient manuscripts.
The only method of multiplying copies of literary produc
tions at this time was by the tedious process of tran- Copies mul.
scription ; some patron, as possibly Theophilus in the J^scriS
case of Luke,2 or some church, providing the necessary tl0n-
means. Original copies in passing through the hands of
amanuensis, calligraphist, and corrector, especially when sev
eral transcripts were to be made by the same original copyist,
might be very easily lost. As might have been expected, no
trace of the original autographs of the Apostles is discoverable
in history. In addition to the fact ofthe peris hableness of the
documents themselves, no public archives or libraries, such as
now welcome and guard with jealous care treasures of this
sort, at that time existed. The apparent allusions by the early
fathers to the original writings of the Apostles, as preserved
in their time, must doubtless be explained in some other way.8
It is to be noted, however, that the proof of the genuineness of
a book published during the lifetime of its author is not neces
sarily weakened by the fact that the original draft no longer
exists. A copy, moreover, although precisely like the original,
is not on that account to be indisputably held as even most
1 Gal. vi, ir. 2 Luke i. 3.
8 Ignat. ad Philad., c. viii. Tertull. De Praescr. Hair, c xxxvi.

g6 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. I.
minutely accurate in, all cases, or most in accordance with the
best judgment of its author.1
The history of the extant manuscripts of the New Testa-
Extantman- rnent 2 covers a period extending from the fourth cen-
the'Sew'* tury to the invention of printing (John Gutenberg,
Testament 1438), and yields to no other department of literary
and critical investigation either in interest or importance.
The materials of which these priceless documents are com
posed is ordinarily parchment, the skins of sheep and goats
being generally used ; but for the finer kinds of manuscript,
called vellum, " virgin skins," those of abortive, or at least
sucking, calves. The famous Sinaitic manuscript discovered
by Tischendorf was manufactured from the skins of antelopes,
a whole skin having been required for every two leaves. As
a rule, the material of finest texture was used in the earliest
manuscripts ; but even the vellum of a thousand years ago is
better than that made at the present day.
Persons of abundant means sometimes procured the prep-
Sometimes aration of exceedingly thin and highly ornamented
bighiynorna- manuscripts. " Some," says Chrysostom, rebukingly,
mented. u possess the sacred books, and have them as if they
had them not ; they shut them up in their book chests ; they
pay attention only to the thinness of the skins, and the elegance
of the letters ; they use them less for reading than for show." 8
Parchment of various tints was often used, and the ink was
also so shaded as to produce striking effects.
After the tenth century a coarse paper, charta bomlycina,
Coarse pa- manufactured from cotton {§6^%), came into use;
d"ed after and during the twelfth century a finer quality, from
century. linen rags. The oldest extant specimen of the lat
ter is dated a.d. 1178. Upon its introduction, paper was
not infrequently substituted in manuscripts for lost portions
of parchment, and the latter manuscripts are often found
with the two kinds of material roughly intermingled.* The
technical name given to an ancient manuscript is codex
{caudex), referring originally to a wooden tablet, and in general
1 Michaelis, Introd., pp. 247-252. » Chrysost. Homil. 32 in Joan, by Reuss, id., sect. 373.
> Cf. Baptist Quarterly, Oct, 1867. * Home's Introd. to Bibliog., vol. i., p. 49.

Written Text. THE NEW TESTAMENT. Cfl
usage, they are respectively designated as " Codex A,"
"Codex B," &c.
Hebrew manuscripts, as well as those of Herculaneum and
of Egypt, are found in the form of continuous rolls, rormo,
the edges being connected by thongs or gum ; but MSS-
those of the New Testament are all folded as books now are,
most of them being folios and quartos, but some octavos, and
even of smaller size. The sheets were folded three or four
together and separately stitched, then the several parts were
united together.
The page is usually found broken into columns, two, three,
or four, as the case may be ; and occasionally a Latin, Appearance
or other version, has been placed in the middle °* page-
column, or at the right or left hand.
One of the most marked characteristics of the manuscripts
of the New Testament, by which they are divided into F f
two great classes, is the form of the letter in which letter-
they are written. It is of two kinds : the Uncial, and the
Cursive. The Uncial is a capital letter, while the Cursive
represents the ordinary running hand. This division of the
manuscripts is the one in most common use, although Hug
has adopted another which is threefold : manuscripts which
preceded stichometry ; stichometrical ; and those that were
written after stichometry, a system to be explained hereafter.
The word Uncial, etymologically, means the twelfth part
of any thing, being used similarly to the word inch, or Meanm.
ounce, and as applied loosely to letters refers to their of Uncial-
size. The earliest manuscripts are all, without exception,
written in the so-called Uncial character, the first Cursive not
appearing until near the close of the ninth century. This
character continued to be employed, moreover, to some extent,
long after the Cursive had come into general use, especially
when a manuscript of splendid and elegant appearance was
desired. The various localities where the New Testament manu
scripts originated are often indicated, though indis
tinctly, by some peculiar features of the text : the ap
pearance of the letter as rough and irregular, or simple and
7

98 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. I.
uniform ; the orthography approaching in some minute points
that of some other language, as the Latin or the Coptic ; the
coloring, ornamentation, &c.
In the margin are other signs of interest which assist in
determining the same point, as also the age, use, &c, of the
document. Not infrequently there are marks indicating what
portion was to'be used for reading lessons in the public service,
as a {arche), the beginning, and t {telos), the end; critical
notes ; extracts from commentators drawn from the Fathers,
largely from Origen, although reaching back to Irenaeus and
Clement of Alexandria ; occasionally musical signs in ink of
different colors ; and, after the fourth century, indices designat
ing chapters, sections, canons, &C.1
On account ofthe scarcity and expensiveness of parchment,
it was sometimes customary in mediasval times to
Palimpsests. , , _ . .
erase the letters from ancient manuscripts whose
importance was then little appreciated, and use the material
for other literary works. The erasure, however, not having
been in all cases complete, the original writing has in process
of time not infrequently reappeared to assert its prior claim,
or has been rendered intelligible through chemical means.
Such a restored manuscript is called a palimpsest, or codex
rescriptus. Quite a number of these are found among the
Uncials. The Uncial " C," preserved in the Imperial (Na
tional) Library at Paris, originally written, as it is supposed,
in the fifth century, and of great value, suffered this process of
erasure in the twelfth century, the vellum of which it was
formed being appropriated to the transcription of the works
of Ephraim, the Syrian. There are some cases where two
erasures of this kind have taken place, and the original, not
withstanding, been reproduced and deciphered. Another
interesting circumstance connected with these precious relics
of antiquity is, that in some instances, as " No. 33 Gospels,"
belonging to the eleventh century, the leaves of manuscripts
have so adhered together that in the effort to separate them
the letters themselves have come off bodily, and it is now
necessary to read them backwards.
1 David. Bib. Grit, vol. ii., p. 6a, f.

Written Text. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 99
In view of the large number of manuscripts of the several
parts of the New Testament already collected, and Names of
the continual reference made to them individually or Mss-
in classes for purposes of criticism, the subject of a proper
notation becomes a matter of considerable importance. It
maybe said in general terms that the Uncials are distinguished
by the capitals A, B, C, &c, and the Cursives, by the corre
sponding numerals, i, 2, 3, 4, &c. The capitals having been
exhausted, however, recourse was had to the Greek alphabet ;
and that in turn offering too limited a range, it is now pro
posed to designate the new Uncials by the letters of the Hebrew
alphabet. Tischendorf has already appropriated the first
letter, Aleph, for the invaluable manuscript discovered by him
in 1844. This method of notation originated with Walton's Polyglot
(1657), in which the Codex Alexandrinus was cited How the
as manuscript "A." Wetstein (1751), following this originated. ,
hint, and consenting to the above title for Codex Alexandrinus,
named the Vatican Codex " B," and so on, without meaning,
however, by the order which he adopted, to discriminate criti
cally with respect to the age or real value of the several docu
ments. The system is convenient, but defective. There is great
inequality in the number of manuscripts of the differ-
m Defects.
ent portions of the New Testament, and the same
manuscript volume is, moreover, not always of the same date
in its different parts. Hence, the whole New Testament being
divided — for convenience of criticism and to accommodate the
system to the usual form in which the manuscripts appear —
into four parts, the same letter is used sometimes to denote
different manuscripts in the different parts ; and, to be under
stood, it is needful to designate the part ofthe New Testament
referred to as " MS. F" of the Acts," or, " F1 of the Catholic
Epistles." On the other hand, different letters are sometimes
used to indicate the same manuscript, including several or all
ofthe different parts into which the New Testament is divided.
The difficulty, however, attending a change of the system
which has been in use for two centuries, and become incorpo-

IOO HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. I.
rated with the whole body of the critical literature, of the Bible
during that time, it is to be feared, greatly outweighs the
advantages to be derived from the adoption, at this date, of
one of greater simplicity.
As already indicated, the manuscripts are very few which
Fragmen- contain the whole New Testament, — twenty-six in
tion of New all, eight of them, however, being imperfect. Usually
mss. the Gospels are found by themselves ; and so, too, the
Catholic Epistles and Acts, the cases being exceedingly rare
in which the latter books are not in combination. The Apoca
lypse is sometimes found bound up with other than New Tes-
ament literature.
A large number of manuscripts are made up of miscella-
Lection- neous selections from Scripture, having been used in
arles" connection with public worship. They are called
" Evangelistaria " when the selections are from the Gospels, as
is most common ; or " Praxapostoli," if from the Acts and
Epistles. There have been three hundred or more of these
Lectionaries already discovered.
Fragments of manuscripts, the larger part of which are lost,
Fragments are also very numerous, and often exceedingly valu-
of mss. able. A manuscript, for instance, named by Tregelles
and Tischendorf " N " as a whole, exists only in priceless
fragments, formerly designated "J," " N," and "JH;" four
leaves being in the British Museum, two in the Imperial Li-
braiy at Vienna, six at the Vatican in Rome, and thirty-three
at Patmos. It is written in silver letters on purple vellum, and
is generally known as the " Codex Purpureus."
The whole number of manuscript volumes is about twelve
Number hundred, including Lectionaries, manuscripts contain-
0 ' ' ing the whole New Testament being really reckoned
as four : one for the Gospels, one for the Acts and Catholic
Epistles, one for the epistles of Paul, and one for the Apoca
lypse. Hence, by this rule, the number of New Testament
manuscripts, including Uncials and Cursives, but excluding
duplicates, may be stated as about 1610 ; the number of Un
cials being 154, and of Cursives about 1456.1
1 Scrivener's Plain Introd., p. 225. Supplemented by later authorities.

Written Text. THE NEW TESTAMENT. IOI
The Uncials, excluding Lectionaries, are thus classified : of
the Gospels there are fifty-one ; six of them complete, The
four more nearly so, ten containing the major part, Unclals-
the remainder fragments. Of the Acts there are fourteen :
three of them being fully complete, five having the' larger por
tion, and the remainder being fragments. Of the Catholic
Epistles, there are seven Uncials, of which five are entire, the
others nearly so. Ofthe Pauline Epistles there are four nearly
or quite entire, seven having considerable portions, while eight
are fragmentary. Of the Apocalypse there are five of this
highest class of manuscripts ; three complete, and the others
nearly so.
Of these ancient documents, two, one being intact, are
referred to the fourth century, two to the fifth, along
i r. , .1 Their age.
with a number of large fragments ; seven, with many
fragments also, to the sixth century ; and the others are scat
tered along from the sixth to the tenth century, when the Cur
sives begin.
While the number of these very ancient documents may
appear to be in themselves inconsiderable, it is really
amazingly large when compared with the list of extant
original documents of other works ofthe age of the New Tes
tament. There is not, it is said, one complete copy of Homer
preserved which dates beyond the thirteenth century. And
there are only about a half-dozen manuscripts of all the classic
authors which date farther back than the sixth century. Of
the important history of Herodotus there are only sixteen
extant manuscript copies of any age ; and of some authors, of
no little importance, there is but one each.
The oldest of the New Testament manuscripts come down
to us, it is true also, from a period full two hundred witnesses
. . , , of an earlier
years subsequent to the Apostolic age, but they are all period.
indisputable, and jointly supporting witnesses to other copies
which preceded them. One of them, moreover, held to be
scarcely second in authority, the Sinaitic, was discovered less
than thirty years ago, and under circumstances which, may well
give rise to the hope that still others, perhaps as valuable, or
more valuable, will yet be brought to light. It is worthy of

102 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. I.
notice also, that manuscripts which we now possess reach
nearly or quite back to an age, — that of Constantine, — when,
as we learn from ecclesiastical history, special pains began to
be taken with the material on which copies were made. But
if no more of these literary treasures shall come to light in the
future, a sufficient reason for the fact might be found both in
the natural and inevitable waste of time, and the violence of
persecution, sometimes, as in that of Diocletian, a.d. 303,
specialty directed against these documents of the faith, and
aiming at their total extirpation. A parallel, in effect as
sweeping and disastrous as this, might be found in the history
of the English Bible, particularly in that of the original trans
lation of Wyclif.
But with even a less perfect support than that ofthe present
Proofs of magnificent Uncials, and their thronging auxiliary
the genuine- ~ .
nessof the Cursives, the genuineness ofthe New Testament writ-
New Testa-
ment writ- ings would not be endangered, especially with the
ings not en- . . .
dangered. several ancient versions coming forward as independ
ent witnesses, and the entire early literature of the church, to
corroborate the loyalty and minute faithfulness of existing
manuscripts to the original text.
The age of manuscripts can be satisfactorily determined
Age how w'tn t^le variation of not more than fifty years. Dates
determined, appended to the documents themselves, however, are
generally little depended on. Codex A (Alexandrinus) has
an inscription upon it, to the effect that it was written by
Thecla, an Egyptian princess, who lived in the fourth century,
about 325. B. H. Cowper, the English editor of this Codex,
while referring its origin to Egypt and holding that the manu
script itself bears the apparent marks of a feminine hand,
places the date at about a.d. 450.1
The data from which a judgment is commonly formed re-
Usuai specting the age of such documents, are the material
data. and character used, the form in which the text appears,
as with or without division into words, punctuation, sections,
canons, and the various marginal signs.
As late as the fourth and fifth centuries New Testament
1 Introd. to Codex.

Written Text. THE NEW TESTAMENT. IO3
manuscripts, as well as other writings, are found without marks
of punctuation, with the occasional exception of a single dot
at the top of a line, the Greek period, or a slight curl at the
end of a word, the letters being written continuously, and the
reader left wholly to his own option with respect to the division
of sentences. Fear of exciting controversy, or the greater
dread of teaching heresy, no doubt postponed a change in this
respect, even after its desirability was plainly manifest.
At length, however, the difficulties experienced in read
ing, particularly in the public service, led Euthalius, a system nf
deacon of Alexandria, to encourage (c. 462) a system Eutbalius-
of divisions, perhaps first suggested by the form in which the
poetry of the Old Testament was written. Just so many words
were placed in a line, as, expressing the sense clearly, could
be read at a breath. The system is called stichometry, from
stichos, a line, and metron, measure. This device, of uncer
tain origin, came at once into general favor, as extant manu
scripts of the period, originating in different countries, clearly
prove. Such a method of division, of course, left on the page large
chasms of vacant space, thereby necessitating a great Punctu.
waste of the costly parchment. To prevent this a atloni
simple point came to be placed after the stichoi; and from this
expedient, through the additions made by various persons for
other reasons, a regular system of punctuation gradually arose.
Some writers used a cross at the close of the stichoi, some a
dot at the top of the line, and others two dots, one above and
the other below, &c.
Other divisions of the text were made at an early day.
Owing:, as it is thought, to the requirements of public
0 ° A Chapters.
service, the Gospels were separated some time before
the fifth century into something like chapters, each chapter
being named from its leading subject. The Gospels had
been previously broken up into smaller sections, introduced
by Ammonius in the third century, — Matthew, for instance,
containing three hundred and fifty-five of them. To these Am-
monian sections, so called, which had been made with special
reference to the construction of a harmony of the four Gospels,

IC-4 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. i.
Eusebius, in turn (a.d. 315-340), in order to obviate certain
infelicities arising from the imperfection of the plan of Amnio-
nius, adapted tables of reference, called, in his honor, Eusebian
canons. Indeed, it is maintained by some that we are indebted
to Eusebius not only for the canons, but for the sections them
selves in their present shape.1
The titles and subscriptions now found on manuscripts, and
Titles and retained also in the current English version, doubtless
subscrip tions, originated outside of the Apostolic circle. There is
no reason for supposing that Paul entitled any epistle of his,
for instance, the " First ... to the Corinthians " or the " First
... to the Thessalonians." 2
Chrysostom is cited as saying that Matthew wrote simply
" Gospel " on his work, and the Church added " according to
Matthew." 8
All these various additions, at the beginning and end of New
First made Testament manuscripts, were first made, it is sud-
for ldentifi- x ' c
cation. posed, for the purpose of identification, being opinions
of the fathers merely, at the outset admitted to have only the
force of an historical judgment respecting the place where the
respective documents were written, but gradually creeping into
the text itself, as though they formed a constituent part of it.
It is probably to Euthalius, however, in the main, that these
unauthorized additions are indebted for their present conspicu
ous and misleading position.
After the time of Euthalius the use of accents also became
Accentua- more general, although some manuscripts, written
tlon- subsequent to the age in which he lived, are wholly
without them.
In these different marks then, with others not mentioned,
These characterizing the text and outward form of the vari-
marks the .
data for de- ous manuscripts, we find most of the elements which
termining . . , . . _
age. enter into the decision of the question of their re
spective ages. If, for instance, the material be cotton, or the
letter Cursive, or the manuscript has the present division into
chapters and verses, it is of course a late copy. If it be an
1 J. W. Burgon on Mark xvi. 9-20, ad l<ic.
2 De Wette's Introd., pp. 44, 45.
3 Homil. I. Ep. ad Rom., et. Homil. I. in Matt.prasf., cited by Guericke, N. T. Isagogik,
pp. 635-636.

Written Text. THE NEW TESTAMENT/. I05
Uncial, yet has its letters crowded together, or inclined, or has
the comma or interrogation point, it cannot be very old, not
older than the ninth century. If it be a manuscript with orna
mental initials, it betrays a style which came into use after the
beginning of the eighth century. If it has made use of the
system of Euthalius, — has accents, titles, and subscriptions in
the present position, — it must not be referred to a period pre
vious to his day. And if it should have the canons of Euse
bius, who lived up to a.d. 340, the bloom of his activity
must have preceded it. By this process it is not difficult to
arrive at a date for almost any manuscript which shall be ap
proximately correct.
Such of these original documents of our faith as are known
to be still extant are widely scattered, being mostly, p^^io.
however, within the bounds of Europe and the Turk- Sjjja^jf in>
ish empire. Egypt and Palestine united have, in mss.
round numbers, a hundred ; Italy, three hundred and twenty,
one hundred being in the alcoves of the Vatican library ; Eng
land, two hundred and fifty, one hundred of these treasured at
Oxford ; France, two hundred and thirty-eight, most of them
in the Imperial (National) Library, Paris ; Russia, seventy-
three ; Spain, nineteen ; Switzerland, fourteen. Of the five most
valuable Uncials, England has two ; Paris, one ; Rome, one ;
St. Petersburg, one. But one Uncial, the Sinaitic, contains
the New Testament entire.
As a general rule, age and completeness are the qualities
most desired in a New Testament manuscript, but Relative
neither of these nor both together are certain indica- "np0"^^.
tions of superior rank unless accompanied by corresponding
excellencies in other particulars. Though a manuscript be of
comparatively late origin, if it has been obviously prepared
with great care, and shows a marked deference to the earliest
authorities, which were also the authorities of the oldest extant
manuscripts, it will be accorded almost equal rank with the
latter. The Cursive, "No. 33" (Colbertinus), for instance, is
ordinarily considered more valuable than most of the Uncials
originating after the fifth century.
1 Scrivener's Plain Introd., &c, p. 465,

106 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. i.
The Codex Sinaiticus {Aleph) should, perhaps, be ac-
The more corded the highest place in the list of New Testament
Uncials; manuscripts, being reputed the oldest and most com-
Sinaiticus. plete. It contains the New Testament entire, and a
considerable part of the Old. There was also found attached
to it, when discovered, some very valuable patristic literature
of the sub-apostolic age. Its happy discoverer and editor was
Constantine Tischendorf, to whom, although one of the first
of scholars and critics, it would be honor enough that his
name should be connected with such a document. One part he
lighted on in 1844, at the Convent of St. Catherine, Mount
Sinai, and the remainder, at the same place, under circum
stances of peculiar interest, fifteen years later. On account of
the patronage which the Emperor of Russia bestowed on these
and others of , his critical and historical labors, Tischendorf
presented to him, in its complete form, this priceless fruit of
his discoveries ; and it is now retained in the ward of the
Imperial library at St. Petersburgh.
The learned discoverer himself, although others doubt the
Tischen- supposition, thinks it not improbable that this manu-
dorf's opin- . . .
ionofitsage. script is one of the fifty copies of the Scriptures which
the Emperor Constantine, a.d. 331, ordered to be prepared
from the best materials for the use of the Byzantine churches.
It has four columns to a page, is without initial letters, such as
mark Codex A, — in which respect the Sinaitic and the Vati
can codices agree with the rolls found at Herculaneum, —
and possesses all the other characteristic signs belonging to the
age to which it is referred.
Tischendorf places the more value on the text from the fact
Value tnat li was written, as he judges, by an Alexandrian
of text copyist, but little familiar with the Greek tongue, and
hence under less temptation to introduce changes. In his
opinion it represents with a good degree of accuracy, the text
commonly accepted throughout Christendom in the third and
even second centuries, there being a remarkable agreement
between it and that of the ante-Hieronymian version, the
Syrian Gospels, the Coptic versions, and with the citations
found in the oldest patristic writings. This codex, edited by

Written Text. THE NEW TESTAMENT. IO7
Tischendorf, was published at Leipsic in 1S63 ; and a collation
of the same with the so-called " Received Text," together with
a eritical introduction by Rev. Frederick H. Scrivener, at Cam
bridge and London, in 1864.
The Codex Vaticanus (B), so called from its place of de
posit, contains nearly all of the Old Testament and V tit 1 Ciln US-
the New, save Heb. ix. 14 — xiii. ; I., II. Tim. ; Titus,
Philem., and Revelation. How it first came into the posses
sion of the Vatican is not known, but it can be traced back in
that collection to the year 1475-
From some peculiarities of language employed, it is thought
that it also must have been the work of an Egyptian AnEgvptian
copyist. There are three columns on each page. The copy-
text is written continuously with no division of words, and the
letters are equally distant from one another. Originally there
were no marks of punctuation, a later hand betraying itself in
such as now appear, as also in the case of accents. The Am-
monian sections are also wanting. Another sign of great age
is the circumstance, that all the Epistles of Paul are arranged
together as one book with continuous chapters to the end.
For these, and other reasons as conclusive, this codex is not
generally assigned to a later period than about a.d.
350. Unfortunately, through the illiberality of the
Papacy, this most important representative ofthe ancient New
Testament Scriptures has been, hitherto, virtually inaccessible.
A splendid fac-simile edition, however, is now in process of
publication at Rome, of which four volumes have already
appeared, the first, containing the New Testament, in 1S68.
An imperfect and untrustworthy copy has been edited by
Angelus Maius (D. Appleton & Co., N. Y., 1859) ; and a bet
ter, though necessarily defective one, by Tischendorf, Leipsic,
1867, "post Angeli Maii Aliorumque Imperfectos Labores ex
Ipso Codice," and an appendix to the same in 1S69.
The Codex Alexandrinus, in general estimation, comes
next in order and value to the Vatican; although A]exan.
Tregelles gives this honor to the palimpsest, Codex drinus-
Ephrajmi.1 It is an unusually large manuscript volume, con-
1 Acct. of Printed Text, &c, p. 169.

108 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. chap. I.
taining the entire Bible in Greek, with the exception of the
first twenty-four chapters of Matthew and a few other minor
parts. There were found bound up with it, moreover, the
only known copy of the epistle of Clemens Romanus ex
tant, a letter of Athanasius, and a work of Eusebius on the
Psalms. As in some of the other ancient manuscripts, the Epistle to
Order of tne Hebrews immediately follows II. Thessalonians.
books. <j;ne page has but two columns. The division of
words is indicated only by a simple curl occasionally found at
the end.
Large initial letters appear at the beginning of books and
initial °^ sections. The end of a clause is marked by a
letters, period. This codex has the Ammonian sections and
references to the tables of Eusebius ; but there is wanting the
definite arrangement of subscriptions to epistles, together with
other novelties introduced by Euthalius. Codex Alexan
drinus is at present in the possession of the British Museum,
having been presented to Charles I. by the patriarch of Con
stantinople in 1628. It ranks next to the Sinaitic in com
pleteness, and is dated about a.d. 450. Of these three noble
witnesses to the original text of the New Testament, Tischen
dorf says: "No single work of ancient Greek classical litera
ture can command three such original witnesses as the Sinaitic,
Vatican, and Alexandrine manuscripts to the integrity and
accuracy of its text. That they are available in the case of a
book which is at once the most sacred, and the most 'important,
in the world, is surely matter for the deepest thankfulness to
God." 1 The New Testament portion of Codex A has been
edited by B. H. Cowper (Lond. i860), who took the previous
work of Woide as his basis.
From many hundreds of Cursive manuscripts of the New
Mostim- Testament which have passed the inspection of schol-
portant of ...
Cursives, ars, ranging with respect to date from the tenth cen
tury to the sixteenth, we shall notice but five, especially
distinguished for important readings', their contributions to
the formation of the current text or some other peculiarity.2
1 Introd. to Tauchnitz's ed. of N. T., p. j6. 2 Cf. Tregelles's Acct. Printed Text, p. 208.

Written Text. THE NEW TESTAMENT. IO9
The Codex Basiliensis, one of the most celebrated, is in
the library at Basle, Switzerland. It is complete with Coiex
the exception of the last book of the New Testament. BasUiensis-
Erasmus, at the time when he was preparing his editions of
the Greek Testament for publication, was well acquainted
with this document, but made no use of it because it did not
agree well with those which he had specially chosen as his
guides, and he imagined that it had been tampered with. It
probably dates back to the tenth century, and in the Gospels
offers a text superior to that of any Uncial originating later
than itself.
The most valuable Cursive extant, however, notwithstand
ing it exists only in a very mutilated state, is the
#~, , r-* , 1 t^ - t • 1 1 t Colbertinus.
Codex Colbertinus, now at Paris. Like the preceding,
it contains the whole New Testament except Revelation. The
material of the volume is vellum, and it is in the form of a
folio. Dating back only to the eleventh century, it yet shows
the most remarkable agreement with the oldest Uncials. It
was this codex, which, in separating the leaves, suffered the
misfortune of losing its letters, in some portions bodily, and
they can now be read only as set off on the opposite page.
An important Cursive, though of rough exterior, being
more highly prized by critics than even the majority Lejces.
of the Uncials, is now in the keeping of the town trensis-
council of Leicester, England, and is accordingly called
Codex Leicestrensis. The material is both vellum and
paper ; it rs a folio in form, and is about five hundred years
old. The whole New Testament, by its four designated parts,
is represented in it.
Among the " primary " Cursives, is also reckoned a manu
script of the Apocalypse, the material of which is cot- a ms. of
ton paper, and the date the thirteenth century. In lypse.
connection with this codex is noted the significant circum
stance that it is not found with other New Testament books,
but bound in with a collection of patristic writings. It is
numbered "Vatican, 579-"
Another most valuable Cursive, now reckoned 20,003, in
the British Museum collection, is one of the many important

IIO HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. I.
discoveries of Tischendorf, who introduced it to the world
Ofthe °f letters in I^53- I* lS a quarto, in vellum, and con-
Acts- tains the Acts of the Apostles. In a subscription pur
porting to have been written by John the Monk, it claims to
belong to the year answering to 1044 of our era. Whenever
the great Uncials disagree in their testimony respecting this
portion of the New Testament, this witness is now much
depended on, and generally furnishes the reading finally
adopted. The great importance of the Cursives generally, in de-
importance termining the true text of the New Testament as
Cursives, against the too exclusive and peremptory claim of the
leading Uncials, which is the great open question, has been
ably exhibited and urged by Rev. F. H. Scrivener in several
recent works.
As it would be natural and reasonable to expect, unless it
Various were allowable to expect in this case a continuous
"readmss-" miracle, the transcription of such an immense number
of manuscripts as are represented by the nearly two thousand
yet extant became the source of numerous errors. Norton
computes the number of copies in circulation, even at the end
of the second century, at not less than sixty thousand.1 Such
errors were inevitable, and could not have been prevented even
by that most scrupulous and painstaking care, which we
know, from contemporaneous history and from the nature of
the case, must have been bestowed on the matter of the integ
rity of the sacred text.2 But, on the other hand, the remarkable
preservation of so large a number of the manuscripts of the
New Testament to our day, coming from almost every age
and country, and for the most part being easily subjected to
the most searching investigation and minute comparisons,
furnishes ample material, notwithstanding, for the discovery
and definite construction, to a sufficient degree of accuracy, of
the original text. " What," says one, " would the thoughtful
reader of -^Eschylus give for the like guidance through the
obscurities which vex his patience, and mar his enjoyment of
that sublime poet ? " 8
1 Genuineness of the Gospels, p. 52, ' Id., pp. 45, 70. Cf. De Wette's Introd., p. 46.
8 Scrivener's Plain Introd., p. 4.

Written Text. THE NEW TESTAMENT. Ill
Even if the exact originals of these several books were in
our possession, we must rely on means in kind such
, - . ,. Originals.
as are now at hand for deciding that they were so ;
and, if we were able to determine that point affirmatively,
we still might not be able to satisfy ourselves that they were
themselves absolutely free from any mistakes, since we know
that others than their respective authors were engaged in their
preparation. Textual criticism is not a necessity in the case
of the New Testament alone, but equally in that of all ancient
books ; while the New Testament stands conspicuously pre
eminent in the abundance and quality of the materials furnished
for the work, and the consequent justness and definiteness of
the conclusions reached.
The immense superiority of the New Testament Scriptures
to the best works of Greek and Roman authors, with superiority
respect to the reliability of its text, has been ably Test&meat
summed up as consisting in the superior number of its MSS'
manuscripts, their high antiquity, the extent of space over
which copies were diffused, the importance attached to them by
their possessors, the respect paid to them by copyists of later
ages, the wide local separation or open hostility of those in whose
custody they were preserved, the visible effects of the same
from age to age, the body of references and quotations, means
of comparison with spurious books, the existence of ancient
versions by which they may be tested, and the vernacular
extinction of languages in which versions were first written.1
The whole number of variations of all sorts, in the manu
scripts and other textual sources of the New Testa- whole
ment, has been roughly estimated at one hundred and variations.
twenty thousand.2 These variations cannot, in strictness of
phraseology, be termed different " readings," as is most com
mon ; for we might as well " place under that head differences
of orthography in an English book." 8 They are of every
shade imaginable, and the aggregate result of the most rigid
examination, not only of manuscripts, but of ancient versions
and patristic citations for five hundred years, an examination
1 I. Taylors Trans, of Ancient Books, pp. 177-203.
. 2 Scriv. Plain Introd. to Crit of N. T., p. 3.
8 Home's Introd., vol. iv., p. 50,

112 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. I.
and a scrutiny inspired by the zeal of scholars, added to the
zeal of religion. Fifty-nine sixtieths of them, it is claimed,
have not sufficient documentary authority, if they were other
wise of importance, to give them any considerable weight, the
great mass consisting merely of obvious and easily identified
hlunders of copyists.
Tregelles, for instance, says of six hundred additions in
character Codex D, that the basis of the text can be separated
tions. as definitely from the demonstrable accretions as the
foot-notes in a modern book from the body of the page.1
There are thousands and tens of thousands of variations due
to differences of spelling alone. There are diversities of gram
matical form ; diversities of order, — " Christ Jesus," for "Jesus
Christ ; " " Esaias the prophet," for " the prophet Esaias ; "
"woman, believe me," or, " believe me, woman." Pronouns
are used in place of nouns : as " he," for Jesus." Words are
substituted for their equivalents : " the kingdom of the Lord,"
for " the kingdom of God," &c. There are, in fact, prob
ably less than two thousand places where the true reading of
the text is really in doubt, and this includes the passages ren
dered doubtful by a question as to the order of words, their
inflection, or proper orthography.2
Texts of doctrinal importance which are of uncertain
Few texts authority may be easily counted; and, though they
fmportance1 were to ^e expunged entirely from the Scriptures, the
in doubt substance of its doctrinal teaching would not be
thereby materially modified.
There is no evidence to substantiate the charge of wilful cor
ruption ofthe text, — at least, to any considerable extent, — for
the purpose of securing support for current dogmatic opinions.8
Intentional changes were no doubt sometimes introduced, but,
for the most part, for some one of the following reasons : to
correct the language in accordance with classical usage ; or to
make it more clear, beautiful, or sonorous ; to remove supposed
geographical blunders or errors of history ; and to bring the
manuscript into harmony with patristic renderings. Doctrinal
1 Cf. Home's Introd., vol. iv., p. 58.
* Cf. Tregelles's Acct. Printed Text, p. 52 j Scriv. Plain Introd. to Crit of N. T., p. 3.
B Id., p. 6. Cf. Reuss, id,, sect. 360, 361.

Written Text. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 113
considerations may have moved to some few changes, but by
no means to the extent of putting the smallest stumbling-block
in the way of a discriminating criticism.
All intentional alterations of the text by copyists, in fact,
are of the nature of rare exceptions, the vast majority inthemam
being, as we have said, readily recognized as simple, 2^^
and exceedingly natural, slips of a careless pen. They takes'
have been classified as, — (i) Errors of sight: the exchange of
letters, misplacement of words, and the omission of sentences ;
(2) Of hearing : through similarity of pronunciation ; (3) Of
memory: in looking to and from the copy, misplacement of
words, exchange of synonymes ; (4) Of understanding : false
division of words, false readings of abbreviations, the adoption
of marginal readings into the text.1
These slight diversities in the original documents of the
New Testament, immensely numerous as they are in NotrealiT
the aggregate, so far from giving occasion for suspi- "imaging.
cion or being sources of weakness, may be considered rather
in the light of checks on a more material adulteration of manu
scripts, and offer themselves as so many and separate witnesses
to the essential integrity and identity of the text through all
periods of its history. In some instances, weighty objections
to the text have been removed by the light cast upon it through
the discrepancies of new manuscripts. Bentley says, the text,
instead of " being rendered more precarious by variations, is
made more certain and authentic." 2
So great, in fact, is the harmony of teaching in all these
documents, though we compare the earliest with the Teaching of
latest, that while three of the most important Uncials monious.
had not been discovered when our present English translation
was made, and one that was known to exist was inaccessible
(the Vatican), and only a single specimen of the less valuable
of these most ancient witnesses was actually used (D), yet no
person would hazard the opinion that in our English Bibles
we have not, for substance, the teaching of the best docu
ments brought to light during the last two hundred and fifty
years. 1 De Wette's Introd., pp. 49, 50. s Works, vol. iii., p. 352.
8

114 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. I.
A distinguished critic of the last century has tersely said :
Opinion of " The real text of the sacred writers does not now lie
Bentley. m any one manuscript, but is dispersed in them all.
'Tis competently exact, indeed, in the worst manuscripts now
extant ; nor is one article of faith or moral precept either per
verted or lost in them ; choose as awkwardly as you will,
choose the worst by design, out of the whole lump of readings,
make your variations as many more, ... all the better to a
knowing and serious reader, who is thereby more richly fur
nished to select what he sees genuine. But even put them
into the hand of a knave or a fool, and yet, with the most
sinistrous and absurd choice, he shall not extinguish the light
of any one chapter, nor so disguise Christianity but that every
feature of it will still be the same." 1
And the learned Davidson, from quite another critical stand
point, writes: "Let the illiterate reader ofthe New Testament
take comfort by learning that the ' received text,' to which he
is accustomed, is substantially the same as that which men of
the greatest learning, the most unwearied research, and the
severest studies, have found in a prodigious heap of docu
ments."2 1 Works, iii., p. 360. 2 Bib. Crit, vol. ii., ch. ix.

CHAPTER II.
THE ANCIENT VERSIONS AND PRINTED TEXT.
VERNACULAR translations kept pace everywhere in the
early ages with the progress of Christianity itself, and
such translations, often made directly from primary Value of
authorities, furnish no unimportant record of the Versions.
earliest text. As materials for critical use, their value is
doubtless much less than that of codices of the same age.
The mastery of the language in which they are severally
found, too, is a necessary prerequisite to forming a judg
ment concerning their value at all, especially as affected
by local influences.1 But they are, some of them, considerably
older than the oldest extant codices, — the Syriac and
Latin versions representing a text current within a century of
the death of the Apostles, — and when their readings are con
firmed by the best codices they at once command acceptance.
The important apologetic value of translations of ancient
literary works has been well set forth by Isaac Tay- Apologeti(.
lor : " Among all the means for ascertaining the va'ue¦
antiquity and genuineness of ancient books, none are more
satisfactory or more complete than those afforded by the exist
ence of early translations. Indeed, if such translations can be
proved to have been made near to the time at which the author
of the original work is believed to have lived, and if they cor
respond in the main with the existing text, and if they have
descended to modern times through channels altogether inde
pendent of those which have conveyed the original work ; and
if, moreover, ancient translations of the same work in several
x Cf. Scriv. Plain Introd., p. 227, 288.

Il6 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. II.
languages are in existence, no kind of proof can be more per
fect or trustworthy." x
Syriac Versions. — The Peshito version is one of the
The most important of the ancient witnesses to the New
Peschito. Testament. Its name, Peshito, meaning simple, is
differently explained, being regarded by some as intended to
give prestige and pre-eminence to the version itself, as though
it were to receive almost equal authority with the very Greek
text. Others attach no critical importance to the name, sup
posing it to be intended merely to distinguish this version from
another in the same language made from the Hexaplar Greek
text. It is generally referred to the second century and the
earlier part of it. Eusebius refers to a Syriac version as cur
rent in his time.2 From the earliest period this version was
used by different sects of Syrian Christians with a common
and profound reverence which still survives : " How shall we
know," said an old priest of the country to a recent English
traveller, " that your standard copy of the Bible is a true
translation? We cannot depart from our Bible, the Peshito.
It is the true book of God without corruption, that book which
was first used by the Christians of Antioch."3
The necessity for this version arose from the circumstance
Origin, that, while Greek Was spoken in the larger cities like
&c ' Antioch, Syriac was the vernacular generally even in
the regions beyond the Euphrates. One of the proofs of its
age is stamped on the face of it, by the fact that the books
generally termed " antilegomena," " disputed," were omitted
from it, the canon of the New Testament having not yet be
come fully established. These books, however, were subse
quently translated into the Syriac. The Peshito version is
pronounced simple and faithful, although at the same time
free and idiomatic. It has ordinarily been regarded as of
considerable importance in Biblical studies, from Beza's time
to our own, both on account of its age and the country which
it represents, although able critics differ widely and almost bit-
1 Trans, of Anc"t Books, p. 34. Cf. on general subject De Wette's Introd., pp. 10-36;
id. Home, iv. 225-329; id. Bleek, ii. 335-375; id. Michaelis, ii. 1-159; Guericke's N. T.
Isagogik, 1586-716; Reuss's die Gesch. d. Heil. Schrift, N. T. 423-457.
¦ Hist. Eccl., iv. 22. > The Syrian Churches, Etberidge, p. 166.

oxeman
version.

Ancient Versions. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 117
terly on the question of the real value to be ascribed to its
text. A new argument was furnished to those who think that
it represents a mixed, revised text, in the recent discovery of a
manuscript of the Gospels in Syriac by Dr. Cureton in the
Nitrian monastery.1 In these Curetonian Gospels, according
to Tregelles, Alford, Bleek, Ewald, and others, we have a text
possessing higher claims to antiquity than that of the Peshito.
The subject is fully argued by Tregelles.2 Various editions of
this ancient Syriac version have appeared, — one by the Brit
ish and Foreign Bible Society (1818). There is an English
translation by J. Murdoch, New York (1852).
A Syriac translation of the New Testament, called the
Philoxenian, from a bishop of Hierapolis who was phi]
instrumental in its being made, was completed a.d
508. It exists at present only in a revised form, the revision
having taken place a.d. 616. The marks of the process pur
sued in revision, including citations and other critical signs, are
still visible on extant manuscripts. The Philoxenian was based
on the Peschito version, but differs from it in having the whole
New Testament except the Apocalypse, and in being so ex
cessively literal as to obscure the sense. It follows the Greek,
word for word, even to the particles, and it is thought could
not have been designed for public reading. Such extreme
literalness, however, and the ancient readings found in the
margin, render this version of singular value for purposes of
criticism ; although, in Michaelis's opinion, it is of far less
general value than its predecessor.
Still another Syriac translation of a part of the Gospels,
considered of high critical value, exists in manuscript a Syriac
-r r 1 • 1 ts x t-» , ¦ Evangeli-
in the Vatican library at Rome, lt is an Lvangelia- arium.
rium, being selections for the festivals, and in its present form,
originated in a monastery at Antioch, a.d. 1031, although re
ferred as a version to the sixth and even the fourth century.
Tregelles and others think that it was not originally a complete
version, but merely a translation from a Greek Lectionary. The
language is Aramaic, with peculiar Chaldaic words and gram-
1 Ancient Syriac Documents ed. by Drs. Wright and Cureton, London, 1864.
1 Smith's Bib. Diet, iii. 1636.

Il8 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. II.
matical forms. It exhibits a remarkable agreement with the
readings of the most ancient codices.
Ethiopic Version. — Christianity prevailed in Abyssinia
An Ethiopic as eariy as tbe fourth century ; and the churches, it
version. ;s SUpp0sed, were at that time in the possession of a
vernacular translation of the whole Bible, the Old Testament
being from the Septuagint. Chrysostom (354-407) makes
allusion to this version in his homily on St. John. And it is
to be noted as a striking fact, that the Scriptures are still, to
this day, read in that country in the language of this first
translation, although the mass of the people for more than four
hundred years have ceased to understand it, another language
having become the vernacular in the fourteenth century. This
translation was made directly from the Greek, although be
traying evidence that it was done by some other than a native
Greek, and generally harmonizes with the older codices. Mi-
chaelis expresses the hope that Ethiopian travellers will yet
bring to light manuscripts of this version which shall be of
great aid to Biblical scholars.
Egyptian Versions. — The Greek language was spoken in
Egyptian Egypt after the Alexandrian conquest, was the court
versions. language of the Ptolemies, and prevailed extensively
even in Lower Egypt. After the time of the Ptolemies,' the
Egyptian gradually creeping in and supplanting the Greek
tongue, a translation of the Scriptures into it was made for the
use of a large population of Christians. The prevailing dia
lect, at that time, was the Coptic, now it is the Arabic. The
Coptic, though yet retained as an ecclesiastical language, is
not understood even by the priests, and when the Coptic Testa
ment is read it is sensed by a Prolector in Arabic. The Cop
tic, which is the generic name for the Egyptian language, has
two dialects, the Memphitic and the Thebaic, representing
respectively Lower and Upper Egypt. In both of these dia
lects, translations direct from the Greek have been made, and
the two are quite independent.
The Thebaic, sometimes called the Sahidic version, pre
served only in considerable fragments, is regarded as
1 the older, although the difference of age is small.

Ancient Versions. THE NEW TESTAMENT. II9
Bleek assigns both to about a.d. 250, Tregelles to a period still
earlier. The Memphitic version has been published (Lond. 1847)
with an Arabic translation in the margin by the So
ciety for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, for
the use of Christians in Egypt. This version is often pre
ferred, in parts, to the other, as having a more complete text
and more valuable readings. Both are highly important as
witnesses to the state of the text in that age and country.
Fragments of another supposed version, named the Bash-
muric, are extant, representing a dialect presumed to Another
be a modification of the Thebaic, but it is much version.
doubted by scholars whether it be indeed a new dialect or a
new version, the chief differences being those of orthography.
Armenian Version. — Christianity was early received by
the inhabitants of Armenia, but the Scriptures ex- An Arme.
isted for them only in the Syriac, they having no manversl0n-
written language of their own till the beginning of the fourth
century. About a.d. 406, a written language was formed
from an alphabet consisting of thirty-six letters ; and the Bible,
according to the Peshito version, was translated into it. A
little later, however (431), certain of their scholars coming
into the possession of the Greek Scriptures, a direct transla
tion was made from them at Alexandria, whither these schol
ars had gone to perfect themselves in the knowledge of the
Greek tongue. The impression of the familiar Syriac version
has naturally enough stamped itself, to some extent, upon the
succeeding one.
Persic Versions. — There are two Persic versions of the
Gospels yet extant, one of them only being from the versions in
Greek. It was made at a comparatively late period, — Persia.
Bleek putting it in the fourteenth century, — and is of no
special critical value. Walton made use of it in his Polyglot.
The second one is derived from the Syriac, that language
having been at the time the language of literature and of the
church. Its relation to the Syriac is shown by an occasional
misunderstanding of the Syriac text, the retention of Syriac
words; and the character of its readings in general.

120 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. II.
A Georgian version. — Ancient Iberia or Georgia was
A Georgian evangelized about a.d. 320, and it is supposed to have
version. enjoyed the blessing of a vernacular translation of the
Greek Scriptures by the end of the sixth century, scholars
having prepared it in Greece for the use of their country
men. Tregelles — judging from internal evidence simply —
doubts whether it was made directly from the Greek, inas
much as it shows so great affinities with the Armenian version.
It is a version but little known, the present available manu
scripts of it being of a mixed and uncertain character.
Arabic Versions. — Several distinct Arabic translations
Arabic of the Scriptures have been made, but most of them
versions, being second-hand versions are of little use for pur
poses of criticism. One reason why other ecclesiastical ver
sions were taken in the place of original authorities was the
fact that the Arabic gradually supplanted other languages, as
the Coptic and Syriac, and, finding versions already existing
in those languages, made them the basis of its own. There is
one quite ancient version of the Gospels, however, dating, as
some suppose, back to the latter half of the fourth century,
which was probably made from Greek sources, although later
investigations have started the query whether it might not be
from the Latin.
Gothic Version. — The Christian religion was communi-
Gothic cated to the Goths by Roman slaves, early in the third
veraon. Century. For the numerous discipleship, Ulfilas,
their bishop (348-388), effected a translation of the whole
Bible in the Germanic language, but with a Greek alphabet.
Several interesting fragments of this version have been but
recently discovered, some of them palimpsests. Previous to
the present century, it was only known in a manuscript of the
Gospels and a part of Romans, brought to light two hundred
years ago in Westphalia. The material of this manuscript,
to which the name Codex Argenteus has been given, is vellum,
once of a purple color, while its characters are in silver, except
certain initial letters, which are in gold.
It consists, in its present shape, of one hundred and eighty-
eight folio leaves, having had, in its original form, three

Ancient Versions. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 121
hundred and twenty. This particular manuscript is assigned
to the sixth century. The version which it represents Present
once spoke to nearly the whole of Europe. Ulfilas, state-
the translator, although a semi-Arian in doctrine, introduced
none, or next to none, of his peculiar views into the text. As
a version which without contradiction may be referred to the
fourth century, and with scarcely less certainty is known to
have been made from Greek sources, it is highly prized by
students of the sacred text.
Slavonic Version. — Portions of the Slavonic race inhabit
ing ancient Moravia, a powerful state now no more, Siavon!c
including the territory bordering on the Danube north- verslon-
ward beyond the Carpathian mountains, and westward to
Magdeburg, first received the Gospel through Cyrillus and
Methodius, missionaries from Thessalonica, a.d. 863. The
Moravians of Briinn, as descendants of this ancient race, cele
brated this important event in their history on its one thou
sandth anniversary, 1863. A version of the Greek Scriptures
in the vernacular, an alphabet being formed at the same time,
was completed in a.d. 960. It is not known what part the
two brothers from Thessalonica had in the work of translation,
although Cyrillus has the credit of beginning it. The Latin
version having been used previously, the new version was
considerably affected thereby. In its original form, the version
did not contain the present translation of the Apocalypse, the
work being especially intended for church service ; and this
part, it is thought, was added as recently as a.d. 1516, having
some peculiar, and otherwise unexplainable, agreement with
the Erasmian text of that period.
Latin Versions. — A faithful and discriminating considera
tion of the old Latin versions of the Scriptures is Latm
imperatively necessary for those who would trace sue- verslons-
cessfully the history of the sacred text. All versions of the
Scriptures made in Europe since their time have been more
or less influenced by them. In cases where they have not
been definitely followed, they have left an unmistakable
impress and coloring. French, Spanish, and Italian Bibles
existing before the 16th century were only versions of the

122 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. II.
Latin version. And the Vulgate is still the sacred original
of the Roman Catholic Church, their latest translations and
revisions adhering tenaciously to its revered text. The first
necessity for a Latin version arose from the fact that the Greek
was not universally, although it was generally, spoken through
out the Roman empire. In many commercial cities, and in
proconsular Africa, the Latin language prevailed.
It is not certain at what precise date the earliest Latin ver-
Dateof the slon was made, but it is supposed not far from a.d.
earliest j^0) sjnCe there was one already in common use in
the time of TertuUian. It originated in North Africa.
Whether more than one independent Latin version of the
Scriptures was made before the time of Jerome is a matter of
dispute, most scholars taking the affirmative of the question.
If there was but one, we are compelled to admit frequent revi
sion and wholesale interpolations. Augustine and Jerome
seem to speak of a plurality of versions ; although among them
Augustine distinguished one, the Itala, as of peculiar merit.
Westcott supposes the Itala to be a semi-authoritative version
made in northern Italy. At least, the custom of terming all
the ante-Hieronymian versions or revisions the Itala, without
discrimination, is an obvious mistake. Bleek adopts the view
of one independent version only, the others being modifica
tions of it. So, too, Tregelles and Westcott in substance.
Evidences and remains of the ante-Hieronymian text are
abundant in the form of codices in which both the Greek and
Latin are found, as well as in distinct Latin manuscripts, and
in citations of the Fathers.
Under instructions from Damasus, bishop of Rome, Jerome
The Vulgate (329~42°)' near trle cl°se °f tbe fourth century, under-
of Jerome, took a revision of the Latin text, then existing in a
very corrupted and uncertain state. He brought to his work
vigorous and accurate scholarship, along with a passionate
zeal for Biblical studies. To a limited extent in this impor
tant undertaking, he made use of such Greek manuscript
authorities as were accessible to him. But, alone in the field
and untrained in the rigorous rules of modern criticism, he
was far enough from removing all, though seemingly obvious,

Ancient Versions. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 1 23
defects from his work, and, instead of seeking unflinchingly to
bring his text to his authorities, he sometimes obliged his
Greek authorities to bend to the corrupt Latin text, or only
adhered to such authorities as best accorded with it. Two
manuscript copies of Jerome's work, one written a.d. 541,
Codex Amiatinus, and the other a.d. 546, Codex Fuldensis,
are still preserved, and well known.
In the New Testament portion, Jerome aimed at revision
only, taking the old Latin as his standard, and refus- The New
ing to have his work named a translation. His Bible, J"mfent
however, notwithstanding this fact, and the well- version-
known circumstance that he performed his task in obedience
to the request of the bishop of Rome, was violently assailed
on the plea that it was a corruption of the Gospels, and an
unsettling of the foundations of the faith. Even Augustine
joined the clamor against him. With such suspicion and
reluctance, indeed, was his work of translation and revision
admitted into circulation, that it was not till the seventh century
that it was fully adopted as the Vulgate, and then it had vir
tually ceased to be the work of Jerome, the old text, in the
mean time, having largely crept in, or been re-instated by
unauthorized hands in its former place.
Under the patronage of Charlemagne, about a.d. 802,
Alcuin was intrusted with the duty of evoking a better Revision
text from the confusion into which it had fallen. He Vulgate.
so far succeeded in his object, by the aid of the codices which
he could command, that he brought back, in some degree, the
previously effaced impression of Jerome's labors; but his work,
in turn, served only to check for a time, the process of degen
eracy which continued down to the era of printing. And, in
fact, no special pains were taken with the printed text till the
appearance of the Complutensian Polyglot, in 151 7, transla
tions being often made from a single manuscript alone, with
out the aid of collations.
The Council of Trent, in 1546, officially declared the " Old
Vulgate " " authentic," but left undefined just what Council of
they would be understood as meaning bythe"Vul- Trenfc
gate." It was not till after the promulgation of this decree,

124 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. II,
that the effort actually to render the Latin text of Scripture
more worthy of confidence was entered upon. The undertak
ing was inaugurated under Pope Pius IV., and continued
under Pius V. and Sixtus V., the latter boldly reserving to
himself personally the right of giving the last and authoritative
decision on disputed readings. The work was finally brought
to a close, and the results published in three volumes, in
1590. Simultaneously, it was proclaimed by bull of the Pope that
The new *ne *ex': contained in this edition, March 1st, 1589, was
text tne true, genuine, and authentic text of the Vulgate
which the' Council of Trent had referred to, and the curse of
Almighty God was invoked on any who should attempt to
change it. It was ordered, moreover, that all future editions
of the Vulgate should adopt and retain this text, and that all
earlier editions and manuscripts containing variations from it,
which were not thereby amended, should be without authority.
The new text was also to be introduced into all missals and
books of service. All this, however, did not prevent obvious
mistakes from appearing in the published work, although
zealous efforts were made to conceal them by scratches of the
pen, and pieces of paper pasted over them.
In the face of this thundering anathema of Sixtus V., a
Another new edition of the Vulgate was undertaken almost
edition. immediately, appearing in 1592, all under the sanction
of Clement VIII. It both corrected the patent errors into which
Sixtus had fallen, and altered the text to a considerable extent.
The changes, moreover, which Sixtus had introduced into
missals and books of service, were recalled by Clement, who
stigmatized the missals thus altered as missalia depravata.
An apology was indeed offered for the glaring inconsistencies
of the two Popes, to the effect that Sixtus had himself contem
plated a revision, had he been spared, and that the mistakes
of his edition were printers' blunders. The defence, however,
was too weak and manifestly disingenuous to be of much ser
vice. A second revision was made by authority of the same
Clement in 1593. It has long been matter of dispute among
scholars, which text, that of Sixtus V., or that of Clement

Printed Text. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 1 25
VIII., is the more reliable. Pending its decision, that of
Clement has been adopted as the, basis of all editions of the
Vulgate, since issued under sanction of the Roman See, not
withstanding it might be supposed still to lie under the heavy
anathemas of the infallible Sixtus V.

THE PRINTED TEXT.
The history of the printed text ofthe Greek New Testament
is important as showing what special use has been made of
the large amount of materials collected by critical research
and assiduity ; the several distinct classes, recensions, if any,
into which, on the basis of internal characteristics, the mass
of documents may be divided ; the particular rules adopted by
scholars for deciding, amongst a multitude of variations, which
is the true text ; and especially the more direct bearing of the
labors of critics since the time of Erasmus, Stephens, and Beza
upon the " received text," forming the basis of the current
English version.
The first attempts to print the Greek text of the New Tes
tament were greatly discouraged as being a dangerous First at_
innovation and an unfavorable reflection on the Latin lem?ts„al«printing the
Vulgate. The wonderful art of printing had been Greek.
employed by the numerous and wealthy Jews of Europe for
the printing of the Hebrew Scriptures some time previous to
the appearance of the first edition of the Greek New Testa
ment. Fragmentary portions of manuscripts were reproduced
in print at Venice as early as i486, and again in 1504 ; but
the first edition of the entire New Testament published was
that of Erasmus, issued in folio in 1516, and followed by other
editions in 1519, 1522, 1527, and 1535.
Another edition of the New Testament in Greek, by Cardi
nal Ximenes, called the Complutensian Polyglot, from -YfaKLaXa
Complutum, the Latin name for Alcala, in Spain, Blble-
was mainly in print before the publication ofthe first of Eras
mus, — the Apocalypse having been completed as early as 15 14,
— but was not put in actual circulation until 1522, after the death
of the editor. The first edition of Erasmus was hurried through

126 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. II.
the press, in fact, in order to forestall that of Ximenes, while
his last two editions were emended from the latter.
The special manuscripts used in the preparation of the
Late MSS work of Ximenes are not mentioned, except as having
used. been furnished from the Vatican, and as being, in the
evidently uncritical opinion of its projectors, " very ancient."
The work itself, according to Tregelles, shows that late manu
scripts only were used.1 A very high value was attributed to
the Vulgate, it being printed in the Old Testament portion as
the middle one of three columns, having the Greek Septua
gint version and the Hebrew original on either side. This
position they compared to that of Christ crucified between two
thieves, tanquam duos hinc et inde latrones. And in some
parts of the New Testament, in fact, they supplied, in a few
instances, what was wanting in their Greek copies from the
Vulgate (i John v. 7, 8), and herein misled ultimately even
the translators of our own version.
Leaving out of view his previous preparation for such a
Editions of work, Erasmus seems to have required less than a
Erasmus, single year for putting his first edition of the entire
Greek Testament through the press. The work, too, was
mostly done by himself, GEcolampadius aiding only in the
reading of proofs. The principal authorities deferred to are
still to be found in the library at Basle, two of them even bear
ing the marks of Erasmus's corrections, and the printer's signs.
In the Gospels, he followed Codex Basil B. VI. 25 ; in the
Manuscripts Acts and Epistles, Codex Basil IX.; and the badly
followed, mutilated Codex Reuchlin, for the Apocalypse. The
latter, for a long time supposed to be lost beyond recovery,
has been recently discovered in the library of the Prince
of Oettingen-Wallerstein, at Mayhingen, and described by
Delitzsch and Tregelles.2 With these scanty documents, the
editor sometimes collated Basil VI. 17; Basil X. 20; and
also some Latin manuscripts, and the Fathers.8
In some instances, in order to form his text when his
authorities were lacking, like Ximenes and his collaborators,
1 Acct. Print. Text, p. 8. 2 Dr. Conant in Baptist Quar., iv., No. 2.
8 Hug's Introd., p. 180.

Printed Text. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 127
he translated the Vulgate into Greek. Examples are pointed
out in Acts viii. 37, ix. 5,6, where the revisers ofSometimes
161 1 followed him into these forbidden fields. But, f^ft^m*
on the other hand, it should be said, in testimony theVulsate-
to his general faithfulness to primary sources, that he refused
to insert the testimony of the three heavenly witnesses (1 John,
v. 7), on the ground that he could find no authority for the
passage in any Greek manuscript.
In his second edition, Erasmus made four hundred correc
tions, many of them, however, being only errata. Subsequent
The third edition was still further changed in one hun- editlons-
dred and eighteen places. Yet, another edition which fol
lowed, was altered, with the exception of the Apocalypse, in
only about a dozen places ; but the Apocalypse, in accordance
with the Polyglot of Ximenes, in ninety instances. He had
not, however, up to this time, removed what he had himself
imported into the text from the Latin. A fifth and last edi
tion, issued nineteen years after the first and eight after the
fourth, shows but four changes from the latter. Theological
discussions, indeed, to a far greater extent than the unnoticed
labor of textual criticism, absorbed the attention of the
scholars and church-leaders of this period.
Of the- first two editions of Erasmus's Greek Testament
there were thirty-three hundred copies published, and Numberof
of the Complutensian, six hundred. In 15 18, the text c°Ples-
of the first published Greek Testament, collated with some
additional manuscripts, was reprinted in Venice. And in
1543, still other manuscripts having been consulted, one hun
dred and fifty more changes were introduced, on their author
ity, into the Greek text in an edition published at Paris.
The latter, however, is out of the line of direct influence upon
the " received text," so-called, which afterward became cur
rent. The four editions of Robert Stephens, three being published
at Paris in 1546, 1549, and 1550 respectively, and the Editions of
,.,,,. r r. Robert
fourth, in which the device of verses first appears, at Stephens.
Geneva, in 1 551, are of considerable importance. In the
preparation of these several editions, Stephens made use of

128 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. chap. II.
the Imperial (National) Library at Paris in addition to the
labors of Erasmus, Ximenes, and his own son, who had collated
a number of manuscripts. In the edition of 1550, indeed, the
first collection of variations in manuscripts was actually pub
lished, numbering two thousand one hundred and ninety-four.
The text of Stephens was composite, his own independent
Text of work being blended with that of his predecessors, al-
stephens. though mainly conformed to the fifth edition of Eras
mus. From the text of Erasmus and the Alcala Bible,
Stephens differed in only three hundred and eighty-three
places, and from all other texts printed before his time, in
only thirty-seven places. He sometimes followed Erasmus,
indeed, in preference to the best of the fifteen different manu
scripts which he possessed. Of these documentary authorities
nearly all have been identified, but the Codex Bezas is most
familiar. Some one of the four editions of Stephens's Greek Testa-
Beza's ment continued to be printed to meet the limited re-
Testament quirements of scholars in this direction until 1565,
when the first edition of Theodore Beza's work appeared, to
be followed by other editions in 1582, 1589, and 1598. Beza
took the text of Stephens as his standard, using also the colla
tions he had made, but only occasionally introducing changes
into the text on the authority of manuscripts, although fre
quently mentioning different readings. His differences from
Stephens in truth, are of little importance. The most valuable
of the manuscripts made use of by him were the Codex Bezas,
now at Cambridge, and the Codex Claromontanus.
More of a theologian and commentator than a textual critic,
Beza's Beza employed the materials in his hands principally
influence. for exegetical purposes. His text was that, however,
ordinarily adopted by Protestants during his lifetime, and, in
connection with the third edition of Stephens, virtually forms
the basis of the " received text." x
This text, the third edition of Stephens, emended from
Different Beza, where there might be differences, was the one
editions. use(j by the Elzevirs in their various editions of 1624,
1 Tregelles, Actft Printed Text, p. 34.

Printed Text. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 1 29
1633, 1641, 1656, and 1662. Being elegantly . printed and
widely popular, as many as eight thousand copies of these
editions, in the aggregate, were pushed into circulation. In
the first, the verses were numbered in the margin, but, in the
second, broken up into their present shape.
But a more important characteristic of the second edition,
published at Leyden, 1633, was the bold announce- Abo]d
ment in the preface : " thou hast the text now received ^"^of^e
by all, in which we give nothing altered or corrupted" puM**™-
("textum ergo habes nunc ab omnibus receptum"). This is
the origin of the phrase " received text" {textus receptus), as
applied to the Greek New Testament. And it is this text
which, to a recent period, has been the standard on the Con
tinent of Europe, while in England and America one virtually
answering to it has been dignified with this important position
and title. The difference between Stephens's edition of 155°
and that of the Elzevirs — the former being the standard text
in England, and the latter on the Continent — amounts, ac
cording to Scrivener, to two hundred and eighty-six variations
only, not including mere errata, breathings, accents, &C1
" While," as Hug says, " the Dutch were abusing the text
according to their own good will and pleasure, in an- wa]ton>s
other country it passed out of the hands of tradesmen Pol>,slot
and their assistants into those of men of learning." In the
London Polyglot, — the New Testament part of which (Vol.
V.) was published in 1657, the third edition of Stephens
being taken as a basis, — there were introduced in the margin
the readings of Codex A, together with the Syriac, Arabic,
./Ethiopic, and Persian versions. Other readings, including
Stephens's collection, were added in subsequent volumes, a
considerable number of manuscripts having been collated
under the direction of Archbishop Usher for the purpose.
This work passes under the name of Walton's Polyglot. In
an Oxford edition ofthe Greek N. T. issued in 1675, under the
patronage of Bishop Fell, readings from the Coptic and Gothic
versions were also added, together with those of quite a num
ber of new manuscripts, the last being placed at the foot of
the page. 1 A Plain Introd., &c, p. 304.
9

130 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap II.
To the encouragement of Bishop Fell likewise, the world
Labors of 1S largely indebted for the invaluable critical labors of
MilL Mill. For thirty years this scholar devoted himself to
the study of the text of the New Testament, and his work
marks an era in the history of textual criticism. Taking the
third edition of Stephens as the starting-point, he classified and
described the various manuscripts already noticed, collated
many new ones, gave a history of the text as previously pub
lished, made use of nearly all the old versions and patristic
citations, and finally gave his completed work to the world in
1707, surviving its publication but a single fortnight. Al
though he had actually introduced no changes into the current
text, which he had adopted as his standard, yet his work was
vehemently attacked, as previously Walton's had been, on the
ground that the result of his studies, in bringing to light so
many variations, was to unsettle the confidence of men in the
authority of Scripture, " as though it were thought criticism is
the enemy and not the friend of revealed truth."
Among the ablest champions of the work of Mill was
Bentley Bentley, a man not surpassed in scholarship by any of
mrampieted the Uterati of his time- Nine years after Mill's death,
work. ile pUblicly announced his determination to pursue the
work so well begun and to publish a critical Greek text,
representing exactly that of the best authorities " at the
time of the Council of Nice, so that there shall not be twenty
words, nor even particles difference." 1
In pursuance of this high ideal he labored steadily and
Meets with perseveringly until 1720, when his "Proposals" were
'Tthy'or" issued, and the character of the intended new edition
success. Qf the Greek and Latin text of the New Testament
described. The bare announcement itself was sufficient to
provoke the most violent opposition, the learned Middleton
leading the attack upon the too daring scholar ; and, although
Mill prosecuted his studies for nine years longer, the final
result was a single chapter only of the great work projected.
The ultimate failure, however, is not to be attributed altogether
to ill success in getting the sympathy and co-operation required
1 Smith's Bib. Diet, Art. N. T.

Printed Text. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 131
in such an undertaking, but quite as much, perhaps, to the lack
of available materials at that period for the accomplishment
of an otherwise well-conceived design.
On the Continent Bengel led all his contemporaries in a
singular devotion to the study of textual criticism. Contribu-
Like Bentley, he was largely indebted to the work of Bengel.
his predecessors in the same field, but especially to Mill. Yet
his own independent work in the collation of manuscripts,
simplifying methods of study, and supplying important rules,
was not inconsiderable. He distinguished manuscripts into
two great classes, the "African" and " Asiatic," but did not
feel the superior importance of the more ancient copies suffi
ciently to lead him to suggest, on their account, changes in
the " received text," at least in addition to those found in the
editions of the Greek Testament before published, except in a
very few instances. His work was issued in i734- At its
close were given rules of criticism, details of authorities for
selected readings, and answers to objections.
But Bengel's conservatism did not save him from being bit
terly assailed as an innovator, and when Wetstein, Succeeded
seventeen years later (1751), published his magnifi- byWetstem.
cent Greek Testament in two volumes, the "received text"
was still retained in its autocratic position. As early as 1716,
Wetstein had entered upon this department of study under
Bentley. He spent much time in France, too, describing more
than forty new manuscripts there collected. And his work,
as published, was enriched by a vast collection of explanatory
passages taken from profane authors, the Church Fathers, and
Rabbinical writers. In fact, it was rather a collection of
materials for criticism than itself a critical work.
In this latter respect his labors were well supplemented by
those of Griesbach, the first edition of whose New And he b
Testament, published in two volumes, at Halle, 1775- Griesbach-
77, showed that he was able to " convert Wetstein's treas
ures to general use, while, unlike that scholar, he knew also
how to appreciate and carry out the critical principles of
Bengel."1 Griesbach was largely governed in his work by
1 Hug's Introd., p. ig8.

132 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. ii.
these two principles : (i) that no reading ought to be adopted
unless it has some ancient evidence ; and (2) that it is needful
to limit critical apparatus within due bounds rather than to
increase it without limit.1
Before the second edition of Griesbach appeared (1796-
Makes use 1806), he was able to make use of the rich critical
of the labors . , _ _ , . ,
of others in studies of such men as Matthasi, who, as professor at
edition. Moscow, had collated two hundred and three different
manuscripts of the New Testament ; of Alter, professor
at Vienna, who increased the number by twenty-five
from the royal library ; and of Moldenhawer and Birch,
of Copenhagen, who had made a wider circuit, collating
manuscripts even in Italy and Spain, under the patronage of
the Danish government. In the opinion of Westcott, the
chief error of this able critic was in using his materials for
altering the " received text," instead of constructing the text
afresh.2 In 1830, another German scholar, Scholz, issued volume
first of a Greek Testament, the remaining- volume
Scholz. . . , , TT. , . . „
appearing six years later. His description of manu
scripts was more full than any which had previously appeared,
but he made only a slight, and often uncritical, use of his own
materials. As far as his influence reached, it was in favor of
the later, rather than the earlier, manuscripts as authorities ;
and he obtained with some, as a natural consequence of this
fact, more credit for his labors than was really deserved.
In Lachmann, the first edition of whose Greek Testament
was published in 1831, we have the earliest represen-
Lachmann. r . , r
tative of any considerable importance of the idea, now
generally supported by the best textual critics, of the prepon
derating authority of the oldest manuscripts. Griesbach and
his predecessors had acted on the principle : " Is there any
necessity for departing from the common text?" Lachmann,
on the other hand, announced his as this : "Is there any neces
sity for not following the reading best attested?"8 His aim
was to base his text on authorities only, allowing his own
» Tregelles in Home's Introd., iv., p. 131. = Smith's Bib. Diet, Art. N. T.
3 Tregelles, id., iv., 136.

Printed Text. THE NEW TESTAMENT. I33
judgment no weight. He ignored the " received text," and
set to work as though there had been no text formed before.
In his first edition, he used the oldest Greek manuscripts and
citations from the Greek Fathers as his leading authorities,
taking the oldest Latin as his guide only when the Greek
authorities did not agree among themselves. In the second edi
tion, containing both the Greek and Latin texts (1842-50), he
used the Greek and Latin authorities more co-ordinately. Lach-
mann's work is to be judged from his own point of view,
which was that of a pioneer in a new field. He considered
that which he was able to do as only preliminary ; more
as an illustration of the method in which the true text was
to be discovered, than as a full application of the method
and the securing of its ripest results. Accordingly, his most
imperfect collation of ancient manuscripts, making use of
only the primary Uncials and limited citations from the
Fathers, should be attributed, it is thought, more to the imper
fect carrying out of an idea, than to the inadequacy of the
idea itself.
Constantine Tischendorf, another eminent critic in this
department, has already given nearly as many years
to the unwearied study of the New Testament manu
scripts as did the laborious Mill, and with far greater encour
agements. He is well known as the discoverer of some of
the most important codices extant, probably the collator and
certainly the competent editor of more valuable ancient docu
ments than any scholar who has preceded him.
In his second Leipsic edition of the New Testament, his
principles of textual revision, as matured to that date, Second
are definitely set forth. In the valuable introduction tion of the
^Jew Tcsts~
to that work, he supports Lachmann's view of author- ment
ities so far as to state, that " the text should only be sought
from ancient evidence, and especially from Greek manu
scripts, but without neglecting the testimony of the versions
and the Fathers ; that the whole conformation [?] of the text
should rest on testimony, and not on what is called the
'received edition.'" In a third critical edition (1855-59),
within which were collected the results of subsequent fruitful

134 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. II.
labors and discoveries, Tischendorf was thought to be inclined
to allow more weight to recent manuscript authorities.1 An
eighth edition of the same work is now in course of prepara
tion, the first volume having appeared from Leipsic in 1869 ;
and additions, including the Acts, Catholic Epistles, and
Romans, in 1870-71.
The scholar who at present probably ranks highest as a
textual critic in England is Samuel Prideaux Tregelles.
Like his most distinguished collaborators, he has given
a lifetime to the service of the New Testament text, his first
published criticism being in 1838. His Greek New Testa
ment — the first part of which, Matthew and Mark, appeared
in 1857 ; the second, completing the Gospels, in 1861 — has not
yet been completed. Tregelles is well known, also, as the
able editor of the latest edition of Home's Introduction, and
author of " An Account of the Printed Text of the New Tes
tament," where his principles of criticism are fully propounded
and explained. In the opinion of the most eminent judges, his
New Testament is characterized by accuracy, and the abundance
of materials — especially from the most ancient sources —
made to contribute to the support of the text adopted. He
uses all the Uncials, as well as many of the best of the Cur
sives, and has thoroughly ransacked the old versions and the
writings ofthe Fathers for whatever might assist his judgment.
By his own account, his text differs from that of Lachmann
in its basis by introducing a wider range of evidence, and by
a careful re-examination of authorities ; and from that of
Tischendorf, by a more uniform adhesion to the very ancient
evidence, and a re-examination of the versions and Fathers, as
well as the manuscripts.2
Tregelles is perhaps the most unyielding advocate for the
Advocates ancient, in preference to the more modern, manuscripts
the superior , , . , „
claims of as authorities, and on this account has exposed himself
the primary . ,
Uncials. to some very severe, though generally respectful, criti
cism. His most prominent antagonist, in this particular,
is Rev. F. H. Scrivener, who — in a number of scholarly trea-
1 Scrivener's Contrib. to Crit of N. T., Introd. Cf. Smith's Bib. Diet, vol. ii., p. 527.
8 Home's Introd., iv., p. 141.

Printed Text. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 135
tises, in which he gives the results of his own collation of many
of the later manuscripts — ably, though perhaps sometimes
too warmly, maintains the relative importance of the Cursives,
and the general correctness of the " received text," not only as
against Tregelles, but Tischendorf, Davidson, Alford, and
others.1 The question in dispute is, indeed, one of the very
highest importance ; and it is maintained by many, with not a
little show of sound wisdom, that its approximate settlement,
at least, should be preliminary to any attempt at revising the
English version.
Alford, in the revised text which he prepared for his New
Testament, seems to take middle ground, his plan The late
being to combine the testimony, as far as possible, Alford.
" furnished by the late manuscripts, and to give them, as well
as the others, due weight in the determination of readings." 2
The forthcoming Greek Testament of Westcott and Hort will
be looked for, at this juncture, with great interest by Biblical
scholars. The scope of the present work would not lead us to enter
upon the vexed question of the different recensions of Theques-
manuscripts, that is, their systematic classification ac- censions.
cording to the theories of different critics ; and we shall there
fore close this chapter with a statement of the leading prin
ciples which eminent scholars have adopted for the purpose
of discovering and establishing the true text of the New Testa
ment. It should be noted, however, that no definite rules of
this kind have been discovered as yet which, in practice, do
not require considerable modification.
Westcott, in Smith's Bible Dictionary,8 proposes the follow
ing excellent rules: (1) The text must throughout be Westcott>s
determined by evidence, without allowing any pre- nJes-
scriptive rights. (2) Every element of evidence must be
taken into account before a decision is made. (3) The rela
tive weight of the several classes of evidence is modified by
1 A Full Collation of the Sinaiticus, with the RecM Text, Introd. ; A Full and Exact
Collation of About Twenty Greek MSS., &c ; Contrib. to N. T. Crit, Introd. ; A Plain
Introd., &c, p. 196, f. Cf. Saturday Rev., Oct. 1, 1870 ; Tregelles in Home's Introd.,
ii., 145-147- 2 Prolegom., vol. i., 1863. Id., vol. ii., p. 59, f. 8 Vol. ii., pp. 528-530.

136 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. II.
their general character. (4) The mere preponderance of
number is in itself of no weight. (5) The more ancient
reading is generally preferable. (6) The more ancient read
ing is generally the reading of the most ancient manuscripts.
(7) The ancient text is often preserved substantially in recent
copies. (8) The agreement of ancient manuscripts, or of
manuscripts containing an ancient text, with all the earliest
versions and citations, marks a certain reading. (9) The dis
agreement of the most ancient authorities often marks the
existence of a corruption anterior to them. (10) The argu
ment from internal evidence is always precarious. (11) The
shorter reading is generally preferable to the longer. (12) The
more difficult reading is preferable to the simpler. (13) That
reading is preferable which explains the origin of the others.
Lachmann's rules are of a more negative character: (1)
Those of Nothing is better attested than that in which all
Lachmann. authorities accord. (2) The agreement has rather
less moment, if part of the authorities are silent or defective.
(3) The evidence for a reading, when it is that of witnesses
of different regions, is greater than that of witnesses of some
particular locality. (4) Testimonies must be considered as
doubtfully balanced, when witnesses from regions wide apart
stand opposed to others equally separated in locality; (5) Read
ings are uncertain, which are in one form in one region and
different in another region, with great uniformity. (6) Read
ings are of weak authority as to which not even the same
region presents an uniform testimony.1
Rules of De Wette: General principle, — That reading to
which the origin of the others may be traced is the original.
Special rules : The more obscure and difficult reading is to be
preferred to the clearer and easier ; the harder, elliptical,
Hebraizing, and ungrammatical, to the more pleasing and
grammatical ; the rarer, to the more common ; that which is
less favorable to piety — especially of the monkish sort — and
to orthodoxy, to that which is more so ; that which gives an
apparently false meaning, to one which seems to give a fitter
meaning ; the shorter, to the more explanatory and wordy ;
x Tregelles, Actft of Printed Text, p. 103.

Printed Text. THE NEW TESTAMENT. I37
the less expressive, to the emphatic ; the reading which stands
midway between others, and contains their germ, to be con
sidered the more original.1
Rules of Tischendorf: (i) A reading altogether peculiar
to one or another ancient document is suspicious ; as
, . . r ,,i , r- -, Tischendorf.
also, is any, even if supported by a class of documents
which seem to evince that it has originated in the revision of a
learned man. (2) Readings, however well supported by evi
dence, are to be rejected when it is manifest (or very probable)
that they have proceeded from the errors of copyists. (3) In
parallel passages, whether of the New or Old Testament, es
pecially in the Synoptical Gospels, which ancient copyists con
tinually brought into increased accordance, those testimonies
are preferable, in which precise accordance of such parallel
passages is not found ; unless, indeed, there are important rea
sons to the contrary. (4) In discrepant readings, that should
be preferred which may have been the occasion or which ap
pears to comprise the elements of others. (5) Those read
ings must be maintained which accord with New Testament
Greek or with the particular style of each individual writer.
General principles announced by Davidson : The first thing
is to collate the oldest manuscripts thoroughly and ac
curately, publishing the text in facsimile or other
wise, so that they need not be re-examined. All the rest, or
the great mass of juniors, may be dispensed with. They are
scarcely needed because the Uncials are numerous. At present
they do nothing but hinder the progress of critical science.2
Critical principles of Tregelles condensed: (1) If the
reading of the ancient authorities in general is unani
mous, there can be but little doubt that it should be res es'
followed, whatever may be the later testimonies. (2) A read
ing found in versions alone, can claim but little authority.
(3) A reading found in patristic citations alone, rests on a still
weaker basis. (4) The readings respecting which a judgment
must be formed are those where the evidence is really divided, '
so that it is needful to inquire on which side the balance pre
ponderates. In such cases authorities are not merely to be
' Introd. to N. T., pp. 80-81. 2 Scrivener's Contrib. to N. T. Crit, Introd., p. 2.

138 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. II.
cited, but examined point by point. (5) When no certainty
is attainable, the case should be left doubtful, the reading seem
ing to have the strongest claim being placed in the text, and
the other in the margin.1
Rules laid down by Rev. F. H. Scrivener as " those, on
f h Scriv-wn'cn a'^ reasonable defenders of the ' textus receptus'
ener- have upheld its general integrity: " (1) The true read
ing of the Greek New Testament cannot safely be derived
from any one set of authorities, whether manuscripts, versions,
or Fathers, but ought to be the result of a patient comparison
and careful estimate of the evidence given by all. (2) Where
there is real agreement between all the documents prior to the
tenth tentury, the testimony of the late manuscripts, though
not to be rejected unheard, is to be regarded with much suspi
cion, and unless supported by strong internal evidence can
hardly be adopted. In the far more numerous cases when the
most ancient documents are at variance with each other, the
later or Cursive copies are of great importance, as the surviv
ing representatives of other codices, very probably as early,
possibly even earlier, than any now extant.2
Lest from the foregoing full presentation of the difficulties
Tregelles ln tne way or" obtaining an absolutely perfect text, an
S tatefrity" exaggerated impression of its imperfections should be
of the text received, we add the following excellent tribute to its
general integrity from the pen of one of its most thorough and
able investigators : " It is as though some magnificent edifice
which delighted many eyes, were to receive injury from care
less hands, so that a portion of its ornamental character were
lost. Those who have seen it in all its glory, or who saw the
distinct traces of the ill treatment which had defaced much
of its carved foliage, might so express their lamentation as if
the work of spoliation had materially changed its structure ;
and yet, after the lapse of many centuries, the beholder might
be inclined to wonder at the incorrupt preservation, and might
judge that the estimate formed of the early injury had been,
in every respect, overstated.
1 Home's Introd., iv., p. 343, f.
2 Contrib. to N. T. Crit, p. 20. Also A Plain Introd., &c, p. 408, f.

Printed Text. THE NEW TESTAMENT. I39
" He might see that it was essentially the same, the archi
tectural design unmarred, and the skill of the artist's s]- ht
hand still fully visible ; and he would then learn that &&<**•
the early injuries could have been but little, and could only
have affected details which seem comparatively unimportant,
even though to those who then lived they seemed to be a gen
eral dissight to the edifice. It is in after ages, when the whole
has been mellowed by time that an estimate can be best formed
of the relation of the much that is uninjured to the parts that
are dilapidated, and that the endeavor can be successfully made
to search out every fallen stone, every piece of broken tracery,
and fit them into the places which unskilful hands have sought
(it may be) to repair with unsuited and extraneous materials." 1
1 Acc^t Printed Text, p. 402.

CHAPTER III.

THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON.

BY the Canon of the New Testament is meant such books
as in a collective form have been received by the Christian
Church, from the first centuries of our era, as their written
Meanin of ru*e °^ faith- In other words, it is " the measure of
term Canon. tne contents of the New Testament." The word in its
root form may be traced back through the Latin, Greek, and
Hebrew ; and its derivatives, such as channel, cane, cannon,
&c, abound in our own language. Its literal meaning is a
rod, ruler, or, more rarely, the beam of a balance ; while meta
phorically, in addition to the idea of being itself straight, it
comes to be regarded as something that preserves straightness,
correctness, and also determines it.
It is in the latter sense that the word is used in connection
First use with the books of Scripture. The term, however,
of term. was not appi;ed to the contents of the Bible until after
the third century. Certain books were at first spoken of as
being " canonized," that is, accepted according to an established
rule of the church ; then what had been measured became
itself the measure for testing other applicants, and so, at length,
"Canon" became the common term for an established list or
catalogue of sacred writings.1
Inasmuch as the terms " authentic" and " genuine " will be
Ofthe termsmucn use<^ ln ^e present and following chapters, and
andlt"eenu"as tney are usec^ ln different senses by different writers,
ine." it wiH be well to state the sense in which they are
here employed. A work may be considered as genuine,
if written by the person to whom it is ordinarily ascribed ;
1 App. to Westcott's Hist of N. T. Canon ; also Guericke's N. T. Isagogik, p. 558, f.

