Bible. The Bible is in Gr. Ta Biblia, 'The Books,' par excellence. Though a plural in Greek, the word came, on account of its termination, to be used in Low Latin as a feminine singular; and from the Latin it passed in this form into modern languages (la Bible, die Bibel, and the like). The Bible consists of two great parts—the Old and New Testaments, properly Covenants. The religion of Israel was considered a covenant between Jehovah, their God, and the people. As this covenant had proved ineffectual for its purposes, the prophets promised a new covenant (Jer. xxxi. 31); and in the appearance and death of Christ this new covenant was established (1 Cor. xi. 25; Heb. viii. 7 seq., and, according to some readings, in the Gospels—e.g. Matt. xxvi. 28). As early as the 2d century of our era the books of the Old and New Covenants are spoken of, and as the Greek 'covenant' was rendered by the Latin testamentum (though some preferred instrumentum), the phrase Old and New Testaments passed into most modern languages, as into our own.
THE OLD TESTAMENT.—The literature of Israel is very closely connected with its history. As in all ancient states, the religion was national. The religious unit or subject was not the individual in the state; but the ideal unity formed by the people as a whole. Now this unity came into existence at the exodus from Egypt. From that hour Israel was conscious of being a people, and Jehovah who had delivered them was their God alone—'I am Jehovah thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt' (Ex. xx. 2; Hosea, xiii. 4). The sense of being a people, and the sense of being the people of Jehovah, if not identical feelings, reacted very powerfully on one another; and hence the religious literature of the people reflects from age to age all the changing hues of its history. That history ran very much such a course as we should have expected.
(1) The migration of the ancestors of the people from the East, the descent into Egypt, the oppression there, and the delivery under Moses, are events testified to not only in the formal history of the Pentateuch, but by frequent incidental allusions in other writers. These allusions express the fundamental historical feeling of the people, the very basis of their national and religious consciousness. (Amos, ii. 9 seq.; Hosea, xii. 13; Micah, vi. 4).
(2) It was natural that the unity into which the tribes had been welded at the Exodus by the necessity of facing a common danger or sharing a common enterprise would become relaxed when the danger was over and the enterprise had in great measure succeeded; and, accordingly, after the settlement in Canaan we find the unity in some degree disintegrated, and the various tribes fighting each for its own hand, and only entering into combinations when some danger more serious than usual threatened. Such is the history as reflected in the Book of Judges. Even in this troubled period, although practically the tribes are often seen acting independently and settling with a strong hand their own local differences with the native population, the sense of the ideal unity of all the tribes as one 'Israel' inspires the higher minds in the nation (Judges, v. 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, &c.); and the need of some single head, such as a king, to represent this unity is often felt and expressed by the people (Judges, viii. 22).
(3) When a danger so pressing that it threatened the national existence of Israel arose in the Philistine power, the need of a visible head to bind the tribes together and lead them against the common enemy was universally recognised, and the people demanded that Samuel should give them a king 'to go out before us and fight our battles' (1 Sam. viii. 20). The aged seer, though reluctant to see the ideal sovereignty of Jehovah, the sense of which should have been enough to secure the national unity, brought down and materialised in the form of an earthly representative king, was sagacious and patriotic enough to perceive the necessities of the time, and to take them under his direction. And thus arose the monarchy, a partial attempt in the same direction having already been made by Abimelech (Judges, ix.). The history of this period is recorded in the Books of Samuel and in the early part of the Kings. This period is of intrinsic importance in the literary and religious history of Israel. Three powerful streams of influence issue from it, and run through the whole succeeding history, fertilising and enriching it. These were, first, the prophetic order, a class of men who probably existed from the earliest times along with the Nazirites (Amos, ii. 11), but who acquired an influence in the state at this period, first as counsellors and seers of the early kings (Nathan, Gad, 2 Sam. xii. 1, xxiv. 11), and ultimately as an independent order who took the religious destinies of the nation into their own hand, and in whose writings, the prophetic Scriptures, we have the fullest exposition of that lofty spiritual religion in Israel to which the New Testament directly attaches itself. Secondly, the elevation of the Davidic dynasty to the throne. The brilliant reign of David, whose arms extended the limits of the Jewish state, till for those days it might justly be named an empire, became the ideal of after-ages; and when amidst disaster and religious decline men looked back to it and transfigured it in the light of the religious hopes which filled their minds, it became the type both of a future king and a future universal kingdom of God that would arise upon the earth in the latter days. Thus arose those special predictions of the perfection of the kingdom of the Lord called Messianic prophecies. And thirdly, the choice of Jerusalem as the centre both of the national and religious life of the people. The influence of the temple of Solomon both in purifying and elevating the ritual worship, as well as in leading ultimately to its concentration at one shrine, can hardly be overestimated. But the step gave a colour to all the succeeding literature. Patriotism and religion were once more wedded together. Jerusalem was not only the perfection of beauty, the joy of the whole earth (Ps. xlviii. 2), it was also the 'hearth' of Jehovah, who dwelt in Zion at Jerusalem (Is. xxix. 1). National sentiment mingled with re- ligious emotion in one powerful stream, and the union has given to the religious poetry of Israel which celebrates 'Zion,' or longs to revisit it, or tells that its dust is dear, not only a religious value but a never-dying human charm.
(4) There had always existed a jealousy between the North and South, between the powerful tribe of Ephraim, which always aspired to the leadership of the tribes, and the great tribe of Judah, and very naturally the unity of the tribes under the monarchy, when subjected to a severe strain under Rehoboam, broke asunder, and two kingdoms arose and existed side by side, sometimes hostile to one another but in the main friendly. Though either of the two kingdoms might prove itself sufficiently strong to hold in subjection the petty kingdoms of Edom and Moab, and even to maintain its own against the more powerful state of Syria, when confronted with the imposing empires of Assyria and Babylon they naturally lost their independence, first Israel at the hands of Assyria (721 B.C.), and then Judah at the hands of Babylon (586 B.C.), and became merged in these empires as provinces. The external history of the two kingdoms is told in the Books of Kings; and the internal condition of the people, the relaxation of morals, the struggles of contending parties, and the cruel idolatries to which despair had recourse, are reflected in the pages of the prophets—in the writings of Amos and Hosea during the last years of Samaria; in Isaiah and Micah during the conflict of the South with Assyria; and in Jeremiah during the death-struggle of Judah with Babylon.
(5) As one colossal empire followed another and succeeded to the inheritance of its predecessor—Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome—the people of Israel, no longer independent, existed as a community, governed internally in the main in accordance with its own conceptions, but forming externally part of the heathen empire for the time. Only after a successful revolt against the Greco-Syrian rule of the Seleucids did the people again attain to independence and become ruled by native princes for about a century (167–65 B.C.). It then fell under the influence of Rome, which finally destroyed the city and temple (70 A.D.). No external history of the Exile has been written; but the picture of the desolation of the land, the sad silence in the streets and gates of Jerusalem, which used to ring with the joy of the feasts, and the sense of abasement and contempt into which the people had fallen as a nation among the nations, together with the flickerings of a faith in the sure mercies of the Lord that refused to be quenched (Lam. iii.), may be seen in the exquisite collection of elegies called the Lamentations, written not many years after the fall of the city; while the delirium of hope raised somewhat later by the victories of Cyrus and the approaching downfall of Babylon, and the gorgeous anticipations of the destruction of idolatry and the conversion of the nations to the true religion of Jehovah through the ministration of Israel restored, 'the servant of the Lord,' fill the pages of the second half of Isaiah (xl.–xlvi.). The fortunes of the returning exiles are described in Ezra and Nehemiah, and in the three prophets of the return, (Zechariah, Haggai, Malachi), while the aims and faith and hopes of godly Israel during the Maccabean struggles are reflected in the Book of Daniel. Thus, amidst all the vicissitudes of its eventful history, the literary activity of Israel knew no intermission. The great literary period extends from 800 to 400 B.C., but much of the finest historical writing is anterior to this period, and several important books, as Chronicles, Ecclesiastes, and Daniel, fall later.
The threefold division of the Old Testament into the Law, the Prophets, and the miscellaneous Writings is already known to the translator of Ecclesiasticus (131 B.C.), and is found in the New Testament as the Law and the Prophets (Matt. xxii. 40), or Moses and the Prophets (Luke, xvi. 29), or more fully the Law of Moses, and the Prophets, and the Psalms (Luke, xxiv. 44). The date of the Law has been the subject of great difference of opinion; the period at which most of the prophets lived is well ascertained, and the Prophetical Writings may be referred to first.
