Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopaedia

**BERLEBURG BIBLE. **See BIBLES, ANNOTATED, I, § 3.

**BERN, DISPUTATION OF: **The decisive point in the contest which definitely established the Reformation at Bern. At first the movement made slow progress there, as both the character of the people and their manner of life rendered them little susceptible to new ideas; even after a reforming party arose, for several years things continued in an undecided and vacillating condition. The somewhat violent and domineering manner in which the Roman Catholic authorities attempted to use their victory at the Conference of Baden (1526; See BADEN, CONFERENCE OF) brought on a crisis which, after the fashion of the time, it was attempted to meet by means of a disputation. Some of the Reformers invited to participate declined, having in mind the result at Baden, and the Roman Catholic dignitaries and celebrities generally refused to attend. But a great number of delegates and clergy appeared from Switzerland and the South German states, including Zwingli, Oecolampadius, Butzer, Capito, Ambrose Blaurer, and others. The opening session was held on Jan. 6, 1528, and the discussions lasted from the following day till Jan. 26. They were based on ten theses carefully prepared by Berthold Haller and Franz Kolb and revised by Zwingli. The outcome was that the ten theses were subscribed to by most of the clergy of Bern, the mass was done away with, the images were quietly removed from the churches, and on Feb. 7 the Reformation edict was issued, which gave the theses force of law, annulled the power of the bishops, and made the necessary regulations concerning the clergy, public worship, church property, etc. The majority of the country congregations soon gave in their adherence. The influence of the disputation was felt even in France, the Netherlands, and England. BIBLIOGRAPHY: The acts of the disputation were published at Zurich, 1528, and again in 1608 and 1701; the Ten Theses are given in English in Schaff, *Creeds, * i, 364-366, and *Christian Church, *vii, 104-105, in German and Latin, *Creeds, *iii, 208-210. Consult S. Fischer, *Geschichte der Disputation und Reformation in Bern, *Bern, 1828; S. M. Jackson, *Huldreich Zwingli, *pp. 280-283, New York, 1903.

**BERN, SYNOD OF: **The name given to the first Reformed synod at Bern (1532). The Reformation was established at Bern by the Disputation and the edict of Feb. 7, 1528 (see BERN, DISPUTATION OF), but much remained to be done in the way of consolidation and to finish the building of the new Church. This task was entrusted to a general synod, to which all the clergy of the land, 220 in number, were invited. It met on Jan. 9-14; Capito from Strasburg was the principal figure, and he collected the results of the discussion with much care and labor. They form a church directory and pastor's manual which is noteworthy, even among the monuments of the Reformation time, for its apostolic force and unction, its warmth and sincerity, its homely simplicity and practical wisdom. BIBLIOGRAPHY: The acts of the synod were officially printed at Basel, 1532, again in 1728 and 1778. Both the original and a modernized text were issued by Lauener, Basel, 1830. Consult M. Kirchhofer, *Berthold Haller, *pp. 169 sqq., Zurich, 1828; Billeter, in the *Berner Beiträge, *ed. F. Nippold, Bern, 1884 (especially useful); E. Bloesch, *Geschichte der schweizerisch-reformierten Kirchen, *i, 74-81, Bern, 1898.

**BERNARD OF BOTONE: **Canonist of the thirteenth century; b. in Parma c. 1200; d. at Bologna May, 1263. He studied law at Bologna, where he became professor and canon; then spent some time in Rome in an important official position at the papal court, but toward the end of his life returned to Bologna to lecture, especially on the decretals. He is best known as the author or compiler of the *Glossa ordinaria *(see GLOSSES AND GLOSSATORS OF CANON LAW) on the decretals of Gregory IX., but wrote also *Casus longi *and a *Summa super titulis decretalium *(cf. J. F. von Schulte, *Die Geschichte der Quellen des kanonischen Rechts, *ii, Stuttgart, 1877, pp. 114 sqq.). (C. FRIEDBERG.)

**BERNARD OF CONSTANCE: **German teacher and author of the eleventh century; d. at Corvey 1088. He was a Saxon by birth, and about the middle of the century presided with notable success over the school at Constance, which he left to teach at Hildesheim. During his residence here he was asked by his teacher Adalbert and his pupil Bernold to write on the questions raised by the Roman synod of 1078, and answered in a lengthy treatise against the opponents of Gregory VII. His standpoint comes out even more clearly in his *Liber canonum contra Henricum IV, * which on its first publication (M. Sdralek, *Die Streitschriften, Altmanns von Passau und Wezilos von Mainz, *Paderborn, 1890) was erroneously ascribed to Bishop Altmann of Passau. It was written after the Synod of Quedlinburg at Easter, 1085, when the Gregorian party was in great difficulties, and is an uncompromising declaration of fidelity to the papal cause. Bernard was, in short, as his pupil Bernold describes him, not only "a most learned man" but also "most fervent in the cause of St. Peter." CARL MIRBT. BIBLIOGRAPHY: The two works mentioned above have been edited by F. Thaner in *MGH, Lib. de lite, *ii (1892), 29-47, and i (1891), 472-516 respectively. Consult C. Mirbt, *Die Publizistik im Zeitalter Gregors VII, *Leipsic, 1894; F. Thaner, *Zu zwei Streitschriften des 11. Jahrhunderts, *in *Neues Archiv für ältere deutsche Geschichte, *xvi (1889), 529-540; Hauck, *KD, *vol. iii.

**BERNARD OF MENTHON: **Founder of the hospices on the Great and Little St. Bernard. Little is known of his life, as modern criticism has hardly touched it, and the older biographies are untrustworthy and legendary. According to them he was born at Menthon, near Annecy (25 m. s. of Geneva), Savoy, in 923, and studied the liberal arts, law, and theology. To avoid a marriage planned by his parents, he fled to Aosta, where he was ordained and later became archdeacon. In addition to the most faithful performance of his priestly duties, he founded the two hospices and placed them in charge of canons regular, finally dying at Novara in 1007. A sequence preserved in the *Acta Sanctorum, *and dating probably from the end of the eleventh or beginning of the twelfth century, speaks of a meeting between him and Henry IV, which may possibly have occurred. It is known that in the ninth century there was a hospice under clerical auspices on the Mons Jovis, the present Great St. Bernard, which may later have fallen into decay. First in 1125, and often after that date, we find mention of the church of St. Nicholas on the Mons Jovis; in 1145 of the *hospitale, *which in 1177 is called *domus hospitalis SS. Nicolai et Bernardi Montis Jovis. *It is thus not improbable that Bernard restored the older foundation; but it is more likely that this took place at the beginning of the twelfth than at the end of the eleventh century. The date of 1081 for Bernard's death is no better attested than that of 1007. Innocent XI canonized him in 1681. The larger hospice, on which till 1752 the smaller depended, was reformed during the Council of Basel, receiving a very original constitution in 1438. Napoleon, pleased by his reception there, placed the hospice founded by him on the Simplon pass under the care of the same community, and endowed the foundation, which had lost a great part of the rich possessions formerly held by it in fourteen dioceses. It is now supported by voluntary offerings from all the Swiss cantons. A statue of Bernard was erected near the hospice in 1905. (A. HAUCK.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: The old lives are in *ASB, *15 June, ii, 1071-1089; Alban Butler, *Lives of the Fathers, *June 15, 2 vols., London, 1857-60; an old text *Le Mystère de St. Bernard de Menthon *was published by A. L. de la Marche, Paris, 1889. Consult L. Burgener, *Der heilige Bernhard von Menthon, *Lucerne, 1870; *Mémoires et documents publiés par la société d'histoire de la Suisse, *vol. xxix, Lausanne, 1875; A. Lütolf, *Ueber das wahre Zeitalter des heiligen Bernard von Menthon *(996-1081), in *TQ, *lxi (1879), 179-207; J. A. Duc, in *Miscellanea di storia Italiana, *xxxi, 343-388, Turin, 1894; Wattenbach, *DGQ, *ii (1886), 214, ii (1894), 241.

**BERNARD OF MORLAIX. **See BERNARD OF CLUNY.

**BERNARD OF TOLEDO: **Archbishop of Toledo 1086-1125; b. at Agen (73 m. s.e. of Bordeaux), France, c. 1050; d. in Spain 1125. His significance in the history of Spain lies in the fact that from him dates the emergence of the Spanish Church from its isolation and its dependence on Rome. He became a monk in the monastery of Cluny, whence he was sent to Spain with others to assist the cause of the reforms of Gregory VII. Here he was made (1080) abbot of St. Facundus at Sahagun in the diocese of Leon, and finally named by Alfonso VI for the archbishopric of Toledo. Gregory's plans for Spain included (besides a general crusade against clerical marriage, simony, and lay investiture) the substitution of the Roman liturgy for the Mozarabic and the recognition of the obligations of tribute from the Spanish Church. The former point had been practically gained before his death, in spite of strenuous opposition. Urban II, by raising Bernard's see to primatial dignity, gave him the power necessary to prosecute the work of Romanizing. His cooperation made possible Urban's intervention at the Synod of Leon (1091) and ignoring of the royal right of investiture when Alfonso attempted to appoint a Spaniard to the see of St. Jago, apparently in order to counterbalance the influence of the French Benedictines with whom the primate was filling the episcopal sees. His career was throughout that of a devoted adherent of the papacy. Some reminiscences of his youthful days as a knight appear in his forcible seizure of the Mohammedan mosque at Toledo in his first year as archbishop and in his plans for a crusade against the Saracens of the East, which both Urban II and Paschal II forbade, in view of the tasks which Spanish Christian chivalry had at home. Four of his sermons, on the *Salve Regina, *are included among those of the great Bernard. CARL MIRBT. BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. Aschbach, *Geschichte Spaniens und Portugals zur Zeit der Herrschaft der Almoraviden und Almohaden, *i, 129 sqq., 339, 358 sqq., Frankfort, 1833; *Historia Compostellana: España sagrada, *ed. H. Florez, xx, 1-598, 615, Madrid, 1791; A. F. Gfrörer, *Papst Gregorius VII und sein Zeitalter, *iv, 484, 500-501, Schaffhausen, 1854; Hefele, *Conciliengeschichte, *v, 200, 251, 326-327; idem, *Der Kardinal Ximenes, *pp. 150 sqq., Arnheim, 1853.

**BERNARD, CLAUDE: **Called the "poor priest" and "Father Bernard"; b. in Dijon Dec. 23, 1588; d. at Paris Mar. 23, 1641. He was the son of a jurist, studied law himself, and for a time led a life of pleasure, but was converted by what he believed was a vision of his departed father. He became a priest and made Paris his residence, where he spent his time preaching and visiting the poor and sick, not shrinking from the most disgusting diseases. He gave away all that he had, including an inheritance of 400,000 francs.

**BERNARD, THOMAS DEHANY: **Church of England; b. at Clifton (a suburb of Bristol), Gloucestershire, Nov. 11, 1815; d. at Wimborne (21 m. n.e. of Dorchester), Dorsetshire, Dec. 7, 1904. He was educated at Exeter College, Oxford (B.A., 1838), was ordered deacon in 1840 and priest in the following year, and was successively curate and vicar of Great Baddow, Essex (1840-46), vicar of Terling, Essex (1848), and rector of Walcot, Somerset (1863-86). He was prebendary of Haselbere and canon resident of Wells Cathedral from 1868 to 1901, and chancellor of the same cathedral after 1879, while from 1880 to 1895 he was proctor for the dean and chapter of Wells. He was also select preacher at Oxford in 1855, 1862, and 1882, and was Bampton Lecturer in 1864. He wrote *The Witness of God *(university sermons, London, 1862); *Progress of Doctrine in the New Testament * (Bampton lectures, 1864, 4th ed., 1878); *The Central Teaching of Jesus Christ * (1892); and *The Songs of the Holy Nativity *(1895).