The Canon. THE NEW TESTAMENT. I4I
or, the authorship being in doubt, if it belong to the age and
country which are claimed for it : it is authentic as far as it
is a representation of facts, in distinction from what is errone
ous or false.
In the natural order, the history of the separate books com
posing the Canon would precede that of the Canon History of
separate
itself, but the history of the one is closely linked with books nat-
that of the other, and the final result will be unchanged, cedes that
. _ . , , x . , of the col-
whichever order is adopted, ln either case, more- lection.
over, the general method to be pursued is the same, and has
been well stated by Augustine in connection with this very
subject. Writing against Faustus, the Manichean, he asks :
" Whence do men know as to the writings of Plato, Aristotle,
Cicero, and Varro, and other such authors, what is really
theirs but by the [same] continued testimony of successive
ages? But why should I go back to things long passed?
Look at these very letters which we have in our hands ; and
if, some time after we shall be dead, any should deny those to
be Faustus's, or these to be mine, whence will he be convinced
except through those who now know these things, transmitting
by continued succession their acquaintance with the facts to
posterity." 1
We are to arrive at the facts which lie at the basis of the
history of the New Testament Canon, then, by appeal- simplicity
ing to the testimony of the numerous successive writers, ?oricmethod
both friendly and hostile, whose works extend back toof proof'
the time of the first appearance of the books of which it is
composed.2 The mere matter of the distance of the per
sons and events here concerned should not be allowed to have
any considerable influence with us. It is not properly a factor
of the problem. We are carried by this method of proof " up
to the times of the events in question, and are now as compe
tent to judge of the validity of the evidence as we could have
been had we lived in that age."8 We are in much greater
danger of arriving at partial or wholly erroneous conclusions
from simply subjective causes ; as, from the fact that the sub-
1 Opera, torn, octav., Contra Faustum, 1. xxxiii.
2 Cf. Bishop Cosin's Hist, of Can., Works, iii., p. 6.
a I. Taylor, Process of Hist. Proof, p. 85.

142 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. III.
ject to be considered is " linked, on the one hand, with all
those suasive considerations which belong to the enforcement
of right conduct, and, on the other, with all those oppugnant
and vitiated feelings which arm the mind against truth." J
Before we proceed to cite the definite historic facts relating
Pr limina *° oul SUDject, it may be disembarrassed, at the outset,
statements. 0f many perplexing details, and much simplified in
form, by some preliminary statements, most of which, it is
likely, would be generally accepted at once, while the truth
fulness and appropriateness of the remainder might be expected
to appear in the course of the investigations of the chapter.
It is to be considered that no imperative need of a second
Special collection of sacred writings would naturally be at
need of the ,.,, , • r-/~n-. • ,.,
New Testa- once felt, by the generation of Christians immediately
first felt succeeding the Apostles, while the Old Testament was
yet regarded, especially by the large Jewish portion of the
church, as an abiding rule of faith, the Apostolic oral
teaching was still fresh in their memories, the speedy reap
pearance of the Master widely anticipated, the distinctly Chris
tian doctrine vividly represented and incarnated in a living
Christian brotherhood, and the pressure of heretical tendencies
still comparatively undeveloped. Instead of a collection of
books being naturally suggested for the new dispensation by
way of contrast to the old, as has been intimated by some
critics, the Old Testament Canon, per se, stood in the way of,
and hindered, at the beginning, that of the New Testament,
although, when the necessity for the second collection was fully
realized, through other causes, its acceptance may have been
assisted thereby.2
It is admitted that the period when the Canon of the New
Period of Testament became definitely fixed in its present form
a?ee™nnonS can only be approximately settled, although in all its
approxmiate-essent'a^ ieatures it took shape within fifty years after
iy stated. the death of the Apostles.
It is of course admitted, then, that the Canon of the New
Testament was not determined by immediate Apostolic
1 I. Taylor, id., p. 253. Cf. Trans, of Anc"t Books, pp. 106, 168.
2 Vs. Hilgenfeld, der Kan., &c, pp. 6-9; Credner, Gesch. d. N. T. Kan., sect. 2. Cf.
Reuss, Gesch. Heil. Schrift. N. T., sect. 2S1-2S5.

The Canon. THE NEW TESTAMENT. I43
authority, although certain traces of an incipient massing of
its books may appear in the volume itself, as also, in Not deter-
the writings of the Apostolic fathers.1 The weak the Apostles.
tradition that this work fell to St. John, probably has no other
basis than the fact that he survived the other Apostles, and
that his writings concluded, and, in the nature of their contents,
served to complete, the rest.2
It is evident, moreover, that the original settlement of this
Canon was not the work of any ecclesiastical council, Nor by any
or convention of prominent leaders in the early church, convention.
or the result of an enforced dogma, or any act of authority
whatever ; much less the product of a learned investigation
and criticism, or the pretence thereof undertaken under eccle
siastical auspices, or by independent scholars. The three
church Fathers most relied on for testimony for the support of
the collection do not even give a list of the books of which it
is composed.8 It is to be premised, also, that the question concerning what
books written by the Apostles and their followers should Nor by mi-
be ranked together as the authoritative, co-ordinate terposition.
sources of Christian doctrine and standard of faith, was not
peremptorily settled through any miraculous interference,
or peculiar providence ; while the whole history of the
collection is yet strikingly indicative of an actual superin
tendence of the divine wisdom, as evinced in its singular unity
amidst historical variety ; its completeness, notwithstanding
the independent nature of the several contributions ; in being
the condensed substance of Apostolic oral teaching through a
considerable period of years ; in being the combined produc
tions of men, who by tradition, discipline, and mode of life
might be supposed to be especially averse to literary effort ;
and in the blending and harmonizing of the partial teachings
of different, and sometimes apparently opposing, schools in the
one Catholic Gospel.4
1 Acts xv. 23 ; Col. iv. 16 ; 2 Pet iii. 16 j Polycarp ad Phil, c 13.
2 Cf. Reuss, id., sect. 289 n. ; Guericke, id., p. 567.
2 Cf. Reuss, id., sect. 306; Westcott, Hist. N. T. Can., p. 8. Vs. Credner, id., sect. 9,
f. and 30; Hilgenfeld, id., pp. 33, 34.
4 Westcott, Hist, of N. T. Can., passim.

144 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. III.
Inasmuch as the books of the New Testament were written
Canon fixed a*- different times, dispersed to widely different places,
gradually, treated of different aspects of Christianity, being such
as were worthy of special emphasis in the places to which
they were respectively sent, we ought to be able to find that
their canonization was also individual and gradual, and not
in a body and by all parts of the church simultaneously. »
So likewise, it might be expected that the public ecclesi-
PuHican- astical announcement of this exclusive catalogue of
nouncement . . . .
considerably sacred writings would not synchronize with its actual
period of its formation, but take place at a considerably later period.
establish- T , . /- r> i
ment. lt has been said that the matter of Synods, in connec
tion with the history of the Canon, is of no further importance
than that the first attempt to close the Canon is associated in
the Greek Church with a positive date.1
Among the natural and obvious causes, acting under the
Causes act- divine control, for the gradual reception of the New
dugce0nnaT Testament books into an exclusive list, are to be
result. named, next to a warm and all-pervading tradition,
the spread of heresy, especially in the form of Gnosticism,
and the multiplication of apocryphal works, both neces
sitating in turn an appeal to, and inevitably leading to* a
more common use of, the writings of the Apostles ; which use,
again, developed an appreciation of their real character and
value, and an instinctive recognition of the weakness and
unworthiness of all contemporaneous ecclesiastical literature,
as sources of the needed doctrine.2
Antedating the appearance of the several books of the New
Noecciesi- Testament in the Canon itself, as already invested
astical pres- .,, ,. ,.. .,
sure. with the authority of inspired writings, there is no
evidence of special effort on the part of the church, by legis
lation or otherwise, to procure the acceptance, and currency of
such books. The peculiar history of the collection evidently
forbids the theory that it had for its basis a studied and formal
compromise between the Jewish and Gentile divisions of the
Apostolic Church, as also the attempt to connect it, otherwise
than as both might be considered the result of the same general
1 Reuss, .id., sect 321. 2 xd., sects. 290, 307.

The Canon. THE NEW TESTAMENT. I45
moral causes operating secretly and without collusion, with
the organization of the so-called Catholic Church. The New
Testament Canon was in no sense a creature of compromises
or an adroit manipulation of opposing factions, but rather a
spontaneous development and growth.1
While most of the scattered references to the early exist
ence ofthe New Testament writings are extracts from Dominance
-,,. .,,/~*i st-si °^ certain
the extant works of distinguished Church r athers, Fathers not
their individual influence in the establishment of the theprobiem.
Canon is not on that account to be considered as of pre
eminent importance. They are to be regarded rather in
the light of representatives only of a dominant public senti
ment and usage in the churches, particularly the more notable
ones. Although the New Testament books were not at once and
on their first appearance treated as a distinct class by Eariyrever.
themselves, possessing a claim to be regarded as NewfTe6ta-
inspired Scripture, still there is evidence that from the mentbooks'
first they were segregated by the Apostolic Fathers from
their own writings and invested with a peculiar value and
dignity.2 The comparatively infrequent quotations from the canonical
books of the New Testament found in the writings of infrequent
_, , ,-. ,a ,• ,i 1 • quotations
the Fathers of the sub- Apostolic age, although in byApostoHc
¦ si • r 1 s\i , Fathers to
amount relatively equal to the quotations ot the Uld be expected.
Testament by the Apostles themselves, must be regarded, —
in addition to the circumstance that these writings are ex
clusively letters in which such quotations would be only
incidental, — as a natural result of the fact that they were con
temporaneous, and that these books, as is acknowledged, were
not yet collectively in general circulation, or in the same sense
as the Old Testament, a recognized authority -in matters of
faith. Hereby, indeed, the genuineness of the writings of the
Apostolic Fathers themselves is incidentally supported, since
they are thus freed from suspicion of design, and placed in
1 Vs. Credner, Gesch. N. T. Kan., sect. 9, f. ; and Hilgenfeld, Der Kan. &c, pp. 4, 5, et
passim. 2 Westcott, Bib. in Ch. pp. 87, 88. Cf. Clem, of Rom., cc, vii.,.xlvii. ; Polycarp ad
Phil., Ui. ; Bam., cc, i., iv. ; Ignat ad Rom., iv.
IO

146 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. III.
this respect on a level with the Apostles, who did not, as a
general rule, quote one another.1
There should not be demanded, moreover, from the ecclesi-
Reasonsfor astical writers of the early Church, the same amount
scanty tra- , s~, - 1 , ,
ces of the of evidence to the Canon as might have been ex-
New Testa- . _,, ,. ,,
ment in sub- pected if the larger part of their productions had not
age." been lost; if the age in which they lived had been
specially distinguished for literary fertility ; if there had been
at that time the same means for multiplying literary works,
and of preserving them as now, — printing facilities, fire-proof
buildings ; or even if the common religious centre had not been
destroyed by the downfall of Jerusalem.
The testimony of this period, however, is not to be too
its testi- much depreciated even with respect to quantity ; for,
beToo'much vv h i 1 e all the extant fragments of works produced by
depreciated, ecclesiastical writers, up to the middle of the second
century, collected together would make a volume little larger
than the New Testament,2 yet there is scarcely a single frag
ment, however small, which is not the setting, albeit
rough, of some gem from the lips of the Master or of his
Apostles. Even though the Apostolic Fathers and other untrained
ofcitations ecclesiastical writers of the first Christian centuries,
apocryphal on wbose testimony for the early existence and preva-
wntmgs. lence of the sacred documents, subsequently mysteri
ously gathered into the New Testament, much reliance is placed,
occasionally allude to and cite other writings than these, to
which also they ascribe equal importance and value, it is no
sufficient reason why their testimony should be rejected or
even depreciated with respect to the point at present under
consideration. They might be judged capable of testifying
to the existence of writings whose quality they had neither the
discipline nor the inclination to test. The two things may be
regarded as quite distinct. And there is no inconsistency in
our accepting their testimony in the one case as fully adequate ;
while, with respect to the other, we reserve to ourselves the
right of a personal judgment.
1 Cf. Guericke's Isagogik, pp. 569, 574. 2 Bib. in Ch., p. 106.

The Canon. THE NEW TESTAMENT. I47
The unmistakable fact that, being left to their own Chris
tian judgment and election, without express and defi- Fact of
• • /• tsV , • « , evident
nite instructions from the Master or his Apostles con- discrimina-
, . . ,,..,. , tion in favor
cerning such writings already in circulation, or to be ofNewTes-
the products of a near future, they yet so almost uni- books.
versally discriminated in favor of the New Testament books
as, against the manifold apocryphal productions of the times,
is certainly not to be justly regarded as militating against
the character of the former, but quite the reverse.
The omission of a certain distinctive portion of the New
Testament in the citations of an early writer, is by no Too much
, , r- , , . , . , must not be
means to be taken as a proof that such writer did not made of the
know of that portion, or did not recognize it as genu- the Fathers.
ine, unless he professes to give a complete list of authori
tative books belonging to the Canon. Clement of Alexandria,
for instance, cites incidentally all the epistles of Paul, with
the exception of the brief and comparatively unimportant one
to Philemon. It follows, that in weighing, in our investigations, the evi
dence of any ancient writer, his apparent aim is to be Aim of wit-
carefully considered ; the special locality from which considered.
he speaks ; how widely or how narrowly he may represent
the whole Christian body ; whether his testimony is direct, as
in acknowledged support of a canonical list, or merely inci
dental and unconscious ; the testimony of a friend, or the often
more valuable testimony of an enemy to Christianity.
The severe rules of modern criticism are not to be imposed
too rigorously on the uncritical times we shall be called Anc;ent
to consider, nor a refined taste and a scrupulous, care- £abe1heid>t
fully critical spirit, expected from the simple and untu- m^S°f
tored writers of the first age. Results based on the total cntlcism-
reversal of this rule may be well looked upon with suspicion.1
The question of the genuineness of the New Testament writ
ings should not be confounded with that of their authenticity,
credibility, or integrity.
In referring now, to the testimony of the numerous succes
sive writers, both friendly and hostile, whose works extend
1 Cf. Hilgenfeld, id., pp. 14-21.

148 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. Ill,
back to the time of the first appearance of the books of which
Point of tne New Testament is composed, we shall begin with
departure. a circle of witnesses belonging to a period when
the Canon was evidently in active process of formation, al
though its ultimate limits were not yet finally settled, and from
that point trace the history backwards and forwards to its
sources and its final results respectively. From many wit
nesses we are able to make only a limited selection, choosing
such as appear more prominent or trustworthy ; or such as, on
account of the locality from which they speak, or other special
circumstance, are worthy of particular consideration.
Marcion, whose writings began to circulate soon after a.d.
Marcion 130, is well known as a distinguished opponent of the
Canon. faith. His contributions to the history of the New
Testament Canon are valuable, therefore, no less for what he
rejects than what he receives of the sacred writings. He was
the son of a bishop of Sinope, a city of Paphlagonia. On
account of vicious practices, or as others say heretical views,1
he was excluded from the church by his father and became
bitterly hostile to it. He even made an effort to reconstruct
Christianity itself on the principle that every Jewish element
ought to be eliminated from it. The Old Testament he re
jected utterly, and such parts of the New as seemed to him to
militate against his system, especially all that pertained to the
doctrine of the incarnation and sufferings of Jesus Christ.
Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, he alone accepted as the
true representative of the faith, although he did not include all
of his epistles in his own collection.
His Canon consisted of two parts, " Gospel and Apostoli-
con," the Gospel being an adaptation of Luke, and the Apos-
Canon, how tobcon a selection from Paul's writings, ten epistles in
constituted. aji_ The fifteenth and sixteenth chapters of Romans
he omitted, as well as the opening chapters of Luke, which
relate to the birth of Christ. It is generally admitted that
Marcion did not refuse to accept any book now embraced in
the New Testament Canon on the ground of its not being gen
uine. Their relation to his peculiar system was probably the
1 Bleek, Introd. to N. T., Vol.1., Notes on Luke.

The Canon. THE NEW TESTAMENT. I49
controlling consideration, with the possible reason, in the case
of the pastoral letters, that they were addressed to private per
sons.1 We should not be expected to believe, without evidence,
that he rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews on the ground that
it was not genuine, and, at the same time, that it was rejected
by the Muratorian Canon because it favored the heresy of
Marcion.2, The Canon of Marcion, then, the first appearing in his
tory, consisted of the mutilated Gospel of Luke, al- s ia]
though he was acquainted with the other Gospels, and books-
ten epistles of Paul arranged in the following order : Gala-
tians ; Corinthians, two ; Romans ; Thessalonians, two ; Laodi-
ceans (Eph.) ; Colossians, Philemon, and Philippians. Such
a collection from such a source may be taken as almost certain
evidence of other, at least local, previous collections of the
New Testament books. In fact, Marcion is charged by the
orthodox ecclesiastical writers, with mutilating an already
existing standard of doctrine. Tertullian's language is, " con-
traria quseque suae sententias erasit . . . competentia reserva-
vit." 8 And Dionysius, bishop of Corinth (c. 160-170), wrote:
" It is not marvellous that some have attempted " (referring to
Marcion) " to adulterate the Scriptures of the Lord, when
they have laid hands on those which are not such as they are ; "
i.e., on Dionysius's own letters.4 The unexpected appearance
of the comparatively unimportant epistle to Philemon in this
list of Marcion, is strikingly illustrative of the casual nature of
much of the evidence on which the proof of the New Testa
ment Canon must finally be supported.
We next turn to an ancient anonymous work named, in
honor of Muratori, the Italian scholar who first pub- Canonof
lished it, the " Canon of Muratori." The existing Muratori.
fragment is in Latin, being a copy from the Greek original,
which scholars refer to a.d. 160-170. As determining the
date, the writer's own words seem decisive. He speaks of the
1 Reuss, id., sect. 291.
2 Cf. Guericke, id., p. 577; West. Hist Can. N. T., p. 275, n. ; Vs. Hilgenfeld, id., p. 24 ;
and Credner, id., sect. 4.
3 Reuss, id., sect. 246, n.
4 Euseb. H. E. iv. 23. Cf. Bleek, Introd. to N. T., vol. ii., 241.

150 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. III.
apocryphal " Shepherd of Hermas" as not worthy of receiving
canonical authority, having been written " recently, in our
own times, by Hermas, while his brother Pius was bishop of
the see of Rome." Pius, it is well known, entered upon the
episcopate about a.d. 140. This document is of peculiar
importance as making the first distinct reference yet known
to history of an already existing collection of New Testament
books. It seems to be an extract from the work of some
Christian Father against heresy, and suggests the probable
abundance of such valuable testimony in the similar writings,
now wholly lost, of Agrippa Castor (130), Justin Martyr, and
Dionysius of Corinth (160-170), Melito (176), and others.
Westcott has noticed the singular fact that it is to opponents
that the Church is indebted for the first announcement of the
Epistles as " Scripture," for the first known Canon, and the
first Commentary.1
In this ancient document, happily preserved from the fate
Contents of of most contemporaneous writings, a formal list of the
this Canon. b00]<s 0f the New Testament is given, in which are to
be found all those included in the present Canon, with the
exception of the Epistles cf James, Peter, possibly the third of
John, and that to the Hebrews. One apocryphal book, the
"Apocalypse of Peter," is conditionally admitted also, the
remark accompanying it, however, that some did not choose
that it should be used in the Church. The first part of the
fragment relating to Matthew and Mark is wanting, but Luke
is named as the third Gospel, and John as the fourth. The
writer speaks of but two epistles of John, including the third
with the second, as was sometimes done, or meaning two
besides the first, of which he had elsewhere spoken in connec
tion with the Gospel, — which is the most probable supposition,
— or possibly, as not knowing the third.2
The chasms found in the text, as it now exists, may be
Ofthe regarded as the almost sure reason why certain other-
books .1, ,
omitted, wise well-attested books of the New Testament are
not enumerated in it, especially I. Peter. And Westcott holds
1 Bib. in Ch., p. 113. Cf. Reuss, id., sect. 292.
2 Reuss, id., sect. 310, n. Cf. Westcott's Bib. inCh., p. 116 and note; also Hilgenfeld, id.,
p. 42.

The Canon. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 151
that, inasmuch as the epistle of James and that to the Hebrews
were well known in the Roman Church, the reason for their
being omitted in a list which includes the epistle of Jude and
the Apocalypse must be sought either in the character of the
writing or the condition of the text.1 The Muratorian Canon
rejected an apocryphal epistle to the Laodiceans, which is not
to be confounded with the Epistle to the Ephesians (see Colos
sians iv. 16), although Marcion gave the latter that name.
The allusion is probably to a spurious work afterwards placed
by Jerome in his catalogue of such works.2 The text reads :
" Moreover, it is said that there is in circulation an epistle to
the Laodiceans, another to the Alexandrians, forged under the
name of Paul, in favor of the heresy of Marcion ( " Pauli
nomine fictas ad hasresem Marcionis"), and several others
which cannot be received into the Catholic Church, for gall
ought not to be mixed with honey" (" fel enim cum melle
misceri non congruit"). That our epistle to the Hebrews is
meant by the one mentioned as addressed to the Alexandrians
is a mere conjecture supported by no evidence. The epistle
to the Hebrews, as a " continuous vindication of the spiritual
significance of the Mosaic covenant, which Marcion denied,"
does not at all answer the description."
We shall now notice in succession the evidence offered to
the Canon of the New Testament by Irenaeus, Clement of
Alexandria, TertuUian, the Peshito, and old Latin versions, —
representing respectively, Asia Minor, Egypt, North Africa,
the far East, and the West, — then of the distinguished Origen,
from whom we shall turn backward towards the Apostolic
age. Irenasus (c 130-200,) was educated in the Christian faith
by Polycarp, a disciple of the Apostle John, and Who
by him was sent on a mission to Gaul. He became was.
bishop at Lyons a.d. 174, and was prominent in all ecclesias
tical matters during the latter part of the second century. It
is held by some that he suffered martyrdom under Septimus
Severus a.d. 203. He was a firm supporter of the " faith
1 Hist of N. T. Can., pp. 191, 192 ; Vs. Credner id., sect. 72.
2 Vs. Hilgenfeld, id., p. 42. Cf. Reuss, id., sect 310, n. ; and Westcott id., p. 190, n.
2 Westcott, id., p. 190, n. Vs. Hilgenfeld, id., p. 24.

152 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. III.
once delivered to the saints," disputing publicly at Rome
against the errors of Valentinus, Florinus, and others. He
always claimed to follow the Apostolic instruction which he
had received from his renowned teacher, and which, in his
old age, he declared was even fresher in memory than events
which had just occurred. " I recollect well," he says, " the
place in which the holy Polycarp used to sit and speak. I
remember . . . the discourses he made to the people, and
how he described his intercourse with the Apostle John, and
with the rest who had seen the Lord, and how he recited their
sayings concerning Christ, His miracles, and His doctrines ;
and how, having received records from eye-witnesses of the
Word of Life, he recounted them, agreeing in every thing
with the Scriptures" 1
But one of the works of Irenasus has been preserved, — a
Testimony certain treatise against heresy, — and that for the most
Canon. part in a Latin translation. But this work, from the
nature of its subject, gave fitting occasion for him to express
his views concerning the Scriptures. He maintains the co-or
dinate authority of the Old and New Testaments ; 2 finds a
characteristic reason, in the four quarters of the globe, why
there should be just four Gospels, and no more : assigns the
authorship of those Gospels to those whose names they now
bear ; quotes, as Scripture, the Acts, twelve Epistles of Paul
(omitting Philemon), the Apocalypse, I. and II. John, I.
Peter, and is said by Eusebius to refer, in a work now lost, to
the Epistle to the Hebrews : " a book also of various dis
putes, in which he mentions the Epistle to the Hebrews, and
the book called the Wisdom of Solomon, quoting certain pas
sages from them." s As Irenseus does not profess to give a list
of canonical writings, it would not be just to infer that he
rejected any books which he does not quote. It is probable,
however, that he did not regard the Epistle to the Hebrews as
the work of Paul.
He quotes also, as Scripture (j'paqM/), the Shepherd of Her
mas, which, as we have seen, the author of the Muratorian
1 Euseb. H. E. v. 20. Cf. Adv. Haer., iii. 3 (4). a h. E. v. 26.
2 Adv. Hair. i. 8 (1) ; ii. 27 (2).

The Canon. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 153
Fragment repudiated as without divine authority.1 Inasmuch
as the ordinary test of canonical books was the knowl- citesan
edge of their being produced by Apostles, or "Apostolic AJr<^^>hal
men," it is easy to see that the name of the author Scripture.
of this work, as was the case with other partially current apocry
phal works, may have stood in the way of its rejection.8 The
matter, however, is of little importance, except as illustrating
the uncritical character of the times, and the fact that the limits
of the Canon had not yet been definitely fixed.
Clement of Alexandria (c. 165-220) was a contemporary
of Irenaeus, although his birthplace and the exact CIementof
time of his birth are unknown. His acquaintance Alexandria-
with the philosophy and literature of his time was uncommonly
extensive. For about a dozen years, near the close of the
second century, he was teacher of a famous catechetical school
at Alexandria. His predecessor in the school, Pantaenus,
linked him with the Apostolic age, and, like Irenaeus; Clement
counted it an honor to follow in his teaching " the true tradi
tion of the blessed doctrine directly from Peter and James,
from John and Paul, the holy Apostles, the son receiving it
from the father." 8
He was a fertile writer, and five of his works are yet extant
in the Greek language. The principal of these, just H;s ..
now cited, was named " Stromata," " patchwork," or inss-
" miscellanies," perhaps from the miscellaneous character of
its contents. Without attempting a formal catalogue of the
New Testament books, Clement treats them as associated, as
" Scriptures of the Lord," and connects them with the Law
and the Prophets, as worthy of the same reverence. " For
both the law and the Gospel," he says, " are the energy of
one Lord, who is the 'power and wisdom of God.'"4 Of
these books he quotes the several Gospels, the Acts, and, with
the exception of Philemon, all of Paul's epistles, including
Hebrews, which he imputes to him ; also, I. John, I. Peter,
Jude, and the Apocalypse. He shows an acquaintance, too,
with the second Epistle of John, although he does not expressly
1 Adv. Hair., iv. 20 (2). 2 Rom. xvi. 16. Cf. Hilgenfeld, id., p. 37, n.
» Stromata i. 1. Cf. Euseb. H. E., v. n. * Strom, i., 27.

154 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. ill.
name it. Of II. Peter, James, and III. John only does he
say nothing, from which silence, under the circumstances, it
being a matter of incidental citations only, no more can be
justly inferred than a lack of acquaintance, and even that with
uncertainty. But, like Irenaeus, Clement does not see the
impropriety of mixing " gall" with " honey," and misled, per
haps by the honored names they bore, and the loose custom of
the Alexandrians generally in this respect, cites the " Apoca
lypse of Peter," and the " Shepherd of Hennas," as " divine"
writings, and invests the letters of Clement of Rome and of
Barnabas with Apostolic authority. Westcott thinks, however,
that there is no evidence that he attached to them a decisive
authority, as he did to the writings of the Apostles, in the
strictest sense.1
TertuUian was born of pagan parentage, at Carthage, about
a.d. 160. His father was a Roman centurion. He
was well educated for one of his time, and used his
extraordinary gifts, after his conversion to Christianity, in vig
orously defending it against its enemies. So severe and
unyielding was he in his views respecting the purity of the
Church and the necessity of discipline in it, that late in life he
separated from its communion, originating a Montanistic sect,
called Tertullianists.
TertuUian extended the title of "Divine Instrument" over
Treatment the one book made up of the Old and New Testament
of the New .. -i-ir-,. ,• • r r. ¦
Testament, writings. In defending the integrity of Scripture
against the mutilations of Marcion, he claimed, that what had
been delivered by the Apostles had been " preserved invio
late {sacrosanctum) in the churches of the Apostles." 2 To
doubters of the genuineness of the Apostolic epistles in his
own time, he addressed the following bold challenge : " Come
now, thou who desirest to exercise thy curiosity in that which
relates to thy salvation ; go through the Apostolic churches,
in which the chairs of the Apostles preside in their places, in
which their authentic letters are recited, resounding the voice,
and representing the face of each one. Is Achaia near thee?
Thou hast Corinth. If thou art not far from Macedonia, thou
» Hist, of N. T. Can., p. 312, n. 2 Adv. Mar. iv. 5.

The Canon. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 155
hast Philippi ; thou hast Thessalonica. If thou canst direct
thy course into Asia, thou hast Ephesus. But, if thou art near
Italy, thou hast Rome, whence authority is ready at hand for
us (of Carthage) also." J
This strong language of TertuUian must not be pressed too
far, however. It can only be used to show his personal import of
f 1 • f , , tms ^an~
estimate of the genuineness of the several epistles to guage.
which he alludes. He means to express his opinion that the
Apostolic churches are themselves proper witnesses to the let
ters which were sent to them.
As in the case of the two preceding fathers, TertuUian
furnishes no complete catalogue of New Testament His
books, and we are mainly dependent for his testimony Canon
on casual references found in his writings. These references
are to the four Gospels, the Acts, thirteen epistles of Paul
(including Philemon), I. Peter, I. John, Jude, and the Apoca
lypse. The Epistle to the Hebrews he ascribed to Barnabas,
but without placing it among, or on a level with, works apocry
phal even of the better class : " Exstat enim et Barnabae titulus
ad Hebrseos, — et utique receptiorapud ecclesias epistola Barna
bae illo apocrypho pastore moechorum." 2 There is no trace in
Tertullian's writings of II. Peter, II. and III. John, or James.
The only two apocryphal works of which he speaks, he ex
pressly stigmatizes as unauthentic, saying of the " Shepherd,"
that it had been declared spurious by every council of the
churches,8 and of the " Acts of Paul and Thecla," that it was
a detected forgery. According to Hilgenfeld, TertuUian at an
earlier period had received the " Shepherd " as inspired.*
The ante-Hieronymian version in' Latin, which seems to
have been made in North Africa, as we have observed, about
the time of Tertullian's birth, and was continually referred to
by that Father, mainly corroborates, — as we should naturally
expect, the point of view being the same, — his opinion of what
books properly belonged to the New Testament Canon. It is
thought by Westcott, that, in its original form, this version
contained all the books of the present list except the Episde
1 De Prais. Hser., cap. xxxvi. 2 De Pudic, c. xx. 3 Id., c. x.
* Der Kan. &c, pp. 38, 72. Cf. Tertul. De Orat, c. xii. ; De Bapt. xvii.

156 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. III.
to the Hebrews, that of James, and II. Peter ; and he sup
poses that it was from considerations of style that they were
omitted.1 An account of the Peshito version of Syria has been
Canon of briefly given in the preceding chapter. It speaks for
veersion.0 the far East, Edessa, and carries us back in the history
of its formation to a period near the beginning of the second
century, not long after the death of the Apostle John. It
shows conclusively what books of the New Testament were
then in circulation at that point, and were thought worthy
of being collected into a work which should be an authorita
tive standard of faith. In addition to the four Gospels and the
Acts, it contained fourteen epistles of Paul, reckoning that to
the Hebrews as his, the Epistle of James, I. Peter, and I. John.
The Epistle to the Hebrews, however, was placed after the
Pastoral epistles, as though there were some doubt of its au
thorship. Jude, II. Peter, II. and III. John, and the Apoca
lypse, although forming a part of the version as now printed,
did not, it is generally supposed, belong to it originally. Hug
and Thiersch, however, maintain that the latter book was a
part of the original document.2 If some books that we might
have expected to find in this collection are wanting, others are
present whose omission would not have surprised us. Reuss
is of opinion that the Greek Christians in that region must
have preceded the Syrian in the acknowledgment of Hebrews
and James.8
Before proceeding to the fuller and more direct evidence of
Brief Origen, it may be well to review that to which atten-
Review. t;on nas been already directed. It ranges through a
period extending from the first to the last quarter of the second
century, and over nearly the whole of that part of the world
to which as yet Christianity had been carried. Even from
such a cursory survey of the period as we have been able to
make, the justice of many of the preliminary statements with
which the chapter began will be apparent. If the evident
line, even now separating from others a certain collection of
1 Bib. in Ch. p. 130. Cf. Hist, of N. T. Can., p. 225. 2 Bleek, Introd., ii., 247.
3 Reuss, id., sect. 308.

The Canon. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 157
books as Scripture, authoritative and divine, be somewhat
wavering, the explanation is as obvious as the fact. That
such a collection of books exists, and receives a growing
respect, is not uncertain.
The evidence on which dependence must be placed is
discovered to be sporadic ; that of individuals, isolated Nature
churches, or single divisions of the Church ; influenced evidence.
by local causes ; generally incidental rather than direct ; wholly
uncritical, but still natural, consistent, mutually supporting,
without real discrepancy, and always harmonizing with the
assumption that the Canon of the New Testament came into
being gradually and spontaneously, without collusion, confer
ence, or the pressure of external authority. The witnesses
cited, it is true, are but a part of the whole number belonging
to the period, but are fairly representative, in the points indi
cated, of all the rest, for whom, therefore, we may be permit
ted to speak.1 Materials for the structure must be laboriously
transported across wide spaces, their ultimate selection and
arrangement in the edifice left to the slowly acting judgment '
of the Christian community ; and we might, therefore, be
content if we were able at this point to determine simply the
characteristic marks and principal drift of the movement. But
it is possible to show that, already, the limits of the New
Testament had become defined approximately, as we now find
them. Before the close of the second century, the four Gos
pels, the Acts, thirteen epistles of Paul, I. Peter and I. John,
were universally canonized by the Church, unhesitatingly re
garded as inspired and divine, and in the same sense as the
Old Testament, the true Word of God. We have included
Philemon in this list, inasmuch as there is no doubt that Ire
naeus and Clement of Alexandria omitted it irt their citations
simply through oversight.2 And not only is this true of these
books, but they were thus adopted as authoritative on the basis
of their being the actual, acknowledged productions of the
men and of the age to which they claimed to belong, and to
which these their successors were united by a tradition yet
living and blessed. Of course, a review of the evidence
1 Reuss, id., sect. 307. ! Bleek, Introd. to N. T., ii. 246.

158 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. HI.
of the preceding, sub-Apostolic age, as yet unnoticed, might
be expected greatly to strengthen the conclusions already
reached. The mutually corroborative character of this testimony-
Evidence appears in the fact that the two express catalogues
supporting, cited are exactly conterminous with the scattered
quotations of the Fathers ; the Peshito of the East, and the
Muratorian and Old Latin Versions of the West, being fully
sustained by the whole sum of scattered incidental citations of
the various writers of the period over which we have passed.
Still further, we find no positive evidence from any quarter
of the Church during this period, or even among heretics, of
the deliberate rejection, as spurious, of any book of the New
Testament now received as genuine. There is sometimes
doubt as to authorship, as in the case of the epistle to the
Hebrews ; there is often an apparent unacquaintance with the
minor epistles, or an overlooking of them : but the positive
evidence, scanty though it may be, as far as it goes, is but in
one direction. To this can be opposed only the negative and
doubtful argument of silence, or the illusive proofs of surmise
and conjecture.
But it is to be acknowledged that, for reasons already stated,
Books there are certain books of the New Testament which,
partially , . . , .
recognized, up to this time, had received but a partial recogni
tion, and were obliged to wait for their full reception into the
Canon, for the riper experience and wider knowledge of a
later day. These exceptional books, however, it is to be noted,
to the extent that they met with recognition at all, found it in
ju*st those places where it would be natural to expect they
would be best known. And it is also to be remarked that
these "disputed" books, so called, with the solitary exception
of II. Peter, are precisely those which in themselves lay no
claim to Apostolic authorship ; and this very circumstance
may have given occasion, even where they were known and
recognized as genuine, for denying them an equal rank with
those which made such claim.1
In the churches of Africa, for instance, and throughout the
1 Westcott, Hist, of N. T. Can., p. 459.

The Canon. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 159
West generally, the epistles of Jude, II. and perhaps III.
John, and the Apocalypse, attain to canonical rank
during this period, but not in the Eastern Church ;
while the epistle of James and that to the Hebrews reach the
same dignity in the Eastern Church, but not in the African
and Western, although the epistle to the Hebrews should not
be confined to so narrow limits in this respect as that of James.
At the same time, there are but very slight traces of II. Peter
in any direction.
Of the numerous books in circulation at this period, on the
other hand, making a false claim to canonical rank, Quotationof
, , . . Apocryphal
the one which attained the greatest currency, the writings.
" Shepherd of Hermas," being indorsed by Irenaeus and
Clement of Alexandria, was, by certain others of the Fathers
who knew its origin best, expressly condemned as spurious, —
a fact already noticed as without a precedent in the case of
any book of the New Testament. Clement of Alexandria also
quotes, as we have seen, " if we may trust a corrupt text," x an
absurd book, entitled the "Apocalypse of Peter," as Scripture,
and seems to give Apostolic authority to the letters of Clement
of Rome and Barnabas : but the instance is exceptional ; as
much so, Tregelles avers, as it would be for a Protestant now
to believe in the divine authority of some book of the Apoc
rypha.2 His course in this case, moreover, as well as the custom
prevalent of quoting the Apostolic Fathers in imme- Ground of
, • • • , , c , , sucn a prac-
diate connection with the bcnptures, although not tice.
necessarily as Scripture, was only possible, it is evident,
because the question of the Canon had not yet become one of
much practical importance in the estimation of the Church."
In addition to this unreflective and uncritical habit, another
circumstance is to be considered. A rule had been somehow
tacitly adopted,4 that books claiming a place in the Canon
must at least be the productions of Apostles, or their compan
ions. And as the names of Hermas, Clement, and Barnabas,
1 Westcott, id., p. 249.
2 Leet on Hist Ev., p. 67. Cf. Bleek, Introd., ii. 289 ; Westcott, Hist, of N. Can. Ap. B.
3 Reuss, id., sect. 293.
• Tertull. Adv. Mar., iv. 2 ; Credner, Gesch. d. N. T. Kan., sect. 39.

160 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. III.
all occur in the New Testament writings in close connection
with the Apostles, that fact was allowed to weigh too much,
in some instances, against the contents of their reputed works,
the contrast of which with the real work of the Apostles did
not, we know, wholly escape observation.
We come now to the testimony of the illustrious Origen,
which will form a fitting supplement to that already
cited. He speaks, like Clement, from that great com
mercial and literary centre, Alexandria, in Egypt. " Unsur
passed in Christian zeal, unrivalled in universal learning, he
devoted a long life to the study of the Scriptures. These pecu
liar studies of Origen give additional importance " to his judg
ment.1 As in the case of preceding Fathers, however, he
claims to be only a witness with respect to the origin of the
New Testament, stating what he had received. Born about
twenty years after Clement (a.d. 186-254), ne was connected
by him, through Pantaenus, even there in Alexandria, to say
nothing of other lines of communication open to him, immedi
ately with the Apostolic age.
What this Father says concerning the Canon of the New
His testi- Testament has been preserved for the most part only
New7 Testa- in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius.2 " There
ment 00 s. &re» j^e remai-kS) " four Gospels only uncontroverted
in the Church of God spread under heaven. Peter has left
one epistle generally acknowledged ; and perhaps a second,
for that is disputed. John wrote the Apocalypse and an epistle
of very few lines ; and it may be a second and third, since all
do not admit them to be genuine." Of the epistle to the
Hebrews, he says that " the thoughts are the thoughts of the
Apostle Paul, . . . but who it was that wrote the epistle,
God only knows certainly." His own opinion was that " the
diction and composition were those of some one who recorded
from memory the Apostle's teaching, and, as it were, illus
trated with a brief commentary the sayings of his master."
He quotes the Epistles of James and Jude, at the same time,
however, noting the doubts that had been expressed concerning
their canonicity. To Paul's Epistles he alludes only in general
1 Westcott, Bib. in Church, p. 134. 2 vi. 25.

The Canon. THE NEW TESTAMENT. l6l
terms, to the effect that he wrote brief epistles to certain of
the churches which he visited.
This, then, is the sum of Origen's teachings on this subject :
"He was acquainted with all the books which are Sumofhis
received at present, and received as Apostolic those teachmss-
which were recognized by Clement of Alexandria. The
others he used, but with a certain reserve and hesitation aris
ing from a want of information as to their history, rather
than from any positive ground of suspicion." J With respect
to apocryphal writings, he clearly distinguished the four Gos
pels from all other similar productions, and considered them
alone canonical.2 And, while he quotes the Apostolic
Fathers and treats with respect the " Shepherd," it is with a
distinct recognition of their inferiority to the Scriptures.8
With Origen originated the term " r\ xcuvrj diad^xij," — " the
New Covenant" (Testament). And Tregelles, speaking from
personal examination, says that though a large number of his
works are lost, and those that we possess are defective, yet, in
the extant Greek writings of this Father alone, may be found,
simply in the form of citations, at least two-thirds of the New
Testament.4 Beyond this point, we shall not proceed in this direction at
present. We have found in the important witness General
just heard as fair a representation of the state of the retrospect
New Testament Canon at this particular period as is attainable
under the circumstances. His testimony is in perfect harmony
with that which has preceded, although it may advance a step
beyond it, and be of the nature of a summary. There were
still certain books concerning which the whole Church was
not of one mind. But there is no book belonging to the New
Testament, as now constituted, which was not then at hand
with its supporters to put in a claim to the enhanced honor of
canonicity. While, on the other hand, there was no book, not
found at present in our collection, which was then able to
pass the trying ordeal by which such honor was alone to be
attained. » Westcott's Hist, of N. T. Can., p. 312-318. 2 Horn. in. Luc, i., 1.
2 Bleek's Introd., II. 250. Cf. Hilgenfeld, id., p. 49. • Leet on Hist. Ev.,.p. 14.
II.

1 62 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. III.
It is generally admitted, even by those who show the least
Canon reverence for the New Testament, that, from near the
determined cl°se °f the second century, it was essentially com-
at this time. p0sed of the books which it now has, and was regarded
by the Church with that superlative respect accorded only to
works of supposed inspiration. Here, indeed, it might per
haps be safe, although our object were only an apologetic one,
to rest the question of the genuineness of these sacred writings.
Any ordinary ancient book would be thought well supported
with a defence even less complete. The witnesses already
cited are separated from the Apostolic age but by a single vital
link or two, which links were themselves spontaneous con
ductors of its cherished life and teachings. Perfect demonstra
tion on such a subject will always be impossible. Certain
books of the New Testament will always have less external
evidence in their support than others. Religious doubts can
never be wholly conquered by historic evidence. It has
seemed good to the All-Wise One to enhance the awfulness
of moral truth, and preserve its superiority to all other forms
of truth, by leaving open avenues of apparent escape from it.
While comparatively few distinctively religious people ever
take the trouble to inquire for the historic evidence that sup
ports the records of their faith, the records themselves to them
being sufficient evidence ; or rather, with one of the Apostolic
Fathers, they are inclined to say : " To me, Jesus Christ is
the sum of all records ; my inviolable records are his Cross
and Death and Resurrection, and the Faith through Him." J
But we have not yet by any means reached the limit of
facts relating to our subject. There is, happily, no necessity
other im- for leaving, at this point, the sphere of history for that
portant facts r , J
remain. of apologetics. Amidst the confused and mutilated
monuments of the Apostolic and sub-Apostolic age, we may
expect, at least, to trace the outline and feel the solid substance
of one abutment of the historic arch just now examined, on
which the structure of the New Testament Canon firmly rests ;
while the other we shall doubtless discover in the still later
period of Eusebius, Athanasius, and the early councils.
1 Ignat ad Philad. viii.

The Canon. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 1 63
Hitherto we have been attending chiefly to witnesses who had
seen and been instructed by those who had seen and been
instructed by the Apostles ; we go now, step by step, back to
the original authorities themselves. If we may not, in the
nature of the case, look for one authoritative collection of
New Testament books in this earlier age, we may expect to
find these books associated in naturally affiliating classes ;
or, at least, traces of them as existing by themselves, the origi
nal elements of the subsequent crystallization ; and the obvious
convergency of books and facts alike to one generative point.
Justin Martyr was born at Neapolis, the ancient Sichem, a
city of Samaria, toward the close of the first century justin
(c. 90-100). His father was a Greek. He himself, MartS»-
in early life, was a Platonist, not having embraced Chris
tianity till a.d. 132. Having somewhere met a venerable
disciple of Jesus who had enjoined upon him prayer before all
things, that the gates of light might be opened unto him, a
new "fire was kindled" in his soul, and he found, after all,
that Christianity — above the teaching of Stoic, Peripatetic,
Pythagorean, or even Plato — was the true philosophy, and
he at once became one of its most zealous propagators and
defenders. His works on Christianity were written mainly in the
decade after a.d. 140; Hilgenfeld says, a.d. 147. Hisworks
Two apologies, and a dialogue with a Jew by the import.
name of Trypho, are regarded without hesitation as his genu
ine productions. In arguing for the divinity of the Christian
system, whether with Jew or Pagan, he mainly rested on the
external facts of Christianity, especially such as clustered
about the life of its Founder. Nearly all the principal events
of the Master's life, indeed, may be gathered from his writ
ings. He makes less use of John's Gospel than of the other
three, from the nature of his aim, but still clearly shows ac
quaintance with it. Davidson strangely says that Justin's
application of the Logos doctrine (of John) to the synoptic
Jesus, proves that he was unacquainted with the development
of that doctrine in the fourth Gospel 1 * Other critics, how-
1 Introd. to N. T., ii. 511.

164 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. chap. hi.
ever, holding the same general attitude towards the Scripture
as he, have felt obliged virtually to admit such acquaintance
and use.1
Justin calls the authorities to which he refers the " Memoirs
References of the Apostles," and that he means the four Gospels
to our sis • 1 /•
Gospels. by that phrase is evident from a peculiar remark
made by him in a certain place : " The Apostles in the Me
moirs (things related) made by them, which are called Gospels,
have handed down," &c.2 And elsewhere : " In the Memoirs
which I say were composed by the Apostles, and those who
followed them" (Luke and Mark). It is not at all improbable
that he was sometimes influenced by an oral tradition, still
fresh in his time, with respect to the form which he gave to
facts cited. All his facts, however, not directly referable to our
Gospels are said not to exceed six in number,8 and there is but
one not in substantial agreement with them, and that might
possibly be accounted for by a variation of manuscripts.4
Westcott thus sums up his testimony to our Gospels, to
Summary of which, probably "to suit a literary taste," Justin
testimony. referrecj under the name of " Memoirs." They were
many, yet one ; they were called Gospels ; they contained a
record of all things concerning Jesus Christ; they were admit
ted by Christians generally ; were read in their public services ;
were of apostolical authority, though not exclusively of apos
tolical authorship ; they contained nothing which our Gospels
do not now essentially contain.6
The desperateness of the attempt made in recent times to
Desperation set aside the testimony of Justin as being valueless for
nents. the defence of our canonical Gospels, on the ground
that he alludes in his " Memoirs " to other works than these,
appears from the nature of the conclusions to which such a
supposition would lead us. Irenaeus, who, as we have seen,
testified, along with Clement of Alexandria and TertuUian to
just our four Gospels as authoritative and acknowledged by
the Church, must have already been in mature life before Jus
tin died. So that if Justin did not mean the Gospels of Mat-
1 Hilgenfeld, id., p. 28. Cf. Credner, id., sect. 3. 2 Apol. i. 66.
3 Fisher, Hist, of Supernat, p. 50. « Westcott, Bib. in Ch., p. 102. « Id.

The Canon. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 165
thew, Mark, Luke, and John, when he spoke ofthe "Memoirs,"
we are obliged to infer that within a very brief period " an
entire change of Gospels was made throughout all the different
and distant provinces of the Roman empire, at a time when
concerted action through General Councils was unknown ; and
that, too, in so silent a manner that no record of it remains in
the history ofthe Church."1 And we have already seen, more
over, that Marcion (a.d. 130-150) had found in his time the
Gospels holding a high place in the estimation of Christians,
and, until he . elaborated his own heretical system, had doubt
less received them himself as authoritative.2 And Tatian,
moreover, himself in early life a convert and disciple of Justin
Martyr, although afterwards leader of an heretical sect, wrote
a harmony of the Gospels, entitled " Diatessaron " " of the
Four," 8 doubtless from the fact that the narrative of Christ's
life was represented by four separate accounts. The same
writer, it may be noticed incidentally, definitely recognizes
the genuineness of Paul's epistle to Titus, besides referring to
Romans, Corinthians, and the Apocalypse.4
Besides the Gospels, Justin Martyr shows acquaintance by
allusions in his writings, more or less distinct, with Justin's ref-
crcnCG to
all the remaining books of the New Testament except other parts
the Catholic epistles and those to Philemon and Titus. Testament
To the Apocalypse, it is worthy of notice, he refers by name ;
and, in speaking of Christ, calls him "Apostle" of God, a
peculiar term, applied to our Lord nowhere in the New Testa
ment except in the Epistle to the Hebrews.6
The anonymous Epistle to Diognetus, assigned to near
the same period (c 117), and still extant in its original Epistle to
~, , ,. ,, , Dioguetus,
Greek form, supports and supplements the testimony &c
of Justin Martyr in some particulars, especially in the clearness
of the impression which it has received from the Fourth
Gospel. And the Clementine Homilies (c 160) contain an
undoubted reference to John xix. 22, as well as to the other
three evangelists. Hilgenfeld admits this. And Davidson
1 Barrows, Compan. to Bib., p. 42. ' Bleek, Introd. to N. T., ii. 240.
8 id. * Westcott, Hist, of N. T. Can., pp. 277-282.
c Id., pp. I45-M7- y'- Hilgenfeld, id., p. 27.

l66 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. III.
reluctantly yields the first point with the observation that " it is
remarkable that this Jewish-Christian writer, whose entire mode
of thinking was so different from the genius of this Gospel,
should have taken it as one of his acknowledged documents."1
Our next witness is the Gnostic Basilides. It is claimed
that he lived " not long after the time of the Apostles "
Basilides. . . TT , ~,
(c. 130). He wrote a commentary upon the Gos
pels in twenty-four books, the false teaching of which was
pointed out in the lost work of Agrippa Castor. Our authority
for what. Basilides wrote is Hippolytus, a Christian martyr of
the early part of the third century (c. 230), who is, how
ever, supported, in this respect, by extracts found also in the
writings of Clement of Alexandria and Origen.
The testimony of Basilides is of special importance as show-
Special ing that already, in his time, at least in the opinion of
testimony, some, the New Testament writings deserved the title,
and had attained to the rank of " inspired" works. This
writer, not, it is to be supposed, wholly on his own re
sponsibility, refers to Romans viii. 22, and 2 Corinthians xii.
4, under the formula " it is written," — especially employed in
quoting from the Old Testament, — and expressly cites the first
Epistle to the Corinthians (xi. 13) as "Scripture."2 Even his
limited extant works, covering but a few pages in all, show
acquaintance, moreover, with three of the Gospels, including
that of John, Paul's Epistles to the Romans, Ephesians, and
Colossians, besides those already mentioned, perhaps one to
Timothy (1st), and the first Epistle of Peter. Davidson, while
admitting the fact that parts of the New Testament are here
honored with the title of " Scripture," affirms that it was some
disciple of Basilides, and not the teacher himself, to whom
Hippolytus refers ; since as Justin Martyr, Polycarp, and Igna
tius, did not cite the New Testament writings as " Scripture,"
therefore, Basilides could not have done so.3
We come next to Papias. He was bishop at Hierapolis in
the early part of the second century (wrote c 140-
150), and is the first ecclesiastical writer who gives
1 Introd. to N. T., ii. 514. Cf. Hilgenfeld, id., p. 29.
2 Hipp. Ref. of All Her., vii., c 13, 14. s Introd. to N. T., ii. 514.

The Canon. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 1 67
any detailed account of our Gospels. He had himself been,
according to some., a hearer of the Apostle John, along with
Polycarp and others who had enjoyed that privilege. He was
at least at no considerable remove from him. Papias wrote a
work entitled " An Exposition of Oracles of the Lord based
on the teaching of the Elders." By the " teaching of the
Elders," he does not probably refer to our Gospels. " I used
to inquire," he says, " when I met any one who had been
acquainted with the Elders, of the teaching of the Elders, —
what Andrew or Peter had said, or John or Matthew, or any
other of the Lord's disciples." x His aim, rather, in this work,
seems to have been to expound some of our Lord's words in
the light of current traditions, which he had made a point of
collecting for that end. These traditions suited his purpose
better than existing works which had been composed with an
object similar to his own, i.e., for interpretation and comment.2
Papias, however, does not altogether overlook the written
Gospels, although his main purpose did not lead him to make
them the sources of his illustrations. Of two of them he
speaks definitely.
Of the first he says, in this treatise, that it was written by
Matthew originally in Hebrew (Aramaic), and that Histesti-
each one interpreted it as he was able, leaving us to mony¦
infer that already, in his time, a Greek transcript had been
made. Of Mark he testifies that, according to the Elder, Mark
wrote his Gospel under the direction of Peter.8 The character
of his work would naturally not call for special reference to
the Gospel of John, and the question is in dispute whether he
does so. Westcott, however, holds the affirmative.4 It is not
certain, moreover, that he did not have the narrative of Luke
in his possession, and shape the introduction of his own work
with reference to the peculiar one of this evangelist.6 To go
further, however, and say that Papias began his work with an
elaborate adverse criticism of Luke's Gospel, having his fling
at that writer's allusion to "the many" (? nollol) who had
taken in hand the same work, while he (Papias) preferred to
1 Euseb. H. E., iii. 39. 2 Westcott, Bib. in Church, p. 95 ; vs. Hilgenfeld, id., pp. 14-16.
8 Euseb., id. * Hist, of N. T. Can., p. 65. 6 Reuss, id., sect. 287, n.

1 68 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. III.
confine himself to the truth than run after the testimony of
" those who told many things," is to import into the first
century a characteristic development of the nineteenth, and
endow this simple-minded writer with a capacity for finical
objections and adroit manipulation of evidence which is the
disheartening product of eighteen hundred years of inquiry in
this field.1 Besides, the force of Papias's criticism in that case,
were such a criticism to be supposed, would rest on a mis
interpretation of both Luke's language and spirit. In addition
to the Gospels, Papias used the first Epistle of John, and the
first of Peter, and beyond doubt treated the Apocalypse as an
inspired work. Westcott suggests that his ultra-Jewish train
ing may have stood in the way of his appealing to the Epistles
of Paul and the Acts, — although the supposed recognition of
Luke would be a quasi indorsement of Paul, — but that his
silence in this respect is fully balanced by the course of Mar
cion, who excluded from his Canon all save these Epistles.2
From Papias, the next step toward the first age brings us
Apostolic to the interesting circle of Apostolic Fathers. The
Bamabas. first of these to whom we shall direct our attention is
Barnabas, if, indeed, he can properly be classed among them.
He may possibly be identified with the Levite of Cyprus
mentioned in the Acts.8 An extant writing of his, in the form
of an epistle in Greek, was discovered by Tischendorf in con
nection with the Sinaitic manuscript. It had previously been
known only in a Latin version. A special interest attaches to
this document from the fact that in its original Greek form, as
well as in the Latin translation, it recognizes the canonical
authority of one of the New Testament books, and is the first
known instance of such recognition in history. A similar
expression employed by Polycarp (Ep. c. xii.) in referring to
Eph. iv. 26, existing only in a Latin text, is not regarded by
all scholars as trustworthy. Using the formula ordinarily
employed in citing from the Old Testament Scriptures, Barna
bas says: "Let us beware lest we be found" [fulfilling that
saying], "as it is written, 'Many are called, but few are
1 Hilgenfeld, id., pp. 16, 21. 2 H;st. of N. T. Can ( p jg.
3 Reuss, id., sect. 234. Cf. Westcott, id., p. 38.

The Canon. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 169
chosen.' " J It is a remarkable circumstance, which should be
noticed in this connection, that Barnabas also is the only one
of the Apostolic Fathers who, in quoting from the Old Testa
ment, designates the parts into which it was divided, or alludes
to them by name. In other words, particularity of citation
seems to have been characteristic, and hence should not sur
prise us with respect to that just noted.
The only escape which Davidson can find from this impor
tant fact, which is generally conceded, is in the decla- Davidson's
ration that Barnabas stands alone in the use of this obJection-
formula, and that he may have believed that this sentence was
found in the Old Testament Canon ! The same critic thinks
that Barnabas could not have known any thing of the Gospel
of John, because, in mentioning the fact of the casting of lots
for Christ's garments, he did not allude to the circumstance of
its being a seamless coat ! 2 Two instances are mentioned
where it is supposed that Barnabas makes use of other than
our canonical Gospels, though one of these does not appear in
the Greek text, and the other seems to be an adaptation rather
than a direct citation of a passage from Matthew. Hilgenfeld,
however, asserts that he uses the apocryphal book of Enoch
as Scripture (yQacprj)* although the Latin at this place reads
"Daniel," in place of "Enoch."
The remaining three Apostolic Fathers, so called, Polycarp,
Clement of Rome (Phil. iv. 3), and Ignatius, — Polycarp,
, , ,1 , . Clement, and
although they generally quote anonymously, treating Ignatius.
the New Testament like the Old in this particular ; ordinarily
testify to the substance rather than the form of the Apostolic
writings ; sometimes, though very rarely, use the sayings ofthe
Master coming to them through oral tradition, rather than the
written record (there is one instance in Ignatius, besides that
in the epistle of Barnabas) ; look as yet perhaps upon the
Old Testament as the complete and abiding record of divine
revelation, — still regarded the Apostolic writings as a superior
class to their own ; 4 referred definitely to them whenever such
definite reference could have been naturally expected, and, even
1 Ep. cc. iv. vi. Cf. Matt. xx. 16; xxii. 14. 3 Der Kan., &c., p. ro.
2 Introd. to N. T., ii. 509, 510. 4 Bib. in Ch., pp. 87, 88.

170 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. III.
in their contemporaneous and exceedingly limited writings,
discover allusions to nearly the whole New Testament, at
least, to all its great features, and everywhere show that they
were mainly governed in their own doctrinal teaching by that
authority. It is to be considered that the New Testament books natu-
Sumof rally fall into certain comparatively distinct classes
references, vvith respect to authorship, doctrinal teaching, and
other characteristics. Whatever may be true of the citation
of separate books, all these separate classes of books and types
of doctrine are recognized by the Apostolic Fathers. But it
can be shown, too, that, besides the notices of the Gospel men
tioned above, there are distinct traces in these fragmentary
records of Romans, I. and II. Corinthians, Galatians, Ephe-
sians, Philippians, I. and II. Timothy, Hebrews, James,
I. Peter, I. John ; the Epistles to Thessalonians, Colos
sians, Titus, and Philemon less certainly ; while the impres
sion of Jude, II. and III. John, II. Peter, and the Apocalypse.
does not reveal itself.1
These references, it is to be specially remarked, are
Character scarcely, in any instance, literal quotations, never
of these ,. •" , , . , , r r
references, direct appeals to heighten the force of an argument
or gain the support of something authoritative, but a part of
the very substance of the writings with which they have been
interwoven, as much as the weft is part of the cloth, betray
ing, as well on the part of the readers as writers, the greatest
familiarity with these writings, and an utter unconsciousness
of design. It should be considered, moreover, that while a
coincidence of language between the Apostolic Fathers and
that of our Gospels, if not expressly cited as from them,
might perchance be held to show an acquaintance merely with
a current oral tradition ; a marked coincidence in language
with an epistle, on the other hand, by the very necessities of
the case, must be understood to imply a knowledge of such
epistle, from which source alone it could rationally be judged
to have been derived.
It is especially satisfactory to find at this point indications
1 Westcott, id., p. 85. Cf. Guericke's Isagogik, &c., p. 569.

The Canon. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 171
of the presence and influence of books, of which, in a later
age, the trace is sometimes partially lost. Clement Traces here
of Rome (c. 95), for instance, seems to have been °f^,nted
fully imbued with the teachings of the Epistle to books"
the Hebrews. " Let us," he says in one case (ch. xvii.), " be
imitators also of those, who, in goat-skins and sheep-skins,
went about proclaiming the coming of Christ." 1 The author
ship of the epistle, indeed, has been ascribed to Clement, on
the ground of this remarkable familiarity with its teachings.
And the same Father, according to Westcott, in writing on
justification, also uses illustrations peculiar to St. James.2
Ignatius, again (c. 107), in the best supported of his
extant epistles, makes the most undoubted allusions to the
characteristic teachings of St. John in the fourth Gospel,
speaking of Christ as the "Eternal Word," the "Door" by
which we come to the Father, the " Bread of God," &c.8
And Polycarp (c. 108) borrowed expressions from the
Epistle of John, as is generally admitted, and so, by inference,
was acquainted with the Gospel as well.
The qualitative value of this kind of evidence, — by refer
ence, quotation, and incidental allusion, which we Vaiueof
, . , , , , . this kind of
have now cursorily traced through a single century, evidence.
next to, and in part including, that of the Apostles, — with
respect to the support that it gives to the alleged genuineness
of the New Testament writings, can scarcely be over-estimated.
And it is hardly too much to say, including all the witnesses
of the second century, that, in the abundance and precision
of it, it is little less than infallible. " It is not the evidence of
witnesses first schooled and cautioned, and then brought into
court to do their best for the party by whom they are sum
moned. But it is the purely incidental testimony of uncon
nected persons, who, in the pursuit of their particular objects,
gather up and present to us the facts we are in search of.
Besides, these facts have a peculiarity which renders them
eminently capable of furnishing concise and conclusive proof.
A book is an aggregate of many thousand separate parts, each
1 Heb. xi. 37. 2 Bib. in Ch., p. 75.
8 Vs. Davidson's Introd. to N. T., ii. 514. Cf. Hilgenfeld, id., p. 31.

172 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. III.
of which, both by the thought it contains, and by the choice
and arrangement of the words, possesses a distinct individual
ity, such as fits it for the purpose of defining or identifying the
whole to which it belongs ; and if several of these definite
parts are adduced, the identification is rendered more than
complete." x
We now return again to that period in which the Canon of
Period of the New Testament, in its successive stages of growth,
Eusebius, , , „ .
Athanasius. began to assume, throughout, definite and clear out-
and the early .. ,, .. ,-, . , ...
councils. line, and the writings of the Apostles and their
inspired companions to be regarded generally in the church
as possessing the same authority as that which had been writ
ten by " holy men of old."
We have already seen that Origen — who was born a.d. 186,
Canon takes less than a hundred years after the death of the last
form. Apostle, holding therefore about the same relation to
them with respect to time that we hold to the American
Revolution, and between whom and the Apostolic age there
existed such substantial intermediate links as TertuUian, Ire
naeus, Clement of Alexandria, the great Versions of the East
and of the West, and the several Fathers just mentioned, who
were partially contemporaneous with the Apostles — already
so far recognized the exclusive claim of the New Testament
Canon, as to indicate what part of the Christian literature of
his time was universally received as canonical without contro
versy ; what part was controverted by some ; and, at least by
inference, what books were wholly excluded from the cata
logue of inspired works.
The first class embraced the great majority of the books
Position of which now compose the New Testament ; the second
Origen. induded II. Peter, II. and III. John, and the Epistles
of James and Jude. Concerning the Epistle to the Hebrews,
he only indicates an uncertainty as to authorship. With re
spect to the third class, he does not express himself decisively ;
but there is no evidence that he favored the absolute rejection
of any book of our catalogue, or the reception into it of any
book not now reckoned as canonical. For doctrinal purposes,
1 I. Taylor, Historic Proof, pp. 21, 22.

The Canon. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 1 73
however, he judged it best to make use only of those books
of whose genuineness there could be no doubt. With respect
to the remainder, he was willing to allow to others what he
claimed for himself, — liberty to " prove all things and hold
fast that which is good." J
We stand now, at a point near the middle of the third
century (a.d. 254), to which the testimony of Origen
extends. For the next fifty years we find but little of
importance to chronicle respecting the growth of the Canon
in the Church. It had reached a stage, indeed, where its
development within brief periods might be less perceptible
than formerly ; although it is evident that, at no time until it
attained its acme, was it wholly stationary. The matter which
it now most concerns us to know is tbe judgment of the Church
on writings whose claims have been hitherto but partially ad
mitted. And here, at least, we find satisfactory progress ;
while with respect to that portion of the New Testament
already generally attested, excepting the Apocalypse alone,
there is palpable, though less noticeable, movement in one
direction. In Asia Minor, and especially at Alexandria, the line be
tween the "disputed" books and all "apocryphal" Disputed
literature is more and more clearly discriminated, and boo^s-
even II. Peter seems at length to come forth from its compara
tive obscurity. There is a doubtful reference to this book in
Polycarp,2 not yet noticed ; affinities of language in Clement
of Rome ; 8 but in Firmilian (a.d. 256) we find what appears
to be a distinct recognition of the existence of the epistle ; and
in Melito, of Sardis, at a still earlier period (c 176), an almost
certain adaptation of 2 Pet. iii. 5~7-4
But the early part of the fourth century is especially
marked in the history of the Canon by several im- Period how
portant circumstances. The persecution of Diocle- marke°-
tian (a.d. 303), directed particularly against the sacred books
of the Church, and so incidentally leading to a more definite
1 Com. on Matt, sect, xxviii. Cf. Bib. in Ch., p. 137.
2 c. iii. Cf. 2 Pet. iii. 15. 8 c xi. Cf. 2 Pet. ii. 6-9.
« Tregelles, Leet. on Hist Ev., p. 58 ; Bib. in Ch., p. 138, n. Cf. Westcott's Hist Can.
N. T., p. 194-

174 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. III.
decision as to their limits ; the very important testimony of the
historian, Eusebius, to the contents of the Canon ; the estab
lishment of a noted manuscript library of Christian literature
at Caesarea (a.d. 309) ; and nearly synchronizing with the last,
and doubtless to some degree dependent upon it, the prepara
tion of some of those great Uncials which have come down to
our day. As we have already noticed, Tischendorf himself,
considers it not improbable, that the Sinaitic manuscript
{Aleph) was one of those which, by order of Constantine
(a.d. 331), Eusebius prepared for public use in the churches
of Constantinople.1 By means of these manuscripts the period
between that time and our own is absolutely bridged, and by a
single step, as it were, we are thus brought face to face with
the deliberate and crystallized opinions of the Church concern
ing the authoritative limits of the New Testament in the age
to which such MSS. belong. Under the influence of this con
sideration we may carry on the concluding investigations of
the present chapter.
As a result of the order of Diocletian, embracing, among
Effects of other things, the destruction by fire of all copies of
Diocletian , „ . ~, . . J. r
persecution, the Scriptures, Christians were forced to give up such
manuscripts of the New Testament as they might have in
their possession, or suffer the consequences of contumacy.
Some yielded and were branded by their fellow-disciples with
the epithet "traditores" (traitors), a word which bears its
testimony to our own time ; others ostensibly complied with
the order, but really delivered up only apocryphal, or heretical,
"useless" writings, and so generally escaped the public cen
sure of the Church. So hotly did the discussion, stirred up
by the conflicting views and practice of the discipleship on
this subject, rage, that an important schism sprang out of it,
the schismatic party, Donatists (a.d. 329) demanding a more
strict construction of the term traditor, and more rigorous
dealing with such as, by their conduct, had justified the title.
Out of this conflict with the civil power on the one hand, and
among Christians themselves on the other, while no authori
tative and judicial decision of the Church on the limits of the
1 Vs. Bib. in Ch., p. 158,

Thk Canon. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 175
Canon, and no apparent discussion respecting that particular
point, was evoked, it is evident that, practically, those limits
became more nicely discriminated and firmly established.
Augustine (a.d. 354-430), in controversy with the Dona-
tists, declares that both they and the rest of the
Church {i.e., in North Africa) admitted the Canonical
Scriptures, which in general terms he defines as the Gospels,
the Apostolic epistles, the Acts of the Apostles, and the
Apocalypse of John.1 From the fact that he elsewhere
ascribes fourteen epistles to Paul, — so including that to the
Hebrews, — it is not improbable that he means to include it
here ; and, if so, he indicates all those books, and only those
books, which we now find in the New Testament of our Eng
lish Bibles.2
Eusebius — born in Palestine about a dozen years after the
death of Origen (c. 270) ; a friend of Pamphilus,
by whom the manuscript library at Caesarea was col
lected ; an eye-witness of the Diocletian persecution — is chiefly
known through an ecclesiastical history which he wrote, the
first of any considerable extent relating to the early Church.
This history is yet preserved, and of course its testimony to
the Canon, if any, ought to be found of much importance.
Such testimony is not lacking. It comes to us, moreover, it
will be observed, from a different ecclesiastical centre from
that to which we have just been attending.
We give, in full, the passage in which his opinion on the
entire subject is announced : 8 " Now this appears to Opinion
. , , , . _ respecting
be a suitable place to give a summary statement of the New
the books of the New Testament which I have already books.
mentioned. In the first place, then, we must put the holy
quaternion of the Gospels ; these are followed by the Acts of
the Apostles; then we must mention the (fourteen) Homologou,
epistles of Paul ; then we must place the acknowledged mena-
first Epistle of John, and, similarly, the admitted Epistle of
Peter ; after this may be placed, if it appear suitable, the
Apocalypse of John ; the various opinions about which we
1 Ep. cxxix. 3, by Bib. in Ch., p. 145. 2 H. E., iii. 24, 25.
2 De Doctr. Chr., ii. 12, 13, by same, p. 186.

176 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. III.
shall set forth in proper time. And these are amongst the
v books universally acknowledged {homologoumena).
" Now of opposed books {antilegomena) which are, how-
AniUero- ever, acknowledged similarly by the most, are reck-
mena. oned the epistle called that of James, and that of Jude,
and the II. of Peter, and those named II. and III. John,
whether they really belong to him, or to some other of that
name. " Amongst spurious writings are reckoned the ' Acts of
Paul' (apocryphal), and the book called the ' Shep
herd,' and the ' Apocalypse of Peter,' and also the
' Epistle of Barnabas,' and what are called the ' Instructions
of the Apostles ; ' and also, as I said, if such a view appear
correct, the ' Apocalypse of John,' which some reject, while
others reckon it among the books ' acknowledged.' We may
add that some placed in this class, also, the Gospel according
to the Hebrews, to which those Hebrews who have received
the Christ are especially attached."
He afterwards gives reasons why he mentions these apocry-
Reasons for Pna^ works> " which, though they are not in the New
£JS.fiap0C' Testament, but in fact controverted," he cites, because
works. 0f their frequent use by ecclesiastical writers. Of
other writings which impostors had tried to palm off as genu
ine productions of the Apostles, the Gospel of Peter, &c, he
says that " they are not to be classed even among spurious
books, but wholly set aside, as every way absurd {axona) and
impious." With respect to this statement of Eusebius, it should be
Bearing of considered that he purports to give, as a result of his
this general . .
statement, gleanings from various ecclesiastical writers who
were contemporaneous with or had preceded him, the
common judgment respecting the Canon. He appeals to no
Church rule, because, as yet, there was none except that of
tacit consent and common usage. He simply did what we,
in this chapter, have been seeking to do. And while he may
have us at some disadvantage in being himself more nearly
contiguous to the writers on whom he depends, this advantage
is perhaps more than counterbalanced by the fact that he is

The Canon. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 177
too near, too much a part of the ecclesiastical movements
which he describes, to pronounce a wholly just and dispassion
ate decision upon the case before him. He could not estimate
as well as we what would be lost to the Church by losing the
Epistles of James and that to the Hebrews, or the Apocalypse ;
how much they contribute to the harmony and completeness
of the collection. " He could not feel, as those of a later day
can do, the complete unity and fulness of the New Testament,
which had but lately assumed its final shape." 1
From Eusebius, then, we learn that, in his time, all the
twenty-seven books of the New Testament as at pres- Sumof ^
ent constituted, and no others, were acknowledged by teachmgs.
the majority of Christians as authoritative ; that there was
discrimination exercised in the selection, and hence, certain of
these books, being less fully supported, — it may be historically,
as II. Peter ; or as being of doubtful authorship, as Hebrews,
II, and III. John, James, and Jude ; or as presenting internal
difficulties, although historically well supported, as the Apoca
lypse, — were received by some with hesitation, or wholly
refused a place with the rest. His own judgment was in favor
of the Epistle to the Hebrews ; and of the Apocalypse he
prophesied that, " in due course," its authority would be
" decided by the testimony of the ancients." The II. Epistle
of Peter he affirms is " strongly supported ; " II. and III. John,
" gainsaid." In his writings, he quotes all the books of the
New Testament except, perhaps, Jude, II. Peter, and II. and
III. John.
It will be noticed, as has been previously shown, that most
of these " disputed " books are those whose authors, Probable
,. , , ground of
for reasons unknown to us, did not choose to announce objection to
themselves, or lay claim to Apostolic authority, which books.
was the admitted test of canonicity.2 Who they really were
could only be learned from characteristics of style and a tradi
tion somewhat wavering. That, under such circumstances,
these books should take their place in the collection latest, and
only after the sharpest scrutiny, was to have been expected.
That they finally found a place there — apposite, and generally
i Westcott, Bib. in Ch., pp. 154, 294. 2 CfHofmann, d Heil. Schrift N. T., p. 8.
12

178 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. ill.
acknowledged to be fitting — was doubtless due to the reason
that they were, at last, discovered to speak with a divine
wisdom and power not to be mistaken.
This same Eusebius, by order of Constantine a.d. 332, pre-
Contents of Pared, as we have said, fifty elegant copies of the
tboTOifoin1 "Scriptures for public use in Constantinople. The con-
Bibie. tents of these Bibles confirms what has been already
said of the general harmony of opinion respecting the consti
tution of the Canon at that time. The work being one of
great importance and responsibility, we should expect to find,
and probably do find, in these Bibles the final and ripened
judgment of Eusebius on this subject. Hence, it is an inter
esting fact that we see the difference between the " universally
acknowledged " and " controverted " books almost entirely
obliterated under these new conditions ; and in the New Tes
tament, prepared by royal authority for the public indoctrina
tion of the people, we find a place given to all the books of the
present collection without invidious distinctions among them,
with the sole exception of the Apocalypse, which, though his
torically one of the best supported of the catalogue, for reasons
hereafter to be given, had somewhat declined in authority.
Westcott thinks, however, that the Apocalypse may have had
a place in the appendix of this Constantinopolitan Bible.1
The full bloom of its recognition, at least, had not come, but
it was near.
The next catalogue of the New Testament books to which
Canon of we ' • -ct attention is that of Athanasius of Alexan-
Athanasius. (jria, who died a.d. 373. At the time when he pub
lished his list, he was metropolitan of Egypt. It was in the
year a.d. 365. He saw peril to the Church, it should seem, in the
free use of apocryphal books, which had become common.
And, as he was accustomed to address to the churches of his
province a yearly letter of instruction with respect to the mov
able festivals, he took the occasion of the thirty-ninth letter to
express his views on the subject before us. For substance,
they were as follows : Inasmuch as some had sought to mix
apocryphal writings with the inspired Scripture, he would
1 Bib. in Ch., p. 157.

The Canon. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 179
publish the books which were admitted into the Canon, and
were believed to be divine. It is thought by some not improb
able that he was not satisfied with the indefinite conclusions in
certain directions at which Eusebius, in his history, had arrived,
and feared injurious effects from them.1 Athanasius then pro
ceeds to give lists of the books of the Old and New Testa
ments. The latter conforms to the catalogue, as we now
possess it, in all respects, each book being distinctly named ;
and of these he remarks that in them the lessons of religion
are announced, and concerning them it was said that no one
should add to, or subtract from them. He makes no distinc
tion whatever in rank among these books.
Of certain ecclesiastical literature, however, the " Shep
herd," " Instructions of the Apostles," &c, he said Ecclesias_
that they were good for instruction, but not to be tlcal books¦
included in the Canon. It is an interesting fact that not only
is this list exactly conterminous with that of our English New
Testament, but the order is the same as that found in the oldest
extant Greek manuscripts. The text of this document, more
over, is indisputable, being extant in its original Greek form,
as well as in a Syriac translation.
It does not properly fall within the scope of the present
work to trace the history ofthe New Testament writ- p^entUs.
ings as a collection farther downwards, especially as J|J}je<df^anon
hereafter the genuineness of each separate book is to this point
be investigated by itself. For a later history of the Canon,
works already referred to may be consulted, particularly West
cott's excellent semi-popular treatise, the " Bible in the Church ; "
Cosin's " Scholastical History of Canon," 410, London, 1657 ;
or Vol. III. of Bishop Cosin's works, Oxford, I849, — the latter
being very full on the subject of Apocryphal literature and the
decrees of the Council of Trent ; the several excellent Cyclo
paedias and Bible Dictionaries ; and the works of Reuss, Hil
genfeld, and Credner respectively.
In general terms, it may be said that, while Eusebius may
be taken as a fair representative of contemporaneous Remains
essentially
opinions in the Eastern churches, where the question the same
. , • , ,¦ /¦ . , ^ter this
respecting the canonical authority of certain books date.
1 Westcott, id., p. 158. Cf. Hist. N. T. Can., p. 399, n.

l8o HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. III.
remained longest open, so Athanasius in the churches of the
West ; and that, after their time, the principal part of the
Eastern churches, excepting the Syrian branch alone, and
the whole of the Western, have received and maintained the
Canon in essentially the same form that it now has.
Jerome (a.d. 329-420), following, as he claims, the "cus
tom of the ancient writers," while noticing the fact
that suspicion had formerly rested on certain books
regarded, in his own time, as authoritative, still vigorously
insists on the distinction between canonical and apocryphal
works, and adopts, as properly belonging to the former class,
the same list as Athanasius.1
Augustine (a.d." 354-430), while admitting a difference in
the amount of evidence to be found in favor of the differ
ent books, — some having the support of more churches
than others, and some of churches of more influence than
others, — yet adopts the same list that Athanasius and Jerome
had accepted before him, and virtually, also, that of Eusebius
and Origen.2
Up to this time, we have discovered no interposition of the
Relation of authority of the Church as a body — or symptom of
the Church . , , , ,
and councils lt, other than usage and general consent — to impose a
result ' Canon of its own making on the different commu
nities of Christian churches. The confirmed judgment of
individual Christians and churches, on the contrary, preceded
and shaped the decisions of the Church. The Council of
Hippo (a.d. 393) and those of Carthage (a.d. 397, 419) but
sanctioned and ratified, as far as the subject was considered
at all, what had already taken place spontaneously. It does
not appear that the question of the limits of the Canon was
even debated. It may have been once discussed in a small
ecclesiastical gathering (synod) ; 8 an insignificant, ex parte
(Arian), Council at Laodicea, as late as c. 363, may have
enjoined the reading of only canonical books in the churches,
and have given a list of such books, although the latter point
is disputed ; still, it is true that the New Testament Canon
1 Ep. adDard. cxxix., sect. 3. De Vir. Must., ii. 4.
2 De Doct. Chr., ii. 12, 13, by Bib. in Ch., p. 186.
3 Tertull. de Pudic. x.

The Canon. THE NEW TESTAMENT. l8l
was a silent, slow, uninterrupted, steady growth from first to
last. And the very fragmentary character of the information
at our command will itself serve to strengthen the conviction
that the last result was neither one consciously willed from
the beginning, nor one in its development according to an
outwardly enforced rule.1
Nor did the final unanimity of result any more spring out of
a formal union of the principal churches, — although A resu]t of
the development of the idea of the Church may have mstrSc'taover-
synchronized, to some extent, with the growth of the Div?ney
Canon, — but from the "internal necessities of the Pro«dence-
case. To ridicule the idea that the Church should, as by inspi
ration, finally have come to a clear understanding with regard
to the Canon, or that some spiritual instinct came to its help, is
wrong. An instinct it doubtless was, but the instinct of truth,
in which an overruling Providence conceals himself, and,
amid all seeming chance and in spite of all human error, leads
the Church onward to true knowledge."2
Several natural observations and inferences press upon us
as we conclude the survey of the foregoing facts. It Statem nt
may be said first, in the way of a general summary, and m-fer"
J 1 Jo J 5 ences m con-
that the writings that make up our present New Tes- cluslon-
tament are quoted in substance, or alluded to at one time
or another, by an uninterrupted series of writers, both
friendly and hostile, dating from the days of the Apostles to
our own ; that they are treated with special respect from the
first ; and, when the Apostles have personally disappeared
and their oral teaching become an uncertain tradition, they
ever rise to a plane of higher and higher estimation and rever
ence ; that they are at an early date associated together, — first,
in naturally affiliated classes, then, all together, in a distinct
volume ; that they are used in public religious assemblies,
commentaries are written upon them, and versions made of
them ; like our own revered English translation, they are
appealed to as the common arbiter by different sects ; that
they are brought into closest contact and minutest comparison
with other ecclesiastical literature professing to be equally
1 Cf. Reuss, id., sect. 307. * Herzog"s Encyc, Art. Can. of N. T.

182 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. Ill,
authoritative only to be set off from it by an ever-broadening
line of demarcation ; and, finally, without constraining legisla
tion, through a common recognition of the universal Christian
consciousness, — wisdom here, as always, being justified of her
children, — they are placed under the same canonical authority
as the Old Testament Scriptures, and are understood to form,
with them, one standard of Christian faith and practice.
Again, the New Testament writings furnish the only known
The New legitimate source for the materials forming the staple
Testament ° . . C
writings the of doctrine and life in the post- Apostolic age; repre-
only sum- , , _ . r , ,
cient source sent the only sufficient force adequate to produce the
quent Chris- ecclesiastical and spiritual movements which specially
tian doctrine , .. ,,.. .. , , ,
and life. characterize it. While, on the one hand, no interreg
num is discoverable in Christianity, — perpetually represented
from that birthday of spiritual power, the day of Pentecost, by
a strong, enthusiastic Christian society, — within which these
remarkable books might have been fabricated and published, it
is apparent, on the other hand, that from their material alone,
peculiar and easily identified, this unintermitted historic Chris
tianity, in its every pattern and figure, could have been woven.
Moreover, the catalogues of the New Testament books,
Catalogues when at last they appear, are, as it were, the natural
the crystal- , •/-,,, •
hzation of and orderly crystallization of all the widely scattered
references, references of a multitude of ecclesiastical writers ;
and while the process, from the nature of the case, was slow,
the ever-acting law of combination was one and the same from
the start. And, as in the crystallization of water all foreign
substances are ultimately excluded, so in their eventual form
these catalogues refused to receive whatever was not genuine ;
that is, directly or indirectly Apostolic.
Hence, again, the fact of a comparatively slow growth of
A slow tnis Canon will not, in the thoughtful mind, militate
iasis'ofcOT- against its correctness or authority ; but as being,
rectness. under the circumstances, the most natural of all pro
cesses, will rather confirm them. This growth, like that of
the plant, we may not be able wholly to explain in its various
phenomena, or even to understand : but the elements and
conditions of such growth may be easily indicated ; the law

The Canon. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 1 83
and the direction of it be clearly apprehended ; its reality
fully demonstrated. The circumstance that the Apocalypse
and the Epistle to the Hebrews were at first generally received,
to be afterwards, on internal grounds, suspected and held
aloof by some, is at most only an exception to the rule of the
continuous growth of the Canon ; and it is going too far to
affirm, on the basis of the history of these two works, a rule
that New Testament books not only sometimes become " Ho-
mologoumena" from being " antilegomena," but also " anti-
legomena" from " Homologoumena." x In truth, these books
are not even exceptions to the common rule, if we confine our
view to historical evidence of genuineness only. The waver
ing in the case of both books with respect to authorship, and
the doubts which sprung from a too dogmatic treatment of
the Apocalypse, did not avail to detach either work from the
historic trunk on which their earliest growth began.
The treatment which the books of the New Testament
received at the hands of the sceptics and heretics of Testimony
¦ 1 si , 1 ¦ , ofheretics
the second century, is hardly to be explained except and sceptics.
on the supposition that they are the actual productions of the
age and the persons to which they are commonly assigned.
These writers seek sometimes to damage these books by using
them one against another, quote them as being contradictory,
or as containing nothing new ; they expunge certain passages,
and even whole books which they cannot force into harmony
with their doctrinal systems : but, with scarcely an exception,
not a syllable is uttered in disproof of their historical claims to
genuineness.2 It is to be considered, moreover, as a remarkable circum
stance, that, in the matter of the acceptance or non- Hjstorica]
acceptance of a book of the New Testament as f^edlrec-
historically canonical, the evidence in favor, whether tl0n-
it be more or less, is, for the most part, all that is to be re
garded, there being generally no- proper, tangible evidence in
rebuttal ; and that the surmises and conjectures of the destruc
tive critics have far less foundation, if any, in the incomplete
1 Hilgenfeld, Der Kan., &c, p. 72.
2 Schumann's Introd., pp. 94-96. Tregelles, Leet on Hist. Ev., p. 35.