The prophets Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha have left no writings; the same is true of Jonah, our present Book of Jonah being merely an historical episode in the life of that prophet. The oldest written prophecy is probably that of Amos, after whom the succession is continuous. The prophetic call was scarcely a call to an office; there was no prophetic as there was a priestly office. The prophet was a man who felt called of God and inspired to direct for the time being the religious destinies of the people and the kingdom of God. The prophets express the idea of their inspiration by various symbols: a cherub touches the lips of Isaiah with a live coal from the altar, and his sin is taken away (Is. vi.); the hand of the Lord himself touches the mouth of Jeremiah (Jer. i. 9), while Ezekiel is commanded to eat the roll of a book (Ezek. iii. 1). The essential idea of Hebrew prophecy is that in it God spake directly to the mind and in the mind of the individual. This makes it a thing unique in the religious history of mankind. Other methods of reaching to knowledge of the will of God were divination or augury, not prophecy, and were proscribed. Several definitions of a prophet are given: according to the Pentateuch he is the spokesman of the Lord (Ex. vii. 1). Amos says (iii. 7) 'the Lord doeth nothing without revealing his counsel to his servants the prophets; the Lord God speaks, who can but prophesy?' Such a definition implies that prediction of future events was but a small element in the work of the prophet. The prophet was above all things a man of his own present time, raised up to interpret the events of providence, and guide the nation over the coming crisis. No doubt the most effectual guidance that could be given would many times be to open up glimpses of the future. Such glimpses are opened up by all the prophets, every one of whom sketches the history of the kingdom of God to its final perfection. Such an outlook into the future was absolutely necessary, if the people were intelligently to strive after the desired goal. The definition given by Amos suggests that the prophet will arise only when God is about to do some great work. And we find it to be so; it is in great national crises that the prophets appear—Amos and Hosea before the fall of Samaria; Isaiah during the great Assyrian struggle; Jeremiah before the destruction of Jerusalem; and the author of Isaiah xl. seq. just before the Restoration. The prophets then interpret the events of providence, and prophecy might almost be called the religious philosophy of history. The spirit of prophecy is not an arbitrary or unaccountable inspiration; it is the spirit of the covenant religion. The prophets are the bearers of the idea of the kingdom of the Lord. This idea is expressed in the two tables of the decalogue.
The history of the Judges shows us that Israel did not exterminate or drive out the native populations, but absorbed them. The consequence was both a corruption of morals and a debasement of the forms of worship, for probably too many in Israel itself stood on a religious level not greatly higher than that of the Canaanites. The higher spirit of the religion thus absorbed a mass of material which it was unable for long to assimilate. Hence a struggle between the higher religious spirit and the lower elements of life and thought in the nation runs through its whole history. The prophets are the exponents of the higher ideas, which consist in the main of two principles: (1) that Jehovah alone is God of Israel, a practical doctrine which really meant that he was God alone; and (2) that he was a moral and spiritual being, who could be worshipped truly only in spirit. These two principles came into conflict with the tendency to idolatry among the people, and to a union of other deities with Jehovah; and with the sensuousness of their religious conceptions, of which the calf-worship was a result. The prophetic teaching is really little but a teaching regarding the nature of Jehovah, God of Israel; but because he is God of Israel, teaching regarding him reflects immediately back upon the people, who, to be his people, must be like him. Religion with the prophets is the source and the type of morals.
As the prophets are practical teachers for their own time, and have an immediate moral purpose in view, they deal with all the great forces, whether moral or political, of their day. They are statesmen in the Kingdom of God, and the figures that stand in their pages are those that bulked largely in their time, whether at home or abroad. The prophets of the Assyrian age occupy themselves with Assyria, those of the Babylonian age with Babylon. Hence the allusions in any prophecy furnish a criterion for fixing the age to which the author belongs. When, for example, we read in the second half of Isaiah that Cyrus shall let go the captives and rebuild the city of the Lord (xl. 13), and find exhortations to the people such as this: 'Go ye forth of Babylon, flee ye from the Chaldeans; say ye, The Lord hath redeemed his servant Jacob' (xlviii. 20), the natural inference is, that the author lived during the exile and shortly before the fall of Babylon before Cyrus.
The Jewish division of the Prophets is into the former prophets and the latter prophets. The 'former prophets' are the historical books—Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. The 'latter prophets' are the prophets properly so called. These again are divided into the greater prophets—Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel; and the minor, the twelve smaller books. The historical division is more instructive: (1) prophets of the Assyrian age—Amos, Hosea, Isaiah (740–700), Micah, Nahum, Zephaniah; (2) prophets of the Babylonian age—Habakkuk, Jeremiah (626–580), Ezekiel (593–576); (3) prophets of the Exile and Restoration—Isaiah, xl.–lxvi. (550), Haggai and Zechariah (520), Malachi (420). The age of Joel and Obadiah is uncertain; while Jonah is late.
The Law and Historical Books.—When Moses is spoken of in the Prophets he is called a prophet (Hosea, xii. 13), and similarly in Deuteronomy (xviii. 15; xxxiv. 10). This is in conformity with the larger definition of a prophet as 'one who speaks from God.' The whole development of the religion of Israel implies that the people were not left by their leader without the knowledge of distinct and lofty moral and religious principles. Moses was also of the family which became the priestly caste in Israel, and it is quite improbable that the people were left destitute of instructions regarding the ritual service of their God. At the same time, it is scarcely to be supposed that the mass of minute and highly developed ritual ordinances in the Pentateuch came in their present form from Moses's hand. There has existed for long, and continues, great difference of opinion in regard to the origin of the Pentateuch, or rather Hexateuch, for the Book of Joshua, which contained a history of Israel's fortunes down to their settlement in Canaan, originally belonged to the work.
Two points deserve notice—first, the analysis of the Pentateuch into its primary elements; and secondly, the relative age of these elements. It was early noticed that there were elements in the Pentateuch posterior to the Mosaic age, as the statement, 'these are the kings that reigned over the land of Edom before there reigned any king over the children of Israel' (Gen. xxxvi. 31). Double narratives also were noticed, as of Creation (Gen. i.-ii. 4, and ii. 5 seq.), and of the Flood. Differences of phraseology also characterised the different passages, and upon the whole there appeared one series of passages similar in tone and thought to the prophetic writings, while another betrayed the tone and interests of the priesthood. These general observations had been made when Astruc, a Belgian physician (1753), pointed out that the former class of passages used the name Jehovah, while the latter employed God (Elohim). With this discovery the passage (Ex. vi. 3) seemed to agree, which indicates that the name Jehovah came into special prominence at the Exodus. It was therefore assumed that one writer refrained from the use of the name Jehovah till he reached the period of the Exodus, using Elohim, while the other employed Jehovah from the beginning of his history. According to this and other distinctions, Genesis and the Pentateuch fell into two great divisions, called, after the divine names employed, Elohist and Jehovistic sources. It was taken for granted that the division using the name 'God' was primary; it began with Gen. i., and hence was named the fundamental writing. And the next step was the natural assumption that the passages using Jehovah were supplementary, and inserted in the primary document by their author. And thus arose the theory known as the 'Supplement-hypothesis,' which long prevailed. In 1853, however, Hupfeld expressed the opinion that there was a second writing that used 'God,' and that both this writing and that using 'Jehovah' were not supplements to the first writing, but originally independent compositions. This view was generally accepted, but the state of opinion was hardly altered by it. The two smaller documents, though originally independent, had been united together, and in this united condition embodied in the great primary document. This primary document, now called the Priestly Code, consisted roughly of Gen. i.-ii. 4, v. xvii. xxiii. and many other small pieces, Ex. xxv.-xxxi. xxxv.-xl., all Leviticus, and great part of Numbers. The rest fell into the other division, and Deuteronomy was an independent work. Thus the analysis gave three great elements in the Pentateuch: the Priestly Code; the element remaining when this is subtracted (usually called JE, i.e. Jeh. + Elo.); and Deuteronomy.
Now arose the question of the relative age of these three great divisions. The assumption hitherto prevailing was that the Priestly Code, beginning at Gen. i., and, along with a brief outline of history, containing the bulk of the ritual legislation, was the most ancient element; the other division was more recent, while the age of Deuteronomy, which was assumed to be in the main identical with the Book of the Law discovered in the temple in the eighteenth year of Josiah (621 B.C.), was approximately determined, being at least somewhat anterior to the time of its discovery. At this stage, however, the criticism of the Pentateuch began to take a new movement. The kind of evidence hitherto relied upon had been in the main linguistic, phraseology and style. Now other matters such as history and comparison of laws with one another were drawn into the question.
The criticism of the Pentateuch rose from being a handling of documents to be a new reading and construction of the religious history of Israel. When the three elements were looked at, it was observed that each contained a legislation set in a bed of history. These legislations were the Priestly Code, the Book of the Covenant (Ex. xx.-xxiii.), and Deuteronomy. The questions were asked, 'How do these legislations stand related to one another? and How do they stand in regard to the known historical practice? in other words, How does the national consciousness, as reflected in history, respond to them and testify to their existence?' The answer was that the presumable progress from simplicity to complexity gave the following order: Book of the Covenant (Ex. xx.-xxiii.), Deuteronomy, Priestly Code; and that to this answer history gave its consenting voice, inasmuch as the historical practice for many centuries reflects the Book of the Covenant, which permitted ritual service of Jehovah at different altars (Ex. xx. 24), while Deuteronomy, enjoining sacrifice at one central altar alone, was immediately elevated into a law of the kingdom and regulated practice henceforth; and the Priestly Code, with the hierarchy as rulers of the people, represents the historical situation after the Restoration, when the people, no more a nation but a social-religious community, was governed by the priestly nobles (Neh. viii.). If the further question be asked, 'What was the moving force in this advance from the Book of the Covenant to Deuteronomy and onwards?' The answer is, 'It was the prophetic teaching.' The prophets indeed were as far as possible from having recourse to law themselves. The only law they knew was the Word of the Lord, which was law because it was his word; and their demand was that men should submit themselves to this law freely, because it was good (Micah, vi. 8). They occupy entirely the Christian standing-point. It was in all probability to them a matter of indifference whether Jehovah was worshipped at one or several altars. The whole matter concerned the kind of worship, and the conception of God which it implied. Amos says, in the name of God, 'Seek me and seek not to Bethel'—the god whom the people worshipped was another than Jehovah. And even when Hosea says that the people 'have multiplied altars to sin,' it is not the many altars that he condemns, but the kind of service, which the more it was practised was the greater sin. The insane revelry at the feasts, and the licentiousness that prevailed, was Baal-worship, not service of Jehovah. Others than the prophets, however, perceived that if the ritual was to be purified and one God served, and the evils which the prophets pronounced removed, the rural altars or high places must be abolished; and thus arose the reforms of Hezekiah and ultimately the more complete enforcement of the Deuteronomic law by Josiah.