**BERNARDIN OF SIENNA: **Franciscan; b. of noble parents at Massa (33 m. s.w. of Sienna) Sept. 8, 1380; d. at Aquila (58 m. n.e. of Rome) May 20, 1444. He entered the Franciscan order 1402; became its vicar-general 1437, and effected many reforms in discipline and government. He was the most famous preacher of his time and spoke to great crowds in all parts of Italy with wonderful effect. Three times he refused the offer of a bishopric. He was canonized by Nicholas V in 1450 and his day is May 20. His writings were first printed at Lyons (1501), afterward at Paris (4 vols., 1636; 5 vols., 1650) and at Venice (4 vols., 1745). The first volume contains his life by his scholar, St. John of Capistrano. Bernardin's writings are for the most part *tractatus seu sermones, *which are not so much sermons according to the modern view as formal treatises upon morals, asceticism, and mysticism. BIBLIOGRAPHY: The older accounts of his life are collected in *ASB, *20 May, vi, 262-318. Consult: P. Thureau-Dangin, *Un Prédicateur populaire . . . St. Bernardin de Sienne *(1380-1444), Paris, 1896, Eng. transl., London, 1906; Berthaumier, *Histoire de S. Bernardin de Sienne, * Paris, 1862; J. P. Toussaint, *Leben des heiligen Bernardin, * Regensburg, 1873; F. Apollinaire, *La vie et les œuvres de S. Bernardin, *Poitiers, 1882; E. C. Dargan, *Hist. of Preaching, *pp. 317 sqq., New York, 1905.

**BERNARDINES. **See CISTERCIANS.

**BERNICE, **ber-nai'sê or ber'nis (for **BERENICE**): Eldest daughter of Herod Agrippa I. See HEROD AND HIS FAMILY.

**BERNO (BERN, BERNARD) OF REICHENAU: **Abbot of Reichenau (Benedictine abbey on an island in the *Untersee *of Lake Constance, 4 m. w.n.w. of Constance) 1008 till his death, June 7, 1048. He was monk in a monastery at Prüm near Treves when appointed abbot; under his rule Reichenau regained its prosperity, which had been lost under his predecessor, the abbot Immo; the library was enriched, scholars were attracted to the school, and the church of St. Mark was rebuilt. He was renowned personally as scholar, as poet, and, above all, as musician; he accompanied the emperor, Henry II, to Rome in 1014 for his coronation and after his return introduced reforms in German church music. Besides lives of saints and theological and liturgical treatises he left a number of letters and works upon music, which are published in Gerbert, *Scriptores ecclesiastici de musica sacra, * ii (St. Blaise, 1784). His writings are in *MPL, *cxliii. (A. HAUCK.)

**BERNOLD: **German ecclesiastical author; b. probably in southern Swabia c. 1054; d. at Schaffhausen Sep. 16, 1100. He was educated at Constance under Bernard, with whom he continued in close relations. He began writing early, and was present in Rome at the great synod of 1079 when Berengar was condemned. The next certain date is his ordination by the cardinal-legate Otto of Ostia at Constance in 1084. From 1086 to 1091 he was certainly an inmate of the monastery of St. Blaise in the Black Forest; in the latter year he migrated to Schaffhausen, where he remained (though not without interruption, as his presence at the battle of Pleichfeld shows) until his death. He was a versatile author. His *Chronicon *(ed. G. Waitz, in *MGH, Script., *v, 1844, 385-467) is a valuable source for his own lifetime, though colored by his partizan support of Gregory VII. His treatise *De Berengarii haeresiarchae damnatione multiplici *is interesting for the light which it throws on the attitude of German theology before the beginning of the strictly scholastic period. Most of his extant works, however, are of a practical nature, dealing with the vexed questions of the church life of his time. Though a zealous upholder of the reforming papacy, he was not a fanatic. CARL MIRBT. BIBLIOGRAPHY: C. Mirbt, *Die Publizistik im Zeitalter Gregors VII, *Leipsic, 1894; A. Ussermann, *Germaniae sacrae prodromus, *ii, 432-437, Freiburg, 1792; E. Strelau, *Leben und Werk des Mönches Bernold von St. Blasien, *Jena, 1889; G. Meyer von Knonau, *Jahrbücher des deutschen Reichs unter Heinrich IV und Heinrich V, *Leipsic, 1890-1904.

**BERNWARD: **Bishop of Hildesheim 993-1022. He came of a noble Saxon family, being the grandson of the count palatine Adalbero and the nephew of Bishop Folkmar of Utrecht. He was educated at the cathedral school of Hildesheim by Thangmar, later his biographer, and ordained by Willigis of Mainz. In 987 he became chaplain at the imperial court and tutor to the young Otto III. On Jan. 15, 993, he was consecrated bishop of Hildesheim. He protected his diocese vigorously from the attacks of the Normans, and only once took a wrong step as a temporal magnate - when, at the accession of Henry II, he took the side of Margrave Ekkehart, whose death, however, saved him from the consequences of his mistake. He rendered great services to literature and art. He died Nov. 20, 1022, a few weeks after the consecration of the magnificent church of St. Michael which he had built. Celestine III canonized him in 1193. (A. HAUCK.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: The *Vita *by Thangmar is in *MGH, Script., * iv, 754-782, the *Miracula, *ib. pp. 782-786, Hanover, 1841; the continuation of the *Vita *by Wolfherius, ib. xi, 165-167, 1854. Consult: A. Schultz, *Der heilige Bernward . . . und seine Verdienste, *Leipsic, 1879; W. A. Neumann, *Bernward von Hildesheim und seine Zeit, *in *Mittheilungen des kaiserlichen österreichischen Museums für Kunst, *v, 73-80, 97-104, 124-130, 141-152, 168-173, Vienna, 1890; B. Sievers, *Der heilige Bernward, *in *Studien und Mittheilungen aus dem Benedict- und dem Cisterz.-Orden, * xiv (1893), 398-420; Wattenbach, *DGQ, *i (1893), 318, 346-350, ii, 25, 360, 511; S. Beissel, *Der heilige Bernward von Hildesheim, *Hildesheim, 1895.

**BERŒANS OR BARCLAYITES. **See BARCLAY, JOHN.

**BERQUIN, **bär"kan', **LOUIS DE: ** French Reformer; b. at Passy-Paris June, 1490; d. at Paris Apr. 17, 1529. He belonged to a noble family of Artois and was lord of the estate of Berquin, near Abbeville. In 1512 he came to Paris to finish his studies, became acquainted with Lefèvre d'Étaples and the publisher Josse Badius, and was introduced to Marguerite of Valois, sister of Francis I, through whom he gained the king's favor. He belonged to that group of godly humanists who wished a reformation of the Church, but without a rupture with Rome. He hated equally the ignorance of the monks and the coarseness of Luther. Erasmus seemed to him the true Reformer; with him therefore he opened correspondence and translated several of his tracts, as well as Luther's *De votis monasticis. *The doctors of the Sorbonne denounced him as a heretic and on May 13, 1523, the trial was held before the Parliament. Seven of Berquin's writings and one of his translations from Luther and Melanchthon were condemned by the theological faculty and by the Parliament. On Aug. 1, he was made prisoner, but was set free by order of the king, Aug. 8. The Parliament had already burned his papers and books. The siege of Pavia and the captivity of the king (Feb., 1525) increased the Parliament's power, and the queen regent, Louise de Savoie, established (May 20) an extraordinary court to judge the heretics. On the same day three of Erasmus's treatises were censured. Berquin would have been permitted to retire and live on his estates if he had consented to keep silence. But he could not help speaking the truth and (Jan. 8, 1526), being denounced by the bishop of Amiens, he was again imprisoned. His books were again judged and forty of his propositions were declared heretical. He defended himself by saying that his propositions were taken from Erasmus and nobody adjudged the latter a heretic. His books were nevertheless condemned and he would have been burned with them if Marguerite of Valois had not invoked the clemency of her brother. Aug. 17 Francis sent a letter to the Parliament commanding them to take no definite steps without his advice. Although Erasmus advised silence, Berquin, confident of the king's favor, tamed the struggle and quoted from Noël Beda's writings against Erasmus, against the Sorbonne, and Lefèvre d'Étaples, twelve propositions as false and heretical, and asked the king to allow the Parliament to give judgment. From July, 1528, until March, 1529, Berquin lived in security. He was then again imprisoned and Parliament condemned him "to have his tongue branded with a red-hot iron and to remain a prisoner for the rest of his life." Apr. 16 Berquin appealed to the king, and the next day Parliament, taking advantage of the king's absence at Blois, ordered Berquin to be burned at the Place de Grève. He was the first Protestant martyr of France. Théodore Beza said of him: "If Francis had upheld him to the last, he would have been the Luther of France." Berquin's original works are all lost, only a few of his translations being left: *Enchiridion du chevalier chrestien *(Antwerp, 1529); *Le vray moyen de bien et catholiquement se confesser, par Érasme * (Lyons, 1542); *Paraphrases sur le Nouveau Testament, * and *Le symbole des apôtres *(both from Erasmus, n.p., n.d.). G. BONET-MAURY. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources for a biography are in T. Beza, *Histoire ecclésiastique des églises réformées de France, *i, 7, Paris, 1882; A. L. Herminjard, *Correspondance des Réformateurs, *vol. ii and viii, especially vol. ii, containing letters by Erasmus to Berquin, ii, 155-157, 159-160, and the letter of Erasmus to C. Utenhovius, ii, 1893, 193, ib. 1878, 1893; a brief but lucid account of Berquin's life is contained in A. Chevillier, *L'Origine de l'imprimerie de Paris, * ib. 1694. Consult: *Histoire du protestantisme français, *xi, 129, ib. 1846; *Journal d'un bourgeois de Paris, * ed. L. Lalanne, ib. 1894; Hauréau, in *Revue des deux mondes, * Jan. 15, 1869; H. M. Baird, *Rise of the Huguenots, *i, 128-158, London, 1880.

**BERRUYER, **bär"rü"yê', **JOSEPH ISAAC: ** French Jesuit; b. at Rouen Nov. 7, 1681; d. at Paris Feb. 18, 1758. He served as teacher of his order for many years and won notoriety from an attempt to rewrite the Bible in French in the form of a romance fitted to the taste of his time; in carrying out the idea, however, he introduced much that was unfitting, heretical, and even blasphemous and obscene. He published the first part, *Histoire du peuple de Dieu depuis son origine jusqu'à la venue du Messie, *in seven volumes at Paris, 1728. It was put on the Index in 1734, but reissued in expurgated shape in 8 vols. 1733-34. The second part included the Gospels, 4 vols. 1753, also put on the Index in 1755. The third part included the Epistles, in 2 vols. 1757, but was condemned by the pope in 1758. The whole work has appeared in Italian, Spanish, Polish, and German transls., and was reissued (expurgated) in 1851 in 10 volumes. BIBLIOGRAPHY: E. H. Landon, *Ecclesiastical Dictionary, *ii, 204, London, 1853; A. de Backer, *Bibliothèque des écrivains de la compagnie de Jésus, *iv, 340, 7 vols., Paris, 1853-1881; F. H. Reusch, *Der Index der verbotenen Bücher, *ii, 804, Bonn, 1885.

**BERRY, JOSEPH F.: **Methodist Episcopal bishop; b. at Aylmer, Can., May 13, 1856; received his education at Milton Academy, Ontario; entered the ministry of his denomination, 1874; was associate editor of the Michigan *Christian Advocate, * 1884-90; editor of *Hepworth Herald, *1890-1904; and was elected bishop 1904.

**BERSIER, **bär"syê', **EUGÈNE ARTUR FRANÇOIS: **French Reformed; b. at Morges (7 m. w. of Lausanne), Switzerland, Feb. 5, 1831; d. at Paris Nov. 19, 1889. He came of Huguenot parentage, took elementary studies at Geneva and Paris; visited America, 1848-50; studied theology at Geneva, Göttingen, and Halle; became pastor in Paris 1855 - in the Free Church until 1877 (until 1861 over the Faubourg St. Antoine Church; until 1874, assistant of Pressensé in the Taitbout Church; until 1877, over the Étoile Church), when he and his congregation joined the Reformed (established) Church of France. He was the author of several popular volumes of sermons, some of which have been translated into English: in the *Protestant Pulpit *series (2 vols., London, 1869); *Oneness of the Race in its Fall and its Future * (translated by Annie Harwood, London, 1871); *Sermons, with Sketch of the Author *(London, 1881; 2d series, 1885); *St. Paul's Vision *(translated by Marie Stewart, New York, 1881; new ed. 1890); *The Gospel in Paris; Sermons, with personal Sketch of the Author *by Rev. Frederick Hastings (London, 1884). There are translations also into German, Danish, Swedish, and Russian. He wrote also *Solidarité *(Paris, 1869); *Histoire du Synode de 1872 * (2 vols., 1872); *Liturgie *(now used in the Reformed Church of France, 1874); *Mes actes et mes principes *(1878); *L'Immutabilité de Jésus Christ *(1880); *Royauté de Jésus Christ *(1881); *Coligny avant les guerres de religion *(1884; 3d ed., 1885; Eng. transl., *Coligny: the Earlier Life of the Great Huguenot, * London, 1885); *La Révocation, discours . . . sur l'édit de révocation * (1886); *Les Réfugiés français et leur industries *(1886); *Projet de révision de la liturgie des Eglises Réformées en France *(1888); *Quelques pages d'histoire des Huguenots * (1890). BIBLIOGRAPHY: E. Stapfer, *La Prédication d'Eugène Bersier, * Paris, 1893; J. F. B. Tinling, *Bersier's Pulpit: Analysis of Public Sermons of . . . Eugène Bersier, * London, 1900; W. C. Wilkinson, *Modern Masters of Pulpit Discourse, *pp. 251-281, New York, 1905 (highly laudatory).