184 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. ill.
and inconsistent nature of the evidence furnished, or any even
alleged contradictory evidence produced from other quarters,
than in the mere absence of certain evidence where it is arbi
trarily presupposed it should be found. But " it is a violence
done to common sense to leave in undiminished force one
body of -evidence, while, on hypothetical grounds, we draw
conclusions with which that evidence can by no fair means be
reconciled." J
The inquiry may properly be made, too, by what rules of
A question historic evidence the books of the New Testament —
ency. speaking in general terms — can be proved to be other
wise than genuine, which could not be used with far greater
facility and success against the whole body of classical litera
ture ; and, further, whether fair dealing would not demand of
us, — if we assume the existence in ancient times of the extant
collection of Cicero's letters, for instance, because some of
these letters were quoted by ancient writers, — that we should
admit the existence of the present extant collection of New
Testament books, at least in their distinctive classes, as the
epistles of Paul, &c, when, as may be proved, the great
majority or even all of these books were referred to as genuine
by contemporaneous authors, or by those but little subsequent
to their time.
With respect to certain books of our present collection, it
Discussion may be said that there was in early times sufficient
of the Canon; . • .
sufficient discussion and diversity of opinion — although, gener-
careand ,, , , , . . , , e ' &
research. ally, on other than historical grounds — -to disprove
the assertion that the Canon was established without freedom
of thought, without discrimination, sincerity of purpose, or
careful research.
Any doubts which may still exist concerning the genuine-
Doubts con- ness of any one or more of the New Testament
cerning one
book should books, after the evidence is all in, should not be suf-
not extend
to the rest, fered to cast a shadow of uncertainty on the remainder,
concerning which the proof is acknowledged to be abundant
and indisputable.
1 I. Taylor, Process of Hist. Proof, pp. 115, 116. Cf. Tregelles, Leet. on Hist.
Ev., pp. 28, 68.

The Canon. THE NEW TESTAMENT. l8$
While such writers as Lardner and Bleek would have a
twofold Canon, the first including the universally a twofold
acknowledged books, — the " Homologoumena " of ^nwnded
Eusebius, — the second, the " Antilegomena " or " dis- bysome'
puted books," such as have, in different degrees, an external
support only less full and complete, like James, II. and III.
John, Jude, II. Peter, Hebrews, and the Apocalypse ; still, they
see no sufficient reason for excluding any of the latter from
the Canon altogether, and much less for receiving into it, in
whatever rank, any of those other numerous writings of Chris
tian antiquity which were used now and then, in the early
Church, and rarely, even as possessing Scriptural authority.
And again, while sufficient external evidence to establish
with reasonable assurance the canonicity of the most poorly
supported of the books of our catalogue can be produced, and
not one is by any means to be yielded without more evidence
than is yet discoverable against it, yet it may be said that
the total exclusion from the New Testament of the so-called
" disputed books," would not only not seriously affect the
proof for the remainder,, but not sensibly invalidate the Chris
tian system, or withdraw any peculiar or essential element
from its doctrinal contents.

CHAPTER IV.

THE GOSPELS AND ACTS.

IN treating, in the preceding chapter of the Canon of the
New Testament, the proofs which exist for the genuine
ness of each separate book found in it have always been
This chap- kept in view, and such proofs will form a proper
sequeito sequel to what has preceded. In such a twofold
^eprece presentation of the subject, however, the repetition
of important facts cannot be wholly avoided, even if it were
desirable. While, for convenience of arrangement merely, we link the
Acts found Acts to the Gospels in the present chapter, it may be
in connec- rernarked that this is one ofthe most common, indeed
tion with
the Gospels. aimost invariable, divisions ofthe contents ofthe New
Testament as at present found in the oldest extant manu
scripts. The titles, which, in both the English and Greek Testa
ments, are found at the head of the respective Gospels,
Tltles' as " The Gospel according to Matthew," " The Gos
pel according to Mark," &c, do not authoritatively indicate
these men as their authors ; were doubtless placed in their
present position at some time subsequent to the date of com
position ; still they do express and attest the unanimous opinion
of the ancient Church with respect to the matter involved, as,
also, the fact that different writers had treated of the same
general theme.
While all the Gospels have one common subject, the first
The three, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, called the " Synop
tics." tics," are quite distinct in their contents and general
characteristics from the fourth. They have received the name

Gospels and Acts. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 187
" Synoptics" from the fact that, in narrating the events of the
life of Christ, they all proceed upon the same general plan up
to the time of the Master's last journey to Jerusalem, speaking
only of what occurred in Galilee, and hence telling, though in
different form and order, substantially the same story.
The question of the particular manner in which the Synop
tic Gospels originated is one of great complexity and Their
difficulty. Happily, however, the difficulties of the 0nsin-
subject do not necessarily involve the question of genuineness,
as that term has been defined. Without any attempt, there
fore, to elucidate, or even name each one of the multitude of
theories on the subject put forth by different critics, we shall
only state, in brief terms, that one which has been adopted by
scholars possessed of reverence, erudition, and candor suffi
cient, it should seem, to render them worthy to be our
guides.1 It is to be premised that the Apostles were preachers,
rather than authors, the substance of their preaching, Apostles
however, being historic. They were originally, not writer's.
indeed, the historians of events of which they were themselves
the ear and eye witnesses. Hence, naturally, the Gospels, as
they afterwards took form, were conditioned in such form by
the circumstance that they had been first promulgated as an
oral message. So, too, the earliest contemporaneous quota
tions of the Gospel, as might be expected, are from its sub
stance as the one Gospel, rather than as being in recognition
of the subsequent respective- forms in which it became crys
tallized. In due course of time, changed circumstances — as, for
instance, the growth and wider diffusion of the Church, the
dying of the Apostles — offered a sufficient, if not an imperative,
reason for putting the oral communication into a more tangible,
written shape. The oral Gospel had been promulgated some
times, it is likely, in Hebrew (Aramaic) as well as Greek,
both languages being current among those to whom it was
first delivered ; and hence we should not be surprised if it
1 Cf. Alford's Greek Test. Prolegom., vol. i. ; Westcott's Introd. to Study of Gospels,
pp. 150-193 ; and De Wette's Introd. to N. T., p. 143.

l88 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. IV.
appear bilingual in its written form, or if the earliest witnesses
should declare (Papias) that Matthew wrote his Gospel origi
nally in Hebrew. It is not needful to suppose that the several
Synoptic Gospels took the written form completely at once.
Important parts may have been written at different times, as
might also be inferred from the preface of Luke, supposing
that he does not mean in this preface to designate the other
Synoptics in their complete form.
In short, then, the first three Gospels contain the substance
of the " Apostolic testimony collected principally from
their oral teaching current in the Church, and partly,
also, from written documents embodying portions of that
teaching." This natural theory best accords with the phe
nomena which the respective Gospels present ; while it allows
room especially for the important conclusion that, with all
their remarkable coincidences of facts and even words, the
respective records sprung up, to a great degree, independently
of each other. The variations in form which they present on
this theory, moreover, may be readily accounted for by the
consideration of the diverse mental characteristics of the sev
eral writers or speakers, and their recognition in the utterance
of their message of the special circumstances and wants of
their hearers.
To the objection which has been made to this theory of the
. . origin of the " Synoptics," that to suppose such an oral
Objection. . A A
message as their source and basis would necessitate
uncertainty and detract from their historic value and trust
worthiness, it is justly replied, first, that the age is to be con
sidered. It was one in which tradition was much more relied
on than now, and hence an age in which tradition could be
better trusted than in this era of books. And, second, no great
demand after all is made upon our faith herein, inasmuch as
the theory presupposes this oral message or tradition to have
existed and been depended on as the source of the written
Gospels only during the lifetime of those who were its respon
sible authors, and who were therefore able to preserve it
within its proper limits until it finally assumed the written
form.

Gospels and Acts. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 189

MATTHEW.
By its title the authorship of the first Gospel is ascribed to
Matthew, or Levi, one of the Apostles of Christ, and TMeof
in this respect it gives voice to the unanimous verdict Ma"hew.
of antiquity. No further historical evidence, indeed, of this
fact could be properly demanded. But any possible uncer
tainty which might attach to the question of authorship when
there is no claim laid to it for a particular person in the work
itself, does not, according to our rule, involve necessarily the
genuineness of the work. This fact is to be kept in mind in
the case of all anonymous New Testament books.
Little is known of the personal history of Matthew beyond
the slight notices occurring in the Gospels. Tradition PersonaI
is uncertain concerning the scene of his later labors, hlstory.
whether it was Ethiopia or Macedonia, but affirms that he
died, at last, a natural death.
His Gospel must have been written before the destruction
of Jerusalem, and is variously dated between the years Gospel,
a.d. 60 and 70. One of the most interesting ques- written.
tions relating to the work, respects the language in which it
was originally written.' Papias (wr. 140-150) declared, as we
have seen, that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and that
each one interpreted it as best he could.1 Every early writer
who mentions Matthew's work confirms this statement, or,
more properly perhaps, accepts it. Whence, then, the Gospel
of Matthew in Greek ?
Writers of a sceptical turn have made the most of this cir
cumstance, in connection with others, and have hinted Objections
vaguely of a " Hebrew Christianity yet earlier than the original.
New Testament, the memorials of which are preserved to us
in translations only." All the facts, however, can be harmon
ized without imperilling the genuineness of the work before
us. Many maintain, among them distinguished critics of
every school, that the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew of which
Papias speaks was not the original, but itself a translation
1 Euseb. H. E., iii. 39.

190 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. iv.
made for the benefit of those who understood the Hebrew
(Aramaic) only. Credner plainly favors the view of a Greek
original.1 Alford feels forced to adopt such a conclusion in the
~ fifth edition of his Greek Testament ; although in the earlier
editions, in deference to the seeming testimony of antiquity, he
had maintained a Hebrew original. Such also is the view of
Bleek,2 De Wette,8 and many others, a list of whom may be
found in Smith's Bible Dictionary, art. " Matthew."
But whether this be the correct theory or not, is really a
Notamat- matter of small importance, inasmuch as in any case
premelm- the Greek text so nearly synchronizes with the He-
portance. brew, that it is impossible to say certainly which pre
ceded. The same early writers who speak of the Hebrew
Gospel of Matthew quote the Greek only ; and, if the latter be
a translation, it dates back to Apostolic times, must have been
made under Apostolic direction, and hence may be justly con
sidered genuine and authoritative.4
In addition to the testimony of Papias just alluded to, Bar-
Special ten- nabas, as we have seen in the preceding chapter,
5* quotes Matt. xx. 16, with the formula, " it is written, "
ness. thus virtually designating it as Holy Scripture.6
Irenaeus (c 130-200) also, speaks of what he had received
from an Elder who had heard those who had been instructed
by the Apostles, and alludes along with the other evangelists
to the Gospel of Matthew in a number of instances.6 And
Justin Martyr (c 90-148) expressly cites this Gospel in
several cases with an exact coincidence of words.' In short,
without any attempt to give more than a specimen of the evi
dence for the genuineness of this or other books, it may be said
that there is no work of antiquity better supported in this
respect than the Gospel of Matthew.
1 Gesch. d. N. T. Kan., sect. 64-66. 2 Introd. to N. T., i. 126.
2 Introd. to N. T., 176. Cf. Hilgenfeld, Der Kan., &c, p. ,S, n.
* Vs. Davidson's Introd. to N. T., i. 489. 6 Ep. c. iv.
« Adv. Hxr., iv. v. xii., passim. i Dial. cc. 49, 103, 105.

Gospels and Acts. THE NEW TESTAMENT. I9I

MARK.
As in the case of the preceding evangelist, we are obliged
to depend for the name of the author of the second whence the
Gospel upon tradition ; but such tradition is universal name#
and invariable. And the fact that this name belongs to no
great and distinguished founder of the Church to whom such a
work might naturally be ascribed, but to one the reference to
whom of such a work can hardly be accounted for except by
its being the truth, has properly been noticed as greatly sup
porting the testimony of the earliest traditions.1
John Mark, a Jew by birth, son of the Mary mentioned in
Acts xii. 12, and nephew of Barnabas, the Apostle, persona]
was converted to Christ by Peter, to whom also, through hlstory-
Mark's mother, he is thought to have sustained a family rela
tionship (1 Pet. v. 13). His Christian activities at first were
in connection with Paul and Barnabas (Acts xii. 35) ; then,
with each separately, having been the cause of their parting
company (Acts xv. 39 ; Col. iv. 10) ; but finally, with Peter,
whose amanuensis according to tradition he was. Under the
influence at least, if not the dictation of the latter Apostle, it
has generally been supposed Mark wrote his Gospel. Where
it was written is uncertain, Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch
having each been mentioned.
Like the other Synoptical Gospels it must have been prepared
before the destruction of Jerusalem, which was in- Date of the
. , ~ . , 1,1 work and its
vested by Titus, a.d. 70, — and yet, probably not at a genuineness.
period earlier than a.d. 63. All the early Fathers agree that
the book was written originally in Greek, as well as that Mark
was its author. Its genuineness, indeed, has never been called
in question until quite a recent period. Papias (d. 164)
distinctly designates Mark as the writer, on the testimony of
the Elder (John) — probably Presbyter John, but contempo
raneous with the Apostles — in the following interesting pas
sage : " This also the Elder used to say ' Mark, having become
Peter's interpreter, wrote accurately all that he remembered
1 Alford, Greek Testament, Prolegom. to Mark.

192 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. iv.
[ ? related] ; though he did not [record] in order that which
was either said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the
Lord nor followed him ; but subsequently, as I said [attached
himself to], Peter, who used to frame his teaching to meet the
wants of his hearers, and not as making a connected narrative
of the Lord's discourses. So Mark committed no error, as he
wrote down some particulars just as he recalled them to mind
[? related them]. For he took heed to one thing, — to omit
none of the facts that he heard, and to state nothing falsely in
them.' " :
The description which he here gives of Mark's method well
Testimony accords with the characteristics of the second Gospel,
of Papias
apropos. as being not a complete record of the life of our Lord,
chronologically arranged, but a vivid and picturesque arrange
ment of leading facts only, having a definite moral as well as
historic end.
An earlier witness, Justin Martyr (b. 90-100), makes a
Of Justin definite allusion to this Gospel, in which he especially
Martyr. recognizes the influence of Peter as its promoter :
" The mention of the fact that Christ changed the name of
Peter, one of the Apostles, and that the fact has been written
in his (Peter's) Memoirs, together with his having changed
the name of two other brethren who were sons of Zebedee to
Boanerges, tended to signify, " &c. 2
The important though fragmentary Canon of Muratori also,
Canon of (c- 160-170) indirectly supports the genuineness of
Muratori. this Gospel, the fragment beginning with words which
undoubtedly refer to it, and going on to say that the Gospel
of Luke stands third in order, &c.8
LUKE.
The author of the third Gospel, although, unlike the two
Author of evangelists just noticed, introducing himself inciden-
third ,, • , . ...
Gospel. tally into the narrative, at its beginning, is, like them,
however, made known to us by name, only through tradition.
The concurrent testimony of all Christian antiquity ascribes
1 Euseb. H. E., iii. 39. 2 Dial., c. 106. • Westcott, Hist of N. T Can., App. G

Gospels and Acts. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 1 93
this work to Luke. His name is prefixed to it both in the
oldest Greek MSS. and the earliest versions. Indeed, the as
sumption of his authorship was never contested.
According to Eusebius this evangelist was born at Antioch.
He became a companion of Paul in his second mis: personai
sionary journey to Troas, Macedonia, Asia, Jerusalem, hlstory.
Caesarea, and Rome. (Acts xvi. 10 ; xxi. 17 ; xxiv. 23 ; xxvii.
1-28). By his own account, Luke was not an eye-witness of
the facts which he relates, but collected them from eye-wit
nesses. From the nature, both of his variations from Matthew
and Mark and his coincidences with them, it is thought that
he could not have had their narratives before him. He appears,
moreover, to have had access to additional sources of informa
tion ; and, from the minuteness of his account of the circum
stances attending the birth of Christ, it is suggested with
probability that Mary herself, the mother of our Lord, may
have been his informant.1
The characteristics of the Gospel are completeness, uni
versality, the purity of its Greek, — which is idiomatic Characteris-
and comparatively free from Hebraisms, — the care- of Gospel.
ful construction of sentences, and an apparent effort at extreme
accuracy of detail in relating events and discourses in the life
of our Lord. Alford, from internal evidence gathered from
the Acts as well as the work itself, fixes its date as early as
a.d. 58.
With respect to proofs of genuineness, nothing essential is
wanting. It is a most interesting point that this Gospel Proof of
is quoted in the first epistle to Timothy, which epistle, genu;neness.
antecedent to any proofs of genuineness, or accepting those
already offered in the preceding chapter, may be regarded as
a very ancient document, by all parties conceded to belong to
the first half of the second century, and so may properly be
produced in evidence. The writer of that epistle — supposed
to be Paul, whose companion Luke was — declares that : " the
Scripture saith, ' Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth
out the corn,' and ' the laborer is worthy of his reward. ' " 2 So
that not only is Luke quoted in connection with his citation of
1 Prolegom. in Alford's Greek Test. 2 Cf. Luke, x. 7.
13

194 ' HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. IV.
the Old Testament, but his words seemingly are put on a level
of authority with the Old Testament Scriptures.
Modern attacks upon this work have been directed, in
Modem response, it might seem, to Marcion's influence,
attacks. chiefly against certain parts of it only, especially the
first two chapters. But while it is true that Marcion — con
strained, as is obvious, by the necessities of his anti-Jewish
system — left out these chapters, with certain other minor por
tions of the work, on the ostensible ground that they were
Jewish corruptions, so giving occasion and direction to such
attacks, Marcion's real position by no means justifies them,
but, when considered in all its bearings, fairly forbids and
repels these assaults. For Marcion, on the one hand, a con
temporary of Justin Martyr, and beginning to teach at Rome
about 130-140, does not profess to reject any part of the
Gospel on historical grounds; while, on the other, his at
tempts to adapt it to his purpose, by mutilations, shows that it
was current and highly esteemed in the Church at that time,
as we have before shown.
The last view is further confirmed by the direct testimony
Justin Mar- of Justin Martyr, who quotes from the "Memoirs,"
tyr supports
historical as ne was accustomed to term the Gospels, passages
testimony , . T , _,
of Marcion. peculiar to Luke. I1 or instance: "Jesus, as he gave
up his spirit upon the cross, said, ' Father, into thy
hands I commend my spirit.'"1 Again, he writes : "In the
' Memoirs,' which I say were composed by the Apostles and
those who followed with them (it is said), that sweat as drops
(of bloOd) streamed down as he was praying and saying,
' Let this cup; if possible, pass away from me.' " 2 This pas
sage is of peculiar interest for the reason, that here, in alluding,
as we suppose, to the Gospel of Luke, who was not himself
an Apostle, Justin Martyr seems to step aside to designate him,
in declaring that the " Memoirs " were written by the Apos
tles and " those who followed them." In an extant fragment
" Concerning the Resurrection," generally ascribed to Justin
Martyr, there are also citations of the words of Jesus, to be
1 Dial. c. 105. Cf, Luke xxiii. 46,
2 Dial. c. 103. Cf. Luke xxii. 14, 42, 44 ; Matt. xxvi. 39.

Gospels and Acts. THE NEW TESTAMENT. I95
found only in Luke's Gospel. Papias (d. 164) and Hegesip
pus (at Rome, c 177-190) both doubtless refer to So, too,
this work, as is generally admitted, although Hilgen- geslppus.
feld strangely sees, in the references of the former, a subtile
spirit of opposition to it.1
And the Muratorian Canon (c. 160-170), as has been pre
viously observed, is very direct in its testimony: Andthe
" The Gospel of Luke stands third in order (in the an Canon.
list of canonical books), having been written by Luke, the
physician, the companion of St. Paul, who, not being himself
an eye-witness, based his narrative on such information as he
could obtain, beginning from the birth of John." So, too,
Basilides, the heretical Alexandrian, belonging to the age next
succeeding the Apostles (c. 130), while drawing from a variety
of sources for information respecting the Christian system,
made use of the narrative of Luke as well as those of Matthew
and John without any indication that he regarded them as any
thing else than veritable history.

JOHN.
The Gospel of John stands by itself with respect to the
time when it was written, the point of view from John,s Gos_
which the Master's life is sketched, and the substance pd Peculiar-
of the narrative given ; it being more idealistic, more profound,
and dealing with topics which, for the most part, the Synoptics
had left untouched. It is difficult to see, however, how it is
the '¦'•reconciliation of the Pauline and Petrine teachings" in
the early Church, or on what ground, historical or otherwise,
it is oracularly declared that it was " recommended for recep
tion as a fourth Gospel." 2
John, the supposed writer, was the son of a prosperous
Galilaean fisherman, and his mother's name was Sa- who john
lome. James, another disciple of Jesus, was his was'
brother. With James and Peter, John belonged to that inner
1 Westcott, Hist, of N. T. Can. p. 182 n. Cf. Hilgenfeld, Der Kan. p. 16. 28 f. Reuss,
Gesch. d. Heil. Schrift, N. T. sect. 186, 287.
2 Credner, Gesch. d. N. T. Kan. sect. 16.

196 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. IV.
circle of Apostles on whom our Saviour most leaned, and
of the three he was best beloved. To him, on the way to
crucifixion, Jesus committed the care of his mother, and
subsequently to the resurrection and ascension we find him
tarrying with the other Apostles at Jerusalem. Here Paul
found him still at a considerably later period, a " pillar " in
the Church.1 There is little doubt that, after leaving Jerusa
lem, he made Ephesus, in Asia Minor, the centre of his
labors, and, like most of the other Apostles, received the honor
of persecution, having been banished, as we are informed, to
Patmos.2 There is much that is beautiful as well as credible
in the legendary accounts of his later years, but they cannot
be fully trusted. The date of his work is referred to the last
quarter of the first century, and by some capital authorities, to
the last decade of that century.8
The genuineness of the Gospel of John having been most
Genuine- vehemently and persistently called in question by
ness- modern opponents of a supernatural Christianity, it
may justly claim at our hands a fuller notice of its legitimate
supports in this respect than the Synoptics have received.
As has been generally the case, however, in this volume, the
results of investigation only can be given, with but slight
reference to the studies and methods by which such results
have been attained. Yet even these slight references will be
of such a nature, it is to be hoped, as to insure no inconsider
able confidence in the justice of conclusions announced.
The objections that have been raised against the position
Source and that the fourth Gospel belongs to the Apostolic age,
inspiration , T , r
of objections, and has John for its author, are, for the most part,
drawn from internal characteristics, — the fact of its differing
from the other narratives in the general range of its topics,
and in style, and from certain supposed discrepancies in mat
ters of fact. Indeed, no other course was open to opponents
of the genuineness of the work, the entire sum of external
evidence, with one insignificant exception, supporting all that
is claimed for the book. Bleek, one of the most candid of
1 Gal. i. 18. 2 Euseb. H. E. iii. 18, 23.
8 So Westcott, Introd. to Study of Gospels, p. 236.

Gospels and Acts. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 1 97
investigators and critics, affirms that it ranks, with respect to
proofs of genuineness, a little higher, if any thing, than either
of the other evangelists.1
The conviction can scarcely be resisted, in view of the con
fessions and retractions of the negative critics them- Contents of
.-. , . , the Gospel
selves, that it is the contents of the Gospel, its clear probably the
.... r. T 1 ii ¦ i chief objec-
testimony to the divinity of our Lord and the miracles tion.
imputed to him, with respect to the possibility of which they are
pledged beforehand to a blank denial, that really stand in the
way of its acceptance as the work of the pure-minded Apostle.
These critics, moreover, are as far from agreeing among them
selves as from being settled in their individual opinions.
Renan, in his work on the Apostles, admits the genuineness of
the book. Bretschneider in Germany (1820), following Evan-
son in England (1792), wrote against it, to repudiate after
wards what he had written. Strauss, likewise, in 1838,
announced that, on account of the unmistakable clearness of
St. John's narrative, he doubted " in spite of himself" the
doubts which he had expressed three years before, although he
suppressed these misgivings and afterwards withdrew them.2
Such vacillation is not to be wondered at, when we consider
that, in order to furnish support for conjecture, historical facts
must be denied or perverted, and unblushing assertion made to
take the place of argument.
Apostolic authorship could scarcely be denied to the fourth
Gospel, for example, if it were to be admitted that I1Iustration
Justin Martyr (b. 90-100) made use of it ; that is, if ^f^^a,
it were shown to have been current in his time. facts-
Davidson admits that if it were to be dated even as early as
a.d. 110-117, Keim's date, it would be " exceedingly difficult
to disprove Johannine authorship." 8 Justin then must be
shown to have been unacquainted with it. But he has a defi
nite allusion in his writings to a peculiar passage to be found
nowhere else than in the Gospel of John. " For indeed," he
says, " Christ also declared, ' except ye be born again ye shall
not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' And that it is impossi-
1 Introd. to N. T. ii. 285. 2 Oosterzee, p. 12. Bleek's Introd. i. 221.
3 Introd. to N. T. ii. 425.

198 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. chap. IV.
ble for those who are once born to enter into their mother's
womb is plain." J What do the writers of the Tubingen school
say to this? They simply assert, without a particle of evidence,
that Justin took the passage from the apocryphal Gospel to
the Hebrews, even when all that is known of that work would
lead us to infer that no such passage is to be found in it.2
In considering the positive proofs of Apostolic authorship,
Positive we have at the outset the palpable fact that this
genuineness. Gospel purports to have been written by John, that
" disciple whom Jesus loved." And if it be not his, the writer,
whoever he was, must be accorded the palm as the prince of
forgers. We have accordingly to choose between Johannine
authorship and bold imposture : there is no third choice. The
writer, it is evident, moreover, must have been a Jew, ac
quainted intimately with the affairs of Galilee and Judea dur
ing the period of our Lord's ministry.8 He professed to have
belonged to the circle of his immediate disciples, and to have
been an eye-witness of what he circumstantially relates (i. 14).
With what a keen sense of his own adroitness, if he were not
really the son of Zebedee, must he have introduced into his
narrative those subtle, indirect proofs that he was actually
John, the Apostle, such as only study and reflection can now
educe from it! Instead of directly identifying himself by
name, he continually speaks of himself as that " disciple whom
Jesus loved." About other names, however, he shows no such
delicacy. He discriminates between the two Judases. He
gives to Thomas his surname. But, unlike the other three
evangelists, he speaks of John the Baptist as simply John.
Then too, if the writer of this Gospel were an impostor,
Present dif- and we were obliged to refer its origin to an age sub-
creased by sequent to the Apostolic, we should be at a loss on
spuriousness. many accounts. Whatever seemed strange and unac
counted for before, would appear tenfold more strange and
unaccountable. It is admitted, for instance, by opponents gen
erally,4 that the Gospel was in common use by a.d. 175-180,
or within seventy years after the death of the Apostle John.
1 Apol., i. 61. Cf. John iii. 3, 5. 8 Ewald by Oosterzee, p. 19.
Fisher's Supernat Origin, &c, pp. 50, 51. * Davidson, Introd. to N. T., ii. 425.

Gospels and Acts. THE NEW TESTAMENT. I99
There must have been, indeed, many thousand copies in circu
lation at that date.1 Now are we called upon to believe, and
is it really expected that we shall accept the supposition, that
this number of copies came into existence and were put in
circulation throughout the Roman Empire after the year a.d.
150, the imagined date of the Gospel, and that the whole
Christian Church, and different schools of heretics as well,
were induced not only to receive it, but to believe that they
had possessed it from the Apostolic age?2
Again, why did not this mysterious forger, who shows such
admirable tact in other respects, especially with refer- The sup_
ence to the affectedly modest suppression of his name, not^wayfer
follow in his work more directly the course marked onhissuard-
out by the Synoptics, and the traditional accounts of our Lord's
life, instead of inventing a history apparently so different, and
consequently so likely to work for the defeat of the very object
which he is supposed to have had in view?8
Moreover, if we are to consider the Gospel of John as an
intentional deception, how does it happen that these character of
clear-sighted critics of modern , times with their won- tffor""d'
derful power of analysis and their profound judgment, does no.t
can impute it with all its depth and richness of reli- {1!e.^in
^ L which it was
gious thought and expression to such a comparatively produced.
contemptible period of spiritual history as the second century,
which witnessed to the " prolix and miserable scribblings of
Gnostics and anti-Gnostics"?4 And it is an inscrutable cir
cumstance, also, on such a supposition, that both the great con
tending parties of that period accepted, without hesitation, the
fourth Gospel as the work of John. If now, on the contrary,
it sprang up amid this very tumult of controversy, having
itself, of necessity, a close connection with the great themes in
dispute, and claiming to be the work of an Apostle, how is it
that from neither side do we hear a lisp of opposition to its
singular claim ? 6
Modern sceptics, too, who follow the solitary ancient
example of the Alogi — whose very name (a-logos) indicates
1 Norton's Gen. of the Gospels, p. 52. 4 Thiersch, by Oosterzee, p. 208.
2 Tregelles, Leet. on Histor. Ev., &c, p. 47. e Oosterzee, p. no.
8 Bleek, Introd. to N. T. ii. 197.

200 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. IV.
sufficiently well the ground of their opposition — and ascribe
The Gospel the work to Cerinthus, a Gnostic, are involved at once
Cerinthus, in the superlative difficulty of explaining how it hap-
authorf°se pens that the whole plan and teaching of the Gos
pel seems particularly designed rather to combat Cerinthus,
to meet and overthrow, in its various developments, the Gnos
tic heresy then prevalent, especially in the doctrine that Christ
was by birth no more than a common man.
But, from the wild guesses and strange subterfuges of an
Actual embarrassed, hostile criticism, we gratefully turn to
history, the positive testimony of external history. Ebrard
declares of the former that, in order to provide for their pecu
liar theories, they have found it needful to pile up the whole
of this history ofthe Church and literature during the first two
Christian centuries, and then turn it bottom upwards.1 Our
own citations from this abundant store can only be in the way
of illustration. First, as really belonging to such external history, we may
Testimony adduce the last two verses of the 21st chapter of the
verS of° Gospel itself. They were, it is conceded, added, or
Gospel. at least changed, by another and a later hand. Their
testimony, however, as such to the question before us is both
valid and of the most important character. The 24th verse
reads : " This is the disciple which testifieth of these things,
and wrote these things ; and we know that his testimony is
true." These words must have come from those intimately
acquainted with the Apostle, and from persons who fully
believed what they said. Tholuck has justly remarked that it
could not have been the work of a forger, for in that case the
signature would not have been withheld.2 They are undoubt
edly some early disciples who speak from personal knowledge,
and who collectively, though anonymously, pledge themselves
in such a way as to disprove all theories of intentional decep
tion on their part to the fact of Johannine authorship.
Among the Apostolic Fathers a number of apparently
Of the unmistakable traces of an acquaintance with the fourth
Fathers. Gospel are found. Ignatius, a disciple of John, speaks
1 Herzog's Encyc. art. John. 2 Introd. to Gospel, p. 37.

Gospels and Acts. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 201
of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as " His Eternal Word,"
and to numerous other passages gives a Johannine coloring.1
Hilgenfeld admits these traces of the fourth Gospel in the
epistles of Ignatius, mentioning particularly that to the Rom.
c. vii., where John vi. 51 f. is referred to, and that to the
Philad. c. vii. which alludes to John iii. 8.2 Polycarp, another
disciple of the supposed writer, also makes use of a passage
from the first Epistle of John, the proofs of whose genuineness
are ordinarily regarded as identical with those of the Gospel.
Papias, too, although not one of the Apostolic Fathers, yet a
friend of Polycarp and a disciple of Presbyter John, — who was,
according to Eusebius, a contemporary, — made use of the same
epistle.4 And if these allusions among contemporaneous
writers, when all collected, are comparatively few and inci
dental, the question may well be asked whether we have any
reason to demand or expect that they should be otherwise.
A recent writer has affirmed that the Apostle Paul in all his
epistles, which are fairly steeped with the spirit of Christ's
teachings and proofs of loyalty to him, quotes his words in
but a single instance (? 1 Tim. v. 18, cf. Luke x. 7).6
Justin Martyr (b. 90-100), in addition to the important pas
sage before noted, shows, in his doctrine of the Logos T]]Stm
and of the Eucharist, almost beyond dispute, that he Mart>T-
was familiar with the teachings of this Gospel.6 Irenaeus, the
disciple of Polycarp, of whose instructions he retained the
most vivid impressions, makes, according to Tischendorf,
more than eighty clear citations from it.7 And although the
fourth Gospel was not expressly quoted as the work of John,
quotations before that period being almost invariably allusory
and incidental only, yet the whole patristic literature of the
second century was so controlled by the idea of the Logos that
we are compelled to suppose a common source of the idea in
an Apostolic work.8
Basilides, whose early life touched the Apostolic age,
according to Hippolytus, made use of texts from the fourth
1 Ep. to Mag. viii. B Wasson in Old and New for May, 1871.
2 Der Kan., &c, p. 31, n. 3. « Westcott, Hist, of N. T. Can. p. 145, u.
8 Ep. c. vii. 7 When were the Gospels Written, p. 70.
* H. E. iii. 39. 8 Oosterzee, p. 53.

202 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. IV.
Gospel ; viz., i. 9, ii. 4: and Valentinus, as the same authority
testifies, living also at about the same period, sought
to support his speculations by fanciful interpretations
of it.1 Marcion's pmission of the work from his heretical
compilation (a.d. 130-140), obviously on doctrinal grounds,
leaves us to infer the indisputable historic basis on which it
was already established. TertuUian, writing of this heretic
(c. 207, 208), says that, if he had not rejected some and muti
lated other Scriptures which contradicted his opinions, the
Gospel of John would convict him of error.2
This Gospel has a place in the Canon of Muratori, which
Canon of itself seems to necessitate the theory of its prevalence
Pe^Sto"' and common use by the middle of the second century ;
version, &c. g0) ioo^ &^y earlier in the Peshito version, another
extreme geographical outpost (c 150). The various sects of
purists, — Montanists, and others, — acknowledged its Apostolic
origin. Tatian, a fair representative, having been also in early
life a disciple of Justin Martyr, both quotes it literally and
includes it in the harmony which he made of the four Gospels.8
The Clementine Homilies (c 160) draw directly from the his
tory of the man born blind, to be found only in St. John.4
And the Christian Ophites, among the earliest representatives of
Gnosticism, — verging on the Apostolic age, and professing to
derive their doctrines in the main from James, the Lord's
brother, — show, in the peculiar mould of their system, the
influence of the last evangelist.6 So the epistle to Diognetus,
to be1 dated, it is supposed, as early as a.d. 117, is noticeably
stamped with its characteristic phraseology.6
Bleek has announced, in fine, as the demonstrated result
Bieek's °^ an investigation of the most searching character,
conclusion. that " the position accorded by the various contending
parties of the second century to this Gospel proves that it
1 Hipp, by Westcott, Hist, of N. T. Can. pp. 256, 260, a.
2 De Came Christi c. 3; Cf. Guericke's N. T. Isagogik, &c, p. 185 n. 4; Westcott's
Hist. N. T. Can. p. 276, note.
8 Prof. Fisher's Supernat. Origin, &c, p. 43. Cf. Herzog"s Encyc. art. John ; and David
son's Introd. to N. T. ii. p. 425.
* Horn. xix. 22.
8 Hippol. adv. Hzr. v. 6. by Westcott, Hist of N, T. Can. p. 249.
6 cc, xi. xii.

Gospels and Acts. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 203
must have existed before the Easter controversies ; before the
appearance of the Valentinian Gnosis in Egypt and elsewhere ;
before the rise of Montanism in Asia Minor ; before the time
of Marcion ; and can only be explained on the supposition
that it was known and recognized as genuine in the Church at
large some decades of years before the middle of the second
century, if not from the very beginning of it ; which fact, in
turn, can only be explained upon the supposition that it is a
genuine and Apostolic work." 2

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
The title applied to the fifth successive book of the New
Testament probably sprung out of the fact of its seem
ing appropriateness to the contents, although manu
script authorities have not all the same title. It belongs to the
class of sacred writings called " Homologoumena," " univer
sally acknowledged," its genuineness never having been ques
tioned in early times. The author of the work, moreover,
was, without contradiction, held to be Luke.
Irenaeus (c. 130-200) is the first to designate him by
name as the writer, if we except the Muratorian Testimony
Canon, which also definitely ascribes it to Luke. of Irena5ua
Clement of Alexandria (c 165-220) also wrote, "As Luke,
in the Acts of the Apostles, declares Paul to have said," &c.2
And TertuUian (c 160-240), while frequently quoting the
Acts, uniformly treated it as the work of Luke. These writers,
with the catalogue of Muratori, have a sufficiently close con
nection with the Apostolic age to justify us in the confident
acceptance of their united and mutually corroborative tes
timony. But, in addition to these data, the writer of the Acts is
almost demonstrably the same person as the author of internal evi-
the third Gospel. Davidson says, indeed, that " no mator£°
critic ventures to impugn the identity ofthe author ofthe third
Gospel and the Acts."8 He also cites a large number of
1 Introd. to N. T. i. 250. 2 Strom, v. 12. 8 Introd. to N. T. ii. 269.

204 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. IV.
terms peculiar to the two works, and found nowhere else in
the New Testament. The method of quotation in both is the
same ; and the author of the second work makes reference
to another which he had previously written. So that all the
proofs for Luke's authorship of the third Gospel might be
used here in connection with those of an independent char
acter. Indeed, the only ground on which his authorship can
be denied is the wholly negative circumstance that he is not
particularly mentioned by name as the writer before a.d. 150-
160. Still this is regarded as sufficient ground by some,
notwithstanding the fact that antiquity, as far as it testifies
at all, is unanimous in ascribing it to him, not even hinting
at any other author. However, as we have said, the question
of genuineness is not necessarily one with that of authorship,
when not claimed for a particular person, but can be estab
lished without reference to it.
While Irenaeus may be the first writer who makes a. formal
Various aiiu- quotation from the Acts, clear allusions to the book
Sork in early are f°und scattered amongst the various ecclesiastical
writers. authors of the preceding age. Polycarp, for example,
in writing to the Philippians, says, in obvious reference to
Acts ii. 24, "whom God hath raised up, having loosed the
pains of death."1 Ignatius (d. 107-116), too, in his letters
most generally accepted as genuine, apparently recognizes the
existence of this book, as in the letter to the Romans c. iv.2
Davidson cites also the epistle to the Smyrnians (c. iii.) and
to the Philadelphians as making similar references.8 And
Hegesippus (c. 140), through Eusebius,4 is another witness ;
as, also, the " Clementines," referring to Gamaliel and Simon
Magus.6 And in the Exhortation to the Greeks (" Cohortatio
ad Grsecos"), attributed to Justin Martyr (c. 90-148), chapter
tenth, there is a probable recognition of Acts vii. 22 ; while,
in the epistle to Diognetus (c. 117), yet extant in Greek, two
instances occur (Davidson), in chapters third and eleventh
respectively, of supposed reference to this book.
These testimonies, though by no means all, will perhaps
1 c. i. 2 Cf. Acts xi. 26. 8 Introd. to N. T. ii. 269.
4 H. E. ii. 23. ' Gulag's Com. p. 2.

Gospels and Acts. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 20$
suffice, in connection with the fact that early heretical sects
which rejected the Acts because it was opposed to their Position of
. heretical
teaching, as the Marcionites and Mamcheans, still sects.
admitted without dispute, as far as known, the sources from
which their orthodox opponents professed to receive it, and
so furnish a powerful though indirect support to its genu
ineness.1 The date of the work is placed at about a.d. 63 by Hackett,
Gloag, Alford, and others.
Questions relating to the credibility, integrity, and internal
characteristics generally of this and other books of the credibility
New Testament do not fall within the scope of the &&
present work. But, for a refutation in detail of Davidson's
assaults on the credibility of the Acts, the Boyle lecture
for 1869 (Appendix) should be consulted.
1 Hacketfs Com. p. 12.

CHAPTER V.

THE EPISTLES OF PAUL.

THE epistles of the New Testament often possess this ad
vantage with respect to proofs of genuineness over some
of its other books, that through their very form they present
Advantages special points of contact with contemporaneous and
SeshwithPls~ subsequent history. The writer frequently announces
proofs"" himself by name. It was a uniform rule with Paul,
genuineness, indeed to subscribe his name to all his epistles as a
token of genuineness.1 The readers, too, were commonly well
known, in addition to the various persons of more or less
prominence in the churches who were incidentally introduced
into the letter in the way of salutation or casual mention, all of
whom became so many corroborative witnesses, cited as it
were, in the document itself, in favor of its being what it
claimed to be.
And when, as is the case in a majority of instances, these
letters are sent to communities or churches with the tacit

Churches
addressedimportant

understanding or direct command that they shall be

witnesses.

made publicly and widely known, and the same letters
are ever afterwards, as far as history gives us any information,
held in the highest esteem by such communities and churches
as being the actual productions of their professed authors, they
ought to be readily accepted as well-attested documents ; the
most reliable kind of historic evidence is thereby furnished on
their behalf. Such is the force of Tertullian's appeal already
noticed, when he points to the churches at Corinth, at Philippi,
at Thessalonica, at Ephesus, and at Rome respectively, as still
having and publicly using in his day at the close of the seoond
1 Cf. 2 Thess., iii. 17 ; Col., iv. 18 J 1 Cor. xvi. 21.

Paul's Epistles. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 207
century, the epistles which Paul had severally addressed to
them.1 To make out a forgery in such a case, it would be needful
to explain how so strange a thing had come about as Difficuity
that a certain church, nay, many churches, had been ™chr|'orJ.
induced to believe that they had received letters from ments-
a prominent Apostle, — whose personal, oral instruction they
were well acquainted with, and with whose teachings they had
also become familiar from still other sources, — when, in fact,
no such letters had been sent them. The burden of proof does
not lie in such circumstances with those who accept, but with
those who reject, the genuineness of these documents. Of the
thirteen epistles generally ascribed to Paul, not including that
to the Hebrews, nine are addressed directly to prominent
churches of the Apostolic age, and the others, to conspicuous
representative men, whose position rendered them perhaps as
important as churches with respect to the matter of the defence
of the literary productions with which their names are asso
ciated. Such a fact might well be expected to facilitate the
process by which the genuineness or the imposture of these
writings may be established.
Adopting the order of epistles found in our English Bibles,
we will first examine what evidence there may be for
the genuineness of the production called the epistle
of Paul

TO THE ROMANS.
First, Clement of Rome (c 95), although personally a fol
lower of St. Peter, yet doubtless acquainted with Ciement of
Paul, and at some time in his life an overseer of the Rome-
Christian church at Rome, in a well-attested letter which he
writes to the Corinthian brethren, makes a distinct reference to
Paul's epistle to the Romans. The letter was written in the
name of the church over which he was presiding, and, in part,
was as follows : " Casting away from ourselves all unrighteous
ness and wickedness, covetousness, debate, malignity, and
1 De Praiscrip. Hair., sj. xxxvi.

208 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. V.
deceit, whisperings and backbitings, hatred of God, despiteful-
ness and pride, vaingloriousness and inanity. For those who
commit such things are hated by God, and not only those who
commit them, but those also that have pleasure in them."1 It
is this Clement whom Roman Catholics claim to be one of the
early Popes of Rome, if not the first.
And Polycarp, in an account of the martyrdom of Ignatius,
written about a.d. 107, or possibly a little later, says
in one place : " We must all stand before the judgment-
seat of Christ, and each one must give account of himself." 2
The " Elder" likewise, whom Irenaeus reports to us and
The who must have been a hearer of the Apostles, made
" Elder" use of the epistle to the Romans as the production of
Paul.8 Justin Martyr (b. 90-100), too, in his dialogues with Trypho,
Justin employs the peculiar illustrations and doctrinal teach-
Martyr. ;ng Qf paui jn this epistle ; as, for instance : " Since he,
being in uncircumcision, for the sake of the faith with which he
believed God, was justified and blessed."4 And each of the
three great witnesses of the succeeding age, Clement of Alex
andria, Irenaeus, and TertuUian, bear direct and conclusive tes
timony in the same direction. Irenaeus says, speaking now for
himself: " Paul, when writing to the Romans, has explained this
very point, ' Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, predestinated
unto the Gospel of God.' " 6
Of the early heretical sects, moreover, some of which re-
Early jected and contended against the Pauline epistles, none
sects. ever denied this epistle to be Paul's. In short, the
evidence is connected, continuous, wide-spread, and entirely
unanimous on this point. The author claims to be Paul, the
Apostle, and to have written this epistle to the Romans (i. 17).
It cannot be shown that there has ever been a time since the
period when it professes to have been written, in which it has
not been in honorable use in the church to which it was sent
arid among other associated churches. Indeed its genuineness
has scarcely ever been denied by the most irreverent of modern
*• c. xxxv. Cf. Rom. i. 29^32. * c. xxiii.
2 c. vi. Cf. Rom. xiv. 12. « Adv. Hasr., iii. 16 (3).
8 Adv. Hser., iv. 27 (2). Cf. Rom. xi. 20, 21.

Paul's Epistles. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 2O9
critics. De Wette declares that " the genuineness of the epistle
is beyond all doubt." x Scholars are generally agreed that it
was written about a.d. 58, while the Apostle was at Corinth
(Acts xx. 3).

FIRST TO THE CORINTHIANS.
The first epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, besides being
abundantly supported by external testimony, has also Pamisper.
this peculiarity, along with some others of this Apos- p°"saJ"j,Up„n
tie's letters, that his own life, personal relationships, this Epistle.
methods of working, as well as the peculiar circumstances of
the churches to which he wrote, are so inwoven into its very
texture, that, to deny its genuineness, it should seem to be
necessary to deny also that such a person as the Apostle Paul
ever existed. Dean Stanley has called the two epistles to the
Corinthians, on account of this peculiarity, the " historical
epistles."2 But the known estimation in which this first epistle was
held by the Corinthian church at a time when the last itsacknowi-
. edgment by
of the Apostles had barely passed away from earth, is the church.
wholly inexplicable on any other supposition than that of
genuineness. The letter of Clemens Romanus, already referred to (c. 95),
addressed to this very church, contains such pointed clement of
allusions as this : " Take up the epistle of the blessed Rome-
Paul, the Apostle ; what was it that he first wrote to you in
the beginning of the Gospel? Of a truth it was under the
guidance of the Spirit (or spiritually) that he warned you
in his epistle concerning himself and Cephas and Apollos,
because, as well then as now, you favored parties." 8
And Polycarp, but a little later, writing to the Phi
lippians, said : " Do we not know that the saints shall judge
the world, as Paul teaches?"4 So also, Irenaeus, the
next link in the chain, bringing the testimony down
to a period, when there is no longer room for dispute, writes :
» Introd. to N. T., p. 267. Cf. Bleek's Introd. to N. T., i., p. 447.
2 Com., preface, p. xi. 8 Ad Cor., c xlvii. * c. 11. Cf. 1 Cor. vi. 2.
H

2IO HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. V.
" They affirm Paul to have declared in his epistle to the
Corinthians, ' And last of all he appeared to me also, as to
one born out of due time.' " J
And in addition to these, Justin Martyr (Dial., c. xiii. cf.
other wit- J Cor. v. 7) has clear allusions to the document. So,
nesses. too, Clement of Alexandria (Paed., i. 6. cf. i Cor. vi.
13) ; and the epistle to Diognetus (c. 117), as follows: "And
not that false knowledge of which the Apostle saith, ' knowl
edge puffeth up, but love edifieth ' " (c. xii. cf. 1 Cor. viii. 1 ;
also c. v. cf. 1 Cor. iv. 12). The various heretical sects, too,
which sprung up in the post-Apostolic age, all directly or
indirectly supported the genuineness of this production. No
scholar of prominence, in fact, has ever called in question
the claim of Pauline authorship. The epistle was written
from Ephesus (xvi. 8), the subscription, in the English Bible,
being a later unauthentic addition.

SECOND TO THE CORINTHIANS.
From its close connection with the first epistle, forming, as
Second it were, the sequel to it, the second to the Corin-
sequeitothetnians 1S supported by the same external testimony in
first addition to that which is peculiarly its own. The
time of writing, from internal evidence, is supposed to have
been a few months subsequent only to the writing of the first
letter, and the place some part of Macedonia, possibly Phi
lippi. Even allowing the second epistle of Clement of Rome, in
Clement of which are found two evident allusions to this letter, to
carp, and be untrustworthy, still, the testimony of Polycarp, a
witnesses, disciple of John ; of the " Elder," cited by Irenaeus ;
ofthe epistle to Diognetus (c 117), of Clement of Alexandria,
who makes use of it in more than a score of instances ; of
Irenaeus, personally ; of TertuUian ; besides the catalogue of
the Muratorian Canon, the Peshito, and the old Latin ver
sions, — ought to be sufficient to establish its authorship.
1 Adv. Ha:r., i. 8 (2).

Paul's Epistles. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 211
Polycarp says : " For we are before the eyes of the Lord
our God ; " and " we must all appear before the judgment-seat
of Christ." x The epistle to Diognetus : " They are flesh, but
do not live after the flesh ; " and again, " pass their days on
earth, but as citizens of heaven." 2 Clement of Alexandria :
" Not in fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had
our conversation in the world." 8 Irenaeus : " As to
-.-. .si.i- s Irenaius.
their affirming that Paul said plainly in the second
[epistle] to the Corinthians, ' In whom the god of this world
blinded the minds of them that believe not,' " &c. 4

TO THE GALATIANS.
Paul's epistle to the Galatians is one of the few epistles
whose authorship has never — with a single unim- Genuineness
, , , , . . t-» • , generally
portant exception — been called in question. Besides admitted.
bearing in every part the personal impress of the great Apostle
to the Gentiles, the character of the Galatian church and pecu
liarities of the Galatian people, as here depicted, are fully borne
out by contemporaneous history. " The Celtic temperament,
so easily attracted by novelty, might, at once, embrace the new
religion ; though, on the other hand, nothing could be more
remote than the Phrygian cultus from the purity and simplicity
of the Gospel." 5
The Apostolic Fathers show their familiarity with this book
more by a certain unconscious and incidental appropri- Apostolic
ation of its language, than by direct citations. Poly- showac-
carp, in his letter to the Philippian church, however, Sit
has this clear reference : " And when absent from you, he
[Paul] wrote you a letter, which, if you carefully study, you
will find to be the means of building you up in that faith which
has been given to you, and which, being followed by hope and
preceded by love towards God and Christ and our neighbor, is
the ' mother of us all.' " 6
i Ep. i. c. vi. Cf. 2 Cor. v. io, and Rom. xiv. 10-12.
2 C. v. Cf. 2 Cor. x. 3 ; vi. 9. B Introd. to Eadie's Com.
8 Strom., iv. 16. Cf. 2 Cor. i. 12. 6 C. iii. Cf. Gal. iv. 26.
4 Adv. Haer., iii. 7 (0- Cf. 2 Cor. iv. 5.

212 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. V.
And in the "Address to Greeks" (? Justin Martyr), there
And Tustin are *wo marked instances in which the language of
Martyr. this epistle is followed : " Come, be taught ; become
as 1 am, for I, too, was as ye are;" again, "first, driving
forth lust through which every ill is begotten, — hatred, strife,
envy, emulation, anger, and such like." x Barnabas, too, speaks
of the " slave which guards us in infancy until we are placed
under the true teacher's care," using Paul's peculiar term
{naiSayayog) .2 And the epistle to Diognetus (c. 117) contains a
probable parallel with Gal. iv. 1-4 : " As long, then, as the
former time endured, He permitted us to be borne along by
unruly impulses, being driven away by the desire of pleasure
and various lusts." 8 While Irenaeus, following the custom of
his later time with respect to more explicit citations, says :
" An example occurs in the [epistle] to the Galatians where
he [Paul] expresses himself as follows : ' It was added until
the seed should come to whom the promise was made ; and it
was ordained in the hands of a mediator. '" *
Alford and Ellicott waveringly place the date of the epistle
at a.d. 54 to a.d. 58. Conybeare and Howson and
others during the winter of 57-58. If written near
the first date given, it was probably sent from Ephesus ; if at
the last, from Corinth. Contrary to his usual custom, Paul
seems to have written this letter wholly with his own hand,
an incidental circumstance having an important bearing in
favor of the genuineness of the document.

TO THE EPHESIANS.
That the so-called epistle to the Ephesians found in our
Genuineness Bibles is the work of Paul has been disputed by
Dsfvidsonby Davidson and the school of criticism which he repre-
onlntemai senis' His position is, that the internal evidence
grounds. neutralizes the external as to its having been written
to the Ephesians, as well as that Paul was its author.6 De
1 Oratio, c. v. Cf. Gal. iv. ix; v. 20, 21. * Adv. Hair., iii. 7 (2).
2 Cf. Gal. iii. 24- B Introd. to N. T., Vol. I. 372-
3 c. ix.

Paul's Epistles. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 213
Wette also maintains that the epistle is but a " verbal expan
sion of Colossians, entirely dependent on it, un-Pauline,
strange, and surprising in diction and ideas." x
But, even admitting the internal characteristics of the
epistle to be what is claimed by these critics, it still Claims to
, t. v. s s , , ,•/-•, be the work
purports to be from Paul s hand, and, if it be not of Paul.
his, must be a wretched forgery. In which case we must
explain, moreover, the circumstance that the epistle gained
universal currency in the early Church as Paul's, a fact which
Davidson admits, but one the more difficult to explain the
more un-Pauline in style it shall appear to be. It has been
justly remarked, that " if discrepancies in matters of style are
so decided as to lead a writer ofthe nineteenth century to deny
confidently the genuineness of this document, how are we to
account for its universal reception by writers ofthe second and
third centuries who spoke the language in which it was
written, and who were by no means unacquainted with the
phenomena of pious fraud and literary imposture?" 2 But it
is by no means to be admitted that the style, thought, and
general arrangement of this work do not indicate Paul as its
author. The majority of scholars, with the utmost confidence
and appearance of candor, earnestly maintain that they do.
And, consequently, objections of a merely subjective character
should not be allowed to turn the scale against external testi
mony which is admitted on all sides to be direct, positive,
persistent, and unanimous.
The wavering of opinion with respect to the original desti
nation of the epistle, although not involving the ques- Wavering of
tion of its genuineness, may be accounted for by specting
the probable circumstance that it was originally destination.
designed by the writer himself, not for the Ephesians alone,
but for general circulation among neighboring sister churches.
Bleek, while ascribing the work unhesitatingly to Paul, thinks
that it was intended especially for the Laodiceans (Col. iv.
16).8 And Marcion (c 130-140), while using it as Paul's,
called it the epistle to the Laodiceans. Nearly all the ancient
1 Introd. to N. T. Vs. Hodge's Com. Introd. 3 Introd. to N. T., ii. 45-47.
2 Smith's Bib. Diet Art. Eph.

214 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap.'v,
manuscripts, however, have the caption in Greek : " To those
who are in Ephesus."
In glancing at the supports which external history proffers
Survey of on behalf of the genuineness of this epistle, we find at
toricaTtesti-" the very start two citations by the Apostolic Fathers,
mony. remarkable alike for their directness and the form in
which they appear. Polycarp, on the one hand, wrote :
" For I trust that ye are well exercised in the Holy Scriptures,
... as in these Scriptures it is said, ' Be ye angry and sin
not. And let not the sun go down upon your wrath.'"1
And Ignatius to the Ephesians : " Those who are' borne by
martyrdom to God pass through your city ; ye are initiated
into the mysteries {avfifivarai) of the Gospel with St. Paul, the
sanctified and the martyred, worthy of all blessings, . . . who,
in every part of his letter, makes mention of you in Christ
Jesus." 2 This allusion of Ignatius is important not only as
recognizing the fact that Paul had written to the Ephesians,
but, from the peculiar Greek words used, as showing, almost
demonstrating, that the epistle itself was before the mind of
the writer, and was at that time in familiar use.
Now leaving out of consideration, as a possibly unauthorized
Relative addition to the language of the first-named Father,
testimony of and certainly unnecessary to the present inquiry, all
Ignatius. allusion to this document as Holy Scripture, or
regarding it as at least of questionable genuineness, as
Westcott and others are inclined to do, yet, notwithstanding
a certain small residuum of uncertainty which remains from
the nature of the writings through which they speak to us,
how incalculably does the testimony of these two witnesses
outweigh the conjectural, intangible objections to Pauline
authorship and the genuineness of this epistle, drawn from
considerations of mere style, with respect to which no two
writers of weight can be brought fully to agree.
But, in another part of the same epistle, Polycarp most
probably alludes again to the Ephesian letter : " Knowing,"
he says, " that by grace ye are saved, not of works." "
1 Ad. Phil., c. xii. Cf. Eph. iv. 26.
2 Ad. Eph., c. xii. Cf. Westcott, Hist, of N. T. Can., p. 44, n.
8 Cf. Eph. ii. 8, 9.

Paul's Epistles. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 215
And Clement of Rome writes : " In no respect puffed up
with pride, but yielded obedience rather than ex- Polycarp
r ' J further; with
torted it." x And the epistle to Diognetus contains Clement of
/-.,r Rome;
this evident reminiscence : " Come, then, after you have epistle to
•r- , ,r <¦ ,, • ,• • Diognetus
purified yourself from all prejudices possessing your and irenasus.
mind, and laid aside what you have been accustomed to as
something apt to deceive you, and being made as from the
beginning a new man," &c.2 And Irenaeus, speaks with the
directness which is his wont : " As the blessed Paul declares
in his epistle to the Ephesians that we are ' members of his
body, of his flesh, and of his bones.'"8 And finally, Clement
of Alexandria, recalls a well-known passage : " And since
the Omnipotent God himself gave some apostles, and some
prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors, and
teachers," &c.4

TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
The epistle to the Philippians, it is supposed was written
by Paul about a.d. 63, and was sent to that church by Supposed
the hand of Epaphroditus, who some time before had date-
brought contributions thence to the Apostle, a captive at
Rome.6 The date is arrived at from allusions in the commu
nication itself, especially to the character of the imprisonment
which Paul was suffering, whose rigors seem to have greatly
increased on the death of the Prefect Burrus.6
The allusions in other New Testament writings, which not
only in this case, but generally, may be fitly assumed A]lusionsm
to be early historic documents, whatever their supposed TesKiment
character in other respects — suggest the intimate re- books-
lations which the Apostle sustained to this church at Philippi,
of which he was the founder, and serve to confirm us in the
opinion that this professed letter to it was really his.'
1 c. ii. Cf. Eph. v. 21. 5 iv. 15, 16 ; ii. 25. Cf. 2 Cor., xi. 9.
2 Ep., ii. Cf. Eph. iv. 22-24. 6 i. 25, 26 : ii. 24. Cf. Acts, xxviii. 16.
» Adv. Hasr., v. 2 (3). Cf. Eph. v. 30. T Acts, xvi. and xx. I.
< Strom., iv. c. 21. Cf. Eph. iv. n, 12, 13.

2l6 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap.V.
Modern doubts of genuineness are of the same general
Basis of character as those which we have just been consider-
doubui. ing, having no other basis than conjecture and far
fetched assumptions, which would carry but little weight, even
if there could not be opposed to them any testimony of history
whatever. They might of themselves even justify an assump
tion of the probable genuineness of documents which re
quire the use of such means to overthrow them.1 Alford
characterizes Baur's attack upon it as a burlesque of philoso
phical investigation. " All expressions in it common to Paul
show that it was taken by some one else from his epistles ;
while all expressions not common to him, just as truly prove
its spuriousness. It is charged that in one part the epistle
lacks point, and shows poverty of thought ; in another, there is
an excess of point and undue vigor of expression. In short,
this method of criticism amounts to just this : ' Heads I win,
tails you lose.' "
In addition to the fact that the epistle purports to be from
Noproba- Paul, and is in peculiar harmony with the known char-
ble motive . . . . .
for forgery, actenstics of the Apostle, while suggesting in itself no
probable motive which could prompt a forgery, the historical
evidence that it is what it professes to be is sufficiently full and
definite. Polycarp's letter to the same church, written perhaps fifty
Testimony, years after that of the Apostle, alludes to the latter in
and others, a manner quite inconsistent with any theory of spuri
ousness : " The blessed and glorious Paul . . - wrote letters to
you, into which if you look diligently you will be able to be built
up to [the fulness of ] the faith given to you."2 The frag
ment on the Resurrection also (Justin Martyr) contains a
noticeable coincidence of language with Phil. iii. 20', speaking
of the " heavenly citizenship." s And the letter to Diognetus al
ludes with more or less similarity of terms to those whom
Paul in the same passage characterizes as having their conver
sation in heaven.4
Marcion (a.d. 130-140) reckoned the epistle as Pauline,
1 Olshausen's Com., Introd. to Eph. s c. vii.
2 Ad Phil., iii., also xi. * c. v.

Paul's Epistles. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 217
placing it as such in his heretical canon. And Clement of
Alexandria, says in his work entitled the Instructor : " And
it occurs to me to wonder how some dare call themselves per
fect and Gnostics with ideas of themselves above the Apostles,
inflated and boastful, when Paul even owns respecting himself:
' Not that I have already attained or am already perfect ; but I
follow after,' " &C.1 Also Irenaeus in his principal work :
" As Paul also says to the Philippians : ' I am full, having
received from Epaphroditus, ' " &c.2

TO THE COLOSSIANS.
Colossae was a city of Phrygia, situated in the basin of the
Meander, but on the river Lycus. It is matter ofofCoiossa,
. . J and Paul's
doubt who founded the Christian church there, although relation to
the probabilities are in favor of Paul, who had at least there.
visited the city more than once (Acts xvi. 16 ; xviii. 23). He,
moreover, is designated as the author of the extant letter to this
church in various parts of the letter itself (i. 1, 24; iv. 18).
References are also incidentally made to his hardships in prison
(i.29 ; iv. 3, 10, 18) ; and to the Christian brethren by name, in
cluding representatives from the Colossian church who were
with him at the time of writing, — Tychicus, Epaphras, Ones-
imus, Luke, Mark, Demas, Timothy, — all of whom accord
ingly might have been appealed to as swift witnesses against any
attempt at forgery. Indeed, they were so many points of con
tact with an eager and a watchful church from which the
writer does not withdraw himself, but presses them rather to
his loving heart.
The letter presents well-known characteristics of the Apos
tle's style, both of thought and expression. It is internal
closely connected in general outline with the epistle to istics.
the Ephesians, a fact of considerable importance, inasmuch as
the two churches were near together, and had much in common,
especially in their supposed need of the peculiar teaching here
enforced. And yet in the face of such overwhelming proba-
' Paid., i. 6. Cf. Phil, iii. 12-14. ¦> Adv. Hair., iv. 18 (4). Cf. Phil. iv. 18.

2l8 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. V,
bilities in favor of genuineness, to say nothing of positive proofs,
there have been those in modern times, who, on grounds
which must be considered utterly puerile, have denounced the
epistle as spurious. One critic, Mayerhoff, for instance, finds
that the Greek particle gar {jag) occurs but six times in this
epistle, while it is found seventeen times in Philippians, forty
times in Galatians, and still oftener in other supposed writings
of Paul. Olshausen has justly said : " He who takes account
of such pure accidents, and that so seriously that he can
count how often gar occurs in each epistle, pronounces on him
self the sentence of incapacity for giving his vote on the affinity
or the difference of style." x
But, on the other hand, the genuineness of this epistle to the
Davidson Colossians is admitted by such critics as Davidson and
Wette ad- De Wette, who will not be suspected of having an
uineness. undue bias in favor of the retention of any book of the
New Testament. It belongs to the number of those which
were universally accepted by the early Church, and the traces
of it in early Christian literature are both numerous and well
defined. Justin Martyr, for instance, in his dialogues with Trypho,
Testimony says : " Christ is the first born of all things made, the
Martyr, first born of God, and before all creatures." 2 Marcion
and others, places the letter in his partial canon, and its Pauline
authorship was never called in question by any early heretical
sect. It found a place in the Peshito version. Irenaeus also
illustrates its familiar use in his day by writing : " And again,
in the epistle to the Colossians [Paul] says, ' Luke, the beloved
physician, greets you.'"8 In one of several places where
Clement of Alexandria calls attention to the work, he savs :
" And in the epistle to the Colossians he (Paul) writes." 4
The date of the letter is placed a little earlier than
Date. that to the Ephesians, or at about a.d. 62.
1 Introd. to Cora, on Col.
2 Dial., 100. Cf. Apol., i 46, ii. 6 ; Col. i. 15-17.
3 Adv. Haer., iii. 14 (1). Cf. Col. iv. 14.
* Strom., i. i. Cf. Tertull. De Praes. Ha;r , vii.

Paul's Epistles. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 219

FIRST TO THE THESSALONIANS.
Thessalonica — more anciently Thermae, and the modern
Saloniki — was a city of Macedonia, situated on the of Thes_
bay of Thermae, and at this day contains a population saloDlc*-
of seventy thousand souls. Paul, as we learn from Acts xvii.
1, xx. 2, twice visited the city.
The "undesigned coincidences" of the first letter to the
Thessalonians with other early historical writings Unde- si ened com-
(Acts xviii. 5 ; 1 Thess. iii. 6) ; the fact that, as con- cidences.
solatory in its character, it singularly accords with what is
known from other sources of the Apostle's personal experiences
and those of this church ; its correspondences of style and dic
tion with other acknowledged productions of Paul, together
with and in addition to external evidence satisfactory both in
quality and amount, furnish ample support for this epistle as
deserving its place in the New Testament collection. Doubts
of its genuineness have indeed been started among a certain
school of critics in Germany, and, as usual, on grounds wholly
subjective and internal ; but they have met with but little
encouragement even among those most given to speculations
of this kind.
The Apostolic Fathers, it is true, nowhere directly quote
the letter as a production of Paul, — a thing which Apostol;<.
would have ill accorded with their position and the Fathers-
uniform custom of their times, — yet their writings contain allu
sions to it so conspicuous and definite as to compel the infer
ence of a definite acquaintance.
Polycarp, for example, in writing to the church at Philippi,
incorporates a well-known passage from it in his own Polycarp,
letter : " Abstaining from all [kinds of] evil," which of Corinth,
is the true rendering of 1 Thess. v. 22. x And in and others.
another part of the same letter culls another expression from
the same epistle : " Making intercession for all without ceas
ing."2 Dionysius of Corinth (d. a.d. 177), according to Euse-
1 c. xL Cf. Davidson's Introd. to N. T., i. 19.
2 c. iv. Cf. 1 Thess. v. 17.

220 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. V.
bius, also made use of a phrase taken from this work.1 And
Irenaeus (c 130-200) wrote: "Now the God of peace sanctify
you perfect {perfectos) ; and may your spirit and soul and
body be preserved whole," &c.2 And Clement of Alexandria
in the " Instructor " : " This the blessed Paul most clearly
pointed out when he said, ' When we might have been bur
densome as Apostles of Christ, we were gentle among you as
a nurse cherisheth her children.'"8 So TertuUian, in his
work on the Resurrection, claiming to quote Paul : " But of
the times and the seasons, brethren, there is no necessity for
my writing unto you." 4
This is one of the earliest of Paul's writings, and perhaps
the very first of all the extant written records of Chris-
Date tianity. It is dated at about a.d. 53 or 54.

SECOND TO THE THESSALONIANS.
The second epistle has the same numerous incidental sup-
First and ports to its Pauline authorship as the first, besides
epistles very significant and important ones in addition. The
together, writer's first epistle had been misunderstood, and used
in a way wholly unauthorized (ii. 1, 15). In the second, he
deprecates the course that had been taken ; puts the disciple
ship on their guard against imposture ; appeals to them in the
name of the Lord to see that this second epistle is read to
all the " holy brethren " ; and finally adds his signature with
the asseveration of its genuineness : " The salutation of Paul
with mine own hand, which is a token in every epistle ; so I
write" (iii. 17).
The difficulties which have arisen concerning the work
Principal relate chiefly to matters of interpretation, and centre
difficulties, about chapter ii. 1-12. Its external defences are of
the strongest character. Probably Polycarp alludes to it when
he writes: "Yet esteem not such as enemies, but as erring
members recall them that ye may save their whole body."6
1 1 Thess. ii. n. Cf. Westcott, Hist. Can. N. T., p. 167.
a Adv. Hair., v. 6 (1). Cf. 1 Thess, v. 23. * De Res., xxiv. Cf. 1 Thess. v. 2.
3 Strom., i. 1. Cf. 1 Thess. ii. 6, 7. » Ad. Phil., n. Cf. 2,Thess. iii. 15.

Paul's Epistles. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 221
There is little doubt that Justin Martyr had become familiar with
it before he wrote : " When also the man of apostasy, speaking
proud things against the Most High, will dare upon the earth
lawless things against us Christians." x Irenaeus also refers to the
same central figure : " And again, in the II. to the Thessalonians,
speaking concerning antichrist, ' And then shall that wicked
one be revealed whom the Lord Jesus will slay with the spirit
of his mouth, and the presence of his advent will destroy
him.' " 2 And Clement of Alexandria had learned the value
of the injunction : " But pray ye that ye may be delivered
from unreasonable and wicked men ; for all men have not
faith." 8 The epistle found a place both in the canon of Mar
cion and of Muratori, different as they were, and in the Peshito
and the old Latin version.
It is supposed to have been written but a few
months after the first to the same church (c 54).

FIRST TO TIMOTHY.
The Timothy to whom two letters of the New Testament
canonical list are addressed was a native of Lystra, who Timo_
in Pamphilia (Acts xvi. 1). It is inferred that he be-thywas-
came a convert to Christianity on the occasion of Paul's visit to
his native city, an account of which is recorded in Acts xiv. 6,
7, 21. He afterwards journeyed with the Apostle, and was for
a considerable period his companion at Rome (Acts xvi. 1 ;
xix, 22 ; xxiii. 5 ; Rom. xvi. 21 ; Col. i. 1 ; Phil. i. 1 ; 1 Thess.
iii. 6 ; Philem. 1).
It is thought that when this first letter was written, Timothy
was in charge of the church at Ephesus. Paul, it is whither
supposed, hoping to revisit him, but still apprehensive sentf1"'
that he might be disappointed in this purpose, writes his apos
tolic instructions herewith to Timothy on important matters
connected with his position as overseer of the church.
The difficulty of finding any place for the date of this epistle
1 Dial., c. no. Cf. 2 Thess. ii. 3, 4. » Strom., v. 3. Cf. 2 Thess. iii. a.
' Adv. Hair., v. 7, (2). Cf. 2 Thess. ii 8.

222 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. V.
within the limits of Paul's life as recorded in the Acts, although
Grounds on tnat record leaves intervals of some length in his life
^lfig?nu" unaccounted for, within which ttmight have been writ-
lneness is i o
impugned. terl) together with the fact that a somewhat advanced
stage of church order and ripened development of false doc
trine are presupposed in it, has furnished watchful objectors
with an occasion to impugn its genuineness. But these objec
tions lose their point if the epistle be assigned to a period in
the Apostle's life subsequent to events recorded in Acts xxviii.
There is much to favor such a date in the contents of the epis
tle itself; and while a well-authenticated tradition of a second
imprisonment of Paul might seem to be all that was needful to
render such a theory probable, such a tradition does really exist.
That Paul may have had the opportunity for writing this
No lack of and the two following epistles after the events re-
t£swhenit corded in the last chapter of the Acts, or even in one
been written, of the several chronological gaps occurring in that
book, is certainly more credible than the supposition that
it and they all three are forgeries of a later period, especi
ally in the face of historic evidence which is sufficiently abun
dant, consistent, and unwavering.
As has been intimated, the first epistle to Timothy now
First and under consideration stands or falls with the second to
second Tim- /-. , • • .
othy histori. Timothy, and that to I ltus. On this point the majority
cally bound _ . . , ^-. , . . - .
together, of critics are agreed. Objections of the kind con
sidered against one hold equally against all ; while the evi
dence in favor of one virtually supports all. But there is
nothing in matter or style in this work which would not
synchronize and harmonize with the date which we have sug
gested. Moreover, the writer undoubtedly meant to be con
sidered as Paul the Apostle, and if he were not, then we
must account by an adequate reason for a most flagrant
deception on the part of one who certainly writes in a style
of perfect honesty and with the unction of an Apostle. Under
circumstances far less favorable, indeed, such external proofs
of genuineness as we have to present ought to be accepted as
decisive. They all point in one direction, — all historical allu
sions which can be found bearing on the subject, — and all

Paul's Epistles. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 223
favor the authorship of Paul. Indeed, Christian antiquity
appears to have had no doubts on the subject. And, supposing
the date of the epistle to have been a.d. 66 or 67, but a com
paratively brief period elapsed after its composition, before it
left traces on the ecclesiastical literature of the times which
are still extant.
Clement of Rome, for instance, uses language which sug
gests this epistle as its probable source: "Let them Clement of
. Rome, Poly-
display their love not by preferring one another." J carp, ire-
And Polycarp, another who had himself heard the other's, bear
. ,.., t-si, r testimony
Apostle, cites more explicitly: "But the love of to its being
money is the root of all evils."2 Again, Irenaeus (130- claims.
200) cites 1 Tim. i. 4, with the words, " as the Apostle saith ; "
and elsewhere : " Because the law was made for righteous
men."8 Theophilus (c. 168-180), in his work addressed to
Autolycus, — preserved to our day entire, — also makes an evi
dent citation from I. Timothy : " In order that we may lead a
quiet and peaceable life." 4 Other supposed references are to
be found in the Letter to Diognetus (c. iv ; cf. 1 Tim. iii. 16;
also c. xi) ; the fragment on the Resurrection (c. viii ; cf.
1 Tim. ii. 4) ; Clement of Alexandria (Strom, vii. 2 ; cf. 1 Tim.
i. 9), and the letter addressed by the Church of Vienne and
Lyons to the brethren in Asia Minor, a.d. 177. The epis
tle is admitted with its two companion documents into the
Peshito version (c. 150), and into the canon of Muratori
a.d. 60-170). SECOND TO TIMOTHY.
The second epistle to Timothy was written as Ellicott,
Alford, Bleek, and others suppose, during Paul's where and
... t-. , ¦, , ¦ when writ-
Second imprisonment at Rome, while he was await- ten.
ing martyrdom (c. 67 or 68), the last year or the last but one
of the reign of Nero. Bleek's argument on this point seems
quite conclusive.6 Internal evidence fully justifies this theory.
The Apostle is a prisoner (i. 8, 12, 16; ii. 9), and in Rome
1 Ep. to Cor., c. xxi. Cf. 1 Tim. v. 21, 4 Ad, Autol., xiv. Cf. 1 Tim. i. 9.
" c iv. Cf. 1 Tim. vi. 10. • Introd. to N. T., ii. 74-76.
• Adv. Haer., iv. 16 (3). Cf. 1 Tim. i. 9.

224 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. v.
(i. 16, 17). He had already been tried and condemned (iv. 16,
17). He has a presentiment that his imprisonment will ter
minate in death (iv. 6-8). Luke, of his helpers, alone is with
him (iv. 11). Other helpers had been with him and he had
keenly felt their departure (iv. 10, 12). Demas (Col. iv. 14;
Philem. 24) had gone with the rest. This epistle was written
to urge the coming of Timothy as soon as possible (i. 4; iv.
9, 21) ; and of Mark (iv. 1 1) ; and enjoins their bringing certain
things which Paul had left at Troas, — "the cloak" (? bag)
and " the parchments." How does the simple rehearsal of
these circumstantial details quite remove all ground for the
theory that this is a forged document ! But if such a document
by some incredible ingenuity could have been forged, then
what sufficient motive existed for so difficult and discreditable
an undertaking?
In addition to the early historical evidence already cited in
witnesses, connection with the preceding letter, Ignatius is under-
in addition .
to those cit- stood to allude in a certain place to the language of
epistle. this one as " Please ye him under whom ye fight,"
which is regarded as an adaptation of the words " that he may
please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier. " J Polycarp,
moreover, says : " We shall also reign together with Him :
provided only we believe," perhaps having loosely in mind the
thought, " If we suffer we shall also reign with him." 2 And
Heracleon — the " most esteemed " of the Valentinian Gnostics
and the first known commentator on the New Testament,
whose writings probably appeared before a.d. 150 — made sig
nificant allusion to 2 Tim. ii. 13, according to Clement of
Alexandria, employing the words, " He never can deny him
self." 3 Irenaeus, too, quotes the second as well as the first
epistle, alluding to the patlietic words of the Apostle, " Only
Luke is with me." 4 And Clement of Alexandria personally
quotes it as a production of Paul : " But • foolish and unlearned
questions ' the divine Paul exhorted to avoid because they
gender strifes." 6
1 Ad. Pol., c. vi. Cf. 2 Tim. ii. 4- * Adv. Hair., iii. 14 (1). Cf. 2 Tim. iv. 10, 11.
» c. v. Cf. 2 Tim. ii. 12. « Strom., v. 1. Cf. 2 Tim. ii. 23.
8 Strom., iv. 9.

Paul's Epistles. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 225

EPISTLE TO TITUS.
Titus, to whom another pastoral letter is addressed, we
find first mentioned in Gal. ii. 3, afterwards in 2 Cor. whoT;tus
ii. 13 ; vii. 6, 13, 14 ; viii. 6, 16, 17, 23 ; xii. 18. It is wa$-
thought that he was converted by Paul (i. 4), and that, having
journeyed with him in the interval between the first and
second imprisonments, he was left by the Apostle at Crete
(i. 5; iii. 12), whither this letter was sent to him, with the
object of instructing him how he should continue to prosecute
the Christian work in that island.
In style the epistle agrees with those to Timothy, while
naturally differing in some respects from the earlier internal
ones ascribed to Paul. Referring its authorship to istics!
the same person who wrote the first mentioned, a course pur
sued, as we have said, by nearly every critic of influence, the
external evidence already brought forward might perhaps be
considered sufficient, especially as the literature of the early
age offers no ground whatever for denying its genuineness.
A recent commentator, noticing this fact of the natural associa
tion of these pastoral letters both with respect to lines of influ
ence and defence, beautifully says : " As there appear in
heaven solitary stars, and again larger groups which form
together one shining constellation, so we find the like phe
nomena in the heaven of holy writ." x
But the early writers mentioned as having made reference
to the two preceding epistles have not overlooked this. First trac ,
Clement of Rome may have had it in view when he inhistory-
wrote: "being ready to every good work,"2 that being the
very language found in the first verse of the third chapter of
this letter. So, also, the fragment entitled the "Martyrdom
of Polycarp" (a.d. 168), which calls attention to the truth that
" we are taught to give all due honor to the powers and
authorities which are ordained of God."8 A coincidence of
terms and ideas, moreover, occurs between the letter to Diog
netus (a.d. 117) and this letter, as follows: "And when the
1 Lange's Com., ad loe. z c. ii. a c. a. Cf. Tit iii. 1. (?Rom. xiii. 1-7.)
J5

226 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. V.
time had come which God had before appointed for manifest
ing his own kindness and power," &C.1 Irenaeus quotes at
large and definitely : " A man that is a heretic after the first
and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such is
subverted and sinneth, being condemned of himself."2 And
Clement of Alexandria is as direct : " But in works they deny
Him, being abominable and disobedient, and to every good
work reprobate." 8 While Tatian, in earlier life a disciple of
Justin Martyr, according to the testimony of Jerome, explicitly
defended the genuineness ofthe work. " Tatian, the patriarch
of the Encratites," he says, " who himself rejected some of
Paul's epistles, believed this (addressed to Titus) especially
ought to be declared to be the Apostle's, thinking little of the
assertion of Marcion and vothers who agree with him on this
point." 4 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
The epistle to Philemon might perhaps safely be left to
Epistle to bear witness to itself. TertuUian and Jerome held
Philemon . , . , .
needs little that its "own brevity defended it. Like the other
support. epistles of the New Testament purporting to come
from the same hand, it so evidently bears the impress of
one common personality ; its incidental references are of such
a nature, uniting it by the most delicate though powerful
links to the collection of epistles with which it is associated
(Philem. i, 2, 9, 18 ; Col. iv. 7, 9, 17 ; Eph. vi. 21) ; the origi
nality of its design, wholly incredible as the conception of an
impostor, even without a fragment of historical evidence, ought
to render it invulnerable.
That all of the principal early Christian writers do not
Sufficient refer to lt: 1S readily accounted for not only by the ordi-
tefre0qnulnt nar7 style of tlleir notices, but especially in considera
te work in tion of lts character as a private letter and consequent
history. narrow range. There is no evidence, however, that
it was in any case designedly omitted from the works of
' c. ix. Cf. Tit. iii. 4. » Strom., iv. 9. Cf. Tit. i. 16.
1 Adv. HsEr. , iii. 3 (4). Cf. Tit. iii. 10, 11. * Hieron. Pref. to Com. on Tit.

Paul's Epistles. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 2 27
the Fathers. Ignatius is generally thought to have alluded
to its language in one or more instances, but the evidence is
not clear.1 It is enough that it was included in the very
earliest canon (Marcion's, a.d. 130-140), especially as that
was an heretical canon into which it seems to have been
admitted, along with nearly all the other epistles of Paul, for
no special reason that we know of except that it was his, and
that there was nothing in it supposed to conflict with this
separatist's anti-Jewish system. It took its place undisputed,
also, in the first distinctively Christian catalogues, being found
in the Peshito and Old Latin Versions and the fragment of
Muratori. Eusebius put it among the New Testament books
" universally acknowledged ; " and Origen supports it by sev
eral quotations: Horn, in Jer. xix ; in Matt, xxxiii., xxxiv.
1 Ep. to Eph., iii. Cf. Philem., 8, 9. Also, Ep. to Eph., ii.