Such is a sketch of the prevailing view as to the Pentateuch, and the history of ritual in Israel. The strength of the theory lies in its correspondence with the practice, as we observe it in the historical books, and in the general outline of the religious history which it draws. Its weakness lies in the incapacity which as yet it has shown to deal with many important details, and particularly in the assumption, absolutely necessary to its case, that the ancient historical books have been edited from a Deuteronomistic point of view. If the theory be valid, the law as we know it was not the starting-point of Israel's history, but its goal. The prophets did not expound the Law; the Law is a precipitate that formed around the prophetic truths. The prophetic appeals to the people to accept the truths laid before them in the exercise of their own free will, were in vain; and the truths were embodied in a minute ritual, regulating all the movements of life, and laid as a yoke of bondage on their necks, until the time appointed for their emancipation. The Law reigned from the restoration to the Christian age. Of course, it is an exaggeration of the theory to suppose that the ritual laws were all for the first time written very late; it is reasonable to suppose that they grew up gradually in priestly circles, and were only finally collected and codified at a later period. The great historical work, Judges to Kings, is really one work narrating the fortunes of the people from the settlement in Canaan to the fall of Jerusalem.
The Poetical Books.—Hebrew poetry possesses neither rhyme nor strict measures. Its principle is that of parallelism or sense-rhythm. This balance of two main conceptions gives a corresponding balance to their expression, and makes the lines of Hebrew poetry, though not an exact measure of feet, usually of a similar length. According to the Massoretic view, the Psalms, Job, and Proverbs are the only strictly poetical books in the Bible. The books embraced in the third division, named the Writings, are the expression in the main of two directions of the mind—devotion and religious reflection. To the devotional class belong in general the Psalms; Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes are products of the religious reflecting mind. The Book of Psalms is a collection for purposes of worship of the psalmody of Israel from the earliest times. Our present book is made up of a number of smaller collections, gathered together for the worship in the second temple. Though the collection be late, there is no reason to suppose all or even the greater part of the contents late. It would be as true to say that the Thames rises at London Bridge, as to say that the Psalter dates from post-exile times; but from London Bridge the Thames bears on its bosom the commerce of the world, and from post-exile times the Psalter became the medium for expressing the devotion of the whole community of Israel. How much is implied in this will appear if we call to mind the struggles of the prophets on the one hand, and consider on the other that the Christian church still finds in the Psalter the purest expression of its own praise. The Psalms have many authors, named and anonymous, living at diverse times. It is in general difficult to find certain evidence of authorship for any particular psalm; but there is no reason to doubt that a number, particularly in the first book (Ps. i.–xlii.), and some also in the other books, are from the hand of the Singer of Israel, who gives his name to the collection.
The Book of Proverbs also consists of a number of different collections, and is an anthology of the proverbial wisdom of the people. There are no doubt Solomonic proverbs as there are Davidic psalms, though it may be difficult now to determine with certainty which they are. The 'wise man' had definite conceptions of God already formed, and from God he came down upon the world, seeing God reflecting and realising himself in all that happened in events and human life. The universe and human life as part of it was a moral constitution. It was the embodiment of a divine idea, and all its phenomena the expression of this idea. This divine world plan, from being in the mind of God, seemed to take its place outside of God, and be with God. It was the divine wisdom, architect of the universe, for creation and man's life were but this wisdom realising itself externally. This wisdom, the divine idea in all things, let its voice be heard everywhere, in revelation and the orderly life of mankind alike, calling men to hear it and be wise. And the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Prov. i. viii.).
This high conception of a divine idea and will realising itself in human life and in history was rudely shattered by the misfortunes of the Exile, and the miseries of the righteous servants of the Lord in later times. The discrepancies between the idea of a righteous rule of God, rewarding all according to their works, and actual providence were too glaring. And many mental conflicts were the consequence. The question is asked in Job, 'Why are the righteous afflicted?' The answer is of various kinds. It is, 'Nay, but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?' On the side of the pious mind it is this: 'Nevertheless I am continually with thee;' or it is that afflictions are a trial of the righteous. And finally it is the rise of a hope of a final blessedness with God beyond death (chap. xix.), although this hope, as yet too feeble to sustain itself and satisfy, is realised even in this life (Epilogue). Ecclesiastes makes an advance in drawing in the evils of life into life itself, making them a discipline and lesson of humility before God.
Canon of the Old Testament.—So long as the living voice of revelation was heard speaking in the prophets and other public servants of their God, the people would less feel the need of any written canon. The priests were the authorised expounders of the ritual, instructing men orally between clean and uncleau (Ezek. xlv. 23), and the prophets and wise men were their moral and political guides (Jer. xviii. 18). Writings that existed were greatly read. Prophets not infrequently quote their predecessors (cf. Is. ii. with Micah, iv.; Amos, i. 2 with Joel, iii. 16; Jer. xviii. with Is. xv., xvi.); prophets of the Exile refer to the former prophets (Zech. vii. 12), and the author of Daniel has the collected prophecies in his hand (Dan. ix. 2). The only authority which such writings had lay in their claim to contain the word of the Lord; they appealed to men's consciences, and, while pious minds would reverence them, others would neglect them. The heads or rulers of the people had not yet made any of them the public law of the nation. The commencement of the formation of an authoritative canon was made when the Book of the Law, found in the temple (621 B.C.), was elevated into a law of the kingdom by Josiah. The whole Law or Pentateuch was raised into canonical authority when, under the editorship of Ezra and the scribes, all its parts were gathered into one collection, and it was publicly read before the people by Ezra (444 B.C.), and received the sanction of the priests and authoritative rulers of the community. It is probable that the prophetic writings were collected together not much later. The prophetic canon must have been closed before the 2d century B.C., otherwise the Book of Daniel would have been received into it. The third division, that of the so-called Writings, must have been kept open longer; it contains writings of the later Persian or even Greek period (Chronicles, Ecclesiastes); and the Book of Daniel, at least in its present shape, belongs to the first half of the 2d century. There are some Psalms too (e.g. xlv. lxxvii. lxxix. lxxxi.) which seem to reflect the persecutions of the Syro-Greek period, and Calvin was inclined to refer some of them (e.g. Ps. xlv.) to the Maccabean times. The canonicity of certain books, such as Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon, continued to be a subject of dispute in the Jewish schools down to the end of the 1st century of our era. The Council of Jamnia (90 A.D.) finally decided that both these books were to be included in the Writings. It is probable from the lists of Josephus that these books stood in the collection, the point in dispute being whether they had been rightly received into it. It is a curious coincidence that neither of these books is quoted in the New Testament. The Hebrew canon contained none of the books now known as the Apocrypha. A number of such books, originally written in Hebrew, were translated into Greek, and along with others, such as the Wisdom of Solomon, written in that language, were received into the Septuagint or Greek translation of the Bible. From there they passed into the old Latin version, which was a translation from the Septuagint, and became familiar to the West. When Jerome translated the Old Testament into Latin from the Hebrew (390-405 A.D.), he did not include the apocryphal books in his version. He regarded them as a subordinate class of writings which he called ecclesiastical, useful to be read, but not authoritative. They continued to maintain their place, however, in the Latin Vulgate, the Bible of the West, and were ultimately canonised for the Church of Rome, with certain exceptions, by the Council of Trent. Among the Protestant churches some, such as the Church of England, adhere to the view of Jerome, considering the apocryphal books useful for moral instruction, but not of authority to establish or sustain the faith of the Church; while other churches have entirely rejected them and reverted to the pure Hebrew canon. See APOCRYPHA.
Text of the Old Testament.—The Hebrew text was originally purely consonantal. Of course, words of which the consonants only were written could not be read without supplying vowel-sounds to them; but as yet there were no signs for the vowel-sounds. The correct reading of the text was a tradition handed down in the schools. Neither Jerome nor the Talmud (middle of 5th century) knows of any signs for the vowels. The consonantal text was fixed, much as it still remains, before the end of the 2d century; the marks for the vowels and other signs date from the 6th century downwards. Those who occupied themselves with the reading and preservation of the text were called Massorites or Traditionists, and the complete vocalised and punctuated Hebrew text as now printed is named the Massoretic text.