**BERTHEAU, **bär"tö', **CARL: **German Lutheran; b. at Hamburg July 8, 1836. He was educated at the universities of Göttingen (1855-57, 1858-59) and Halle (1857-58), and after teaching in the schools of his native city became pastor of St. Michael's Church there in 1867. Since 1897 he has been president of the Hamburg *Verein für innere Mission. *In theology he belongs to the positive evangelical school. He prepared the third volume of K. Hirsche's *Prolegomena zu Thomas à Kempis *(Berlin, 1894) and edited Luther's catechisms (Hamburg, 1896).

**BERTHEAU, ERNST: **German Lutheran; b. at Hamburg Nov. 23, 1812; d. at Göttingen May 17, 1888. He studied in Berlin and Göttingen (Ph.D., 1836) and became repetent at Göttingen 1836 extraordinary professor of Oriental languages and Old Testament exegesis 1842, ordinary professor 1843. From 1870 he was a member of the commission to revise Luther's Bible. His publications include: *Carminis Ephraemi Syri textus Syriacus secundum codicem bibliothecae Angelicae denuo editus ac versione et brevi annotatione instructus * (Göttingen, 1837); *Die sieben Gruppen mosaischer Gesetze in den drei mittleren Büchern des Pentateuchs * (1840); *Zur Geschichte der Israeliten, zwei Abhandlungen *(1842); an edition of the Syriac grammar of Bar Hebræus (1843); and commentaries upon Judges and Ruth (1845; 2d ed., 1883), Chronicles (1854; 2d ed., 1873), Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther (1862), and Proverbs (1847; 2d ed., 1883), in the *Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament. * (CARL BERTHEAU.)

**BERTHIER, **bär"tyê', **GUILLAUME FRANÇOIS: **French Jesuit; b. at Issoudun (130 m. s. of Paris), department of Indre, Apr. 7, 1704; d. at Bourges Dec. 15, 1782. He joined the Jesuits in 1722. He added six volumes (Paris, 1749) to the twelve already completed by Longueval, Fontenay, and Brumoy of the *Histoire de l'église gallicane, *bringing the narrative down to 1529; from 1745 to 1762 he edited the *Mémoires de Trévoux *and displayed much moderation as well as learning under attacks from the Encyclopedists and Voltaire. After the expulsion of his order from France in 1762 he was appointed tutor to the princes afterward Louis XVI and Louis XVIII, but had to leave the country in 1764; after an absence of ten years he returned to Bourges. He translated the Psalms (8 vols., 1785) and the Book of Isaiah (5 vols., 1788-89) into French with notes. His *Œuvres spirituelles *were published at Paris in five volumes in 1811. BIBLIOGRAPHY: A. de Backer, *Bibliothèque des écrivains de la compagnie de Jésus, *s.v., 7 vols., Paris, 1853-61.

**BERTHOLD OF CHIEMSEE. **See PÜRSTINGER, BERTHOLD.

**BERTHOLD OF LIVONIA: **Early missionary and second bishop among the Livonians. He was abbot of the Cistercian monastery in Lokkum, and was consecrated bishop to succeed Meinhard about 1196 by Hartwig II, bishop of Bremen. After he had failed to win the heathen by mild means with peril of his life, he went to Saxony and returned with a body-guard in 1198. The Livonians gathered and were defeated in battle, but the bishop was slain July 24, 1198. His successor was Albert of Riga.

**BERTHOLD OF REGENSBURG: **Franciscan friar, the greatest popular preacher of the Middle Ages in Germany; b. at Regensburg probably earlier than the traditional date of 1220; d. there Dec. 14, 1272. He was a member of the Franciscan community founded at Regensburg in 1226. His novitiate was passed under the guidance of David of Augsburg; and by 1246 he is found in a position of responsibility. By 1250 at the latest, he had begun his career as an itinerant preacher, first in Bavaria, where he endeavored to bring Duke Otto II back to obedience to the Church; then he appears farther westward, at Speyer in 1254 and 1255, then passing through Alsace into Switzerland. In the following years the cantons of Aargau, Thurgau, Constance, and Grisons, with the upper Rhine country, were the principal scenes of his activity. In 1260 he went farther afield, traversing after that date Austria, Moravia, Hungary, Silesia, Thuringia, and possibly Bohemia, reaching his Slavonic audiences through an interpreter. Some of his journeys in the East were probably in the interest of the crusade, the preaching of which was specially entrusted to him by Pope Urban IV in 1263. The German historians, from Berthold's contemporary, Abbot Hermann of Niedernaltaich, down to the middle of the sixteenth century, speak in the most glowing terms of the force of his personality and the effect of his preaching, which is said to have attracted almost incredible numbers, so that the churches could not hold them; and he was forced to speak from a platform or a tree in the open air. The gifts of prophecy and miracles were soon attributed to him, and his fame spread from Italy to England. He must have been a preacher of great talents and success. Although the manuscript reports of his sermons, which began to circulate very early, are by no means to be trusted as literal productions, we can still form from them a tolerably accurate idea of the matter and manner of his preaching. It was always of a missionary character, based formally on the Scriptures for the day, but soon departing from them to apply the special theme which Berthold wished to enforce. This generally finds its point in the insistent call to true sorrow for sin, sincere confession, and perfect penance; penance without contrition has no value in God's sight, and neither a crusade nor a pilgrimage has any good result unless there is a firm purpose to renounce sin. From this standpoint Berthold criticizes the new preachers of indulgences. The extremely mixed character of his audiences led him to make his appeal as wide and general as possible. He avoids subtle theological questions, and advises the laity not to pry into the divine mysteries, but to leave them to the clergy, and content themselves with the credo. The weighty political occurrences of the time are also left untouched. But everything that affects the average man - his joys and his sorrows, his superstitions and his prejudices - is handled with intimate knowledge and with a careful clearness of arrangement easy for the most ignorant to follow. While exhorting all to be content with their station in life, he denounces oppressive taxes, unjust judges, usury, and dishonest trade. Jews and heretics are to be abhorred, and players who draw people's minds away to worldly pleasure; dances and tournaments are also condemned, and he has a word of blame for the women's vanity and proneness to gossip. He is never dry, always vivid and graphic, mingling with his exhortations a variety of anecdotes, jests, and the wild etymologies of the Middle Ages, making extensive use of the allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament and of his strong feeling for nature. (E. STEINMEYER.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: The sermons in German of Berthold were edited or given in abstract by C. F. Kling, Berlin, 1824, on which cf. J. Grimm in *Wiener Jahrbücher der Literatur, * xxxii (1825), 194-257, and the *Kleinere Schriften *by J. Grimm, Vienna, 1869. A complete edition of his *Predigten, *ed. F. Pfeiffer, appeared vol. i, Vienna, 1862 (cf. K. Schmidt in *TSK, * xxxvii, 1864, pp. 7-82), vol. ii, ed. J. Strobl, Vienna, 1880 (cf. A. Schönbach, in *Anzeiger für deutsches Altertum, *vii [1881], 337-385). On the Latin sermons consult H. Leyser, *Deutsche Predigten des 13. und 14. Jahrhunderts, *Leipsic, 1838; G. Jacob, *Die lateinischen Reden des seligen Berthold von Regensburg, *Regensburg, 1880; *Sermones ad religiosos viginti, *ed. P. de a. Hoetzel, Munich, 1882. On his life and work consult: K. Hoffmann, *Sitzungsberichte der Münchener Akademie, *ii (1867), 374 sqq., ii (1868), 101; L. Rockinger, *Berthold von Regensburg und Raimund von Peniafort, *in *Abhandlungen der Münchener Akademie, historische Classe, *xiii, 3 (1877), 165 sqq.; K. Unkel, *Berthold von Regensburg, *Cologne, 1882. For his preaching consult: W. Wackernagel, *Altdeutsche Predigten, *Basel, 1876; R. Cruel, *Geschichte der deutschen Predigt im Mittelalter, *pp. 306-322, Detmold, 1879; A. Linsenmayer, *Geschichte der Predigt in Deutschland, *pp. 333-354, Munich, 1886; E. C. Dargan, *A History of Preaching, *New York, 1905.

**BERTHOLD OF RORBACH: **Heretical mystic; d. 1356. He appears first in Würzburg, where he was tried on a charge of teaching heresy, but saved himself by recantation of the doctrines attributed to him. He was again brought to trial at Speyer in 1356, but this time refused to recant and was burned. The accounts of his teaching show him as an adherent of the quietistic mysticism of the Brothers of the Free Spirit, sharing their disbelief in the meritoriousness of prayer and asceticism; those who are "enlightened by God," laymen as well as priests, may preach the Gospel and change bread and wine into the divine substance. The strange and shocking views attributed to him on the passion of Christ can scarcely be reconciled with his other teachings, and have probably come down in a distorted form. (HERMAN HAUPT.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: A. Jundt, *Histoire du panthéisme populaire du moyen âge, *p. 105, Paris, 1875; H. Haupt, *Die religiösen Sekten in Franken, *p. 8, Würzburg, 1882.

**BERTHOLD THE CARMELITE. **See CARMELITES.

**BERTHOLDT, LEONHARD: **Professor at Erlangen; b. at Emskirchen (14 m. w.n.w. of Nuremberg), Bavaria, May 8, 1774; d. at Erlangen Mar. 22, 1822. He studied at Erlangen and became professor extraordinary on the philosophical faculty 1805; full professor of theology 1810, in recognition of his work upon Daniel (2 vols., Erlangen, 1806-08). His principal work was the *Historisch-kritische Einleitung in die sämmtlichen kanonischen und apokryphischen Schriften des Alten und Neuen Testaments * (6 vols., 1812). Of less interest is his *Einleitung in die theologischen Wissenschaften * (2 vols., 1821-22); and of still less, his *Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte * (2 vols., 1822-23). As a teacher, however, and as editor of the *Kritisches Journal der neuesten theologischen Litteratur, *one of the principal organs of the rationalistic party, his activity was stimulating in many ways.

**BERTHOLET, **bär"tö"lê', **ALFRED: **Swiss Protestant; b. at Basel Nov. 9, 1868. He was educated at the universities of his native city, Strasburg, and Berlin, and, after being Franco-German pastor at Leghorn, in 1892-93, became privat-docent for Old Testament exegesis in the university of his native city in 1896. In 1899 he was appointed associate professor of the same subject, and in 1905 was promoted to his present position of full professor. He was general secretary of the Second International Congress for the History of Religion held at Basel in 1904, and has prepared the commentaries on Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Ezekiel in K. Marti's *Kurzer Handkommentar zum Alten Testament * (5 vols., Freiburg and Tübingen, 1897-1902), and has written *Der Verfassungsgesetzentwurf des Hesekiel in seiner religionsgeschichtlichen Bedeutung *(Freiburg, 1896); *Die Stellung der Israeliten und der Juden zu den Fremden *(1896); *Zu Jesaja 53 *(1899); *Die israelitischen Vorstellungen vom Zustand nach dem Tode *(Tübingen, 1899); *Buddhismus und Christentum * (1902); *Die Gefilde der Seligen *(1903); *Seelenwanderung *(Halle, 1904); *Der Buddhismus und seine Bedeutung für unser Geistesleben *(Tübingen, 1904); and the section on the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in K. Budde's *Geschichte der althebräischen Literatur * (Leipsic, 1906).