CHAPTER VI.
EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS, THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES, AND
THE APOCALYPSE.
TO THE HEBREWS.
THE epistle to the Hebrews is, and probably always will
be, of uncertain authorship. The doubts of antiquity
on the subject have not only been perpetuated to modern
Authorship times, but the current of speculation in this direction
Hebrews'10 has now taken still wider range. It is not needful,
always to be however, that we should enter upon the voluminous
m ou t. ancj unsatisfactory, though interesting, discussion of
the question. Yet it should be observed that it is not a ques
tion in which merely diverse schools of criticism are arrayed
one against another, since there is "scarcely a theory which has
been broached respecting the authorship of the epistle which
has not been able to command supporters from schools of
various shades of philosophic speculation and religious belief.
Some claim that the work is exclusively that of Paul, as
Different Stuart, Sampson, Turner, Barnes, Lindsay, Words-
suggested, worth, as well as the ancient authorities pretty
generally. Others advocate the theory that while the work is
essentially Paul's, it is due in its present form to Luke, as
Bullock in Smith's Bib. Diet., Olshausen, and Delitzsch.
The following scholars attribute the book to Apollos : Le
Clerc, Bleek, De Wette, Tholuck, Bunsen, and Alford. Ter
tuUian and the Old Latin version ascribed the work tb Barna
bas ; and so, among the moderns, have Wieseler and Thiersch.
Grotius maintains the authorship of Luke. Silas, and Clement
of Rome also, have their champions in the discussion.

Hbbrews, &c THE NEW TESTAMENT. 229
Professor Kendrick recently, in reviewing Moll's argument
on the subject (Lange's Com., ad loe), claims that Prof. Ken-
. „V 5 ., drick'scon-
the question of authorship here is unsusceptible of elusion.
solution ; that the only point settled " beyond all controversy,"
is, that this epistle, at least in its present form, did not proceed
from the pen of the Apostle Paul ; and that it is scarcely less
improbable that it was dictated in substance by Paul, and by
some other person, in his own independent diction, committed
to writing. This opinion, with slight modifications, seems,
on the whole, to be the prevailing one, both in modern and
ancient times. The principal point remaining in doubt is,
who it was that represented Paul ; and here the most weighty
judgments waver between Apollos and Luke.
The question as to whom the epistle was first sent is also
in dispute. Indeed, the apparent indifference with To whom
r- • Ietter WaS
respect to these minor matters of detail with which first sent.
Providence has left this book to do battle against an unbeliev
ing world, so far from weakening our sense of its real value,
becomes eminently suggestive of abundant resources within
itself with which to meet all emergencies. This certainly is
not the method of deception, the natural course of such as
would appropriate honors which are not their own. There is
no effort at concealment apparent on the part of the writer
(xiii. 1). He seems rather to take it for granted that he is
known to his readers, or else expects to be announced by the
messenger to whose care the manuscript should be intrusted.
That the epistle was intended for Jewish readers is evident ;
that they were the Jews of Palestine, and particularly of
Jerusalem, is probable (ii. 3 ; v. 12 ; xiii. 7, 12). It has been
supposed by some that the words, "they of [? from] Italy,"
found in chapter xiii. 24, left no alternative - to the position
that the communication was sent either from Italy or to Italy ;
but the passage alone is not decisive.1
That concerning this work, about which there is no doubt
whatever, is that it has been known to exist and been its genuine-
recognized as Apostolic in doctrine, from the age °f T?JedfKod"
the Apostles to our own. The fact, too, that, after Apostolic
1 Bleek's Introd. to N. T., ii. 124.

23O HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. VL
about the middle of the second century, there were some por
tions of the Church which, for a time, did not accept it as
canonical and authoritative, may be readily accounted for from
the extant history of the period. The doubt had its sole
inspiration in the previous doubt concerning its origin, and
there is no reason for supposing that it had any other founda
tion or support. Where the question of authorship was consid
ered as settled, and where it was not agitated, no signs of
dissent from the current opinion showed themselves.
For a full hundred years after the origin of the epistle,
Noopposi- although widely circulated and extensively quoted,
eariiestthe n°t a whisper was heard from any part of the Church
times. adverse to its high claims. And so far as the Syrian
and Greek and whole Eastern Church is concerned, there
never was any question respecting its canonicity. It was
universally accepted by them, — who, indeed, were probably
in circumstances most favorable to a right decision, — without
a dissentient voice.
We begin the citation of external testimony, however, with
List of early a representative of the Church of the West, — Clem-
writers who . . '
refer to it. ent of Rome. Writing to the Corinthians, he said:
" Let us be imitators of those also, who in goat-skins and
sheep-skins went about preaching the coming of Christ;"1
and in another chapter of the same communication declares
of our Lord : " Who, being the brightness of His majesty, is
so much greater than the angels as He has by inheritance
obtained a more excellent name than they." This Clement,
indeed, who may even have seen the hand which wrote the
epistle to the Hebrews, not only makes numerous citations
from it, but incorporates into the very substance of his own
letter to the Corinthians its ideas throughout, to such an
extent, that, according to the dispassionate judgment of West
cott, it is not too much to say that it was " wholly transfused
into Clement's mind." 2
And, without laying too much stress upon alleged refer-
justin ences of other Apostolic Fathers, there is one expres-
Martyr. s;on jn justin Martyr, which has already been noticed,
1 cc. xvii , xxxvi. Cf. Heb. xi. 37; i. 3, 4. 2 Hist. Can. N. T., p. 24.

Hebrews, &c. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 231
and which it would be difficult to account for without presuppos
ing his familiar acquaintance with this epistle. He speaks in one
place of Christ as the " Son and Apostle of God," a peculiar
term to be applied to Christ, and justified by no passage of
Scripture except one found in Heb. iii. i.1
Nearly contemporaneous with Justin's literary activity, one
Pinytus wrote a letter to Dionysius of Corinth (d. 177), Pinytusto
, , , _ , . Dionysius of
a fragment of which has been preserved by Lusebius, Corinth.
wherein he appropriates the thought of several successive
verses of the epistle to the Hebrews. He bids Dionysius to
" impart at some time more solid food, tenderly feeding the
people committed to him with a letter of riper instruction, lest
by continually dwelling on milk-like teachings they should
insensibly grow old without advancing beyond the teaching
of babes." 2 From Eusebius we also learn that Irenaeus, in a
work no longer extant, made reference to this book, — accord
ing to Wordsworth as St. Paul's ; but Westcott judges that he
did not attribute it to Paul. Clement of Alexandria (165-220),
again, says that the epistle to the Hebrews is Paul's ; but that
it was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew dialect, and that
Luke, having carefully translated it, published it for the use
of the Greeks.' Here we see the testimony beginning to
waver on the point of authorship.
It should be noticed, however, that, through Clement of
Alexandria, we are confronted with an earlier witness
than himself, whose testimony is most explicit. In
the same connection as the above, he goes on to say : " And
as the blessed presbyter" — supposed to be Pantaenus, his
predecessor in the catechetical school at Alexandria — "before
now used to say, since the Lord, as being the Apostle of the
Almighty, was sent to the Hebrews, Paul, through his mod
esty, inasmuch as he was sent to the Gentiles, does not call
himself Apostle to the Hebrews both on account of the honor
due to the Lord, and because it was a work of supererogation
that he addressed an epistle to thcHebrews also, since he
1 Apol., i. 12, 63. Cf. Heb. ix. 13; Dial., xxxiv. ; cf. viii. 7.
2 Euseb. H. E., iv. 23. Cf. Heb. v. 12-14.
8 Words, on Can., p. 95. Westcott, do., p. 337.
1 Euseb. H. E., vi. 14.

232 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. vi.
was herald and Apostle of the Gentiles." x Other pertinent
examples might be given, but these must suffice.
Previous to the middle of the second century, then, the
Partial sum- epistle to the Hebrews was well known, widely cited,
testimony, and, as far as extant Christian literature gives us any
information, universally accepted as canonical. Subsequently
to that time, for a period of nearly two hundred years, its
canonicity was disputed, or regarded as doubtful, by a certain
portion of the Church ; generally speaking, the Latin churches,
— those of Italy and North Africa, not including Alexandria, —
but wholly on the ground, of unknown authorship. In the
Greek Church, on the other hand, and the Eastern churches
generally, supposed to have a special proprietorship in the
epistle, the defection, if so it may be called, elsewhere did not
change the judgment which had been settled from the first.
And after a.d. 397 (date of third council of Carthage), the
churches of the West also came fully back to the early deci
sion, and from that day to this the question has remained
comparatively undisturbed.
The records of history on this subject during the interval
Records of of partial doubt are interesting, chiefly as showing the
ingthe inter- specific ground of hesitancy. The. Old Latin Version
val of doubt. (c< jgo) regarded the production as the work of Bar
nabas, and did not hold it to be canonical. Eusebius (270-340)
was inclined personally to believe the epistle was substantially
from St. Paul, although he thought it likely that Clement of
Rome was the Apostle's representative in producing it.2 Ori
gen (186-254) says : "If I were to express my own opinion,
I should say that the thoughts are the Apostle's, but the diction
and composition those of some one who recorded from memory
the Apostle's teaching, and, as it were, illustrated with a brief
commentary the sayings of his Master. If, then, any church
hold the epistle to be Paul's, we cannot find fault with it for
so doing ; for it is not without good reason that the men of old
time have handed it down as Paul's. But who it was that
wrote it God only knows certainly." a
Dionysius of Alexandria (d. 265), on the other hand, a
» H. E., vi. 14. 2 H. E., iii. 38. * Horn, on Heb.

Catholic Epistles. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 233
distinguished disciple of Origen, maintained that the epistle
was wholly Paul's.1 While TertuUian (c 160-240), Dionysius of
. r , t Alexandria,
representing doubtless the majority ot the Latin TertuUian,
churches of his time, following the Old Latin Version, and others.
assigned the work to Barnabas, and did not, it would seem,
allow it to be of full canonical authority. Cyprian (born c
a.d. 200, converted to Christianity about 245) followed the
example of TertuUian in this respect.2 But these sentiments
could not long prevail, even here, against the unanimous testi
mony of the early Church and the contemporaneous judgment
of Greece, Syria, and the entire Eastern world. Hence, we
find views becoming more conflicting ; then a toning down of
extreme opinions; and at last, in Jerome (329-420), who was
the best representative of the Roman Church of his time, an
acceptance of the epistle as canonical and the work of Paul,
doubts and prepossessions on the latter point being yielded to
the testimony of "the ancients." Augustine, too (354-430),
reckoned it as one of the fourteen epistles of St. Paul, and as
constituting, together with the other books of our present
Bibles, the Canon of Holy Scripture.

EPISTLE OF JAMES.
The epistles of the New Testament not ascribed to Paul
have, from a very early period, for some unexplained catholic
reason, received the general title of " Catholic Epistles." ^^|s^
It has been supposed that it was on account of their name-
encyclical character as general letters of instruction, the name
being at first applied only to a part, but afterwards including
even those addressed to private persons.8 There are others
who suppose that the name originated in the fact that the dif
ferent Apostles were engaged in writing them ; and still others,
that the title is meant to indicate the catholic doctrine taught
in the epistles.4 These epistles, in the most ancient manu
scripts extant, have usually a different position from that
1 Euseb. H. E., vi. 41. ! De Exhort. Mart., 11.
3 De Wette's Introd., p. 320. Cf. Bleek, do., ii. 131 ; Hilgenfeld, Der Kan. &c., p. 70.
* Herzog"s Encyc. Art. James.

234 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. VI.
assigned them in our English Bibles, being found immediately
after the Acts.
With respect to the work now before us, the same difficulty
Not certain- has been experienced as in the epistle just considered,
ly known _.,.-. ., . , . r^,
what James that of identifying with certainty the writer, lhere
Epistle. is no doubt that the letter is the production of James,
but what James? Here the confusion seems to be almost
hopeless. The author styles himself simply "James, servant
of God and of Jesus Christ." With a mere statement of some
of the opinions held with respect to authorship, we shall leave
that part of the subject.
Reuss says : "James is he who was at the head ofthe church
Different at Jerusalem." x Alford holds that James the Just was
opmwns author of the epistle ; that he was real brother of our
concerning rr '
authorship. Lord, — an Apostle in the same sense as Barnabas
and Paul, though not one of the original twelve ; and that this
James is not identical with James the son of Alphaeus.2
Wordsworth is of the opinion that the James here meant was
the son of Alphaeus, really a cousin, but so-called brother of
our Lord, and one of the twelve.8 An able article in Smith's
" Biblical Dictionary " maintains that the author of the epistle
was James the Less, brother of our Lord, and one and the
same with the son of Alphaeus.4 Lange in " Herzog's Ency
clopaedia," and in his Commentary on this epistle, virtually
.agrees with the latter opinion, identifying James the son of
Alphaeus with our Lord's brother, and making him the author
of this epistle. De Wette thinks James the Less, the son of
Alphaeus, to be the author of the work, but that he was not the
same as the brother of our Lord.6 Davidson supposes the epis
tle to have been written by our Lord's brother, but that he and
the son of Alphaeus are not the same persons.6 Bleek is of
opinion that the James mentioned in this epistle is the one
mentioned in Acts xii. 17 ; xv. 12 ; Gal. ii. 9-12.'
The confusion of opinions respecting the actual writer of
this work, together with the fact that it was not addressed
1 Gesch. d. Heil. Schrift. N. T., sect. 56, 146. E Introd. to N. T., pp. 323-328.
2 Greek Test., vol. iv., Prolegom. « Introd. to N. T., i. 281-285.
» Canon of O. & N. T., p. 209. 1 Introd. to N. T., ii. 131-136.
* Art. James.

Catholic Epistles.' THE NEW TESTAMENT. 235
to any particular church, served to embarrass, without doubt,
even in the early times, the claim to genuineness rjoubtfui
which it put forth. Gradually, however, it won its JS^^^
way against all obstacles, and, from being generally thePworkS
received, came to be universally acknowledged as itself-
worthy of canonical rank.
The very first step we take from the Apostolic age we
come upon distinct traces ofthe existence of the work. Tra f it
De Wette and Davidson' admit that such traces are J" e|:c,1.esias-
tical htera-
discoverable in Clement of Rome. In chapter tenth tur8,
of his Corinthian letter, he says: "Abraham, styled the
' friend,' was found faithful, inasmuch as he rendered obe
dience to the word of God." x And in chapter thirty-first :
" For what reason was our father Abraham blessed ? Was it
not because he wrought righteousness and truth through
faith?" The undoubtedly genuine epistle of Barnabas con
tains a probable reference also : " Thou shalt not be of doubt
ful mind as to whether a thing shall be or not." 2 And Ignatius
in his epistle to the Ephesians : " Do not err, my brethren." 3
The " Shepherd," by Hermas, composed a little before the
time of the gathering of the Canon of Muratori (c. 150), has
an obvious adaptation of a passage from James, as its quota
tion will show : " For if ye resist him (the devil) he will flee
from you in confusion;"4 and throughout this strange work
the coincidence of thought and language with the epistle is
remarkable.6 Irenaeus (c 130-200), it can scarcely be doubted, was well
acquainted with the book: "Abraham believed God," irena,us
he says, " and it was counted to him for righteous- doXeTac-
ness, and he was called the friend of God." 6 The *$??£?*
epistle was received into the earliest Syrian canon work'
(Peshito version), although others of the so-called " disputed
books " were omitted. On account of the region from which it
comes this testimony is much enhanced. Clement of Alexan
dria (c. 165-220) does not appear to have been acquainted with
the book, at least passes it over in silence. Eusebius, while plac-
1 Cf.' Jas. ii. 23. * Mand., xii. 5, 6. Cf. Jas. iv. 7.
2 c. xix. Cf. Jas. i. 6. * Vis., iii. 9; Mand., ii. 9, 11 ; Sim., viii. 6.
8 c xvi. Cf. Jas. i. 16. ° Adv. Hair., iv. 16 (2.)

236 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. VI.
ing it among the books " disputed," yet declares that it was
publicly used in most of the churches.1 Origen termed it
" the divine epistle of the Apostle James," whom, moreover,
he generally designated as the "Apostle," although sometimes,
as " the brother of our Lord." 2 After the latter part of the
fourth century, doubts which had been before entertained to a
limited extent, especially in the Greek Church, where it was
least likely to be well known, quietly passed away, and it took
its place everywhere as a coequal part of the New Testament
collection. On the whole, there is abundant external evidence in favor
Evidence on of the book, to place it in a position where its doctri-
the whole , , , , , , , ,
satisfactory, nal contents shall be able to demonstrate to every
reasonable mind their vast superiority over any non-canonical
productions of the post- Apostolic age.8 There are no signs of
forgery about it, but the very reverse. The impostor would
not have left the whole world in uncertainty respecting the
question who it is that is meant to be considered the writer.
Considering the gradual manner in which the Canon of the
New Testament was formed, the rules that governed the pro
cess, there is no just reason for denying that this epistle should
form a constituent part of it.

FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
Simon, whose Apostolic name was Peter, was a resident
of Galilee at the time of his becoming a disciple of Jesus
(John i. 45 ; xii. 21). His brother Andrew also belonged to
the number of the twelve. There is every reason to suppose
that, during his distinguished Apostolic career, at least in the
early part of it, this Apostle enjoyed the companionship and
helpfulness of a wife (Matt. viii. 14 ; Luke iv. 38 ; 1 Cor.
ix. 5) ; and so, practically, condemned beforehand, those who,
notwithstanding the assumption of special connection with
him, as patron and exemplar, enjoin clerical celibacy.
1 H. E., ii. 23. « De Wette, Introd. to N. T., p. 333
2 Cf. Com. on Rom. iv. 8, with Jas. vi. 4.

Catholic Epistles. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 237
With respect to the Apostle's later life, it cannot be proved
that he was ever at Rome at all. It is probable, Peter's
however, that he was, and there suffered martyrdom, at Rome.
But that he was ever bishop of the Roman church, or founded
that church, no Protestant scholar believes. Paul's epistles
from Rome are sufficient evidence that Peter was not there
with him, and had not been there before him. Alford says:
" that St. Peter was, in any sense like that usually given to
the word, bishop of Rome, is, we believe, an idea abhorrent
from Scripture, and from the facts of primitive Apostolic his-
tory."1 The "elect" to whom the first epistle is addressed may
refer to Gentiles or Jews, but the question of the exact To whom
circle of readers for whom it was intended must remain addressed.
unsettled. The date of the document is decided by most commentators
on the supposition that Peter had previously read the
epistles of Paul, at least, those to the Ephesians and
Colossians. Hug and De Wette date it from a.d. 65-67 ;
Thiersch, 63-64 ; Bleek assents to a later date. For hints as
to time, the epistle itself may be consulted (i. 8, 14; iii. 16 ; iv.
12, 14, 17; vi. 1-5).
With respect to historic as well as internal proofs of genu
ineness, the work appears to lack nothing. Within Historic
itself, in all historic allusions, it nicely fits into the gen- proofs.
eral history of the period to which it is claimed to belong.
Schleiermacher is said to have found a proof of honesty in
chapter i. 8 (cf. v. i), since a writer of a later period would
have put forward an apology for a Pauline tendency in a dif
ferent manner.2 The language in 1 Peter, iv. 17, shows that
it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. And the
writer's style of expression accords with that of the Apostle
Peter as recorded in the second and third chapters of the
Acts. But the proofs from external history are alone overwhelm
ingly convincing. We are not able to find a single ancient
1 Com. on Luke, Prolegom. Cf. Davidson, Introd. to N. T., i. 410; Bleek's do., ii. 156.
1 Bleek, Introd. to N. T., ii. 170.

238 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. chap. VI.
writer who himself doubts, or who reports any doubts, on
No doubts the part of others, respecting its genuineness. Mod-
menesfever em hypercritical opponents, in order to find ground
ea5ytimes'.n for rejecting the book, are obliged to resort to such
reasoning as to declare that, inasmuch as the epistle was prob
ably written in Greek, it could not have been written by Peter,
who possesses no claims to such elegant culture.1
The second epistle of Peter, so called, which for our present
The second purpose may be regarded as an early historical docu*
nessestoit ment, recognizes the existence of the first (2 Pet.
ail the early iii. i). Polycarp, a contemporary, during some part
Uterature. of his life, to whom the work therefore came with its
first original freshness, uses it " as freely and fully as any
modern preacher might do," not once, but many times, quot
ing particularly that beautiful passage : " In whom, though
now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeak
able and full of glory."2 The epistle to Diognetus (c. 117)
contains the following parallel passage : " The flesh hates the
soul and wars against it." 8 And Papias, Polycarp's friend,
as we learn from Eusebius, drew from this source to illustrate
his own writings : " The same author [Papias] made use of
testimonies from the first epistle of John, and likewise from
that of Peter." 4 So, too, Melito of Sardis, in an apology
written about a.d. 176, uses the following familiar language:
" When thou, Caesar [Marcus Antoninus], shall learn these
things thyself, and thy children also with thee, thou wilt
bequeath them to an eternal inheritance which fadeth not
away." 6 While Irenaeus, the disciple of Polycarp, cites the
epistle by name : "Peter says in his epistle, ' Whom not seeing
ye love,'" &c, quoting the passage just noticed as having been
cited by Polycarp.6
Clement of Alexandria shows an equal respect for the docu-
ciementof ment : "And Peter in the epistle," he says, "declares
He^S)Sdtne satne-"T lt is recognized by Hermas, author of
others. the " Shepherd" (c 150) ; has a place in the Peshito
1 Davidson, Introd. to N. T., L 426.
2 Ad. Phil., i. Cf. ii., v., with 1 Pet. i. 8, 21 ; ii. 11, 12, 24 ; iv. 7.
» c., vi. Cf. 1 Pet. ii. 11. * H. E., iii. 39.
0 1 Pet. i. 4. Cf. Westcott, Hist. N. T. Can., 194 (n.).
• Adv. Hair., iv. 9 (2). 7 Paid., i. 6. Cf. 1 Pet. ii. i-<;.

Catholic Epistles. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 239
version ; is quoted- by TertuUian with the preface, — " Peter
says to the people of Pontus ;"1 is reckoned among books
about which there had never been any dispute or uncertainty
by Eusebius ; and was treated as Apostolic by Origen and
Cyprian. SECOND OF PETER.
The second epistle of Peter is one of the books of the New
Testament which Eusebius reckoned among the " An- A "dis-
puted"
tilegomena," " disputed." " Among the controverted took.
books," he wrote, " which are nevertheless well known and
recognized by most, we class the epistle circulated under the
name of James, and that of Jude, as well as the II. of Peter
and the so-called II. and III. of John, whether they really
belong to the Evangelist or to another of the same name." 2
He goes on immediately after to speak of another class of
books which he calls " spurious ; " from which, therefore, he
evidently distinguishes these.
The second of Peter is not found in the Peschito version,
nor in the Canon of Muratori; although of the latter Not found
,'.,,,, . , r. f. in the Pes-
lt is to be said that it does not contain the first of wto or
Peter, and certain other New Testament books other- Canon.
wise well supported. Allusions to the work now before us
in the early age are considerably less frequent than to most of
the sacred writings associated with it, indeed, may be said to
be quite rare ; and it is generally acknowledged, moreover,
that it differs to some extent in style from its predecessor.
That the epistle was not widely diffused during the first hun
dred years after it was written is evident. That it was not
always recognized as the production of the Apostle Peter in
regions where it was known is equally evident. But it remains
for us to discover whether there is valid ground for the belief
that it was known at all at a period so early as to fix its date
within the Apostolic age, which of itself would be primd facie
evidence that Peter was its author ; and whether in addition
there is not sufficient positive evidence of Petrine authorship
to justify us, notwithstanding certain unfavorable appearances,
in a confident acceptance of the fact.
1 Scorpiac, xii. 2 H. E., iii. 24, 25.

240 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. VI.
First, then, if a person may be allowed to testify in his own
Testifies on behalf, the writer assures us both incidentally and
behalf? directly that he is Peter, the Apostle, supporting that
character throughout the epistle even more conspicuously than
in the former one. And with respect to style, this work has
more points of agreement, it is claimed, than of disagreement
with the first. So that when the difference of subject is con
sidered, and a possible interval of .many years between the
writings, there is no insuperable obstacle in that direction.
That the circumstance of the citation of Paul's epistles under
the apparent title of " Scripture " by this writer (2 Pet. iii.
16) is proof of an origin subsequent to the Apostolic age, is a
matter of pure conjecture. The resemblance of the epistle to
that of Jude, and the evident fact that the one work was known
to the writer of the other, has at least as much weight to prove
the genuineness of II. Peter as to disprove it, and many think
much greater. The following passages in II. Peter are sup
posed to be alluded to by Jude : 2 Pet. i. 2; ii. 1,4, 6, 10,
11, i5> x7> l8-
If the writer was not the Apostle Peter, moreover, it must
im osture be admitted that he is one of the most brazen-faced
incredible. 0f impostors. He claims not only this, but the former
epistle (iii. 1). While he himself was devising a fable, he
could write : " We have not followed cunningly devised
fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming
of our Lord Jesus Christ." He represents himself as Peter
the aged, near his end (i. 14, 15) ; as having been one of those
who was with Jesus on the " holy mount." Elsewhere, he
speaks of " false teachers, who should privily bring in damnable
heresies and deny the Lord that bought them." What lan
guage for an impostor ! He was an impostor, too, who better
understood and could more perfectly set forth the peculiar
spiritual ideas of Christianity than any un-Apostolic man
known to history.
But turning to contemporaneous records, we have in
Clement of Rome, himself a disciple of Peter, a passage
which, it is generally claimed, receives its coloring from one
found in this very epistle. He writes : " On account of hos-

Catholic Epistles. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 24 1
pitality and godliness, Lot was delivered from Sodom, when all
the neighboring country was condemned with fire and Evidence
brimstone. The Lord made it manifest that he writers.
doth not forsake those who trust in him ; but those who turn
to other ways, he appoints to punishment and suffering." ]
No others of the Apostolic Fathers have any indisputable allu
sions to II. Peter, although Polycarp's epistle is sometimes
adduced in evidence. " For neither I," he says, " nor any other
such one can come up to the wisdom of the blessed and glo
rious Paul." 2 Bleek, as well as Guericke, — although the former
doubts Petrine authorship, — thinks that Justin Martyr (c. 90-
148) takes a passage from this work. In his dialogue with
Trypho, he says : " We have perceived, moreover, that the
expression, » The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,' is
connected with this subject." 8 Westcott, however, does not
discover any trace of the Catholic Epistles in this writer.4
It has been asserted by not a few that Irenaeus and Hermas
show acquaintance with the work, but the most care- poss;bietes-
ful critics hesitate to claim it.6 Irenaeus makes use of i™°^°fnd
the same expression as Justin Martyr, just noticed.6 Hermas-
Theophilus (wrote 168-180) employs a peculiar figure of this
book, and is therefore cited in its support.7 Hippolytus
(c. 220) has this passage : " And they have confessed [their
errors] for a short period, but after a little wallow once again
in the same mire."8
Very interesting and apparently valid, though late, testi
mony is available, too, from the very region into which Evidence
the work now before us was first sent ; and where, for d°c™^mpp!l'
so long a period, it rested in comparative obscurity. Portant-
About a.d. 250, Firmilian was bishop of Cesaraea, in Cappa
docia. A letter of his extant, in Latin, to be found among
the letters of Cyprian, has this sentence : " Even herein defam
ing Peter and Paul, the blessed Apostles, as if the very men
delivered this who, in their epistles, execrated heretics and
1 Ad Cor., xi. Cf. 2 Pet. ii. 6, 9. 6 Adv. Hair., v. 23 (2).
2 c. iii. Cf. 2 Pet. iii. 15. 7 Ad Autol., ii. 13. Cf. 2 Pet. i. xg.
» c. lxxxi. Cf. 2 Pet. iii. 8. 8 Ref. of AU Her., ix. 2. Cf. 2 Pet. ii. 22.
* Hist, of N. T. Can., p. 148. Cf. Westcott, Hist. N. T. Can., p. 333.
f Hermas, Vis., i. t. 3- Cf. 2 Pet. iii. 5. 16

242 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. VI.
warned us to avoid them." He is thought to allude particu
larly to 2 Pet. ii.1 Westcott thinks this allusion the more
worthy of consideration, from the fact that Melito, of Sardis,
in an Apology written about a.d. 176, clearly refers to the
substance of 2 Pet. iii. 10, 12. The same Melito — in an Ora
tion preserved in Syriac — has also a passage which suggests
2 Pet. iii. 5-7, as its probable source. He writes : " So also it
will be at the last time. There shall be a flood of fire, and
the earth shall be burned up together with their idols . . . and
the just shall be delivered from the fury, like their fellows in
the ark from the waters of the deluge." 2
Origen is the first who quotes the epistle as Peter's, and
Origen the t'lls 'le does while acknowledging that there were
?he*e0i5tlete th°se who disputed Petrine authorship.8 In one of
as Peter's, j-jjg homilies he introduces a citation from the epistle
with the words, " Petrus dixit." After the time of Origen,
the work becoming more fully known, all opposition gradually
subsided, and by the early part of the' fourth century it had
silently conquered, through evidence produced from some
quarter and its own inherent worth, without the aid of public
conference or ecclesiastical decree, the right to a full acknowl
edgment on the part of the Church. Reasons for its being
kept so long on probation began now, also, to be sought for,
Jerome (329-420) suggesting that possibly it was its difference
of style caused by Peter's having employed different inter
preters. If the references to this work in early writers are not as
References fuu and explicit as could be desired, it is to be con-
reasonablyk sidered whether they do not meet any reasonable de-
suffiaent. mand. If they are not demonstrative, have they not
at least an impression of strong probability? Have we, more
over, a right to presuppose so numerous a multiplication and
diffusion of this or any other particular book of the New
Testament in very early times, that much reliance should be
placed on the fact of the simple absence of evidence of its
existence for a considerable period, after its production, in most
parts of the ecclesiastical world?
1 Firm. Ep. (Ep. of Cyprian), lxxiv. 6. •* Horn, in Levit., iv. 4.
2 Westcott, Hist. Can. of N. T., p. 194, u.

Catholic Epistles. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 243
From the admitted circumstance, just as obviously true
now as then, that the traces of this work are not so Grounds of
abundant in the early Christian literature as of other ^f^p",^
associated works, we are forewarned of, and prepared chStians
for, the testimony of Origen and Eusebius, when it reasonable. .
comes, to the effect that it was disputed by some. It shows
a healthy, if not always critical, spirit of . investigation and
deliberation in the early Church, which should have an oppo
site effect to that of distrusting their ultimate judgment. And
inasmuch as after the question of genuineness was fairly
started, along with the more general circulation of the epis
tle, it won its way, finally, in spite of its high claim, by
tacit and universal admission, into the increasingly exclusive
Canon of the New Testament, it should seem that there is no
good reason now — saying nothing of its contents — for its ex
clusion. Such a fact might be regarded, indeed, as strong
proof that the work actually had a well-attested origin in the
Apostolic times, notwithstanding the mere silence of history
on the subject up to the time of Origen, even if such silence
were, for the moment, to be admitted : and especially if it
were fully admitted.

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
There can be no reasonable doubt that the work which
purports to be the first epistle of John, was written Author of
by the same hand which wrote the fourth Gospel. Gospel, and
This position, critics of all schools have generally ad- Fh-stEpistie
mitted. The external defences of the two writings, °ame° °
then, standing together, ought to be of the most satisfactory
character, since they appear to be quite adequate to their pur
pose when standing apart.
Bleek says that the similarity between the first epistle of
John and the fourth Gospel is so striking and so Opinion of
thorough in character, in thought, and in language, DeWette.
in distinct representations and turns of expression, as to be
utterly incomprehensible, save on the supposition of identity

244 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. VI.
of authorship.1 And De Wette expresses himself to the same
intent : that there is no doubt that the two proceed from the
same author ; that they bear the distinctest stamp of relation
ship in style of writing and development of thought. " Both'
throw the same spell of genial human feeling over the
reader." 2
Although the author does not definitely announce himself
Author not here, any more than in the Gospel, there is a decided
definitely . .,,,.,
announced, undercurrent of fact and sentiment in both which
enables us to identify him (i. 1-4 ; iv. 14) ; and this fact,
taken in connection with the nearly unanimous verdict of
antiquity, ought to leave no residuum of doubt whatever.
Such an interweaving of subtile allusions, on the one hand,
would be something as much beyond the bungling craft of a
forger, as the heavenly doctrine of the work, on the other,
would be above the reach of his earth-born spirit.
External testimony begins with the contemporaneous writ-
Extemai ings of Polycarp, and is direct, connected, uninter-
testimony .
from Poly- rupted, and conclusive. Polycarp, for example, says,
Origen. in the words of John : " For every one that confesseth
not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is antichrist." 8
Papias, according to the definite testimony of Eusebius, quoted
from the " former epistle of John." 4 The letter to Diognetus
shows, it would seem, unmistakably the influence ofthe teach
ing ofthe Apostle, both in this epistle and in the Gospel. We
find such expressions, for instance, as, " Christians dwell in
the world, though they are not of the world." One, it is
affirmed, gives outlet to his love of God by " loving his neigh
bor," whereby he becomes an " imitator of God." At the end
of the letter we read : " The Word, who was from the begin
ning, . . . manifested the mysteries of the Father." 6
The Canon of Muratori (c 160) is very minute and circum-
Testimony stantial in its testimony, which is as follows : " What
of Murato- . .
rian Canon, wonder is lt, then, that John so constantly brings for-
and others, ward Gospel phrases even in his epistles, saying, in
his own person, ' what we have seen with our eyes, and heard
» Introd. to N. T., ii. 186. » H. E., iii. 39.
2 Introd. to N. T., p. 334. « Cf. 1 John, i. 1 ; iv. 11, 19.

Catholic Epistles. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 245
with our ears, and our hands have handled,' these things have
we written ? " x Irenaeus refers to it a quotation which he
makes from the second epistle, thus showing an acquaintance
with both : " Take heed to them that ye lose not what ye have
wrought."2 And Clement of Alexandria was impressed, as
so many have since been, with the striking passage, " God is
love."8 Eusebius, in his review ofthe history of the books of
the Bible (c 270-340), does not speak of having discovered
any opposition to the reception of this one as a work of John.
While TertuUian (c. 160-240), in his treatise against Marcion,
wrote : " According, indeed, to our view, he is Antichrist ; as
it was taught us . . . by the Apostle John, who says, that
' already many false prophets are gone out into the world.' " 4
And Origen (186-254) remarks of the beloved disciple: " He
left, also, an epistle consisting of very few lines ; it may be
also a second and third is from him." 6

SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF JOHN.

The second and third epistles of John have not the same
fulness and explicitness of external evidence as the Not the
- ,, ,.. . .11, t s • same fulness
first, although it is not inconsiderable, and, taking into of evidence
account their brevity, and the fact that they were epistle.
apparently designed at first only for a limited circle of readers,
it is perhaps all that should be expected.
They are placed by Eusebius — who, in this respect, follows
the example of Origen, whose testimony he gives, Reckone(j
and possibly with special deference to the judgment of womena"
that distinguished Father just cited by us, in connec- byEusebi"s-
tion with the fact that they are not found in the Peschito ver
sion, — among the books not " universally received," " antile-
gomena." " Now of the writings of John," he says, " in
addition to the Gospel, the former of his epistles, also, has
been acknowledged as undoubtedly genuine both by the writers
1 Cf 1 John, i. 1. * Adv. Mar., v. 16. Cf. r John iv. 1-3.
2 Adv. Hair., iii. 16 (8). « Euseb. H. E., vi. 25.
8 Strom., iv. 18. Cf. 1 John, iv. 8, 16.

246 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. IV.
of our own time and by those of antiquity ; but the two remain
ing epistles are disputed." x
As far as doubts of the genuineness of these books have
Modem bee'1 entertained in modern times, however, it has
doubts, been mainly on internal grounds, the mere absence of
the usual amount of historical support, all circumstances
considered, not being deemed sufficient ground of itself for
excluding them from the Canon, or denying their Johannine
authorship. The principal stumbling-block is that the author
styles himself the "Elder" {Ttyea^vregoi) . There are also cer
tain supposed variations from the ordinary style of the Apostle
John. Ebrard, in addition to these reasons, thinks that he
discovers, in III. John ninth verse, traces of a spirit of oppo
sition to the authority of the writer, which would be improb
able if he were the evangelist and an Apostle.2
It is said, on the other hand, first, with respect to alleged
johannine variations of style, — most intangible and unsatisfac-
authorship . , , , , . . ,
defended, toiy evidence at best, — that these variations can be
more easily accounted for on the supposition of Johannine
authorship, than other more numerous resemblances to the
Apostle's style, on the supposition of any other authorship, as,
for instance, that of Presbyter John mentioned by Papias.
While, too, the second and third epistles must be referred to
the same hand, as is generally admitted, the substance of eight
of the thirteen verses of the second, it is claimed, being found
in the first epistle. That the Apostle John, moreover, should
here call himself the "Elder" is not out of harmony with the
custom of the Apostles, who — Paul alone being for a special
reason an exception — seem carefully to abstain from giving
to themselves the title " Apostle," preferring to use the term,
" servant of Jesus Christ," and, in one instance at least, the
very one here employed, "Elder" (1 Pet. v. 1). This being
true with respect to the Apostles, it is thought, on the other
hand, that it would have been most unnatural, and an egotisti
cal assumption of dignity, for Presbyter John to speak of him
self by his office (presbyter), without giving his name, when,
as was doubtless the case, he shared that office with others,
1 H. E., iii. 25. 2 Herzog's Encyc, ad. loe.

Catholic Epistles. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 247
not only in general, but in the same individual church. Be
sides, if the Apostle John were not really the author, it is
significantly asked, how the wide tradition that he was so
originated, — a tradition which appears along with_the very
first evidence of the existence of the epistles. The person or
persons to whom the letters were first written must have been
acquainted with the writer, and from them alone could such a
clear tradition be reasonably supposed to take its origin.
The earliest notices of these brief letters which we find in
history is in the Canon of Muratori (c. 160), which, Eariiest
however, in the absence of previous individual wit- Murateirian8
nesses, may properly be regarded as the collected judg- Canon-
ment of many such. " The two epistles of John," it says,
" who has been mentioned above, are received in the Catholic
[Church] ; " or, perhaps, it should be rendered, according to
Bunsen and Westcott, " are received among the Catholic
Epistles." The author of this Canon had previously quoted
the first epistle of John ; and it is the opinion of Westcott,
Tregelles, and others, including, it would seem, Hilgenfeld
and Credner, that he refers here to the second and third epistles.1
Credner, however, holds that, while the author of this Canon
does not himself receive the two minor epistles as the work of
John, the Apostle, he testifies that the Church receives them
as such," because they are in the same position as the 'Wis
dom of Solomon,' written by friends of Solomon in honor of
himself." 2 Bunsen, on the other hand, suggests that this lan
guage refers to the epistle to the Hebrews, probably mentioned
in that portion of the fragment which is wanting, which, like
the "Wisdom of Solomon," written by the friends of Solomon
in his honor, was written by the friends of Paul in honor of
that Apostle.
As an alternative ofthe above theory ofthe teaching of this
ancient document, it is held that it may mean toThetwo
include all the three epistles under the designation of Xy'^eated
the two, the second and third being treated as one, as 3S0ne-
was sometimes the case.8 A very significant support of this
1 Hist. Can. N. T., p. 191 ; Tregelles, Lett, on Hist. Ev. p. 61. Cf. Hilgenfeld, Der
Kan., p. 42.
2 Gesch. d. N. T. Kan., sect. 79. 3 Bib. in Ch., pp. 116, 122.

248 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. vi.
view is found in the Old Latin (ante-Hieronymian) Version,
like that of Muratori, made about a.d. 160-170. It contained
both second and third John, as is proved by extant fragments,
a scrap of this version, including a part of the latter epistle,
being found in Codex Bezae. The fact, already noticed, that
Irenaeus cites a verse from the second epistle of John which
he ascribes to the first, serves to confirm the position of the
indefiniteness of the earlier references.1 This indirect testi
mony of Irenaeus, too, on account of his direct connection with
the Apostle, through his teacher Polycarp, is of great value.
That ordinarily our witnesses have stood nearer to the Apos
tolic age should not blind us to the fact that he is but one
remove from it, and so perfectly competent to testify on the
point before us.
Dionysius of Alexandria, bishop there about a.d. 248, is
Dionysiusof still another example of combining these epistles as
Alexandria. one work, calling them the epistle of John, when he
was alluding to two and perhaps the three.2 Westcott has
shown that even in the records of councils such a use of lan
guage was not uncommon.8 Jerome even made the mistake
of quoting the third epistle as the second, unless he understood
that the three were to be counted as two.4
Clement of Alexandria (c. 165-220) knew of more than
clement of one epistle of John, it is evident, since he quotes from
and Origen. the first as the larger. And, if the work entitled
"Adumbrations," ascribed to him, be really his, a view sup
ported by Cassiodorus, he definitely acknowledged the second
also. Cassiodorus says : " Clement of Alexandria, a presby
ter, who is also called ' Stromateus,' has made some comments
on the canonical epistles ; that is to say, on the first epistle of
Peter, the first and second of John, and the epistle of St. James
[? Jude], in pure and elegant language."6 Origen, besides
the mention already noted, where he says that all do not
admit the second and third epistles of John to be genuine,
' Adv. Hser., i. 16 (3). Cf. id., iii. 16 (8).
2 Euseb. H. E., vii. 25.
8 Hist. N. T. Canon, p. 319, n.
4 Id., pp. 402, 306, n. Cf. Hilgenfeld, Der Kan., p. 52, n.
» Bunsen's Analect. Ant. Nic, pp. 323 f. by Westcott, Hist. N. T. Can., p. 310.

Catholic Epistles. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 249
writes elsewhere : " And John gives forth the trumpet sound
in his epistles and Apocalypse," thus conveying a tacit ac
knowledgment, on his own part, of the genuineness of more
than one epistle. And although he, in still another place,
speaks of the " epistle of John" as though there were but one
in circulation, it is probably more because he regarded them
as of comparatively little value, than for any other reason,
since he says of them, that " both together they do not contain
a hundred lines." It is possible, however, that this may be
another instance of the custom of associating the epistles
together when speaking of them in the way of common refer
ence.1 Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, near the beginning of the
fourth century, quotes a passage from the second ^^^
epistle of the " blessed John." 2 And the testimony of ^fehx°apn^
Jerome (329-420), although he was fully aware ofthe and Jerome-
uncertain position which had been assigned to these letters by
Origen and Eusebius, is distinctly in favor of the genuineness
of both. While Augustine (354-430) admits the three letters
on equal terms into his list of canonical Scriptures, of which he
said : " In all these books, those who fear God and cherish
humble piety seek the will of God."

EPISTLE OF JUDE.
We meet in the epistle of Jude with the same difficulty
which was found in that of James, that of identifying writerof
beyond dispute, as its author, just the person of the ^ff6"0'
name who is meant. And in the attempted solution id™tified.
of the difficulty, moreover, the two epistles stand closely
together; since, generally speaking, those critics who con
sider the James of the former epistle to be an Apostle and the
son of Alphaeus think this Jude to be the Apostle of that name
and also the son of Alphaeus (John xiv. 22). While those who
suppose the James of the epistle to be a real brother of our
1 Horn, in Josh., vii. 1, and Com. in Matt. xv. 31.
2 Westcott, Hist. N. T. Can., p. 3S1.

250 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. VI.
Lord, and not properly an Apostle, regard this Jude as another
brother of our Lord and not an Apostle (Matt. xiii. 55 ; Luke
vi. 16 ; Acts i, 13 ; Jude 17.) J
A passage in the "Adumbrations" — ascribed to Clement
Direct tes- of Alexandria — has a direct bearing upon this ques-
'•A™uymbra- tion- He observes : "Jude, who wrote the Catholic
tions." Epistle, brother of the sons of Joseph, an extremely
religious man, although he was aware of his relationship to
the Lord, did not call himself his brother. . . . We may easily
believe that it was through humility, and a true sense of the
altered relations between them and him who had been de
clared to be the Son of God with power by the resurrection
from the dead, that both St. Jude and St. James declined to
call themselves brethren of Jesus." 2
The writer of the epistle before us styles himself simply
internal " Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ and brother of
evidence. James." Unlike what might be expected of an im
postor he makes no claim to being an Apostle. He is, how
ever, obviously intimately connected with the circle of Apostles.
There are nowhere any evidences of insincerity discoverable
in the work itself, or the slightest grounds to justify a suppo
sition of deception. It is wholly Christian in sentiment,
strikingly original in language, having eighteen characteristic
expressions in its twenty-five verses ; and was apparently
written before the destruction of Jerusalem, making no allu
sion to that overshadowing event. Hence the work is almost
universally accepted as genuine, even by such scholars as reject
other books of the New Testament, historically better sup
ported. De Wette, for instance, says that no important objec
tion to the genuineness of this epistle can be made good.8
And Davidson, " that there is nothing against the authenticity
[genuineness] of the work itself." 4
It is thought by some that there is a trace of the epistle of
First traces Juc'e to De found in Polycarp : " Let us return," he
of thework. sayS; « t0 the word handed down to us from the begin-
1 Bleek, Introd. to N. T., ii. 151 ; De Wette, do., p. 364. Alford, Prolegom. Greek Test.
2 Bunsen, Analect. Ant. Nic, i. 323 f. by Westcott, Hist. N. T. Can., p. 310.
3 Introd. to N. T., p. 366. ? Introd to N. T., i. 444.

Catholic Epistles. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 25 1
ning." l But the first positively certain recognition of it in
history is in the Canon of Muratori, as already noticed :
" The epistle of Jude, however, is received in the Catholic
Church" [? among the Catholic Epistles]. From the connec
tion it is inferred that the work was treated with suspicion by
some, but notwithstanding was recognized generally by the
Church. That it is not found to be earlier alluded to in the
limited extant literature of the post-Apostolic age should occa
sion no surprise. If, indeed, we were to find no collateral traces
of it till even a later period, its genuineness might still remain
unimpeached. That we ordinarily discover an abundance of
such testimony, putting beyond the possibility of successful
dispute the proofs for the genuineness of the New Testament
books so attested, should not therefore necessarily and equally
lead to doubts and suspicions concerning those which are not
similarly supported.
Clement of Alexandria, who, as we have seen in the "Adum
brations," if he is the author of that work, has a special clement of
recognition of this writing of Jude, seems to be also Alexandna-
the first Church Father who makes clear and undeniable allu
sion to it.2 According to Eusebius, he formally included it
among the canonical books of Scripture on which he wrote
comments in his "Outlines."8 The Peschito version did not
contain the work. Origen, however, was well acquainted with
it ; cited it a number of times with great respect, referring it
to our " Lord's brother," and throughout treats it as undoubt
edly genuine, although well aware of the fact that it had been
received by some with hesitation.4 And TertuUian, somewhat
earlier (c. 160-240), quoted from it as the work of Jude, whom
he also regarded as an Apostle : " Enoch," he says, "possesses
a testimony in Jude, the Apostle." 6 A contemporaneous work,
written against the Novatian heresy, and usually found in con
nection with the writings of Cyprian, confirms this testimony
of TertuUian, and shows that it was not exceptional, by its
citation of Jude 14, 15, as Scripture.6
1 c. vii. Cf. Jude, 3. * In Matt. xiii. 30.
2 Strom., iii. 2. Cf. Jude 5, 6. n. B De Hab. Muliebri., iii.
» H. E., vi. 14. D Adv. Novat. Hxr., sect. xvi.

252 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. VI.
Somewhat later (c. 260-272), a presbyter of Antioch, Mal-
Maichion chion, in a letter to the bishops of Alexandria and
and Euse- Romei evidently makes an extract from Jude's epistle
(verses 3, 4), styling a certain heretical character of the
period one who " denied his God and Lord and kept not the
faith which he had formerly held." x Eusebius's testimony,
which we find in connection with his historical summary of
the books of Scripture, will be recalled : " Among the contro
verted books which are nevertheless well known and recog
nized by most, we class the epistle circulated under the name
of James and that of Jude," &c. Indeed, after the fiery
ordeal of the Diocletian persecution (a.d. 303), and the conse
quent schism of Donatus (a.d. 329), this book, with the other
disputed Catholic Epistles, no longer held a doubtful place, but
received everywhere, with little variation, full canonical rank,
which also it subsequently retained, for the most part, undis
turbed. Jerome (329-420) assigns as a reason why it was only
Jerome ex- gradually acknowledged by the Church as Scripture,
iatTrecog- and 'ladi at nrsti been disputed {a plerisque), that
nmon. it appeals to the apocryphal book of Enoch."2 But
there were doubtless several other reasons quite as potent, even
if this has any basis in truth. The epistle, for example, is a
very brief one. Then its contents are not of such command
ing importance as those of most of the other books, and so
naturally it was very little quoted and came into circulation
but slowly. Besides, there are no internal data for determin
ing the place of writing, and no definite circle of readers ad
dressed. These facts, together with that of its authorship
being unsettled, made it a moral certainty, considering the
manner in which the Canon was established, that it should
come into a full recognition, like the other " antilegomena,"
among the latest of the New Testament books. Its history is
at least a sign of the normal and healthy action of the early
Church in matters of this nature. We do not discover that the
question of the writing being a forgery was ever started in
post-Apostolic times; or that its genuineness as a production
1 Euseb. H. E., vii. 30. 2 De Virr. 111., iv.

Catholic Epistles. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 253
of the Apostolic age, with a certain Jude for its author, was
ever really and positively opposed. The matter of recognition
when the work appeared was simply left an open question
until more light could be obtained ; and the honor ultimately
given it by Clement of Alexandria, TertuUian, and Origen is
satisfactory evidence that the light finally brought to bear
upon it was considered fully adequate to the end desired.

THE APOCALYPSE.
Of all the books of the New Testament the Apocalypse is
one of the best supported by external evidence. And Historically
although some few in ancient times, among whom b"J,°sfuthe
the most prominent was Dionysius of Alexandria \^^°lA
(c 248), whose objections arose from the considera- writin«s-
tion of internal difficulties and under the pressure of dogmatic
controversy ; and more in modern times, as Ewald, De Wette,
Bleek, Liicke, and others, likewise on internal grounds,
pronounce against the authorship of the Apostle fohn, they
are compelled in doing so, to go counter to the whole current
of the most ancient testimony, as they are in this respect ex
ceptions also to the majority of modern Biblical scholars.
These writers, however, do not necessarily hold the Apoca
lypse itself to be spurious and without authority, in main
taining for it an unapostolic origin. The Alexandrine
Dionysius was very careful to guard that point. And Bleek
admits that if the work really purports to come from the
hand of John the Evangelist, as most authorities contend,
then it must be so, since he is not willing to accept the alterna
tive of a forgery.
It is indisputable that the book claims to be the production
of a certain John, who received it as a revelation on the isle of
Patmos (i. 1,4,9; xxii- 8). Now, it is maintained, appar
ently with good reason, that this writer, precluding at present
the idea of imposture, would not have taken the name of a
well-known Apostle and announced himself as "John" after
the formal manner of the ancient prophets ; would not have

254 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. VI,
assumed so exclusive and high an authority over the seven
important churches of Asia Minor as is here everywhere exhib
ited, if he had really occupied a position of less prominence or
been any other person than the Apostle John himself. That
he does not more definitely identify himself is readily accounted
for from the fact that throughout the book he speaks as one
already well known to the churches addressed. Would any
other John than the Evangelist proceed on such a supposition ?
But for him, it would have been an unnecessary and an
unlooked-for amplification to declare that he was the very
Apostle ; indeed, might have become the ground of suspicion,
where he was least known, that he was not really that which
he was so forward to claim. The writer manifests on every
page, moreover, a conscious dignity blended with a beautiful
modesty, traits which are eminently characteristic ofthe author
ofthe fourth Gospel. He is one, too, who has borne testimony
as an eye-witness of the Word of God, and now claims the
sanction and support of a divine commission for the communi
cation of his solemn and weighty message. And Davidson
has shown that there is nothing in the eschatology, Christology,
pneumatology, or the doctrine of Antichrist, as found in this
book, inconsistent with the individuality of the Apostle John
as reflected in the New Testament and in tradition.1
With respect to differences of style between the Apocalypse
Differences and the Gospel and epistles, doubtless such differences
of style as .
compared do exist, but only in connection with marked resem-
with other ,.. , . ,«
accepted blances. And, even admitting such differences to the
works of the ,. ,.. ,.,
Evangelist, full extent claimed, it is worth our while to consider
whether they have not a sufficient explanation even on the
supposition of a common authorship in the different dates of
the writings and their wide difference of theme and of form.
It has been remarked by some recent literary critic that the
later writings of Wilkie Collins would lead us to suppose them
to be from the pen of a wholly different person from him who
wrote his earliest tales.
According to Irenaeus, who was born about a quarter of a
Account of century only after the death of John, the Apocalypse
irenaus. was written by the Apostle during the reign of the
1 Introd. to N. T., i. 316. Cf. Smith's Diet. Art. Apoc.

The Apocalypse THE NEW TESTAMENT. 255
Emperor Domitian (a.d. 95-97), and with this opinion nearly
all ancient writers agree. The exact record which this Father
makes is as follows : " It [the Revelation] was seen no very long
time ago, but almost in our own generation; at the close of
Domitian's reign." J This statement, made by one removed but
a single generation from John, was undisputed until near the
end ofthe fourth century, and is still pretty generally accepted.
Bleek, however, on the contrary, declares that most modern
scholars, deeming Irenaeus wrong in his conclusions on this
point, date the Apocalypse considerably earlier, as having
been written, indeed, before the destruction of Jerusalem.
From the list of modern scholars who entertain this opinion,
he especially excepts Eichhorn, Hofmanm, Thiersch, Ebrard, and
Hengstenberg, as he might also have excepted probably the
great majority of English and American Biblical critics and
commentators.2 This, however, is to be observed, that the
earlier within the Apostolic age the date of the work is fixed,
the greater the improbability of forgery ; and also, and espe
cially, the more unlikely that such a work would get into circu
lation as the production of the Apostle John — that is, during
his own lifetime — which really belonged to some other John.
• The historical evidence for the genuineness of this produc
tion as the work of the Apostle John we shall give H;storical
first, and with some reference to chronological order ; j^annfne0
and, subsequently, note its recognition and citation by authorship.
early writers who made no mention of the question of author
ship. We will begin with Justin Martyr, who was born before
the Apostle's death, and who wrote probably somewhat
before the middle of the second century (martyred a.d. 148),
and in the midst of scenes with which John had been familiar.
His language is : "A man amongst us whose name was John,
one of the Apostles of Christ, in a revelation which was made
to him prophesied that the believers in our Christ shall live a
thousand years in Jerusalem." 8 Irenaeus, in addition to what
has been already noted, declares that the work was written by
him " who leaned on Jesus's breast at supper." 4 And else-
1 H. E., v. 8. 3 Dial., c. lxxxi.
2 Introd. to N. T., ii. pp. 225, ff. 4 Adv. Hair., iv. 20 (11).

256 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. VL
where he speaks of ancient manuscripts of the book which he
had himself seen, and, in alluding to a particular reading of a
passage which they contained, declared that such reading was
confirmed by those "who had seen St. John face to face."1
In this one work this Father refers to the Apocalypse not less
than a score of times, and nowhere gives a hint that any one
in his day doubted that it was the production ofthe Evangelist.
Even though his conclusions respecting the date of composi
tion were wrong, and his views of the special reading (con
cerning the number of the beast) fanciful and untrustworthy,
that need not disqualify him as a valid witness to the more
palpable circumstances of the early existence of the work and
its Johannine authorship.
The Canon of Muratori includes the work, recognizing it as
Canon of the writing of some lohn ; and, from the fact that this
Muratori, . & . , , , r ti , •
theOidLatin John is mentioned as the predecessor of Paul in the
Version, the ,-i-s,
Peshito, &c. Apostolic office (" ipse beatus Apostolus Paulus
sequens praedecessoris sui Johannis ordinem"), there can
be no doubt that it was referred to John the Apostle.2
And the Old Latin Version, as usual, agrees with its contem
porary in this particular. The Peshito ¦ version, however,
originating perhaps a decade or so earlier (c 150), does not
contain the book at all. The omission is attributable to the
cause that this version was in process at so early a period that
the Apocalypse — one of the latest written of the New Testa
ment documents, if we accept the date of Irenaeus, and one
which, from the nature of its contents, would naturally be but
little read in the public services of the Church — had not yet
reached Edessa when the translation was effected. This is
certainly as probable a reason as that its chiliastic teachings
were the ground of its exclusion.8
Melito, who presided over the church at Sardis a little
Melito, after the middle of the second century, — one of those
bishop of . , . ,, J
Sardis. churches, specially addressed in the opening of this
book, — is said by Eusebius to have written a treatise on the
' Id., v. 30 (1).
2 See icxt of Canon in Hilgenfeld, Der Can. &c. ; or in Westcott's Hist. N. T. Can.
App. ' Vs. Hilgenfeld, Der Kan. &c, p. 45.

The Apocalypse. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 257
Apocalypse ; and, as no mention is made of his expressing any
doubts concerning Johannine authorship, it is presumed that
he supported it.1 He must at least have accepted the genuine
ness of the writing. Davidson regards this fact concerning
Melito as a most important one, and holds that it goes far, by
itself, to prove the Apostolicity of the work.2 Passing over to
Egypt, we find Clement of Alexandria both making a free use
of the work, and uniformly ascribing it to John the Apostle.8
Origen, likewise, in his commentary on the Gospel of John,
says of him : " He also wrote the Revelation." 4 And Tertul-
lian in North Africa, writing against Marcion, quotes what is
said by the " Apostle John in the Apocalypse." 6
All of these successive writers, beginning near the Apos
tolic age, make use of the Apocalypse as of a work au the fore--
written by the same hand that wrote the fourth Gos- f™°fs™'"
pel, or at least as the undoubted production of the {^0°^e
Apostle John. There are many more extending of St- Jolm-
through the same period who make allusions to the work, or
cite it in such a way as to imply their recognition of its canon
ical authority, but without indicating their opinion of its author
ship, having no occasion so to do. Silence, however, in such
a case, may fairly be taken as almost certain evidence of the
acceptance of the current tradition with regard to it. These
writers, in part, are Papias (wrote c. 140-150) ; Hermas, of
about the same date ; Tatian, a pupil of Justin Martyr, the
anonymous writer of the epistle from the churches of Vienne
and Lyons (a.d. 177), which also calls it " Scripture " {yQ»<ff) ; e
Cyprian (born c. 200) ; Apollonius (c. 210) through Eusebius,'
and Hippolytus (c 220).
It is affirmed, on the other hand, that Caius, a presbyter of
Rome (c. 200), wholly rejected the book, but his lan- Examples
guage is ambiguous ; and Westcott supposes that Caius opposition to
is really condemning the work of Cerinthus, written opinion.
in imitation of the Apocalypse.8 The insignificant heretical
sect of Alogi, without doubt, referred not only this work but
1 H. E., iv. 26. « Adv. Mar., iii. 14.
2 Introd. to N. T., i. 314. e Hilgenfeld, Der Kan. &o, p. 10.
« Strom., vi. 13 : Paid., ii. 10. ' H. E., v. 18.
* Euseb. H. E., vi. 25. 8 Hist. N. T. Can., p. 245, n. Cf. H. E., iii. 28.
»7

258 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. VI.
the Gospels and epistles to Cerinthus, yet without even the pre
tence of finding either critical or historical support for such an
opinion. And Dionysius of Alexandria, under the influence of
fierce discussions between chiliasts and anti-chiliasts, as we have
stated, about the middle of the third century, ascribed the work
to Presbyter John, but without denying it canonical rank.1
The contents of the book, indeed, might seem to furnish
Contents of occasion for the vacillation discoverable in some
the work . .
a cause. quarters, after the springing up of the millenanan ex
citement; as also, for the hesitation of Eusebius (270-340),
who records these varying opinions, and who classes the
Apocalypse among the books universally received, " if possi
bly such a view seem correct." He himself quotes it simply
as the work of John without positively declaring whether he
would be understood as representing John the Presbyter, or
John the Apostle,2 as the author. The small council (synod)
of Laodicea (a.d. 363) omitted the book from their list of the
canonical books of Scripture, if they actually made a list as
represented, and it was not a later addition. External evi
dence, in fact, is fairly against the genuineness of any such
catalogue. There are, however, clear examples of hesitation
in the fourth century, probably only for reasons already
stated, as in the case of Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386), and
Amphilochius of Iconium (d. 395), both of whom prepared
catalogues of the New Testament Scriptures from which they
either excluded the Apocalypse entirely, or assigned to it an
inferior rank.
But Jerome (324-420), who cannot be suspected of being
T , ill informed on the subject! fully accepted the book.
Jerome and J ' . J ^
Augustine. Speaking of the epistle to the Hebrews, he wrote :
" If the custom of the Latins does not receive it among the
canonical Scriptures, neither do the Greek churches (using
the same freedom) accept the Apocalypse of John ; and still
we accept both, by no means following the custom of this
time, but the authority of ancient writers." 8 And Augustine
(354-430) seems to have entertained no mistrust of the com-
» H. E., vii. 24. Cf. Hilgenfeld, Der Kan. &c, p. 51.
2 H. E., iii. as, 39. » Ep. ad Dard., 129 (3).

The Apocalypse. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 259
mon judgment respecting the work, placing it unchallenged
in his list of authorized Scriptural writings. The council of
Hippo (393), and the two of Carthage (397, 419), ratified the
representative judgment of Augustine ; by whose opinions, in
deed, they were largely controlled. From the historical point
of view, then, we should only be justified in following the
course of the last two distinguished leaders of the early
Church, in adopting without hesitation this important book,
confidently relying on the clear, positive, unbroken, and
widely extended testimony of fathers and churches in the
second century for its canonical authority and Apostolic au
thorship, not being misled by doubts which sprung up at a
later day, and which it is easy to see had their origin in the
imputation of false millenarian notions to the work, combined
with the not unimportant fact of its being but comparatively
little used and less understood.

Fold out

PART III.
THE OLD TESTAMENT.

In the Church and in the Bible alike He -works through men. As
¦we follow the progress of their formation, each step seems to be truly
human ; and -when we contemplate the -whole, ive joyfully recognize
that every part is also divine.
Brooke Foss Westcott.

CHAPTER I.
THE LANGUAGE, MANUSCRIPTS, VERSIONS, AND GENERAL
TEXTUAL HISTORY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

T

HE entire Old Testament, with the exception of certain
brief passages in Chaldee (Dan. ii. 4, vii ; Ez. The He-
o ¦ r, •• v-\ • * 11 • , brew lan-
iv. a, vi. 10, vn. 12-20), was originally written in the guage.
Hebrew language. This language was formerly supposed to
be the primitive speech of the race ; but it is now generally
conceded that it is only one branch of the Semitic family of
languages, although perhaps conforming most closely of all to
the original stem, and so having the best comparative claim
to the highest antiquity.1 It is not possible from existing data,
however, to determine absolutely that the Semitic family of
languages is the oldest.
The Old Testament Scriptures include the entire sum of
extant Hebrew literature produced during the period Hebrewi;t.
when the language was spoken. The term " Hebrew," erature'
as applied to the Israelitish nation and tongue, — it is not
their proper theocratic title, — is supposed by some to be
derived from Eber, an ancestor of Abraham ; and by others
(Hengstenberg, Bleek, Kurtz, Winer, Gesenius), with more
probability, from a Hebrew word meaning " the opposite
side," in allusion to the direction from which the Abrahamic
immigration came. It was " trans-Euphratic." 2
It is unlikely that the Hebrew language was introduced
into Canaan by Abraham on his going thither from Was He-
Mesopotamia, but that it was the language of the tive tongue
Canaanitish people themselves, an allied branch of brews.
which — the Aramaic — was the native tongue of the Father
1 Bleek's Introd. to O. T., i. 80; De Wette's do., i. 122 ; Herzog's Encyc, ii. 496.
2 Kurtz, Old Cov., i. 168, 169 ; Davidson's Bib. Crit, i. 6.

264 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. I.
of the Faithful. There are no clear intimations in Scripture
that the language of the Israelites was wholly diverse from
that of the inhabitants of Canaan ; but rather, the contrary.
Yet it is not improbable that the original language of the
country <vas largely developed and adapted to its higher uses
in connection with the coming and peculiar history of the
Israelites. A similar appropriation and consecration of a
heathen tongue we have already observed in the case of the
New Testament.
One remarkable characteristic of the Hebrew language, as
Striking well as of the other branches of the Semitic stock, is
istics. its unelastic quality. " It is firm and hard as from a
mould," not easily changed, and any argument with respect to
the age of documents appearing between the time of Moses
andthe Captivity, based on supposed changes in the language,
must, from the nature of the case, be very unsatisfactory, such
changes being both rare and obeying no invariable law.1
Books written subsequent to the Captivity have doubtless
Linguistic received a more perceptible Aramaic tinge ; but even a
changes. decided Aramaic coloring cannot be regarded as incon
testable evidence of a late date, inasmuch as such a feature
might in many cases be no more than the occasional and
natural outcropping of the original popular dialect. Keil,
however, would distinguish three periods in the progressive
development ofthe Hebrew language, — that of Moses, that of
David and Solomon, and that of the Exile.2
Alphabetic writing was doubtless in use before the time of
Alphabetic Moses. The period at which Cadmus is represented
writing. as introducing letters into Greece, together with many
other well-known facts, supports this view. The Moabite
stone, recently discovered, demonstrates the existence of an
alphabet common to many nations 900 B.C. ; and, like that
of the Hebrew, it was made up of twenty-two characters.8 It
appears from Scripture that in the time of the patriarchs
engraved seals were not uncommon (Gen. xxxviii. 18 ; xii.
42) ; while Phoenicia itself, the country from which we receive
1 Herzog's Encyc, ii. 494, 495; Smith's Bib. Diet. Art. Semit. Lang.
2 Introd. to O. T., i. 43-70. 3 The Moabite Stone (B. F. De Costa), p. 28.

Language, &C. THE OLD TESTAMENT. 265
the earliest intimations of the knowledge of letters, was a part
of that very land of Canaan in which the patriarchs originally
settled, and to which they returned after their troublous sojourn
in Egypt. It has been noticed, too, that while in Egypt the
Israelites kept genealogical records, and that, during their
journey back to Palestine, the law was written on tables of
stone.1 The Hebrew letters in present use date no further back,
at furthest, than to the time of the Captivity, a modi- Hebrew let-
fied form of the old Phoenician character having been f0^^f
previously used. It had been generally supposed by vmtms-
scholars, up to the time of the discovery of the Moabite stone,
that in its earlier written form the words of the Hebrew text
were not distinguished from one another, being written contin
uously, like ancient Greek manuscripts ; but on this remarkable
monument the words are divided with points, and the text
separated into verses by vertical strokes. It is inferred, there
fore, that the same was true of the Hebrew at this date.2 As
in other Semitic languages, the consonants only, as sufficiently
defining the radical meaning of words, were transcribed, the
vowels proper being left to be supplied by the reader. It
should be stated, however, that doubtless from the first certain
characters were used to perform to a limited extent the office
of vowels. The necessity for a full complement of vowels as
a part of the text was not so much felt as long as the Hebrew
remained a living tongue, since, to some degree, they really
inhered in the consonants, while in uncertainties they might
be readily determined from the connection.
Obviously, however, after the language ceased to be gener
ally spoken, the infelicities of such an orthography were much
enhanced, while the absence of definitive form at first, and the
circumstances under which the vowels and various distinguish
ing points were finally introduced, naturally led to much dis
cussion and not a little suspicion and distrust. Indeed, it is
held that the present vowel signs and accents serve but to show
how the Jewish scribes expressed the Hebrew at the time
* Cf. Jahn's Archaiol., sect. 85-87 ; Havernick's Introd. to O. T., chap. iii. ; Ewald's Hist
of Israel, i. 49.
2 The Moabite Stone, id., p. 27.

266 HISTORIC ORIGIN' OF THE BIBLE. Chap. I.
when these changes were introduced, and how they themselves
understood the text. But it is also generally admitted that
great care was exercised by these learned Rabbis, and that
their management of the text, as supported by a traditional
exegesis, was ordinarily correct.1

MANUSCRIPTS.
Much less need be said of the manuscripts of the Old Tes-
Number tament than of those of the New. They are all of
mss. comparatively recent origin, and nearly all have come
into existence since the Masoretic period ; i.e., since the
eleventh century. A codex of the date a.d. 916 has been found
among the Karaites of the Crimea, together with an incomplete
roll of the Law, reaching back to 843. One evident reason
for the scarcity of these manuscripts is the rule which was in
force, even before the time of the Talmudists, that all faulty
ones should be destroyed. And when the minuteness of the
regulations relating to their preparation is considered, it is
matter of wonder that any could have been made with suffi
cient exactness to escape destruction. So great was the
superstitious reverence entertained for these documents, more
over, that a Jew was not permitted even to sell one of them
to a Christian.
Extant Old Testament MSS. are of two classes, — syna-
Two princi- g°gue r°lls and private codices. The synagogue rolls
pal classes. contain only the Pentateuch and lessons from the
prophets. It was to these, particularly, that the most specific
and numerous rules relating to preparation were applied.
The material must be of parchment made from the skin of a
ceremonially clean animal. It must be prepared by a Jew,
the parchment must be divided into columns of exactly equal
length. More than three words written off the line vitiated
the whole work. Black ink — prepared after a certain speci
fied recipe — could alone be used. The kind of character to
be employed was minutely described ; as also, full directions
1 Bleek's Introd. to O. T., ii. 384.

Manuscripts. THE OLD TESTAMENT. 267
concerning spaces, points, and the use of the pen. Upon
revision, which must take place within thirty days after the
completion of the transcription, if a word were found to have
a letter redundant, or was deficient of one ; or if one letter
touched another, &c, the entire manuscript was sacri
ficed.1 Such an enormous estimate being put upon the abso
lute faultlessness of these documents, unspeakably burdensome
and irksome though it must have been to copyists, was yet
exceedingly favorable to the purity of the text.
Private manuscripts were often written on both cotton and
common paper, and appear in book form of various p^t,,
sizes. Unlike the synagogue rolls they employ the MSS-
square Chaldee character with vowels, accents, marginal read
ings, observations, and other improvements of the Masora.
There are certain of this class of codices of a later period,
however, called the Rabbinical, which are written in a run
ning hand without the Masoretic points and additions. These
private MSS., not being prepared under the same strict offi
cial surveillance as the rolls for public use, were naturally
open to more numerous errors ; but even here rigorous rules
were by no means wanting in addition to the almost impassa
ble barrier to mistake found in the Masora. In fact, an impar
tial collation of all the MSS. of the Old Testament Scriptures
that have come down to us discloses a striking similarity
among them. Different readings are found, it is true, but of
an unimportant character, relating generally but to single let
ters and of less moment than those of the oldest New Testa
ment manuscripts, even when the latter are compared among
themselves. The age of these codices it is difficult to determine with
precision. It is sometimes found stated on the docu- A„enow
ment itself, although such dates are mostly looked determined.
upon with distrust. The place of their origin is ordinarily
less open to doubt, being inferred from such data as the order
of the books, the character used in writing, ornamentation,
&c. The whole number of different Hebrew MSS. collated
by Kennicott and De Rossi, the most laborious students in
this department (1 753-1 783), was 1346.
* Davidson's Bib. Crit, i. 321-323. 2 Bleek's Introd. to O. T., ii. 365.

268 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. L

VERSIONS.
Among specially valuable witnesses to the state of the
earlier text of the Old Testament are the ancient versions of
it. They may be divided into original and derived. We shall
here notice only the former ; i.e., those made directly from
the Hebrew, omitting also such as have been already described
in Part II. of this work.
The oldest, and by far the most important, of all these
The Sep- versions, is the Septuagint. Its origin is involved in
tuagint. considerable obscurity. A sufficient occasion for the
origin of versions generally, containing the Old Testament
books, is to be found in the fact that, after their return from
captivity, the Hebrew language was no longer vernacular
among the Jews. Hence, it was needful to translate the
Scriptures as used in the synagogues into the common speech
of the people ; and these oral translations, in the natural course
of events, came themselves in turn to be superseded or aided
by written ones. The Jews who had been deported to Alex
andria in Egypt, or had voluntarily settled there, of course
adopted the language which was spoken most largely about
them, — the Greek. Being in considerable numbers and en
joying their usual religious privileges, the translation of their
Scriptures into the Greek became, therefore, a vital necessity.
The work, it is supposed, was not all done at one time, but
probably began with the Pentateuch under the first Ptolemies
(280 B.C.), and was finished from 200 to 150. The translation
was made by a number of persons who differed greatly with
respect to their knowledge of Hebrew and Greek. The work
was done at Alexandria, although to some extent persons from
other countries, particularly Palestine, may have been sum
moned to assist in it. The name given to the translation —
the Septuagint (seventy) — arose from the presumed number
of scholars engaged upon it. •
The value of this version, for critical and exegetical pur-
Vaiueand P0sesj appears from the following considerations:
""• (1) It furnishes invaluable evidence with respect to

Veesions. THE OLD TESTAMENT. 269
the character of the MSS. from which it was made, and often
enables scholars to decide between the conflicting readings of
the more modern ones. (2) Most of the direct quotations
from the Old Testament in the New (about 300 out of 350),
agree with the Septuagint version, and seem to have been
made directly from it. (3) The language of the Septuagint
exerted a very great moulding influence upon the writers of
the New Testament. (4) Early Christian writers can scarcely
be well understood without a familiar knowledge of this recen
sion, which they largely cite.1
In the second century (a.d. 1 i 7_i38) another Greek trans
lation of the Old Testament was made by Aquila, a version of
Jewish proselyte of Pontus. Its origin may, with Aiuila-
probability, be traced to polemical necessities. The Jews, in
their discussions with Christians, not having sufficient confi
dence in the Septuagint, which was used against them, caused
this version to be made in their interests. It was extremely
literal, so much so at times as greatly to obscure the sense,
and in some cases, also, was colored by a controversial spirit.
Only insignificant fragments of this version are now extant.
At about the same time, Theodotion also, probably a Chris
tian disciple, made a translation of the Old Testament
Scriptures into Greek ; or, perhaps more exactly,
revised the Septuagint version. From the latter, indeed, he
very seldom deviates, except to throw out foreign matter which
had been interpolated. His revision of Daniel was ecclesias
tically adopted in place of that of the Alexandrian version,
and to this day is retained in most Greek Bibles.
Somewhat later than the last, a translation was made by
an Ebionite, named Symmachus. It was in style symmachus
made freer and more elegant than the two last men- andothers.
tioned, — giving ideas rather than words, — and is spoken of in
terms of high commendation by Jerome and others. The
inconsiderable fragments of these three versions still preserved
are found in the Hexapla of Origen. Origen, also, discovered
and made use of three other incomplete versions of the Old
Testament in connection with the same work, which are
1 Smith's Bib. Diet. Art. Versions, p. 1208,

270 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. I.
called, for want of better titles, the fifth, sixth, and seventh,
versions. The Hexapla (sixfold) of this Father was an arrangement
Origen's OI" tne Hebrew text, first in Hebrew, then in Greek
Hexapla. characters, along with the translations of Aquila,
Symmachus, the Septuagint, and of Theodotion, in parallel
columns, for the purpose of aiding Christians in their disputes
with the Jews, that they might not be misled with respect to
the true meaning of the original.
As we have remarked above, after the return of the Jews
from captivity, the Hebrew being no longer vernacu
lar, oral translations of the Scriptures were given in
their synagogues. These translations in Palestine were, of
course, Chaldaic. In process of time, written translations for
the common use of the people took the place of the oral ones.
They received the name of " Targums," which means " inter
pretations." Such Targums do not in any case singly include
the entire Old Testament, but collectively cover all the books
except Ezra, Daniel, and Nehemiah. Their dates are mostly
uncertain, but there is strong probability that the oldest and
most valuable of them did not come into existence much after
the beginning of our era.
Of the several Targums still extant, we shall speak of only
Those of two, — that of Onkelos, and that of Jonathan. Onkelos
Jonathan, is supposed by Bleek to have lived about the middle
of the first century.1 Emanuel Deutsch, however, in a very
full and learned investigation,2 places the date of this and
other Targums at the end of the third century. Deutsch,
also, maintains the theory that Onkelos is a form of Akelas,
which, in turn, stands for Aquila ; and holds that, because
this particular Greek translation of Aquila was eminently
popular, the Chaldee version was called the Aquila (Onkelos)
Targum, to give it greater currency. This Targum includes
the Pentateuch only, and is said to be written in very pure
Chaldee, to be generally faithful to the original, and, in its
explanation of difficult passages, to show marked discrimina
tion and simplicity. The Targum of Jonathan, originating
1 Introd. to O. T., ii. 442. 2 Smith's Bib. Diet. Art. Versions.

Versions. THE OLD TESTAMENT. 27 1
perhaps a little later than that of Onkelos, was a more para
phrastic and free rendering of the earlier and later prophetical
books. It is maintained by Deutsch, that " the Semitic fairy
and legendary lore, which, for the last two thousand years, —
as far as we can trace it, — has grown up in East and West to
vast, glittering mountain ranges, is, to a very great extent, to
be found, in an embryo state, so to say, in this our Targum."

GENERAL TEXTUAL HISTORY.
The history of the Old Testament text up to the time of
the invention of printing for convenience may be here Earlier his-
divided into three periods : the first, extending from text.
the time ofthe writing of the books to the close of the Canon.
Just how much watchfulness and fidelity were exercised dur
ing this period to preserve the integrity and purity of the text
it is impossible to know. That it was kept absolutely invio
lable cannot be assumed, as it would be the assumption of a
continued miracle, and, also, contrary to the incidental evidence
of the text itself. That it was guarded, however, with extraor
dinary care, and transmitted with substantial accuracy, the
following considerations might be urged as proving : the
marked seclusion of the Israelitish people ; x the view that these
books were the national annals, and that, too, under a theo
cratic form of government giving them always a semi-divine
character ; the liturgical use of certain parts of them, especially
the Psalms, in connection with public worship ; the official
character of many of the writers of the books ; the fact that
it was the custom of other nations known to them, as, for
instance, the Egyptians, to make collections of their sacred
books, and hold them in the highest reverence ; a the proba
bility that but comparatively few copies were in circulation
(Deut. xxx. 10-13), ana" those among the official classes, —
Princes, Levites, and Prophets ; and, in addition, the point that
the Hebrew language was then vernacular, so that the difficul-
1 Kurtz, Old Cov., i. 147, 148. 2 Herzog's Encyc, i. 543, 11.

272 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. chap. I.
ties appertaining to its written form alluded to above would
not arise.
But, besides these general considerations, we have some
internal more tangible, although necessarily limited, informa-
evidence. tjon derived from the books themselves. It was re
quired by Moses (Deut. xvii. 18) that each ruler should possess
for his own use a copy of the Law, the original of which was
to be kept in the inner sanctuary. In the reign of Josiah
(642-611 B.C.), this book of the Law was still actually to be
found in the temple (2 Kings xxii. 8 ; cf. xxiv. 26 ; 1 Sam. x.
25). We observe, also, that different prophetical writers are
accustomed to make use of each other's productions, as Jere
miah of Isaiah, and Daniel of Jeremiah (Dan. ix. 2, 11, 13),
leading us to infer the existence and accessibility of their
prophecies in written form. Moreover, the nature of the allu
sions to the sacred writers, subsequent to the captivity (Ez. vi.
18 ; Neh. viii. 1), is such as to indicate with reasonable cer
tainty their careful preservation even during the darkest periods
of Jewish history. And that Ezra with Nehemiah, and their
collaborators in the important work, looking to the establish
ment of the Old Testament Canon, were exceedingly scrupu
lous and painstaking, has been justly inferred, among other
circumstances, from the fact that they allowed the smallest dis
crepancies between parallel passages to stand wholly intact
(Ps. xiv., liii., xviii. ; 2 Sam. xxii.). These variations — often
but different forms of one production by the same hand — have
been most unfairly used by some critics to throw suspicion on
the whole ante-canonical text.1 But Davidson, while giving
no countenance to any theory of miracle in connection with
the early text, yet holds to its transmission in substantial purity
up to the time of Ezra and later. " When the Canon was
closed," he says, " the text was generally free from material
corruption." 2
The history ofthe text ofthe Old Testament, after its books
The text had been elevated to canonical dignity, down to the
after the es- . ° ¦"
tabiishment time of the Masora (? end df fifth centurv), can be
of the J ¦"
Canon. more clearly traced, although, until the period of the
1 Cf. De Wette, Introd. to O. T., i. 319-323. Vs. HSvernick, Introd., p. 276.
2 Bib. Crit., i. 107, 108.

Textual History. THE OLD TESTAMENT. 273
Talmudists (c. 200), there is very little contemporaneous or
direct testimony available. According to Dillmann,1 the estab
lishing of the present text was brought to a close before the
Talmudic period ; and others (Havernick) say as early as the
.ime of Christ. It was legitimately based on the testimony of
.nanuscripts, and, if not fully correct, was generally so, and
lever intentionally falsified. "The immense reverence of the
Jews for their sacred books (Josephus, Ap. i. 8) leads us at
ance to suppose that [the work of establishing the true text]
would be prosecuted with the greatest conscientiousness and
care. This appears, also, in the work itself. The text they
have given us is formed with the most anxious regard for the
smallest particulars. The peculiarities of the different writers,
books, and times ; archaisms, idioms, local shades of dialect,
even special modes of writing, — are preserved with wonderful
fidelity ; and we see that every sort of intentional and arbitrary
change or emendation (in the case even of so small a matter
as the writing) lay far off from the minds of these critics."
When the text had been thus settled, no less effort was
made to secure for it a safe transmission. Even at T. .
Its trans-
this early period, letters, words, verses, and sections mis5'0"-
were numbered ; the most minute directions were given for the
writing of MSS. ; and all unusual marks and letters, though
at first, perhaps, accidentally introduced, were carefully pre
served. The Targums of Jonathan and Onkelos, — dated as
we have seen at about the beginning of the Christian era, —
and the translations of Aquila, Theodotion, and others, prove the
existence of a firmly established form of the text at this early
period, in their agreement, even in quite unimportant varieties
of reading, with that, at last, commonly accepted. Most of the
variations of the Samaritan recension of the Pentateuch, and
of the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, from this
traditional form are now generally acknowledged to rest on
" arbitrary, uncritical, and unskilful changes," introduced
through a wanton passion for emendation, or an ignorant mis
understanding of the real meaning of the text.2
1 Herzog's Encyc, i. 409. Cf. Keil's Introd., ii. 309.
2 Dillmann and Keil, id. 18

274 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. I.
Near the beginning of the second century, learned Jews,
Labors of fearing lest the oral law — additions to, and interpre-
the Talmud- . ,. , • , . , r i,,,
ists. tations of, the written law of Moses — should become
corrupted or lost, made a transcript of it. This was called the
Mishna. Commentaries {Gemaras) were subsequently made
on this work by Jews at Babylon and Palestine, respectively;
and this record, with the commentaries, received the name of
the Talmud.1 The Talmudists, so called (c. 190-500), so far
from seeking to introduce changes into the text, exercised the
most extraordinary vigilance to prevent them. Certain point
ings over the letters {puncta extraordinaria), the meaning
and value of which they were unable to explain, were still
tenaciously adhered to. In the matter of the interpretation of
a passage, they might sometimes be at variance ; but its textual
form was unanimously held to be unalterable. They made
special rules for the guidance of those who copied manuscripts,
to prevent the confounding of similar letters and falling into
errors of other sorts. The system adopted as a safeguard of
counting verses, words, and letters, in order to find the middle
one of each book, was still diligently practised. It is a conjec
ture of Bleek and others, that the minute points sometimes
found over certain letters, as noted above, were originally
intended to mark the letters and words which might be omit
ted. If this be correct it demonstrates the " anxious solicitude
that must have been exercised in preceding centuries to hand
down the text of the Sacred Books ; especially, of the Torah
(Law) in an uncorrupted state." 2
The last period in the history of the unprinted text of the
The Maso- Old Testament, extending from the beginning of the
ratictext. fifth century, is distinguished as that of the Masora.
This term is generally supposed to be derived from a Hebrew
word signifying to hand down, indicating that the contents of
the Masora were handed down from antiquity. The Talmud
ists, while thinking it needful to put into written form the col
lection of traditions which they had inherited under the name
of the oral law, — claimed to have been given by Moses along
1 Bleek, Introd. to O. T., i. 107. Cf. Journal of Sacred Lit., Jan. 1868.
2 Introd. to O. T., ii. 454.