The opinion that at all times the utmost scrupulosity was exercised in regard to the text, and that owing to this care our present Massoretic text may be entirely relied upon, is only partially true. It is true from the time that the consonantal text was fixed—viz. the 2d century of our era; but previous to that time the text of the Old Testament books was subject to all the vicissitudes and dangers to which manuscripts are liable. A comparison—e.g. of Ps. xviii. in the Psalter with the same as found in 2 Sam. xxii.—reveals a multitude of divergences, unimportant no doubt, of the one text from the other. The Massoretic text has to be purified by the same means as are used to gain a pure text of the New Testament. These means are of two kinds, manuscripts and versions. When the existing Hebrew manuscripts, however, are examined, it is found that they are all copies of one manuscript, which at some early period, under what circumstances is unknown, had been elevated into a standard, and this standard existing, all manuscripts differing from it gradually fell into desuetude and perished. All existing manuscripts are virtually alike, differing from one another in trivial particulars, chiefly in what is called the plenary or defective writing (i.e. as if in English one manuscript spelled 'honour,' while another read 'honor'); and in the divine names, one manuscript having 'God' where another has 'the Lord.' A comparison of Hebrew manuscripts, therefore, offers almost no contribution to the criticism of the text. Neither are the versions of such use as might have been expected. These versions are the Septuagint, the Syriac, the Targum or Chaldee, and the Latin Vul- gate; others are late or secondary, being versions from the Greek or Syriac. When the three last-mentioned versions are examined, they are found to be translations of a text virtually identical with our present Massoretic; no doubt all of them, even the Vulgate, the latest, exhibit occasional deviations not without importance; but on the whole they reproduce the Hebrew known to us. And the same is true of the minor Greek versions—now existing only in fragments—of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion.
All these versions belong to the same family with our present Hebrew text. The Targum is valuable as a purely Jewish version. The Syriac must be used with caution, because at some time or other it has been accommodated to the Septuagint. In the great majority of cases where Jerome differs from the current Hebrew he agrees with the Septuagint, by which he may occasionally have been influenced; in a certain number of cases he agrees with the Syriac against the Septuagint, and in some instances his manuscript exhibited readings otherwise unknown. There remains only the Septuagint. This version was gradually produced from the 3d century B.C. downwards. It was executed by different men at different times, and the complexion of the translation varies greatly. It comes, however, several centuries nearer the autographs of the Old Testament writers than we can be sure that the Hebrew does. The Septuagint is of no use except in so far as it can be retranslated back into Hebrew, so as to give us the presumable Hebrew text that lay before the translators. We should then have another Hebrew manuscript to compare with our present Hebrew. The difficulties of reading such a manuscript are enormous. For, first of all, the present text of the Septuagint is in a state of great confusion, and the true Septuagint text is hard to reach. Then, even if it were ascertained, account must be taken of the capacities and procedure of the translator, his faithfulness or otherwise, his ignorance, his arbitrariness, and much else. Then the work of retranslating back into Hebrew requires much skill and experience. And, finally, the Hebrew manuscript being gained, it ranks at best as a manuscript, and its value over against our present Hebrew has to be estimated according to just critical principles. The value of the Septuagint in the textual criticism of the Old Testament is undoubtedly very great, though few scholars have shown perfect aptitude in using it, and, upon the whole, there is a tendency to exaggerate its importance. Besides a number of occasional emendations of the Hebrew which have been based upon it, several more formal attempts to construct the text of entire Old Testament books, mainly after the Septuagint, have been made—e.g. the Proverbs by Lagarde, the Books of Samuel by Wellhausen, and Ezekiel by Cornill. All these attempts are marked by more or less exaggeration of the worth of the Septuagint.
Printed texts of the Old Testament were first issued by the Jews of Italy; the Psalter in 1475; the first complete Bible at Soncino, 1488; Brescia, 1494. The famous printer, Daniel Bomberg of Antwerp, established a press at Venice, whence issued his first edition (1517), edited by Felix Pratensis. Bomberg's second edition (1525-26), edited by Rabbi Jacob-Ben-Chayim, was the first to contain the Massorah, with a text revised after the Massorah. This edition speedily attained a great reputation, and became the basis of most others. The Complutensian Polyglot (Alcala, 1517) was prepared at the expense of Cardinal Ximenes. Van der Hoocht's edition is well known (Amsterdam and Utrecht, 1705). Editions with various readings from manuscripts are those of Kennicott (Oxford, 1776), De Rossi (Parma, 1784), J. H. Michaelis (Halle, 1720), Norzi (Mantua, 1742). Editions of a number of Old
Testament books corrected according to the Masorah have been issued by S. Baer—Genesis, Isaiah, Minor Prophets, Ezekiel, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, and the five Megilloth (Ruth, Song, Esther, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes), while others are promised.
NEW TESTAMENT.—Connection of Old and New Testament.—The Old Testament canon can hardly have been closed before the middle of the 2d century B.C. Many books extant at the time were not included—e.g. Ecclesiasticus. The literary activity of the people continued with no intermission. The apocryphal literature may be divided into four classes, not always very distinctly defined: (1) Historical writings, as 1st Book of Maccabees; (2) hortatory narratives—e.g. Judith, Tobit; (3) poetical compositions—e.g. Wisdom of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Psalter of Solomon; and (4) prophetic writings in imitation of the Book of Daniel—e.g. Book of Enoch, Apocalypse of Baruch, 4th Book of Ezra. These pseudiepigraphic prophecies (i.e. bearing the names of others than their real authors) owe their origin to the hard conditions of the life of the people, and on the other hand to an undying faith, rendered more intense by persecution and present afflictions, in the future of the nation. The object which their authors have in view is to confirm the people's steadfastness, and quicken their hope and faith in their ultimate triumph over the heathen. It is only this last class of writings that lie in the line of development towards the New Testament; the others, except some parts of the Psalter of Solomon, follow the line of Pharisaic Judaism. The Christology of Enoch is very developed, though some doubt whether the most Christological part (chap. xxxvii.-lxxi.) has not suffered from Christian interpolation. The term 'Son of Man,' used of the Messiah, may be due to the Book of Daniel (chap. vii. 13) rightly or wrongly interpreted, and the fact that this is not a distinctive Jewish name for the Messiah has little weight, inasmuch as writings of this class emanated more from the popular mind, and were repudiated by learned Judaism. The Psalter of Solomon (middle of 1st century B.C.) expresses the confident expectation of a king of the House of David, who shall lead Israel to the promised glory (Ps. xvii. 1, 5, 23-51; xviii. 6-10, and elsewhere).
There can be no doubt that under the teaching of providence, the Messianic hope, particularly in regard to the person of the Messiah, became, before the Christian era, much more definite and full. This appears abundantly from the New Testament. The dimensions of this hope, however, among the Jews at the beginning of our era may very readily be overstated. It is doubtful, for instance, if there was any idea of a suffering Messiah. Again, it is certain that among Jews outside of Christianity, a great Messianic development took place in the 1st century A.D. This may have been due to Christian influence and intercourse before the final schism between Judaism and Christianity. And thirdly, it is certain that the Christology of the New Testament was largely due to the teaching of Christ and reflection on his life, particularly the conception of the exclusively spiritual nature of his aims and his kingdom. These points exclude that construction of the New Testament literature proposed by Strauss (q.v.). Strauss's two presuppositions were: (1) The supernatural element in the Gospels, being impossible, shows that the narratives arose long after the life of Jesus—they are mythical; (2) the ideas which have been clothed in history, and have produced the myths, were the popular Messianic ideas of the time. The theory falls with the falsehood of the last assumption. No such developed circle of Messianic ideas can be shown to have existed before Christ.
Another attempt to construct the history of New Testament literature on a priori principles, or at least on certain general presuppositions, was made by the Tübingen school. Baur (q.v.) started with the assumption (derived partly from the Epistles to the Corinthians) that the earliest stage of Christianity was characterised by a strong antagonism between Jewish Christianity, represented by the older apostles, which enforced the law on all converts, and a free Christianity represented by Paul. The history of this struggle, the efforts at reconciliation, and the final union in a catholic Christianity, is the history of the Church for two centuries; and the New Testament literature stands like milestones along the road, marking the steps of progress towards catholic union. Baur divided the history into three periods: (1) The period of acute antagonism, represented on the one side by the genuine Pauline epistles (Gal., 1 and 2 Cor., Rom.), and on the other by the Apocalypse (up to 70 A.D.). (2) The middle period, marked by a tendency on both sides to approach one another, the overtures being made first by the Jewish party, who dropped circumcision, and responded to in the later (Pauline) epistles—e.g. Ephesians and Colossians. To this period (70-140 A.D.) belong most of the New Testament literature, the synoptic gospels, Acts, and Hebrews. (3) The period of the consummation of the union (after 140), practically in Rome and the West, and ideally in the Gospel of John, which signals the victory in thought over the antithesis. The extreme points of Baur's theory have been greatly softened by those who may still in some sense be called his followers.