**BERTRAM: **The name by which Ratramnus was formerly sometimes quoted.

**BERTRAM, ROBERT AITKIN: **English Congregationalist; b. at Henley (147 m. n.w. of London), Staffordshire, Nov. 8, 1836; d. in London Nov. 14, 1886. He ended his studies at Owens College (Victoria University), Manchester, 1858; was pastor at Lymm, Cheshire, at Openshaw (Manchester), and at Barnstaple, Devonshire; edited *The Christian Age, *1880-83. He compiled *The Cavendish Hymnal *(Manchester, 1864), and published *Parable or Divine Poesy, Illustrations in Theology and Morals Selected from Great Divines and Systematically Arranged *(London, 1866); *A Dictionary of Poetical Illustrations *(1877); *A Homiletical Encyclopedia of Illustrations in Theology and Morals, a Handbook of Practical Divinity and a Commentary on Holy Scripture * (1878); *A Homiletical Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah * (i, 1884; ii, jointly, with Alfred Tucker, 1888).

**BÉRULLE, PIERRE DE. **See NERI, PHILIP.

**BERYLLUS OF BOSTRA. **See MONARCHIANISM.

**BESANT, **bes'ant, **ANNIE (WOOD): **Theosophist; b. at London Oct. 1, 1847. She was educated by private tutors at Clearmouth, Dorsetshire, London, Bonn, and Paris, and later passed B.Sc. and M.B. at London University. Originally a member of the Church of England, she married Rev. Frank Besant, vicar of Sibsey, Lincolnshire, in 1867, but was divorced from him six years later and renounced Christianity altogether. She then joined the National Secular Society, and as a scientific materialist worked with Charles Bradlaugh, with whom she edited the *National Reformer. * She was also prominent in socialistic and labor movements, and was a member of the Fabian Society and the Social Democratic Federation. In 1887-90 she was a member of the London School Board for Tower Hamlets, but declined reelection. Meanwhile, her views had undergone further change as a result of psychological study, and in 1889 she joined the Theosophical Society, of which she has since been a distinguished member, and its president in 1907. She has made extensive journeys to all parts of the world in the interests of theosophy, but has of late years resided chiefly in India. In 1898 she founded the Central Hindu College, Benares, and is still the president of its council, while in 1904 she established the Central Hindu Girls' School in the same city. In addition to a large number of briefer articles and pamphlets, she has written *Natural Religion Versus Revealed Religion *(London, 1874); *History of the Great French Revolution *(1876); *The Law of Population: Its Consequences and its Bearing upon Human Conduct and Morals *(1877); *The Gospel of Christianity and the Gospel of Free Thought *(1877); *Heat, Light, and Sound *(1881); *Legends and Tales *(1885); *The Sins of the Church *(1886); *Reincarnation *(1892); *Seven Principles of Man *(1892); *Autobiography *(1893); *Death and After *(1893); *Building of the Cosmos *(1894); *In the Outer Court *(1895); *Karma *(1895); *The Self and its Sheaths *(1895); *The Path of Discipleship *(1896); *Man and his Bodies *(1896); *Four Great Religions *(1897); *The Ancient Wisdom *(1897); *Evolution of Life and Form *(1899); *Dharma *(1899); *Story of the Great War: Lessons from the Mahäbhärata *(1899); *Avatäras *(1900); *Ancient Ideals in Modern Life *(1901); *Esoteric Christianity *(1901); *Thought Power: Its Control and Cultivation *(1901); *The Religious Problem in India *(Madras, 1902); *The Pedigree of Man *(Benares, 1903); *Study in Consciousness * (London, 1904); and *Theosophy and New Psychology *(1904). She has also translated a number of free-thought works as well as the *Bhagavadgitä *(London, 1895), and has edited *Our Corner * (London, 1883-88), and, in collaboration with G. R. S. Mead, *The Theosophical Review.**

**BESS, BERNHARD: **German librarian and historian; b. at Nentershausen (near Cassel) May 19, 1863. He was educated at the universities of Marburg and Göttingen, and, after being privat-docent at the former university for several years, was appointed to his present position of librarian of the University of Halle in 1896. In 1902-1903 he was also entrusted with the organization of the library of the Prussian Historical Institute at Rome. He has written *Frankreichs Kirchenpolitik und der Prozess des Jean Petit * (Marburg, 1891), and *Luther und das landesherrliche Kirchenregiment *(1894). Since 1891 he has been the editor of the *Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte. *

**BESSARION, **bes-sê'ri-on, **JOHANNES** or **BASILIUS: **Cardinal; b. at Trebizond 1395; d. at Ravenna Nov. 19, 1472. He studied at Constantinople and at Misithra in the Peloponnesus under Gemistos Plethon; entered the Basilian order; became archbishop of Nicæa in 1437. As such he labored at Ferrara and Florence, 1438-39, for the union of the Greek and Roman Churches (see FERRARA-FLORENCE, COUNCIL OF). Having been made a cardinal, he remained in Italy, by voice and pen working for the union. His house at Rome became the center not only for his fugitive countrymen, but also for the cultivation of Greek literature in the West; and during his activity as legate in Bologna, 1451-55, he worked in the same interest at that ancient *gymnasium illustre. *At the papal election in 1455 he lacked only a few votes of being chosen pope, and his influence in the curia may be seen from the numerous diplomatic missions with which he was entrusted. While returning from a missionary tour to France, which he had undertaken for the sake of reconciling Louis XI and the duke of Burgundy, he died at Ravenna. K. BENRATH. BIBLIOGRAPHY: On the works of Bessarion consult: Fabricius-Harles, *Bibliotheca Græca, *x, 491, xi, 480, Hamburg, 1807-08; *MPG, *clxi. On his life and activities consult: Pastor, *Popes, *vol. iv, passim (well worth using); Creighton, *Papacy, *vols. ii-v, passim (gives an excellent treatment of the subject); G. Voigt, *Die Wiederbelebung des classischen Alterthums, *Berlin, 1859; J. Burckhardt, *Kultur der Renaissance in Italien, *Basel, 1860, Eng. transl., 2 vols., London, 1878; H. Vast, *Le Cardinal Bessarion, * Paris, 1878; R. Rocholl, *Bessarion, *Leipsic, 1904.

**BESSEL, GOTTFRIED: **Abbot of Göttweig, near Vienna; b. at Buchhain, near Mainz, Sept. 5, 1672; d. at Göttweig Jan. 20, 1749. He studied at Salzburg, entered the Benedictine order in 1693, was ordained priest 1696, and was employed in various diplomatic negotiations by the elector of Mainz. In 1707 he converted the princess Elizabeth Christine of Brunswick to the Roman Catholic faith, and, in 1710, her grandfather, the duke Anton Ulrich, at which time he published *Quinquaginta Romano-catholicam fidem omnibus aliis præferendi motiva *(Mainz, 1708). In 1714 he became abbot of Göttweig. He prepared a chronicle of the monastery, of which only the first part, *Prodromus, *has been published (2 vols., Tegernsee, 1732).

**BESSER, WILHELM FRIEDRICH: **German preacher and theological writer; b. at Warnstedt, in the Harz, Sept. 27, 1816; d. near Dresden Sept. 26, 1884. He studied at Halle under Gesenius and Tholuck (1837), then went to Berlin, where he was influenced by Neander and Twesten, but still more by Hengstenberg, Otto von Gerlach, and others. He returned to Halle in 1838 as secretary to Tholuck, but a year later went as private tutor to the house of Major von Schenkendorf at Wulkow near Puppin. This had a decisive influence on his life, through his intercourse there with a persecuted Lutheran pastor, a guest in the house, who had such an effect on him that, at his ordination in 1841 as pastor at Wulkow, he refused to sign the Union formula except with the reservation that the Union related to common ecclesiastical organization without prejudice to the authority of the Augsburg Confession. In 1845 he withdrew his subscription, and after long negotiations was deprived of his office in 1847. Connecting himself with the Lutheran Church of Prussia, he became pastor of Seefeld in Pomerania, and zealously supported the movement to obtain equal rights for the Lutherans with the Union. In 1853 he was called to assist Graul in the direction of the Evangelical Lutheran mission-house; but the strain of continuous teaching was not suited to his vivacious and impulsive nature, and sharp controversies broke out over the then burning question of the Indian castes, so that he returned willingly to pastoral life in 1857, becoming minister of Waldenburg in Silesia and also (1864) a member of the Lutheran superior council of Breslau. Failing health compelled him to resign his offices at Easter, 1884. His *Bibelstunden, *which he began to write in 1843 and continued at intervals till he had covered most of the New Testament, have had a salutary influence far beyond Germany. The list of his minor writings is a long one, and includes a number of controversial tractates against what he thought a hollow and deceiving compromise, popular biographies, devotional works, and sermons. (H. HÖLSCHER.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: A sketch of Besser's life appears in his *Predigten und Predigtauszüge, * Breslau, 1885. His autobiography (uncompleted) was continued to the year 1850 by Greve, *Aus Bessers Leben, *in *Gotthold, *year 20, 1894-1895, and completion is promised; cf. *ALKG, *1884, pp. 1036-39.

**BESTMANN, **best"män', **HUGO JOHANNES: ** German Lutheran; b. at Delve, Holstein, Feb. 21, 1854. He studied in Leipsic, Tübingen, Kiel, Berlin, and Erlangen (lic. theol., 1877), and was privat-docent in theology at Erlangen 1877-83. He was then instructor in the gymnasium of the orphan asylum at Halle 1883-84 and at the Missionary Seminary in Leipsic 1884-86. Since the latter years he has been pastor in Mölln (Lauenburg). He has been a member of the committee of the Mölln conference for theological studies since 1896, and has written *Qua ratione Augustinus notiones philosophiæ græcæ ad dogmata anthropologica describenda adhibuerit *(Erlangen, 1877); *Geschichte der christlichen Sitte *(2 vols., Nördlingen, 1880-85); *Die theologische Wissenschaft und die Ritschl'sche Schule *(1881); *Die Anfänge des katholischen Christentums und des Islams *(1884); *Der Protestantismus und die theologischen Fakultäten * (Kiel, 1891); and *Geschichte des Reichs Gottes im Alten und Neuen Bunde *(2 vols., Leipsic, 1896-1900). He edited also J. C. K. von Hofmann's *Theologische Encyclopädie *(Nördlingen, 1879) and *Der christliche Herold *(Hamburg and Mölln, 1898-1899).

**BETH, KARL: **German Protestant; b. at Förderstädt (15 m. s. of Magdeburg) Feb. 12, 1872. He studied in Tübingen and Berlin (Ph.D., 1898), and was privat-docent in Berlin 1901-06. Since 1906 he has been professor of systematic and symbolic theology at the University of Vienna. He has written *Die Grundanschauungen Schleiermachers in seinem ersten Entwurf der philosophischen Sittenlehre * (Berlin, 1898); *Die orientalische Kirche der Mittelmeerländer, Reisestudien zur Statistik und Symbolik der griechischen, armenischen und koptischen Kirche * (1902); *Das Wesen des Christentums und die moderne historische Denkweise *(1904); and *Die Wunder Jesu *(1905).