Textual History. THE OLD TESTAMENT. 275
with the written law, — did not venture, as we have seen, to
alter in the smallest particular the outward form of the written
law itself. They continued to transmit orally all readings,
interpretations, and regulations concerning it. This mass of
oral traditions relating to the sacred text the Masorets, how
ever, proceeded to put in permanent written form. According
to most critics this was first done in books, and then trans
ferred to the margin of manuscripts ; but Bleek reverses the
order.1 These marginal readings became, indeed, very numer
ous ; a fact, in itself, suggestive of the profound reverence felt
for the original, and an indirect proof of its substantial purity.
The natural strength of the temptation to insert these marginal
readings — " Keris " — in place of the text, as well as the evi
dence that no such liberty was taken, is seen in the circum
stance, that when the text was accented and vocalized, it was
so done that the " Keris " might be pronounced instead of the
word in the text.
It was these same Masoretic scholars who, in strict har
mony with their general purpose, introduced into vowel signs
connection with the text the use of vowel signs and andaccents'
accents. In this they sought simply, to give outward and per
manent form to the enunciation and understanding of the text
at that time orally current, on the authority, of immemorial
tradition. It should be understood that nothing was under
taken of the nature of a revision, or with a view to alter the
essential character of the text. The Masora was rather a seal
put upon it that it might not be changed. Their whole work,
including that of vocalization and accentuation, served but to
fix more unalterably the true traditionary reading.
What has been now said may be sufficient to show the
origin of the Old Testament text of our present Review of
Bibles. It is virtually the Masoretic, with whatever of the pres-
of faults or of virtues that may have had. So far as text.
it differs from it, the means of discovering and correcting such
differences are at hand. Moreover, there ought to be no doubt
that in the text which we have inherited from the Masorets,
and they from the Talmudists, and they in turn from a period
1 Introd. to O. T., ii. 461.

276 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. I.
when versions and paraphrases of the Scriptures in other lan
guages now accessible to us were in common use, — the same
text being transmitted to this period from the time of Ezra
under the peculiarly sacred seal of the Jewish Canon, — we
have a substantially correct copy of the original documents
themselves, and one worthy of our highest confidence.
A critic, not likely to conceal or belittle known defects,
Mild state- uses the following temperate language: "But such
ment of de- . .
fects. restoration [of the Masoretic textj, which appeared to
the Buxtorfs the ideal of all text criticism, is not to be taken
as at once identical with the idea of an absolutely correct
text. Older and better readings, in certain cases, are still pre
served in the ancient versions ; and sometimes, too, though it
be very rarely, in the Hebrew manuscripts ; the Masoretic
pointing cannot always be approved as suitable to the text ;
and there are besides, in the text itself, from the most remote
times, single errors, back to which no critical monument is
found to reach. It would seem, therefore, that, in cases of
necessity, even critical conjecture is here not out of place ; and
that it may not simply be the right, but the duty, of the inter
preter to have recourse to it, in order that he may do justice to
the text itself." x 1 Dillmann in Herzog's Encyc. Art. Bib. Text.

CHAPTER II.

THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON.

T

HE meaning of the term Canon has been already defined
in the present work (part ii. chap. iii.). By the Canon
ofthe Old Testament we mean, in general terms, that The term
collection of writings deemed sacred by the Jews at here used,
the time of our Lord, and often referred to by him the chapter.
and the Apostles under the title of the " Scriptures," " Holy
Scriptures," " The Law and the Prophets," or, " the Law,
Prophets, and Psalms." And our special object in this chapter
will be to determine, as far as we may be able, when, by
whom, and under what circumstances this collection was
made ; and whether, from such earliest time, it has remained
in its external relations a complete, unique, self-consistent
whole, readily distinguishable from subsequent foreign addi
tions. And our investigations may properly begin with the
testimony of the New Testament itself, and such witnesses as
are contemporaneous with it.
This fact is obvious, that the Old Testament is continually
referred to in the New, although its exact constituent The old
Testament
parts — as, indeed, we should have no right to expect in the New.
— may not be anywhere particularly defined. Still further,
these references to the Old Testament in the New imply an
established and well-known collection. Our Saviour charged
the Jews with disobeying the Scriptures, nullifying them bv
their traditions, but never hinted that they did not actually
possess them, or that they had not shown sufficient care in
their preservation. His appeal is uniformly to the Scriptures,
whether to justify his own claims or to confound the machina-

278 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. 11.
tions of his enemies ; and no occasion of dispute seems ever to
have arisen from such reference, as would have been likely to
be the case had the terms used not been understood to apply
to a distinct and familiarly known collection of writings.
Besides the term Scripture, he also uses, as we have said,
Limits of the Law, the Law and the Prophets, and once, the
ment Canon Law, Prophets, and Psalms, the last word probably
defined. standing, by synecdoche, for the whole division at
whose head it is placed. These terms were by no means
arbitrarily chosen, but, doubtless, were titles then in common
use for designating the collected books of the Old Testament,
and actually represent the natural division and sequence of
its several parts. Fiirst says it is as old as the conclusion
and order of the literature itself.1 And there are two passages
in the Gospels (Matt, xxiii. 35 ; Luke xi. 51) which have been
thought, apparently not without reason, to mark definitely,
whether intentionally or not, the extreme limits of the collec
tion as then understood.2 These limits extend from the ac
count of the murder of Abel in Genesis to that of Zacharias.
recorded in 2 Chron. xxiv. 20, 21, this book being thus ac
counted the last one admitted into the list of writings deemed
sacred by the Jews. Moreover, what was true of the practice
of the Master in this respect holds good of his disciples, who,
for the most part, were themselves Jews, and doubtless well
informed respecting the religions literature of their nation.
The references in the New Testament to the Old are of
Character of two kinds: casual, such as were made for illustration
ment refer- and in the way of instructive parallel; and such as
Old. were used for the establishment of doctrine. Amon°-
the latter class are citations from the Pentateuch, from Isaiah,
Jeremiah, and the Psalms, which citations, from the nature of
the case, imply a generally acknowledged standard of author
ity, and include, as will be seen, something from each one of
the three principal parts into which the Old Testament was
ordinarily divided. The books of the Old Testament never
directly referred to in the New are Judges, Ecclesiastes (? Ec.
1 Der Kan. d. A. T., part i. sect. i.
2 Oehler in Herzog's Encyc. Art. Can. of O. T. Vs. Dillmann, Jahrbuch f. Deutsch.
Theol., iii. 1858, p. 479.

The Canon. THE OLD TESTAMENT. 279
v. 15 ; cf. 1 Tim. vi. 7), Canticles, Esther (? Esth. ix. 22; of.
Rev. xi. 10), Ezra, and Nehemiah. Unless it can be shown,
however, that Christ and his Apostles ought necessarily to have
referred to each one of the Old Testament books, the argument
from silence cannot be allowed to have much weight. The
recognition in the New Testament of a definite collection of
sacred literature as then in use among the Jews is now the
point of chief importance, it being plain that the particular books
of which that collection was formed could not have been gen
erally unknown. *
From the circumstance that the Hebrew language was no
longer vernacular at this period, the Alexandrian A hal
(Septuagint) version of the Old Testament was in le^rakit6
common use everywhere. It was from this version, po'quoted
J ' m the New
therefore, very naturally, that most of the citations of Testa"ient.
the New Testament were taken. And it is to be noted as an
important fact that, notwithstanding there had been bound up
with this special version a number of uncanonical (apocry
phal) books which, from such connection and from public use,
came at length to be regarded with more or less of reverence
by both Jews and Christians, none of these books are ever
quoted by our Saviour or his disciples, or any color of authority
assigned to them. Certain other works not having a place in
the Old Testament may have been in some instances referred
to by the Apostles (Jude 9, 14), but not in such a way as
to imply that they formed a part of Scripture. It was simply
for illustration that they were appealed to, if at all, as to a
common reservoir of current literature and tradition ; x while,
on the contrary, relationship with the Old Testament, as a
unique collection, is uniformly marked and distinctive.
Now, if the view here taken be correct, we might expect
that it would be confirmed by the testimony of Confirmatory
contemporaneous profane writers; and to them we josephS"
turn, attending first to that of the well-known Jewish
historiographer, Josephus. He was both a Pharisee and a
priest, and so, without doubt, well informed respecting the
sacred books of his people. He was born a.d. 37, and, con-
1 Oehler, id. Vs. Bleek's Introd., ii. 306.

280 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. II.
sequently, was contemporaneous, to some extent, with the
Apostles and their writings. His work on the " Antiquities
of the Jews," written against Apion, a grammarian of Alexan
dria and a declared enemy of his nation, contains the passage
directly bearing on this subject.1 Its importance will justify
quoting at length. After showing, in the previous section,
that none of the Hebrew historical books stand in opposition
to others, since not every person, but only prophets, were suf
fered to be historians, he goes on to say: " For we have not
innumerable books which contradict each other ; but only
twentj'-two, which comprise the history of all times past, and
are justly held to be credible [? divine]. Five of these books
proceed from Moses ; they contain laws, and accounts of the
origin of men, and extend to his death. Accordingly, they
include a period not much less than a thousand years. From
the death of Moses onward to the reign of Artaxerxes, who,
after Xerxes, reigned over the Persians, the prophets, who
lived after Moses, recorded, in thirteen books, what happened
in their time. The other four books contain songs of praise
to God, and rules, of life for man. Since Artaxerxes up to our
time, every thing has been recorded ; but these writings are
not held to be so worthy of credit [have not been esteemed of
like authority] as those written earlier, because after that time
there was no regular succession of prophets. What faith we
attribute to our Scriptures is manifest in our conduct. For
although so great a period has already elapsed, no one has
yet undertaken either to add any thing, or to take away, or to
alter any thing. For it is, so to speak, innate with the Jews
from their birth to hold these books to be God's instructions
and firmly to stand by them, — nay, if necessity required,
gladly to die on their behalf."
Now, is it possible for us to learn what these twenty-two
Direct cita- books were which Josephus declares were so revered
se°phu°sff™m by his people, and whether they include all those
Scnpture. books, and only those, now found in the Old Testament
collection? Our appeal shall be to his histories, where these
separate books are often referred to either directly or inci
dentally. Concerning the five books of Moses,' the passage
1 Book i., sect. 8.

The Canon. THE OLD TESTAMENT. 281
just cited is a sufficient indication of his opinion ; and else
where he calls them the books of the Sacred Scriptures. Isaiah
he calls a prophet, and speaks of his work as " the book of
prophecy which Isaiah left." He also mentions Jeremiah
as a prophet, and characteristically describes his work. So,
too, Ezekiel and Daniel. The twelve minor prophets, he
treats as one book, though distinguishing them as twelve in
number, citing part of them, and ranking them, as a class,
along with the work of Isaiah. Jonah, Nahum, Haggai, and
Zechariah he denominates prophets ; says the book of Joshua
was among those kept in the temple ; puts the book of Kings
on a level with the first of Moses ; and designates the Psalms
as " Psalms of God," and also " Psalms of David."
In addition to these instances, Josephus makes use of all
the remaining books of the present Old Testament collection,
although without any special description except Prov- indirect ci-
erbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticles, and Job. He men- references.
tions Solomon as the writer, but without indicating what he
wrote. And with respect to Job, the silence of this historian
should hot by any means be considered as a sign either that
he did not know the book, or that he rejected it from his
Canon. For, from the New Testament (Jas. v. 11), and other
sources, we know that this book formed a part of the collection
of Jewish Scriptures in his time ; while it is only by adding it
to those which Josephus does mention that we can properly
make out the thirteen books which he declares were written
by prophets between the time of Moses and that of Artaxerxes ;
as, also, by adding the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the
Canticles, that his full number of twenty-two is reached ; viz.,
five of Moses, thirteen prophetical, and the four last mentioned.1
It should be stated that the reason why the thirty-nine books
of the Jewish Scriptures were reduced to twenty-two, whytwenty-
as in this case, and quite generally, — by combining twobooks-
the two books pf Samuel, Judges and Ruth, the two of Kings,.
and of Chronicles, and of Ezra (Ezra and Nehemiah), Jere
miah and Lamentations, — was to make them conform to the
number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet, a custom common
1 Eichhorn's Einleit. in das A. T., i. sects. 46-50.

282 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. II.
also with the Greeks.1 And the fact that Josephus, for such
a reason, states the number of sacred books at twenty-two
might be considered as plainly significant of the fact that he
regarded the Canon as complete, and closed with these.2 'This
enumeration of books is not in conflict with that of the Tal
mud, which added two yodhs to the Hebrew alphabet, making
twenty-four letters, consequently divided, in two cases, books
otherwise associated together, — Ruth being separated from
Judges, and Lamentations from Jeremiah.
We now turn to another contemporaneous writer, Philo,
a Jewish philosopher of Alexandria. He was born,
it is thought, a little before the beginning ofthe Chris
tian era, and probably in Egypt. He was of priestly family,
and honored with many important political trusts. His testi
mony is important from the fact that he must have been
well informed on the subjects concerning which he writes,
while, yet, he was never a resident of Palestine. His works
consisted mostly of an allegorizing of Scripture, and an attempt
to show that they contained in germ the elements of the later
Platonic and other Greek philosophy.
Of this distinguished writer it may be said, first, generally,
His testi- that lle distinctly recognized, in their order, the usual
mony. threefold division of the Hebrew Canon, saying of
the Therapeutrfi, that they found their true food in the laws
and oracles uttered by the Prophets, and hymns, and other
[? books] by which knowledge and piety are increased.3
And, with respect to the several books of the collection,
Eichorn has shown that to a large number he has directly
ascribed a divine origin ; to others, makes allusion, without,
however, specifically characterizing them ; and of a few only,
viz., Ruth, Nehemiah, Esther, Chronicles, Daniel, Lamen
tations, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles, is entirely silent. But of
the latter class it is plausibly conjectured that Ruth was re
garded as an appendix to the book of Judges ; Nehemiah, as
the second part of Ezra ; and Lamentations, of Jeremiah, — as
was usual in Palestine.4
x Eichhom, id., sect. 42
2 Herzog's Encyc. Art. Can. O. T. j Dillmann, Jahrbuch f. Deutsch. Theol. 1858, iii. 491
8 Keil, Introd. to O. T., ii. 341. * Einleit. in das A. T., i. sects. 26-33.

The Canon. THE OLD TESTAMENT. 283
Now, with the fact of such a continual and reverent use of
the Old Testament books, to which he applies such Does not
significant titles as the " Oracles," the " Sacred Writ- Ip'ocr'ypha?
ings," the " Prophetic Word," is to be contrasted this :
that, while Philo, by the appropriation of expressions and
phrases, shows an acquaintance with the apocryphal literature,
perhaps even then found in connection with the Greek Bible
in use in Egypt, he never quotes from it, allegorizes it, or
by it attempts to maintain his views, although often especially
adapted to his purpose. This circumstance is generally con
sidered (Eichhorn, De Wette, Keil, Havernick, vs. Bleek) as
conclusive evidence that the Jews of Egypt held to the same
limits of the Old Testament collection as those of Palestine.
De Wette says : " Notwithstanding their jealousy, in a matter
of such importance, they could not disagree with their Pales
tinian brethren. Philo sufficiently proves that they did not." x
And, while Bleek does not fully concur, holding to a general
indeterminateness of the Egyptian Canon at this period, he
still firmly maintains that there is nowhere any intimation that
other books than those now in it have ever been received into
the Hebrew Canon ; and that, ultimately, the authority and
influence of the Palestinian Jews brought about a complete
identity of opinion, on this subject, among Jews everywhere.2
Of the various sects of the Jews it is well known, that
the Samaritans accepted only the five books of Moses The Canon
and a peculiar recension of Joshua as authoritative, vS?^*!,,..
the reason probably being, that when they separated Jhetuneof
from the Jews, on the return from Exile, because the Chnst'
latter refused them participation in their worship at Jerusalem,
the Pentateuch alone was of the highest recognized authority,
the Canon not being yet fully concluded and established.
Their subsequent hostility to tbe Jews as rivals would naturally
lead to the rejection of their sacred literature. It has been
thought by some, that the Sadducees held to a restricted col
lection of holy books, but there is no historical evidence to
justify the opinion. Of the Therapeutae and Essenes, it is
commonly agreed that they accepted the books of the Hebrew
1 Introd. to O. T., i. 46. 2 Introd. to O. T., ii. 303 310.

284 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. chap. II.
Canon, but, in addition, ascribed a certain authority to other
books peculiar to themselves (Bleek, Keil, Havernick).
And now we may address ourselves more directly to the
Establish- question, how and when the Old Testament Canon
ofdVefst*6 was nrst definitely established. Some general prin-
Generar0"' ciples should, however, be recognized at the outset.
principles. TJnlike the books of the New Testament, which were
the product of a single generation, the writings of the Old
Testament extend over many hundreds of years. But, on the
other hand, like those ofthe New Testament, the collection of
the literature of the Old was doubtless a gradual process, and
the result, in general, of a silent recognition, after a period of
probation, of intrinsic claims, though ordinarily supported by
convincing external proofs. Just as in the case of the New
Testament, too, it would be natural to expect, as Dillmann
has shown,1 that the more special veneration of the sacred
books would begin to manifest itself — unless, in some degree
to the contrary, in the case of known authors of prominence —
at that period when the peculiar presence and power of the
revealing Spirit that had created them was decreasing or pass
ing away. Moreover, the length of the period over which the
books extend, and their externally heterogeneous character,
should seem to demand that there be an historic order of
canonization, and that it take place by affiliated groups, cer
tain writings being first enucleated and associated together,
and then, finally, under the natural law of unity and complete
ness, all gathered into one volume. It was probably under
these principles, acting more or less imperceptibly, that the
Old Testament Canon was formed. And, by adopting them,
we have the advantage of avoiding two dangerous extremes :
bn the one hand, that of ascribing the result to a wholly mirac
ulous agency ; and, on the other, of regarding the Canon as
the fruit of a loose and lawless collection of all the Hebrew
national literature extant at the time of its adoption.
In seeking to point out now the ground for these principles,
Method of in acknowledged facts, we need not dwell further on
investiga- , ¦ . r . , . . . -
tion. the circumstance ot the ancient threefold division of
1 Jahrbuch f. Deutsch. Theol. 1858, iii. 422.

The Canon. THE OLD TESTAMENT. 285
the Old Testament Scriptures into Law, Prophets, and other
Scriptures. It is a point well established and universally con
ceded. But this division, it is further held, marks, to some
degree, the simple but important historical order of the recep
tion of the several groups of books into the sacred Canon.
This is the position of Dillmann and many others ; and there
seems to be no serious objection to it such as Havernick pro
fesses to discover.1 Oehler says of this tripartite arrange
ment : " The threefold division of the Old Testament Canon
is not accidental or arbitrary ; it rather accords with the devel
oping process of the Old Testament religion. The foundation
of this is the Torah (Law) ; its further development consists,
first, in those divine acts and dealings recorded in the pro-
phetico-historical books ; then, in those accompanying divine
prophecies, which instructed the people as to present duty, and
revealed the future progress of the kingdom of God. The
Songs and Proverbs found among the Hagiography represent
the subsequent development of the period." 2
Adopting, then, this natural and convenient division of the
Old Testament books, we shall proceed to treat of ,, ,• .
A £.arliest re-
each division separately, without prejudice, however, cognition of
to the theory of a common and an equal inspiration authority.
extending to all. As we have observed in the preceding chap
ter, the book of the Law was early recognized as of peculiar
importance, and assigned by Moses a place of singular honor
by the side of the Ark. It is acknowledged that the Penta
teuch, as now extant, together with Joshua, formed the kernel
of this collection. Traces of it are found in 2 Chron. xvii.
7-9; 2 Kings xi. 12. But it is not till the reign of Josiah (2
Kings xxii. 8; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 14), in the seventh century
before Christ, that we discover clear historic reference to it as
of publicly recognized canonical authority, binding alike upon
king and people.
That several other books (Josh. xxiv. 26 ; 1 Sam. x. 25)
were associated, even now, with the Pentateuch8 The germ
marks the tendency toward additional collections as collections.
1 Introd. to O. T., p. 59. 2 Herzog's Encyc. Art. O. T. Can.
• Fiirst, Der Kan. d. A. T., part viii. sect. *.

286 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. II.
well as forms a basis for them. But previous to the Exile,
the Law (Pentateuch) alone constituted in a popular sense
the sole " book of the Lord." Almost certain proof of this
is found in the fact before noticed, that the Samaritans who
separated from the Jews at this time, accepted only the so-
called books of Moses. There may have been sufficient reason
in the contents of some of the prophetical books why they
would not be likely to accept them even if they had been re
garded as in the strictest sense canonical, but not of all. It is
not, however, to be concluded that other books of the present
Old Testament collection received no veneration above that
accorded to Hebrew literature in general, because they re
ceived less than the highest.
For it has been well said, that the first collection (the Law)
How the necessarily attracted the second (the Prophets) to itself,
lection prob- since a law without prophecy is a body without a soul.1
nated. Moreover, the prophetic writings might be expected,
from the very nature of the case, — that is, from the standing
of the prophets themselves among the people, — to be held in
extraordinary estimation. So that, from their first appearance,
many of them could not have been far from receiving a canon
ical valuation. But, as afterwards, in the case of the Apostles
and their writings, the fact that the prophets were still living
served to prevent them from attaining at once to their destined
rank. That collections of prophetical books were early made,
however, and held in high regard, especially for instruction
in the schools of the prophets, is evident from the frequent
allusions to them by the later prophets (Jer. xxvi. 18). And at
about the time of the Exile (c 600 B.C.), we find clear traces
of the familiar association of the Law and the Prophets, if
not, also, as some claim, of their co-ordinate authority (Zech.
vii. 12 ; 2 Kings xvii. 13 ; Mai. iii. 22, 23 ; Dan. ix. 2). And
this fact is the more important if we accept the probable inter
pretation of Ec. xii. 12: "Against what exceeds these [col
lections], my son, be warned," &c. (Oehler and Dillmann) ; it
being evident from this that there was even now an emphatic
discrimination of canonical and uncanonical Scriptures, none
1 Dillmann, id., p. 442.

The Canon. THE OLD TESTAMENT. 287
being admitted to the former but such as were able to pass a
rigid scrutiny. Fiirst supposes that at the time Ecclesiastes
was written it concluded the Canon, Esther being subse
quently admitted, and paraphrases the above passage as fol
lows : " The words of the teachers who ordered and fixed the
Holy Scriptures remain now almost immovable ; and the
books thus completed by the. great Council are all equally-
holy : whatever is added to them will only bring confusion.1
Dillmann supposes that about a half a century after the pass
ing away of the spirit of prophecy, Malachi (? 530-520 B.C.),
being the latest who enjoyed it, all the books composing the
second division were fully adopted into the collection of-'noly
writings. At least, just before this period, when the Samari
tans parted from the Jews, they seem not to have been re
garded as canonical in any exclusive sense ; while at the end
of the third century before Christ, when we meet with the
earliest subsequent historical testimony, they had already for a
long time, been so esteemed.
If now, we associate together the remaining books of the
Bible, as is customary, — namely, Psalms, Job, Prov- Theremain-
erbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Chronicles, Nehemiah, mg°ooks> —
' ' ' ' 1 when canon-
Ezra, Daniel, and Esther, — it is not possible to fix with ized-
certainty the time of their elevation to the rank of Sacred Scrip
tures. It appears, however, that, in the time of Nehemiah
(2 Mac. ii. 13), the Psalms, as a completed collection (Bleek,
EwaldJ Dillmann, and others), were reckoned along with the
prophets as a part of the sacred books. In fact, the very use
of the Psalter in the temple service (2 Chron. xxix. 30) seems
to require for it a correspondingly early place in the Canon ;
and it doubtless formed the link by which the whole class of
books at whose head it stands were finally drawn to their
appropriate position in the completed volume. The earliest
positive witness that can be cited to substantiate the facts we
seek is the Son of Sirach (? 260-130 B.C.), who, in the prol
ogue to Ecclesiasticus, mentions the " Law, Prophets, and
other Books of our Fathers," in such a way as to imply a plain
distinction between them and ordinary literature, — not except-
1 Der Kan. A. T., part v. sect. 3.

288 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. n.
ing the work he was then translating, whose author had
claimed uncommon illumination, but not inspiration. Just
what books were included in the " other books," or " the rest
of the books" of the Son of Sirach, it is impossible to say,
Havernick has noticed that precisely the same Greek is used
by him to characterize this third division of the sacred litera
ture of the Jews as was used by Philo, Josephus, and the
New Testament writers, and consequently infers that the same
books must have been intended.1
And Josephus (Ap. i. 8), as we have noticed, advances the
opinion, — of which he makes note that it was disputed, — that
the whole collection of Old Testament books was finally con
cluded in the time of Artaxerxes (c 430 B.C.), there being
after that period " no certain succession of prophets." And
" though so many centuries have passed away," he continues,
" no one has ventured to add, or remove an}' thing, or make
any change." Without positive evidence to the contrary, there
fore, it might seem to be safely assumed that these two wit
nesses support. each other; that what is affirmed by Josephus,
on authority unknown to us, is confirmed by the Son of Sirach,
who lived from one century and a half to two centuries and a
half earlier ; and that in all essential respects our Old Testa
ment Scriptures were completed as they now remain to us, at
about the time when the book of Esther was written (c. 430).
Such critics as assign a considerably later origin to some of
the books, still universally admit that, soon after the Macca-
basan wars (c. 160 b. c), when persecution was specially
directed against the sacred national literature of the Jews
(2 Mac. ii. 13, 14), the Canon must have been completed,
and that, since then, nothing has been added to the contents
of the Hebrew Bible.
Even this cursory view of the origin of the Old Testament
Agency of Canon would be incomplete without a glance at the
Ezra and . , , _, T
his col- important part which Ezra, Nehemiah, and their col-
tSfwork. laborators probably had in its establishment. Popu
lar belief and a persistent tradition among the Jews, ascribe
to them a special agency in the matter. They certainly
1 Introd. to O. T., pp. 29, 30. Vs. Dillmann, Jahrbuch, &c, p. 478.

The Canon. THE OLD TESTAMENT. 289
mark an era in the history of the Canon. One critic, as it
might be inferred not of the conservative school, says that
Ezra and Nehemiah are the first representatives of that lame,
contracted learning which hinders every living creation of
the Spirit, keeps down prophecy, and generally lives upon
what is past.1 But when the Jewish tradition concerning
Ezra and the school he represented is divested of all later
embellishments, there is still left, as having an undoubted basis
of truth, the principal point involved. The invariable tradi
tion conforms both to the Jewish history and to the mutual
relations of the Old Testament books themselves. So that
the more recent criticism, instead of continuing to disparage
the existence of a great National Assembly, organized by Ezra
and continued through Nehemiah's time (2 Mac. ii. 13, 14),
down to about 290 B.C., by which the Hebrew Canon was vir
tually fixed, finds it necessary to presuppose such an institution
in order to account for other admitted facts. Tradition chiefly,
though very naturally, erred in assigning to Ezra alone the
achievement of an undertaking which was, it is likely, but
begun by him. Even of the council as a. whole, whenever begun
or ended, one should be careful not to require too great an
influence in the final moulding of the Old Testament collec
tion. The method of the divine Providence in this matter,
both in the Old Testament and the New, seeming to be rather
to express itself first through the free, silent assent of an en
lightened religious consciousness, and only afterwards to per
mit the addition of the seal of public ecclesiastical approval.
A brief account of the Old Testament Canon in the Chris
tian Church will properly conclude the present chap- The Old
ter. Without entering, here, fully upon the question CanonTnnt
of the use and authority of the Apocrypha, which we tian Church.
have reserved for separate treatment (Appendix B), it may
be said that, owing to the fact that the early Christians were
obliged to read the Bible chiefly in the Alexandrian Version,
along with which certain extra-canonical books had been com
piled for ecclesiastical use, these books came to be held
in special favor among them, and were not infrequently quoted
1 Fiirst, Der Kan. A. T., part viii. sect. 7.
'9

29O HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. II.
by their writers as possessing a quasi authority. Under the
stimulus of sharp discussions with their Jewish opponents,
however, there was furnished an occasion for understanding and
fixing, more precisely, the real distinction between the Hebrew
and Greek Bibles ; and, to this end, the labors of several notable
scholars and writers seem to have been specially directed.
Origen (186-254), among others, felt called upon to give
Origen and a ^'st °f the canonical books " according to the tradi-
others. t;on of the Hebrews." This list conforms to that of
Josephus, embracing twenty-two books, or, by the usual com
binations, the thirty-nine of our present Bibles, with only a
single slight exception, caused by an obvious mistake. And
Melito of Sardis (c. 172), in a letter to Onesimus, — a Christian
of Asia Minor, who wishes to know " the exact truth with
respect to the old books, their number and order," — names, book
by book, the writings at present included in our Old Testa
ment, with the exception of Lamentations, Nehemiah, and
Esther. The first two were doubtless considered a part of
Jeremiah and Ezra respectively, as was customary : while
Esther was also joined to the latter, as some critics suppose ;
or was left out on account of some hesitation felt by the
Jews at that time concerning its full canonicity. Two points
of special interest in this catalogue are first: that it was
made only after careful personal inquiries in Palestine itself;
and, second, that it appears from the names, numbers, and
order of the books to have been taken from the Palestinian
Version of the Septuagint, — the one, as Westcott supposes,
made use of by our Saviour and his Apostles in all their quota
tions.1 These citations from individual witnesses might be almost
individual indefinitely extended, — as from Jerome (329-420), Hi-
neces's'ary1 larius (died 36S), Ruffinus (c 410), and others, — all
supporting the view here taken respecting the limits of the
Hebrew Canon and its general adoption by the Chris
tian Church. But it should be sufficient to state that, " during
the first four centuries, this Hebrew Canon (with no essential
variations) is the only one distinctly recognized, and it is sup-
1 Bib. in Ch., p. 124.

The Canon. THE OLD TESTAMENT. 29I
ported by the combined authority of those Fathers whose criti
cal judgment is entitled to the greatest weight." J It was
formally adopted by councils of the Greek Church in the
fourth century ; and although, in consequence of the peculiar
influence of Augustine and because the Septuagint was the
original of the Old Latin version, the Latin Church, as such,
did not arrive at a similar official decision, " still a continuous
succession of the more learned Fathers in the West maintained
the distinctive authority of the Hebrew Canon up to the time
of the Reformation." 2
And it ought to be further and specially considered — what
we have before intimated — that, since the beginning The Jews as
ofthe Christian Era to the present day, the Old Testa- the extent of
ment books have been in the keeping of both Jews Canon.
and Christians, and by both held as sacred. Two great oppos
ing parties have been guarding, as it were, the same casket of
jewels. If one party, or a portion of it, for any reason had
attempted to add to or subtract from them, it could not have
escaped the notice of the other or passed without tokens of
decided dissent. Indeed the history of the Old Testament ,
Canon, throughout the Christian centuries, proves this. Con
sequently, when we find that the Jews in the Talmud, and all
other competent authorities down to the present day, hold
exactly to the Old Testament (the Hebrew Canon) of the Chris
tian, even to the extent of sometimes participating in a joint
publication of the same, the evidence for the identity of our
present (Protestant) Old Testament books with those in use in
our Saviour's time, and so in a time far anterior to that, is abun
dantly conclusive and satisfactory.
* Smith's Bib. Diet., Art. Can. O. T.
2 Id. Cf. De Wette, Introd. to O. T., i. 112.

CHAPTER III.
OKIGIN OF SEPARATE BOOKS.  PENTATEUCH.  JUDGES.
THE PENTATEUCH.
IT would be foreign to the general idea and purpose of this
work to enter upon, or even definitely trace, the volumi
nous and often unsatisfactory discussions which, especially
Subject - since the middle of the last century, have been carried
how treated. on respecting the age, origin, and integral parts of
the Old Testament books. Our object being to indicate results
rather than processes and methods of investigation, only the
more valuable facts appearing to us to have been elicited or
settled by these controversies will here be stated.
And it should be premised as preparatory to a proper judi-
Something cial attitude, with respect to these facts, that no reason-
mised. able person will expect the same amount of external
testimony to the genuineness of the books of the Old Testa
ment as can readily be furnished in support of those of the
New. Some of these books clearly date back to a period
from which no contemporaneous literature has come down
to us. With respect to these we may fairly be satisfied with
such other simple and natural proofs of genuineness as might
rationally be expected in connection with documents of so
great an age.
Another preliminary consideration of importance is, that
Another pre- the question of authorship, in the case of these books,
sUeration. does not necessarily involve that of their genuineness.
A book, for instance, may be without any known author, and
still be genuine, as we have before seen in considering the
books of the New Testament. And a book might even be

Pentateuch. THE OLD TESTAMENT. 293
found to have been currently attributed to a wrong author
without prejudice to its proper genuineness or canonical
authority.1 But when, barring the question of the probably
composite character of certain of the Old Testament books,
there is a distinct claim of authorship in the work itself for a
particular person, as many suppose that in portions at least of
the Pentateuch there is for Moses, then, of course, the alterna
tive to denying such claim must be a verdict of intentional
falsification. Moreover, the question of authorship often car
ries with it, as in the case of a supposed eye-witness, the
virtual authentication of the narrative itself, not excepting
the record of the supernatural events that form a part of it,
and hence becomes a matter of special interest.2
And now, with respect to the Pentateuch, or the first five
books of the Bible, whose authorship has been until origin of
within about a hundred years uniformly ascribed to teucha"-""
Moses (died c. 1450), we will first notice the position the jews0
which the Jews themselves, into whose possession the book
originally came, and who have regarded it from time imme
morial with the utmost sacredness, have ever maintained con
cerning its origin. There has been, throughout their entire
history, scarcely any deviation among them from the view
that Moses was the virtual author of the whole work, with the
exception of the last part of Deuteronomy, relating to his own
death, which was attributed to Joshua. The Talmud specifi
cally states that he brought the five books to a conclusion,
himself determining and limiting the bulk of the chapters
{Paraschas) and of the verses (Pesukim).s This opinion
has been confined to no one sect among them, but all sects
and parties, — Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, Palestinian
and Alexandrian Jews, as well as Samaritans, have shared it
in common. Again, this opinion was also held and distinctly affirmed
by our Saviour and his Apostles, a fact which by far Testimony of
the larger portion of Christendom will esteem of no his Apostles.
little importance, notwithstanding the sentiment which De
1 Cf. Stanley's Hist. Jewish Ch. 2d sen p. 647, note B.
» Cf. Rawlinson's Hist. Ev., p. 56. ' Furst, Der Kan. A. T., part i. sect j.

294 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. III.
Wette approves, that Jesus did not come into the world to
teach criticism, and that faith in him cannot set limits to criti
cal inquiries.1 Allusions and citations from Ecclesiastes, Levit
icus, and Deuteronomy, found in the Gospels, are spoken of
as being from Moses, and the Pentateuch is distinctly called
" the Law of Moses." Our Lord, in one place, states, definitely,
that Moses wrote of him (John vi. 46, 47), and that these
writings were then in the hands of the Jews, which Alford
declares should be accepted as " testimony to the fact that
Moses had written those books, which even then were still
known by his name."
Still further, a number of heathen writers, independently
Also of of any direct relations with the Jews, as Manetho
heathen T . . ._ ...
writers, and Lysimachus, representing Lgyptian opinions not
only not friendly, but positively hostile, to the Jews ; as well
as Hecatasus, Tacitus, Juvenal, Longinus, and others, all recog
nize Moses in the institution of the Jewish code of laws,
and most of them also mention that he committed these laws
to writing.2 Now, in the face of a tradition so wide-spread, persistent,
Burden of ar>d well-nigh unanimous, the onus probandi should
wkh oppo- certainly lie not with those who maintain the Mosaic
Mosaicau- authorship of the Pentateuch, but with those who
thorship. reject it. And it might reasonably be expected that
the proofs which they bring will consist of something more
than simple prepossessions against a supernatural revelation
of any sort, or what is miraculous under any circumstances ;
mere matters of style ; the interpretation of isolated, and pos
sibly interpolated, passages ; and various a priori and un
proved assumptions. It might be expected, indeed, that those
who oppose Mosaic authorship, under such circumstances,
would do it on grounds so obvious that it could be held in
common, and held to the end ; while the truth is that nearly
every opponent has a theory in some respects peculiar to him
self, and one which if proved would often be quite as damaging
to friends as foes. And not only do these critics fail to agree
with one another in their conclusions, but are generally also as
1 Introd. to O. T., ii. 160. a Rawlinson, id., p. 50.

Pentateuch. THE OLD TESTAMENT. 295
far from agreeing with themselves through the different stages
of their investigations. And, as if to satisfy us once for all, of
the utter impracticability of reaching any definite and satisfac
tory results by such methods, and to show us to what lengths
a rationalizing process, once let loose, will extend, we find
Ewald, the prince of this school of investigators, coolly divid
ing the Pentateuch among seven different authors or editors,
and confidently assigning to each author his special work.
The following is a specimen of his method of reasoning:
"The correct discrimination of individuals among the narra
tors is, indeed, more difficult, as a more uniform and properly
prose style for narrative is now being gradually formed ; still,
on accurate inspection, tolerably distinct shades may always
be perceived in the various authors' mode of narration, which,
when they concur with other and more internal distinctions,
present sufficiently reliable data to the judgment." J
But in proceeding further to adduce certain direct reasons
for maintaining the Mosaic authorship of the Penta- Definite
teuch, we notice, first, that there can be no longer any ^ordinary
reasonable doubt entertained that alphabetic writing vlew-
was sufficiently well understood, and literary culture suffi
ciently advanced in the time of Moses to remove any objections
on that score to his. authorship. Ewald says that " the Tables
of the Law are an incontrovertible proof that there was writ
ing in the age of Moses ; and, when writing once existed, the
greatness of the Mosaic age was exciting enough speedily to
develop the germs of historic composition. On the same spot,
therefore, in the history of Israel, on which the foundation for
the whole of its subsequent development was laid, we also find
the concurrence of those two conditions from which a national
historiography may arise." 2
Moreover, it is pretty generally admitted, on all sides, that
some considerable portions of the Pentateuch must Admitted
, , . ,,, ^aai Moses
have been written, or at least dictated, by the great wrote por-
Jewish legislator. Bleek, who rejects the theory of Pentateuch.
•sole Mosaic authorship, still says : " Of those laws which
appear to carry with them such clear and exact traces of the
1 Hist of Israel, i. 97. 2 Hist, of Israel, i. 49.

296 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. chap. III.
Mosaic age, there are many occurring, especially in Levit
icus, and also in Numbers and Exodus " [of these he gives
numerous examples], " which laws relate to situations and
surrounding circumstances, only existing whilst the people —
as was the case in Moses's time — wandered in the wilderness,
and were dwellers in the close confinement of camps and tents,
which was not the case after the people had come into the pos
session of the land of Canaan, and had spread themselves out
in cities and over the whole country." J
Besides, there is a positive claim in parts of the Pentateuch
a claim for to a Mosaic origin, which it is impossible to set aside.
Pm't^uch ^e read, for instance, in Ex. xxiv. 3, 4, that " Moses
itself. came and told the people all the words of Jehovah,
and all the judgments " (referring, doubtless, to the Sinaitic
legislation), and that afterwards, "he wrote down all the
words of Jehovah." Further on (v. 7), we learn that these
words were written in the " book of the covenant." In Num
bers, xxxiii. 2, we also learn that Moses recorded the journey-
ings of the children of Israel in the desert, and kept an account
of the various stations at which they encamped. Of which
circumstance, Ewald remarks that it is not easy to conceive
that this ever could have been written down by itself without
forming a part of a regular historical work.2 We have, too, a
definite declaration (Deut. xxxi. 9, 24, 25) that Moses wrote that
form of the Law recorded in Deuteronomy ; and that when
he had made an end of writing it till it was finished, he deliv
ered it (the book) to the Levites, to be laid up in the sides of
the Ark as a witness. It has been, not without reason, sup
posed by some, that the book here referred to was the whole
Pentateuch, which Moses thus brought to a conclusion ; but
this cannot with certainty be known. The majority of critics
seem to prefer to limit the reference to that summary of the
Law contained in Deuteronomy alone. But, however this
may be, it is evident that Deuteronomy presupposes the exist
ence of the books that go before it, and that the Jewish law
giver or leader would not naturally have been more solicitous
about the former than the latter. So much, at least, is certain :
1 Introd. to O. T., i. 212. * Ewald, id., p. 64.

Pentateuch. THE OLD TESTAMENT.

297

that there is direct testimony in the books themselves that
Moses was the author of parts of Leviticus, Exodus, Numbers,
and the principal portion of Deuteronomy (i-xxxi).
But, this being admitted, it is argued with great force, on
the same basis of internal evidence, that, with cer- The work
tain relatively unimportant exceptions in the case of nious whole.
interpolations and later additions and revisions, the Pentateuch
is an harmonious whole, making evident everywhere one dis
tinct plan, and one controlling mind. No one pretends that the
five books into which it is divided mark any actual interrup
tions in the unity of its composition. These were probably of
late Greek origin, as the titles themselves indicate. From the
very earliest times, the entire Pentateuch has been regarded as
one book, under the title of the " Law of Moses," the " Book
of the Law of Moses," or, simply, the "Book of Moses." To
Jews of the present day, it is known as the Torah or the
Law. So, too, in accordance with the same, the MSS. of
the Pentateuch are found uniformly combined together in one
single roll or volume. "But in reference to the matter:
that the Pentateuch in its present shape proceeds from a single
author is proved by its aim and plan ; according to which its
whole contents refer to the covenant concluded between Je
hovah and his people by the instrumentality of Moses, in such
a way that every thing before his time is perceived to be pre
paratory to this fact, and all the rest to be the development of
it. Nevertheless, this unity has not been first stamped upon
it as a matter of necessity by the latest redactor : it has been
there from the beginning, and is visible in the first plan and
the whole execution of the work. This is clearly seen, indeed,
from the exact chronology which runs through all the five
books, and knits all their parts together ; yet more, from the
care with which the materials are organically connected, and
the individual elements are linked together internally, so that
the earlier sections point forward to those by which they are
succeeded, and for which they prepare the way; while the
later sections point back to those winch preceded, partly devel
oping them, partly explaining and supplementing them."1
' Keil, Inlrod. to O. T., i. 153.

298 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. III.
Although the " giving of the Law is the real heart of the Pen
tateuch," the Jewish religion does not properly begin with
that, but with the promise to Abraham ; and the book of Gen
esis forms as natural a beginning as that of Deuteronomy does
an appropriate ending to the entire work.
It is not necessary to suppose that Moses actually penned
Moses not w'th his own hand the whole of the work ascribed to
^"laSi h''u, but that such parts as he did not write were sub-
penman. jec(. (-0 hjs arrangement and supervision. It would
not now be claimed, moreover, to any considerable extent,
that Moses received by direct revelation the account which it
is held that he gives us of the Creation, Fall, Deluge, and of
the Patriarchal period ; but that, to a greater or less degree, he
was indebted for these facts to documents and records which,
in some intelligible and trustworthy form, had come down to
his time. Even though, however, his only resource had been
oral tradition, still the narrative, without the plea of inspira
tion, might be entitled to our confidence, when we consider
the great age to which men lived in those early times,
and that, according to the Biblical account, the very earliest
events noted in the Pentateuch were only four of the then
generations removed from the writer ; while it is generally
admitted that, as a rule, the great, stirring events in a nation's
life, apart from all written memorials, will be remembered for
a hundred and fifty years, or, through five of our present gen
erations.1 But there is every probability that in the Mosaic
period written records were in existence of all the principal
facts embraced in the sacred history. In addition to other strong
and, to most, conclusive internal evidence of various original
documents, there is the very minute and circumstantial history
of Joseph, as well as of the Patriarchs generally, to attest the
theory of a contemporaneous, or nearly contemporaneous,
record. Moreover, if Moses was not the virtual author of Genesis
ThePenta- in its present shape, as well as of the rest of the Pen-
teuch prop- * , ,
eriy assigned tateuch, there is no other period to which we can
to no other .
period. reasonably assign it. It has been shown in effect, by
1 Rawlinson, Hist. Ev., p. 59.

Pentateuch. THE OLD TESTAMENT. 299
Palfrey,1 Lange,2 Kurtz, and others, " that it is an historical
fact, better established than any other in antiquarian research,
that the Pentateuch is the basis and necessary preliminary of
all Old Testament history and literature, both of which — and
with them Christianity as their fruit and perfection — would
resemble a tree without roots, a river without a source, or a
building which, instead of resting on a firm foundation, was
suspended in the air, if the composition of the Pentateuch
were relegated to a later period in Jewish history. The refer
ences to the Pentateuch occurring in the history and literature
of the Old Testament are so numerous and comprehensive,
and they bear on so many different points, that we cannot
even rest satisfied with the admissions which Bertheau himself
would readily make, that many portions of the present Penta
teuch date from the time of Moses, and were only collated
and elaborated by a later editor. We go further, and maintain
that the whole Pentateuch — its five books and all the portions
of which it is at present made up — is the basis and necessary-
antecedent ofthe history of the Jewish people, commonwealth,
religion, manners, and literature." 8
It is not denied that there are difficulties, and sometimes,
it may be, apparent inconsistencies and contradictions N un
involved in the theory of the sole Mosaic authorship ural or 'n'
J r superable
of the Pentateuch ; but it is held that these difficulties difficulties.
are only such as might be expected in the nature of the case,
in a work so ancient and so transmitted as this, and such, more
over, as would become both more numerous and more inex
plicable on any other theory of authorship. It is not denied
that, in some instances, later hands may have tampered with
the first original draft of the history, either in the way of sub
stitution or in supplying what had in some way been lost, and
that this work of revision may have been carried on, in some
degree, even as late as the time of Ezra ; yet it is still main
tained, that the history itself, in its various interdependencies and
relations, external and internal, furnishes sufficient proof of its
substantial accuracy and uniform faithfulness. There is no
1 Leet. on Jewish Scrip., i. 67-80. 8 Old Cov., i. 56 ; iii. 504, 509.
2 Introd. to Gen., p. 97.

300 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. III.
inconsistency, no apparent false stateryient or contradiction, no
diversities of style, no objections whatever to the prevailing
opinion respecting the authorship of the first five books of the
Bible, that are not capable of a reasonable explanation. In
the majority of instances, indeed, many explanations offer
themselves, thus " repelling to a vanishing distance " the diffi
culties urged. For though " no one of them may be the real
missing link in the chain of facts, which by hypothesis, be it
remembered, is unknown ; yet they all combine to show that
the event in question might occur not only in one but in a
variety of ways." J JOSHUA.
The first book of what was known in Jewish phraseology
Amhorof as the " Former Prophets " (referring to divine inspi-
not certain- ration rather than the prediction of future events), and
ly known, ^g one tna(. immediately succeeds the Pentateuch in
our English Bibles, is Joshua. It is not certainly known who
was its author as the work stands. This lack, however, as we
have before remarked, militates in no respect against the genu
ineness or canonical authority of the work. The Saxon Chron
icle, the Parian Marble, and other ancient records have no
known author, but still are regarded as of the highest historic
value. What might be considered as state papers, so far from
requiring the indorsement of a known author, would perhaps
be even weakened in their authority by such support.2 It
is doubtless principally on account of the subject-matter that
the work before us bears the name of the successor of Moses.
In this respect it is on a level with other books of the Old
Testament ; as, Judges, Kings, Ruth, Esther, &c.
Modern attempts to invalidate the genuineness of the book
Unsuccess- of loshua, to prove its fragmentary character, or to
ful attempts J. ,-,,.,, ,
to invalidate assign lt to a relatively late period, have proved unsuc-
ness. cessful. Indeed, a declared unwillingness to acknowl
edge the proper historic character of any document, to the extent
that it professes to relate what is supernatural or miraculous,
* Murphy on Gen., Pref, p. xiv. s Rawlinson, Hist. Ev., p. 79.

Joshua. THE OLD TESTAMENT. 3OI
leaves one an abundant margin for distrusting the widely diver
gent conclusions of the more recent German critics. Contra
dictions supposed to be found in the work quickly disappear
before a really candid adjustment of facts. De Wette, for in
stance, finds positive inconsistency in xiii. 1-6, compared with
xviii. 3, ii. 22. But the difficulty is solved by simply consid
ering that, while the conquest of Canaan was, indeed, essen
tially complete, and the division among the several tribes had
taken place, yet the full subjugation of each of the hostile
nations separately had not taken place.1
References in Joshua to the Pentateuch (though not in the
form of quotations) are somewhat numerous (i. 8, References
viii. 31, xxiii. 6, xxiv. 26), showing chronological se- Pentateuch.
quence and a close internal connection, but not to the extent
of justifying us in regarding it as actually a constituent part
of it, and of the same authorship, a theory maintained by
Ewald and some others. It was never bound up with the
Pentateuch, carries within itself every mark of an indepen
dent work, and both in idea and treatment, displays through
out an harmonious and consistent unity. Other books of
Scripture, by allusions to facts contained in this, serve to con
firm our judgment of its historic trustworthiness (Ps. lxxviii.
53-65, Is. xxviii. 21, Hab. iii. 11-13, Acts vii. 45, Heb, iv. 8,
Jas. ii. 25).
Respecting the matter of probable date and authorship,
there is no reason for calling in question the uniform Probable
Jewish tradition to the effect that Joshua was con- thorship.
cerned in its production. The memoirs in ch. xxiv. 26,
are expressly ascribed to him in the work itself. Other parts
cannot so well be referred to any one else as to him ; as, for
instance, the two addresses (xxiii, xxiv), the minute accounts
of Joshua's intercourse with God (i. 1, iii. 7, iv. 2, &c). The
writer moreover speaks both as an eye-witness of, and an im
portant participant in the events narrated. But Joshua could
not have recorded the fact of his own death, and there are,
also, other matters spoken of in this book which did not occur
until after his decease (Josh. xv. 13-19 ; cf. Judg. i. 10-15,
1 Introd. to 0. T., ii. 171. Cf. Herzog's Encyc, Art. Josh.

302 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. Ill,
Josh. xix. 47 ; cf. Judg. i. 21). The formula, too, " unto this
day " indicates that the book in its present shape does not pre
cisely synchronize with the events narrated. Keil's theory,
therefore, may be accepted as sufficiently approximating the
truth, that the work in its present form is the production of
one of the elders " that overlived Joshua" (xxiv. 31 ; Judg.
ii. 7), who wrote the history of his times toward the end of his
life after the death of Joshua and Eleazer.1

JUDGES.
The book of Judges receives its name from that series of
Name deliverers, thirteen or fourteen in number, whom the
period'in- L°rd raised up after the death of Joshua to rescue
eluded, &c jsraei from the yoke of their oppressors. The whole
work, however, covers a period extending somewhat beyond
the time of the Judges to that of Eli and Samuel. It natu
rally follows in chronological order the book of Joshua, open
ing with a formal reference to that distinguished leader's
death. Ruth was formerly reckoned as a part of Judges, in
the Hebrew enumeration of the sacred books ; and these two,
together with the books of Samuel and tbe Kings, really form
a more or less continuous narrative, covering several eventful
centuries of Jewish history. The exact chronology of Judges
forms a difficult, if not inexplicable, problem ; although this is
a thing of minor importance with reference to the purposes of
the present work.2 The whole period which Keil assigns to
it, of 350 years, shows, at least, that historic documents must
have been to a large extent relied on in the composition of the
work, a conclusion which is-confirmed by the style of the his
tory itself; as, in the words of the prophet, ii. 1-5 ; the song
of Deborah, v. ; Jotham's parable, ix. 7-20 ; and also by " the
original touches and expressions which give a remarkable
character to the extended delineations of the deeds of individ
ual judges." The possibility of the existence of such' records
has just been actually demonstrated in our own times by the
1 Introd. to O. T., i. 212. 2 Cf. Rawlinson, Hist. Ev. note, p. 293.

Judges. THE OLD TESTAMENT. 303
providential discovery of the Moabite stone, which Dr. Gins-
burg refers to the first year of the reign of Jehu, or a period not
far removed from a part of that embraced in our history.
The Talmudic as well as all other Jewish traditions unite
with the early Christian in assigning the authorship of
Judges to Samuel. Whether this be correct or not,
the date thus given to the work cannot be far amiss, since,
according to the contents (Judg. i. 21 ; cf. 2 Sam. v. 6-9) it
must have been written after the death of Samson, and yet
before the capture of Jerusalem by David. It has all the
marks of having proceeded in its final form from one author.
And " the originality in matter and expression which beams
forth from every one of the historical pictures, and the unmis
takable fidelity with which the political condition and the civil
usages of the people of Israel in these times have been de
picted, have so distinctly impressed a stamp of historical truth
upon the book, that this is commonly conceded even by the
scepticism of the modern criticism ; although in accordance
with its dogmatic assumptions, this criticism rejects the mirac
ulous features and the theocratic spirit as unhistorical legends
and ingredients." J 1 Keil, Introd. to O. T., i. 230.

CHAPTER IV.
ORIGIN OF SEPARATE BOOKS, CONTINUED. RUTH. — PROVERBS.
RUTH.
THE beautiful story of Ruth, the Moabitess, might prop
erly find a place in the Holy Scriptures for a variety of
Canonical reasons, among which are the support it gives to the
rank. levirate law of marriage ; the fact that it supplies an
important link, omitted in the books of Samuel, with respect
to the ancestry of David ; and especially, in that it shows the
sublime faith in the God of the Hebrews on the part of a poor
pagan woman, with its subsequent conspicuous reward. The
period of Jewish history to which the narrative refers must
have been somewhere about one hundred years, or, more ex
actly, three generations before the time of David, Ruth being,
as it is supposed, the great-grandmother of that king. But
the work itself could not have come into existence then, since
we learn from it that, at the time when it was written, David
had already attained to the throne. The Talmudic tradition,
therefore, that Samuel wrote the book, in connection with that
of the Judges,1 finds little support among scholars of the pres
ent day.
No serious objection, in fact, seems to exist to our dating the
book as originating near the close of David's reign, or
Its elate a little later. Ewald admits2 that it might readily
have come into existence during the rule of David's house, yet
prefers himself to refer it to the period of the Exile and to an
author " who had obviously read himself into the spirit of the
ancient works both of history and of poetry, and so produces
a very striking imitation of the older work of the Kings."
1 Fiirst, Der Kan. A. T., part ii. sect. 2. » Hist, of Is., i. 154, 155.

ruth. THE OLD TESTAMENT. 305
Most persons will judge that Ewald creates here a greater
difficulty than any which he attempts to remove. For a
Hebrew to have married a Moabitess at the time of the Exile
would have been matter of grave scandal, and no story-writer
possessed of the artistic skill and culture ascribed by Ewald
to the author of Ruth would have been guilty of such a
blunder. Indeed the narrative has every mark of the most faithful
reality, is fascinating in its simplicity, contains noth- internal
ing impossible or improbable (De Wette), and, quite genuineness.
unlike a fictitious account, adheres to the plain facts, although
by so doing it might seem to detract from the splendor of the
royal house of David. The reference in ch. iv. 7, does not
necessitate a later date than that which is here given to the
work ; while the plea of the existence of Chaldaisms is suffi
ciently well met by Keil, who says, that they are " in part
remains of the older formation of the language ; and, partly,
they are taken from the common colloquial language. In the
author's own narrative, his diction is pure Hebrew, and free
from later Chaldaisms." x The position assigned to this book
by the Greek translators, — just after Judges and before 'the
books of Samuel and the Kings, — supposing that one of its
principal objects is to give the lineage of David (iv. 18-22), is
a most natural one, since the family line of David, as principal
hero of all these books, is of more importance than that of
either Saul or Samuel, both of which are given (1 Samuel i. 1 ;
ix. 1). The fact that the genealogy referred to is defective,
only the generations being mentioned during a period of nine
hundred years, is accounted for by supposing that principal
personages alone are indicated, as was frequently the case in
tables of this sort. BOOKS OF SAMUEL.
The books of Samuel are so named for the reason that this
prophet occupies the foreground in them, being the General
divine agent through whom Saul, the first king of istics.
1 Introd. to O. T., ii. 44.
20

306 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. chap. IV.
Israel, and David, its most distinguished ruler, are anointed
and brought forward. The two books of our English Bibles
formed but one in the original Hebrew Canon, the division
having probably been first made by the translators of the Sep
tuagint ; from that source appearing afterward in the Vul
gate, and thence, finally, introduced into the printed Hebrew
text by Bomberg in the sixteenth century. The historic connec
tion of the work with the book of Judges is very close : the lat
ter closing with the notice of the supremacy of the Philistines,
and the mighty deeds of Samson, the Israelitish champion ;
and the former beginning with a detailed recognition of the
same Philistine ascendancy until the kingdom was restored
to Israel under the guidance of Samuel (i Sam. i.— xii.). The
remainder of the work is taken up with the history of Saul to
the time of his death (xiii.-xxxi.) ; and then, of the rule of
David to its conclusion (2 Sam. v. 4), no notice being taken
of his death, however ; perhaps, because the reins of govern
ment were transferred to the hands of Solomon before that
event took place.
It is almost universally acknowledged that, in its present
form, the work before us had a single author, although
it is admitted that the historic documents and sources
of the narrative were probably numerous and varied. This
very fact, moreover, that the narrative was dependent on such
different sources, should be sufficient to account for the occa
sional repetitions found in it, as well as the apparent and alleged
contradictions, and the seeming isolation of certain sections
and dislocation of certain sentences, which it exhibits. On
the other hand, the substantial unity of the work appears in
the general continuity of thought throughout, the similarity of
language and style in every part, the marked interdependence
of the several parts, and the frequent references from one to
another. Even De Wette admits that " the narrative bears
the marks of a genuine history, and when it is not fully derived
from contemporaneous documents, as it is in some places, it
is yet drawn from an oral tradition very lively and true, and is
only disturbed and confused now and then.1 " That the author
1 Introd. to O. T., ii. 210.

Kmgs. THE OLD TESTAMENT. 307
of this book might have found contemporaneous documents
and monuments of which to avail himself in its composition is
clearly evident from 1 Sam. vi. 18; vii. 12; 2 Sam. i. 18;
and 1 Chron. xxix. 29.
With respect to the important matter of date, only certain
extreme limits within which it is likely to have been
written can be fixed upon with any certainty. It is
argued with good reason, for instance, that it could not well
have been written before the separation of the two kingdoms,
which took place after the death of Solomon (c 975 B.C.) ; since
the kings of Judah and of Israel are here put in contrast with
each other (1 Sam. xxvii. 6). Saul, David, and Solomon are
never called kings of Judah simply. This fact might furnish a
limit in one direction. Then we learn further, from the book
itself, that it was still, at the time of the writing, customary
to worship Jehovah in other places (high places) than at
the door of the tabernacle (1 Sam. vii. 9, 10, 17; ix. 13;
xiv. 35), with the seeming tacit understanding that such wor
ship was not unacceptable to the Lord. This, it is held, could
not have occurred so late as the time of Josiah (c. 642-61 1 , b.c.)
under whom such worship was abolished, and the strict letter
of the law, as recorded in the Pentateuch, enforced in all mat
ters of this kind. With the greatest probability, then, the book
was written at some time within this period ; and there is noth
ing properly to hinder the supposition that the composition
took place not long after the death of Solomon, as critics of the
most diverse schools are agreed.

THE TWO BOOKS OF KINGS.
The two books of Kings, like the two of Samuel, originally
formed but one undivided work in the Jewish Scrip- General
tures. The character of its contents doubtless deter- istics.
mined the title which has been assigned to the composition, it
being a continuation of the history of the theocracy under
Solomon and succeeding kings, up to the period of the Exile
and the dissolution of the State. The history of Solomon's

308 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. IV.
reign extends through the first eleven chapters ; then follows
that ofthe two separate kingdoms, given side by side (i Kings
xii. ; 2 Kings xvii.) ; and, finally, the account of the kingdom
of Judah till its destruction (2 Kings xviii.-xxv.).
As there was an evident thread of history connecting the
Historical books of Samuel with Judges, so here in turn there is
with other a ciear historic reference to, and connection with, the
books. books of Samuel (cf. 1 Kings viii. 18, 25 with 2 Sam.
vii. 12-16 ; 1 Kings ii. 11, with 2 Sam. v. 5 ; 1 Kings iv. 1-6,
with 2 Sam. viii. 15-18). But there is no such connection or
similarity between them, as to justify Ewald's supposition that
they all, including Ruth, proceeded from one author. The
books of Samuel contain no traces of the Babylonish exile ; do
not quote authorities, nor give chronological dates, nor speak
of the worship of Jehovah in the same spirit, nor use the same
diction as do these.1
The work before us, moreover, has every mark of inde-
Aninde- pendence and of essential unity. De Wette says : "A
peddcom- certain unity is discernible from beginning to end." 2
piete work, Thg Same writer, although carefully eliminating what
ever has the slightest tinge of the miraculous as " mythical,"
still speaks of the little natural touches which show the au
thor's delicate sense of historic fidelity, a number of which he
indicates. One of them is the exclamation of the man who
lost his axe in the water: "Alas, master! for it was bor
rowed" (2 Kings vi. 5), of which he says that "the honesty
of a man could not be better delineated." Yet this very
account is indissolubly connected with one of this critic's so-
called myths, and for truthfulness of narration must stand or
fall with it.
One peculiar characteristic of the author of this work we
Author ap- bave already noticed, — his continual appeal to spe-
seecmc°au- C1^c authorities. These authorities might almost seem
tiioaties. j.0 kg a regular series of public annals, covering the
whole period of the history. They are variously entitled,
" The Books of the Acts of Solomon " (1 Kings xi. 41) ;
1 Hist, of Is., i. 159. Cf. Home's Introd , ii. 673.
2 Introd. to O. T., ii. 238.

Kings THE OLD TESTAMENT. 309
"The Book of the Chronicles . of the Kings of Judah" (1
Kings xiv. 29) ; " The Books of the Chronicles of the Kings
of Israel ; " and " The Books ofthe Kings of Judah and Israel"
(2 Chron. xxxii. 32). The second of these books is quoted
fifteen times, and the third sixteen. In fact, the extreme
documentary character of the work, while it gives an air of
positiveness and reality to it, still furnishes occasion, at times,
through an imperfect adjustment and moulding of materials,
for repetitions, difficulties in chronology, obscurities, and even
discrepancies, acknowledged by our most candid scholars to
be at present inexplicable.
With respect to the date of the production, there is no seri
ous difference of opinion, Bleek, Ewald, De Wette,
Keil, Home's Introduction, and other authorities, plac
ing it after the beginning of the captivity at Babylon and before
its close (c. 588-538 B.C.). The book concludes with the state
ment that Jehoiachin, the king, having been carried into cap
tivity (599 B.C.) in the thirty-seventh year of tiiis captivity (562
B.C.), he was released and treated with high respect by the
monarch at Babylon — Evil-Merodach — " all the days of his
life." But there is no intimation in the book of the liberation
of the Jews generally from captivity, but rather the contrary.
Hence, it is justly inferred that the writer must have done his
work in the interval between the death of Jehoiachin and the
return of the exiled Jews to their native land.
Who the author was will probably always remain a matter
of uncertainty. Some still adhere to the Talmudic Su ose,
tradition that it was Jeremiah, the last part of the lat- author-
ter's prophecy being almost or quite identical with the last
section of the book of Kings. Most critics, however, find
insuperable objections to this theory. Bleek thinks Baruch
was compiler and editor of both works ; Keil that it was some
citizen of Judah (2 Kings xxii. 21) still in exile in Babylon.
The book is referred to in several places in the New Testa
ment (Luke iv. 25-27 ; Rom. xi. 2-4 ; Heb. xi. 35 ; Jas. v.
17, 18 ; Rev. xi. 6), and its canonical authority has never been
disputed.

3IO HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. IV.

THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES.
The title which our so-called Books of Chronicles now
Origin of bear, dates back only to the time of Jerome and the
contents. Vulgate. The original Hebrew caption was " Words
of Days," or " Annals ; " while the Alexandrian translators
designated them by the term " Paraleipomena," or " Supple
ments," perhaps under a somewhat erroneous conception of
their contents. Like the Books of Samuel and the Kings, they
were originally regarded as one, the present division being
arbitrarily made for the purpose of securing the requisite
number (corresponding with the alphabet) of canonical Scrip
tures in the Hebrew Canon. Chapters i.— ix. contain little more
than a bare list of genealogies ; x.-xxix., a history of the reign
of David ; and the remainder of the work, an account of Solo
mon's reign, together with that of the other kings of Judah,
to the time of the Exile.
Supposing the work to have originated some time subse-
intemai quent to the period of the Babylonian exile, as is gen-
genuineness, erally acknowledged, its contents, both with respect to
matter and form, tally remarkably with what we might natur
ally expect — and, indeed, know from other sources — was the
state of things at that time. The genealogies, for instance, so
uninteresting to most modern readers, were really an impor
tant part of the public records in the Hebrew State. They were
the basis on which not only the land was distributed and held,
but the public services of the temple were arranged and con
ducted, — the Levites and their descendants alone, as is well
known, being entitled to the necessary allowances of tithes,
first-fruits, &c, set apart for that purpose. And it is a notice
able fact, that, while in the historic portions of the work much
of the same ground is passed over as in the Books of Samuel
and the Kings, still the materials are so handled — certain parts
being omitted, and certain other parts enlarged and emphasized
— as to indicate a special object in the composition ; and that
such object was largely to dignify, render attractive, and restore
fully the glory of the ancient temple service. This peculi-

Chronicles.' THE OLD TESTAMENT. 3II
arity has not escaped the notice of investigators ; and it was
on this ground, doubtless, that Ewald inferred that the author
must have been himself a Levite, and that De Wette supposes
that he was a priest.
Making use to a considerable extent of the same original
sources as previous sacred historians, the work before Minor di-
,s • , , , versifies
us would naturally contain many passages parallel and their
with them ; and we accordingly find forty sections origin.
(Keil) in the history of David, Solomon, and the Kings of
Judah in common with the books we have already noticed,
though in different order and sequence. This circumstance
furnishes occasion, as in other cases of several independent
histories of the same events, — like the life of our Lord, for
instance, by the Evangelists, — for the appearance of minor
diversities in connection with a general and substantial agree
ment, and yet without justly exciting suspicion respecting the
truthfulness of either narrative. In all such cases, we have
reason to suppose that a full knowledge of details, barring
corruptions and errors of transcribers, would readily account
for any apparent discrepancies or contradictions. It is Dill-
mann's opinion, that " we find nothing in Chronicles to excite
suspicion ; " that " the difference between Chronicles and
Kings, with respect to proper names, figures, &c, may satis
factorily be attributed to incidental corruption of the text ; "
that the " historical credibility of the work has been fully vin
dicated ; " and that it might justly have been admitted to the
Canon on the ground of its " internal merits," and because
" it gives essential aid in the study of the older historical
books." x
A probable, if not an actually acknowledged, motive which
prompted the severe assaults of De Wette and some Motive of
1. 1 . r i • , r . r- ¦ hostile as-
others upon this work is found in the fact that, if it sauits.
were to be admitted as a trustworthy witness of the period
to which it is generally assigned, it would necessitate a speedy
change of base on the part of these critics with respect to the
age of the Pentateuch, which they have been accustomed to
regard as a production of the time of the Captivity. The
1 Hertzog's Encyc, Art. Chron. Cf. Rawlinson's Hist. Ev., p. 106.

312 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. IV.
Chronicles presuppose the existence of certain laws respecting
the Levites and the temple service, before or during the reign
of David, which laws are to be found only in the Pentateuch.1
All such charges of spuriousness, however, have been success
fully met and refuted even on German soil ; and these books
are generally acknowledged to stand on a firm basis of his
toric truth.
With respect to the particular author of the work, and its
Authorship precise date, there is much difference of opinion. The
and date. article in Smith's Dictionary (Chronicles) argues that
the author was the prophet Daniel ; Smith's Students' History
of Bible, Keil, Davidson (Kitto's Cyc), and some other au
thorities, favor the Jewish tradition and the opinion of many
of the early Christian fathers, that Ezra was the writer ; Home
and Dillmann agree with Ewald that it originated about the
time of the Greek supremacy (c 330 B.C.), nearly two centuries
after Ezra ; Bleek says it could not have been written prior to
400 B.C., possibly as late as the ' Grasco-Macedonian rule.
Happily, the variety of opinion on this point need not disturb
our faith in its canonical authority, or stand in the way of the
purpose for which, in the providence of God, it was originally
written.

EZRA.
The book of Ezra originally formed but one work with
Nehemiah, and the two are still distinguished in the
Vulgate only as I. and II. Esdras. It is a continua
tion of the history .of the Jews, from the point where it is
dropped in the Chronicles up to the period of the arrival of
Ezra in Jerusalem and the beginning of his efforts at reform,
The whole period covered by the narrative is about seventy-
nine years, beginning with the reign of Cyrus and ending with
the eighth year of that of Artaxerxes Longimanus, the entire
contents being arranged chronologically, to correspond with
the sovereignties of the respective monarchs, six in number.
1 Keil, Introd. to O. T., ii. 80, 81. Cf. Smith's Diet., Art. Chron.

Nehemiah. THE OLD TESTAMENT. 313
Nothing incredible, unnatural, or improbable, even from a
rationalistic point of view, appears in the book ; so that, while
its canonical rank is unquestioned, it is also universally
regarded as well attested and genuine history.
The matter of date and authorship depends largely upon
the decision of the question, whether, in connection Timeof
with the book of Nehemiah, it is to be considered as «>mPosition-
an independent work, or only as a part of a larger work
which includes the books of Chronicles. Against the latter
supposition is: (i)the form of its (Nehemiah' s) commencement ;
(2) the identity of contents in some parts (1 Chron. ix. ; of.
Neh. xi.) ; (3) the earlier reception of Ezra into the Canon ;
and (4) various other internal evidences bearing in the same
direction.1 It is generally conceded that Ezra wrote a part of
the work. The arguments against his having written certain
other portions, where he (Ezra) is spoken of in the third per
son, are (as Bleek admits) not conclusive. It was ascribed to
him by Jewish tradition. And it is certainly impossible to
prove satisfactorily that he was not the writer. But, who
ever the writer may have been, he has left the most unmis
takable evidence of trustworthiness in the fact that, so far as
he was not himself an eye-witness of the events he describes,
his uniform appeal is to official documents and indisputable
authorities. NEHEMIAH.
The book of Nehemiah continues the narrative of the for
tunes of the Jews subsequent to the restoration, begin
ning with the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longima
nus (Neh. i. 1), with the eighth year of whose reign the book
of Ezra was concluded. The inscription with which the work
opens — "The words of Nehemiah" — is not unimportant,
announcing and certifying the fact that what follows proceeded
from his pen. Of the first seven chapters of the work before
us, this is scarcely doubted by any one. The last part, also,
from the twelfth chapter through, with certain exceptions, it
1 Cf. Herzog, Encyc, Art. Ezra.

314 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. IV.
is maintained with good reason, was his production. Who
wrote the central portion, in which the style differs widely
from what goes before and what follows, and in which Nehe
miah is spoken of in the third person, &c, is not known.
Keil thinks that Nehemiah may have written even this part.
But most scholars see insuperable difficulties in such a con
clusion. Some supposed that Ezra wrote it. and that it was
adopted by Nehemiah into his own work without essential
change. Home's Introduction agrees with Ewald in suppos
ing that it was the final compiler of the united work of
Chronicles, Nehemiah, and Ezra. Nagelsbach (Hertzog's
Encyc.) says it matters not who he was, inasmuch as he was
a contemporary of Nehemiah.
The book, at least, so far as we know, found its way un-
Canonicai questioned into the Canon, and has held its position
rank- there undisputed. We may safely assume that the
additions subsequently made to it, if there were such, were
not without due authority, since there is nothing on the face
of them to indicate any purpose other than the completion of
the history. The last of these apparent additions by common
consent cannot have been made later than the time of Alex
ander the Great (xii. 1-26, c. 330 B.C.), which was only about a
hundred years after the original work, including the central
unclassified portion, was written.

ESTHER.
Esther was the Persian name of Hadassa, a Jewish maiden,
General re- niece °f Mordecai. This name was changed to Esther
marks. (Sitareh), or star, after her elevation to be queen. The
book — which bears this title on account of its being the history
of events in which she bore a conspicuous part — has always
been greatly venerated by the Jews, being reckoned next in honor
to the Pentateuch itself. The feast of Purim — of whose origin
this work furnishes the only satisfactory account — it is known
was celebrated as early as the time of the Maccabees (2 Mac.
xv. 36) ; was treated with respect by our Saviour (John v. 1) ;

Esther. THE OLD TESTAMENT. 315
and is still universally observed by the Jews, a part of their
services on such occasions being the public reading of this his
tory. Such a fact assures us, at the outset, that the production
has a solid foundation of historic verity.
Moreover, the book makes significant reference to original
sources of information ; is singularly precise and defi- internal
*»..,,. . ,, proofs of
nite in all its statements concerning persons and places ; genuineness.
gives so clear and true an account of Persian manners that the
most distinguished orientalists have regarded it as a reliable
authority on the antiquities of that country ; is found to be in
minute harmony with whatever modern research has brought
to light concerning the former customs of those times ; in sim
plicity and naturalness of style, exhibits a marked contrast with
the apocryphal additions made in connection with the Septu
agint Version ; and, finally, presents no difficulties within itself,
and suggests no objection to the place it occupies as a part of
the sacred Canon which a reverent criticism may not readily
solve.1 It has been objected to the book that " the author avoids, as
if by design, the name of God " (Ewald) ; that a Objections
blood-thirsty spirit, foreign to the spirit of the Gospel, and others.
is manifested and fostered ; that certain parts of the history,
especially that relating to the slaughter of their enemies by the
Jews, is incredible ; and that there is difficulty in reconciling
the dates found in the book. To which objections, severally,
it is answered, that the omission of the name of God may be
accounted for on other ground than that of a want of venera
tion for him, since there is sufficient evidence that Esther and
her uncle were not uninfluenced by pious sentiments (iii. 2;
iv. 1-3, 14-16). "Nor is there need of much discernment
to apprehend the immense benefit which has accrued to the
Church in time past, and which must continue to accrue in
time to come from a holy silence combined with the spirit and
action of martyrs." 2 Further, the narrative simply states the
facts as they occurred, without any evident approval of them
in all respects. The account of the massacre of the enemies
of the Jews to the number of seventy-five thousand, with other
1 Cf. Baumgarten, Herzog's Encyc. Art. Esth. 2 Baumgarten, id.

316 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. IV.
connected statements, — considering the known character of
the age and of the ruling monarch, — is not only not incredi
ble, but is paralleled in the history of modern Europe in the
case of the massacre of St. Bartholomew.1 Besides, the exist
ence a-nd perpetuation of the feast of Purim requires histori
cal presuppositions of this magnitude to account for it. With
respect to the matter of confused dates, much depends upon
the spirit of candid investigation which one brings to the work,
as is seen in the ready solution of the commentators.2
It is generally admitted that the Ahasuerus of the story is
Date and no other than the famous Xerxes of profane history.
ofthework. And, from a careful weighing of evidence, it would
appear that its writer was a resident of the country, and
wrote while the empire was still standing. Some, how
ever, think that Ezra was its author; and others (though not
Keil) ascribe it to Mordecai himself (ix. 20). As we have inti
mated, in connection with the Septuagint version of the book,
certain apocryphal additions (as De Wette freely concedes they
are) were admitted. When Jerome translated the book into
the Vulgate he added these interpolated passages, but in such
a way as to indicate that they formed no part of the original
Hebrew. In the wretched, uncritical times that followed,
however, this distinction became obliterated ; and so six new
and wholly unauthorized chapters (xi.-xvi.) were introduced
into the Scriptures, and for a time formed a part of them.

JOB.
The book of Job, which has been termed " the greatest
Style and production of the ancient Israelitish philosophy," is,
matter. for fae most part, poetical in form, though scholars
seem unable to decide whether to call it a drama, an epic, or
a lyric poem (Keil). Around a nucleus of probable historic
truth, the writer, with true artistic taste and skill, has gath
ered what might appear to be the more marked theories, cur
rent in his time,, concerning the government of Jehovah,
1 Cf. Rawlinson, Hist. Ev., p. 152. a Keil, Introd. to O. T., ii. 124-128.

job. THE OLD TESTAMENT. 317
especially as it respects its .more mysterious and afflictive
aspects. But no proper analysis of the contents of the work
can here be even attempted. Want of space will compel us
to confine ourselves wholly to the questions of its integrity, and
its authorship and date.
Assaults have been made, in recent times, upon the unity
of the book, but with so little basis of sreal or apparent Objections
,.~ . . ,.„. to the unity
truth, that, coming from different critics and different of thework.
points of view, they have effectually neutralized one another.
The assumption of the interpolation of Elihu's discourses at
a later period — an assumption which Bleek seems to oppose,
and Delitzsch fully adopts, although holding that they form,
notwithstanding, an integral portion of canonical Old Testa
ment literature — is the only one which calls for special notice
at this time. And it should be noticed, first, that while the
majority of conservative critics hold to the complete unity and
integrity of the book as it now stands, not a few, who are
sceptically inclined, are tenacious of the same opinion. Then
the supposition of those who claim that this portion is a subse
quent addition (as some of them say, by the same hand) is
based on the intangible and unsatisfactory evidence of a seem
ing difference in tone of thought, doctrinal views, and, particu
larly, language and style. All of these points of objection
have been abundantly answered by Keil, among others, who
also shows that the whole tendency of these discourses of
Elihu " is to point out to Job the self-humiliation which is
necessary for man, and to show him that suffering may be a
grace as well as a punishment ; and thus to prepare the way
for the revelation of God, who leads the humbled patriarch
fully to see the wrong which he has done by speaking so pre
sumptuously ; and then unfolds the dreadful majesty of the
Almighty, only to discover his condescending love and grace."1
The article in Smith's Dictionary, also, shows that there are
striking and natural, though covert, .illusions by Elihu to the
discourses of Job and his friends, which prove an undoubted
internal connection.
With respect to the date of the composition, the opinion of
1 Introd. to O. T., i. 198.

318 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. IV.
Keil, Delitzsch, and some others, is that it belongs to the age
Time of of Solomon, a theory which, plausible in itself, they sup-
sition. port by arguments whose weight it is impossible to
deny.1 Home's Introduction falls in with the view of Ewald,
Bleek, De Wette, and some others, that it was written at about
the beginning of the 7th century B.C., or between the Assyrian
and Babylonian captivity.2 A writer in Smith's Dictionary
learnedly maintains that it was probably produced by a He
brew, well acquainted with Patriarchal customs, who lived
before the Sinaitic legislation. It is well known that the book
is referred to in the New Testament (Jas. v. 11), as also by the
prophet Ezekiel (xiv. 14, 20).

THE PSALMS.
The Hebrew title prefixed to the Psalter signifies " Songs
Title divis- °f Praise." This book served the same purpose in
ions, &c. t[ie Jewish Church, that the hymn-book does in the
Christian. The whole work was originally divided into five
parts, answering to the five books of the Pentateuch, each part
ending with a suitable doxology (i.-xli. ; xlii.-lxxii. ; lxxiii.-
lxxxix. ; xc.-cvi ; cvii.-cl.). The attempt has been made to
classify these parts according to their peculiar use of the divine
name, but the result has not been entirely satisfactory. Another
basis of classification has been sought in the contents, according
as the Psalms are didactic, or the sentiment of praise or of lam
entation predominates.
With respect to date of composition, the Psalms range from
When ^ie tuTle °f David to that of Nehemiah (1055-444).
written. Olshausen, Hitzig, and some others, bring down the
date of very many to the time of the Maccabees, three hun
dred years later, but solely on the basis of conjecture. This
view conflicts with that of the best authorities, as well as with
the true date of the conclusion of the Canon. From 2 Mac.
ii. 13, it should appear that the Psalter was connected with
the Prophets by Nehemiah. Bleek says that " there is no
1 Herzog's Encyc, Art. Job. 2 Cf. Fiirst, Der Kan. A. T., part v., sect. xii.