Rise of a New Testament Literature.—The Epistles.—Our Lord left behind him no writing. The tradition of a correspondence with Abgarus, king of Edessa, is fabulous. His gospel was his manifestation on earth, the higher spirit which he breathed into the forms of the old religion, and his life and death. Neither was the gospel propagated by his followers by means of writing; they went everywhere 'preaching' the word. The substance of their preaching was the events of Christ's life and death, his ascension and coming again, with their redemptive meaning—these events with their meaning always supported by the Old Testament Scriptures. When, however, especially through the missionary journeys of Paul, a multitude of believing communities arose scattered over the Roman world, many occasions occurred when apostolic counsel was needed, which could only be given by letter. Hence arose the epistles, which are all of the nature of occasional writings. At the same time advantage was taken of the occasion not only to give advice, but to develop the general principles on which it rested. The epistles of Paul fall in the main between 53 and 63 A.D. Besides other reasons, the Epistles to the Thessalonians were occasioned by a mistaken view of the nearness of the Advent. This idea paralysed human occupations, and agitated men's minds about the state of the dead. The Epistle to the Galatians (55) was written to frustrate an attempt of the Judaisers to impose the law upon this Gentile community. The attempt gave the apostle an opportunity of developing his whole doctrine of grace and justification by faith, the principles of which he had already sketched at Antioch (Gal. ii. 14). The Epistles to the Corinthians owe their origin to the rise of parties in the Church attaching themselves to particular teachers (chap. iii.), to the many practical questions which arose among a community in daily relations with heathen friends outside, and partly also, as was natural on Greek soil, to speculative questions, as about the resurrection (1 Cor. xv.); while the occasion of the Epistle to the Romans was the apostle's projected visit to Italy and the capital, and to Spain. This epistle has more of the nature of a treatise than any of the others, and is a systematic statement of the apostle's gospel, in view of all the questions which the gospel as he preached it raised, particularly in view of the old economy. Hence as he develops his system he has respect to Judaism at every step. The Jews called all others 'sinners of the Gentiles,' and, when the apostle declares that all alike are concluded under sin, he has to face the question, 'What advantage then hath the Jew?' (chap. iii.) Again, when in the process of his argument he says, 'there is no difference, being freely justified by His grace,' he feels he has to answer the question, 'Whereunto then serveth the law?' (chap. vi.-vii.) And finally the unbelief of the Jew has to be accounted for, which the apostle does by a profound theodicy of the economies, or justification of the ways of God to men; drawing up even this unbelief into the general purpose of God in manifestation of his grace, who 'concluded all in unbelief that he might have mercy upon all' (chap. ix.-xi.).
The type of doctrine in all these epistles is the same. The Christology is a doctrine of atonement by the Son of God, pursued somewhat into the region of Christ's present exalted state. It seems in this state that he is the new man, the head of the new spiritual humanity. The rise of a theosophic heresy at Colosse gave the apostle an opportunity of developing his Christology on another side, the side of Christ's relation before incarnation to the universe and the higher spiritual world, which the Colossians were tempted to worship—'In him all things consist;' 'ye are complete in him, the head of all principality and power.' The Ephesians can scarcely be independent of Colossians; while Philippians, which has most of an epistolary character, belongs to the Roman imprisonment. The pastoral epistles (1 and 2 Tim., Titus) contain, as the name suggests, instructions regarding the offices of the Church, and the character of those who should fill them. These, with the small personal note to Philemon, exhaust the Pauline writings, for Hebrews bears every mark of a different authorship. That epistle was probably written (before 70 A.D.) from Italy (xiii. 24), to some community of Greek Jewish believers, by one himself a Hellenist, who, though he reaches the same conclusion as Paul that the law and the customs have been abolished in Christ, reaches it by a different road, and in a way less liable to wound the susceptibilities of Judaism. Tertullian names Barnabas as the author; Luther suggested Apollos, a view to which many adhere; while others have thought of Luke or Silvanus.
The so-called catholic epistles (1 and 2 Peter, James, Jude) form, along with Hebrews, the contribution which Jewish Christianity made to New Testament epistolary literature. First Peter is addressed to the small Jewish communities of believers scattered throughout Asia Minor, and is designed to sustain them under their sufferings 'as Christians' (iv. 16). James addresses the same class of persons over even a wider area, while Jude has in view some more particular community, whom he warns against a class of persons who do not seem to have been heretics, but libertines not only in practice but in theory, men who turned the grace of God into licentiousness. Second Peter contemplates a similar class of persons, and undoubtedly depends upon Jude. Both James and Jude were brothers of the Lord and not apostles, having become disciples probably only after his death.
Rise of an Historical Literature.—The Gospels—Acts.—The problem of the origin of the gospels and their relation to one another is very complicated, and many solutions have been offered. (1) It is natural to suppose that by the continuous intercourse of the disciples with one another, and by conversation on the life and teaching of the Lord, the recollection of one supplementing that of another, as well as by their everyday preaching, the tradition of Christ's life and sayings would gradually assume a certain fixed form with definite outlines. (2) It is equally natural to suppose that in the lapse of years, when changes began to arise, this tradition would be reduced to writing. This supposition is confirmed by the statement of Papias that Matthew wrote down the 'sayings' of the Lord in Hebrew—i.e. in the vernacular Aramean, and every one translated them as he could. The 'sayings' would mainly be the parables and discourses, not chronologically arranged, but grouped together, though probably not without such brief historical hints as to time and locality as were needful to make them intelligible. (3) Considering the increasing relations of the Church at Jerusalem with the outside world, the translation of this collection of sayings into Greek would speedily follow. Such a primitive gospel in Greek, the language in which our gospels are written, is absolutely necessary to explain the coincidences in phraseology with one another which the gospels exhibit. This primitive Greek work lies at the basis of the three synoptic gospels. It has been used by the three with an eclecticism due partly to the idiosyncrasies and partly to the aims of the writers. In each case, however, the 'sayings' have been supplemented from other sources. In the case of Mark, this additional source may have been the personal reminiscences of Peter, according to the ancient tradition of the Church. In the case of Luke, whose gospel professes to repose on formal investigations (i. 3), it is possible that besides the 'sayings' some one of the other two gospels may have been used, while his history of the Nativity, with the accompanying hymns, seems drawn from some written source. It is probable that Matthew preserves the book of sayings with most exactness. The date of Mark is before the fall of Jerusalem (70 A.D.), that of the others perhaps somewhat later. The Gospel of John, dating from near the end of the century, is entirely independent and personal, and possesses more of a subjective character than the others. It is a free reproduction of the life and teaching of Christ, as these had been taken up by a highly ideal and profoundly ethical mind, and combined with its own modes of thought. Hence the sayings and works of Christ are not presented historically and from the outside, but set forth as embodiments and manifestations of certain ideal conceptions, as the 'word,' the 'life,' the 'light,' and others. The gospel contains a good deal omitted by the others, and everywhere bears marks of having been written by an eye-witness. (For the question of the authenticity of this gospel, see JOHN.) The first epistle of John is undoubtedly by the writer of the gospel. The Acts of the Apostles is from the pen of Luke, the author of the third gospel (chap. i. 1). It is probable, from the use of 'we,' that he was an eye-witness of the events narrated in the latter part of the book; for the earlier part of the history he drew on other sources, oral or written. The general purpose of the Acts is to trace the progress of the Kingdom of God from Jerusalem till it overtook the world—from Jerusalem to Antioch; from Antioch to Asia Minor and Eastern Europe; and from there to Rome, the capital, and the world. The book breaks off abruptly with the statement that Paul continued two years in his own hired house, preaching and receiving all that came to him. His subsequent history is left in obscurity. There seems no point in the narrative at which the pastoral epistles can be placed, and hence the hypothesis of a liberation and 'second imprisonment' of the apostle.
New Testament Prophecy.—The class of 'prophets' are frequently referred to in the New Testament. There are elements of prophecy in Christ's eschatological discourse (Matt. xxiv.), and also in Paul's Epistles to the Thessalonians, and even in Romans, xi. The only formal book of prophecy is the Revelation of John. It consists of two parts, the epistles to the Seven Churches (chap. i.-iii.), and the Book of Prophecy (chap. iv.-xxii.). The Book of Prophecy (i. 3; xxii. 10) is identical with the book seen on the Father's right hand, the seals of which were opened by the Lamb (chap. v.); this it is which is sent to all the churches. The epistles are accompanying notes to the several churches, containing appropriate exhortations to each in view of the things revealed in the prophecy. Antiquity is nearly unanimous in ascribing the Revelation to the Apostle John. Dionysius of Alexandria, on account of the style, suggested that it might be by another John, the presbyter, mentioned by Papias, a view which has many modern adherents. The style is much more Hebraistic than that of the gospel. It is not, however, the mere language that distinguishes it from the gospel, but the whole type of thought. Like the Hebrew prophecies, the Revelation is external and theurgical, the gospel inward and ethical. In the one the perfect Kingdom of God is introduced, and the destruction of evil accomplished by a direct interposition of God amidst terrible material convulsions; in the other the Kingdom of God is translated into the mind of man, of which it is an ethical condition. If both writings be by the same author, the Revelation must not only be prior, but have preceded the other by a long period of years. The date of composition (if the book be a unity) seems fixed by internal evidence. Chapter xi. must have been written before the fall of Jerusalem; and more precisely the author wrote under the sixth head or emperor (xvii. 10)—i.e. either Galba or Vespasian. When Irenæus says that the Revelation was written under Domitian, he is probably confounding a tradition that the Beast was interpreted of this emperor, with the composition in his reign. (For questions of date and authorship, see REVELATION.)