### BETHLEHEM: ### Old Testament History. A town in southern Palestine, in the territory of Judah, often called Bethlehem Judah (e.g., Judges xvii, 7, 8; cf. Matt. ii, 1, 5). Its significance for the Judah of Davidic times or earlier is as the home of Jesse ( I Sam. xvi, 1), of Joab, Abishai, and Asahel ( II Sam. ii, 32), of Elhanan ( II Sam. xxi, 19), and as a place of sacrifice ( I Sam. xvi, 3, 5). It was occupied by the Philistines in their war with David ( II Sam. xxiii, 14). Rehoboam made of it a city of defense ( II Chron. xi, 6), as it commanded the roads south and west. Though in early times it was a place of importance because of its situation on caravan routes, it became overshadowed by the growth of the capital. After the exile it was reckoned to the Jewish community ( Ezra ii, 21), and was inhabited by Calebites who were driven north by the Edomites pressing up from the south. This possession is explained by the Chronicler on genealogical grounds, regarding the town as founded by Salma, a son of Caleb. The district of Ephratah, which extended from Kirjath-jearim to Bethlehem, became a possession of the Calebites and gave occasion for the name Bethlehem Ephratah, used Micah v, 2. The inhabitants were engaged in agriculture, viticulture, and cattle-raising. ### Present Condition. For the Hebrews its fame rests upon its being the home of David (Luke ii, 4, 11); to Christians everywhere its name is familiar as the birthplace of Jesus, according to the accounts in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. It has retained its name unchanged to the present. *Bait-lahm *lies five and a half miles south of Jerusalem, a little east of the central watershed, at a level above the sea of about 2,500 feet. The slopes above it have been terraced from early times, and their fertility rewards richly the labor of the inhabitants in producing olives, almonds, figs, and grapes. The numerous trees of the terraces give the place a refreshing appearance, especially to the traveler from the bare heights of Jerusalem. There is a spring some fifteen minutes eastward from the town, and water is taken from the aqueduct on the south leading into Jerusalem. For the rest of the water-supply, dependence is had upon cisterns. The population is about 8,000; 3,827 are Roman Catholics, 3,662 Greeks, 260 Mohammedans, 185 Armenians; the rest are Copts, Syrians, and Protestants. Two-thirds are engaged in various handicrafts, the rest in husbandry, and all are oppressed by burdensome taxes. Attempts have been made at various times to connect particular parts of the town with David, naming for him a house, a tower, and a well, but the traditions are insecurely founded. The "Well of David" is the name given since the fifteenth century to three large cisterns in the northeast. ### The Church of St. Mary. More secure is the tradition about the birthplace of Jesus, covered by the celebrated Church of St. Mary, a basilica mentioned as early as 334 as built by Constantine's order. Eusebius ("Life of Constantine") confirms this report; Socrates and Sozomen ascribe its erection to the empress Helena; and Eutychius to Justinian. De Vogüé supports the first hypothesis on the ground of the unity of plan, conformity of extent of choir and grotto, and absence of architectural marks of the Justinian period. In this opinion he is supported by the architect T. Sandel, who made a new examination in 1880. This may well be the oldest church in the world. It was thoroughly restored by the emperor Manuel Comnenus, who adorned it with mosaics, of which work but little remains, though a description by F. Quaresmio (1616-26) with what is left suffices to give a good idea of the whole. In 1478 (or 1482) the roof was repaired by Philip of Burgundy and Edward IV of England, and renewed in 1672 by the Greek patriarch Dositheos. In the latter year the Greeks obtained possession, which the Latins had had since the crusades. In 1852 Napoleon brought it about that the Latins were given a share in holding it. The church, now in decay, can not be restored for fear of renewing outbreaks among Latins, Greeks, and Armenians. From the southeast the church rises prominently like a fortress; the north, east, and south sides are less pleasing to one approaching from those directions because of the cells of the monks of the different communions. It has a nave and double aisles, and its floor space is about ninety-eight feet by eighty-seven between the cross aisles. The transept and apse are unfortunately concealed by a wall built by the Greeks in the seventeenth or eighteenth century. The entire length of the present church, including the entrance hall, is about 230 feet. Two flights of steps to the north and south lead from the choir to the chapel of the nativity, the walls of which are marble-lined and hung with tapestries. The place of birth is marked by a silver star in the floor of a niche. Opposite is the place, a marbled hollow, of the old "genuine" manger. A passage westward leads to the tomb and chapel of Jerome. ### The Traditional Place of Jesus's Birth. This subterranean room, according to tradition continuous since Constantine, is accepted as the place of Jesus's birth. A tradition can be traced back to Justin Martyr that Jesus was born in a cave, since Joseph could find no accommodation in the village. But it has been disproved that the present chapel is a [natural] cave, while it must be noted that as early as 728 it was reported that the form of the cave was changed and an oblong room hewn out. The use of caves as adjuncts to inns or "shelters" is in Palestine a peculiarity of the country. Five minutes southeast from the church of St. Mary is the so-called "Milk Grotto" of the Latins, in which Joseph, Mary, and the child are said to have concealed themselves from Herod's fury before the flight into Egypt. The white of the limestone is attributed to the fall of a drop of milk from Mary's breast. Ten minutes northeast from Beth Sahur (itself fifteen minutes east from Bethlehem) is shown the "Grotto of the Shepherds," in which the angels are said to have announced to the shepherds the birth of the Holy Child. The underground chapel is reached by a passage between two ancient olive-trees. One of the fruits of modern missions is the honoring of Jesus in his birthplace, not by sanctuaries in stone, but by provision for the education of the young. Since 1860 there have been a number of Protestant and Roman Catholic schools and establishments, the founding of which has spurred the Greeks and Armenians to accomplish something for the instruction of children belonging to their communities. (H. GUTHE.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: Robinson, *Researches, *vol. ii; T. Tobler, *Bethlehem in Palästina, *Bern, 1849; V. Guérin, *Description de la Palestine, Judée, *i, 120 sqq., Paris, 1869; *Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs, *vol. iii, sheet xvii, London, 1883; P. Palmer, *Das jetzige Bethlehem, *in *ZDPV, *xvii (1894), 89 sqq.; Baedeker, *Palestine and Syria, *pp. 119-127, New York, 1898; *DB, *i, 281; *EB, *i, 560-562. On the church consult M. de Vogüé, *Les Églises de la terre sainte, * Paris, 1860; Quaresmius, *Elucidatio terræ sanctæ, *ii, 643 sqq., Antwerp, 1639, reissued Venice, 1880-82; G. Ebers and H. Guthe, *Palästina in Bild und Wort, *2 vols., Leipsic, 1883-84.

**BETHLEHEMITES: **The name of three religious orders. (1) An association of *Bethleemitae, * known only from Matthew Paris *(Hist. maj., *839), who states that they existed at Cambridge, England, about 1257 and wore the Dominican habit, with a red star, referring to Matt. ii, 9-10. (2) The Knights and Hospitalers of the Blessed Mary of Bethlehem (*Religio militaris ac hospitalis beatae Mariae Bethlemitanae*), founded by Pius II in 1459 to fight against the Turks. They wore a white habit with a red cross, were given the island of Lemnos as their seat, and did not survive the capture of the island by the Turks in the year of their foundation. (3) More important are the Bethlehem Brothers (*Fratres Bethleemitae; *Spanish, *Orden de Belemitas*) of Guatemala (Central America), founded there about 1650 by Pierre de Bethencourt and after his death (1687) under the leadership of the brothers Rodrigo and Antonio de la Cruz. Originally entrusted only with the care of the hospital of Mary of Bethlehem in Guatemala, the order was confirmed by Innocent XI in 1687 and given a constitution and dress like that of the Capuchins. Clement XI in 1707 granted them the privileges of the mendicant orders. A society of Sisters of Bethlehem was founded in Guatemala by Anna Maria del Galdo in 1668, and both the male and female branches spread in Mexico, Peru, and elsewhere. A secularization-decree of the Spanish Cortes in 1820 suppressed both branches. (O. ZÖCKLER†.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: Heimbucher, *Orden und Kongregationen, *i, 497-498; G. Voigt, *Enea Silvio . . . als Papst Pius, *ii, 652, Berlin, 1863; Karl vom heiligen Aloys, *Die katholische Kirche in ihrer gegenwärtigen Ausbreitung, *pp. 510-511, Regensburg, 1885; Helyot, *Ordres monastiques, *iii, 347-357, viii, 365 sqq.; *KL, *ii, 540-544 (contains list of literature in Spanish).

**BETHPHANY: **A name sometimes given to the festival more commonly known as the Epiphany. It is a barbarous invention of the schoolmen, from the Hebrew *bëth, *"house," and the Greek *-phaneia, * "manifestation," which forms the latter part of the word Epiphany; and was intended to emphasize the miracle (in the house) at Cana in Galilee, which is the third event commemorated by the festival of the Epiphany.

**BETHSAIDA. **See GAULANITIS.

**BETHUNE, **be-thün', **GEORGE WASHINGTON: ** Reformed (Dutch) clergyman; b. in Greenwich, now a part of New York City, Mar. 18, 1805; d. at Florence, Italy, Apr. 27, 1862. He was graduated at Dickinson College, Carlisle, Pa., 1823; studied at Princeton Seminary 1823-25; served for a year as missionary among the negroes and sailors at Savannah, Ga.; was ordained Nov., 1827, and was pastor of Reformed (Dutch) churches at Rhinebeck (1827-30) and Utica (1830-34), N. Y., Philadelphia (First Church, 1834-37; Third Church, 1837-49), and Brooklyn (1851-59); was associate minister at the Twenty-first Street Church, New York, 1859-61. He was famed as a preacher and orator, as a poet, and as a wit. Of his numerous publications, perhaps that of most permanent value was his edition of Walton's *Complete Angler * (New York, 1847; new ed., 2 vols., 1880). BIBLIOGRAPHY: A. R. Van Nest, *Memoirs of Rev. George W. Bethune, *2 vols.; New York, 1880.

**BETHUNE-BAKER, JAMES FRANKLIN: **Church of England; b. at Birmingham Aug. 23, 1861. He was educated at Pembroke College, Cambridge (B.A., 1884), and was head master's assistant at King Edward's School, Birmingham, and assistant curate of St. George's, Edgbaston, from 1888 to 1890. In the following year he was elected fellow and dean of Pembroke College, and since 1905 has also been examining chaplain to the bishop of Rochester. He has been the editor of the *Journal of Theological Studies *since 1903, and has written *The Influence of Christianity on War *(Cambridge, 1888); *The Sternness of Christ's Teaching *(1889); *The Meaning of Homoousios in the Constantinopolitan Creed *(1901); *An Introduction to the Early History of Christian Doctrine * (London, 1903); and *Christian Doctrines and their Ethical Significance *(1905).

**BETKIUS, **bêt'kî-üs **(BETKE), JOACHIM: ** Lutheran preacher and forerunner of the Pietistic movement; b. at Berlin Oct. 8, 1601; d. at Linum, near Fehrbellin (33 m. n.w. of Berlin), Dec. 12, 1663. After finishing his course at Wittenberg, he became associate rector at Ruppin, then was for more than thirty years pastor at Linum. He wrote several theological and devotional works, by the reading of which Spener said he had profited. They contain edifying exhortations against forgetting the need of sanctification in addition to justification, but are marred by intemperate fanaticism; Betkius holds the clergy responsible for all the anti-Christian phenomena of his time, and for the divine judgments of the Thirty Years' war. (F. W. DIBELIUS.)