Proverbs. THE OLD TESTAMENT. 319
song in our Psalter, which from any well-founded reason
should be placed later than in Nehemiah's age." x Most of
the Psalms have titles, thought to be generally correct, specifi
cally naming their authors. Seventy-three are ascribed to
David. It is known to have been a custom with Arabian
and Hebrew writers to prefix their names to their compo
sitions, and these superscriptions of the Psalms in general
cannot be shown to have had any other origin. In very
many cases, the question of dates is readily settled by direct
allusions to contemporaneous history. Considering the whole
period covered by the Psalter as well as internal evidences,
it is clear that it must have come gradually into its present
shape, as is proved especially by the historic order of the
different authors and the definite indication of their concluded
work (Ps. Ixxii. 20). But this does not stand in the way of
the supposition that one hand ( ? Nehemiah's) was concerned
in giving the finishing touches to the work, and introducing it
into the Canon. PROVERBS.
The book of Proverbs, by its title ascribed to Solomon, is
a collection of philosophical and moral maxims, po- Character
, r 1 • , , • , , , ant* ptoba-
etic in form and of the widest range, which probably ble origin of
,,,,.. . . the collec-
came into existence gradually, beginning with or soon tion.
after the time of Solomon, and concluded by the distinguished
men of the Hezekiah College (xxv. 1). There is no sufficient
reason for supposing, with Keil, that Solomon was the sole
author of even the first part, extending through the twenty-ninth
chapter. His being the largest single contributor, a potiori
nomen fit, together with the natural desire to connect so dis
tinguished a name with the work, accounts satisfactorily for
the superscription.- It may, indeed, be admitted, and there is
no positive proof to the contrary, that most of the proverbs in
tne work, up to the thirtieth chapter, first originated with him,
being a selection from the three thousand which he is said to
have written (1 Kings iv. 32). The last two chapters (xxx.,
1 Introd. to O. T., ii. 238. Cf. Keil, Introd. to O. T., i. 463,

320 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. IV.
xxxi.) claim to be from other hands, and that they are so is
admitted by the most conservative critics.
Internal evidence, however, like marked differences in style,
the beginning and ending of sections with new titles,
and the express statements contained in these titles,
seem to preclude the theory that the book was put into its
present shape, even excluding the last two chapters, by Solo
mon. Hence, the majority of even orthodox writers, together
with many not accounted such, in harmony with the positive
information conveyed in chapter xxv. I, agree in fixing upon
the period of the Hezekiah College (c. 728-448) J as that in
which the final editing of the book took place. This sup
posed composite character of the work, in which respect it
only resembles other Old Testament literature, cannot justly
be considered as really weakening the argument for its canoni
cal rank. In fact, its canonicity has never been disputed in
the Christian Church, while the New Testament abundantly
confirms its authority by numerous quotations extending from
the first to the twenty-seventh chapter of the collection.
1 Fiirst, Der Kan. A. T., part v., sect. 9-11,

CHAPTER V.
ORIGIN OF SEPARATE BOOKS, CONTINUED. ECCLESIASTES. 
MALACHI.
ECCLESIASTES.
THE word Ecclesiastes, which is the Greek rendering of
the Hebrew term Koheleth, means properly "Preacher,"
and is a sufficiently exact rendering of the original title of the
work before us. With respect to authorship, the The theory
theory ably vindicated by such scholars as Stuart,1 authorship.
Keil,2 Hengstenberg,8 Zockler,4 Horne,6 Plumptre,6 and the
great majority of recent critics of every school, — that this
book is an example of personated authorship without intention
of deceiving, its language being put into the lips of Solomon
as a fitting representative of the widest human experience, —
seems best to accord with the facts.
The following considerations among others support this
view : the author specially distinguishes himself from Arguments
Solomon by speaking of Koheleth as one who was mi'sfa™r-
king in Jerusalem; in chapters i. 12, 16; ii. 9, the character
assumed is not well carried out ; in xii. 9-14, the writer speaks
in his own person, and not in that of Koheleth ; the state of
things described in the book does not suit the Solomonic age ;
the language, style, &c, bear in the same direction, being of
a late complexion ; there are things in the book which we
could not expect Solomon in his real character to utter: i. 16;
ii. 9, 15, 19 ; iv. 8 ; v. 7 ; viii. 9 ; x. 4, 16-19. The arguments
for the older and traditional view are ably presented by Taylor
Lewis,7 and the editor of .Keil's Introduction.
1 Com. on Ec, pp. 67-79. B Introd., ii. 786.
2 Introd. to O. T., i. p. 516. 6 Smith's Diet., Art. Eccles.
» Com. on Ec, Introd. ' Lange's Com. on Ec
* Lange's Ec.

322 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. V.
Whichever of these views is adopted, no one's confidence
Either the- in the book ought thereby to be disturbed, as it does
ory consist- .
em with the not at all affect the matter of its inspiration or canon-
genuineness T . , ,
andcanoni- ical authority. Inspired writers are no more than
cal rank of , , r r . . . ,
the work, others, shut up to one form of composition. And,
though Solomon were actually demonstrated to have been the
author of the present work, it would no more certainly follow
that it is a production properly falling within the scope of the
Sacred Scriptures, than from the supposition that some one
personated him in it.
On the theory proposed, the date could not well be placed
Probable earlier than the time of the Captivity. And if the
date and , , . , , r ,
generaidrift. translation and interpretation of chapter xn. n, previ
ously noticed as proposed by Fiirst,1, Oehler,2 and Dillmann,
be correct, it shows that the Canon of the Old Testament was
on the point of being concluded when it was written. Bleek
thus characterizes the drift of the contents of the book : " Not
only does the book conclude (ch. xii. 13 f.), as summing up the
whole matter, with the summons to fear God and keep his
commandments, but the whole course ofthe argument is based
everywhere on the consciousness, expressed in the most dis
tinct way, that God is the Almighty, from whom every thing
proceeds ; who gives life, wisdom, and all good things to
men ; whose working is for everlasting ; who makes every
thing beautiful, and watches over all ; that, in his own good
time, he will bring every thing to judgment, and that he will
finally bless those who fear him, but not so the wicked" (iii.
17 ; viii. 12 ; xi. 9).

CANTICLES.
The exact Hebrew title of the Canticles is " The Song of
Facts favor- Songs [the most beautiful song] of Solomon." Cer-
ins £61111"
ineuess. tain things with reference to this production are worthy
of note at the outset : that it is found, and has always existed,
among the canonical Scriptures ; that no objection to such a
1 Der Kan. A. T., part v., sect. 3. ! Herzog's Encyc, Art, Can. O. T.

Canticles. THE OLD TESTAMENT. 323
position of an external character can be discovered ; that such
an interpretation is possible as would adapt it to the uses of
the Church in all ages ; that the most devout Christians have
often found it delightful spiritual nourishment.
Moreover, some of those who deny any special moral or
spiritual aim in the book, still concede that it probably Aninterpre-
• • ¦ r o , 1 1 i • n tation possi-
onginated in the age ot Solomon, and under the infiu- ble, consist-
r- , . /-s-»i , \ .f • .1 tt entwith ca-
ence of his court (Bleek), if not coming, as the He- nonidty.
brew title seems to claim, from his pen. Our purpose would
not suffer us to notice and make a choice among the various
interpretations (allegorical) which have been put upon the com
position for the purpose of showing the propriety of its posi
tion in the Bible. We can only refer our readers, in addition
to the ordinary Introductions and Commentaries, to an excel
lent treatise by Leonard Withington, who very ingeniously
and ably supports the theory that the purpose of the Song was
" mainly and primarily to foreshow the formation and union
of the Gentile Church with Christ, when a more sublime and
spiritual religion should be presented. . . . There is to be a
religion (such is the spirit of the book) which, uniting the
soul with the Saviour in a noble life, is to bring the Gentiles
under its influence, and have power enough to spread through
the earth."1 The Solomonic origin ofthe production is main
tained by Hengstenberg, Zockler, Keil, Delitzsch, and others ;
the view that it originated in his time and within the circle of
his influence, though not from him, by Bleek. Home's Intro
duction argues that it came into being after the time of Solo
mon, but that this has nothing to do with the question of its
canonical authority. It is not to be inferred, moreover, that in
all cases those who defend a literal interpretation of the work
are thereby prevented from maintaining, also, its divine
inspiration, although such might appear to be generally the
case. 1 Manuduction, p. 11.

324 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. V.

ISAIAH.
Isaiah stands foremost among the so-called Greater Prophets.
who Isaiah His name signifies " salvation of God," a fact to which
was- he himself, on more than one occasion, makes allusion.
Little is known of the history of the prophet beyond what is
incidentally stated in this work, though a Jewish tradition fur
nishes a highly embellished account of his martyrdom undei
Manasseh. He was the son of Amos (not the prophet), was
married, had children, and dwelt, it would seem, mostly at
Jerusalem. From the opening verse of the book wre learn
that, " midway between Moses and Christ," his prophetic
activity, beginning with the death of Uzziah, extended over
the reigns of the three following kings (759-699)- There
is, therefore, no improbability in the supposition that he lived
for a time, also, under the sovereignty of Manasseh.
With this statement of the first verse, the contents of the
Contents of whole book seem (as is pretty generally agreed) well
the book. to acc0rd Up t0 the thirty-ninth chapter. The order of
these prophecies is not chronological, but " according to a prin
ciple of successive unfolding of the prophetic activity " (Keil) ;
or, it is partly chronological, and partly based on subjects,
mostly the latter" (Umbreit in Herzog's Encyc, Art. Isa.).
Some writers (Umbreit, Gesenius, Havernick) divide the
whole work into four parts, as follows : i.-xii. ; xiii.-xxiii. ;
xxiv.-xxxv. ; xxxvi.-xxxix. ; xl.-lxvi.
Serious assaults have been made on the unity and integrity of
Assaults on tne book, especially on the position that the concluding
its integrity. p0rtion from the fortieth chapter proceeded from Isaiah,
or his age. Bleek concedes that this point is well taken. He,
however, guards the admission by denying that this later
writer, whoever he may be, desired to impersonate Isaiah.
The principal arguments adduced, and regarded as decisive
against unity of authorship are : (1) the historic circumstances
implied in the disputed chapters; and (2) the originality of
the ideas, or of the forms in which the ideas are expressed.1
1 Cheyne, Book of Isa. Chronolog. Arranged, &c, Introd. p. 21.

Isaiah. THE OLD TESTAMENT. 325
Under the first head it may be remarked, that, in the fact that
the deliverance of Israel from the Babylonian captivity by
Cyrus is definitely predicted, a sufficient occasion for objec
tion might doubtless be found on the part of much of the
current German criticism. Yet Bleek is constrained to admit,
even among Isaiah's contributions, acknowledged prophecies, —
some that foretell the appearance of the Saviour.
Delitzsch's argument for the unity of the book is: (1) the
harmony of the arrangement with the common tradi- Proof of
tional view ; (2) the occurrence of certain favorite ex- unity-
pressions of Isaiah in the disputed chapters ; (3) parallel
passages in contemporaneous writers ; (4) universal and per
sistent tradition. Umbreit says of this last portion, that " all
it contains flows finished and complete from a central point,
and we admire the dialectic skill ofthe author." J Keil thinks
that the chief difficulty with the fragmentists is, that they do
not show a " principle pervading and governing the whole col
lection." 2 He naturally agrees with Delitzsch in regarding
Isaiah as the editor of the entire work.
Contemporary authority proves, at least, that Isaiah was a
well-known author. From Ezra i. 2-4, we judge that
the latter portion of Isaiah was then in circulation, in
connection with the rest (538).* The Greek translation of
Isaiah in the Apocrypha (Ecclus. xlviii. 24, 25) contains a dis
tinct assertion of the unity of authorship. A considerable
number of the prophecies of the disputed portion are quoted
in the New Testament as Isaiah's (Matt. iii. 3 ; Luke iv. 17 ;
Acts viii. 28). This same portion contains most marked pre
dictions of the life, sufferings, and death of the Messiah, a fact
which at once lifts it above the level of ordinary literary works,
affixing to it " the broad seal of Divine inspiration, whereby
the chief ground of objection against its having been written
by Isaiah is at once annihilated." 4
1 Herzog's Encyc, Art. Isa.
s Introd. O. T., i. 332.
8 Cf. Isa. xliv. 28, xlv. 1, 13 ; and Josephus, Ant., xi. 1, sect. 3.
' Smith's Diet., Art. Isa.

326 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. V.

JEREMIAH.
Jeremiah, the second of the " greater Prophets," was a
Date of native of Anathoth, a place but a few miles north of
generaUon- Jerusalem. Here, and in Jerusalem, the most of his
tents. prophecies were uttered (xi. 21 ; vii. 2 ; xxvi. 1). He
was called to the prophetic office in the thirteenth year of the
reign of Josiah (c. 629), and was at this time quite young
(i. 6). During the first twenty-two years of his prophetical
activity, nothing of special mark occurred, the substance only
of the predictions of this period being given (ii.— x.). But
after the battle of Carchemish, in which the Chaldeans were
victorious over the Egyptians, and the way became open for
the dominance of the former in Palestine, the " external his
torical impulse " was furnished for the enlargement of the
prophetic vision (Nagelsbach in Herzog's Encyc, Art. Jer.).
This crisis is marked by the predictions recorded in the
twenty-fifth chapter, which maybe regarded as the "outline of
the entire compass of Jeremiah's prophecies." In this and the
two following chapters, Jeremiah " sketches for the immediate
future a definite prophetical programme, not only of the theoc
racy, but also of the Chaldean kingdom, and of the nations
subjected by it." In the fourth year of Jehoiakim (c. 607), he
received a commission from that king to write down his proph
ecies (xxxvi. 2) in a " roll of a book," showing that they had
already reached, in a certain sense, a culminating point. This
roll being afterwards burned (xxxvi. 33) by the king, was again
reproduced by the prophet, in connection with Baruch, and
other prophecies added to it (xxxvi. 32). But although there
may have been some use made of this special copy, in the
arrangement of the book as it now stands, it is evident that it
was not literally followed ; since there is an intermingling of
the predictions made before and after the fourth year of the
reign of Jehoiakim.
The last notice that we have of Jeremiah, in the Scriptures,
is the mention of the fact that he unwillingly accompanied
the people to Egypt (Tahpanhes), and there continues his

Jeremiah. THE OLD TESTAMENT. 327
prophecies. It is most likely that Jeremiah, or his scribe,
Baruch, compiled — with the possible exception ofthe fifty-
second chapter — the work in its present form (Bleek, Keil,
and many others). It naturally divides itself into two princi
pal parts: (1) the theocratic prophecies, extending after the
first chapter, which is introductory, through to the forty-fifth, —
the latter serving as a sort of appendix ; (2) from the forty-
fifth to the fifty-first, containing prophecies against foreign
nations. " There is no dialectical development of conclusion
from premises in his writings ; but we behold, as it were, a
series of tableaux pass before our view, each of which presents
the same chief person and the same scene, but in manifold
groupings." J
It is generally conceded, that the fifty-second chapter pro
ceeded from a later hand. The previous chapter ends : Doubts re-
" Thus far the words of Jeremiah." It is not probable tain parts.er
that the prophet survived the events recorded in chapter Iii.
31-34, although he might have done so, and yet have been less
than one hundred years old. Ewald's conjecture that this
chapter is an extract from the national annals, added to Keil's,
that it was appended to the book for the purpose of serving
as a "voucher for the fulfilment of Jeremiah's predictions," is.
probably not far from the truth (cf. 2 Kings xviii.). Other
parts of the book, as x. 1-16 ; xxx.-xxxii., have been held
by some to be lacking in genuineness, being attributed to the
" second Isaiah," or the person who, as we think, is falsely
supposed to have written the last part of the prophecy of
Isaiah. Such doubts, however, it is to be noticed, are quite
likely to accompany, in all cases, a denial of the prophetic
gift. The similarity of style in the excerpts from the two
prophets is probably due to the acknowledged tendency of
Jeremiah to make large use and take the color of his prede
cessors' writings. Bleek says : " Among all the prophecies
of the book there is not one, according to my judgment, of
which we have any reason for denying the authorship to Jere
miah." 2
External proofs of genuineness are not wanting for this book.
1 Nagelsbach, id. x Introd. to O. T., ii. 97.

328 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. v.
The son of Sirach says (Ecclus. xlix. 7), " that Jeremiah was a
External prophet consecrated from his mother's womb " (cf. 2
proofs of
genuineness. Mac. ii. 1—8). And, in addition to references in Philo
and Josephus, the following are found in the New Testament :
Matt. xxi. 13, Jer. vii. n ; I Cor. i. 31, Jer. ix. 24; Matt. ii.
18, Jer. xxxviii. 15; Heb. viii. 8, Jer. xxxviii. 31 ; Heb. x.
16, 17, Jer. xxxviii. 33, 34.

LAMENTATIONS.
The title of the book of Lamentations is derived from its
Name, date, contents, which embrace in its five chapters, the
and author, inspired poetic reflections of an eye-witness, on the
desolations brought upon the holy land by the rule of the Chal
deans. Among all the critics, there is scarcely an exception to
the rule of ascribing the work to the prophet Jeremiah, in har
mony alike with tradition, and the spirit, tone, language, and
subject-matter of the document itself (Davidson, De Wette,
Eichhorn, Keil, Bleek, Nagelsbach, Jahn). Bleek says it " may
be assumed as certain." The time of composition is thought
to have been some time after the capture of Jerusalem by
Nebuchadnezzar (c. 588). In form the work seems to have
been written in " imitation of ancient elegies over the dead"
(cf. 2 Sam. i. 17, 18; iii. 33). The lamentations of Jeremiah
referred to in 2 Chron. xxxv. 25 are not those of this book, but
belong to some work not now extant, although the fact that
Jeremiah wrote elegiac poems, as there shown, is an incidental
support of the genuineness of the present work.

EZEKIEL.
The prophet Ezekiel (God strengthens) belonged to a
Personal sacerdotal family (Ezek. i. 3 ; 1 Chron. xxiv. 16) ; was
dXeTfhis probably carried away captive among the eminent
Jews expatriated with Jehoiachin (i. 2 ; xxvi. 1 ; xxx.

work.

20; 2 Kings xxiv. 14-16); and the duties of his prophetic

Daniel. THE OLD TESTAMENT. 329
office during its whole period were discharged among the
captives at the river Chebar (i. 1), in the Babylonian empire.
He prophesied for twenty-three years (xxix. 17), or up to the _
twenty-seventh year of the captivity, after which all trace of
him is lost. The date of Jehoiachin's captivity was about
599: so that Ezekiel beginning to exercise the prophetic gift
at 595, ceased, so far as we have any account, at 572. Jere
miah had been performing the duties of his office for about
thirty years when Ezekiel was carried away as a captive ; if
the latter was not personally acquainted with the weeping
prophet, he must have been familiar with his writings.
With respect to the internal arrangement of the book before
us, there is a strict chronological order observed as far its internal
. . arrange-
aS the twenty-fourth chapter ; and in the remaining part ment.
the succession of important events is followed. With respect to
the authorship of the whole, and its compilation in the form in
whicti it now exists, there is scarcely any dissent from the view
of De Wette, who says : " There is no doubt that Ezekiel,
who commonly speaks of himself in the first person, wrote the
whole book.1 This opinion is held in common by the most '
recent commentators of all schools. The prophet is not men
tioned in any other of the canonical books of the Old Testa
ment, nor is his work directly quoted in the New Testament,
although there are numerous significant parallels and allusions
to his concluding predictions in the book of Revelation.

DANIEL.
It is now almost universally admitted that our so-titled
book of Daniel had but one author. This is conceded Unity of
.... , . book conced-
by recent critics of the most rationalistic tendencies, ed ; author-
J , , , ship and date
But these critics are by no means agreed on another, in dispute.
and, in this case, even more important question, — who this
author was. The matter properly lies, however, only between
two : the supposed Daniel of the Exile, or a spurious character
who lived three hundred and fifty years later, in the time of
1 Introd. O. T. ii. 432.

330 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. V.
Antiochus Epiphanes (c. 170). Yet, in the decision of this
problem it will be decided whether the book of Daniel is gen
uine throughout, or a complete and wicked forgery. No other
alternative seems possible. Of course, in speaking of the
authorship of the book, we mean its authorship for substance,
and do not refer to its revision or arrangement, which might
fall to other hands without prejudice to the above position.
To this one question of authorship, consequently, it is proper
that we should give the space allotted to the subject in this
work. And we will first name some of the more important objec-
Objections tions to the old theory, as found in the several Intro-
theory, ductions of De Wette, Davidson, and Bleek. It is
said, in opposition to the authorship being that of a Daniel
living at the time of the Exile, that Daniel himself is spoken
of in the book in laudatory terms ; that the language of the
work is corrupt, being a commingling of Chaldee and Hebrew,
with a sprinkling of Greek words ; that later dogmatic positions
are taken, as one concerning the ministration of angels ; that
the contents are of a legendary and an improbable character ;
that the place of the book in the Canon among the Hagiog
raphy is inconsistent with the view of its earlier composition ;
that its prophetic contents are widely different from those of
other prophecies, especially in their apocalyptic character ; that
Jesus Sirach is silent about the book ; that the writer begins
his predictions with the times of Antiochus Epiphanes ; there
are insuperable historic difficulties ; this Daniel refers (" under
stood by books") to the completed Canon of Scriptures; the
habit of Daniel to pray three times a day points to a time
when religious ideas from India had penetrated into neigh
boring countries !
In replying to these objections seriatim (cf. Keil, ad loe),
Reply to we remark that Daniel speaks of himself onlv in the
these objec- . J
tions. way ot historic statement, and in no more laudatory
terms than Paul does of himself; that the language of the
book harmonizes perfectly with the circumstances of time and
place and with that of other books written at the period of the
Exile ; that there are only three or four Greek words, being

Daniel. THE OLD TESTAMENT. 33I
names of musical instruments, and easily accounted for; that
the dogmatic position of the book, including its teaching con
cerning angels, is only a natural recognition and development
of the doctrinal teaching of the Canonical Scriptures going
before ; that its miracles and predictions would naturally afford
pretext for accounting it spurious on the part of such as inva
riably assume that miracles are impossible, but not in the esti
mation of those who find a proper place for them in the history
of the kingdom of God ; that the order of books in the Canon
does not rest on chronological but on internal grounds;
Daniel was unlike all the other prophets, while having the
spirit of a prophet, and the place of his book among the
other books cannot be regarded as showing that, when it was
united to them, .it was not believed to have been written by a
Daniel of the time of the Captivity ; that the peculiarities of
Daniel's predictions are accounted for by his " position in the
history of redemption, and his own personal position, at a
heathen Court among magi courtiers" (Delitzsch), this giv
ing them a universal character.1 It cannot be shown that
Jesus Sirach (Ecclus. xl.) had any necessary occasion for
speaking of Daniel : he does not speak of the twelve minor
prophets, or other distinguished men of this period. Again,
Daniel " takes up the vision where the perspective of Isaiah
had narrowed down to a point, and opens it anew " (Delitzsch in
Herzog's Encyc.) ; " and the prophetic visions of Ezekiel form
the connecting link between the characteristic types of revela
tion and prophecy" (Westcott, id.). The historical difficulties
of the work are such as we might expect to meet with, to a
greater or less extent, in all works of this kind and age ; but
that they are not insuperable may be inferred by considering
the numerous and distinguished scholars and critics who sup
port the common theory of authorship. It is a mere assump
tion to suppose that Daniel refers to the completed Canon of
Scripture under the title of "the books:" there is equal
reason for supposing that it was as yet an incomplete collec
tion. And, finally, for the custom of praying three times a
day, Daniel needed not to look to India, as he might have
found an example nearer at hand in David himself (Ps. Iv. 17).
1 Cf. Westcott in Smith's Diet., Art. Dan.

332 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. V.
A few points, also, of a more positive character may be
Otherposi- given in support of the traditional view: (i) Daniel
fbMh^frafi-18 named in the second part as the receiver of the rev-
nonaiview. eiations. (2) The reception of the book into the
Canon at all is inconsistent with the view of the destructive
critics. (3) No other book ofthe Old Testament has exercised
a more decided influence upon the New Testament literature.
The Apocalypse especially serves as a companion buttress
to one arch. (4) Our Saviour recognizes the validity of the
prophecies, and virtually sustains the historic character of
Daniel (Matt. xxiv. 15; xxv. 31 ; xxvi. 64). (5) The book
shows the most minute acquaintance with the history, man
ners, and customs, &c, of the period of the Captivity. (6) If
the testimony of Josephus can be relied on, .Alexander the
Great (c. 356) was influenced favorably toward the Jews on
account ofthe predictions of Daniel concerning him. (7) The
Septuagint translation of the Pentateuch (c. 283), it is
claimed, shows acquaintance with the work, a fact obviously
inconsistent with its origin in the times of Antiochus Epiphanes
(c 170). (8) Daniel is three times mentioned in the book
of Ezekiel (xiv. 14, 20; xxviii. 3), and in such a way, when
all the circumstances are considered, — Daniel being now about
fifty years old, and distinguished for his integrity, godliness,
and high position in Babylon, — as to make the supposition that
some other unknown Daniel is meant extremely improbable.
(9) The difficulties involved in the current theory are incal
culably multiplied and enhanced by that of the authorship ofthe
work in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. Aside from the
usual Introductions, we refer our readers to a very full and
able discussion of this subject in a work by J. Conway Wal
ter,1 who presents especially the argument from internal evi
dence. See, also, the Commentary of Stuart, Auberlen on
Daniel and the Apocalypse, a small treatise by Tregelles, and
particularly Pusey's Lectures. 1 Longman, London, 1863.

Hosea. -Joel. THE OLD TESTAMENT. 333

THE MINOR PROPHETS. — HOSEA.
The twelve books next following, were always regarded
by the Jews as one book, under the name of " the
twelve." The period covered by them extends from
about 800 to 450. The order of succession, with the ex
ception of the last six, is different in the Hebrew and the
Greek (Septuagint), while both differ somewhat from the chron
ological order.
Of the prophet Hosea, we know scarcely any thing beyond
the book on which he has impressed his individuality. When Hosea
His epoch synchronized, in part, with that of Isaiah, -^fess If"1"
being from about 790-725 (Keil) ; his actual minis- hiswork-
try extending over a period of more than fifty years (i. 1),
although probably not without interruptions. The work
may be divided into two parts (i.-iii. ; iv.-xiv.) : the former
referring to certain symbolical actions, the latter containing
prophetic discourses proper. De Wette says: "Since the
prophecies of the first part are the earliest ; since the second
part does not consist of separable portions, and contains a
reproof which would apply to the whole period of corruption
and misery, therefore, we cannot reasonably doubt that this
book, in its present form, and perhaps with its present inscrip
tion, proceeded from the hands of Hosea himself" (ii. 441).

JOEL.
Joel, who was, without doubt, the author of the book which
bears his name, was one of the oldest of the prophets. „
r r Genuineness
Nothing is known of him except what is incidentally °fT°r^not
communicated in the work itself. The immediate
occasion of his prophecy seems to have been a devastation
caused by a drought and a plague of locusts. Two points
only with respect to the book are in dispute. The first is,
whether the devastation described is to be taken literally or
symbolically. The great majority of commentators — and the
drift is altogether in that direction — adopt the former view.

334 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. V.
«
The second point relates to the probable date of the prophe
cies. Some place them at about the middle of the tenth century
before Christ, while others assign them to the beginning of the
sixth century. It is only a very limited number, however, who
take so wide a range. An overwhelming majority of the best
critics fix upon a date somewhere in the ninth century, between
870 and 800 (Credner, Meier, Hitzig, Ewald, Hofmann, Keil,
Delitzsch, Hengstenberg, De Wette, Knobel, Bleek, Hender
son, Auberlen, Cowles) ; and there can be no doubt of its
being approximately correct. Amos was a contemporary of,
although somewhat younger than, Joel (Amos iv. 6-9 ; i. 6-10 ;
cf. Joel iv. 4-6). " In a literary and poetical point of view, Joel's
prophecy is one of the most beautiful productions of Hebrew
literature : in florid and vivid description it is surpassed by
none. It is also important in a prophetical and Messianic
aspect ; although, of course, in this it is inferior to the works
of several other prophets" (Bleek).

AMOS.
Amos, by his own account, was a shepherd of Tekoa, a
Of the place but a few miles south of Jerusalem (i. 1 ; vii.
personally. 14). Moved by the abounding idolatries and general
wickedness of the ten tribes under Jeroboam II. (c 825-784),
he went to Bethel, the principal seat of idol worship, two
years before the earthquake (i. 1, cf. Zech. xiv. 5), to denounce
the judgments of Jehovah against them. So faithful was he in
the execution of his mission, that, after a single year's ministry,
he was obliged to take refuge in Judah to save his life. The
work which bears his name shows every evidence of having
been leisurely composed, and was probably written out after
his return to his home. The utmost harmony exists between
the assigned date of composition and the contents of the work,
and no occasion for objection presents itself. Ewald says of
Amos : " We find in none pf the other prophets so many pic
tures derived from rural life, and drawn with so much origi
nality and truthfulness. And this peculiarity shows itself not

Obadiah.-Jonah. THE OLD TESTAMENT. ( 335
only in his numerous comparisons and figures of speech, but
even in the minutest lines and shades of language and delinea
tion."

OBADIAH.
The entire prophecy of Obadiah is contained in a single
chapter. It consists of a " censure and menace against confusion
the Edomites, who had been malicious and hostile to „0 doubt'of'
the Jews at the destruction 'of Jerusalem." The de- gmuineness-
struction of Jerusalem referred to, and the accompanying
captivity (v. 20), it is generally conceded, was that by Nebu
chadnezzar (588). Hence, the prophecy was spoken after
that time. It seems altogether likely, also, that it was ut
tered before the overthrow of the Edomites by the same king
(c 583 ; Josephus, Ant. x. 9, sec. 7). There is an almost
verbal agreement between parts of this prophecy and a part
of the fortieth chapter of Jeremiah. Hence there has arisen
a controversy, in which the opinions of the two principal
contending schools are hopelessly commingled, concerning
which was the original writer. Bleek and De Wette hold to
the priority of Jeremiah, Henderson and Keil to that of Oba
diah ; the last, indeed, contrary to most commentators, assign
ing the date of Obadiah's prophecy to a period much earlier
than the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar ; namely,
during the reign of Joram (c. 891-884). The unchronologi-
cal position of the book in the Canon (after Amos) is thought
to be due to the reference to Edom at the close of the latter's
prophecy. JONAH.
The book of Jonah is distinguished from all the other so-
classed prophetical books of Scripture in that " not the Proofs of
prophecy, but the prophet, is the chief subject of it." ^n",j_
Its contents have, by some, been held to be pure n6SS' &c-
fiction ; by others, an allegory or myth ; and by still others,
and perhaps the most numerous class of the more modern

336 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. V.
critics, as having a basis of historic fact only, being a " na
tional Hebrew tradition of the prophets with historical kernels
not to be more clearly defined, and with didactic objects in
view." Against all these positions the historic truthfulness of
the narrative, in all its substantial features, may be confidently
maintained on the following grounds : —
(1) The book is consistent with itself in all its historical
and geographical statements, and has every appearance of an
honest witness ' in its outline of the peculiar history of the
prophet, besides being pledged to truthfulness in its very con
trolling idea. (2) The Jonah of the book, without doubt (it
is generally admitted), is identical with Jonah, the son of
Amittai, spoken of in 2 Kings xiv. 25, of whom, we there
learn, that he lived in the time of Jeroboam II. (c 825-784).
We also find in his historic relations, thus brought to light,
a sufficient explanation of the present narrative. " For Assyria
was then on the point of elevating itself to the government of
the world. The kings of Israel had already placed themselves
under its protection (Hos. v. 13). How proper was it now,
that the Lord should give this mighty nation, which was to
exercise so great an influence on the destiny of the theocracy,
a presentiment of his power and glory. How encouragingly
must it have reacted on Israel, and how humiliating the exam
ple of penitent Nineveh for impenitent Israel" (Nagelsbach
in Herzog's Encyc). '(3) Our Saviour not only " explicitly
recognizes the prophetical office of the son of Amittai, just
as he does that of Elisha, Isaiah, and Daniel, but represents
his being in the belly of the fish as a real miracle ; grounds
upon it, as a fact, the certainty of a future analogous fact in his
own history ; assumes the actual execution of the commission
of the prophet on Nineveh ; positively asserts that the inhabi
tants of that city repented at his preaching ; and concludes by
declaring respecting himself, ' Behold ! a greater than Jonas is
here.'"1 "For all those, to whom Christ is the Son of the
triune God, the centre of the Scriptures, as well as the touch
stone and security for the truthfulness of its historical narra
tions, — for all such these words [just alluded to] contain an
1 Henderson, Minor Prophets, p. 197. Cf. Matt. xii. 39 ; xvi. 4 ; Luke xi. 29-32.

micah.-nahum. the old testament. 337
incontrovertible guarantee for the reality of the facts contained
in the book of Jonah. By this it is by no means said, however,
that Christ also guarantees the form in which the presentbook
of Jonah relates the facts" (Nagelsbach, id.).

MICAH.
In the superscription to the prophecy of Micah, it is said,
that he prophesied during the reigns of Jotham, Ahaz, Datec.759_
and Hezekiah. Even the hypercritical find nothing 6"-
in the contents of the work inconsistent with this declaration,
the dangerous position of Judah and Israel with respect to
Assyria and Egypt being everywhere presupposed. The book
also synchronizes with that of Isaiah, with whom Micah was
contemporaneous, and is quoted by Jeremiah, whose bloom
was toward a hundred years later (Jer. xxvi. 18, cf. Mic. iii.
12). This Micah is designated by the term, "The Moras-
thite," probably to distinguish him from a Micah (Micaiah)
ofthe times of Elijah. The reign of Jotham began c 759, and
that of Hezekiah ended c 699, within which period, conse
quently, the prophetical work of Micah belongs.

NAHUM.
Scarcely a scrap of the personal history of Nahum has been
transmitted to us. He is called "the Elkoshite" Theproba-
t-.ii 1 ble date c.
(i. 1), but whether on the ground that Llkosh was 714-699.
the place of his birth or of his prophetical labors, is not known.
Such a place still exists, three miles from Mosul (Nineveh), in
Assyria, where the prophet's grave is pointed out to pilgrims,
the supposition being that he there died as a captive. There
is, however, another Elkosh in Galilee. The contents of the
book, " The Burden of Nineveh," have given color to the above
theory of the scene of the prophet's ministry. In three chap
ters it is shown : (1) how powerful and just the Almighty is ;
(2) how Nineveh is besieged arid overthrown ; and (3) that it

338 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. V.
suffers the doom of No Amon in spite of all resistance. Bleek,
however, judges from i. 12 that the work was written at Jeru
salem (cf. i. 4). It is a matter which is more or less involved
with that of the date, which is also in dispute. Still, the major
ity of the ablest authorities (including De Wette, Bleek, Hen
derson, Keil, and Home's Introd.) fix upon the last part of the
reign of Hezekiah, — that is, between 714 and 699, — as
the time best answering to all the demands of the problem.
There are three points of history serving, it is thought, to
anchor the book to that epoch: the humiliation of Judah and
Israel by the Assyrian power (ii. 3) ; the final invasion of Judah
by that power (i. 9, 11) ; and the conquest of Thebes (No
Amon) in Upper Egypt. HABAKKUK.
Nothing whatever is certainly known of Habakkuk's per-
Coments of sonal history. It is inferred from the conclusion of his
work, and , /TT , . T_
date. work (Umbreit, Keil, and others), that he belonged
to the tribe of Levi. " When the prophet, in the spirit, saw
the formidable power of the Chaldeans approaching and men
acing his land, and saw the great evils they would cause in
Judaea, he bore his complaints and doubts before Jehovah, the
just and the pure (i. 2-17). And on this occasion the future
punishment of the Chaldeans was revealed to him (ii.). In the
third chapter a presentiment of the destruction of his country,
in the inspired breast of the prophet, contend with his hope that
the enemy would be chastised." x From the fact that the Chal
deans are represented as about to enter Judaea, but as having
not yet entered it (i. 5, 6; iii. 16) ; and that they appear to
be little known to the Jews, and so their march had not
progressed far, it is decided by Bleek, Davidson, De Wette,
Ewald, Umbreit, Henderson, and others, that the composition
is to be dated not later than the reign of Jehoiakin (c 611-
599). Keil and Delitzsch place the date a few years earlier, in
the time of Josiah. The book of Jeremiah, who was partially
contemporaneous with Habakkuk, will explain more fully the
1 De Wette, Introd. 0. T., ii. 465.

Zepha>hah.-Haggai. THE OLD TESTAMENT. 339
circumstances under which the latter lived. His name means,
" clasping round," " embracing," which Luther interpreted as
referring to the tender manner in which he took the people to
his heart.

ZEPHANIAH.
For some reason, — perhaps to distinguish him from an
other person of the same name, or to indicate
• r ¦ The sup~
that his family was more than ordinarily conspicu- posed date
... C. 642-611.
ous, — -th'e genealogy ofthe prophet Zephaniah is given
for several generations (i. 1). The word of the Lord which he
uttered, it is said, came to him in the days of Josiah, the son
of Amon (c 642-611). This work consists of one continued
utterance embraced in three chapters of our English Bibles,
whose contents quite agree, in all particulars, with the date
which the composition bears. Bleek thinks (ii. 155) that it may
be assumed with probability that the prophecy was uttered be
fore the discovery ofthe Book of the Law, in the eighteenth year
of Josiah's reign, since there is no intimation of any such
reform, with respect to idolatry, as succeeded that event.
Zephaniah foretells the conversion of heathen nations, even
that by whose hands Israel was then suffering, and before the
conversion of Israel itself (iii. 10).

HAGGAI.
The epoch at which the prophet Haggai delivered his mes
sage is definitely indicated in its opening verse; it lnternalcon.
was while Joshua, the son of Josedech, was high |ldeh™'e0p0sch
priest, Zerubbabel, governor of Judah, in the second atc-52°-
year of Darius (Hystaspis). The rebuilding of the temple
had been previously begun, but for various reasons (Ez. iv.
24) was hindered, and Haggai with Zechariah. were sent to
encourage and spur the people on in their work. The whole
book is taken up with this one subject, being composed of four
distinct deliverances, made respectively in the fourth, seventh,

340 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. V.
and the last two, in the ninth month of the second year of
Darius (c. 520). Haggai's efforts prove successful, and the
work which had been interrupted for sixteen years is carried
on to a successful completion (i. 12-15). On account of the
exceeding brevity of these utterances, it has been thought that
they are no more than a simple outline of the original dis
courses of the prophet. ZECHARIAH.
At nearly the same time as Haggai, another prophet,
Zechariah Zechariah (i. 1), as we have said, addressed himself
contempora- ... ,
neouswith to the same task of stimulating the depressed and
Hatrgai.
Unity of not wholly unselfish exiles in the work of rebuilding
dicated. the temple under Zerubbabel. It is conjectured that
he was considerably younger than Haggai (ii. 4) ; born in
Babylon ; and of priestly descent, being, it is supposed, the
Zechariah mentioned in Neh. xii. 16, as returning from the
Captivity ; and afterwards officiating as priest under Joiakim,
high priest, successor to Joshua. Zechariah began his work
only two months after Haggai (i. 1), and continued it up to
the fourth year of Darius (Hystaspis), which brings us to the
close of the eighth chapter of the book. This part of the com
position being continuous, complete within itself, bearing the
stamp of one hand, and the signature of the prophet, is uni
versally regarded, as, even in its present form, the work of
Zechariah. '
Many critics are found, however, who deny that the remain-
Davidson ing six chapters of the book proceeded from the same
unity. source, Davidson mentioning nineteen of considerable
note — including Ewald, Eichorn, Michaelis, Bleek, and Pie
Smith — who hold this view. On the other hand, Havernick,
Keil, De Wette, Hengstenberg, Jahn, Henderson, Eadie (Kit-
to's Cyc), and others, defend the integrity of the book and
unity of authorship throughout. Davidson's arguments, in
brief, for taking the negative side, are : (1) the historical stand
point of the last part is different from that of the first eight
chapters ; (2) there is a different style ; (3) there are different

Zechariah. THE OLD TESTAMENT.

341

formulas for introducing chapters ; (4) the second part is less
enigmatical; (5) it also presents a different picture of the
Messianic age.1 Bleek thinks that he discovers two authors,
neither of them Zechariah, in the concluding portion (ix.-xiv.) ;
and, with most of those who here deny the authorship of the
latter, dates the composition much earlier than the time of the
Captivity. De Wette, in defence, says, that there is affinity in lan
guage and style between the first and last portions of ^ ,„
.11,,., r De Wette
the book, as also with respect to referring to other, in defence.
and sometimes quite late, prophets. Hence, no part of it could
have been written before the Captivity. It is clearly presup
posed, too, that the nation, and not merely the ten tribes, are
in captivity (ix. 12 ; x. 6, 9, 10). And " since it is impossible
to combine all allusions to the period to one point and make
them all harmonize with the condition of the land at any one
epoch of its history, therefore, it may be most advisable to
suppose that those parts which seem to belong to an earlier
period were written with reference to the future, and that the
form of a prediction was adopted in part."2 And we add
from Keil : " There can be less doubt about the genuineness
of these chapters, since a mingling of genuine and spurious
pieces in the book of Zechariah becomes at once inconceiva
ble on this ground, that the collection of the Canon was
scarcely a lifetime after the death of this prophet, — at a time
when even historical tradition must have still been in existence
as to the origin of the writings subsequent to the Exile." s
With respect to the supposed quotation of Zech. xi. 12, 13,
by Matthew (xxvii. 9), under the name of Jeremiah, „ ,
, , . J Explana-
several explanations are given ; that of Henderson, tion-
perhaps, being as natural and unobjectionable as any, that the
Greek text of the evangelist has become corrupted in this
place.4 1 Introd. to O. T., iii. 322-324. s Introd. to O. T., i. 429.
2 Introd. to O. T., ii 480. « Com. on Minor Proph., p. 419. -v

342 HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. Chap. V.

MALACHI.
It is generally agreed that the prophet Malachi — of whom
Date c. 432 nothing is known outside ofthe composition which
byr"ork bears his name — flourished about a hundred years
later than the two last mentioned, or in the time of
Nehemiah (c 432). The temple has been completed (i.
10 ; iii. 1) ; and, like Nehemiah, the prophet opposes the custom
of marrying heathen wives, the refusal to pay tithes, and the
bringing of worthless offerings (Neh. xiii,. ; cf. Mai. iii. 7-12 ;
ii. 8) ; there being almost a verbal agreement, in some cases,
between them. Bleek says of his several utterances, that they
were doubtless written and issued at the same time and in the
same order in which we now possess them, so that they must
be considered as one prophecy with different divisions. Mala
chi is especially distinguished for the clearness of his Messi
anic prophecies (iv.) ; and in this respect, as well as from the
fact that he is the latest of all the Old Testament prophets,
fitly concludes the list of Old Testament Scriptures. Numer
ous allusions and references to this book by New Testament
writers serve to confirm its canonical authority (Matt. xi. 10;
xvii. 1 1 ; Mark i. 2 ; ix. 11, 12 ; Luke i. 17 ; Rom. ix. 13).

APPENDICES.

LEADING OPINIONS ON REVISION.
OUR object in this summary is to put the reader in possession of
the most important facts relating to the subject of revision,
obtained from a somewhat extensive and careful survey of the wide
field of its literature seemingly white for the harvest, and thus object of
, ., , ,,. .... . the sum-
to make possible an intelligent opinion with respect to its mary.
being desirable and practicable. It has been well remarked by a recent
Biblical scholar of England, that " the decision of the question [of
revision] cannot be left entirely in the hands of Christian scholars.
The vast body of upright and consistent Christians, who may not be
acquainted either with Greek or Hebrew, ought to be deferred to, in a
matter so important to their spiritual interests ; but the judgments of
this larger class must, to a great extent, be directed and guided by the
information derived from the studious investigations of the few who
have made the Original Scriptures, in whole or in part, the subject of
their habitual study. Previously, then, to any direct steps being taken
in so important and deeply responsible a movement as that to which
the above remarks have reference, the diffusion of sounder views and
larger information on the whole subject must be earnestly aimed at. The
Christian mind of England [and America] must be enlightened. Preju
dices, which are the natural progeny of ignorance, must be patiently met,
and courteously removed. Christian scholars must seek to follow the
example of Ezra, as recorded in the eighth chapter of Nehemiah, and
endeavor to impart to the people the sense of the matter, — the right
understanding of the whole subject of Biblical Translation." '

I. Opinions Adverse to Revision.
The Rev. Henry John Todd published a " Vindication of the Trans
lation and Translators of the Bible" in London, 1819, and t. Rennell,
cites therein the following from T. Rennell, D.D. (Discourses D-D-
1 H. Craik, Hints and Suggest. &o, pp. 6, 7.

346 LEADING OPINIONS Revision.
on Various Subjects) : " From either of these schemes, the bold project
of a new translation, or the more specious one of a revisal of the present
version of the Holy Scriptures, there can be so little gained, and may
be so much hazarded, that the probable good bears no manner of pro
portion to the threatened danger. We have indeed specimens of new
versions, both of the whole, and of various parts of the Old and New
Testaments ; some of them, particularly of the Old Testament (see Dr.
Geddes's Prospectus), clearly intended as a vehicle for loose and licen
tious speculation. The language of the New Testament (Wakefield's
Translation, 3 vols. 1791 ; 2d ed. 1795) is distorted, in violation of all
analogy of sense and diction, to speak the opinion of Socinus. But
even the best of these specimens, executed by men of acknowledged
talent and soundness of opinion% recommend most strongly by their
avowed inferiority in every essential point an adherence to that we are
already in possession of. With regard to revision, it is of little impor
tance that a few particles be adjusted, a few phrases polished, if the
whole fabric of that faith which was once delivered to the saints is
thereby shaken to its foundations. For the extent and progress of
such a revision, or the objects it may embrace, no man who is ac
quainted with the ordinary course of theological proceedings can at all
calculate. With regard to the New Testament, I am sure we may
confidently affirm that, in a well-known instance (Observations on the
English Version of the Gospels and Epistles, John Symonds, LL. D.),
the industry, learning, and abilities which have been sedulously exerted
in collecting the mistakes and inaccuracies which are said to exist iii
the received version, have scarcely been able to produce a single error
by which any material fact or doctrine is affected." •
In a work published in New York in 1837, entitled " Objections
Brantley to a Baptist Version of the New Testament, bv Wm. T.
and Wins-
low, 1S37. Brantley, D.D.; with Additional Reasons for preferring the
English Bible as It Is, by Octavius Winslow, M.A.," the latter says :
" That he would rather they should remain [the modes of expression
which seem to disfigure the sacred page] in the present version undis
turbed and unexpunged ; for such is the constant fluctuation and prog
ress of living languages, that words now pleasant and familiar to the
ear may, a century hence, be classed among the obsolete and the vul
gar." 2 And Dr. Brantley : " It is our heart's desire and prayer to
God that this venerable monument of learning, of truth, of piety, of
unequalled purity of style and diction, may be perpetuated to the end of
time just as we now have it. Let no daring genius meditate either
change or amendment in its structure or composition ; neither let any
1 Vindication, &c, pref., p. vi. 2 p. 50.

Appendix A. ON REVISION. 347
learned impertinence presume to disturb the happy confidence of the
tens of thousands who now regard it as, next to the original languages,
the purest vehicle through which the mind of the Holy Spirit was ever
conveyed to mortals." '
Dr. M'Caul,2 speaking to the same point as Mr. Winslow, says
with regard to obsolete words : " The changing of these Rev. Alexan-
words would establish a principle, that words not intelligible D.D., 1857.'
to the general reader must be changed for others more easily understood.
And then a great many and important words must be removed. The
possibility of having our theological language and therefore our theology
changed (as might be the case), makes us rather satisfied to hold fast
what we have than to run the risk of emendations of so sweeping a
character " (pp. 21, 22). He divides the emendations of every character
proposed (p. 25), into three classes, — the needless, the uncertain, and
the objectionable, — and touches one of the most important matters
involved in the subject farther on (p. 46), when he alludes to the original
text to be adopted by the revisers. " All the other perils are as nothing
compared with the alteration of the original texts. Everybody knows
that, in the New Testament especially, there are some texts affecting
the very foundations of our faith, others affecting the controversies
between High Church and Low Church, which are subjects of debate.
At present, the English Church leaves the discussion of such passages,
and the merits or demerits ofthe various readings, open to the delibera
tions of criticism. But let these passages be changed, and the weight
of church authority is at once thrown into the scale ; and a doubt
ful, mischievous reading may be put forth as the oracle of God."
" With respect to the text of the New Testament," he goes on to say
(p. 48), "some prefer Lachmann, . . others prefer Tischendorf in the
new edition (of his New Testament), now in course of publication.
Tischendorf has in Matthew's Gospel alone restored one hundred read
ings which he had previously rejected."
Respecting this troublesome matter of the original text which shall
be made the basis of revision, there are other distinguished Professor
scholars who raise doubts. Professor George E. Day wrote Da" Rev.'
(Theolog. Ec. Apr. 1870): "The first condition of a revised Thomas
version which shall possess any claim to general acceptance, Green, jM..A.., 3.1113
viz., the. formation of a Greek textus receptus of the nineteenth others.
century by a competent body of scholars, has received little prominence
in controversies on this subject. This is the first labor to be accom
plished. With all the eminence of Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, and
Scrivener in the department of textual criticism, the judgment of neither
1 p. 6. 2 Reasons for Holding Fast, &c.

348 LEADING OPINIONS Revision.
of them can be accepted as final. The combined judgment of many
minds upon the largely increased evidence recently collected, is needed
to determine what the text to be translated shall be ; and when this shall
be decided to the general satisfaction of the Christian world, a long step
will be taken towards the settlement of the question of a revised trans
lation. On the other hand until this is done, any version which might be
made would rest on an uncertain basis, and be sure itself to need revis
ing." Similarly, Rev. T. S. Green : ' " Calls are made for a revision of
Scriptures without betraying any consciousness of the necessity of a
certain preliminary to such proceedings : namely, the determination of
the text to be represented in such version or revision.'' These writers,
however, favor revision notwithstanding, as see below. But the Arch
bishop of York thinks this very matter of an uncertain text a sufficient
obstacle to justify the postponement of the undertaking for the present.
His views, moreover, might be regarded as the more important as they
probably went far towards preventing the co-operation of his Convoca
tion with that of Canterbury in the important work actually entered upon
by the latter. In a letter to the secretary of the Religious Tract Society,
London (See " The Guardian," March 23d, 1870), he says : " In answer
to your observation, I beg to send you a summary of my speech in the
Northern Convocation upon the subject of a revised translation of the
English Bible. My argument was confined to the New Testament,
because I have paid a good deal of attention to that branch ofthe sub
ject. It appeared to me that so long as the textus rece.ptus of the Greek
Testament was the current text among us, the time could not be said
to have come for a revision of the translation, which would indeed have
resolved itself into a revision of the text. I argued that the greatest
effort of that kind which had been made in England, that of Dr. Tre
gelles, was still incomplete, and that we had not had time duly to
estimate the effects of recent discoveries." As it respects the Old
Testament text, the testimony of Henry Walter, although not very
recent (1823), may not be out of place. He says : " On the whole, I
see little reason for supposing that the philological apparatus accumu
lated since King James's time, has carried the knowledge of Hebrew
perceptibly farther than it was possessed by his translators." 2
The three following objections, urged by an influential layman
Address of during the discussions of this question, fifteen years ago, are
rad, Esq°,n" worthy of attention: "(i) As to its impolicy. Granting its
Convention [''le translation's] general fidelity, what is to be gained ? If
Richmond, there be various or double meanings to words, you have the
Va., April, , b ' J
1856. marginal system which has served so well hitherto ; and if you
1 A Course of Developed Criticism, &c, p. 3.
! Letter to the Right Rev. Herbeit, &.*.., p. 140.

Appendix A. ON REVISION. 349
adopt the marginal reading in the text, you must in most cases make the
text the marginal reading, and what do you gain ? (2) You open a cre
vasse through which you know not how soon the floods of innovation
may sweep away the sacred landmarks. (3) You risk too much for a small
(supposed) accuracy, for you let in the cavils of those ' who watch for
your halting.' You will have, as allies in the undertaking, all the here
sies, past, present, and to come, to say nothing of those who now hate
the Bible, because it stands a solemn protest against their ideal theories." *
The " New York Herald " for Sept. 20th of the same year, contained a
brief article on this subject, and although its authority on such matters
might be called in question, no one will dispute the pertinency.of one of
its illustrations. " The errors of the present translation," it said, " are
like the poppies amongst corn ; and though every farmer knows that
the corn is food and the poppies poison, yet he does not hesitate to eat
the bread ; for the poppies grow near the ground and do not affect the
vitality ofthe crop, but they serve for a sign to teach the thinking mind
that life and death grow up together in this world."
Dr. John Cumming, distinguished for his numerous works on Apoc
alyptic subjects, writes to the " London Times," under date of J?r- J°hn
J L J ' Cumming
August 26, 1856, on this subject of revision, as follows: in"The
"What I contend is, that, all circumstances considered, there London.
is not a reasonable prospect of finding a body of linguists and divines
. who would be unanimous, when our noble version is assumed or
asserted to be at fault, in proposing corrections ; nor, were they to put
forth a corrected revision, is there any likelihood of its being accepted
by the various denominations within or without the Established Church,
whose existence we may regret, but cannot ignore. Each would have
some ground of complaint, imaginary or real, and a fire would probably
be kindled at which Dr. Wiseman would delight to warm his hands. . . .
I am not unaware of many defects in our version. But these are in
nine cases out often so trivial, and when the defect is generally thought
grave, there is so much learned dispute, that our policy at present is
to be very thankful for what we have, very patient under ill-natured
censure of aspiring scholars, and truly glad that the authorized vers'ion
is not intrusted to the manipulation of some improvers, whose zeal, to
say the least, outstrips their discretion. ... I cannot look around on
the broad church, and the low church, and the high church parties
within the Church of England, or at the keen controversies that rage
without her walls, — not to speak of other peculiarities incidental to
our day, — without an earnest and anxious wish that our country may
hold fast that which at present is widely accepted, — our glorious com
mon version." 1 Bib. Soc. Record, Dec. i8?6.

35° LEADING OPINIONS Revision.
Rev. S. C. Malan, who has devoted an entire book to the subject
Objections before us, although most of it is directed against the revisions
C. Mrf'an'' wh'cn nave been already attempted, seems to reason on the
M A- supposition that something more than a simple correction of
imperfections and errors is contemplated. " Who," he asks, " will be bold,
or I might almost say hardened enough, if not perhaps to pull down, yet
even to whitewash the stately edifice of the English Bible ? ... It
might possibly be better adapted to the fastidious taste of the age ; but
then, unbroken associations of two centuries and a half, together with
much of national individuality, would perish for ever ; and those persons
who think the authorized version antiquated would be the first to regret
the change "(introd. pp. iii., iv.). And again (p. xiv.) : " For independently
of the words of the Bible being sacred in all languages, the language
of the English Bible in particular is consecrated ; like, for instance,
that of the Armenian Bible ; because in England, as in Armenia, the
vernacular translation of the Bible has formed and fixed the language of
the country." He also confirms the testimony of others respecting the
difficulty of fixing upon a suitable text, " now that Mill is thought by
some to be antiquated, Griesbach out of date, and Tischendorf even
not exactly to their taste. ... I trust that I am not misunderstood, as
if undervaluing the labors of such men as the above-mentioned critics ;
together with those of Tregelles, Alford, and others. Far from it, for
we are all greatly indebted to them. But, inasmuch as it is not agree
able to reason to suppose, that the great and vital truths of the Bible
should depend on a single word, or even on a particle, but rather on
the whole harmonious context of Holy Writ, it seems beside the pur
pose in this short and uncertain life, to place too much importance on
the mere letter of this or that text ; and, perhaps, to omit the more
weighty matter of the life hidden in the text, whether it be of this
recension or of that." Mr. Malan, near the close of his work (p. 345),
takes exceptions even to the quite prevalent custom of ministers' crit
icising the present translation before their congregations, on the ground
that it " needlessly unsettles the mind of their hearers on a subject in
which comparatively few of them can ever be fair judges," and makes
the following singular suggestion : " At all events, all the necessary
alterations in the text of the authorized version may be introduced into
it, by men of wisdom and judgment, without nine-tenths of the nation
being aware of it [! !]. Would it not, therefore, be far better to do so
— if it is to be done — than first to unsettle the minds of many, who
after all must remain passive spectators or sufferers, in whatever is
done ? " (p. 346.)

Appendix A. ON REVISION. 351
Much to the same purpose, excepting the last suggestion, for which
Mr. Malan alone should be held responsible, was a speech by speech of
Lord Panmure, reported in " The Witness " for January ioth, J^ ^"[^
1857. It was made at the annual meeting of the Edinburgh burgh, 1857.
Bible Society for that year. He said : " We have heard in this country,
and we have seen it absolutely put into practice in the United States
of America, of a scheme for what is called a new version of the Bible.
Now, feeling very strongly on this subject, I take this opportunity of
publicly stating my opinion : that any such scheme is fraught with
the utmost danger to the Protestant liberties of this country.
Nay, it is fraught with danger, I believe, to the Protestant religion
itself." ..." It is quite true, and every man must admit it, that
there are perhaps some slight things, some mistranslations slight in
themselves, and not affecting any great principles, which might be
corrected in the translation of the Scriptures. But they are so slight
in comparison with the danger of letting in those who would make
alterations, partly from the criticisms of erudition, partly for the pur
pose of getting in dogmas of their own, that I think it would be the
most dangerous and disastrous thing which could occur to this country,
if we were to permit those words to be tampered with which have been
household words in many a pious family for upwards of three hundred
years, and I hope will be household words to all the families of
the world before three hundred years more are passed."
It will be observed that in most cases, thus far, where opinions have
been cited, the date of such opinion has been given, for the importance
reason that, during the last ten or fifteen years, a very wide- date'of'tnese
spread change has taken place with reference to this subject. ^P™™8,
It is well known that at the time when the first edition of his Trench and
work on Revision was printed, Trench did not feel that the scholefield.
period had arrived for actually undertaking the responsible work,
although he uses such language as this : " On the whole, I am per
suaded that a revision ought to come ; I am convinced that it will
come. Not, however, I would trust, as yet, for we are not as yet
in any respect prepared for it ; the Greek and the English which
should enable us to bring this to a successful end might, it is to be
feared, be wanting alike." So Professor Scholefield, whose scholarly
work (" Hints for some Improvements in the Authorized Version of the
New Testament "), bearing on this question, was published (4th edition)
in 1857, to the question whether he was really desirous of a new trans
lation, replied uniformly in the negative.1
1 Pref. to 2d ed.

35 2 LEADING OPINIONS Revision.
It is not to be inferred, however, that there has been any thing
Therevolu- like a universal revolution of opinion. Some of our best
io™not°i5ni- scholars and most distinguished leaders in the Church, as
versal. we have already seen, still hold that a revision under
any circumstances, at least under present circumstances, would be
unwise. With two or three more instances of this kind we shall con
clude the present section.
And at this point we take pleasure in introducing the very weighty
Position of observations of our distinguished countryman, the Hon.
Georsre'p George P. Marsh, wffbse well-considered sentiments of
Marsh. twelve years ago (Leet. on the Eng. Lang. ist. ser. i860,
Leet. 28th) have been more recently, under the new order of things,
ably supplemented and confirmed (" N. Y. Nation," Oct. 13th, 20th,
27th, 1870). Mr. Marsh makes much of the "reciprocal relations
between words, individual and combined, and mental action," and
hence, much of the influence, not of Christian doctrine alone, but of
the verbal form in which that doctrine has been embodied upon the
intellectual character of men (p. 619). After showing (p. 207), among
other pertinent illustrations, that the adherence of the Popish Church
to the Vulgate, and to ancient forms of speech in all the religious uses
of language, is one of the great elements of strength on which the
Papacy relies, he says : " Accordingly, although English Protestantism
has long had its one unchanged standard of faith common to all who
use the English speech, yet Protestant Christianity, from the number
and diversity ofthe languages it embraces, has no such point of union,
no common formulas ; and this is one of the reasons why the English
people, with all their nominal divisions and multitudinous visible organ
izations, have not split up into such a wide variety, and so extreme
a range of actual opinion, as the Protestants of the Continent. What
ever theories, therefore, may be entertained respecting the evils of a
rigorous national conformity to particular symbols, whatever views
may be held with regard to the growth, progress, and fluctuation of
language, both the theologian and philologist will admit that a certain
degree of permanence in the standards of religious faith and of gram
matical propriety is desirable. The authorized version of the Bible
satisfies this reasonable conservatism in both points, and it is there
fore a matter of much literary, as well as religious, interest, that it
should remain intact so long as it continues able to discharge the func
tions which have been appointed to it as a spiritual and philological
instructor." Mr. Marsh then considers the subject from the point of view of
the history of the English language. He shows that the "dialect

Appendix A. ON REVISION. 353
of this translation was not, at the time of the revision, nor, indeed, al
any other period, the actual current book-language, not the The English
colloquial speech, of the English people." ..." It was an as- "fon^^o
semblage of the best forms of expression applicable to the be improved.
communication of religious truth that then existed, or had existed, in
any and all the successive stages through which England had passed
in its entire history." The language of the Bible is, "even now
scarcely further removed from the current phraseology of life and
books than it was two hundred years since. The subsequent move
ment of the English speech has not been in a right line of recession
from the Scriptural dialect. It has been rather a curve of revolution
around it" (p. 630).
He also objects to revision on other grounds : "The acuteness of
German criticisms, the speculations of German philosophy, Objects on
have given rise to a great multitude and diversity of opin- grounds.
ions, not on questions of verbal interpretation merely, but of doctrines
also, which are but just now beginning to be openly and freely dis
cussed in this country and in England, and the minds of men are now
perhaps more unsettled on these topics than they have been at any
time before for three centuries." He fears sectarian influence, and
thinks, of the two extremes, — a passion for novelty, and an ultra-con
servative attachment to the time-honored and old, — the latter is the
least dangerous, "because the future is more uncertain than the past,
and because the irreverent and wanton thoughtlessness of an hour
may destroy that which only the slow and painful labor of years or
of centuries can rebuild."
In the "Nation" for October 13, 1870, Mr. Marsh returns to the
subject, maintaining that, if there is to be a revision, the His more
1 ' ° recent opin-
work " obviously divides itself into two branches, — the es- ion.
tabiishment of the original text, and the adaptation of the translation
to the revised original. The first of these tasks," he says, "is prob
ably both the least important and the most easily performed, — least
important, because the discrepancies between readings respecting which
there is room for an honest difference of opinion among competent
judges are either relatively insignificant, or they respect passages in
the text which might be rejected as spurious without essentially weak
ening the evidence in support of any of the doctrines which divide the
opinions of Christendom. It is the least difficult because a vast pro
portion of the preliminary and subsidiary labor has been already per
formed. If we are to wait for a text unequivocally perfect, we shall
wait for ever; and the expectation of more satisfactory readings is not
a sufficient reason for delaying action, provided a revision is expedient
23

354 LEADING OPINIONS Revision.
on other grounds." That it is not, however, he proceeds to show in
the other articles as follows : " Shall we for the sake of changes like
these [throwing out obsolete words and infelicitous expressions and
some errors of meaning] expose the whole version to a revision which
may essentially alter its general coloring ? or shall we trust to our
mothers, Qur Bible readers, and our other religious teachers, to bring
the intelligence and heart of the young, whom they initiate into the
mysteries of Christianity, up to the comprehension of a sacred dialect,
not, indeed, so readily intelligible as a newspaper, but less obsolete
than that of Spencer or Shakespeare, and scarcely more archaic,
except in mere grammatical forms which no one thinks of expunging,
than that of Bacon ? " Mr. Marsh's opinions and expectations con
cerning the work of revision as undertaken by the committee of Convo
cation will be given below.
In the preface to his admirable " Commentary on the Minor
Dr. Pusey Prophets " (English edition), Dr. Pusey thus pertinently points
some perils out the dangers that environ all efforts to improve our pres-
re'lsio'n.8 ent version : " They [the original translators] had most ofthe
helps for understanding Hebrew that we have ; the same traditional
knowledge from the ancient versions, Jewish commentators, or lexi
cographers, or grammarians, with the exception of the Jewish-Arabic
school only, as well as the study of the Hebrew Scriptures themselves,
and they used these aids with more mature and even judgment than has
mostly been employed in the subsequent period. Hebrew criticism
has now escaped, for the most part, from the arbitrariness which de
tected a various reading in any variation of a single old version, or in
the error of some small fraction of MSS. which disfigured the com
mentaries of Lowth, Newcome, and Blayney. But the comparison
of the cognate dialects opened for the time an unlimited license of
innovation. Every principle of interpretation, every rule of language,
was violated. The Bible was misinterpreted with a wild recklessness
to which no other book was ever subjected. A subordinate meaning
of some half-understood Arabic word was always at hand to remove
whatever any one disliked. Now the manifoldness of this reign of
misrule has subsided ; but interpretations, as arbitrary as any which
have perished, still hold their sway, or from time to time emerge ; and
any revisal of the Authorized Version of the Old Testament until the
precarious use of the dialects shall be far more settled would give us
chaff for wheat, introducing an indefinite amount of error into the
Word of God." It should be added, that Dr. Pusey was invited to
act with the committee of Convocation for Revision, but declined to
serve, as did also Dr. Wright, Dr. Payne Smith, Dr. Newman, and
Mr. Tregelles, — tlie last from illness.

Appendix A. ON REVISION. 355
One of the most outspoken and persistent of the opponents of
revision in England, as well as one of the most influential in objections
some respects, has been, and still is, under the latest phases 0^ shlftes-'
of the subject, the Earl of Shaftesbury. In a speech before bury-
the British and Foreign Bible Society in May, 1856, he said : " Sup
posing that this new version were given to the world, would it be possi
ble that thenceforward we could have for this country, for our colonies,
for the States of North America that speak our own language, an
' Authorized Version ? ' one that could be received with common
consent by every human being that speaks the Anglo-Saxon language.
Destroy that common consent to receive an 'Authorized Version,'
and my belief is that you have inflicted a deadly wound on the cause
of the propagation of the truth among all the nations that speak our
language. ... At present we have the ' Authorized Version,' and we
consent to receive it. We are, therefore, all on an equality ; when we
enter into a controversy we are on an equality ; the laity can exercise
the Berean privilege of examining the Scriptures ' to see whether these
things be so,' and cannot be told by those from whom they differ, ' it
may agree with your version, but I have another and a better one, and
therefore, I can have no controversy with you.' What is proposed
would, if carried out, tend to destroy the exercise of private judgment,
— that grand, sacred, solemn principle which is the right of every man,
and which I imagine to be the great security of churches and nations,
and the life and soul of individuals. When you are confused or per
plexed by a variety of versions you would be obliged to go to some
learned pundit in whom you reposed confidence, and ask him which
version he recommended ; and when you had taken his version, you
must be bound by his opinion. I hold this to be the greatest danger
that now threatens us. It is a danger pressed upon us from Germany,
and pressed upon us by the neological spirit of the age. I hold it to
be far more dangerous than tractarianism or popery, both of which I
abhor from the bottom of my heart. This evil is tenfold more dan
gerous, tenfold more subtle than either of these, because you would be
ten times more incapable of dealing with the gigantic mischief that
would stand before you."
In a letter to the public, written subsequently to the action of the
Convocation of Canterbury, the Earl points out a danger Danger in
, . , • r 1 tw0 direc-
likely to arise from the too conservative tendencies of the tions.
board of revisers : " Nearly all, I believe, both of churchmen and
dissenters, would be most happy to leave the translation as it at pres
ent exists, and to forbear the assertion of their own special criticisms
on words and phrases ; but, if the bishops will insist on such minute

356 LEADING OPINIONS Revision.
accuracy, others will be equally positive in similar demands. Many
will ask, and justly ask, whether the ' Church,' as understood in the
present day, is a due rendering of the Greek ; and why it should be
'Church' in one place, and 'Assembly' in another. They will also
ask how far the word now rendered by ' Bishop' designates a Bishop
of the present day ; and, turning to the word ' Priests,' they will, since
all possibility of mistake is to be avoided, require such a marginal
note, at least, as shall remove the confusion that now prevails between
the priests of the Old Testament and of the New." In a letter to
Professor Selwyn, published in the " Times " (London) under date of
February 24th, 1870, Lord Shaftesbury urges still other reasons for
hesitation : " Patience and habits of critical comparison are not the
characteristics of the working classes. The translators will have
introduced, so the people will think, a 'strange' Gospel, and the
multitude, believing- that it is 'another,' will lose faith in all. Could
the revision be limited to marginal readings, I should feel much less
objection. But is it possible to open the sluice-gates ? Your excel
lent and discriminating rules would avail for nothing. The cry for
further amendment would know no end. It would be difficult [too]
to construct an impartial commission. The immense variety of opin
ion on doctrinal matters, and the immense diffusion of knowledge,
both deep and superficial, in these days, would render necessary such
a combination of members as would include the extremest forms of
Ritualism, Socinianism, and Infidelity. Numerically and as scholars,
these professors would be very strong, and experience will not allow
us to believe that these learned persons, after years of thought and
study in the same groove, fixed and sincere in their peculiar opinions,
would not entertain (unknown to themselves no doubt) a decided bias
towards special renderings of the sacred text. Besides, let us suppose
that the commission are of one mind in their report, will the scholar
ship inside satisfy the scholarship outside ? "
During the spring of 1871, there appeared three communications
Bishop A. of considerable length in the " Independent " (New York) on
C. Coxe. ^js subject, from the pen of A. C. Coxe, Bishop of the dio
cese of Western New York. The first article (March 23d) related to
the undesirableness of any change in our present version on the ground
of its associations and present unequalled English, and to the " ill-
conceived and mismanaged" attempts of the Southern Province to
lead a movement in this direction. Of the other articles, one proceeds
on the assumption that radical changes are contemplated by the re
visers in the phraseology of the current version, and earnestly depre
cates it, showing that even Dean Alford and Dean Stanley are but

Appendix A. ON REVISION. 357
poorly " qualified to mend the English of the seventeenth century, as
we have it in the good old Bible." The third communication sets
forth the insufficient qualifications of our present scholarship to cope
with the important questions likely to arise in connection with the
original text. He affirms that the present state of things is especially
unfavorable to an enlightened use of the ancient versions, particularly
those of the Syriac. " One of the most learned of the Old Testament
committee," he writes, "now engaged in the revision confessed to me
his. grave doubts in this respect. He considered the whole science
ofthe collection of codices yet in its infancy; and he surprised me by
the expressions he used as to the unexplored mines of ancient manu
scripts which might be opened by a little energy and enthusiasm, such
as Tischendorf has displayed in his rescue of the Sinaitic Codex."
He quotes Bishop Ellicott as saying : " Even critical editors of the
stamp of Tischendorf have apparently not acquired even a rudimentary
knowledge of several of the leading versions which they conspicuously
quote. Nay, more, in many instances they have positively misrepre
sented the very readings which have been followed, and have allowed
themselves to be misled by Latin translations which, as my notes will
testify, are often sadly, and even perversely, incorrect." Bishop Coxe
predicts a very rapid advance in the near future with respect to the
studies necessary to a more perfect Biblical criticism, and that such a
movement will produce more and more effectual objections to the work
of the Westminster revisers.

II. Opinions Favorable to Revision and Replies to
Objections.
Robert Gell, only forty-eight years after the publication of the King
Tames's version, was moved to write as follows concerning it :
, , . , . , . , . . Robert Gell.
" Wherefore observing many such mistranslations massing
the holy text, and making it to serve the translators' mistress, their
Diana, their ruling opinions, ... I thought it a business well worthy
my pains and best skill, and more time than I am likely to have in this
world, to endeavor, to the utmost, the vindication of the Holy Scripture
from false translation and misrepresentation. . . . Since now, all the
Holy Scripture is made public unto every nation, and every person in
his mother tongue, without doubt a true and impartial translation will
do less hurt and be more beneficial to mankind than one wrested and
partial which speaks the language, and gives authority to one sect or
other, as our last doth. Yet is not all the blame to be laid upon the

358 LEADING OPINIONS Revision.
translators, but part of it to be shared with them also, who by reasons
of State limited them (as some of them have much complained) lest they
might be thought, not to set forth a new translation, but rather a new
Bible:'1 '
The impracticable Hugh Broughton, whose superior scholarship
Hugh the revisers of 1611 found themselves unable to use, criticises
1662. ' the latter's work in the following characteristic strain, which,
of course, must be taken cum grano satis : " The late Bible was sent
me to censure ; which bred in me a sadness that will grieve me while I
breathe. It is so ill done. Tell his Majesty that I would rather be
rent in pieces by wild horses than any such translation by my consent
should be urged upon poor churches." He specifies particulars (p. 661),
and then concludes (663) : " I blame not this, that they kept the usual
style of former translations in the church, that the people should not be
amazed. For . the learned, the Genevan might be made exact : for
which pains whole thirty years I have been called upon and spent much
time to my great loss by wicked hindrance. When you find the king
at leisure, shew his Majesty this short advertisement. And if his
Highness bid me again, as once by the Earl of Pembroke, shew faulty
place, I will in a few sheets shew what I blame most ; that they may be
sent to all churches that have bought Bibles. So all may be well
pacified." A work purporting to be by Hugh Ross, but mainly a translation
Hugh Ross, without credit, from a French work published in Rotterdam
¦727- in. 1696, presents some sensible ideas on the subject before us.
"Since the most learned and ingenious part of men," it says, "can't
endure to suffer the least fault or obscurity in any of the Greek or
Roman authors, and turn over volumes to find the true reading and
sense but of one word in Homer or Virgil ; it must argue either disre
spect or indifferency for the Sacred Books, to count any observation
with relation to them trifling, especially if it tend to make any text
plain and intelligible. Shall we conceal or defend these faults ? The
world is too sharp-sighted to let us do either ; and if it was not, our
holy religion is too firmly grounded to stand in need of such pious
frauds, and recommends honesty and sincerity too much to allow its
professors to make use of them. I think that [ministers] rather than
to be thus always nibbling at the faults of translations, they should
shew once for all, that there is a necessity of reforming them, and then
join their heads together to carry on so necessary a work." s
The learned Kennicott in his valuable treatise, " The State of the
The learned Printed Hebrew Text of the Old Testament Considered, &c,"
Kennicott, . '
1753. remarks (p. 565) : " 'Tis now one hundred and forty years
* Essay Toward an Amendment, &c, Preface. 2 Essay for a New Trans., &c, Preface.

Appendix A. ON REVISION. 359
since the last translation of the Bible into English ; which, though a
good translation in general, is allowed by the learned to be greatly
improvable in many places. A new translation therefore, prudently
undertaken and religiously executed, is a blessing which we make no
doubt but the Legislature will in a few years grant us. And what
improvements may not be expected in the translation from the improve
ments made of late in the Original Languages, and particularly in
Hebrew ? "
Doddridge, as quoted by Bishop Newcome, in his preface to a
translation of the New Testament, London, 1765, says : " It Doddridge,
were to be wished that our governors in Church and State I?6s'
would favor us with a revision of the Scriptures with all possible
improvements ; and expressing the sense of the sacred writers with
the greatest perspicuity and exactness ; conveying their spirit and
manner with the utmost energy ; and setting off their matter and sub
ject with most- noble simplicity and apostolic plainness."
Blackwall's Sacred Classics, according to the same authority, held
that "everybody conversant with these matters and unpreju- Blackwall's
diced, must acknowledge that there was less occasion to change sfcs, 1731.
the old version into the present than to change the present into a new
one." And Dr. Blayney asks : " Can we with certainty fore- rjr. giay.
see all the mischief that may possibly and eventually result jjjjjjj -If"'
from an error of what kind soever, willingly retained in a book ford> '784.
of such high and universal importance ? " So, too, Campbell in his
preface to the four Gospels (1789) : " Need I, in so late and so enlight
ened an age, subjoin an apology for the design itself of giving a new
translation of any part of Scripture ?. How dismal were the apprehen
sions that were entertained immediately after the Reformation on
account ofthe many translations ofthe Scriptures which came in quick
succession, one after another ! Have men's fears been justified by the
effect ? Quite the reverse."
A new translation of " All the Books of the Old and New Testament,"
&c, was made by Anthony Purver (Quaker), in two vols. foi. AnthonyPurver
Lond. 1764. In the introduction he says: "The terms of 1764. '
our law enjoining a witness to speak the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, are applicable with great propriety to translators.
This is so much more requisite in a translation of the Holy Scriptures
as these books are of more value and importance than others, and the
wrons; translating of them of more consequence." And an An anony-
s lTTiT. r-T, mous letter,
anonymous letter addressed to the Right Rev. Lewis, By 1789.
Divine Permission Lord Bishop of Norwich, Lond., 1789, has for its
motto the following from Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History: "The inter-

36O LEADING OPINIONS Revision.
ests of virtue and true religion suffered yet more grievously by two mon
strous errors which were almost adopted in this country, — the first of
these maxims was, that it was an act of virtue to deceive and lie when
by that means the interests of the church might be promoted." It also
Lowth, quotes Lowth (Visitation Sermon for 1758), who, speaking of
1758. Seeker's Annotations, says : " These valuable remains of that
great and good man, will be of infinite service whenever that necessary
¦work, a new translation of the Scriptures or a revision of the present
translation of the Holy Scriptures for the use of our Church, shall be
undertaken ;" and again : " And here I cannot but mention, that nothing
could more effectually conduce to this end than the exhibiting the Holy
Scriptures themselves to the people in a more advantageous and just
light by an accurate revisal of our vulgar translation by public authority.
This hath often been represented, and I hope will not always be repre
sented in vain."
In 1789, John Symonds, Professor of Modern History in the Univer-
John Sy- s'tv °f Cambridge, published in quarto, " Observations upon
monds, 1789. the Expediency of Revising the Present English Version."
On page second he asks : " Is error so valuable an inheritance that it
ought never to be relinquished ? Can it be sanctified by the plea of
a long prescription ? Experience teaches that mistakes in religion
are of all others the most pernicious, not only because they affect us in
the most important concerns, but as they are the most difficult to be
corrected. . . . People when it came out [our present version] were
not agitated by those imaginary terrors which are conjured up in our
days ; their curiosity was excited ; and their impatience prompted them
to break into censures ; not on account of the impropriety of the plan,
but of the dilatory conduct of the translators." He boldly joins issue
with those who contend that our version is sufficiently clear and obvious
in all things necessary to be believed and practised, and asks : " Hath
not the misinterpretation of one word [? I Cor. xi. 29] driven thousands
of well-meaning Christians from the Holy Communion ? "
It is well known that all the early editions of our present version
The uncer- contained numerous typographical and other errors, and that
tteEngns'h tllere was not one edition that could be called a standard. It
'^t. js held, indeed, that two folio editions in black-letter, instead
of one (as had long been supposed), were published in the year
161 1, copies of both being now extant. Hence in part the numerous
discrepancies that arose (Rev. Edw. Gilman in Bib. Sac. Jan. 1859).
A revision was made in 1638 by order of Charles I. to remedy this
defect, and another by Dr. Blayney in 1769 under authority; and in
1806 again by Eyre & Strahan, printers to his Majesty, but all of them

Appendix A. ON REVISION. 361
failed to reach the desired end of making or restoring a perfect English
text, the most unwarrantable liberties having in many cases been taken,
especially with marginal readings, headings to chapters, &c.' Might
it not, indeed, contribute materially to show the necessity of the work
of revision already undertaken by eminent scholars in England and
America, if a complete history of the labors of the committee appointed
by the Bible Society a number of years since to investigate the subject
were to be given to the public. No less than twenty-four thousand vari
ations were found by this committee in collating six different editions
of the English Bible as one result of the movement.2
At a meeting held Oct. 19, 1790, the Stonington Union Association
passed the following resolution bearing on the subject just The
mentioned : " We have received information that there are ij'njon8'011
proposals for reprinting the Holy Bible in different parts of Association.
America ; and viewing it as a matter of the highest importance to all
denominations of Christians and truly interesting to posterity, &c, &c,
therefore voted that our brethren Timothy Wightman, Simeon Brown
[and others], be appointed a committee in behalf of the Association to
prepare and transmit to Congress [a petition], requesting their attention
to the several impressions of the Bible now making, representing the
importance of accuracy in these impressions, and earnestly praying that
they would take such measures as the constitution may permit that no
edition of the Holy Bible ... be published in the United States with
out careful inspection and being certified to be free from error." In
the Spring of the same year the Congregational churches of Massa
chusetts sent a memorial to Congress to a similar effect, but Congress
made no response to these appeals.
In a work on the " Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek
Text of the New Testament," 1803, Granville Sharpe pre- Granville ,
sents his view of the doctrinal bearing of the subject : " It 1803.
will enable us revising [by a certain rule] to correct the translation of
several important texts in the English version of the New Testament
in favor of a fundamental article of our church, which has of late been
much opposed and traduced ; I mean the belief that our Lord Jesus
Christ is truly God. I am persuaded that our modern Socinians would
not have made so much clamor about the necessity of a new transla
tion, had they been aware that a more close and literal rendering of the
original text (even in passages which had escaped their calumnious
charges of corruption and their arrogant attempts at imaginary. correc-
1 Art. by Prof. Schaeffer in Bib. Sac. July, 1869, on the Marginal Readings ; Rev. Thos.
Curtis in Christ. Rev., Vol. III. , p. 34.
2 Bib. Soc. Reports, 1832-1858, especially the Report for 1852, No. 36.

362 LEADING OPINIONS Revision.
tion), must necessarily cut up their favorite system by the roots "
(P- 5')-And the learned Middleton, writing also on the Greek Article, in
T. f. Mid- i£S relation to the interpretation of the New Testament, says :
dleton, 1813. si j cannot help thinking that a revision would be extremely
imperfect, or, indeed, would be nearly useless, if it were to overlook
minute circumstances such as that before us [the use of the article].
It is in niceties of this sort, principally, that our English translation
admits improvement." ... "A single instance of the suppression of
a local custom, or popular opinion, which can be shown to have existed
among the Jews in the age of the Apostles, appears to me to be of
infinitely higher importance [than any change in mere phraseology] :
because by concealing from the notice of the reader circumstances
which are beyond the reach of fabrication, we withhold from him per
haps the strongest evidence of the authenticity of the Scriptures, and
consequently of the credibility of our religion" (p. 179).
J. M. Ray, author of "A Revised Translation and Interpretation
T. M. Ray °f the Scriptures after the Eastern Manner," says, on page
1815. seven of the preface : " It is entirely unreasonable to be un
willing to have stumbling-blocks removed, and yet be offended at peo-.
pie for stumbling at them. It is either the prejudice of education, or
being unwilling to let the unlearned know the Bible well, that makes
any say the common translation is good, contradicting the greatest
authorities." A revised translation of the New Testament was published in
Granville London, 1836-41, in 3 vols. 8vo, the author being Granville
Penn, 1S36. pennj Esq. On page 15, of vol. ii., he remarks: "But we
are not to infer from the scattered defects here produced [from the ver
sion of 161 1], that a new translation would have been, or would now
be, more desirable than a new revision. It was with much wisdom
that our revisers abstained from ' making a new translation,' and con
fined their labors to ' making a good one better.' Nothing is more
certain than that a new translation is necessarily a worst translation ;
and that a first translation arrives at excellence only by repeated re
visions ; it being impossible that the mind while being engaged in the
progression of translation, should at the same time equally exercise
itself in the interruptive scrutiny of each minute part, which is the
exclusive office of revision." To the objection that the "temper of
the times is not now propitious to the safe accomplishment of such a
work," Penn replies by saying that it recalls to him " the Abbot of St.
Godwin, who, pressed for charity by a homeless and hungry pilgrim,
while he was spurring homeward for shelter from a storm of rain and
thunder, deemed it ' no time for charity.'

Appendix A. ON REVISION. 363
" ' An almes, sir prieste,' the droppynge pilgrim saide : —
' Varlet,' replied the Abbatte ; 'cease your dinne !
This is no season almes and prayers to give ! '
"It is quite a new suggestion that ' safety ' is to be a governing con
dition in diffusing the lights which are continually accruing to illuminate
the obscurities induced by man on the original lucidity of the Gospel
text; the reviewer must consistently think that the 'temper of the
times ' in the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius Csesar, was by no means
propitious to the safe promulgation of the Gospel, nor in the reign of
Henry VIII. to the safe reformation of the Christian Church ; and
certainly he is fully borne out by history ; but — non defensoribus
istis tempus eget."
Dr. Adoniram Judson wrote in 1839: "If this work [of revision]
should be attempted, the rush of prejudice would doubtless, Dr. judson,
for a time, be terrific ; but truth is mighty and will prevail." l839'
And in the ¦ same letter : the version " is not inspired ; and to pay
undue reverence to any production, whether it be mother church or
mother translations, partakes of the nature of idolatry." '
Bishop Hinds, without directly advocating a formal revision of the
Scriptures in his two published sermons (Lond. 1853), yet Bishop
maintained principles looking in that direction. He says Hmds> >8S3-
(p. 46) that " emendations have been made and may yet be made ; and
that, in our estimate of the Word of God, the minutest approach which
we may make to the very word that was given by inspiration is to
be accounted valuable, and may prove, in any instance, more valuable
than we can say." And again, of the translators of 161 1, he remarks
that " they have themselves suggested inquiry into the correctness of
their work ; for example, by the marginal variations from the text. . . .
These marginal references are a perpetual reminiscence to the minis
ter, and to those ministered unto, that the version is not the Scripture,
but an instrument through which a knowledge of the Scripture is to be
sought." And still further (p. 109) : "There is a risk in calling general
attention to the real character of the English Scriptures, and in exer
cising that ministry on them which it is, nevertheless, our duty to
exercise ; but the risk is not in stating the truth, and in doing that our
duty, but in our manner of doing it. We are blameworthy if we neg
lect the duty, and we are also blameworthy if we discharge it indis
creetly." Archbishop Whately, in his edition of Bacon's Essays (C. T. Fran
cis, N. Y., pp. 225-245), employs the following forcible anal- Archbishop
ogy : " Many persons have not reflected on the circumstance, Whately.
1 Proceedings of Third An. Meeting of Bib. Revis. As., p. 52.