The Canon of the New Testament.—The Gospel Canon.—In point of origin, the epistles preceded the gospels; the canon arose in the inverse order. The preaching of the apostles had strictly no independence of its own; they merely carried the glad tidings regarding Christ to men, and were witnesses of his resurrection. And their writings (the epistles) were merely the supplement of their oral preaching as circumstances arose; the two, in the minds of their converts, stood on the same level. They naturally desired their epistles to be read before all the brethren of the church to which they were sent (1 Thess. v. 27), or sometimes to be exchanged with others sent to a neighbouring church (Col. iv. 16); but these epistles as yet remained the peculiar possession of the church for which they were destined. The canon of New Testament believers was as yet, (1) the Old Testament, which was read in the churches on the Lord's Day, and to which the apostles themselves made continual appeal as the 'Scripture;' and (2) the words or commands of Christ, which are placed on a level with the Old Testament prophets (2 Peter, iii. 2; Rev. i. 2). And this continued to be the mode of thought and expression till the middle of the 2d century, as writers of that time express themselves, 'the Law, the Prophets, and the Lord.' The source from which the Lord's words were known was either oral tradition and testimony, which Papias confesses he prefers to writings, or the written gospels, naturally chiefly the synoptics, and among these prominently Matthew. All the gospels, however, including John, are already known to the Apostolic Fathers (70-130). The writings of this time are scanty, and their authors had little reason to make direct appeal to the New Testament writings; they betray their acquaintance with them by employing their phraseology, and by allusion, and as there was still a living tradition, their quotations are free. As time wore on, however, and the living memory of the Lord's words died out, the practice arose of reading the gospels along with the Old Testament on the Lord's Day. Justin (died 146) already testifies to this practice, although he himself seems still to distinguish between the gospels as writings, and the Lord's words contained in them. This reading of the gospels naturally led to their being placed on a level with the 'Scripture,' and the formation of a gospel canon. This was really no new step; circumstances and the losses through time merely brought home to the consciousness of the Church what it possessed in the evangelical writings. The four-fold gospel canon is so firmly fixed by the last quarter of the century, that Irenæus is found carrying on an argument to show how there should be just four gospels and no more; and in the East, about the same time, there is evidence of a similar collection of the four.
The Epistolar Canon.—The Apostolic Fathers, by allusions and quotations, betray acquaintance with most of the epistles. The allusions to 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Philemon are less distinct, though Ignatius and Polycarp seem to show acquaintance with Thessalonians. The pastoral epistles are well known. No knowledge appears of Jude, 2 Peter, or 2 and 3 John. The epistles, however, are not quoted as authoritative. Clement (96) refers the Corinthians to 1 Corinthians, an epistle directed to themselves; and Ignatius and Polycarp, writing to the Ephesians, refer to their epistle. Clement quotes largely from the Hebrews, and Papias knows the Apocalypse, which Justin ascribes to John. The epistles had been directed to various churches, each of which cherished and used its own; perhaps few, if any, of the churches possessed a complete collection, for no necessity had yet arisen for making such a collection. The Church was in possession of the faith as a living belief; against those without, this belief did not need support, and no contradiction of it of magnitude had yet arisen within. It required the rise of an internal antithesis, a conflict within the Church, to direct her attention formally to the treasure which she possessed in the apostolic writings, and to bring to her own consciousness what all along had been implied in her acceptance of the apostolic preaching and writings, and her faith in them. This needful conflict was found in the rise of dangerous error, especially the Gnostic heresy. This heresy came into collision with the living faith of the Church, and the faith had not only to protest that it was being violated, but to show that it was. This could only be done by showing that the present living faith continued truly to reflect the apostolic preaching; and no means of showing this existed except to show that it continued in harmony with the apostolic writings. This very appeal to the apostolic writings was a canonising of them; and their formal collection and recognition naturally followed. This was again no new step; circumstances merely brought home to the mind of the Church what had always been implied in acceptance of the apostolic preaching and letters. Her latent faith now became formal and conscious; and thus arose a principle of canonicity. The Church could not but ask why she had accepted the teaching of the apostles; and the answer was, 'Because they were apostles commissioned and endowed to teach.' This single principle, however, was difficult to carry through, inasmuch as several of the New Testament writings were not by apostles, as the Acts, Hebrews, and others. And in modern times the Church has felt the same difficulty in finding a single principle to guide it in forming its canon.
Two important witnesses exist for the canon toward the close of the 2d century—the list edited by Muratori (q. v.) for the West, and the Syriac translation of the New Testament for the East. The Muratorian fragment (170 A.D.) counts four Gospels, Acts, thirteen Pauline epistles (excluding Hebrews), 1 John, then Jude; 2 and 3 John are reckoned among catholic epistles. The Apocalypse is included, and it is possible that 1 Peter was referred to in connection with Mark, though the passage is lost. The Syriac translation includes four Gospels, Acts, fourteen Pauline epistles (Hebrews being of the number), 1 John, 1 Peter, James; while Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Apocalypse are omitted. Both canons fail to include 2 Peter, and the West rejects Hebrews, while the East does not admit the Apocalypse. The writings of Eusebius show that this continued to be the state of matters in the 4th century. He mentions the books which, though known, were disputed—i.e. James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John. He himself does not favour the Apocalypse, but it is to be admitted by those who believe it to be by an apostle. Interchange between East and West tended to form a canon common to the two; in particular, the scruples of the West as to Hebrews were overcome, as Augustine confesses, by the practice of the East. Finally, the Council of Carthage (397) sanctioned for the West our present collection. It need hardly be said that modern doubts have been extended over a much wider area, including particularly the writings of John, the Acts, and the pastoral epistles.
The Text of the New Testament.—The history of the New Testament text is really a history of the printed editions. The first printed text was that in the Complutensian Polyglot, published under the auspices of Cardinal Ximenes. The New Testament was printed in 1514, but not published till 1522. The delay in publication enabled the printer, Froben of Basel, to forestall the issue with an edition hastily prepared by Erasmus from recent manuscripts (1516). Erasmus superintended four editions; the second (1519) was used by Luther in his translation. Frequent editions followed, especially from the press of Stephens at Paris (1546, 1549, 1550), and afterwards at Geneva (1551). In this last edition first appeared our present system of division into verses; that into chapters was already applied in the 15th century to the copies of the Greek New Testament. The text of the Old Testament was early divided into verses by the Rabbins; the division into chapters was first printed in Bomberg's 1525 edition. Beza issued a number of editions, that of 1598 being the basis of the English authorised version of 1611. The brothers Elzevir of Leyden issued their first edition in 1624, and another in 1633. In the preface to the last the words occur: Textum ergo habes nunc ab omnibus receptum, which suggested the designation textus receptus. These editions had made but scanty use of critical materials. Such materials are mainly of three kinds: (1) Manuscripts, especially the more ancient; (2) ancient translations; and (3) citations in ancient ecclesiastical writers. The principal editions based on these witnesses are those of the following scholars. John Mill (Oxford, 1707) is said to have shown 30,000 variations of reading in the sources used. Wetstein comes next (Amsterdam, 1751). Bengel (Tübingen, 1734) made the important step of attempting to classify the manuscripts into 'families,' influenced possibly by suggestions made by Bentley. Griesbach (Halle, 1774 et seq.; 2d edition, 1796) carried the classification of manuscripts much further than Bengel had done. Lachmann started with the principle of giving, not the original text, but the oldest attainable, that of the 4th century, the age of Jerome (1st ed. 1831; new ed. with testimonies, 1842). Tischendorf gave us a much approved text (1st ed. 1841; 8th ed. 1872); prolegomena by Gregory (1884). Tregelles completed his edition in 1872. The work of Westcott and Hort (London, 1881), the fruit of twenty years' study of the witnesses, their relationships and genealogies, presents the following classification of the materials: (1) A neutral text—i.e. a text still free from the characteristics of the Western and Alexandrian. This text is most perfectly exhibited in the Vatican manuscript (B), less perfectly in the Sinaitic, and is to be held nearest the original form, and probably is the purer Alexandrian text. (2) Western text, early brought to Rome from North-west Syria, and from there widely diffused, especially in the West. This is the prevailing ante-Nicene text. Its characteristics are—a love of paraphrase, a disposition to enrich the text with additions from traditional sources, and a fondness for assimilation and harmonising. It is represented in the Old Latin and Old Syrian versions, and in Fathers over a wide area (exclusive of Alexandria), as Justin, Irenæus, Hippolytus, Methodius, and Eusebius. (3) A non-Western pre-Syrian text, which may be called Alexandrian. In this text, the neutral text (1), not later than 200, had been subjected to changes which had more to do with language than matter, and are marked by an effort after correctness of phrase. It is represented in Alexandrian Fathers, Origen, Cyril, and in the version of Lower Egypt. (4) Syriac text: the peculiarities of the other texts arose gradually, and, as it were, unconsciously in course of transcription; the Syriac text is strictly a recension or edition made consciously by scholars. It is probably the result of two efforts between 250 and 350 at Antioch to form a lucid inoffensive text. It is 'conflate,' being constructed out of the other texts mentioned above. Critically, therefore, it is without value, as its sources are otherwise known. As Antioch was the mother of Constantinople, this text prevailed at Constantinople from the time of Chrysostom. From there it spread westwards, and from various causes became the predominant text. It lies at the basis of most later versions, of the early printed editions, and of a vast number of manuscripts, particularly of the Cursives.