**BETRAYAL OF PILATE. **See APOCRYPHA, NEW TESTAMENT, B, I, 7.

**BEURLIN, **boi"er-lîn, **JAKOB: **German Lutheran theologian; b. at Dornstetten (35 m. s.w. of Stuttgart) 1520; d. at Paris Oct. 28, 1561. In Nov., 1533, he entered the university of Tübingen. When the Reformation was introduced in 1534, he remained faithful to Catholicism, but diligently studied philosophy and the writings of the Church Fathers, so that his transition to the new doctrine took place quietly. In 1541 he was made governor of the Martinianum, and at the same time lectured on philosophy. In 1549 he accepted the pastorate of Derendingen near Tübingen, and in 1551 he was called as professor to Tübingen. On June 2, 1557, he examined and signed, together with other theologians, the *Confessio Wirtembergica, * which had been prepared for the Council of Trent, and in the month of August, together with Brenz's friend Johann Isenmann, he went to Langensalza and afterward to Saxony to come to an understanding with the theologians and councilors of the elector Maurice concerning the Württemberg Confession as compared with the Saxon, which had also been prepared for the Council of Trent. In Nov., 1551, in company with Luther's former steward, Jodocus Neuheller, pastor at Entringen, he was sent as theological adviser of the Württemberg delegates to Trent, where they took notes of the disputations. On Jan. 13, 1552, both returned home, but on Mar. 7, Beurlin, Brenz, Heerbrand, and Vannius again started for Trent to oppose the erroneous decisions of the council, and to defend the *Confessio Wirtembergica * before it; but the council would not hear them in a public session, and they returned home. Beurlin now devoted all his time to his academic duties. He lectured on Melanchthon's *Loci, *the Gospel and First Epistle of John, and the Epistles to the Romans and Hebrews, and drilled the young theologians in admirably conducted disputations. In May, 1554, the duke sent him to Prussia to pacify those who had been stirred up by Osiander's teaching. He was unsuccessful, however, and, disgusted with the behavior of the factions, he declined the bishopric offered to him by Duke Albert, and returned home. In the interest of his academic office he now retired in favor of Jakob Andreä, who was a more willing interpreter of the theology and ecclesiastical policy of Brenz. In Oct., 1557, Beurlin and his father-in-law, Matthaeus Alber, went to the religious conference at Worms in place of the Thuringian theologians. At the Stuttgart synod Beurlin also remained in the background, but he assisted Brenz in the defense of the *Confessio Wirtembergica *against Peter a Soto, and his attack upon the central point of the Roman system is still worthy of consideration. Vice-chancellor of the university after 1557, Beurlin was the leader of the Swabians at the Erfurt Conference, Apr., 1561, and was still more prominent on his last journey made in the service of the Evangelical Church. King Antony of Navarre sought both at Stuttgart and Heidelberg for a theologian to advise him in the controversy which arose in Sept., 1557, at the religious conference in Poissy between the cardinal of Guise and Beza concerning the relation of the French Protestants to the Augsburg Confession. Duke Christopher sent three theologians, Jakob Beurlin, Jakob Andreä, and Balthazar Bidembach. Before leaving, Beurlin was made chancellor of the university and provost of the Collegiate Church (Sept. 29). The theologians left Oct. 3, and arrived at Paris Oct. 19. Meanwhile the conference at Poissy had been broken off, and the theologians had to wait till the king called them. On Oct. 24 Beurlin fell ill with the plague and died in Paris. G. BOSSERT. BIBLIOGRAPHY: The sources are: T. Schnepffius, *J. Beurlinus redivivus et immortalis, *Tübingen, 1613; J. V. Andreä, *Fama Andreana, *Strasburg, 1530. Consult G. C. F. Fischlin, *Memoria theologorum Vittebergensium resuscitata, * i, 82-87, Ulm, 1710; C. F. Sattler, *Geschichte von Württemberg unter der Regierung der Herzoge, *Ulm, 1771; H. F. Eisenbach, *Beschreibung und Geschichte der Stadt und Universität Tübingen, *pp. 108-112, Tübingen, 1822; H. L. J. Heppe, *Geschichte des deutschen Protestantismus, *Vol. i, Marburg, 1852-59; C. von Weizsäcker, *Lehrer und Unterricht an der evangelisch-theologischen Fakultät . . . Tübingen, *Tübingen, 1877; C. A. Hase, *Herzog Albrecht von Preussen und sein Hofprediger, *Leipsic, 1879; G. Bossert, *Die Reise der württembergischen Theologen nach Paris 1561, *in *Württembergische Vierteljahrshefte, *1899, pp. 387-412.

**BEVAN, **bev'an, **ANTHONY ASHLEY: **Church of England layman; b. at Trent Park, Barnet (11 m. n.n.w. of London), Herts, May 19, 1859. He was educated at the Gymnase littéraire, Lausanne (1877-79) and the University of Strasburg (1881-1883), and in 1884 became a member of Trinity College, Cambridge, where he was elected fellow in 1890. Since 1893 he has been Lord Almoner's reader in Arabic in the University of Cambridge. In addition to minor studies, he has written *A Short Commentary on the Book of Daniel * (Cambridge, 1892) and the *Hymn of the Soul Contained in the Syriac Acts of St. Thomas, Reedited with an English Translation, *in *Cambridge Texts and Studies, *v (1897).

**BEVAN, LLEWELYN DAVID: **Congregationalist; b. at Llanelly (15 m. s.e. of Carmarthen), Carmarthenshire, Wales, Sept. 11, 1842. He studied at New College, London (B. A., University of London, 1881; LL.B., 1866), and after being assistant minister to Thomas Binney at the King's Weigh-House Chapel, London (1865-69), held pastorates at Tottenham-Court Road Chapel, London (1869-76), the Brick Presbyterian Church, New York City (1876-82), and Highbury Quadrant Church, London (1882-86). Since 1886 he has been pastor of the Collins Street Congregational Church, Melbourne, Victoria. While in England, he was associated with F. D. Maurice in the Workingmen's College, London, and was for several years a professor in New College.

**BEVERIDGE, WILLIAM: **Bishop of St. Asaph; b. at Barrow (8 m. n. of Leicester), and baptized there Feb. 21, 1637; d. in London Mar. 5, 1708. He was educated at Cambridge; was rector of Ealing, a west suburb of London, 1661-72; of St. Peter's, Cornhill, London, 1672-1704, when he became bishop. In his day he was styled "the great reviver and restorer of primitive piety" because in his much admired sermons and other writings he dwelt so affectionately upon the Church of the early centuries. His collected works (incomplete) are in the *Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology *in 12 vols. (Oxford, 1842-48) and embrace six volumes of sermons; *The Doctrine of the Church of England Consonant to Scripture, Reason, and the Fathers: A Complete System of Divinity *(2 vols.); *Codex canonum ecclesiae primitivae vindicatus ac illustratus, *with the appendices, I. *Prolegomena in * Synodikon, *sive pandectas canonum; *and II. *Praefatio ad annotationes in canones apostolicos * (2 vols.); and the still read *Private Thoughts on Religion, *and *Church Catechism Explained. *His *Institutionum chronologicarum libri duo, una cum totidem arithmetices chronologicae libellis *(London, 1669) was once an admired treatise on chronology. BIBLIOGRAPHY: T. H. Horne, *Memoir of the Life and Writings of W. Beveridge, *London, 1824, also prefixed to his works in the *Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology, *ut sup.; *DNB, *iv, 447-448.

**BEYER, **bai'er, **HARTMANN: **Reformation preacher of Frankfort, where he was born Sept. 30, 1516, and died Aug. 11, 1577. In 1534 he went to Wittenberg as student of philosophy and theology, and received the master's degree there in 1539 and became private teacher of mathematics. He returned to his native city as preacher in 1546. The Reformation, introduced in Frankfort in 1522 by Hartmann Ibach, had been carried on in the earlier years by compulsion and rash zeal on the part of its adherents, and in later time was marked by doctrinal controversies between the Lutheran and Reformed tendencies. Beyer came with the determination to win the victory for Lutheranism, and to his activity was it due that by 1554 a compact Lutheran congregation stood opposed to all insinuations of Calvinism, while the earlier democratic and radical tendencies had been suppressed. In the year named, three congregations of Protestants from the Netherlands, who had first taken refuge in England but fled that country after the accession of Mary, came to Frankfort under the lead of Velerandus Polanus and Johannes a Lasco, bringing with them a Reformed creed and Reformed practises. Beyer was the soul of an opposition which induced the city council to deprive them of the church they had used for worship in 1561. In 1596 even the right of holding services privately was forbidden. The success of the emperor in the Schmalkald war and the promulgation of the Augsburg Interim (May, 1548) brought the Frankfort Reformers face to face with dangers which for the time quieted doctrinal disputes. The council accepted the interim cautiously, but its attempts to forbid preaching against the new law and against Roman teachings and practises, to reestablish church festivals, to prohibit the eating of meat on fastdays, and like measures met with determined and courageous resistance from Beyer and his colleagues. The former repeatedly expressed his conviction that church ordinances could be established only with the consent of the congregation. The struggle went on till 1577, but the preachers gained the victory. Beyer issued two pseudonymous writings against the Roman Catholics in 1551 and while in Wittenberg prepared a treatise on mathematics. His sermons are preserved in forty-nine volumes in manuscript in Frankfort. They are marked by a beauty and force of language which make them powerful even today. (G. E. STEITZ†.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: G. E. Steitz, *Der lutherische Prädikant, Hartmann Beyer, *Frankfort, 1852.

**BEYSCHLAG, **bai'shläh, **WILLIBALD: **German Protestant; b. at Frankfort Sept. 5, 1823; d. at Halle Nov. 26, 1900. He studied at Bonn and Berlin 1840-44; became vicar at Coblenz 1849; assistant pastor and religious teacher at Treves 1850; court preacher at Carlsruhe 1856; ordinary professor of theology at Halle 1860; and after 1876 editor of the *Deutsche Evangelische Blätter, *an organ of the so-called *Mittelpartei, *whose leader he was till the end of his life. To oppose the ultramontane aggressions in Germany, he founded in 1886 the *Evangelischer Bund *(see BUND, EVANGELISCHER). Of his very numerous writings, besides sermons, the following are worthy of mention: *Die Christologie des Neuen Testaments *(Berlin, 1866); *Die paulinische Theodicee Röm. ix-xi *(Berlin, 1868, 2d ed., 1895); *Die christliche Gemeindeverfassung im Zeitalter des Neuen Testaments *(Haarlem, 1874); *Zur Johanneischen Frage *(Gotha, 1876); the biographies of his brother, F. W. T. Beyschlag (*Aus dem Leben eines Frühvollendeten, *2 parts, Berlin, 1858-59, 6th ed., 1889), of Carl Ullmann (Gotha, 1867), of Carl Immanuel Nitzsch (Halle, 1872, 2d ed., 1882), and of Albrecht Wolters (1880); *Zur deutschchristlichen Bildung *(1880, 2d ed., 1899); *Das Leben Jesu *(2 vols., Halle, 1885-86, 4th ed., 1902); *Der Friedensschluss zwischen Deutschland and Rom *(Halle, 1887); *Reden in der Erfurter VorConferenz des evangelischen Bundes *(1888); *Godofred, ein Märchen fürs deutsche Haus *(1888); *Luther's Hausstand in seiner reformatorischen Bedeutung *(Barmen, 1888); *Die Reformation in Italien *(1888); *Die römisch-katholischen Ansprüche an die preussische Volksschule *(1889); *Zur Verständigung über den christlichen Vorsehungsglauben* (Halle, 1889); *Erkenntnisspfade zu Christo * (1889); *Die evangelische Kirche als Bundesgenossin wider die Socialdemokratie * (Berlin, 1890); *Neutestamentliche Theologie * (2 vols., 1891-92, 2d ed., 1896; Eng. transl., *New Testament Theology, * 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1895, 2d ed., 1896); *Christenlehre * (Halle, 3d ed., 1903). BIBLIOGRAPHY: Consult his autobiography, *Aus meinem Leben*, 2 vols., Halle, 1896-98; K. H. Pahncke, *Willibald Beyschlag, ein Gedenkblatt, * Tübingen, 1905.