364 LEADING OPINIONS Revision.
that one of the earliest translations of the Scriptures was made by the
Church of Rome, — the Latin Vulgate, — being in the popular language
then spoken in Italy and in the neighboring countries. That version
was evidently made on purpose that the Scriptures might be intelli
gibly read by, or read to, the mass of the people. But gradually and
imperceptibly Latin was superseded by the languages derived from
it, — Italian, Spanish, and French, — while the Scriptures were kept
in Latin ; and when it was proposed to translate them into modern
tongues, this was regarded as a perilous innovation. Yet we meet with
many among the fiercest declaimers against the Church of Rome, who
earnestly deprecate the slightest changes in our authorized version,
and cannot endure even the gradual substitution of other words for
such as have become obsolete, for fear of 'unsettling men's minds.' "
Dr. Channing, in volume i. of his collected works (pp. 312, 313),
Dr. Chan- als0 presents one of the most important aspects of the sub-
m^VsWjrks'ject : " We conceive that to Bible societies this is a great
184S. question, and not to be evaded without unfaithfulness to our
common Master, and without disrespect to the Holy Scriptures. We
fear there is a want of conscientiousness on this subject. We fear that
the British and Foreign Bible Society has forfeited, in a measure, its
claim to the gratitude and admiration of the Church, by neglecting to
secure the greatest possible accuracy and fidelity to the new transla
tions which they have set forth. We hear continual expressions of
reverence for the Bible, but the most unambiguous proof of it — we
mean unwearied efforts to purify it from human additions, mutilations,
and corruptions — remains to be given."
Out of not a little material in our hands, bearing on this practical
Bishop Mc- point, we shall offer only the testimony of Bishop McDougall,
Dougall. given in the Convocation of Canterbury, May 5, 1870, while
the question of revision was under discussion. It is from the " Guar
dian " of May 18, 1870: "There is one point upon which I hope I
may venture to address a few words to the house, — I mean the mis
sionary point of view. I have, as you know, been some twenty years
a missionary. I have had the translations always before me, not in
one, but more than one language, and the great difficulty I have often
had has been some of these very little points in our authorized version,
to which attention has been called. I remember a translation made by
an agent of the' Bible Society, and published, I believe, by them. I
went through it, and found many of these defective and doubtful things
reproduced simply because the man did not know his Greek letters.
I went to him and he persisted that the translation was right, and he
went so far as almost to say our version was Divine. I feel very

Appendix A. ON REVISION. 365
strongly that if we wish to see our Bibles sent to the nations of the
earth in its purity, we must not have it rendered into native reading by
men who reproduce the mistakes in the English version. Those mis
takes are not many, but we cannot say they are not important, because
some of them concern no less serious matters than the doctrines of
the blessed Trinity and Baptism, and also the doctrines of Election
and Predestination, and other matters of that kind, which some of the
missionary societies feel bound to support. All these are regarded by
many as of the most serious importance, and every possible translation
which can be made to support them, is appealed to. This is a consid
eration which I recommend to the attention of the house, and it makes
me feel most earnestly the necessity that exists for a revision as soon
as possible (cheers)."
The " Edinburgh Review " for October, 1852 (p. 432), says that
" those who would resist the elimination of the palpable mis- " Edinburgh
takes and the acknowledged imperfections of our English Jgt"™','/ or
Bibles from the apprehension of offending the religious preju- and 1865.
dices of the people, are guilty of a pious fraud, which, though of a
lighter shade of guilt, ranks in the same vicious category with the prac
tice of the Romanist, who lends his support to the perpetuation of a
belief in fictitious relics, or endeavors to sustain the faith of his flock
by the contrivance of a fraudulent miracle." And again in October,
1855, it advocates dividing the text into paragraphs, according to the
sense ; placing that which was spoken between inverted commas ; and
that all passages taken from the other sacred writers of the Bible
should either be printed in italics, or in some other way distinguished
as quotations. " There is no other class of works whether we regard
the size, the type, or the distribution of the letter-press, in which we
find that so little has been done to assist the reader, and so much to
perplex him as in the Sacred Scriptures." And in the same review,
ten years later, in the July number : " It is most lamentable to hear
the same persons' loudly maintaining the plenary, or rather verbal,
inspiration of the Scriptures, and yet opposing themselves to all pro
posals for making endeavors to place a less corrupted and more faith
ful Bible in the hands of those students of God's Word who are
dependent on the learned to place that Word before them in their
native language."
Professor J. T. Conant, thus wrote concerning revision, in the
"Bible Union Reporter" for January, 1855: " By what au- Professor
thority, human or divine, are the common people, those who ,855.
know only their mother tongue, condemned to walk in the twilight of
the sixteenth century, while the favored few are enjoying the full day

366 LEADING OPINIONS Revision.
of the nineteenth. ... A faithful translation, ably and judiciously
executed, would do more for the illustration of the divine word for the
common mind, than all the commentaries that could be piled between
earth and heaven. . . . There are many in the ministry, men of
intelligence and culture, who yet have not had the peculiar training,
or may not have the leisure for investigations of this kind ; but to
whom these results, in an accessible form, would be an invaluable help
in the study of the Scriptures."
In an article first published in the "Journal of Sacred Literature"
Rev. Henry for January, 1857, and afterwards republished in pamphlet
ll.d. ' form, Rev. Henry Burgess, LL.D., sought to answer the
current objections to revision. He says : " Dr. Cumming frequently en
tertains his auditors in Crown Court, on Sunday, with proposed emenda
tions of the English version of the Bible, while, at the same time, he
protests loudly in the columns of the ' Times ' against any authorized
improvements." After replying to some objections which have been
already noticed in this section, he proceeds (p. 10) : " One great argu
ment for leaving things as they are, is, that any attempt at revision will
give an advantage to the heterodox parties of the religious world, and
allow ofthe triumph of neological and latitudinarian tendencies. Now
this implies one or both of two things : first, that the heterodox are
more powerful than the orthodox, and would have every thing their
own way in case a committee for revising the English Bible were ap
pointed ; or, secondly, that heterodoxy would justly claim some altera
tion on its behalf, some texts which our present version improperly
ranges on the side of those who are sound in the faith. As we cannot
imagine that any one seriously admits the first of these reasons, we
must look to the latter as the ground of jealousy and object of fear;
and would remind those who entertain it, that the truth was never yet
promoted by falsehood, and never yet dreaded any flood of light which
could be thrown upon its open and ingenuous brow. ' He that doeth
truth cometh to the light,' says our blessed Lord ; ' Let God be true,
and every man a liar,' is the sublime exclamation of his holy Apostle.
He continues (p. 13) : " We maintain that this correctness as to essen
tials is no valid cause for our being satisfied with one minor error, or
resting contented until we have brought our English Bible as near the
truth of the Hebrew and Greek originals, as learning and extensive
knowledge can make them. It is a proof of a want of reverence for
Holy Writ when we allow error to deface its pages ; it is an unfaithful
ness to the trust which the Church has always had committed to it, as
the witness and keeper of the divine oracles. It is, moreover, an act
of great presumption for any one to think that he can add to or subtract

Appendix A. ON REVISION. 367
from the Scriptures, which is virtually done when any known mistrans
lation is allowed to continue." And again (p. 17) : ¦" Further, if it be
found, as we may safely affirm it will be found, that several of these
defective passages do, at present, obscure, more or less, the testimony
borne to Christ by the prophets, and the assertions of the divinity of
Christ by the Apostles, may we not say that it is our bounden duty to
effect the removal of these blemishes ? "
In an address before the American Bible Union at its tenth anni
versary in New York, Oct. 6, 1859, Professor H. B. Hackett, Professor
D.D., remarked upon the fact that there had simultaneously, 1859.
in many different countries, sprung up the conviction that the time
has come for vernacular versions of the Bible to conform to the pres
ent state of biblical studies. "I have passed," he says, "recently
through some of these foreign lands, and have taken pains to inform
myself on the subject. It might be thought that the veneration of
Protestant Germany for Luther's name would have left his translation,
so excellent in many, respects, untouched. But so it is not. There,
too, the public mind has taken hold of this matter. It has not only
called forth discussion, but been brought before the ecclesiastical
bodies ; and a committee has been appointed (some of whom I saw
and conversed with) to report the facts in the case and suggest means
for procuring the necessary corrections. One writer says that at least
twelve hundred and fifty changes should be made. The excellent
Tholuck says, that, as all the authorities agree that various passages
are mistranslated, the editions of the Bible for the use of the people
ought not to perpetuate the errors. I could mention the testimony of
many other eminent men to the same effect. Appeals are constantly
made through the press for some prompt action here. The appear
ance of Bunsen's work is a proof of the existence of this awakened
feeling. I am sure that if Luther himself could speak from his grave,
he would be heard encouraging such efforts, and not protesting against
them ; for when he was living he said : ' Though I have done the best
I could, I am conscious of my imperfections ; and, if any one shall
arise after me who has more light and can improve my work, let him
do it, and let the people adopt his truth, and not cling to my errors.'
A similar movement is taking place in Belgium and Holland. The
Saxon nations of the north of Europe are stirring in the matter.
The government of Norway has appointed a commission to revise the
common transition of that country. Among the scholars who com
pose this commission is Dr. Caspari, who is not unknown on this side
of the water. The work is begun, and parts of the new version have
appeared."

368 LEADING OPINIONS Revision.
With regard to the ability of modern scholars to cope with the
work, he holds the distinction of the later scholarship to be this : " It
embraces a more accurate knowledge of the structure and idioms of
the old tongues, and ofthe logical force and signification ofthe words.
Greek Lexicography (to say nothing of Hebrew) in its present scien
tific mode of treatment, Greek Grammar in its more perfect mastery
of the syntax, Greek Synonomy which treats of the related meaning
of words, are essentially sciences of the modern philology ; and, be it
noted, it is precisely these branches of learning which afford to scholars
the help which they need for carrying on the uncompleted labors of
the past. It is our felicity that we live after such men, and thus are
enabled to use the instruments which they have prepared for us in
addition to the aids peculiar to our own times. Is it presumptuous to
say as much as this ?"
Professor Hackett also quotes Archdeacon Hare on the opinion
Archdeacon that minor errors in the Scripture are unimportant: "The
Hare on notion that slight errors and defects and faults are immate-
unimpor- °
tant" errors, j-ja^ an(j that we need not go to the trouble of correcting
them, is one main cause why there are so many huge errors and defects
and faults in every region of human life, practical and speculative,
moral and political. No error should be deemed slight which affects
the meaning of a single word in the Bible ; where so much weight is
attached to every single word ; and where so many inferences and
conclusions are drawn from the slightest ground, not merely those
which find utterance in books, but a far greater number springing up
in the minds of the millions to whom our English Bible is the code
and canon of all truth. For this reason errors, even the least, in a
version of the Bible, are of far greater moment than in any other book,
as well because the contents of the Bible are of far deeper importance,
and have a far wider influence, as also because the readers of the Bible
are not only the educated and learned who can exercise some sort of
judgment on what they read, but vast multitudes who understand
whatever they read according to the letter."
Besides the new versions of the Scriptures contemplated on the
Anew Continent of Europe mentioned above, there is one nearly
Svredish or qUite completed in Sweden also, as we are informed by
templated. the following excerpt from a recent newspaper : " We learn
by a letter from a friend in Stockholm, Sweden, dated Feb. 9, 1871,
that a Royal Bible Commission has been at work for a long time with
the revision of the old Swedish version of the Bible. The commission
has advanced so far in their work that they expect to publish it in the
Spring, to be laid before the Diet for examination."

Appendix A.

ON REVISION. 369

Rev. W. G. Humphry, in a review of Dean Alford's New Tes
tament, quotes Dean Gaisford as saying, in a letter to Sir Dean Gais-
Robert Inglis, M.P. for the University of Oxford, in 1855 : Canon
" My own opinion is,. that its present state [that of the ' Au- smith.
thorized Version,'] is indefensible ; and, when errors have been pointed
out, as they have been in this case very frequently, to go on repeating
them from time to time is hardly consistent with reason or creditable
to the literary character of the nation." Likewise the testimony of
Dr. Payne Smith, Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford : " The
perfecting of the English translation of the Inspired Word is one of
the noblest works which the mind of man can undertake ; and, though
there be evils attendant upon interfering with our present noble
Saxon version, still, none can be so great as its being regarded, by a
gradually increasing portion of the community, as deficient in correct
ness." Dr. Smith judged (1859) that, after a few years, Christian
scholars might be justified in undertaking the work of revising the
New Testament, but held that Old Testament revision must wait " for
a lengthened period of far more profound study of Hebrew literature
than at present prevails, carried on by many different minds." As we
have before stated, having been elected to serve with the Old Testa
ment committee of Convocation for revision (May 25, 1870), Dr. Smith
declined the honor, thus intimating that he has not changed his origi
nal opinion.
A great change has undoubtedly taken place in public opinion, as
well as in the judgment of scholars, respecting the matter of " Princeton
• , 1 r ¦ 1 • Review" for
revision during the last few years, a fact which will be evi- Jan., 1871.
dent from the remaining citations of this section. For instance, the
"Princeton Review "for January, 1 871, says (p. 37) : " Public opinion has
been essentially changed. Many who once disapproved, now promote
revision; and many who would be glad to leave all alone are convinced
that such a course is no longer possible, and take part in the work in
order to insure its accomplishment in a right way and to forestall the
appearance of a more radical change. No one engaged in this move
ment thinks of a new translation, but of a revision of the old. This
fact removes many serious objections, and softens the prejudice with
which every one approaches the subject."
The " Contemporary Review " (vol. ii. p. 141), speaking of the learn-
inc of the revisers of 161 1 and of Christian scholars generally J. K.
s> , Cheyne in
of the sixteenth century, says: "It was Rabbinical. Its"Coiitempo-
grammar knows no syntax ; its lexicons, no cognate lan- "7 j;6™™1
guages. Its grammar is Jewish, its interpretation Jewish. It wor
ships the vowel points, and bows humbly to the Targums. Hebrew
24

370 LEADING OPINIONS Revision.
learning was then in a state of transition. Continental ideas were
received, so to speak, by minute instalments." This writer advocates
most singularly a new translation of the Bible for use in the closet and
pulpit only.
Again, Rev. William G. Humphry, himself one of the English
"Macmil- scholars engaged in the work of revision now in process, in
lan's Maga- °, a . r , , , . ,->...
zine," 1870. addition to the sentiments favored by him (p. 369), writes in
" Macmillan's Magazine '' for June, 1870, to show that the early efforts
at revision were ill timed : " The French Revolution was producing in
the English mind that aversion to change, that disposition to identify
reform with revolution, which long survived the reign of terror." Of
the later attempts, he says that they have done much " to determine
the principles on which the work should be conducted, and thus to
prepare the way and excite the demand for an authoritative revision
which should be entitled to public confidence." He mentions also
that a revised edition of the English Bible was then (June, 1870) in
the course of publication by the Religious Tract Society, the New
Testament portion having already appeared, and the Old Testament
as far as Esther, and holds that this "shows, at least, that the diffi
culty of uniting together Church of England divines and Non-con
formists for a good and holy purpose is not insuperable." He also
meets the objection (of George P. Marsh and many others), that
Christian scholars of different denominations could not be brought to
make common work of such a revision, by still another illustration :
" The Tamil Bible, revised under the auspices of the [British and
Foreign] Bible Society, had revisers made up of Church of England
clergy and representatives of various Non-conformist bodies." This
revision was based on the Hebrew and Greek texts, and required the
labor of eleven years. The report of the Bible Society says : " Our
daily work brought us so directly in contact with the deep things of
God, that it was a source of continual refreshment to us and continual
delight, and the brotherhood of feeling with which we were united
turned our toil into a pleasure. So rapidly did the time fly by that we
ended each day with reluctance, and the only day that hung heavily
on our spirits was the last, when we felt that our work had come to an
end, and that all that remained for us to do was to depart." His con
clusion is : " The English Bible is exposed to a running fire of criti
cism from so many sides, there is danger lest an exaggerated idea of
its imperfections should go abroad, and the people should begin to
lose their trust in it ; while the more educated class of readers will
betake themselves to versions tainted by sectarian predilections or dis
figured by private crotchets." . . . Hence, the time has come "to purge

Appendix A. ON REVISION. 371
it of its ascertained errors, and bring it up to the present standard of
our Bible knowledge."
An able article in the " British Quarterly Review " for January, 1870,
referring to the change of sentiment that has taken place on "British
the subject of revision, says : "The sentimental effusions that °^-j!wrli?
were indulged in by the opponents of change some twelve or l87°-
twenty years ago, as well as the innuendoes that were then pretty
freely directed against the advocates of revision, are things of which
almost every one would now feel ashamed. The vis inertia is almost
all that now requires to be overcome. And if it can be shown, as we
think may easily be done, that to rest satisfied with our English Bible
in its present state is to be unfaithful to the advantages with which
God in his providence has favored us, is to obscure the light of divine
truth which should shine in every poor man's dwelling, and is to fur
nish the popular infidelity of our day with some of its most effective
weapons, then may we hope that the conscience of our nation will be
aroused, and that we shall allow ourselves no rest till the reproach of
indifference and inactivity with respect to this great question has been
removed." Professor George B. Jewett, in articles published in the " Congrega
tional Review" September, 1868, January and March, 1869, "Congrega-
. . . . , . , , . . 'io"*1 Re-
While severely criticising the new version of the American view."
Bible Union, yet says : " If a concerted movement could now be
initiated which should enlist, not those who claim to be, but who are,
the most ' competent scholars of the day ' in a joint effort to produce
a perfect translation on the basis ofthe common version, there would,
in my judgment, be found a general acquiescence in the wisdom of
the undertaking."
In an editorial review of the reasons given by the Archbishop of
York in Convocation for not favoring at present a revision of The *¦ Guar-
_, ,. „ „ ^, , than," March
the Scriptures, the " Guardian" says : " The arguments of 2, 1870.
the Archbishop of York seem sometimes to have an awkward way of
charging, as the Roman historians tell us the Carthaginian elephants
often did, backwards on their own friends. It does seem strange to
find him alleging it as a reason against any reform of our English
translation, that no reduction of it to correspondence with the original
would make any difference to the dogmas of the Church. Most
Churchmen will surely see in that undoubted fact rather a ground for
proceeding at once with the undertaking than for further delays about
it." The same paper, March 16th, answers a very common objection:
" It is curious that Lord Shaftesbury should write so persistently, as
if our theologians were about to sit down with the Hebrew and Greek

372 LEADING OPINIONS Revision.
Scriptures before them and to excogitate a new translation for them
selves. All such designs have been anxiously deprecated from the
first. The history of our present version, too, if Lord Shaftesbury
would study it, might help to disabuse him of his mistakes."
In a letter directed to Lord Shaftesbury, published in the " Times "
Professor °f Feb- 24, 1870, Professor Selwyn, one of the original
Selwyn. committee of Convocation for revising the Old Testament,
writes : " With all my feeling of the need of caution, I must say that,
after having gone through the whole of the Bible, comparing the Eng
lish with the original, my conviction is, that a large number of passages
might be rendered more correctly, and so show more fully the mind
of the Spirit that speaks in the Holy Scriptures, and that some of
these in the Old Testament are in close connection with prophecy
relating to our Lord, — his birth and suffering; while others in the
New Testament relate to truths full of Christian comfort and hope ;
and that the correction of these would tend to strengthen Christian
faith and animate Christian love. I would undertake to bring forward,
by way of example, at the Bible Society's meeting in May (when prob
ably something will be said on the subject), twelve passages from each
Testament, which the hearers would acknowledge in the words of the
preface of 161 1, ' to shine as gold, more brightly, being polished.' "
Dean Alford in a published sermon thus addresses himself to the
Dean Al- objection that alterations in the present version of the Bible
ford. would tend to unsettle men's minds : " No ; faith, not merely
in the words and expressions of Scripture, but in its very historical
foundations, has of late been so seriously shaken that few could be
found who in any popular assembly could expect such an argument
would be deemed now to have any real weight. What would verbal
changes, often very trivial, at the rate of one a verse, amount to in
regard of unsettling men's minds, when compared with the earthquake
like movements that have taken place since the last-mentioned
argument was used in the House of Commons [fourteen years before].
In such an age, that has welcomed ' Essays and Reviews,' and pas
sionately praised such a semi-Socinian treatise as ' Ecce Homo,' we
must feel that such an objection as this cannot possibly be admitted
to hold any place."
In a speech made in the Convocation of York, February, 1870, when
this matter of revision was before them, Canon Hav, among
Canon Hay. , . ,...,' .¦",„*
other arguments in favor of joining the Convocation of Can
terbury in the work, said : " It had been said that if a revision of the
Authorized Version which is now accepted by everybody — by Church
men and Non-conformists — were made, there would be very great

Appendix A. ON REVISION. 373
danger of having a Churchman's Bible and a Dissenter's Bible. In
answer to that, he desired to say that the only thing he contemplated
was a revision in which the most learned men of all parties would con
cur. The question for such a committee of revision would simply be,
what was the exact meaning of the words of the original text. Another
objection used by Lord Shaftesbury was a commercial one, — as to
what was to become of the millions of Bibles which were now being
used. He utterly disclaimed any intention to adopt a course which
would render useless the present Bibles, the intention being to make
any corrections that might be found desirable in marginal notes. He
maintained that Convocation was peculiarly interested in such a move
ment as the one proposed. They must recollect that no translation in
the world ever faithfully represented the original. There was a sort
of dilution in the very best translation ever made, and in saying so he
meant no dishonor to the persons who had prepared it. All he pleaded
for was that means should be taken to ascertain what, in the opinion
of those best versed in Biblical criticism, was the meaning of Scripture.
He felt the desirableness of such a work more strongly, because so
many people might from time to time be brought into difficulties with
sceptics by quoting passages and then being told that those passages
were not genuine translations." '
Russell Martineau, in advocating very extensive changes in the
common version, is an exception to the great majority of Russeii
scholars. In an article published in the "Theological Re- Martineaa
view" for January, 1871, he says : " In the face of all these facts, what
are we to say to the call for a revised translation ? Surely this first and
foremost : that it is not so much a revised as a new translation [of the
Old Testament] that is required ; that the old translation, whatever its
beauties of style and merits of execution, — which we may unhesita
tingly pronounce wonderful for its age, • — -is now antiquated, far more
by the advance of Hebrew grammatical knowledge, since it was pro
duced, than by its own English style ; and that the best scholars will
not be content to labor at patching up what must be to them an inferior
work, but require to work freely, if they work at all."
The most important matter of the determination of a text to be
followed is thus presented by Scrivener, by invitation of Rev. r. H.
Convocation one of the New Testament committee on Scrivener,
revision : " While we confess that much remains to be done in the
department of Biblical learning, we are yet bound to say that, chiefly
by the exertions of scholars of the last and present generations, the
. debatable ground is gradually becoming narrower, not a few strong
controversies have been decided beyond hope of reversal ; and while

374 LEADING OPINIONS Revision.
new facts are daily coming to light, critics of very opposite sympathies
are coming to agree better as to the right mode of classifying and
applying them." l
On the same point another recent critic speaks (T. S. Green, "A
^, „ „ Course of Developed Criticism," p. 192) : " The materials
T. S. Green. . . . * ,
of criticism are at present ample, though two requirements
are yet unsatisfied. These are a thorough and trustworthy collation
of Codex Vaticanus (B), the prime importance of which document
cannot be disputed, in spite of all the watching and jealousy that
environ it ; and secondly, means, if ever they can be found, for restor
ing to its ancient form the entire text of the Syriac version."
And again, Professor Schaff, in the " Introduction to Lange on
Professor John," recently published : " The revision of the authorized
Schaff, D.D. English version [of Lange's work] was, of course, made
directly from the Greek, and with constant reference to the latest
critical sources ; viz., the eighth large edition of Tischendorf, now
in course of publication, Tregelles (Luke and John, 1861), Alford (Gos
pels, sixth edition, 1868), and advanced sheets of Westcott and Hort's
forthcoming edition of the Greek Testament, which were kindly fur
nished to me by my friend, Canon Westcott. In examining these criti
cal editions of German and English scholars, I have gained the
conviction that we are steadily approaching a pure and reliable text of
the Greek Testament."
Tregelles ("Account of Printed Text," p. 267) takes ground similar
„ „ to that of Bishop McDougall and others, mentioned above :
Tregelles. ¦ " Is it not at least remarkable, that, as far as modern transla
tions in general are concerned, all the labors of critics have been in
vain ? . . . Are there many modern translations in which any results
of criticism have been introduced ? What is the number of those in
which 1 John v. 7 is not introduced, and from which converts to Chris
tianity would not think that verse to be a special ground for believing
the infinitely precious doctrine of the holy Trinity ? It is futile to
plead that our English authorized version is based on a different text,
and that translations for newly evangelized nations ought not to differ
from it ; our English version was honestly executed before critical
studies had properly begun ; and to make it the standard of criticism
shows as little intelligence as if it were made the standard of transla
tion. But, indeed, the latter error, puerile as it is, has been committed.
But we need not be suprised that, with regard to translations, facts are
such ; for in this country [England] there has been a timidity about the
whole matter ; the truths of God's Word have been valued, yet there
1 Introd. to Crit. of N. T., p. 6.

Appendix A. ON REVISION. 375
has been, seemingly, a fear lest too clear a scrutiny of the text of that
Word would invalidate those truths, or render them doubtful ; as if the
doctrine which God has revealed might rest just as well on the basis
of dim uncertainty, perchance of transcriptural error ; that is (if delib
erately maintained), of falsehood, as on the ground of absolute and
ascertained truth. This kind of caution is exactly the same as if any
one should sanction and perpetuate errata found in a printed edition
of the Bible."
Dr. Guthrie says ("Sunday Magazine," January, 1871) : "The
expression, ' revision of the Bible,' has, to the ear of a Dr. Guthrie
devout but ignorant man, an alarming sound, just because he '"sunchiy
does not understand that what is proposed is a revision, not Magazine."
of God's Word, but of man's work in connection with God's Word.
This* whole movement, instead of being dreaded or deplored, should,
in our humble judgment, be hailed as a healthy and hopeful sign of the
times in which we live, — an indication that the English-speaking peo
ple firmly believe the divine inspiration of the written Word, and desire
to possess what may in the strictest sense be called the Bible, the
whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible."
An anonymous writer, who entitles himself "A Licentiate of the
Church of Scotland" ("Plea for a New English Version of a Licenti-
the Scriptures." Macmillan & Co., 1864), presents still an- c'm°fcnb0ef
other aspect of the subject : " It is worthy of special atten- Scotland.
tion that the manifold inaccuracies of the Authorized Version are deeply
detrimental, not only to the private perusal of God's written Word, but
also to its public exposition by those engaged in the work of the minis
try. . . . It is more than likely that if, in the course of one's expository
remarks, one were to point out a mistranslation in the Authorized Ver
sion and to suggest an accurate rendering in its stead, many of the hear
ers would utterly fail to comprehend such a remark, and instead of being
edified would be confused and perplexed by it. No amount of oral
explanation, however clear and simple, can dispel the misapprehensions
produced by errors printed in the Bible which people are wont to
peruse ; but the only way in which such misapprehensions can be
effectually removed is the issuing of a revised version, in which, with
their own eyes, people may see a correct translation of those passages
which are misrepresented in King James's Bible." To the position that
our emendations of the present version^should not extend beyond the
point of placing corrections in the margin, he answers : " If the first
edition of some literary production were inadvertently vitiated by vari
ous mistakes, what would be thought of the author if he persisted in
allowing them to reappear in a second edition, on the ground that an

376 LEADING OPINIONS Rb™>ion.
extra page, headed errata, was devoted to their correction. Yet such
a course would not be more absurd than the retention of many well-
known errors of King James's Bible, on the plea that they may be coun
teracted by marginal notes and emendations." To the objection that
those who desire revision do not sufficiently appreciate the merits of
the present version, this writer says, "that admiration of its good
qualities, instead of retarding, ought rather to stimulate, a desire to
have it revised, in order that, by the removal of its defects, its merits
may be all the more brightly displayed." As to the alleged tendency
of revision to cause painful doubts and difficulties in the minds of some
Christians, "It may well be asked," he says, "is not the retention and
perpetuation of inaccuracies far more calculated to exert a detrimental
influence in this respect, and to be a continual source of irritating dis
comfort and dissatisfaction to many who long for an accurate repre
sentation of t*uth." Referring to the fact that the late Rev. Albert
Barnes was an opponent of revision (see " Introduction to Notes on the
Four Gospels " ), he finds in the works of this commentator a sufficient
refutation of his position : " If some one were to search through his
notes on Isaiah, Daniel, and Job, and on the whole New Testament,
and were to mark down every case in which Mr. Barnes very properly
censures the Authorized Version and exposes its inaccuracy, then the
lists of facts enumerated from his own writings would form a most
powerful argument in favor of revising the Authorized Version, and
replacing it by a new one."
In the "Independent" of May 25, 1871, Professor S. C. Bartlett,
Professor s. of the Chicago Theological Seminary, has given several con-
D.D. ' cise reasons for immediate revision, and replied to objections
to the work partially, as follows : " The solid reasons for a revision,
then, are : first, a real occasion for it more than existed two hundred
and sixty years ago. Secondly, we are in possession of the means to
make these corrections [before spoken of], at least a very large num
ber of them. Scholars are prepared, by an almost unanimous vote, to
make numerous emendations in the text, and still more numerous cor
rections in the English translation. Thirdly, the community are pre
pared to receive the changes. There was a time when even scholars,
like Whitby, were afraid. But a revolution has been wrought. By a
long series of influences, including abundant discussion of text read
ings ; and crowned, perhaps, by the popular Tauchnitz edition, the
whole community are intelligently prepared. They will not accept a
revision for sectarian purposes ; but they will receive a fair-minded
scholarly revision, made in the interest of truth."
To the objection that there is a lack of an adequate acquaintance

Appendix A. ON REVISION. 377
with certain versions, — especially the Syriac, the Old Latin, Gothic,
Ethiopic, and Coptic, — he answers : " Two things are exaggerated, —
our ignorance of these versions and their importance. Many scholars
are competent to deal with the first three, which are the more impor
tant. Were it otherwise, a knowledge of the true text is far more
essential than of any version or versions. The latter can decide only
in very doubtful cases. Another objection is the want of absolute
agreement on the text and the translation. This will always exist.
But, as Ellicott remarks, 'probably one-half the questioned readings
would be decided at once by general consent.' Then let us have
these. Another objection is the liability to mar the English of our
present version. Were the liability greater, perhaps, the Lord would
forgive the awkwardness of our style for the correctness of our under
taking, especially if we did our best. Another objection respects the
feasibility of the measure, — the possibility of finding a competent and
acceptable body of revisers. For one, I say, let the Church of Eng
land take the work in hand, as it did the former. Let it use its own
high scholarship and call in all available aid. I have no jealousy of
Churchmen or of Englishmen. A true conservatism is that which
appeals from the text of Erasmus and the translators of King James
to the true text and the true translation."
Most of the reasons for revision given by Bishop Ellicott in his
recent work ("Considerations on the Revision of the Eng- Bishop Elli-
lish Version of the New Testament." London, 1870) have cott-
already, in substance, been laid before our readers. His book is
chiefly valuable as a guide to the proper method of revising. He
speaks, however, of the gradual ripening of interest on the general
subject since the last movement in this direction several years ago
(p. 20) ; of the present affluence of critical materials, concerning which
he says : " This knowledge, it must be our bounden duty reverently
and faithfully to make use of. No mere conservatism, no timid appre
hension of unsettling a belief, already (God knoweth) so unsettled
from other causes, that textual criticism would rather act in a contrary
direction ; no acquiescence in well meant, but really ignorant, preju
dice, must prevent us faithfully bringing, out of the treasures vouch
safed to us, every item that will aid in putting before us in their truest
form what an Apostolic Father has not scrupled to call, ' The true
sayin°-s of the Holy Ghost.' " Ellicott thinks it undesirable to attempt
to form a textus receptus.
" Though we have much critical material and a very fair amount
of critical knowledge, we have certainly not yet acquired a sufficient
critical judgment for any body of revisers hopefully to undertake such a

378 LEADING OPINIONS

Revision.

work as this." ..." We are steadily gravitating to a consent as regards
a very considerable number of passages ; let us not interfere with that
natural process by trying to anticipate what we shall successfully
arrive at if we have but patience and industry " (p. 44). He considers
that a revision of the " received text " would not be difficult, it having
been attempted by five scholars (" Revision by Five Clergymen," &c.)
working in combination, " and found by experience not in any degree
to be unmanageable or unsatisfactory in its results." Of the objections
to which Bishop Ellicott has replied, sufficient notice has already been
taken, if we except the last which he mentions, that revision " would
encourage still further revisions, and that the great changes in our
version which we all agree to deprecate would be brought about by
successive revisions, — in a word, that there would be no finality."
Of this he remarks, that " we are transferred into the future and have
very few data derived from the past on which to hazard a forecast.
Former revisions certainly succeeded each other after no lengthened
intervals, but then they were revisions which were suggested by the
existing state of the translation and the changeful character of the
times." After remarking upon the status of the present version, he
adds : " There are facts which certainly seem to suggest the persua
sion that one cautious and reverent retouching of the old picture might
be tolerated, but that all parties, after they had accepted the work, —
and this it would take time to bring about, — would very distinctly
concur in deprecating any further manipulations."
Professor Lightfoot's late work ("On a Fresh Revision ofthe Eng-
J. B. Light- lish New Testament," London, 1871), although mostly occu-
foot, d.d. pje(j m noting the defects of the present version, contains
also some forcible responses to current objections to revision at the
present time. He instances the case of Jerome, whose revision of the
old Latin version, nearly fifteen hundred years ago, met with almost
the same kind of opposition as the movement now in process. " All
the Greek and Latin Churches, it was urged, had hitherto used one
and the same Bible ; but this bond of union would be dissolved by a
new version made from a different text. Thus the utmost confusion
would ensue. Moreover, what injury might not be done to the faith
of the weaker brethren by casting doubt on the state of the sacred
text?" (p. 4). "There was also a very extravagant estimate of the
amount of change that would be produced by this revision. Thus
Augustine, when endeavoring to deter him, speaks of his new transla
tion ; Jerome in reply tacitly corrects his illustrious correspondent,
and calls the work a revision'" (p. 5). Canon Lightfoot also finds a
parallel to this history of Jerome's version — the Vulgate — in that of

Appendix A. ON REVISION. 379
the so-called " Authorized Version " of 161 1, and then remarks (p. 12),
" All history is a type, a parable." ..." The alarming consequences
which some anticipate from any attempt to meddle with our time-hon
ored version have their exact counterpart in the apprehensions by
which his [Jerome's] contemporaries sought to deter him." . . . "More
over, there is the like exaggerated estimate of the amount of change
which any body of revisers would probably introduce. To this we
can only give the same answer as Jerome. Not translation, but revi
sion, is the object of all who have promoted this new movement."
" Nor, again, will the eminence of antagonists deter the promoters
of this movement if they feel that they have truth on their side. Au
gustine was a greater theologian, as well as a better man, than Jerome.
But in this matter he was treading on alien ground; he had not
earned the right to speak. On the other hand, a life-long devotion to
the study of the Biblical text in the original languages had filled
Jerome alike with a sense of the importance of the work and of the
responsibility of his position. He felt the iron hand of a strong neces
sity laid upon him, and he could not choose but open out to others
the stores of scriptural wealth which he himself had been permitted
to amass. And again, we may take courage from the results which
followed from this design, dauntlessly and persistently carried out.
None of the perilous consequences which friend and foe alike had
foreboded did really ensue. There was, indeed, a long interval of
transition, during which the rival versions contended for supremacy ;
but no weakening of individual faith, no alienation of churches, can be
traced to this source."
With respect to the character of the new revision, Dr. Lightfoot
considers it safe to affirm " that the permanent value of the new revi
sion will depend in a great degree on the courage and fidelity with
which it deals with questions of readings. If the signs of the times
may be trusted, the course which is most truthful will also be most
politic. To be conservative it will be necessary to be adequate ; for
no revision which fails to deal fairly with these textual problems can
be lasting." Respecting the point whether the present knowledge of Greek is
adequate to such an undertaking, this scholar says : " Greek scholar
ship has never stood higher in England than it does at the present
moment. There is not only a sufficient body of scholars capable of
undertaking the work, but there is also (and this is a most important
element of the consideration) a very large number besides fully com
petent to submit the work of the revisers, when completed, to a minute
and searching criticism." ..." I would venture to go a step beyond

380 LEADING OPINIONS Revision.
this. I should be glad to think my apprehensions groundless, but
there is at least some reason to forebode that Greek scholarship has
reached its height in England, and that henceforth it may be expected
to decline." On the point of the number of changes likely to be introduced into
Rev. G. our present version by the revisers, the following, from Rev.
Smith. G. Vance Smith (" New York Tribune," June 3d, 1872), might
be considered pertinent, confirming, as it does, the testimony of
Ellicott as to what was likely to be the case, while the work was still
untouched: " It was stated by Mr. Vance Smith, in a speech in Bir
mingham, that the new revision of the Bible by the Canterbury Con
vocation, of which Mr. Smith is the only Unitarian member, while it
will result in a greatly improved version, — changes, in fact, having
been made in almost every verse, — will not read unlike the existing
translation, the old style having been adhered to as closely as possible.
' Any one hearing it read,' Mr. Smith said, ' would hardly know that
it was a new version.' This will be grateful news to those who, from
a literary point of view, have doubted the expediency or even good
taste of a substantially new translation ; for it was naturally appre
hended that wide deviations from the standard text might result in
confusion, and in impairing the value of existing Biblical literature."
Ex-President Woolsey, in two articles in the " Independent" (Jan. 25
T. D.Wool- and Feb. 1st, 1872), takes substantially the same position as
sey, D.D., . . ' .
ll.d. Canon Lightfoot, whom he considers to be a man "not far
from the head of English Biblical scholars." Of the matter of resources
and scholarship for the work proposed, he says : " The apparatus
in the matter of text, grammar, and lexical researches is ample, and
the scholarship is as finished perhaps as it ever will be." With respect
to the changes to be made, he remarks, that " the vastly greater part
of the changes would be slight ones which would scarcely be noticed
by ordinary readers. To whicli we may add, that, as the changes will
be passed upon by a committee of men of different tastes and natures,
the number of them on which they will all agree will represent the
number which are truly important and unquestionably needed. Indeed,
it is to be feared that changes will not be numerous enough to satisfy
those who are best able to judge of their necessity, rather than that
they will be too many and too bold."

Appendix A. ON REVISION. 381

III. Examples of the more Important Alleged Defects of
our Version.
In his late work .on the " Revision of the English Version of the
New Testament," Bishop Ellicott arrives at the conclusion — Ellicott's
assuming that no future revision of this part of the Bible probable ad-
would overstep the limits of that made by the five clergy- terations.
men — that there will not be in the proposed revision by the Com
mittee of Convocation, more than "one change in every four verses
due to textual criticism, and about one' change in each verse due to
grammar and general exegesis." He makes (pp. 132-182) a sample
revision of four chapters in Matthew's Gospel (v.-viii.), finding in the
one hundred and eight verses only eleven changes necessary on the
ground of a faulty text, while the number of grammatical corrections
is one hundred and seventy, or somewhat more than the predicted
average. Combining this passage with others, however, the estimate
first made is substantiated. It is hardly to be expected that the
changes in the Old Testament will be so few, yet it may be confidently
asserted that they will not be so numerous as seriously to change the
character of the present version. Without any pretence to complete
ness, we propose, in the present section, to offer some illustrations of
the various kinds of imperfections and errors which will be likely to
engage the attention of the scholars who have been called to this
responsible work.
Dean Stanley, in the Introduction to his Commentary on Corin
thians, mentions in detail the character of the changes which Dean Stan-
- , . .1-1 ley on Co-
he had found it necessary to introduce into the common ver- rinthians.
sion, in order " to put the English reader as nearly as possible in pos
session not merely of the sense, but of the abruptness, the obscurity,
the singularity of style of the original text" (pp. 18-22): such as are
produced by a restoration of the text according to the ancient manu
scripts (according to Lachmann) ; such as are produced by a better
system of punctuation ; by transposing the words into a nearer con
formity with the original order; by bringing out the emphasis of the
word, apparent in the original text either from the use of the pronoun,
or from the place of the word in the sentence ; such as are required by
inaccuracies of translation : (a) through carelessness, 1 Cor. i. 4, 7 ; iii.
19; vii. 37; (b) such as might be ascribed to theological fear or par
tiality, 1 Cor. ix. 27, xi. 27; (c) obsolete expressions; (d) retention
of the original Greek (or Latin) words ; (e) occasioned by uncertainty

382 LEADING OPINIONS Revision.
respecting the Greek idiom; (f) a want of due appreciation of the
different shades of meaning in words, and consequent carelessness as
to using, if possible, one and the same English word, for one and the
same Greek word.
Professor Kendrick, of Rochester, N.Y., in an article published in
Professor a. the " Baptist Quarterly" for April, 1871, after expressing his
b.D. 'satisfaction that the work of revision has been entered upon,
and his judgment that its results will be unanimously welcomed by
English-speaking Christians everywhere, thus broadly characterizes
the defects of the present version : " To the eye that scans them
closely [the faults of the version] they are of very grave importance.
They are at once various in character, and lie scattered over the sacred
pages with a frequency which makes it alike difficult and painful to do
them adequate justice. Neither Trench nor Ellicott, ably as they
have put the case, has made any approach to exhausting the list of
individual defects, or has made the argument in favor of revision so
weighty as it must appear to the eye that has been long accustomed to
bring into close comparison the translation and the original. It is
only one who has gone, step by step, over the entire field, that is in a
condition to appreciate the strength and cogency of the reasons which
have led to the present movement."
According to George P. Marsh, there are but about two hundred
List of obso- words contained in our Bibles which are obsolete, if we ex-
lete words. cept phraseological expressions and idiotisms (Leet. on Eng.
Lang., 1st ser. p. 263). Allowing for differences of opinion as to what
constitutes an obsolete word, or one that is obsolescent, — differences
that are not inconsiderable, — we append a list of such words gleaned
from various authors, premising that, while some of these words are
not obsolete in themselves, they have become so in the sense which
they bore at the time our translation was made. The following are
from the little work of Bishop Hinds, referred to above : Abase (1 Cor.
xi. 1), accept (Acts x. 34), affect (Gal. iv. 17), affections (Gal. v. 24),
after (Gal. iv. 23), allege (Acts xvii. 3), answer (Matt. xvii. 4), appre
hend (Phil. iii. 12), approve (Rom. ii. 18), assay (Acts ix. 26), attend
ance (1 Tim. iv. 13), audience (Luke vii. 1), base (1 Cor. x. 1), believers
(1 Tim. iv. 12), bewray (Matt. xxvi. 73), bowels (2 Cor. vi. 12), breth
ren (Matt, xxiii. 8), by (1 Cor. iv. 4), carriages (Acts xxi. 15), charger
(Matt. xiv. 8), chasten (Heb. xii. 7), clean, cleanse (Matt. viii. 2),
comfort, comforter, comfortless (John xiv. 16), commend, common
(Acts x. 14), communicate (Gal. vi. 6), communication (Matt. v. 37),
consort (Acts xvii. 4), constantly (Acts xii. 15), contrariwise (1 Pet.
iii. 9), convenient (Eph. v. 4), conversation (1 Pet. i. 15), convince

Appendix A. ON REVISION. 383
(John viii. 46), corrupt, corruption, corruptible (Matt. vi. 19), covet
(1 Cor. xii. 3), cumber (Luke x. 40), damnation, declare, devout, dis
pute, doctrine, edify, emulation, ensample, ensue, eschew, estate, evi
dently, exchanger, faithful (Eph. i. 6), flesh, follower, frankly, gainsay,
games, garnish, generation, glory, gross, hardness, hear (John xviii.
37), hell, honest, honestly, instant, instantly, interpret, lawyer, let, lend,
lightly (Mark ix. 39), lively, malice, maliciousness, mansion, master,
meal, meet, mete, minister, mortify, mystery, name, naughtiness,
nephew, notable, occupy, offend, open, or (Acts xxiii. 15), ordain,
pass, passion, penny, person, phylactery, pilgrim, present, provoke,
publican, purge, quaternion, question (1 Tim. ii. 23), quick, rather
(Rom. xi. 12), ravening, reason (Acts xxiv. 25), religion, reprove, room
(1 Cor. xiv. 16), saints, salute, scrip, seed, servant, shambles, simplicity,
single, sleep (Matt. xiii. 25), spoil, strait, straw, swelling, table, temper
ance, temple, testament, thief, torment, tradition, trow, twain, unclean,
usury, vain, vocation, walk, wave, wax, whit, will, would (Mark vi. 25 ;
iii. 13), wist, wisdom, wise as an adjunct to any or no, wot, yea.
The following additional words and phrases of this kind are from
Lightfoot's work on Revision : by and by, carefulness, cham- Additional
berlain, coasts, debate, deputy, devotions, fetch a compass, f0ot\nQEht"
go about to, grudge, high-minded, thought, writing-table ; others.
and these from Henry Craik's " Hints and Suggestions : " earing
time, grove (2 Kings xxiii. 6), all to (Judges ix. 53) ; from others :
purchase, leasing, boiled ; advantageth, astonied, holpen, magnifical,
seethe, vagabond, whoremonger.
Again, many of the words printed in our English version in italics,
while originally placed there with the intention of making Italics im-
7 . . • • 1 , properly
the translation more perspicuous, it is thought in numerous used.
instances are unnecessary and superfluous ; while in some they "sup
plement, change, or pervert the meaning of the original." Of the four
hundred and sixty-one examples of the use of italics in the Gospel of
Matthew, a recent newspaper article (Rev. A. L. Park in the " Congre-
gationalist ") estimates that two hundred and fifty-two of them are no
better than "dashes of water thrown into the sincere milk of the
Word." "A Licentiate," &c, gives a table of more than seventy
passages in which the italics are of no use whatever (p. 124). Ex-
President Woolsey says (" Independent," Feb. 1, 1872) that King
James's translators " had a right to omit nine-tenths ofthe little words
in italics ; " that many of them " weaken rather than strengthen the
sense," and that in a number of cases they are introduced to " support
a bad translation."
Then, too, there is evident a great want of uniformity in the use of

384 LEADING OPINIONS Revision.
proper names contained in our present version of the Scriptures.
Proper Words found in the Old Testament anglicized from the
names. Hebrew, are put into a different form in the New Testament,
as coming from the Greek of the Septuagint. The following are ex
amples : Booz and Boaz, Uriah and Uriasr Ezekiel and Ezekias, Isaiah
and Esaias, Hosea and Osee, Asher and Aser, Saron and Sharon,
Elisha and Eliseus, Elijah and Elias, Korah and Core, Noah and Noe,
Hagar and Agar, Hezekiah and Ezekias, Jehosaphat and Josaphat,
Rehoboam and Roboam, Joshua and Jesus. Of the last example (Heb.
iv. 8), Trench says : "The fourth chapter of Hebrews is anyhow hard
enough ; it is only with strained attention that we follow the Apostle's
argument. But when to its own difficulty is added for many the con
fusion arising from the fact that 'Jesus' is here used, not of Him
whose name is above every name, but of the son of Nun, known
everywhere in the Old Testament by the name 'Joshua,' the per
plexity to many becomes hopeless. It is in vain that our translators
have added in the margin ' that is Joshua ; ' for all practical purposes
of avoiding misconception the note — in most of our Bibles omitted —
is useless." ' This want of uniformity as between Old and New Testa
ment in the use of proper names, is accompanied by a similar defect
if the New Testament be taken by itself; and that, too, at the hand
of the very same writer in some cases. We find both Marcus and
Mark, Jeremias and Jeremy, Apollos and Apollo (formerly), Simon,
son of Jona, and Simon, son of Jonas, Timotheus and Timothy, Cretes
and Cretians. The same word is translated in one and the same chap
ter Areopagus and Mars' hill. And Lightfoot has noticed (p. 160)
that the patriarch Judah is called both Judah and Juda in the same
context, while a like inconsistency is noticed in the case of Judah, the
brother of our Lord.
Still further, it would be natural to expect that different passages
Parallel pas- which are identical in the original, would be translated in
^ses. the same way in our version, that this identity might be ob
served ; but such is not the case. The following examples of this
defect are given in a recent work : 2 Ps. xxxvii. 1 and Prov. xxiv. 19 ;
Ps. xl. 14 and lxx. 2 ; Ps. xiii. 7 and Jonah ii. 3 ; Matt. xii. 30 and
Luke xi. 23 ; Matt. xxiv. 4 and Mark xiii. 5 ; Matt. xxiv. 15 and Mark
xiii. 14; Heb. iii. 11 and Heb. iv. 3, 5 ; I Pet. i. 7 and I Pet. i. 13.
Of the last two passages, one is translated the "appearing of Jesus
Christ; " the other, the "revelation of Jesus Christ," a difference which
may seem to be slight, but really is of great importance in its bearing
on the doctrines of Millenarianism.
1 The Authorized Version, &c, p. 61, ist ed.
3 Plea for a New Eng. Ver., &c., p. 91,

Appendix A. ON REVISION. 385
Again, " Throughout the Old Testament, God is designated by a
variety of names and titles, fraught with deepest interest to improper
those who take pleasure in studying his Holy Word and in vine name.
meditating on his glorious character and attributes, as therein so'
brightly revealed. Each of these Hebrew names bears a special
meaning of its own, so that the presence of one name in one passage
and of another name in another passage is often peculiarly significant."
. . . "Yet notwithstanding the sanctity of this name the [Hebrew for
Jehovah], the frequency of its occurrence [six thousand times in the
Old Testament], and the very prominent position it holds in the He
brew Scriptures, the composers of the Septuagint excluded it from
their ancient version ; and most unhappily the composers of the Eng
lish version have followed their evil example except in a very few pas
sages ; for they have almost universally mistranslated it, sometimes
Lord, and sometimes God, and have thus withheld from the Most High
that name by which he so graciously revealed himself to the Israelites
as an unchangeable God." '
Our translators have also gone to the other extreme, to excluding
from a multitude of passages the divine name as given in the introduced
. . , , , . , , . . ", ... without
original, and have introduced it into texts when the original cause.
contains no trace of it. For instance, the words, " May the king live "
(1 Sam. x. 24; 2 Sam. xvi. 16; 2 Kings xi. 12), they have transformed
into " God save the king," which does not translate the original phrase,
but quite misrepresents it. The expression, " Would God," or
" Would to God," also not of infrequent occurrence in our version
(Ex. xvi. 3; Num. xi. 29 ; Deut. xxviii. 67 ; I Cor. iv. 8; 2 Cor. xi. 1),
finds no support in the Hebrew or Greek, the divine name not appear
ing there at all. The same is true of the expression, " God forbid," of
which Hodge says in his Commentary : " The Scriptures do not au
thorize such a use of the name of God as this phrase shows to have
been common among the English translators of the Bible."
In many instances, too, in our version, the definite article has been
improperly introduced, and in as many improperly omitted, Improper
c r J ' J omission or
with the result of greatly obscuring the sense, and often of insertion of
misrepresenting it. The important announcement in Luke article.
ii. 12 is an example. An angel informed the shepherds that they
should find in a manger not "the babe," but simply " a babe," "an
infant." Out of sixty or more illustrations of this form of inaccuracy,
cited by one writer, we select a few: In 1 Kings iv. 4, " the priests "
should be "priests;" Ps. i. 1, "the scornful," "scorners;" Prov.
xxiii. 23, "buy the truth," "buy truth ;" Mark xi. 17, "the house of
1 Id., pp. 220-228.
25

386 LEADING OPINIONS Revision.
prayer," "a house of prayer;" Acts xvii. 23, "to the unknown God,"
"to an unknown God; " Rom. viii. 14, "the sons of God," "sons of
God ; " 1 Cor. iii. 10, " I have laid the [a] foundation ; " Gal. i. 10, "the
[a] servant of Jesus Christ ; '' Gal. iii. 10, " under the [a] curse ; "
Eph. ii. 3, " the children of wrath," for " children of wrath ; " 1 Thes.
iv. 16, " the [an] archangel ; " Matt. xii. 35, " A [the] good man," &c. ;
Luke xviii. 13, "to me a [the] sinner;" John iii. 10, "Art thou a
master of Israel" for "art thou the teacher of Israel; " 1 Tim. vi. 12,
13, "a [the] good profession;" Acts xii. 4, "after Easter" for "after
the Passover." '
Examples of the introduction into our version of distinctions not
Unnecessary justified by the original have been noticed by Trench. It
n,SoTucec? was done by using two or more words to render at different
by Kmg places, or at the same place, a single word in the Greek text :
James's . .
translators. In Rom. iv. there is one Greek word (toyitpjiai) which occurs
eleven times. Trench says it is "the key-word to St. Paul's argument
throughout, being everywhere employed most strictly in the same
sense ; and that a technical and theological." But our translators have
no fixed rule of rendering it. Twice they render it " count ; " six times
" impute," and three times " reckon ; '' while at Gal. iii. 6, they intro
duce a fourth rendering, " account." Again, in Rev. iv. 4, we have,
" round about the throne were four and twenty seats " [thrones] ; 1 Cor.
iii. 17, " If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy"
{defile} ; 2 Thes. i. 6, " tribulation to them that trouble you," for
'¦'affliction to them that afflict you," Rom. vii. 7, "I had not known
lust except the law had said, ' Thou shalt not covet ' " [lust] ; Phil. ii.
13, " It is God which worketh in you both to will and to do " [work}.
Striking coincidences of language between one epistle and another,
which exist in the Greek, are not found in the English. For example,
"working" in Eph. iv. 2 is "operation" in Col. ii. 12 ; "lowliness " in
Eph. iv. 2 is " humbleness of mind " in Col. ii. 19. The same word is
translated "to reject" (Mark vi. 26), "to despise" (Luke x. 16);
"to bring to nothing" (1 Cor. i. 19) ; "to frustrate" (Gal. ii. 21) ;
"to disannul" (Gal. iii. 15) ; "to cast off" (1 Tim. v. 12). Another
word is rendered " to cumber " (Luke xiii. 7) ; " to make without
effect" (Rom. iii. 3) ; "to make void" (Rom. iii. 31) ; "to destroy"
fRom. vi. 6) ; "to loose" (Rom. vii. 2); "to deliver" (Rom. vii. 6);
" to do away " (1 Cor. xiii. 10).
We cull from Professor Lightfoot's recent work on " Revision,"
Distinctions some examples of an opposite kind, or of distinctions really
obliterated, existing in the original which have been obliterated by our
1 Id., pp. 140-150.

Appendix A. ON REVISION. 387
translators : In Acts xix. 15, they have given us "Jesus I know, and
Paul I know " for " Jesus I acknowledge, and Paul I know j " in I Cor.
iv. 3-5, one word is translated throughout "judge," while in a pre
vious passage (1 Cor. ii. 14, 15) it is rendered indifferently, "to dis
cern " and " to judge." " But it is neither ' to judge,' nor to ' discern,' "
says Lightfoot, " but ' to examine,' ' investigate,' as it is rightly trans
lated elsewhere, e.g. 1 Cor. ix. 3, x. 25, 27 ; and the correct under
standing of the passage before us depends on our retaining this sense."
In John i. 11, we have, "he came 'to his own and his own received him
not," where the distinction conveyed in the original between his own
home and his own people is quite lost. Our translation makes no dis
tinction between fold and. flock in John x. 16, although the very point
of the teaching is the difference between the many folds and the one
flock. Two words, found in the Apocalypse, the one referring to
those who worship before the throne in heaven, the other to the mon
sters of the abyss, — are both translated "beasts," with no recogni
tion of any difference between them. In I Cor. xiv. 20, we read : " Be
not children in understanding ; howbeit in malice be ye children ; "
when Paul really said, " Be not children in understanding ; howbeit in
malice be ye babes" In John viii. 58, " Before Abraham was, I am "
should read, " Before Abraham was born, I am." Lightfoot speaks
of the rendering of the words dLufiolog and Saiftdvwv, by the same word
" devil " as " a grievous loss ; " and of the still greater misunderstand
ing likely to arise from translating "AuSiw, the place of departed spirits,
and Teewa, the place of fire and torment, by the same word " hell,"
and thus confusing two ideas wholly distinct. " In such a passage as
Acts ii. 27, 31, the misconception thus created is very serious."
According to Trench, the most recurring blemishes which are
found with respect to the use of Greek grammar by our *?m!* in
translators relate : (1) to a failure to give due heed to the mar.
presence or absence of the article (already noticed) ; (2) a certain
laxity in the rendering of prepositions, for example tv being ren
dered as th6ugh it were elc, and vice versd, and the different forces
of dii as it governs a genitive or accusative being disregarded ;
(3) tenses are not discriminated, while moods and voices are occa
sionally confounded. Of the second defect, an example is found in
John iv. 6, where our translators render, Jesus . . . sat on [by] the
well ; and in Heb. vi. 7, " Herbs meet for them by whom [for whom]
it is dressed;" also in Luke xxiii. 42, "When thou comest into [in]
thy kingdom." As an instance of confusion in tenses we have Luke
xiv. 7, " when He marked how they chose out [were choosing out] the
chief rooms." In John iv. 29 we have, "Is not this the Christ?"
where we might expect to find, " Is this the Christ? "

388 LEADING OPINIONS Revision.
Under the head of " Errors in Lexicography," Lightfoot gives some
Errors in cases of what he terms impossible renderings ; as, for in-
lexicogra- ,
phy. stance, when our translators have assigned a meaning to a
word which it never bears elsewhere, and which must therefore be at
once discarded. As in Mark xiii. 28, " when her branch is yet tender,"
should be, "As soon as its branch is tender ; " 2 Cor. i. 23, " I came
not as yet unto Corinth," for, " I came no more unto Corinth; " Col.
iv. 10, " Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas," for " cousin; " Matt. x. 4.
" Simon, the Canaanite," for " Simon, of Cana." Other passages are
given, where though the rendering be not " impossible," it is imperfect
and faulty : James iii. 5, " Behold how great a matter [wood] a little
fire kindleth ; " Matt. xxvi. 15, " they covenanted with him," for " they
weighed unto him" (Zech. xi. 12) ; Heb. ii. 9, " He took not on him the
nature of angels " for " He took not hold of" [to assist] ; Mark iv.
29, "when the fruit is brought forth" [ripe]. Instances of a vague
rendering are Rom. vi. 12, where "instruments of unrighteousness,"
should be " weapons of unrighteousness ; " and 2 Cor. x. 5, where
our translators in rendering the words, " every high thing that exalt-
eth itself, appear not to have seen that this expression continues the
metaphor of the campaign and the fortress in the context, and that the
reference is to the siege works thrown up for the purpose of attacking
the faith."
Among the few passages which will probably lose their place in our
False read- Bibles, in case of a thorough revision, is one found in I John
mgs- v. 7, relating to the three heavenly witnesses, first perhaps
introduced as an interpretation of the context, and then admitted to
the text itself ; also, the passage in 1 Tim. iii. 16, "God was manifest
in the flesh," it is thought will require a change to "who was manifest
in the flesh," while in the same doctrinal connection another and dif
ferent change may be made in John i. 18, where " the only begotten
Son " may be found to read, " the only-begotten God." The beautiful
account of the woman taken in adultery, although doubtless a true
incident, being noticed by such early writers as relied mainly on tradi
tion, yet having no sufficient manuscript authority will probably be
relegated to brackets, if not wholly omitted ; and so, too, according to
Lightfoot, the close of Mark's gospel (Mark xvi. 9-20).1 In Luke ii.
33, "his father" has been altered into "Joseph," and, a little after
wards, "Joseph and his mother "is substituted for "his parents,"
" evidently because the transcriber was alarmed lest the doctrine of
the incarnation might be imperilled by such language, — an alarm not
entertained by the Evangelist himself, whose own narrative precluded
1 Vs. recent work by J. W. Burgon, Oxford & London, Svo, pp. 334.

Appendix A. ON REVISION. 389
any false inference, and who therefore could use the popular language
without fear of misapprehension " (Lightfoot on Revis., p. 29). In
four different passages (Matt. xvii. 21, Mark ix. 29, Acts x. 30, 1 Cor.
vii. 5), the word "fasting" has been connected with praying, it is thought,
by a later hand, and the best editors reject it. The reading in Mark
i. I, " by Esaias the prophet " for " by the prophet," which is the more
common, proves itself to be incorrect, or, at least, leads us to suspect
a mistake, from the fact that an historical difficulty is involved in it.
The passage in Matt. xix. .17, " Why callest thou me good ? " compared
with Mark x. 18, Luke xviii. 19, is one of the more important instances
where the matter of diverse readings is of peculiar interest.

IV. The Recent Movement in England toward Revision.
As long ago as February 1, 1856, Canon Selwyn gave notice of a pro
posal that tjie Lower House of Convocation should petition immediate
,tt tt ,,./• origin ofthe
the Upper House to address the Crown on the subject of movement.
revision. And on July 22d of the same year, Mr. Heywood in the
House of Commons moved an address praying the queen to issue a
royal commission for this purpose ; the motion, however, being opposed,
was withdrawn. In the following year, Canon Selwyn's motion before
Convocation was again introduced to that body in a more general form,
but amendments being pressed that showed an unwillingness to enter
upon the undertaking at that time, the consideration of it was dropped.
The mere act of raising the question, however, awakened great interest,
and called out a large amount of speaking and writing, which, for the
most part, was hostile to the enterprise.
But public attention having been fairly called to the subject and
a full discussion entered upon, there came about, in the course First step
. actually
of the ten or twelve years following, an almost entire change taken.
of sentiment respecting it ; and it is probable that there is now as much
unanimity among Christian scholars in favor of a conservative revision,
as there was in 1856 in opposing any revision whatever. On February
10, 1870, a resolution was unamimously carried through both Houses
of the Convocation of Canterbury, to appoint a joint committee of both
Houses " To report upon the desirableness of a revision of the Author
ized Version of the Old and New Testament, whether by marginal
notes or otherwise, in all those passages where plain and clear errors,
whether in the Hebrew or Greek text originally adopted by the trans
lators, or in the translations made from the same, shall, on due investi
gation, be found to exist." This committee, composed of seven bishops

39O LEADING OPINIONS Revision.
from the Upper House and fourteen members from the Lower House,
reported in the following May (nth) to this effect: " (i) That it is
desirable that a revision of the Authorized Version of the Holy Scrip
tures be undertaken. (2) That the revision be so conducted as to
comprise both marginal renderings and such emendations as it may
be found necessary to insert in the text of the Authorized Version.
(3) That in the above resolutions we do not contemplate any new
translation of the Bible, or any alteration of the language, except where,
in the judgment of the most competent scholars, such change is neces
sary. (4) That in such necessary changes the style of the language
in the existing version be closely followed. (5) That it is desirable
that Convocation should nominate a body of its own members to under
take the work of revision, who shall be at liberty to invite the co-opera
tion of any eminent for scholarship, to whatever nation or religious
body they may belong."
This report was adopted by Convocation with little opposition, and
Further ac- a joint committee of sixteen, in accordance with the last reso-
tion. lution, appointed "to consider a scheme of revision on the
principles laid down," and " to invite the co-operation of those whom
they may judge fit, from their biblical scholarship, to aid them in their
work." On May 25, 1870, the committee thus appointed by Convo
cation adopted the following resolutions for future guidance : —
" I. That the committee appointed by the Convocation of Canter
bury at its last session separate itself into two companies, the one for
the revision of the Authorized Version of the Old Testament, the other
for the revision of the Authorized Version of the New Testament.
II. That the company for the revision of the Authorized Version
of the Old Testament consist of the Bishops of St. Davids, Llandaff,
Ely, Lincoln, and Bath and Wells, and of the following members from
the Lower House : Archdeacon Rose, Canon Selwyn, Dr. Jebb, and
Dr. Kay.
III. That the company for the revision of the Authorized Version
of the New Testament consist of the Bishops of Winchester, Gloucester
and Bristol, and Salisbury, and of the following members from the
Lower House : the Prolocutor, the Deans of Canterbury and West
minster, and Canon Blakesley.
IV. That the first portion of the work to be undertaken by the
Old Testament company be the revision of the Authorized Version of
the Pentateuch.
V. That the first portion of the work to be undertaken by the New
Testament company be the revision of the Authorized Version of the
Synoptical Gospels.

Appendix A. , ON REVISION. 39I
VI. That the following scholars and divines be invited to join the
Old Testament company : Dr. W. L. Alexander, Professor Chenery,
Canon Cook, Professor A. B. Davidson, Dr. B. Davies, Professor
Fairbairn, the Rev. F. Field, Dr. Ginsburg, Dr. Gotch, Archdeacon
Harrison, Professor Leathes, Professor M'Gill, Canon Payne Smith
[declined], Professor J. H. Perowne, Professor Plumptre, Canon
Pusey [declined], Dr. Wright [declined], W. A. Wright.
VII. That the following scholars and divines be invited to join the
New Testament company : Dr. Angus, the Archbishop of Dublin
[Trench], Dr. Eadie, the Rev. F. J. A. Hort, Rev. W. G. Humphry,
Canon Kennedy, Archdeacon Lee, Dr. Lightfoot, Professor Milligan}
Professor Moulton, Dr. J. H. Newman [declined], Professor Newth,
Dr. A. Roberts, Rev. G. Vance Smith, Dr. Scott, Rev. F. H. Scrivener,
Dr. Vaughan, and Canon Westcott.
VIII. That the general principles to be followed by both companies
be as follows : (1) To introduce as few alterations as possible into the
text of the Authorized Version consistently with faithfulness. (2) To
limit, as far as possible, the expression of such alterations to the lan
guage of the Authorized and earlier English Versions. (3) Each com
pany to go twice over the portion to be revised, — once provisionally,
the second time finally, and on principles of voting as hereinafter is
provided. (4) That the text to be adopted be that for which the evi
dence is decidedly preponderating, and that when the text so adopted
differs from that from which the Authorized Version was made, the
alteration be indicated in the margin. (5) To make or retain no
change in the text on the second final revision by each company,
except two-thirds of those present approve of the same, but on the first
revision to decide by simple majorities. (6) In every case of proposed
alteration that may have given rise to discussion, to defer the voting
thereupon till the next meeting, whensoever the same shall be required
by one-third of those present at the meeting, such intended vote being
announced in the notice for the next meeting. (7) To revise the head-
in°-s of chapters, pages, paragraphs, italics, and punctuation. (8) To
refer, on the part of each company, when considered desirable, to
divines, scholars, and literary men, whether at home or abroad, for
their opinions.
IX. That the work of each company be communicated to the other
as it is completed, in order that there may be as little deviation from
uniformity in language as possible.
X. That the special or by-rules for each company be as follows :
(1) To make all corrections in writing previous to the meeting. (2) To
place all the corrections due to textual considerations on the left-hand

392 LEADING OPINIONS Revision.
margin, and all other corrections on the right-hand margin. (3) To
transmit to the chairman, in case of being unable to attend, the correc
tions proposed in 'the portion agreed upon for consideration."
This most important undertaking seems to have been generally
The move- acquiesced in by the Christian scholars of all denominations
aifv afqui-r" °^ both England and America, and in some notable instances
esced in. emphatically approved. The Convocation of York, however,
in England, as a body, decline to favor it, as do also some persons
of considerable influence among ourselves. Mr. George P. Marsh
says of the movement (" The Nation " New York) : (1) " It is a purely
sectarian, not to say schismatic movement, and as such calculated to
widen rather than to narrow the divisions which exist between the
different Protestant churches of the English speech [possibly this
would not have been written at the present date] ; and (2) it is evidently
a half measure, aiming at no thorough work, which shall establish the
readings of the original text and of the English Bible on a reasonably
satisfactory and permanent basis."
He concludes : "If it is worth while now to undertake a new recen
sion at all, — which we by no means admit, — the interests of Christian
harmony require that the labor be inaugurated under the most catholic
auspices, and that the composition of the board of revisers and the
principles on which the revision is to be conducted shall furnish every
guarantee that the task shall be executed with all possible learning, all
possible discretion, all possible fairness, charity, and candor. We
find no such guarantees in the plan before us. It does not appear that
the revisers propose to avail themselves of the amplest existing instru
mentalities, or of the ablest living scholarship, or that they take suffi
ciently into view the claims, the capacities and wants of Protestants
educated in theological schools different from their own. We admit —
and this expectation is founded on a high appreciation of the general
intelligence of the committee, not on satisfactory evidence of their
special qualifications or the soundness of their views in regard to the
duties they have assumed — that their labors will result in an English
text probably superior in accuracy of interpretation, and possibly in
uniform felicity of expression, to the standard translation. But we see
no ground whatever for expecting that this recension will satisfy the
reasonable demands of learned criticism, or that it will be a text which
any considerable body of Protestants will adopt in place of that which
they have so long reverenced."
It may be well to offset these opinions by those of Canon Lightfoot,
Experience who speaks not only from the point of view whence the move-
of a reviser. ment ;n ;ts present form first originated, but as himself one

Appendix A. ON REVISION. 393
of the committee of revisers, and after some months' experience in
that position.1 "Lastly, in one respect at least, the present revision is
commenced under very auspicious circumstances. There has been
great liberality in inviting the co-operation of those Biblical scholars
who are not members of the Anglican communion, and they on their
part have accorded a prompt and cheerful welcome to this invitation
[while a number of the ablest American scholars of various denomina
tions have recently given their consent to act with the committee of
Convocation. See below]. This is a matter for great thankfulness.
It may be accepted as a guarantee that the work is undertaken not
with any narrow sectarian aim, but in the broad interests of truth ;
while, also, it is an earnest, that, if the revision when completed recom
mends itself by its intrinsic merits (and if it does not, the sooner it is
forgotten the better), then no unworthy jealousy will stand in the way
of its general reception. And meanwhile, may we not cherish a loftier
hope ? Now, for the first time, the bishops of our Church and the
representatives of our Convocation will meet at the same table with
non-conformist divines, and will engage in a common work of a most
sacred kind, — the interpretation of those writings which all alike rev
erence as the source of their truest inspiration here, and the foundation
of their highest hopes hereafter. Is it too much to anticipate that, by
the experience of this united work, the Christian communities in Eng
land [and America] may be drawn more closely together, and that,
whether it succeed or fail in its immediate object, it may at least dissi
pate many prejudices and jealousies, may promote a better mutual
understanding, and thus, by fostering inward sympathy, may lead the
way to greater outward harmony among themselves, and a more inti
mate union with the Divine Head." In a note he adds: "It will be
remembered that this hope was expressed before the Revision Com
pany had met. If I felt at liberty to modify the expression by the light
of subsequent experience, I should speak even more strongly."
The revisers actually began their work on June 22d, 1870, the com
mittee on the New Testament then for the first time meeting When the
. work actually
under the presidency of the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, began.
The whole of those who had accepted the trust committed to them,
with one exception, were present in Henry VI I. 's chapel in the Abbey
of Westminster, and received the Holy Communion together at the
hands of the Dean. This remarkable expression of catholicity, how
ever, came near proving, in the way of awakening prejudice, a fatal bar
rier to the successful prosecution of the work. One of the revisers,
Canon Jebb, resigned on account of it. The English papers teemed
1 On a Fresh Revis., 44c, Lond. and N. Y., 1871, note p. 194.

394 LEADING OPINIONS Revision.
with communications for many weeks, taking sides either with or
against the action of the committee. A memorial was presented to
the Archbishop of Canterbury, signed by more than fifteen hundred
clergymen ofthe Church of England, protesting against the admission
to the Holy Communion of "teachers of various sects," "more espe
cially of one person understood to be a denier of the divinity <of our
Lord." The Upper House of Convocation even passed a vote in favor
of excluding the Unitarian scholar, Mr. Vance Smith, the person
referred to in the memorial, from the Revision Committee of the New
Testament ; but the Lower House (twenty-three to nineteen) indefinitely
postponed the resolution. Mr. Smith himself wrote several letters
justifying his course, and arguing that, from the point of view of the
" National Church " itself, there could be no reasonable objection to
the course he had taken.
"And here I would venture to remind you," he said, "that the
Communion is not your private property, nor that of your section of
the church, nor, indeed, the private property of any church whatever.
It is surely ' the Lord's table.' Nor can I admit that any individual
has any right to dictate the terms of participation to another." The
April number of the "Contemporary Review" for 1871, contains an
admirable rfoumi of the various phases of this first difficulty of the
revisers. Affairs seem finally to have settled down to a peaceful con
dition ; and it is not unlikely that this unexpected agitation, occurring
at the very outset of the work, may serve the very important purpose
of bringing the Board into a more perfect understanding and agree
ment among themselves, while it will not essentially lessen their influ
ence, and may greatly increase it, among the great body of Protestant
Christians. The "Saturday Review" (June 18, 1870) classifies the New Testa-
Classifica- ment company of revisers (residing in England) as follows •
tion of the , , . , , ... , ,
revisers. " An archbishop, three bishops, three deans, two archdeacons,
two canons, two Cambridge professors, one or two plain parish incum
bents, amicably mingled with the most learned men among the Presby
terians, Wesleyans, Congregationalists, and other dissenting bodies."
It characterizes the refusal of the Convocation of York to join in the
work as " unexpected, and, in some of its circumstances, to this day,
inexplicable." The "Methodist" (New York) of April 15, 1871, contained an item
Negotiation to the effect that a circular had been sent to each one of the
American American (Episcopalian) bishops, proposing to send them
scholars, proofs of the amended version for criticism by themselves
and such other scholars as they might see fit to submit them to. This

Appendix A. ON REVISION. 395
project, however, if ever seriously contemplated, seems to have been
abandoned, perhaps on the ground of the opposition of some who
might have been expected to be most interested to promote it, and
another method for securing the co-operation of American scholars
adopted. On December 7, 1871, a meeting was held in New York on
behalf of this object, of which the following is an authoritative
report : —
"At a meeting of gentlemen invited by the Rev. Philip Schaff, D.D.,
to meet this .day, December 7, at his study, No. 40, Bible Meeting in
House, New York, for the purpose of forming an organization to New Yorl1,
co-operate with the British committee in the revision of the authorized
English version of the Scriptures, the following persons were pres
ent, viz. : —
" Prof. Philip Schaff, D.D., New York ; Prof. Henry B. Smith, D.D.,
New York; Prof. William Henry Green, D.D., Princeton, N. J.; Prof.
George Emlen Hare, D.D., Philadelphia, Pa. ; Prof. Charles P. Krauth,
D.D., Philadelphia; Rev. Thomas J. Conant, D.D., Brooklyn, N. Y. ;
Prof. George E. Day, D.D., New Haven, Ct. ; Ezra Abbot, LL.D.,
Cambridge, Mass. ; Rev. Edward A. Washburn, D.D., New York.
" Dr. Howson, Dean of Chester, was also present by special invita
tion, and took part in the deliberations. Ex-President Woolsey, Prof.
Hackett, Prof. Strong, and others, were prevented from attending, but
expressed by letter their hearty interest in the proposed work and their
readiness to co-operate. The meeting was organized by the appoint
ment of Prof. Henry B. Smith as chairman, and Prof. George E. Day
as secretary. After prayer by the chairman, Dr. Schaff introduced the
subject of the meeting, by stating that he had been requested by the
British committee for the revision of the authorized English version of
the Scriptures, through the Dean of Westminster, to invite American
scholars to co-operate with them in this work. He had accordingly
extended such an invitation to a limited number of scholars, most of
them professors of biblical literature in theological seminaries of the
leading Protestant denominations. In the delicate task of selection
he had reference, first of all, to the reputation and occupation of the
gentlemen as biblical scholars ; next, to their denominational connec
tion and standing so as to have a fair representation of the American
churches ; and, last, to local convenience in order to secure regular
attendance on the meetings. He would have gladly invited others,
but thought it best to leave the responsibility of enlargement to the
committee itself when properly constituted. He had personally con
ferred during last summer with Bishop Ellicott, Dean Stanley, Prof.
Lightfoot, Prof. Westcott, Dr. Angus, and other British revisers, about

306 LEADING OPINIONS Revision.
the details ofthe proposed plan of co-operation, and was happy to state
that it met their cordial approval. Dr. Schaff then read the following
list of scholars who had been invited to engage in this work, and who
had accepted the invitation : —
" On the Old Testament. — Prof. Thomas J. Conant, D.D., Brooklyn.
N. Y. ; Prof. George E. Day, D.D., New Haven, Ct. ; Prof. John De-
Witt, D.D., New Brunswick, N.J. ; Prof. William Henry Green, D.D.,
Princeton, N. J. ; Prof. George Emlen Hare, D.D., Philadelphia, Pa. ;
Prof. Charles P. Krauth, D.D., Philadelphia, Pa.; Prof. Joseph Pack
ard, D.D., Fairfax, Va. ; Prof. Calvin E. Stowe, D.D., Cambridge,
Mass. ; Prof. James Strong, D.D., Madison, N. J. ; Prof. C. V. A.
Van Dyck, M.D., Beyrout, Syria; Prof. Tayler Lewis, LL.D., Sche
nectady, N. Y.
"On the New Testament. — Prof. Philip Schaff, D.D., New York ;
Prof. H. B. Hackett, D.D., Rochester, N. Y. ; Prof. Charles Hodge,
D.D., Princeton, N.J. ; Prof. Matthew B. Riddle, D.D., Hartford, Ct. ;
Prof. Henry B. Smith, D.D , New York ; Prof. J. Henry Thayer, D.D.,
Andover, Mass. ; Rev. Edward A. Washburn, D.D., New York ; Rev.
Theodore D. Woolsey, D.D., LL.D., New Haven, Ct. ; Ezra Abbot,
LL.D., Cambridge, Mass. ; Prof. James Hadley, LL.D., New Haven,
Ct. ; Prof. Charles Short, LL.D., New York.
"A communication from Bishop Ellicott, D.D., to Dr. Schaff, dated
Oct. 23, 1871, was read, containing the following resolution of the
British committee : —
" Resolved, That the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol be requested
to communicate with Dr. P. Schaff to the effect that the work of the
New Testament revisers is at present only tentative and provisional,
and that it may be considerably altered at the second revision ; but
that upon the assurance of Dr. Schaff, that the work, so far as it is at
present advanced, will be considered as strictly confidential, the com
pany will send a sufficient number of copies for Dr. Schaff and his
brother revisers, for their own private use, the copies to be in no way
made public beyond themselves. For this purpose that Dr. Schaff
be requested to send the names and addresses of the scholars asso
ciated with him in this matter, as soon as the company is completely
formed." The American Committee of Revisers was regularly organized for
American work on October 4, 1872, at the Bible House, New York. At
orTirizefor t^lat t'me ^r- Schaff " reported the result of his correspond-
work. ence and personal conference with the British Revisers, and
distributed confidential copies of the revised version of the books of
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and the first three Gospels, which he had
received from England for the use of the American Committee."

Appendix A. ON REVISION. 397
" The committee then proceeded to elect permanent officers. Dr.
Schaff, of the Union Theological Seminary, New York, was elected
President, Prof. Day, of the Divinity School of Yale College, Corre
sponding Secretary, and Prof. Short, of Columbia College, New York,
Treasurer. The committee then divided into two companies, — the
one for the Old, the other for the New Testament. Prof. Green, of
the Theological Seminary at Princeton, was elected Chairman of the
Old Testament company ; Ex-President Woolsey, Chairman of the New
Testament company. Both companies will hold periodical meetings
every month in the Bible House."
The committee as finally constituted is composed of the following
scholars, — the list differing somewhat from the one given above, —
who represent all the leading Christian denominations of the country,
and nearly a dozen of the most prominent of its theological semi
naries : —
Old Testament Company. — Prof. William Henry Green, D.D.,
Chairman, Princeton, N. J. ; Prof. George E. Day, D.D., New Haven,
Ct. ; Prof. John De Witt, D.D., New Brunswick, N. J. ; Prof. George
Emlen Hare, D.D., Philadelphia, Pa. ; Prof. Charles P. Krauth, D.D.,
Philadelphia, Pa. ; Prof. J. Packard, D.D., Fairfax, Va. ; Prof. Calvin
E. Stowe, D.D., Cambridge, Mass. ; Prof. James Strong, D.D., Madi
son, N. J.; Prof. Tayler Lewis, LL.D., Schenectady, N. Y. ; Prof.
C. V. A. Van Dyck, M.D., Beyrout, Syria.
New Testament Company. — Ex-President Theodore D. Woolsey,
D.D., LL.D., Chairman, New Haven, Ct. ; Prof. Ezra Abbot, LL.D.,
Cambridge, Mass. ; Prof. James Hadley, LL.D., New Haven, Ct. ;
Prof. Charles Short, LL.D., New York ; Rev. J. R. Crooks, D.D., New
York ; Prof. H. B. Hackett, D.D., Rochester, N. Y. ; Prof. Charles
Hodge, D.D., Princeton, N. J. ; Prof. A. C. Kendrick, D.D., Roches
ter, N. Y. ; Rt. Rev. Alfred Lee, D.D., Wilmington, Del. ; Prof. Mat
thew B. Riddle, D.D., Hartford, Ct. ; Prof. Henry B. Smith, D.D.,
New York ; Prof. J. Henry Thayer, D.D., Andover, Mass. ; Prof. W.
F. Warren, D.D., Boston, Mass. ; Rev. E. A. Washburn, D.D., New
York.