Versions.—The ancient versions of the Old Testament from the original text are: the Septuagint, Syriac, Targum or Chaldee, and the Latin (Vulgate). Other ancient versions, such as Ethiopic and Arabic, are mainly daughter versions of the Septuagint or Syriac. The ancient versions from the Greek of the New Testament are more numerous:
1. Syriac.—(a) The authorised Syriac is the Peshito (simple), supposed to be of the end of the 2d or of the 3d century. This version has undergone revision, and must be used with caution in criticism of the text. The books 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation were not contained in it. First ed. (Vienna, 1555) by Widmanstadt; later editions—Schaaf (1717), with valuable lexicon; Lee (1823); and a beautiful print in Nestorian type and vocalisation by the American mission at Urmiah. (b) Fragments of the Gospels were edited by Cureton (1858), from MSS. brought from Egypt; and the Four Gospels by Beusley, Rendall Harris, and Burkitt from a palimpsest at Sinai in 1894. (c) Philoxenus, Monophysite bishop of Hierapolis, had a literal version made from the Greek in the interests of his party about 508. This version survives only in a later recension by a monk, Thomas of Heraclea, hence called the Harclisian (616), edited by J. White (Oxford, 1778-1803). In addition to these a lectionary of the Gospels was published, text, translation, and glossary, by Count Miniscalchi Erizzo (Verona, 1861). The language of this Jerusalem Evangelary is debased, approaching that of the Jerusalem Talmud.
2. Latin Versions.—(a) The old Latin, in the Old Testament, from the Septuagint. It is usually held that this version originated in North Africa, while others contend for Italy. The date is the 2d century. (b) The Vulgate: the text of the old Latin had become so confused in the 4th century that Augustine complained that the recensions were as numerous as the copies. At the solicitation of Pope Damasus, Jerome undertook, when in Rome, a revision of the New Testament. The Gospels were completed about 383, and the whole New Testament soon after. This revision of the old Latin is the present text of the Vulgate. About the same time Jerome revised the Psalter. This 'Roman Psalter' is still used in St Peter's. After going to Palestine (385) he revised the Psalter anew, comparing the Hebrew. This so-called 'Gallican Psalter' is the present Psalter in the Vulgate, and that from which the Prayer-book version was made. Jerome's translation of the Psalter directly from the Hebrew was never received into the Vulgate; it has been recently edited by Lagarde. His translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew occupied him fifteen years (390-405).
3. Egyptian Versions.—(a) The Sahidic, Upper Egyptian, existing only in fragments. (b) The Memphitic, Lower Egyptian or Coptic. Editions: Wilkins (Oxford, 1716); Tattam (1852); Acts and Epistles—Lagarde (1851). Fragments of other versions have been discovered. The date of the Egyptian versions is probably 3d to 4th century.
4. The Ethiopic (the Geez, or ancient language of Abyssinia) of the Old Testament is from the Septuagint, that of the New from the Greek. The translation is probably of the 4th century, edited by T. Pell Platt (Camb. 1826-30); the Hexateuch, Dillmann.
5. In addition to these may be mentioned the Gothic by Ulphilas (died 383), the Armenian (440), various Arabic versions, and the Slavonic, 9th century.
English Translations.—In modern times versions have appeared in all spoken languages. Partial translations and paraphrases into Anglo-Saxon are still extant. The first complete version in English was that of Wyclif about 1382, from the Vulgate (Forshall and Madden, Wyclif's Bible). Of this, however, the gospels alone can be certainly identified as the work of Wyclif himself, and this portion was done as early as 1360. The Old Testament and apocryphal books were translated principally by Nicolas de Hereford. A later complete version of it was finished by Wyclif's friend, John Purvey, about 1388. Printing was introduced into England by Caxton in 1477, and translations and summaries of parts of Scripture appeared in various works from his press. The New Testament of William Tyndale was issued at Worms (1525); later editions (1534-35). Tyndale also translated the Pentateuch, and some other parts of the Bible. The first complete English Bible was that of Miles Coverdale (1535). Coverdale's Bible is based upon the Swiss-German version (Zurich, 1524-29), with the use of Luther, the Vulgate, and Tyndale. Matthew's Bible (1537) is composite: the New Testament is Tyndale's 1535, the Pentateuch is also Tyndale, while of the rest, part is Coverdale, and part probably from Tyndale's MSS. The so-called Great Bible, a revision of Matthew's, was undertaken under the auspices of Cromwell, Earl of Essex; the printing, being interrupted in Paris, was completed in London (1539). In 1557 the English exiles who had found refuge in Geneva during the reign of Mary, produced a version of the New Testament, with preface by Calvin, and in 1560 the whole Bible. This is known as the Geneva Bible, sometimes popularly as the 'Breeches Bible,' from the rendering, Gen. iii. 7. The version was provided with racy notes, which made it a favourite with the common people (1st Eng. ed. 1576). Meantime a new version had been in preparation under the influence of Archbishop Parker. Separate portions were allotted to different scholars, chiefly of the Episcopal Church, and the whole was then revised by Parker and other learned divines. This version (1568) goes by the name of the Bishops' Bible, vulgarly the 'Treacle Bible,' from the rendering, Jer. viii. 22, 'Is there no tryacle in Giliad?' In 1582 a New Testament was issued by the English Catholic College at Rheims, and the Old Testament in 1609 at Douai. In 1604 James appointed a conference at Hampton Court for determining of things said to be 'amiss in the church.' The suggestion of a new translation, made by Rainolds, was taken up by the king, and six committees were appointed to execute the work. Two of these sat at Westminster, two at Cambridge, and two at Oxford, their work being revised by a general committee. The version appeared in 1611. Finally, the latest revision was due to the suggestion of the convocation of Canterbury. Two companies of translators were appointed, one for the Old Testament, and the other for the New. They began to sit at Westminster in 1870; the New Testament was issued in 1881, the Old in 1885, and the Apocrypha in 1895. After the work had been begun, a number of American scholars were added, and all points of ultimate difference of opinion between the English and American revisers were appended to the versions issued. The monopoly of printing the authorised version of the Bible belongs to the crown, by whom it is granted to certain patentees. See BOOK-TRADE. See H. Stevens, The Bibles in the Caxton Exhibition, 1450-1877 (1878). The Welsh, Irish, and Gaelic translations will be noted in the articles on the Welsh, Irish, and Gaelic languages.
German and other Translations.—Early in the middle ages translations of portions of the Bible were rendered into many of the western languages, but these were mostly explanatory paraphrases or versions of the Bible narratives in metre rather than translations proper. The Anglo-Saxon paraphrase of Cædmon was a century earlier than Otfrid's Krist, a rhymed harmony of the gospels in High German, and the Heliland in Low Saxon alliterative verse. The Abbot of St Gall's version of the Psalms (980) and the gospel harmony of 'Tatian,' from the Latin of Victor of Capua, follow next; and to these succeed numerous German versions of the histories and other books. Complete German versions from the Vulgate existed as early as the first half of the 14th century. It is claimed that there were no fewer than seventeen such versions prior to Luther's, and of these five were previous to 1477. Already in the end of the 12th century Provençal translations were in the hands of the Albigenses, and the demand for the Bible in the vulgar tongue spread widely in spite of the prohibition of the Church. In Spain, Alfonso X. of Castile is said to have caused the Old Testament to be translated. Another version was certainly made during the 15th century. The history of the earliest versions in Polish, Italian, and Hungarian is hopelessly obscure. The discovery of printing gave an enormous impetus to the translation and production of the Scriptures. A Spanish version by Borrell was published at Valencia in 1478; an Italian by the Benedictine Malherbi at Venice in 1471; a French at Paris in 1487; a Bohemian at Prague in 1488; and a Dutch as early as 1477. Luther's translation of the whole Bible was finished in 1534, but the New Testament had been issued as early as 1522. It was by no means, as has been seen, the earliest translation into a German tongue, but it was the first that reached the whole people, and it marked an epoch in the history of High German corresponding to that made in English by the authorised version of 1611. It was quickly translated into Platt-Deutsch, Danish, Swedish, Dutch, and even Icelandic. A revision was commenced in 1863, and not completed till 1882. The Bible of Holland is that authorised by the Synod of Dort in 1637; of Sweden, the official version, prepared by a company of scholars since 1774. The Danish is the work of Resenius (1607), revised by Svaning (1647); the Swiss, an entirely new version prepared in 1772 by Hottinger and others, on the basis of the 1665 version. French versions were made by Lefèvre d'Étaples (Faber Stapulensis) in 1523-28, and Olivetan, a cousin of Calvin's (1535-45). The latter as revised by Calvin in 1551, and later by Beza, became the official text of the French Reformed Church. The translations of Osterwald of 1714 and 1744 are also popular in spite of their conspicuous errors. Another edition still is in use, that prepared in 1588 by the Vénérable Compagnie under the direction of Bertram, on the basis of Calvin's, which was subjected to some revision in 1805 and again in 1835. There are many versions of the Old and New Testaments by individual scholars, such as the Latin Testament of Beza, but these belong rather to the history of exegesis. Translations of the Bible have now been made into almost all the languages of the world. See further under the article BIBLE SOCIETY.