### BEZA, bî'za, THEODORE. Early Life (§ 1). Teacher at Lausanne (§ 2). Journeys in behalf of the Protestants (§ 3). Settles in Geneva (§ 4). Events of 1560-63 (§ 5). Calvin's Successor (§ 6). Course of Events after 1564 (§ 7). The Colloquy of Mümpelgart (§ 8). Last Days (§ 9). Humanistic and Historical writings (§ 10). Theological works (§ 11). Beza's Greek New Testament (§ 12). ### 1. Early Life. Theodore Beza (Théodore de Bèze or de Besze), Genevan Reformer, was born at Vézelay (8 m. w.s.w. of Avallon), in Burgundy, June 24, 1519; d. at Geneva Oct. 13, 1605. His father, Pierre de Bèze, royal governor of Vézelay, descended from a Burgundian family of distinction; his mother, Marie Bourdelot, was known for her generosity. Theodore's father had two brothers; one, Nicholas, was member of Parliament at Paris; the other, Claude, was abbot of the Cistercian monastery Froimont in the diocese of Beauvais. Nicholas, who was unmarried, on a visit to Vézelay was so pleased with Theodore that, with the permission of the parents, he took him to Paris to educate him there. From Paris Theodore was sent to Orléans (Dec., 1528) to enjoy the instruction of the famous German teacher Melchior Wolmar. He was received into Wolmar's house, and the day on which this took place was afterward celebrated as a second birthday. Young Beza soon followed his teacher to Bourges, whither the latter was called by the duchess Margaret of Angoulême, sister of Francis I. Bourges was one of the places in France in which the heart of the Reformation beat the strongest. When, in 1534, Francis I issued his edict against ecclesiastical innovations, Wolmar returned to Germany, and, in accordance with the wish of his father, Beza went back to Orléans to study law, and spent four years there (1535-39). This pursuit had little attraction for him; he enjoyed more the reading of the ancient classics, especially Ovid, Catullus, and Tibullus. He received the degree of licentiate in law Aug. 11, 1539, and, as his father desired, went to Paris, where he began practise. His relatives had obtained for him two benefices, the proceeds of which amounted to 700 golden crowns a year; and his uncle had promised to make him his successor. Beza spent two happy years at Paris and soon gained a prominent position in literary circles. To escape the many temptations to which he was exposed, with the knowledge of two friends, he became engaged in the year 1544 to a young girl of humble descent, Claudine Denosse, promising to make this engagement public as soon as his circumstances would allow it. He published a collection of Latin poems, *Juvenilia, * which made him famous, and he was everywhere considered one of the best Latin poets of his time. But he fell ill and his distress of body revealed to him his spiritual needs. Gradually he came to the knowledge of salvation in Christ, which he apprehended with a joyous faith. He then resolved to sever his connections of the time, and went to Geneva, the French city of refuge for the Evangelicals, where he arrived with Claudine Oct. 23, 1548. ### 2. Teacher at Lausanne. He was heartily received by Calvin, who had met him already in Wolmar's house, and was at once publicly and solemnly married in the church. Beza was at a loss for immediate occupation, so he went to Tübingen to see his former teacher Wolmar. On his way home he visited Viret at Lausanne, who at once detained him and brought about his appointment as professor of Greek at the academy there (Nov., 1549). In spite of the arduous work which fell to his lot, Beza found time to write a Biblical drama, *Abraham Sacrifiant * (published at Geneva, 1550; Eng. transl. by Arthur Golding, London, 1577, ed., with introduction, notes, and the French text of the original, M. W. Wallace, Toronto, 1906), in which he contrasted Catholicism with Protestantism, and the work was well received. In June, 1551, he added a few psalms to the French version of the Psalms begun by Marot, which was also very successful. About the same time he published his *Passavantius, * a satire directed against Pierre Lizet of ill repute, formerly president of the Parliament of Paris, and principal originator of the "fiery chamber" (*chambre ardente*), who, being at the time (1551) abbot of St. Victor near Paris, was eager to acquire the fame of a subduer of heresy by publishing a number of polemical writings. Of a more serious character were two controversies in which Beza was involved at this time. The first concerned the doctrine of predestination and the controversy of Calvin with Bolsec (see CALVIN, JOHN; BOLSEC, JÉRÔME HERMÈS). The second referred to the burning of Michael Servetus at Geneva Oct. 27, 1553. In defense of Calvin and the Genevan magistrates, Beza published in 1554 the work *De haereticis a civili magistratu puniendis* (translated into French in 1560). ### 3. Journeys in behalf of the Protestants. In 1557 Beza took a special interest in the Waldensians of Piedmont, who were harassed by the French government, and in their behalf went with Farel to Bern, Zurich, Basel, Schaffhausen, thence to Strasburg, Mümpelgart, Baden, and Göppingen. In Baden and Göppingen, Beza and Farel had to declare themselves concerning their own and the Waldensians' views on the sacrament, and on May 14, 1557, they presented a written declaration in which they clearly stated their position. This declaration was well received by the Lutheran theologians, but was strongly disapproved in Bern and Zurich. In the autumn of 1557 Beza undertook a second journey with Farel to Worms by way of Strasburg to bring about an intercession of the Evangelical princes of the empire in favor of the persecuted brethren at Paris. With Melanchthon and other theologians then assembled at Worms, Beza considered a union of all Protestant Christians, but this proposal was decidedly negatived by Zurich and Bern. False reports having reached the German princes that the hostilities against the Huguenots in France had ceased, no embassy was sent to the court of France, and Beza undertook another journey in the interest of the Huguenots, going with Farel, Johannes Buddæus, and Gaspard Carmel to Strasburg and Frankfort, where the sending of an embassy to Paris was resolved upon. ### 4. Settles in Geneva. Upon his return to Lausanne, Beza was greatly disturbed. In union with many ministers and professors in city and country, Viret at last thought of establishing a consistory and of introducing a church discipline which should inflict excommunication especially at the celebration of the communion. But the Bernese would have no Calvinistic church government. This caused many difficulties, and Beza thought it best (1558) to settle at Geneva. Here he occupied at first the chair of Greek in the newly established academy, and after Calvin's death also that of theology; besides this he was obliged to preach. He completed the revision of Olivetan's translation of the New Testament, begun some years before. In 1559 he undertook another journey in the interest of the Huguenots, this time to Heidelberg; about the same time he had to defend Calvin against Joachim Westphal in Hamburg and Tileman Hesshusen. More important than this polemical activity was Beza's statement of his own confession. It was originally prepared for his father in justification of his course and published in revised form to promote Evangelical knowledge among Beza's countrymen. It was printed in Latin in 1560 with a dedication to Wolmar. An English translation was published at London 1563, 1572, and 1585. Translations into German, Dutch, and Italian were also issued. ### 5. Events of 1560-63. In the mean time things took such shape in France that the happiest future for Protestantism seemed possible. King Antony of Navarre, yielding to the urgent requests of Evangelical noblemen, declared his willingness to listen to a prominent teacher of the Church. Beza, a French nobleman and head of the academy in the metropolis of French Protestantism, was invited to Castle Nerac, but he could not plant the seed of Evangelical faith in the heart of the king. In the year following (1561) Beza represented the Evangelicals at the Colloquy of Poissy, and in an eloquent manner defended the principles of the Evangelical faith. The colloquy was without result, but Beza as the head and advocate of all Reformed congregations of France was revered and hated at the same time. The queen insisted upon another colloquy, which was opened at St. Germain Jan. 28, 1562, eleven days after the proclamation of the famous January edict which granted important privileges to those of the Reformed faith. But the colloquy was broken off when it became evident that the Catholic party was preparing (after the massacre of Vassy, Mar. 1) to overthrow Protestantism. Beza hastily issued a circular letter (Mar. 25) to all Reformed congregations of the empire, and with Condé and his troops went to Orléans. It was necessary to proceed quickly and energetically. But there were neither soldiers nor money. At the request of Condé, Beza visited all Huguenot cities to obtain both. He also wrote a manifesto in which he showed the justice of the Reformed cause. As one of the messengers to collect soldiers and money among his coreligionists, Beza was appointed to visit England, Germany, and Switzerland. He went to Strasburg and Basel, but met with failure. He then returned to Geneva, which he reached Sept. 4. He had hardly been there fourteen days when he was called once more to Orléans by D'Andelot. The campaign was becoming more successful; but the publication of the unfortunate edict of pacification which Condé accepted (Mar. 12, 1563) filled Beza and all Protestant France with horror. ### 6. Calvin's Successor. For twenty-two months Beza had been absent from Geneva, and the interests of school and Church there and especially the condition of Calvin made it necessary for him to return. For there was no one to take the place of Calvin, who was sick and unable longer to bear the burden resting on him. Calvin and Beza arranged to perform their duties jointly in alternate weeks, but the death of Calvin occurred soon afterward (May 27, 1564). As a matter of course Beza was his successor. Until 1580 Beza was not only *modérateur de la compagnie des pasteurs, * but also the real soul of the great institution of learning at Geneva which Calvin had founded in 1559, consisting of a gymnasium and an academy. As long as he lived, Beza was interested in higher education. The Protestant youth for nearly forty years thronged his lecture-room to hear his theological lectures, in which he expounded the purest Calvinistic orthodoxy. As a counselor he was listened to by both magistrates and pastors. Geneva is indebted to him for the founding of a law school in which François Hotman, Jules Pacius, and Denys Godefroy, the most eminent jurists of the century, lectured in turn (cf. Charles Borgeaud, *L'Académie de Calvin, * Geneva, 1900). ### 7. Course of Events after 1564. As Calvin's successor, Beza was very successful, not only in carrying on his work but also in giving peace to the Church at Geneva. The magistrates had fully appropriated the ideas of Calvin, and the direction of spiritual affairs, the organs of which were the "ministers of the word" and "the consistory," was founded on a solid basis. No doctrinal controversy arose after 1564. The discussions concerned questions of a practical, social, or ecclesiastical nature, such as the supremacy of the magistrates over the pastors, freedom in preaching, and the obligation of the pastors to submit to the majority of the *compagnie des pasteurs. *Beza obtruded his will in no way upon his associates, and took no harsh measures against injudicious or hot-headed colleagues, though sometimes he took their cases in hand and acted as mediator; and yet he often experienced an opposition so extreme that he threatened to resign. Although he was inclined to take the part of the magistrates, he knew how to defend the rights and independence of the spiritual power when occasion arose, without, however, conceding to it such a preponderating influence as did Calvin. His activity was great. He mediated between the *compagnie* and the magistracy; the latter continually asked his advice even in political questions. He corresponded with all the leaders of the Reformed party in Europe. After the massacre of St. Bartholomew (1572), he used his influence to give to the refugees a hospitable reception at Geneva. About this time he wrote his *De jure magistratuum*, in which he emphatically protested against tyranny in religious matters, and affirmed that it is legitimate for a people to oppose an unworthy magistracy in a practical manner and if necessary to use weapons and depose them. To sum up: Without being a great dogmatician like his master, nor a creative genius in the ecclesiastical realm, Beza had qualities which made him famous as humanist, exegete, orator, and leader in religious and political affairs, and qualified him to be the guide of the Calvinists in all Europe. In the various controversies into which he was drawn, Beza often showed an excess of irritation and intolerance, from which Bernardino Ochino, pastor of the Italian congregation at Zurich (on account of a treatise which contained some objectionable points on polygamy), and Sebastian Castellio at Basel (on account of his Latin and French translations of the Bible) had especially to suffer. With Reformed France Beza continued to maintain the closest relations. He was the moderator of the general synod which met in April, 1571, at La Rochelle and decided not to abolish church discipline or to acknowledge the civil government as head of the Church, as the Paris minister Jean Morel and the philosopher Pierre Ramus demanded; it also decided to confirm anew the Calvinistic doctrine of the Lord's Supper (by the expression: "substance of the body of Christ") against Zwinglianism, which caused a very unpleasant discussion between Beza and Ramus and Bullinger. In the following year (May, 1572) he took an important part in the national synod at Nîmes. He was also interested in the controversies which concerned the Augsburg Confession in Germany, especially after 1564, on the doctrine of the person of Christ and the sacrament, and published several works against Westphal, Hesshusen, Selnecker, Johann Brenz, and Jakob Andrea. This made him, especially after 1571, hated by all those who adhered to Lutheranism in opposition to Melanchthon. ### 8. The Colloquy of Mümpelgart. The last polemical conflict of importance Beza encountered from the exclusive Lutherans was at the Colloquy of Mümpelgart, Mar. 14-27, 1586, to which he had been invited by the Lutheran Count Frederick of Württemberg at the wish of the French noblemen who had fled to Mümpelgart. As a matter of course the intended union which was the purpose of the colloquy was not brought about; nevertheless it called forth serious developments within the Reformed Church. When the edition of the acts of the colloquy, as prepared by J. Andreä, was published, Samuel Huber, of Burg near Bern, who belonged to the Lutheranizing faction of the Swiss clergy, took so great offense at the supralapsarian doctrine of predestination propounded at Mümpelgart by Beza and Musculus that he felt it to be his duty to denounce Musculus to the magistrates of Bern as an innovator in doctrine. To adjust the matter, the magistrates arranged a colloquy between Huber and Musculus (Sept. 2, 1587), in which the former represented the universalism, the latter the particularism, of grace. As the colloquy was resultless, a debate was arranged at Bern, Apr. 15-18, 1588, at which the defense of the accepted system of doctrine was at the start put into Beza's hands. The three delegates of the Helvetic cantons who presided at the debate declared in the end that Beza had substantiated the teaching propounded at Mümpelgart as the orthodox one, and Huber was dismissed from his office. ### 9. Last Days. After that time Beza's activity was confined more and more to the affairs of his home. His faithful wife Claudine had died childless in 1588, a few days before he went to the Bern Disputation. Forty years they had lived happily together. He contracted, on the advice of his friends, a second marriage with Catharina del Piano, a Genoese widow, in order to have a helpmate in his declining years. Up to his sixty-fifth year he enjoyed excellent health, but after that a gradual sinking of his vitality became perceptible. He was active in teaching till Jan., 1597. The saddest experience in his old days was the conversion of King Henry IV to Roman Catholicism, in spite of his most earnest exhortations (1593). Strange to say, in 1596 the report was spread by the Jesuits in Germany, France, England, and Italy that Beza and the Church of Geneva had returned into the bosom of Rome, and Beza replied in a satire that revealed the possession still of his old fire of thought and vigor of expression. He was not buried, like Calvin, in the general cemetery, Plain-Palais (for the Savoyards had threatened to abduct his body to Rome), but at the direction of the magistrates, in the monastery of St. Pierre. ### 10. Humanistic and Historical Writings. In Beza's literary activity as well as in his life, distinction must be made between the period of the humanist (which ended with the publication of his *Juvenilia*) and that of the ecclesiastic. But later productions like the humanistic, biting, satirical *Passavantius* and his *Complainte de Messire Pierre Lizet . . .* prove that in later years he occasionally went back to his first love. In his old age he published his *Cato censorius * (1591), and revised his *Poemata*, from which he purged juvenile eccentricities. Of his historiographical works, aside from his *Icones* (1580), which have only an iconographical value, mention may be made of the famous *Histoire ecclésiastique des Églises réformées au Royaume de France* (1580), and his biography of Calvin, with which must be named his edition of Calvin's *Epistolae et responsa* (1575). ### 11. Theological Works. But all these humanistic and historical studies are surpassed by his theological productions (contained in *Tractationes theologicae*). In these Beza appears the perfect pupil or the *alter ego *of Calvin. His view of life is deterministic and the basis of his religious thinking is the predestinate recognition of the necessity of all temporal existence as an effect of the absolute, eternal, and immutable will of God, so that even the fall of the human race appears to him essential to the divine plan of the world. In most lucid manner Beza shows in tabular form the connection of the religious views which emanated from this fundamental supralapsarian mode of thought. This he added to his highly instructive treatise *Summa totius Christianismi.* ### 12. Beza's Greek New Testament. Of no less importance are the contributions of Beza to Biblical science. In 1565 he issued an edition of the Greek New Testament, accompanied in parallel columns by the text of the Vulgate and a translation of his own (already published as early as 1556). Annotations were added, also previously published, but now he greatly enriched and enlarged them. In the preparation of this edition of the Greek text, but much more in the preparation of the second edition which he brought out in 1582, Beza may have availed himself of the help of two very valuable manuscripts. One is known as the *Codex Bezae * or *Cantabrigensis, * and was later presented by Beza to the University of Cambridge; the second is the *Codex Claromontanus,* which Beza had found in Clermont (now in the National Library at Paris). It was not, however, to these sources that Beza was chiefly indebted, but rather to the previous edition of the eminent Robert Stephens (1550), itself based in great measure upon one of the later editions of Erasmus. Beza's labors in this direction were exceedingly helpful to those who came after. The same thing may be asserted with equal truth of his Latin version and of the copious notes with which it was accompanied. The former is said to have been published over a hundred times. It is to be regretted that the author's view of the doctrine of predestination exercised upon the interpretation of Scripture too preponderating an influence. However, there is no question that Beza added much to a clear understanding of the New Testament. EUGÈNE CHOISY. BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. W. Baum, *T. Beza nach handschriftlichen und anderen gleichzeitigen Quellen, *Leipsic, 1843-52 (masterly, but extends only to 1563); his life by Heppe is in vol. vi of *Leben und ausgewählte Schriften der Väter der reformierten Kirche, *Elberfeld, 1861 (complete and excellent, inferior only to Baum); A. de la Faye, *De vita et obitu T. Bezae, *Geneva, 1606 (by a favorite pupil of Beza); Jérôme Bolsec, *Histoire de la vie, mœurs, doctrine et débordements de T. de Bèze, *Paris, 1582, republished Geneva, 1835 (Roman Catholic, a scurrilous and malignant libel); F. C. Schlosser, *Leben des Theodor Beza und des Peter Martyr Vermigli, *Heidelberg, 1809; E. and É. Haag, *La France protestante, *2d ed. by Bordier, ii. 520-540, Paris, 1879; H. M. McCracken, *Lives of the Leaders of Our Church Universal, *from the Germ. of F. Piper, pp. 352-362, Philadelphia, 1879; Schaff, *Christian Church, *vol. vii, passim, especially chap six; Moeller, *Christian Church, *vol. iii, passim; C. v. Proosdij, *T. Beza medearbeider en opvolger van Calvijn, *Leyden, 1895; H. M. Baird, *Theodore Beza, the Counsellor of the French Reformation, *New York, 1899 (the one book in English, and a worthy treatment of the subject), cf. his *Rise of the Huguenots, *passim, ib. 1879; A. Bernus, *T. de Bèze à Lausanne, *Lausanne, 1900; E. Choisy, *L'État chrétien calviniste à Genève au temps de T. de Bèze, *Geneva, 1902; *Cambridge Modern History, *vol. ii, *The Reformation, *passim, vol. iii, London, 1904; *À Théodore de Bèze (1605-1905), *Geneva, 1906.