B.
THE APOCRYPHA.
IT is a matter of considerable importance in treating of the so-called
" Apocrypha," that the meaning of the term should be clearly
defined at the outset, or, at least, the sense explained in which the
Meaning of writer intends to use it. Ordinarily, and in general terms,
the word ^g worci ;s use(j to designate such ecclesiastical books as
Apocrypha rt .
as here used. were added to the Old Testament Scriptures after the close
of the Canon. We shall here use it, however, as covering also, simi
lar literature which sprang up in connection with the New Testament.
The etymological and historical signification of the term is thus
Bleek's ac- given by Bleek : " This name is often met with in the
origin.0 ancient Church, but not always in the same sense. The
word is at any rate derived from uTzoKpimreiv = abscondita. Augus
tine explains it as pointing out those writings, the origin of which
was obscure. ... It is often used in the Talmud and by the Rabbis for
certain works as contrasted with the canonical Scriptures (in connec
tion with a Hebrew word having the meaning of abscondere = to with
draw from public use). . . . Among these [ecclesiastical writers,
generally], the use of this word originally proceeded from an idea of
secret and mysterious matters; and, indeed, first came into vogue
among heretical sects, particularly the Gnostics. These possessed
various books to which they attributed a peculiar sanctity, the greater
part of which bore the names of holy personages, either of the Old
or New Covenant ; they asserted that they had obtained these by
means ot a certain secret tradition, and for this reason called them
ImoKpvtya. In the main body of the Church, not only was the genuine
ness of these works repudiated, but they were looked upon with all
the greater distrust in proportion as more importance was laid upon
them by the heretics. Ecclesiastical authors retained for these works
the designation imdiipvQa, partly borrowed from the heretics in refer
ence to these works, but joined with it generally an idea of something
not genuine and heretical. There were, however, some teachers in the

Appendix B. THE APOCRYPHA. 399
Church who did not use the name in so decidedly bad a sense, but
applied it generally to certain works, most of which were made some
use of in the Church, in addition to the really canonical Scriptures;
although they would not wish to see an equal authority ascribed to the
former as to the latter, because it was at any rate uncertain what their
origin was. . . . And in this sense the term Apocrypha has become
usual in the Protestant, particularly the Lutheran, Church, as a termi
nus technicus for a certain number of works ; those, namely, which,
although not in the Hebrew Canon, exist in the Septuagint and Vul
gate, in close conjunction with the elements of the canon, and are
placed in Luther's translation as an appendix." '
The following is a list of the books to which the term Apocrypha
is commonly applied, and which we here designate as the Books in-
Apocrypha of the Old Testament: I., II. Esdras ; Tobit ; Apocrypha.
Judith ; Additions to the book of Esther ; The Wisdom of Solomon ;
Ecclesiasticus ; Baruch ; The Song of the Three Holy Children ; The
History of Susanna; The History of the Destruction of Bel and the
Dragon; The Prayer of Manasseh, King of Judah ; I., II. Maccabees.
Besides these works, there are other, so-called, pseudepigraphous writ
ings still extant, bearing the names of prophets and wise men of the
Old Economy, which are not considered as forming a part of the Apoc
rypha proper, having no place in the Septuagint version, and other
wise holding an inferior position. For a list of Apocryphal New
Testament writings, still extant, as well as for a very full list of those
not now extant, but which were mentioned by ecclesiastical writers of
the first four centuries after Christ, the reader is referred to the Cyclo
pedia of McClintock and Strong, art. Apocrypha.2
It is well known that Roman Catholics and Protestants widely
differ respecting the value of the Old Testament Apocrypha, Apocrypha
, . , , , , ,..,.., of the Old
the former placing these books among the divinely inspired Testament.
Scriptures (Council of Trent, 1546), although assigning them a some
what inferior rank as " deutero-canonical ; " the latter, rejecting them
as wholly spurious, and properly having no right to a position, even
an inferior one, in the catalogue of Sacred Books. A review of the
arguments on either side would furnish opportunity for a sufficiently
full presentation of the subject to answer the purposes of this article.
We will, therefore, state the reasons commonly adduced for excluding
these writings from the Bible.
One important reason for excluding these books from the volume
of Sacred Scriptures is, that they have not the recognition Reason for
r excluding
of Christ, of his Apostles, nor of other New Testament these books
writers. Bleek admits that the Old Testament Apocrypha Bible. le
1 Introd. to O. T., ii. 303, 304. 3 Cf. the Apoc. N. T., &c. Boston : 1857. App.

4<X> THE APOCRYPHA. Apocrypha.
are nowhere expressly quoted in the New Testament. He, however,
affirms that the influence of many of these books. — as of Sirach, the
Wisdom of Solomon, and the Books of Maccabees — is unmistakably
evident in the tone of thought observable in the New Testament
authors ; and that numerous reminiscences of them are also found in
their writings.1 And, similarly, Davidson : " The New Testament
writers so far sanctioned them [the Apocrypha] as to show that they
read and used them. This is seen in their writings, which contain
reminiscences of passages in the Apocrypha."2 The most marked
of these so-called reminiscences are: Wisd. v. 18-21, cf. Eph. vi. 13-
17; Wisd. xv. 7, cf. Rom. ix. 21 ; Wisd. ii. 12, cf. Jas. v. 6; Wisd.
vii. 27, cf. Heb. i. 3 ; Ecclus. v. 11, cf. Jas. i. 19; Ecclus. vii. 10, cf.
Jas. i. 6; Tobit iv. 6, cf. Matt. vii. 12; Wisd. ii. 16-18, cf. Matt.
xxvii. 43-54.
But Westcott, after a thorough examination of these parallels, de-
opfnion'of clares that any one who will examine the character of the
the parallel- coincidences in these passages, and their relation to the lan-
them and guage of the Old Testament, " will readily feel how slender
ment books! the evidence is on which the Apostles are affirmed to have
been acquainted with- the writings in question. The last parallel is, in
many respects, the most remarkable, and one which appears to be most
certainly casual." While saying this, Westcott concedes " that it
seems likely that St. Paul and (perhaps) St. James were acquainted
with the Book of Wisdom ; and that the writer of the Epistle to the
Hebrews alludes to the facts related in II. Maccabees, though not" in
such a way as to assure us that he derived his knowledge of them from
that book.3 At least, the point may be considered as well established,
that nothing like an authentication of the Apocrypha can be predicated
of the New Testament writers, even admitting an acquaintance on
their part with its literature, and occasional evidence that they were
somewhat influenced by it. A sermon writer of the present day mioht
give evidence in his discourses that he had read Swinburne's poems ;
but it would be unsafe to infer, from this circumstance, either that he
valued and sanctioned his poems as a whole, or that he considered
their author as belonging to the highest order of poets. The refer
ences of the New Testament writers to the genuine Old Testament
books are of an entirely different character.
Again, it is quite universally admitted, that these books formed no
Anotherrea- part of the original Hebrew (Palestinian) Canon. Bleek
exclusion. says that " among the Palestinian Jews no writing was
adopted into the canon of which it was known that it had not
1 Introd. to O. T., ii. 306. * Introd. to O. T., iii. 348. ' Bib. in Ch., 45, 46.

Appendix B. THE APOCRYPHA. 4OI
been composed until later than about one hundred years after the
end of the Exile. Thus, for example, the book of Jesus Sirach (Ec
clus., c. 210-180 B.C.) found no acceptance because its late origin was
known ; nor did it claim for itself any higher antiquity ; as also, the
Greek translator, the author's grandson expressly distinguishes his
grandfather's book from the canonical writings." But what was true
of this one book, in this respect, would of course apply to all the
Apocrypha, which includes no writings that can be considered much,
if at all, older than Ecclesiasticus. And this position is confirmed if
we trace, however minutely, the history of the Hebrew Canon, among
the Jews themselves, downward to the period of the Talmudists.
Still further, the manner in which these books came into legalized
circulation, associated with the Old Testament Scriptures, How the
... - Apocrypha
sufficiently accounts for the estimation in which they have first found a
been held by many in the Christian Church, from the time of litSLin
Christ to our own. These additional books which never, at any time,
were allowed a place in the Hebrew Bible, were from time to time ad
mitted (c. 283-30 B.C.) into the. Septuagint version, originating among
the Jews speaking Greek at Alexandria, in Egypt, and there used
almost exclusively as the Word of God, and so admitted either because
of laxer views there concerning inspiration and canonicity, or solely,
at first, for the convenience of using them ecclesiastically. But the
Septuagint version becoming, subsequently, to the great mass of Gen
tile Christians, as well as to such Jews as did not understand Hebrew,
the authoritative standard, the limits of the true original canon were so
almost wholly effaced. And in addition to the uncritical character of
the period, the difficulty was, for a time, still further enhanced by the
controversies carried on between the Jews and Christians, each appeal-
ino- to his own copy of the Scriptures. Thus a suspicion got abroad
amon" Christians that the Jews had mutilated the Bible. Finally,
however, these very controversies became the occasion (Bleek and
Keil) for Christians to turn their attention, more definitely and criti
cally, to the distinction between the two canons, and led them with no
little unanimity to determine the exact number of the canonical books
of the Old Testament, in accordance with the views of their former
opponents and the limits of the Hebrew Canon. The fact, too, that
the earlier translations of the Scriptures into the vernacular of the
people, like the Old Latin, were made from the Septuagint, helped to
fasten upon and make hereditary in the Church the Alexandrian con
fusion and mistake.
But as we have said, the inadvertence into which many were for a
time led by following too thoughtlessly the guidance of the Septuagint,
26

402 THE APOCRYPHA. Apocri-pha.
was subsequently acknowledged ; and the best of the Fathers, and with
Thetesti- considerable unanimity the Church as a body, adopted the
Christ°anhe Hebrew Canon, as defining the limits of the Old Testament
Church. Scriptures. These books, indeed, as a whole, were never
adopted into any catalogue of the Sacred Scriptures recognized by
any early general council. It has been affirmed that three synods —
all African, and under the dominating influence of Augustine — for
mally sanctioned the Apocrypha along with the canonical books, put
ting all in the same rank.1 But this is saying quite too much, the
recognition probably referring to ecclesiastical use only. Moreover,
Augustine himself repeatedly makes a distinction between the Hebrew
Canon and the Apocrypha, allowing that the latter are not of unques
tioned authority. Against the Donatists, who urged a passage found
in II. Maccabees in justification of suicide, he denied the soundness of
the argument, on the ground that the book was not received into the
Hebrew Canon to which Christ bore witness, although " it had been
received by the Church not unprofitably, provided it were heard or
read judiciously." 2 While other fathers of the Latin Church — Jerome,
Hilary, and Rufinus — took much higher ground, the last declaring:
" The books of the Hebrew Canon are the inspired Scriptures in
cluded in the canon by the Fathers, — ' ex quibus fidei nostras asser-
tiones constare soluerunt.' Besides these there are others, 'non
canonici, sed ecclesiastici.' " 3 Still, it must be admitted that Augus
tine's uncertain position, in connection with the thorough hold which
the Apocrypha gained by early use in the Old Latin, exercised a dam
aging influence with respect to the true settlement of the question, the
distinction between the canonical books and the Apocrypha beino- re
garded by some as of little importance, until by decree of the Council
of Trent it was obliterated entirely. In the Greek Church, on the
contrary, as early as the fourth century (C. of Laodicea, c 363),
the Hebrew Canon was accepted as fixing definitely the limits of the
Old Testament Scriptures, even the reading of the Apocrypha being
in some cases forbidden. And this position the Greek Church  and
the same is true of the older Syriac Church — has maintained with
but a slight wavering of individual Fathers, to the present day. At the
Reformation, in harmony with the entire body of Protestants, this
church reaffirmed its decision that the books of the Hebrew Canon
alone are to be held as canonical, although, of late, — through the influ
ence, it is thought, of the Romish Church and in opposition to Protes
tants, — there has been an apparent weakening in this respect.4
1 Davidson, Introd. to O. T., iii. 348. Cf. Keil, Introd. to O. T,, ii. 360.
2 Bib. in Ch., t86-i89. s Herzog's Encyc, i. 548.
* liieek's Introd. to O. T., ii. 336, 342.

Appendix B. THE APOCRYPHA. 4O3
In addition to what has been already said, there are doubtless con
siderations to be drawn from the character of these books Considera-tions derived
themselves which would demand their exclusion from the from the
Bible as having no right to be esteemed a co-ordinate part seiVes.
of it. For these, in the form and order in which they will here be
given, we are indebted to Professor Plumptre : ' (1) The absence of
the prophetic element ; (2) Connected with this is the almost total
disappearance of the power which had shown itself in the poetry of
the Old Testament ; (3) The appearance as part of the current litera
ture of the times, of works of fiction resting, or purporting to rest,
on an historical foundation ; (4) The free exercise of the imagination
within the domain of history, leading to the growth of a purely legen
dary literature ; (5) As the most marked characteristic of the collection
as a whole, and of the period to which it belongs, there is the tendency
to pass off supposititious books under the cover of illustrious names ;
(6) The absence of honesty and of the power to distinguish truth
from falsehood shows itself in a yet more serious form in the insertion
of formal documents purporting to be authentic, but in reality failing
altogether to establish any claim to that title ; (7) The loss of the
simplicity and accuracy which characterize the history of the Old Tes
tament is also shown in the errors and anachronisms in which these
books abound ; (8) In their relation to the religious and ethical devel
opment of Judaism during the period which these books embrace.

THE NEW TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA.
Very little need be said of the great mass of Apocryphal litera
ture called forth by the fame of Christ and his Apostles, gain- ^'^JJ
ing currency, and still of interest, wholly because of its asso- Apocrypha
ciation with his name. With respect to most of these writ- izeT C e'
ings, there is and has ever been entire unanimity among all honest
investigators in discarding them as undoubted forgeries, even more
clumsy than they are false. Bishop Ellicott says of the Apocryphal
Gospels, that " their real demerits, their mendacities, their absurdities,
their coarseness, the barbarities of their style, and the inconsequences
of their narrative, have never been excused or condoned. It would be
hard to find any competent writer in any age of the Church who has
been beguiled into saying any thing civil or commendatory. From all
alike, — from Orthodox fathers, from early historians, from popes, from
councils, from Romish divines and Protestant commentators, — the
1 Smith's Bib. Diet., art. Apoc.

4O4 THE APOCRYPHA. Apocrypha.
same amount of contempt and reprobation has been expended upon
them." And again : " Our vital interest in Him of whom they pretend
to tell us more than the canonical Scriptures have recorded is the real,
though it may be the hidden, reason why these poor figments are read
with interest even while they are despised.1 "
Of these Apocryphal works proper, only a few, such as were appar-
Gospel ently to some extent made use of with respect by certain
toSwHe- Christian writers in the early Church, call for any special
brews. notice on our part. One of these was a so-called " Gospel
according to the Hebrews," a work not now extant. It has been sup
posed to be referred to by Papias (early part of first century), Ignatius
(a disciple of John), Justin Martyr (died 148), Hegesippus (bloom 177-
190), and by Origen (186-254). Lardner infers that the work was a
translation of our Gospel of Matthew into Hebrew with certain addi
tions.2 And it seems to be quite a general opinion that it had a close
connection with that Gospel. It was circulated chiefly among the
Jewish Christians of Palestine. But, whatever may have been true
concerning it, there is certainly no evidence that any other Gospel than
the four which are familiar to us had any authoritative currency in the
early Church. The allusions of Ignatius and Papias are uncertain.
The citations of Justin Martyr particularly distinguish something which
it contains from the Apostolic " Memoirs," as he was accustomed to
call our Gospels.' Hegesippus, as quoted by Eusebius, made consid
erable extracts from the work, but so far as it appears without attribut
ing to it any importance above what was due to an ordinary literary
production. While others who made use of it — Clement of Alexandria,
Origen, and Jerome, — at the same time very clearly expressed the
opinion that our four Gospels alone were canonical.
Another work of this kind was the " Gospel of Peter." Bleek
The Gospel supposes that in its contents it was akin to our Synoptics,
of Peter, but particularly to the " Gospel according to the Hebrews ; "
and Westcott, that it contained memoirs of the Apostles' teaching,
based in a great measure on authentic traditions. No part of it is
now extant. It is extremely probable that it originated about a.d.
191-200 in Cilicia. Serapion, the bishop, found it in use there by the
church at Rhossus, and, after examination, discovering things in it not
according to sound doctrine, he promptly placed his interdict upon it.
But it cannot be shown that the book was ever held to be canonical
even at Rhossus, where it was most widely circulated and most highly
approved. Origen says of a quotation from the " Doctrine of Peter,"
1 Cambridge Essays for 1856, pp. 155-138. Cf. B. Hams Cowper, Apoc. Gospels, p. 10.
2 Vol. v., 247.
8 Westcott, Can. of N. T., Append. B. Cf. Bleek, Introd. to N. T., i. 336.

Appendix B. THE APOCRYPHA. 405
which Westcott (though not Bleek) regards as the same work, that we
must first reply that that writing is not reckoned among the ecclesias
tical books, and next show that it is not a genuine writing of Peter,
nor of any one else who was inspired by the Spirit of God.1
The " Apocalypse of Peter," still another Apocryphal work ascribed
to this Apostle, can claim a somewhat more direct apparent TheApoca-
support. It is referred to in the Muratorian Canon (160-170), Peter.
if the text be trustworthy, as follows : " We receive, moreover, the
Apocalypses of John and Peter only, which [ ? latter] some of our body
will not have read in the Church." And according to Eusebius (H.
E. vi. 14), Clement of Alexandria wrote comments on the same work.
This, however, is the most that can be said in its defence. Eusebius
in the same connection clearly repudiates the book, while nothing
authoritative can be based on the doubtful testimony of the Canon of
Muratori in this particular. In addition to the above conjectural read
ing included within the brackets, it may be said that some high author
ities maintain that it is probable that the Latin, which is et Petri tantum,
should be et Petri unam, the et beginning a new clause, and the refer
ence being to the one (1) Epistle of Peter.2 Clement of Alexandria
also refers to a " Gospel of the Egyptians," the character of which it
is impossible from the scantiness of allusions to it in early literature
to determine. But Clement is careful not to confound the work with
the Gospels received by the Church.
Now, in addition to these and many similar works which cannot
claim to any important extent even this doubtful support of Supposed
, r ¦ • 1 r work °f the
direct allusion and respectful mention on the part of respon- so-called
sible Christian writers, there is another and quite distinct FaShere!0
class of writings to be considered, ascribed to the Apostolip Fathers,
as Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp
(c. 80-120). What was their relation to the New Testament litera
ture ? Why were they not included among the canonical Scriptures ?
First, a large part of the writings attributed to these persons are indis
putably spurious. Then, that which has the best claim to being genu
ine lays no claim to canonical rank, but, on the contrary, virtually
disclaims it.3 Moreover, while for the most part agreeing in spirit and
doctrine with the canonical books, while often quoted, and uniformly
treated with respect by early Christian writers, still, they were never
actually adopted by the Church as inspired, or placed on a level with
the acknowledged productions of the Evangelists and Apostles. The
best of these works are the first " Epistle of Clement," the " Epistle
of Barnabas," and the "Shepherd of Hermas." It will be noticed
» Westcott, id. 2 Bleek, Introd. to N. T., ii. 246, n. » Bib. in Ch., pp. 86 88.

406 THE APOCRYPHA. Apocrypha.
that all these names occur in the New Testament, and when we recol
lect that one of the leading rules governing the admission of any work
into the Canon was that it should be the genuine production of an
Apostle or of an "Apostolic man," it will readily appear why — the
character of their works, on account of the uncritical nature of the
times, being largely out of the question — they would be treated with
special respect by the authors who succeeded them, at least until it
was clearly decided that they were not what had been supposed.
Hence, admitting that the first epistle of Clement, for instance, was
The epistle alludea1 to or quoted by Dionysius of Corinth (d. 176), Irenaeus
of Clement. (c 130-200), Clement of Alexandria (165-220), with an hon
orary title ("the Apostolic") for its author, and by Origen (186-254) ;
that it was publicly read in the church at Corinth ; is found ¦ — though in
connection with the confessedly spurious epistle attributed to the same
author — appended to some MSS. of the New Testament, and was
possibly for a time co-ordinated with certain of the so-called antile-
gomena: the fact of a supposed indirect Apostolic authority appertain
ing to it, as the supposed production of the Clement mentioned in
Phil. iv. 3, is quite sufficient to account for all. It was certainly never
put in any catalogue of the Scriptures, but, on the contrary, was
definitely excluded from such catalogues (Eusebius, Athanasius, and
Jerome), and, little by little, after the judgment of the Church was
more enlightened and its opinion came to be more definitely expressed,
ceased to be classed even among writings of doubtful canonicity.
The same is true of the Epistle of Barnabas, which likewise got
The epistle mt0 circulation under cover of an honored name, was even
of Bamabas. wi(jeiy current for a time, especially at Alexandria, where it
probably originated, and is found in connection with the " Shepherd "
at the close ofthe famous Sinaitic manuscript. Clement of Alexandria
held it to be a genuine work of the " Apostle Barnabas," and Origen
dignifies it with the title of the " Catholic Epistle of Barnabas." But
as we might expect from the character of the contents, which exhibit
in all respects a complete contrast to the New Testament literature,
as soon as the mere superficial hearsay gave place to actual discrimina
tion through careful scrutiny, the churches were a unit in excluding it
from the list of sacred books. Eusebius pronounces it a forgery ; and
Jerome, apocryphal. It never found a place in any of the early cata
logues of the books of Scripture.
"The Shepherd," a work purporting to be written by still another
The Shep- person, bearing the same name as one of Paul's companions,
herd of Her- . . r j
mas. on account ot its peculiar doctrinal teachings, attained to a
position of considerable importance in the early Church. Orio-en

Appendix B. THE APOCRYPHA. 4O7
directly identifies its author with the Hermas of Rom. xvi. 14, and,
personally, thought the book to be " divinely inspired " in an inferior
sense, though admitting that it was not generally so regarded. Ire
naeus quotes it under the significant title ofypatf (sacred writing). And
Clement of Alexandria also makes honorable mention of it. But no
one now believes that the Hermas of Rom. xvi. 14 wrote the book.
The Canon of Muratori (Rome, c. 160-170), whose author was likely to
be much better informed than Origen, or Clement of Alexandria, says
that it was written by a brother of Pius, Bishop at Rome (142-157), and
does not esteem it worthy to be publicly read in the churches ; while
TertuUian declares that all (? in his region) reckon it "inter Apocrypha
et falsa ; " ' Jerome, that it is almost unknown among the Latins ;¦ and
Eusebius, though accounting the work of some value, placing it
among the antilegomena, yet nowhere allows to it canonical author
ity. The latter fact is true, indeed, of all early writers who attempted
definite lists of the Sacred Books. The temporary honor to which
the work attained in certain places was wholly due to principles and
reasons already stated.
The claim which this and the other writings of the so-called Apos
tolic Fathers have to canonical recognition, on the ground Bleek'sopin-
of their style and internal characteristics generally, we leave contentfof
to be stated by Bleek, who will not be charged with being these works.
unduly affected by prejudice (ii. 289). "The only writings of this
class," he says, "about which there could be a question, are those of
the Apostolic Fathers, who are mentioned in the New Testament as
Christian teachers and helpers of the Apostles, — Barnabas, Clement
of Rome, and Hermas. Barnabas, in particular, seems to have held
a prominent position in the Church. But the epistle which bears his
name is probably spurious, and its contents are paltry and frivolous,
so that it is quite unworthy to be placed side by side with the New
Testament writings. Clement and Hermas are too little prominent as
fellow-workers with the Apostle, and we cannot place the same reli
ance in them as teachers, as, for example, in Apollos. The Epistle
of Clement to the Corinthians, — which alone of the writings extant
bearing his name is probably genuine, — and ' The Shepherd,' which
bears the name of Hermas as its author, are alike unfit if we consider
their scope and range, together with their form, and especially the
visionary character of the latter, to be regarded as constituent parts
of the New Testament." 1 De Pudic, x. 2.

INDICES.

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CONSULTED OR REFERRED TO IN THE PREPARATION
OF THIS MANUAL.

Alford, Henry, D.D., Dean of Canterbury. The Greek Testament;
4 vols. 8vo. London : Rivingtons. 1863.
 ,  ¦ Review of his Revised New Testament, Contemporary
Review, February, 1870.
Anderson, Christopher. The Annals of the English Bible.
Abridged and continued by Samuel Irenaeus Prime. New York:
Robert Carter & Bros. 1849.
 ,  . The Singular Introduction of the Bible into Britain, and
its Consequences. 8vo, pp. 50. London : 1849.
Angus, John, D.D. The Bible Handbook. Philadelphia: 1857.
Appleton. Cyclopaedia of Biography. New York : Appleton & Co.
1863.
Auberlen, Carl Augustus. The Prophecies of Daniel and the
Revelation of St. John. Translated by Adolph Saphir. Edin
burgh : T. &T. Clark. 1856.
Augustini, Sancti Aurelii, Opera Omnia, n vols. 4to. Paris:
1837-
Baber, Rev. Henry Hervey, M.A. Memoirs of the Life, Opinions.
and Writings of Dr. Wyclif; and an Historical Account of the
Saxon and English versions of the Scriptures previous to the
Fifteenth Century. Prefixed to Wyclif's version of the New
Testament. 4to. London : 1810.
Baptist Quarterly, October 1867, and April, 1871.
Barrows, Rev. E. P., D.D. Companion to the Bible. New York:
American Tract Society.
Bartlett, Prof. S. C. The Independent (New York), May 25th,
1871.
Beard, John R., D.D. A Revised English Bible, the Want of the
Church, and the Demand of the Age. London: 1857.
Bede, Venerable. Complete Works. 12 vols. 8vo. London: 1844.

412 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.
Bellamy, J. A Critical Examination of the Objections made to the
New Translation [his own] of the Bible. London : 1820.
Bentley, Richard, D.D. Sermons Preached at Boyle's Lecture.
 ,  . Proposals for an Edition of the Greek Testament, &c.
Edited by Rev. Alexander Dyce. London : 1838.
Bible of every Land. A History of the Sacred Scriptures in Every
Language and Dialect into which Translations have been made.
Small 4to. London : Bagsters.
Bible Society. Reports, 1832-1858.
 ,  . Manual Containing a Brief Sketch ofthe History, Opera
tions, and Principles of the American Bible Society, &c. New
York: 1865.
 ,  . Report on the History and Recent Collation of the English
Version of the Bible. Committee on Versions. New York : 1851.
Bibliotheca Sacra, October, 1868.
Bleek, Friedrich. An Introduction to the New Testament. Trans
lated by William Urwick. 2 vols. Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark.
1869-70.
 ,  . An Introduction to the Old Testament. Edited by Adolf
Kamphausen. Translated by J. H. Venablets. 2 vols. London :
Bell & Daldy. 1869.
Blunt, Rev. John Henry. The Reformation of the Church of Eng
land. London, Oxford, and Cambridge : 1868.
 ,  . A Plain Account of the English Bible from the Earliest
Times of its Translation to the Present Day. New York: E. P.
Dutton & Co. 1870.
Bosworth, Rev. Joseph. The Gothic and Anglo-Saxon Gospels in
Parallel Columns with the Versions of Wyclif and Tyndale. Ar
ranged with Preface and Notes. 8vo, pp. 584. London : 1865.
Brantley, William T, D.D. Objections to a Baptist Version of
the New Testament. With Additional Reasons for Preferring the
English Bible as It Is. By Octavius Winslow, D.D. New York:
1837-
British Quarterly Review. See Quarterly Review.
Broughton, Hugh. The Works of the Great Albionean Divine, &c.
foi. London : 1662.
Burgess, Rev. Henry, LL.D. Revision of Translations of the Holy
Scriptures. An Argument against Objectors. Reprinted from
the Journal of Sacred Literature for January, 1857. London : 1857.
Burnet, Gilb. (Bp.) History of the Reformation. 2d edition. 2
vols. London : 1681.
Butler, Charles. Horas Biblicae. Volume the First. Boston : James
Munroe & Co. 1845.
Cardwell, Edward, D.D. Documentary Annals of the Reformed
Church of England. 2 vols. Oxford : 1844.

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES. 413
Channing, William E., D.D. Works. Eighth complete edition. 6
vols. Boston : James Munroe. 1848.
Charteris, A. H. Article on Canonicity. British and Foreign Evan
gelical Review, February, 1871.
Cheyne, T. K. The Book of Isaiah Chronologically Arranged, &c.
London : Macmillan & Co. 1870.
 ,  . An Article on Revision, Contemporary Review, Vol. II.,
p. 141.
Conant, Mrs. H. C. The English Bible, &c. New York : Sheldon
-& Co. 1859.
Conquest, J. T. The Holy Bible, Containing the Authorized Version
of the Old and New Testaments, with nearly Twenty Thousand
Emendations. London: 1841.
Conrad, D. H. Address at Bible Convention. Richmond, Va. : 1856.
Contemporary Review. See Alford.
Cosin, John (Bp.). Scholastical History of Canon. 1657. Same also
found in Vol. III., Collected Works. Oxford : 1849.
Cotton, Rev. Henry. Editions of the Bible and Parts thereof in
Englibh from the Year 1505 to 1S50. 2d Edition Corrected and
Enlarged. Oxford: 1852.
Coverdale, Miles. Writings and Translations. Edited for Parker
Society. Cambridge : 1844.
 ,  . Remains-. Edited for Parker Society. 1846.
Cowles, Rev. Henry. The Minor Prophets. New York: D. Apple-
ton & Co. 1867.
Cowper, B. Harris. The Apocryphal Gospels, &c. London and
Edinburgh : 1867.
 ,  . Codex Alexandrinus. Novum Testamentum Graace ex
Antiquissimo Codice Alexandrine London : i860.
Coxe, A. C. (Bp.) Article in New York Independent, March 23d,
1871, and in April following.
Craik, Henry. Hints and Suggestions on the Proposed Revision of
our English Bible. 2d Edition. London : Bagster & Sons. 1865.
Credner, Karl August. Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanon.
Berlin : i860.
Cumming, John, D.D. Article against Revision. The Times. Lon
don : August 26th, 1856.
Davidson, Samuel, D.D. An Introduction to the Study of the New
Testament. 2 vols. London : 1868.
 ,  . A Treatise on Biblical Criticism. 2 vols. Boston : 1853.
 ,  . Sacred Hermeneutics Developed and Applied. Edin
burgh : 1843.
 ,  . Introduction to the Old Testament. 3 vols. 8vo. Edin
burgh : 1863.
Day, Prof. George E. On Revision. Theological Eclectic, April, 1870.

414 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.
Delitzsch, Franz, D.D. Commentary on Hebrews. Edinburgh :
1868.
Demaus, Rev. R. William Tyndale. A Biography. A Contribution
to the Early History of the English Bible. London : Religious
Tract Society.
Dewes, Rev. Alfred. A Plea for a New Translation of the Scriptures.
8vo, pp. 80. London : 1866.
DeWette, Wilhelm Martin Leberecht.. An Historico-Critical
Introduction to the Canonical Books of the New Testament.
Translated by F. Frothingham. Boston : Crosby & Nichols. 1858.
 ,  . Introduction to the Old Testament. Translated by Theo
dore Parker. 2 vols. Boston : 1850.
Dillmann, A. Ueber die Bildung der Sammlung heil. Schrift. A. T.
in Jahrbuch f. Deutsche Theol. pp. 419-491. 1858.
Dunn, Henry. The Study ofthe Bible, &c. New York: G. P. Put
nam. 1871.
Eadie, John, D.D. LL.D. A Commentary on the Greek Text of the
Epistle of Paul to the Galatians. Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark.
1869.
Edinburgh Review. October, 1855. Article on Revision. July, 185 1.
Article on the Greek Text ofthe New Testament. July, 1865. Ar
ticle on Revision of English Bible.
Eichhorn, Johann Gottfried. Einleitung in das Alte Test. Vierte
Original-Ausgabe. Gottingen : 1823.
Ellicott, C. J., D.D. Considerations on the Revision ofthe English
Version of the New Testament. London: 1870.
 ,  . Commentary on Galatians, Ephesians, and Pastoral Epis
tles.
Etheridge, J. W. The Syrian Churches, &c, with a Literal Transla-
' tion ofthe Four Gospels from the Peshito. London : 1846.
Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History. 4th Edition. London : Bagster.
1847.
Ewald, Heinrich. The History of Israel. Edited by Russell Mar-
tineau, M.A., and J. Estlin Carpenter, M.A. 2d edition. 4 vols.
London: 1869-71.
Examiner, Christian. Boston : March, 1869. Review of Dr. Noyes's
Translation of the New Testament. May, 1869. Review of West
cott's History of English Bible. July, 1833. A Review of Several
Works on Revision.
Fisher, Rev. George P. Essays on the Supernatural Origin of
Christianity. New York : Charles Scribner & Co. 1866.
Forshall, Rev. J06IAH. The Holy Bible, &c, Made from the Latin
Vulgate by John Wycliffe and his Followers. 4 vols. 4to. Ox
ford : 1850.
Foxe, John. Acts and Monuments. Revised and Condensed by Rev.
M. H. Seymour.

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES. 415
Fulke. Defence of Translators of the Bible. Edited for Parker
Society. Cambridge : 1843.
Fuller, Thomas. The Church History of Britain, from the Birth of
Jesus Christ until the Year 1648, endeavored. London : 1655.
Furst, Prof. Dr. Julius. Der Kanon des Alten Testaments nach
den Ueberlieferungen in Talmud und Midrasch. Leipzig : 1868.
Gaisford, Dean. Letter to Sir Robert Inglis. 1855.
Gaussen, Prof. L. The Canon of the Holy Scripture. Translated by
Edward N. Kirk, D.D. American Tract Society.
Geddes, Rev. Alexander, LL.D. Prospectus of a New Translation
of the Holy Bible, &c. 4to. Glasgow: 1786.
Geiger, Ludwig. Das Studium der Hebraischen Sprache in Deutsch-
land vom Ende des xv. bis zur Mitte des xvi. Jahrhunderts. Bres-
lau : 1870.
Gell, Robert, D.D. An Essay Toward the Amendment of the Last
English Translation of the Bible. London : 1659.
Gilman, Rev. Edward W. Early Editions ofthe Authorized Version
of the Bible. Bibliotheca Sacra. January, 1859.
Gloag, G. Paton, D.D. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
the Acts of the Apostles. 2 vols. 8vo. Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark.
1870.
Gorton, John. A General Biographical Dictionary. New Edition in
4 vols. London: 1851.
Green, Rev. T. S. A Course of Developed Criticism, &c. London :
Samuel Bagster & Sons.
Guardian, The. File for 1870.
Guericke, Heinrich Ernst Ferdinand. Gesainmtgeschichte des
Neuen Testaments. Oder Neutestamentliche Isagogik, &c.
Leipzig: 1854.
Guthrie, Dr. Thomas. Article on Revising the English Translation
of the Bible. Sunday Magazine, January, 1871.
Hackett, Horatio B., D.D. A Commentary on the Original Text
of the Acts of the Apostles. Boston : 1863.
 ,  . American Edition of Smith's Bible Dictionary. Aided by
Ezra Abbot, D.D., LL.D., and Others.
  . Address on Revision before the American Bible Union,
October 6, 1859.
Hallam, Henry. Constitutional History of England. 3 vols. Bos
ton : 1829.
Havernick, H. A. Ch. A General Historico-Critical Introduction to
the Old Testament. Edinburgh : 1852.
Hay, Canon. Speech before Convocation of York : February, 1870.
Henderson, E., D.D. The Book of the Twelve Minor Prophets, &c.
Andover: i860.
Hkngstenberg, E. W., D.D. Commentary on Ecclesiastes, with
other Treatises. Philadelphia : Smith, English, & Co. i860.

416 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.
Herzog, Encyclopaedia. Philadelphia: Lindsay & Blakiston. 1858.
Hexapla, The English. London : Samuel Bagster & Sons. 1841.
Highton, Rev. H. A Revised Translation of the New Testament.
London : 1862.
Hilgenfeld, Prof. A. Der Kanon und die Kritik des Neuen Testa
ments, &c. Halle : 1863.
Hind, Samuel, D.D. Scripture and the Authorized Version of Scrip
ture, &c. 2d Edition. London : 1853.
Hofmann, Dr. J. Chr. K. von. Die Heilige Schrift Neuen Testaments,
&c. Nordlingen. Erster Theil. 1862.
Horne, T. H. An Introduction to the Study and Knowledge of the
Scriptures. 4 vols, nth Edition. London: i860.
 ,  . An Introduction to the Study of Bibliography. 2 vols.
8vo. London : 1814.
Hug. Introduction to the New Testament. Andover : 1836.
Humphry, William G. Article on Revision. Macmillan's Magazine,
June, 1870.
Jahn. Archaeology. 5th Edition. New York: 1849.
Jewett, Rev. George B. Criticism on the Revision of the New Tes
tament, by the American Bible Union. Congregational Review,
September, 1868, January and March, 1869.
Johnson, Anthony. An Historical Account of the Several English
Translations, &c. London : 1730.
 ,  . Watson's Theological Tracts. Vol. III.
Jones, Rev. Jeremiah. A New Method of Settling the Canonical Au
thority of the New Testament. 3 vols. 8vo. Oxford : 1798.
Josephus, Flavius. Works. 8vo. Baltimore : 1839.
Journal of Sacred Literature. January, 1868.
Jowett, Benjamin, M.A. Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians,
Galatians, and Romans. 2 vols. London : 1855.
Judson, Rev. Adoniram. Letter on Revision. 1839.
Keil, Karl Friedrich. Manual of Historico-Critical Introduction
to the Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Edin
burgh : T. & T. Clark. 1871.
Kendrick, A. C, D.D. On Revision. Baptist Quarterly, April, 1871.
Kennicott, Benjamin. State of the Hebrew Text of the Old Testa
ment Considered, &c. Oxford : 1753.
Kitto, John, D.D. Cyclopsedia of Biblical Literature. Philadelphia:
J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1865.
Kurtz, J. H. History of the Old Covenant. 3 vols. 8vo. Philadel
phia : Lindsay & Blakiston. 1859.
Lange, Commentary (Translation). The Several Introductions.
Lardner, Nathaniel, D.D. Works. 10 vols. London : 1838.
Leathes, Rev. Stanley. Witness of St. Paul to Christ. Boyle's
Lecture for 1869. Rivingtons.

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES. 417
Lewis, Rev. John. A Complete History of the Several Translations
ofthe Holy Bible, &c. London : 1818.
Library, Ante-Nicene Christian. Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark.
Lightfoot, J. B., D.D. On a Fresh Revision of the English New
Testament. London and New York : 1871.
Lillie, Rev. John. Lectures on the First and Second Epistles of
Peter. New York: C. Scribner & Co. 1869.
Lingard, Rev. John. The Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church.
1st Am. from 2d London edition. Philadelphia: 1841.
Mackay, R. W., M.A. The Tubingen School and its Antecedents.
Edinburgh : 1863.
Maius, Angelus. Codex Vaticanus. New York : Appleton & Co.
1859.
Malan, Rev. S. C. A Vindication of the Authorized Version. Lon
don : Bell & Daldy. 1856.
Marsh, Hon. George P. Lectures on the English Language. New
York : C. Scribner. i860.
 ,  . The English Language and its Early Literature. Do. 1862.
 ,  . The Nation (New York), October 13th, 1870, and following.
 , Herbert, D.D. A History of Translations, &c. London :
1812.
M'Caul, Rev. Alexander, D.D. Reasons for Holding Fast, &c.
Pamph. 8vo. pp. 51. London: 1857.
McClelland, Prof. Alexander. A Brief Treatise on the Canon
and Interpretation of the Scripture. New York: .1850.
McClintock, Rev. John M., and James Strong. Cyclopaedia of
Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature.
McClure, A. W. The Translators Revived. New York: Charles
Scribner; 1853.
McWhorter, George Cumming. A Popular Hand-book of the New
Testament. New York : 1864.
Michaelis, John David. Introduction to the New Testament. 4 vols.
Cambridge : 1793.
Moabite Stone, The. By Rev. B. F. De Costa. New York: A. D.
F. Randolph & Co. 1871.
Murphy, J. G., D.D. Commentary on Genesis. Andover: 1S66.
Nation, The. October 13, 20, 27, 1870. Articles of George P. Marsh
on Revision.
Newcome, William, D.D. An Historical View of English Biblical
Translation, &c. Dublin : 1792.
New England Magazine. Vol. V. 1833. A New Translation of the
Bible.
Norton, Andrews. Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels.
3 vols. 8vo. 2d Edition. Cambridge : 1846-48.
O'Callaghan, P. B. A List of the Editions of the Holy Scripture,
27

418 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.
and Parts thereof printed in America previous to i860. Albany:
1861.
Oosterzee, J. J. Van, D.D. John's Gospel. Apologetical Lectures.
Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark. 1869.
Paley, William. Evidences of Christianity. Chapter IX.
Palfrey, J. G. Academical Lectures on the Jewish Scriptures and
Antiquities. 4 vols. Boston : James Munroe & Co. 1838-52.
Panmure, Lord. Speech in Edinburgh. The Witness, January 10,
1857-
Park, Rev. A. L. Italics of the English Bible. Congregationalist,
April, 1S72.
Parker, Matthew, D.D. Correspondence. Edited for Parker So
ciety. Cambridge : 1853.
Penn, Granville. The Book of the New Covenant, &c. A Critical
Revision of the Text. 3 vols. 8vo. London : 1836-1841.
Pilkington, Matthew, LL.B. Remarks on Several Passages of
Scripture, &c. Cambridge: 1759.
Plea for a New English Version of the Scripture. By a Licen
tiate of the Church of Scotland. London : Macmillan & Co.
1864.
Princeton Review. January, 1859; April, 1859; JulJ> I857; January,
1871. On Revision.
Quarterly Review. Vol. XIX. April -December, 1818. Bellamy's
Translation of the Bible. . Also Vol. XXIII. pp. 287-325.
 , The. April, 1870. The English Bible.
 , The British. Jauuary, 1870. Revision of the Authorized
Version.
Rawlinson, George, M.A. Historical Evidences of the Truth of the
Scripture Records. Bampton Lecture. Boston: Gould & Lincoln.
i860.
Ray, J. M. A Revised Translation and Interpretation of the Sacred
Scripture after the Eastern Manner, &c. Glasgow : 1815.
Remembrancer, The Christian. Vol. XXXII. 1856. Revision of
the Authorized Version of the English Bible.
Repository, The Biblical, and Quarterly Observer. Vol. VI.
1835. Early English Versions of the Bible, by B. B. Edwards.
Reuss, Eduard. Die Geschichte der Heiligen Schriften Neuen Tes
taments. Vierte vermehrte und verbesserte Ausgabe.. Braun
schweig. 1864.
Roberts, Rev. Alexander. Discussions on the Gospels. London :.
1S62.
Ross, Hugh. An Essay for a New Translation of the Bible. 2d edi
tion. London : 1727.
Rothschild, C. and A. De. The History and Literature of the Isra
elites. 2 vols. London: 1871.

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES. 419
Saturday Review, October 1, 1870. Tregelles's Greek New Testament.
June 18, 1870. Review of Ellicott on Revision, &c.
Schaeffer, Prof. Charles F. Exegetical Punctuation of the New
Testament. Bibliotheca Sacra. October, 1868. The English Ver
sion of the New Testament. Id. July, 1869.
Schaff, Philip, D.D. Introduction to Lange's Commentary on John.
American Edition. New York : C. Scribner & Co. 1872.
 ,  . History of the Christian Church. Do. 1859.
Scholefield, Rev. James. Hints for some Improvements in the
Authorised Version of the New Testament. 4th edition. London:
1857-
Schumann, A. An Introduction to the Books of the Old and New Tes
taments. London : 1849.
Scrivener, Rev. F. H. A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the
New Testament. 1861.
 ,  . Contributions to the Criticism of the Greek New Testa
ment. 1859.
 ,  . A Full and Exact Collation of about Twenty Greek MSS.,
&c. 1853.
 ,  . A Full Collation of the Sinaiticus with the Received Text.
London : 1864.
Selwyn, Prof. A Letter to LoTd Shaftesbury. The Times (London).
February 24, 1870.
Sharps, Granville. Remarks on the Use of the Definite Article, &c.
3d Edition. 1803.
 , Samuel. Critical Notes on the Authorized Version of the New
Testament. London : 1856.
Shea, John Gilmary. A Bibliographical Account of the Catholic
Bibles, Testaments, &c, printed in the United States. New
York: 1859.
Smith, William, LL.D. A Dictionary of the Bible. 3 vols. Boston:
Little, Brown, & Co. i860.
 ,  . Student's Scripture History; Old Testament and New
Testament. New York : D. Appleton & Co. 1866.
 , G. Vance. Speech quoted in New York Tribune, June 3, 1872.
Soames, Henry. The Latin Church during Anglo-Saxon Times.
London : 1848.
Spectator, Christian Quarterly. December, 1833. Review of
Noah Webster's Revision of the Bible.
Stanley, Arthur Penrhyn, D.D. Epistles of St. Paul to the Corin
thians. 3d edition. London : 1865.
 ,  . History of Jewish Church. 1st series. New York: Charles
Scribner. 1863.
 ,  . Id. 2d series. New York : Charles Scribner & Co. 1871.

420 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.
Stowe, C. E., D.D. Origin and History of the Books of the Bible.
Hartford Publishing Company : 1867.
Strype. Life of Whitgift. 3 vols. Oxford : 1822.
 . Life of Archbishop Grindal. Oxford: 1821.
Stuart, Moses, Prof. Commentary on Ecclesiastes. New York :
Putnam. 1851.
 ,  . Commentary on Proverbs. New York : Dodd. 1852.
Symonds, John, LL.D. Observations upon the Expediency of Revis
ing the Present English Version, &c. 4to. Cambridge: 1789.
Taylor, Isaac History of Transmission of Ancient Books, &c.
London : 1859.
 ,  . Process of Historical Proof. London : 1828.
Tholuck, Dr. Augustus. Commentary on John. Philadelphia: Smith,
English, & Co. 1859.
Tischendorf, Constantine. When were Our Gospels Written.
Boston : Massachusetts Sunday-School Society.
 ,  . Monumenta Sacra Inedita. 1855-70.
 ,  . Tauchnitz Edition of the New Testament. Leipsic : 1869.
 ,  . Codex Vaticanus, post Angeli Maii Aliorumque Imper-
fectos Labores ex Ipso Codice. Leipsic: 1867.
Todd, Rev. Henry John, M.A. A Vindication of Our Translation
and Translators of the Bible, &c. London : 1819.
Tomlinson, Robert. Attempt to Rescue the Holy Scriptures from
Ridicule, &c, by a New Translation. London: 1805.
Tregelles, Samuel Prideaux, LL.D. An Account of the Printed
Text of the New Testament, &c. London : 1864.
 ,  '. A Lecture on the Historic Evidence of the Authorship
and Transmission of the Books of the New Testament. London :
1852.
Trench, Rich. Chenevix, D.D. On the Authorized Version of the
New Testament. New York: Redfield. 1858.
 ,  . The Same. 2d Edition. London : 1859.
Turner, Sharon, F.A.S. History of the Anglo-Saxons. 2d edition.
2 vols. London : 1807.
Twells, Leonard. A Critical Examination of the Late New Text
and Version of the New Testament [edited by Dr. Mace]. Lon
don : 1731.
Tyndale, William. The New Testament. Original Edition of 1526,
with a Memoir. Andover: 1837.
 ,  • Answer to Sir Thomas More's Dialogues. Edited for
Parker Society. Cambridge : 1850.
 ,  . Doctrinal Treatises and Introduction to Different Portions
of Scripture. Do. 1848.
 ,  . Expositions and Notes. Do. 1849.

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES. 42 1
Walter, Henry, F.R.S. Letter to the Right Reverend Herbert,
Lord Bishop of Peterborough, on the Independence ofthe Author
ized Version of the Bible. London : 1823.
Walter, J. Conway, B.A. Genuineness of the Book of Daniel, &c.
London : 1863.
Webster, William, and William Francis Wilkinson. The Greek
New Testament. 2 vols. London: 1855-61.
Westcott, Brooke Foss, M.A. A General Survey of the History
of the Canon of the New Testament during the First Four Cen
turies. 2d edition. Cambridge : 1866.
 ,  . An Introduction to the Study of the Gospels. London :
i860.
 ,  . The Bible in the Church. 2d Edition. London : 1866.
 ,  . A General View of the History of the English Bible.
London and Cambridge : 1868.
Westminster Review. January, 1857. Revision of the English
Bible.
Whitaker, William, D.D. A Disputation on Holy Scripture against
the Papists, &c. Edinburgh : Parker Society. 1849.
Williams, Rowland, D.D. Hebrew Prophets Translated afresh
from the Original, &c. Vol. I. London and Edinburgh : 1866.
Winer, George Benedict. A Grammar of New Testament Diction.
Translated from the sixth enlarged edition. Philadelphia 1 i860.
Woolsey, Ex-President, T.D. On Revision. Independent, Febru
ary 1, 1872.
Wordsworth, Christopher, D.D. On the Canon of the Old and New
Testament. Philadelphia : 1854. Hulsean Lecture for 1847-48.
From the last revised London edition.
Wyckoff, Dr. William H. Address in the Bible Union Quarterly,
November, 1869, and February, 1870, on Revision.

PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE CITED OR
ILLUSTRATED.

PAGE
Gen. iii. 7  59
Exod. i. 19  . 72
,1 xvi. 3  385
„ xxiv. 3, 4, 7  296
Numb. xi. 29  385
Deut. xvii. iS  272
„ xxviii. 67 . .... 385
„ xxxi. 9, 24, 25 . .... 296
Josh. i. 1  301
„ i. 18  301
„ ii. 22  301
„ iii. 7  301
„ iv. 2  301
,, viii. 31  301
„ xiii. 1-6  ... 301
„ xiv. 26 . . . .... 301
„ xv. 13-19  301
„ xviii. 3 . ... . . 301
,, xix. 47 . . . 302
„ xxiv. 26 . . 285
„ xxiv. 31  302
Judges, i. 10, 15  301
„ i- =1  303
„ i. 22 .  302
„ ii. J-5 . • • 302
,1 ii. 7  302
„ v.  302
„ ix. 7-20 ... ... 302
,1 ix. 53  383
Ruth, iv. 7, 18-22 . . ... 305
1 Sam. i. 1  305
„ i-xii  306
„ vi. 18  307
„ vii. 9, 10, 12, 17 . . 307
„ ix. 1  305
,» ix. 13  307
11 x. 24  385
s, x- 25  272, 285
>. xiv. 35  307
,, xxvii. 6 . ... 307

PAGE
2 Sam, i. 17, 18  328
n i- '8  307
„ iii. 18  328
» v. 4  306
» v. 5  308
1, '-6-9  303
„ vii. 12-16  308
,, viii. 15-18  308
11 xvi. 16  385
„ xvii  . 272
1 Kings, ii. 11  . . 308
„ iv. 1-6  308
11 iv. 32  319
„ viii. 18, 25  308
,1 ». 41  308
,, xii.  308
„ xiv. 29  309
2 Kings, vi. 5  308
si xi. 12  285, 385
11 xiv. 25  336
,1 xvii.  308
s, xviii  327
„ xviii. 13  286
„ xxii. 8 . . . 272, 285
„ xxiii. 6  383
1 Chron. ix . . . ... . . 313
* „ xxiv. 16  328
„ xxix. 22  307
2 Chron. xvii. 7-9  285
„ xxiv. 14  285
„ xxiv. 20  278
„ xxix. 30  287
„ xxxii. 32  309
„ xxxv. 25  328
Ezra, i, 2-4  325
s, iv. 8  263
1, iv. 24  339
11 • vi. 18  263, 272
Neh. viii. 1 .  272
1, xi. 13  313

PASSAGES CITED.

423

Neh. xii. 1-26 

»>

xiii. 

Esther, iii. * 

„ iv. 1-3. 14, 16 . .

,

, ix. 20 ....

,

, ix- 22 . . .

Psalms, i. 1 . . ...

» xiv. 

,

, xviii. ......

, xxxvii. 1 ...

„ xl. 14 .

>

, xiii. 7 . ...

,

, liii. 

,

. Iv. 17 

„ lxx. 2 

,, lxxii. 20 . .

,

, lxxviii. 53-65 . .

Prov. xxiii. 23 . . .

»

xxiv. 19 

Keel. i. 12, 16 

»

ii- 9 

11

iv. 8 

,,

v. 7 . .

>)

v. 15 

u

vii'i. 9 . . . . .

»

x. 4, 16-19

»?

xii. 9-14 ....

it

xii. 12 

ii

xii. 13 

Isa-

xxviii. 21 

Jer.

vii- z 

t»

vii. 11 • . . .

J)

ix- 24 

„

x. 1-16 . ....

))

xi. 21 ...

))

xxvi. i 

7>

xx vi. 18 

)»

xxvi. 18 • • ¦

JJ

xxviii. 15 . . . .

)t

xxviii. 31 . . .

)>

xxxvi. 32, 3,3

II

xxxviii. 33, 34 . . .

Ezek. i. 2 

v

i. 3 • ¦

)>

xiv. 14, 20 • •

»

xiv. 14, 20 ...

)i

xxiv. 17 . • • •

,,

xxvi. 1 . . ¦

?)

xxviii. 3 

„

xxx. 20 •

Pan

ii. 42, vii. ¦ . .

ii

ix. 2 T 

j>

ix. 2, 11, 13 ...

Hos

v. 13 

Joel

iv. 4-6 

PAGE

• 3H
Amos, i. 1 
¦ 342
11
i. 6-10
• 315
11
iv. 6-9 . .
• 315
Obad. v. 20 ,
3-6
Jonah, ii. 3 . . .
• 279
Mic.
iii. 12 .
¦ 38S
Nahum, i. 9, 11
272
>l
u-3
¦ 272
Hab
i. 2-17 .
• 384
i)
i. 5, 6 .
384
)»
iii. n-13 . .
• 384
I)
iii. 16 .
. 272
Zepb
. i. 1
• 331
»
iii. 10 ¦
• 384
Hag
i. 12-15 ¦ - •
• 319
Zech
i. 1 .
• 301
!»
ii. 4
• 385
n
vii. 12 .
• 384
>»
xi. 12 . . .
• 321
»!
xi. 12, 13 . . .
• 321
II
xiv. 5 
• 321
Mai.
ii. 8 . .
. 321
11
iii. 7-12 . . .
¦ 279
11
iii. 22, 23
. 321
Matt
. ii. 18 .
• 321
11
iii. 3 .
¦ 321
11
v. 37 .
286
11
vi. 19 .
322
1,
viii. 2 .
301
11
viii. 9-13
326
,1
viii. 14
• 328
1!
viii. 29
. 328
„
x. 4 .
• 327
II
xi. 10 .
• 326
II
xii. 30 .
• 326
II
xii. 35 •
. 286
„
xiii. 25
• 337
is
xiv. 8 .
. 328
»!
xvii. 4 .
. 328
II
xvii. n
. 326
II
xix. 17
328
II
xxi. 13
. 328
,1
xxii. 35
328
11
xxiii. 8
3l8
11
xxiv. 4
332
I]
xxiv. 15
• 329
II
xxv. 31
328
II
xxvi. 15
• 332
II
xxvi. 39 . .
. 328
II
xxvi. 64
. 263
II
xxvi. 73
. 286
II
xxvii. 9
. 272
11
xxvii. 21
¦ 336
Mark, i. 2 .
• 334
11
iii. 13 .
PAGE
¦ 334334334335384 3373383383383383«i33S33933934o34034o
2S633334t 334342342
. 286 328
325
. 382
• 383382
16,38
• 236 12
388
¦ 342384
. 386
• 383
. 382
¦ 382
• 342
389
. 328
278
. 382
• 384
332, 384332388 194
332382 341
389342383
424

PASSAGES CITED.

Mark, iv. 29 .
» vi. 25 .
„ vi. 26 .
,f ix. 11, 12
„ ix. 29 .
» ix. 39 •
„ x. 18 .
» xi. 17 .
„ xiii. 5 .
„ xiii. 14
„ xiii. 28
,, xvi. 9-20
Luke, i. 17
» "• 33
„ iv. 17
„ iv. 25
„ iv- 38

¦27

ix. 13
x. 7
x. 16
x. 40
xi, 23
xi. 51
xiii. 7 .
xiv. 7 .
xviii. 13
xviii, 19
xxiu 14, 42, 44 .
xxiii. 42 .
xxiii. 46 . .

].
i.

9; 11
18 .

4 ¦

iii

5 •

iii

10 •

iv

29 .

v.

1

ii
Vi. 46, 47
„
vi. 51 . .
„
viii. 58 .
„
x. 16 . .
D
xiv. 16 , .
ii
xviii. 37 .
u
xxi. 24
Acts
ii. 27, 31 .
»
ii. 47
..
vii- 45 •
ji-
viii. 28 . .
ii
viii- 37 . .
if
ix. 5, 6
>»
ix- 26
„
x- 14 •
n
x. 30 . .
,,
x- 34 • .
;>
xi. 26 . .
PAGE 388 383386
3423»9383
3»9 385
3843«4
38S3S8342
325309236
. 382
• 342
193, 201
• 386 383
¦ 384
. 278
¦ 386
• 387
• 386
• 389 194
• 38?
¦ 194
. 202
• 388
. I98
• 386
• 387
¦ 314
• 294 201
• 387
52, 387
¦ 382
¦ 383
• 200 38?
¦ 77
¦ 3°i
• 325
83, 127
83, 127
¦ 382 382
Acts, xii. 4 .
„ xii, 12 ,
„ xii. 15 .
11 xii. 35 .
„ xiv. 6, 7, 21
,, xv. 23 .
„ xv. 36 .
„ xvi. . .
„ xvi. 1 .
„ xvi. 10 .
„ xvii. 1 .
„ xvii. 3 .
„ xvii. 4 .
„ xvii. 23
„ xviii. 5 .
„ xix. 15 .
„ xix. 22 .
„ xx. . . .
11 xx. 3 .
„ xx. n .
„ xxi. 15 . .
,, xxi. 17.
„ xxiii. 15
„ xxiv. 25 .
,1 xxv. 23
„ xxvii. 1-28
„ xxviii. 16 .
Rom. i. 29-32 .
„ ii. 18
1. iii- 3, 31
„ iv. 8 .
„ vi. 6 .
„ vi. 12 . .
„ vii. 2, 6 .
11 vii. 7 . .
„ viii. 14 .
„ viii. 22
11 xi. 2, 4 .
„ xi. 20, 2Z
,, xiii. 1-7 .
„ xiv. 10-12
„ xiv. 12 .
„ xvi. 16
„ xvi. 21 .
1 Cor. i. 4, 7
11 i- 19 • ¦
,1 i- 31 •
n ii- Mi 15
,, iii. 10
,, iii, 17
„ iii. 19 .
1, iv- 3i 5 ¦
11 iv- 4 •
„ iv. 8 . .
„ iv. 12
PAGE
. 386
. 191
. 382
. 191
, 221
• 143
. 191
• 215
• 221
• 193
219
. 382382
. 386 219
• 387 221
' 215
209 219
¦ ¦ 382
'• • 193
221, 383
• - 383
¦ 193
• • 193
215
• 208
• 382
• 386236
• 386388
¦ 386
• ¦ 386386 166
• • 309
¦ . 208
• 225211 20S ¦53
221 38.3S6 3=S
387386386 381387
382385
PASSAGES CITED.

425

i Cor.

VI. 2

VL 13 • -
vii. 37 .
viii. 1
viii. 5
ix. 3 .
ix. 5 . .
ix. 27
X. I
x. 25, 27

„ XI. I
„ xi. 13
,, xi.27.
„ xii. 3 ¦
„ xiii. 1
„ xiii. 10
„ xiv. 16
„ xiv. 20
„ xvi. 8
,, xvi. 21
2 Cor. i. 12 .
» i- 23 •
„ ii- 13 .
*, iv. 5 •
„ v. 10 .
„ vi- 9 •

vii. 6, 13, 14
viii. 6, 16, 17,
x. 3 •
x- 5
xi. 1

xi. 9

xii. 18

Gal. i. 10 ¦

i. iS ; ii. 9

16

n. 21
iii. 10
iii. 13,
iii. 24 •
iv. 12
iv. 17 •
iv. 23 ¦
iv. 26 -
v. 20, 21
v- 24
vi. 6 . .

Eph.

"¦ 3
ii. 8, 9 .
iv. 2 .
iv. nT 12, 13
iv. 22, 24 .

PAGE 2IO2092IO
38l210389 387
236 381
382 387382 166
38.383 32
386 383 387210 206
211 388225211211 211382225225211 3S8385211 166
225386 196
386 386386212
212 382382211 212382382 383

215 215

Eph. iv. 26 . . .
„ v. 4. . . .
„ v. 20, 21 . •
„ vi. 12 . . .
,, vi. 21 . .
Phil. i. 1 . . . .
„ ii. 13 . . .
„ iii. 12 ¦ . .
„ iii. 12-14 • ¦
„ iv. 3 ...
„ iv. 18 . . .
Col. i. 1 . . , .
„ i. 15-17- ¦ •
„ ii. 12, 19 .
si iv. 7. 9i 17
„ iv. 10 . . .
„ iv. 14 . .
„ iv. 16 . .
„ iv. 18 . .
1 Thess. ii. 6, 7, 11
„ iii. 6 . .
„ iv. 16 . .
„ v. 2, 23
„ v. 17, 22 .
2 Thess. i. 6 . .
„ ii. 1-12, 15
„ iii. 15, 17
„ iii. 17 .
1 Tim. i. 9 . .
„ ii. 4 ¦ •
„. ii- 23
„ iii. 16 .
„ iv. 12, 13
„ v. 12
„ v. 18 . .
„ vi. 7 . .
„ vi. 10 .
„ vi. 12, 13
2 Tim. i. 4 .
„ i. 8, 12, 16
„ i- 16, 17
„ ii. 9 . .
.1 ii. 12, 13, 23
„ iv. 6-8, 16, 17
„ iv. 9, 21
„ iv. 10, 12
Titus, i. 4, 5
„ iii. 1, 12 .
„ iii. 10, n
Philem. 1, 2, 9, 18
ss 1, . ,
„ 8,9. .
i> 24
Heb. i. 34 .
1- ii- 9 •

PAGE
. . 214
. • 382
. . 215
• 67
. . 226
. . 221
. . 386
. 382
. . 217
. 169
. . 217
. . 221
. . 2l8
. 386
. . 226
191, 388
2l8, 224
. . 151
. . 2o6220
219, 221
. . 386
. . 220
¦ • 219
¦ • 386
. 220
. 220 206
. 223
• 223
• 383
223, 388
• ¦ 382
. 386
¦ 201
• • 279
• • 223
• • 386
. - 224 223
. 224
• 223 224 224224224
225 225 226226 221227 224230

426

PASSAGES CITED.

„ iv. 8 .

" ix
„ x. 16, 17
„ x. 38 . . .
11 xi. 34 . .
„ xi. 35 . .
., xi. 37 .
James, i. 6, 16
,1 ii- 23 .
¦• ii- 25 . .
11 iv- 7 • •
„ V. II .
„ v. 17-18
„ vi. 4 .
1 Peter, i. 4 . .
„ i. 8-14 . .
„ i. 13 ¦ •
„ i. 15 .
11 ii- r-5 ¦ •
„ ii. n, 12, 24 .
„ iii 7 .
. 281
PAGE 384 387
301384231
328 231
328 77
34
309 230235
235
30138823S
.318 309236238237
384 .
382238238384382237
1 Peter, iv. 7 ...
„ iv. 12, 14, 17
„ v. 13 . .
„ vi. 1-5 . . .
2 Peter, i. 2, 14, 15 .
•¦ i- 19 •
,, ii. 6-9 . . .
„ ii. 6, io, 11, 14,
„ ii. 6, 9, 22 .
in. 1
1, iii- 5i 8, 15
„ iii. 10, 12 .
11 iii. 5-7,
„ iii. 16 .
1 John, i. 1 . .
¦ 1 i- r-4 •
„ iv. 1-3, 8, 15
ytj iv. 11, 14, 19
„ v. 7 . .
„ viii. 46 .
2 John, 12 .
3 John, 13 . .
Jude, 3, 5, 6, 11
,1 9i H ¦ ¦
Rev. i. 1, 4, 9
„ iv. 4 . .
,, xi. 6 . .
,, xi. 10 . .
„ xxii. 8 . ¦
PAGE
. 238237 191
• 237 240241173
240241
238241
242 173
"43, 240
245244245244
388383 9494
251
279
253386 309
279
253
GENERAL INDEX.

A.
Accentuation of MSS., 104.
Acts of the Apostles, 203-205.
Adumbrations, 250.
'Ayan??, 32.
Age of MSS., 104.
mkidr}£t 387-
Alcala Bible, 125.
Aldhelm, 4.
Aldred, 5.
Alexander, 249.
Alexandria, 91.
Alexandrinus. See Codex.
Alford, 135, 187, 190, 191, 193, 216, 234, 237,
250, 372*
Alfred, 5.
Allen, 65.
*Alogi> 199, 257.
Alphabetic Writing, 264.
Alter, 132.
Amanuenses, 96.
Amphilochius, 258.
Ancient Syriac Documents, 117.
Anderson Annals, 20, 2 1, 28, 31, 33,45, 71,83.
Anglo-Saxon Translations, 3-5.
Ante-Hieronymian Version, 3, 232, 248.
^Antilegomena.) 173, 176.
Apocalypse, 183, 253-259-
Apocrypha in Eng. Bib. , 82, 83.
Apocryphal Books, 146, 159, 176, 398.
Apollonius, 257.
Aquila, Version of. See Version.
Arabic Version. See Version.
Armenian Version. See Version.
Article, The definite, 385.
Athanasius, Canon of, 178, 179.
Augustin, 3.
Augustine, 14^1 i75> 180, 233. 249.
Authorized Version. See Version.
Autolycus, 223.

B.
Baber, 8, 9, 10, 15.
Bancroft, 73, 78.
Baptist Quarterly, 96.
Barker, 61, 75, 82.
Bamabas, 145, 168, 190, 235.
Barrows, 165.
Bartlett, 367.
Basilides, 166, 201.
Basiliensis. See Codex.
Bauer, 216.
BaumgMten, 315.
Bayfield, 33.
Beard, 24.
Bede, 4.
Bengel, 131.
Bentley, 113, 114, 130.
Beza, 59, 60, 128. See Codex.
Bible, The Great, 49-53.
Bible Society Record, 349.
Bible Society Reports, 361.
Bibliotheca Sacra, 4, 87.
Bilney, 33.
Bishops' Bible, 60-65.
Blackwall, 359.
Blayney, 82, 359.
Bleek, Friedrich, 148, 149, 156., 157, 159, 161,
165. i97i i99> 2°2> 2i3, 229, 233, 234, 237,
244, 250, 255, 263, 266, 267, 270, 274, 275,
. 279, 283, 296, 319, 339, 342.
Blunt, 24.
Bodley, 58.
Boniface, 38.
Bosworth, 4.
Brantley, 346.
Bretschneider, 197.
Bristow, 66.
Britain, Ancient, 3.
British Quarterly Review, 371.
Broughton, 358.

428

GENERAL INDEX.

Bunsen, 248, 250.
Burgess, 366.
Burgon, 388.

c.
Caedmon, 4.
Caius, 257.
Calvin, 56, 57.
Calvinism in England, 77-78,,
Campbell, 359.
Canon, New Testament, 140.
 , Old Testament, 277.
 , A twofold, 185.
Cardwell, Documentary Annals, 54, 55, 58,
59, 61, 72, 73, 74.
Carthage, Council of, 259.
Cassiodorus, 248.
Catalogues of New Testament books, 182.
"Catholic Epistles," 233.
Caxton, 15.
Channing, 364.
Chapters and Verses, 59.
Cheke, 55.
Cheyne, 324, 369.
Christian Examiner, 7.
Chrysostom, 96.
Clement of Alexandria, 153, 203, 209, 211,
215, 217, 218, 220, 221, 223, 224, 226, 231,
238, 244, 248, 250, 251, 257.
Clement of Rome, 145, 169, 171, 207, 209,
215, 223, 225, 230, 235.
Clementine Homilies, 165, 202.
Cochlseus, 28.
Codex, Alexandrinus, 102, 107.
 , Basiliensis, 109.
 , Bezae, 249,
 , Colbertinus, iog, no.
 , Leicestrens;s, 109.
 , Sinaiticus, 106
 , Vaticanus, 107.
Cokoriatio ad Grcecos, 204.
Colbertinus. See Codex.
Cole, 56.
Collins, 254.
Colossal, 217.
Colossians, Epistle to the, 217, 218.
Complutensian Polyglot, 125.
Conant, J. T., 126, 365.
Conant, H. C, 18, 71.
Congregational Review, 371.
Conrad, 348.
Constantinopolitan Bible, 178.
Contemporary Review, 369.
Convocation of Oxford, 13.

Coptic Version. See Version, Egyptian.
Corinthians, I., IL, 209-211.
Cosin, 141, 179.
Council of Constance, 9.
Council of Laodicea, 258.
Councils, Early, 180.
Coverdale, 40-44, 49-53-
Cowper, 102, 404.
Coxe, 356.
Craik, 31, 57, 68, 345.
Credner, 142, 143, 145, 149, 151, 159, 190, 195,
247.
Cumming, 349.
Cursives, 108-110.
Curtis, 361.
Cyprian, 233, 251, 257.
Cyril of Jerusalem, 258. D.
Dabney, Memoir of Tyndale, 27, 31, 35.
Aaifioviov, 387.
Davidson, 98, 114, 163, 166, 169, 171, 190,
197, 198, 202, 203, 204, 212, 218, 234, 238,
250, 254, 257, 263, 267.
Day, 347.
Delitzsch, 325. •
Demaus, 22, 28, 30.
De Wette, Introduction to New Testament,
104, no, 113, 137, 187, 209, 218, 233, 234,
236, 250.
 , Introduction to Old Testament, 263,
272, 283, 291, 294, 301, 306, 308, 329, 335,
341-
Ata(3ofa)g, 387.
Dillmann, 276, 278, 282, 284, 286, 288.
Diocletian Persecution, 174, 252.
Diognetus, Epistle to, 165, 202, 204, 209, 211,
212, 215, 223, 225, 238, 244.
Dionysius of Alexandria, 232, 248, 25S.
Dionysius of Corinth, 219, 231.
Doddridge, 359.
Donatus, Schism of, 252.
. Doway Bible, 65-69.
Dublin Review, 69.
Dunn, 78.

E.
Eadie, 211,
Ebrard, 246.
Edinburgh Review, 365.
Egyptian Versions. See Version.
Eichhom, Einleitung, 281, 282.
'EaKTiTjoia, 64.

GENERAL INDEX.

429

Ellicott, 15, 24, 36, 43, 49, 51, 56, 63, 78, 83,
84, 377) 381.
Elucidarium Bibliorum , 8, 12.
Elzevirs, 128, 129.
Ephesians, Epistle to the, 212-215.
Epistles of Paul, 206, 207.
Erasmus, 18, 26.
Etheridge, 116.
Ethiopic Version. See Version.
Eusebius, 149, 152, 153, 160, 167, 175-177,
189, 192, 196, 231, 232, 236, 239, 246, 248,
251, 252, 255, 257.
Euthalius, 103.
Ezra, 288.
Ewald, 265, 295, 296, 304, 308, 327.
F.
Firmilian, 241.
Fisher, 164, 198, 202.
Forshall, 8.
Foxe, 4,.7, 9, 11, 13, 17, 25, 46.
Froude, 24.
Fryth, 25, 34.
Fulke, 66.
Fuller, 9, 23, 31.
Fiirst, 278, 285, 287, 289, 293, 304, 318, 320,
322. G.
Gaisford, 369. '
Galatians, Epistle to the, 211, 212.
Gardner, 19.
Yievva, 387.
Geneva, 56.
Genevan Version. See Version.
Gell, 357-
*' Genuineness," Meaning of, 140.
Gilby, 56.
Gilman, 360.
Gloag, 204.
Goodman, 56.
Gospels and Acts, 186-188.
Gospels, Origin of, 187.
Gothic Version. See Version.
Greek, first printed, 125.
Greek Language in New Testament, 91-93-
Greek Text of Erasmus, 126-227.
Greek Text of Griesbach, 130.
Green, 348.
Gregory, The Great, 3.
Guardian, The, 348, 371.
Guericke, Isagogik, 104, 140, 146, 149, 170,
202.
Guest, 64.

Guthlac, 4.
Guthrie. See Sunday Magazine.
H.
Hackett, 205, 367, 368.
HaUam, 24, 43.
Hampton Court Conference, 72.
Hare, 368.
Harleian Miscellany, 28.
Havernick, 265, 272, 285, 288.
Hay, 372.
Haywood, 389.
Hebraisms in New Testament, 92, 93.
Hebrew Language, 263.
Hebrews, Epistle to the, 183.
Hegesippus, 19s, 204.
Henderson, 336, 341.
Hengstenberg, 321.
Heracleon, 224.
Herculaneum, Rolls of, 97.
Hereford, 10.
Heretics, Testimony of, 183.
Hermas, 235, 238.
Herzog, Encyclopaedia, i8t, 199, 202, 233,
246, 263, 264, 271, 273, 282, 285, 301, 311,
313) 318, 322, 325.
Hexapla, English, 4, 12, 13, 18, 20, 34, 46,
52, 72.
 , of Origen, 269.
Hilgenfeld, 142, 143, 145, 147, 149, 150, 151,
i$3) 155) i6i) 164, 165, 167, 168, 171, 183,
190, 195, 201, 233, 247, 248, 256.
Hinds, 363, 382.
Hippo, Council of, 259.
Historical Proof, 141.
Hodge, 213.
Hofmann, 177.
H omologoumenO) 175.
Hooker, 77.
Horne, Introduction, 93, in, 112, 132, 134,
138, 308, 321.
 , Introduction to Bibliography, 96.
Hug, Introduction, 126, 131.
Humphry, 369, 370.

1.
Ignatius, 95, 145, 162, 169, 171, 204, 214, 224,
227, 235.
Initial letters of MSS., 108.
Irenaius, 151, 152, 153, 190, 203, 208, 209,
211, 2i2, 215, 217, 21S, 220, 223, 224, 226,
235, 238, 241.
"Itala," The, 3.
Italics, 53, 59, 383.

43o

GENERAL INDEX.

J'
Jahn, Archaeology, 265.
James, Epistle of, 233, 236.
Jerome, 122, 180, 233, 248, 249, 252,, 258.
Jewett, 371.
John, I., II., III., 243-245.
John, Gospel of, 195-203.
Johnson, Historical Account, 4, 47, 87.
Josephus, 279-281, 325.
Journal of Sacred Literature, 274.
Joye, 21, 29-30.
Jude, Epistle of, 249-252.
Judson, 363.
Justin Martyr, 163-165, 190, 192, 194, 198,
201, 208, 209, 212, 216, 218, 221.; 230,
241. 255.

K.
Keil, Introduction to Old Testament, 264,
273, 282, 297, 302, 303, 305, 312, 316, 317,
3ig, 321, 325, 327, 330, 341.
Kendrick, 229, 382.
Kennicott, 358.
Kennicott and De Rossi, Coll., 229, 267, 382.
Kenrick, 69.
" Keris," 275.
Kilby, 86.
Knyghton, 12.
Kurtz, Old Covenant, 263/271, 299.

Lachmann, Greek text of, 132.
Lange, 225, 234, 299.
Latin versions of New Testament. See Ver
sion.
Laud, 58.
Laurence, 64.
Lectionaries, 100.
Leicestrensis. See Codex.
Letter from Churches of Vienne and Lyons,
223, 257.
Lewis, History of Translations, 8, 12, 27.
Lexicography, Errors in, 388.
Licentiate of Church of Scotland, 375, 383,
384.
Lightfoot, 378, 383, 386, 393.
Lingard, 3.
Lord's Prayer, by Tyndale, 38.
Lord's Prayer, by Wyclif, 16.
Lowth, 360.
Luke, Gospel of, 192-195.

M.
Macmillan's Magazine, 370.
Malan, 350.
Malchion, 252.
Manuscript Bible, 14.
Manuscripts, New Testament, 96-114.
Manuscripts, Old Testament, 266, 267.
Marcion, 148, 194, 213, 216, 218.
Mark, Gospel of, 191, 192.
Marsh, Bishop, 24.
Marsh, George P., 6, 7, 12, 15, 36, 88, 352-
353> 382, 392.
Martin, 66, 68.
Martin V., 9.
Martineau, 373.
Martyrdom of Polycarp, 225.
Masora, The, 274, 275.
Matthew alias Rogers, 44-47.
Matthew, Gospel of, 189, 190.
Matthew Parker's Bible, 62.
Mayerhoff, 218.
M'Caul, 347.
McDougall, 364.
Melito of Sardis, 238, 242, 256.
" Methodist,1' The, 394.
Michaelis, Introduction of, 3,96.
Middleton, 362.
Mill, Greek text of, 130.
Moabite Stone, 264, 265.
More, 7, 20, 21, 27, 31, 32, 33.
Mun mouth, 19.
Murphy, 300.

N.
Nagelsbach, 327.
Nehemiah, 288.
Newman, J. H., 87.
Noaille, 47.
Norton, no, 199.
Notation, Manuscript, 99.
Number of MSS., 100.

o.
" Obedience of Christian Man," 21.
Obsolete words, 382.
O'Callaghan, 69.
Oehler,. 278, 279, 285, 286.
Old Testament in New, 278, 279.
Olshausen, 216, 218.
Onkelos, Targum of, 270.
Oosterzee, 197, 199, 201.
Origen, 160, 161, 172, 173, 232> 242. 248, 251,
Ormulum, 6.

GENERAL INDEX.

431

Palfrey, 299.
Palimpsest, 98.
Panmure, 351.
PantEenus, 231.
Papias, 166, 168, 192, 195, 201, 238, 244.
Papyrus, 94.
Parallel passages, 384.
Park, 383-
Paul, Epistles of, 206, 207.
Pentateuch, 285.
Persic Versions. See Version.
Peshito Version. See Version.
Peter at Rome, 237.
Peter, L, II., 236-243.
Philemon, Epistle to, 226.
Philippians, 215.
Philips, 19.
Philo, 282.
Pinytus, 231.
Plumptre, 36, 321.
Polycarp, 143, 145, 168, 169, 171, 201, 204,
208, 209, 211, 214, 219, 220, 223, 224, 238,
241, 244, 250.
Poynitz, 30.
Preface to English Bible, 81.
Princeton Review, 369.
Proper Names, 384.
Psalter of Great Bible, 52.
Purver, 359.
Purvey, 12, 13, 14.
Pusey, 354.

R.
Rawlinson, Historical Evidences, 293, 294,
298, 300, 302, 311, 316.
Ray, 362.
" Readings," Various, 110-114.
Rennell, 345.
Reuss, 91, 92, 94, 96, 112, 142, 143, M4i *49>
150, 156, 157, 159, 167, 168, 181, 195, 234.
Revision, Committee of, 390, 391.
Revision of English Bible, 82. App. A.
Reynolds, 66.
Rhemish Bible, 65-69.
Roberts, 92.
Rogers, 30, 44-47.
Rolle, 6.
Romans, Epistle to the. 207-209.
Ross, 358.
Rouen, 66.
Roye, 28.
Rushworth Gloss., 5.

s.
Samaritan Scriptures, 283.
Sampson, 56.
Saturday Review, 135, 394.
Saxon Compounds, 6.
Saxon Versions. See Version.
Schaeffer, 361.
Schaff, 93, 374.
Schleiermacher, 237.
Scholefield, 351.
Scholz, Greek text of, 132.
Schumann, Introduction, 183.
Scrivener, 100, 105, 134.
Selden, Works, 28.
Selwyn, 372, 389.
Septuagint Version. See Version.
Shaftesbury, 355, 372.
Sharpe, 361.
Shea, Biograph. Account, 65, 66.
Sinaiticus. See Codex.
Slavonic Version. See Version.
Smith, Bible Dictionary, 13, 52, 77, 83, 91,
117, 130, 132, 134, 135, 213, 234. 254, 264,
270. 291, 312, 325, 331.
Smith, Dr. Miles, 77.
Smith, Professor Payne, 369, 373.
Smith, Rev. G. Vance, 380, 394.
Soames, Latin Church, 3.
Society, Religious Tract, 370.
Son of Sirach, 287.
Spalatinus, 20.
Stanley, 209, 293^381.
Stephens, 59, 127.
Stichometry, 103.
Stonington Union Association, 361.
Strype, Ecclesiastical Memorials, 19.
Stuart, 321.
Style of English Version, 88.
Sunday Magazine, 375.
Swedish Bible, 368.
Symmachus Version. See Version.
Symonds, 360.
Synod of Dort, 80.
" Synoptics," Meaning of, 186.
Syriac Versions. See Version.
T.
Talmudists, 273, 274.
Tamil Bible, 370.
Targums, 270.
Tatian, 202, 226
Tavemer. 48.
Taylor, 94, in, 116, 141, 142, 172, 184.
TertuUian, 154, 159, 180, 202, 203, 206, 218,
220, 233, 239, 245, 251, 257.

432

GENERAL INDEX.

Text, Printed, 125-139.
Text, Written, 91-114.
Textual History of Old Testament, 271-276.
Textus ReceptuSf 129.
Theodotion, Version of. See Version.
Theophilus, 223, 241.
Thermae, 219.
Thessalonians, I. II. , 219, 220.
Thiersch, 199.
Tholuck, 200.
Timothy, I. IL, 221-223.
Tischendorf, Greek Text of, 133, 134.
Tischendorf, Introduction to Tauchnitz New
Testament, 108.
Titus, Epistle to, 225.
Todd, 345.
Tregelles, 107, 108, 112, 126, 128, 134, 136,
139, i59» i6i> 173) 183, 184, 199, 247, 374.
Trench, 36, 77, 351, 384, 386, 387.
Trevisa, 15.
Tunstall, 18-
Tyndale, John, 33.
Tyndale, William, 17-38. u.
Uncial, Meaning of, 97.

Valentinus, 202.
Vaticanus. See Codex.
Vellum, 96.
Vernacular Translations, 115.
Verses, Introduction of, 59.
Version, Aquila's, 269.
 , Arabic, 120.
 , Armenian, 119.
 , Authorized, 70-88.
 , Egyptian, 118.
 , Genevan, 54-60.
 . Gothic, 120.
 Latin, of New Testament, 121-125.
 Persic, 119.
 , Peshito, 156, 202, 218, 223, 238.
 , Saxon, 4-6.

Version, Septuagint, 268.
 , Slavonic, 121.
 , Symmachus, 269.
 , Syriac, 116.
 , Theodotion, 269.
Vilvorde, 19.
Vulgate, Jerome's, 11, 52, 67, 122-125.

w.
Walsh, 18.
Walter, 19, 24. 44, 348.
Walton's Polyglot, 129.
Ward, 80, 82.
Westcott, 3, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 23, 24, 28,
30. 3&) 43. 49i 52> 60, 61, 64, 76, 83, 85,
86, 145, 146, 149> 15°, 151. *54i 156, I58i
159, 160, 161, 164, 165, 167, 168, 169, 170,
17'j 173. 174. 177, 178, 179. i%7t J95, 196,
201, 202, 230, 241, 247, 248, 249, 272. 290.
Westminster Review, 29.
Wetstein, Greek Text of, 131.
Whately, 363.
Whittingham, 56.
Winer, New Testament Hebraisms, 93.
Winslow, 346.
Withington, 323.
Woolsey, 380.
Wordsworth, 231, 234.
Worthington, 66.
Writing Materials, 94.
Wyclif, 7-16.

X.

Ximenes, 125.

York, Archbishop of, 348, 371.

Zb'ckler, 321.

CAMBRIDGE: PRESS OF JOHN WILSON AND SON.