The question whether the use of the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue shall be unconditionally permitted to the laity, is one of the main points of opposition between the Roman Catholic and the Protestant Church. In the earliest times, we find no evidence of any prohibition of Bible-reading by the laity. On the contrary, the reading of the Bible formed an essential part of the instruction communicated by pastors to their congregations; and the greatest orators of the Church—especially Chrysostom and Augustine—continually reminded their hearers that private reading and study of the Scriptures should follow attendance on public services. In the middle ages, the distinction, or rather the separation, between the clergy and the laity was gradually widened; but, apart from any question of policy, the widespread ignorance would naturally lead to a dependence on such passages of the Bible as might be read in the public services of the church, even while there was no direct prohibition of its common use. In 1080 Gregory VII. ordained that Latin only should be used in the church services of the West, and thereby indirectly excluded all vernacular readings of Scripture in public worship. Again, with regard to the Waldenses, Innocent III. in 1199 prohibited the private possession and reading of Scripture in the vernacular without the permission of a bishop. Similar prohibitions were repeated at Toulouse (1229), at Béziers (1233), and with regard to Wyclif's translation, which was extensively read, at the synod of Oxford (1383). Indeed, as early as 1234 the synod of Tarragona denounced as a heretic any one who, having a translation of the Bible, refused to surrender it to be burned within the space of eight days. This stringent measure, however, was not generally adopted. The Council of Trent, being required to pronounce on the question of rival Latin editions of Scripture, declared the Vulgate the only 'authentic' version of the Church. Translations of the Bible—i.e. of the authentic Vulgate, could be possessed only with the leave of the bishops, who were required by Pius IV. to refuse lay persons leave to read these versions unless their confessors or parish priests judged that such reading was likely to prove beneficial. The publication of the New Testament with practical annotations by Paschasius Quesnel (1687) gave occasion to the Roman Catholic Church to speak more definitely on the subject in the bull Unigenitus Dei Filius (1713). A later ordinance issued by the ecclesiastical censor in 1757 permitted and even encouraged the use of versions published under papal sanction, and with explanatory notes extracted from the Fathers, such as Martini's Italian version, approved by Pius VI. Within the present century the translations of the Bible Societies have been condemned by Leo XII., Pius VIII., and Pius IX., partly on the ground of their alleged corruptness. The principles, upon which these restrictions of the Roman Church were based, are—that the reading of Scripture is not necessary, that it is unsuitable to the very young and ignorant, and that it is specially dangerous in the hands of evil-disposed persons who have not the key to its interpretation—i.e. the traditional teaching of the Church. But in practice the stringency of the prohibitive discipline has been largely relaxed according to circumstances. For English use, the colleges of Rheims and Douai published an English translation of the Vulgate (New Testament, Rheims, 1582; Old Testament, Douai, 1609), which has gone through a number of editions and revisions (see Cotton's Rhemes and Douay, 1855). The current editions, provided with the briefest notes to satisfy the rules of the Index of prohibited books (see INDEX), are now practically within the reach of all who care to possess them.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.—Works on the English Bible are: Anderson, Annals of the Bible; Eadie, English Bible; Westcott, History of the English Bible; and Stoughton, Our English Bible. Full information on all Biblical subjects will be found in the works on Biblical Antiquities and Archaeology by Ewald, Keil, Holzinger, and Nowack; Schenkel's Bibel-Lexikon (5 vols.), and Riehm's Handwörterbuch der Bibl. Altertümer; the Bible Dictionaries of Smith, Fairbairn, Hastings, and Cheyne and Black. Good commentaries on the whole Bible are Lange's in 24 vols.; the Kurzegefässes Exegetisches Handbuch (Old Testament by various scholars, 17 vols.; New Testament, originally by De Wette alone, 3 vols. in 11 sect.); and the Speaker's Commentary in 10 vols. Meyer's Commentary (trans. 20 vols.) and the Hand-Commentar (4 vols.) deal with the New Testament alone; Keil and Delitzsch's (27 vols.) with the Old Testament. To the individual books there are countless commentaries both English and German. Books of great value are the 'Variorum Teacher's Bible,' also the Oxford 'Helps to the Study of the Bible,' and the Cambridge 'Companion to the Bible.'
General works on the Old Testament are the Introductions of De Wette (Schrader's edition), Samuel Davidson, Keil, Bleek (revised by Wellhausen), Riehm (1889-90), Driver (1891), Cornill (1892), König (1893); Ewald's History of the People of Israel; Milman's History of the Jews; Grütz, Geschichte der Juden; Kuenen's Religion of Israel; Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel; Renan, Histoire du Peuple d'Israël; Schultz, Alt-testamentliche Theologie (trans. 1892); Oehler's Old Testament Theology, Riehm's Alt-testamentliche Theologie (1889), and Smend's Lehrbuch der Alt-test. Religionsgeschichte (1893); W. R. Smith, Prophets of the Old Testament; Duhm, Theologie der Propheten; Kirkpatrick's Doctrine of the Prophets (1892); Ryle, Canon of the Old Testament (1892); Buhl, Canon and Text of Old Testament (trans. 1892).
Works on the critical question of the Pentateuch: (1) The so-called supplement-hypothesis, Bleek's Introduction. (2) Hupfeld, Quellen der Genesis (1853)—the Jeho- vistic writing not supplementary but independent; thus, there were three elements in the Pentateuch: Priestly Code, J.E., Deuteronomy. (3) On the question of respective age of these elements: Graf, Die Geschichtlichen Bücher des Alten Testaments (1866)—the legislation of Priestly Code post-exile; narratives the oldest part of the Pentateuch. (4) Untenableness of this separation shown in essays by Richm and Kuenen. Graf in an essay (1869) allowed both to be post-exile. Thus the order of elements came to be: J.E., Deuteronomy, Priestly Code. (5) Noeldeke, Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alten Testaments (1869)—narratives in Priestly Code not strict history, but merely a clothing of historical ideas. (6) Wellhausen, Geschichte Israels (1878), completed Graf's theory. Reuss, La Bible (historical books), claims to have taught the theory as early as 1833. Works on the one side are: W. R. Smith, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church (1831); Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (trans. Edin. 1885); Kuenen, An Historico-critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch (trans. Lond. 1886). In defence of the traditional view: W. H. Green (of Princeton), Moses and the Prophets, also The Hebrew Feasts (New York); E. C. Bissell, The Pentateuch (Lond. 1885). Dillmann, in his essay at the end of the last volume (1886) of his complete exposition of the Hexateuch, forming part of the new issue of Kurzegefassstes Exegetisches Handbuch, occupies an intermediate position. Delitzsch in his Neuer Commentar über die Genesis (1887) puts the Book of the Covenant alone as directly Mosaic—the oldest code. The Priestly Code is the most recent—not Mosaic, though its source goes as far back as the Mosaic age. It gradually received successive additions in priestly circles, and was finally rounded off in post-exile times. The narratives in it, however, are ancient and historical. Deuteronomy again is not immediately Mosaic, but a free reproduction of a Mosaic source.
General works on the New Testament: Joseph Angus, The Bible Handbook; Bissell, The Historic Origin of the Bible (New York); the introductions of De Wette (6th ed. 1860), F. Bleek (3d ed. 1875), S. Davidson (last ed. 1894), Hilgenfeld (1875), Holtzmann (1887), G. Salmon (1887), B. Weiss (trans. 1887), Godet (trans. 1894 et seq.), and Jülicher (1894); works on the Theology by Schmid, Baur, Weiss, Reuss, Beyschlag, Bruce, Bovon, Adeney; Reuss, Hist. of Scriptures of New Test. (trans. 1834); and the following, all trans.: Baur, Hist. of the first Three Cent. and The Apostle Paul, Hausrath's New Test. Times, Schürer, Hist. of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ, Weizsäcker's Apostolic Age (trans. 1894-5).
The New Testament Canon: Westcott, Hist. of the Canon, also The Bible in the Church; Charteris, Canonicity—based on Kirchhofer's Quellensammlung; Sanday, The Gospels in the 2d Cent.; Reuss, Hist. of the Canon (trans. 1884); Zahn, Gesch. des N. T. Kanons (1888-92), Forschungen zur Gesch. des N. T. Kanons (1881-93); Briggs, General Introduction to the Study of Holy Scripture (1899).
The Gospels: Holtzmann, Die Synopt. Evangelien (1863); Weizsäcker, Untersuchungen über die evangelische Geschichte (1864); Westcott, Intro. to the Study of the Gospels; Paul Ewald's Hauptproblem der Evangelienfrage (1890); Sanday, The Authorship and Character of the Fourth Gospel (1872); Ezra Abbot, The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel (Lond. 1880); Luthardt, St John the Author of the Fourth Gospel (trans. 1875); and the introductions to the commentaries by Westcott, Godet, and Reynolds.
Textual Criticism and MSS.: Warfield, Intro. to the Text. Crit. of the New Test. (1886); Hammond, Outlines of New Test. Text. Crit. (1872); vol. ii. of Westcott and Hort's edition of the Greek Test. (1885); vol. iii. (1894) of Tischendorf's great Greek Test.—the Prolegomena by C. R. Gregory; Scrivener, A Plain Intro. to the Crit. of the New Test. (2 vols. 1894); Ph. Schaff, Companion to the Greek Test. (1887).
See also the separate articles on each book of the Bible; those on critics, as BAUR, BLEEK, DELITZSCH, DE WETTE, EWALD, RENAN, REUSS, STRAUSS, &c.; and those on :
| Apocrypha. | Hebrew Language. | Rationalism. |
| Apologetics. | Inspiration. | Samaritan Pentateuch. |
| Book. | Massorah. | Septuagint. |
| Exegesis. | Palaography. | Targum. |
| Gospels. | Pentateuch. | Vulgate. |