**BEZOLD, **bê"zold', **CARL ERNST CHRISTIAN:** German Orientalist; b. at Donauwörth (25 m. n.n.w. of Augsburg), Bavaria, May 18, 1859. He was educated at the universities of Munich (1876-79), Leipsic (1879-80; Ph.D., 1881), and Strasburg (1881), and became privat-docent at Munich in 1883. He continued his studies at Rome in the spring of 1884 and at London in the summer of 1882 and 1887, while from 1888 to 1894 he was employed in the British Museum. Since the latter year he has been professor of Oriental philology and director of the Oriental seminar at the University of Heidelberg. In 1884 he founded, at Leipsic, the *Zeitschrift für Keilschriftforschung, * which was continued in the following year as the *Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, *and which he has edited to the present time. He likewise edited the second edition of C. F. A. Dillmann's *Grammatik der äthiopischen Sprache *(Leipsic, 1899) and the *Orientalische Studien *in honor of the seventieth birthday of T. Nöldeke (2 vols., Giessen, 1906), and was the founder and editor of the *Semitistische Studien * (Berlin, 1894 sqq.). In 1904 he became one of the editors of the *Archiv für Religionswissenschaft. * He has also written *Die grosse Dariusinschrift am Felsen von Behistun *(Leipsic, 1881); *Die Achämenideninschriften *(1882); *Die Schatzhöhle, syrisch und deutsch *(2 vols., 1883-88); *The Ordinary Canon of the Mass according to the Use of the Coptic Church,* in C. A. Swainson's *Greek Liturgies *(London, 1884); *Kurzgefasster Ueberblick über die babylonisch-assyrische Literatur *(Leipsic, 1886); *Catalogue of the Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection of the British Museum *(5 vols., London, 1889-99); *The Tell-el-Amarna Tablets in the British Museum *(1892); *Oriental Diplomacy *(1893); *Ninive und Babylon *(Bielefeld, 1903); *Die babylonisch-assyrischen Keilinschriften und ihre Bedeutung für das Alte Testament *(Tübingen, 1904); *Babylonisch-Assyrische Texte übersetzt: i. Die Schöpfungslegende *(Bonn, 1904); and *Kebra Nagast, die Herrlichkeit der Könige *(Ethiopic text and German translation, Munich, 1905).

**BIANCHINI, **bî"än-kî'nî **(BLANCHINUS), GIUSEPPE: **Italian Biblical scholar; b. at Verona Sept. 9, 1704; d. after 1760. He was a member of the Congregation of the Oratory, and the author of two works bearing on the history of the Itala: *Psalterium duplex juxta antiquam italicam versionem *(Rome, 1740) and *Evangeliarium quadruplex Latinæ versionis antiquæ seu veteris Italicæ *(2 vols., 1749). The detailed statements in the first volume are valuable, but the text is inferior to Sabatier's *Bibliorum sacrorum Latinæ versionis antiquæ *(Reims, 1739 sqq.). The second, containing some older codices, supplements Sabatier. K. BENRATH.

### BIBLE The Bible in the Early Church (§ 1). In the Middle Ages and Reformation Period (§ 2). Modern Views and Criticism (§ 3). Wherein the Bible is Unique (§ 4). The word "Bible" (from Gk. *biblia, * "books") or "Holy Scripture" is the customary term in Church and theology for the ecclesiastically acknowledged collection of the Old and the New Testament writings. As the writings of the Old Testament canon are indicated in the New Testament by the term "The Scriptures" or "The Scripture," so in the Middle Ages the whole was designated by "The Books." By a misunderstanding of the Greek form, the word was received into the modern languages as a singular of feminine gender. ### 1. The Bible in the Early Church. The separation of these writings from all other literature as "the Book of Books" is derived from the practise of Jesus, who, with his contemporaries, acknowledged the authority of the Old Testament literature (M. Kaehler, *Jesus und das Alte Testament, * Leipsic, 1895). The Old Testament was conveyed, in the Greek translation of the Septuagint, as the Word of God, to the Gentile Christians by the followers of Jesus. At the latest in the beginning of the third century, the New Testament canon was added to the Old Testament, as is witnessed by the Syriac version (see CANON OF SCRIPTURE). And from that time the bipartite collection was always treated as a whole, although the uncertainty about some books (the so-called *Antilegomena) * was not forgotten during the Middle Ages, was recognized by Luther and other Reformers, and was treated from a dogmatic standpoint by Martin Chemnitz *(Examen concilii Tridentini, * Frankfort, 1596). The controversy about the Old Testament Apocrypha has never been settled. What esteem the Bible enjoyed in the ancient catholic Church is seen from its controlling position in divine service, in the reading of Scripture, and in the delivery of sermons founded on it, but especially from the labor spent in translating it (see BIBLE VERSIONS, A). ### 2. In the Middle Ages and Reformation Period. It must not be imagined that the Middle Ages did not rightly appreciate the Bible. It is necessary to take into account the great difficulties which confronted the Church at that time in forming an ecclesiastical language, and even a literary language, for the Germanic and Slavic nations. In the absence of modern philology the efforts made are worthy of acknowledgment. The hierarchical development of the Church tended to paralyze it by enforcing uniformity in use of the church-language at the expense of intelligibility, and in the interest of an easier management put the "heretical book" into the keeping of the ecclesiastical magistracy. But the Reformation introduced a new epoch of wide propagation and appreciation of the Bible. The efforts of the Reformers to make this book accessible to all Christians were taken up by Pietism under Spener; the founding of the Canstein Bible Institute (see BIBLE SOCIETIES, II, 1; CANSTEIN, KARL HILDEBRAND, BARON OF) and the sending out of the first missionaries opened the double way by which the Bible, especially in the nineteenth century, has obtained its commanding position in the world; knowledge of the Bible has been spread by the Bible Societies through hundreds of new translations (a work in which Englishmen and Scotchmen, well read in the Scriptures, have distinguished themselves). The Bible has become in the fullest sense the people's book in all Protestant countries of the Old World, and the same process is being repeated among the non-Christian nations, to which missionary cooperation gives the Bible and with it often also an alphabet and a literary language. ### 3. Modern Views and Criticism. This zeal for the propagation of the Bible has its root in the unique importance which the theology of the Reformation ascribes to it. In opposition to the ecclesiastical position of Rome, the Evangelicals developed their doctrine of the "normative or decisive authority of Scripture" on the basis of the uncontroverted character of the Scripture as revelation. This high regard has as its foundation the doctrine of "verbal inspiration" (see INSPIRATION), which ascribes to the Bible all requisite qualities, such as "perfection" in communicating the "knowledge necessary for salvation," " transparency," and the "power of interpreting itself by itself." Unobserved, the body of pure doctrine, by the help of which the renewal of evangelical activity had been accomplished, became transformed into a set of doctrines which were mechanically combined, regardless of their historical origin. In opposition to the adulterated tradition of Rome, Protestantism could happily refer to the bulwark of Scripture, in which Roman Catholics also acknowledged divine revelation. But evangelical theology first succumbed to the attack which the "Enlightenment" (*Aufklärung*), about the middle of the eighteenth century, made upon all history and tradition and especially upon historical revelation. In vain the effort was made to prove dogmatically the immediate divine origin of the Bible-letter, while proof was also given in an ever-cogent manner that the Bible is a production of human authorship and tradition. This crisis was gradually overcome by the victory gained for the "historico-critical" method of treating the Bible, but the right of historical revelation was established over against "natural morality and religion." As in earlier times historical development within the Bible was now and then perceived (e.g., by Cocceius and Bengel), so now students see in its writings documents of divine revelation which entered into the human world as historical facts (so the Erlangen School). Only one group of theologians of the nineteenth century (e.g., Hengstenberg and Rudelbach) went back again to the old doctrine of verbal inspiration; most investigators assumed a new attitude toward Scripture. Documents to have value must be shown to be ancient and to be derived from a time near the events they relate; there must be testimony to their genuineness and credibility. But such merely historical consideration of the Bible proved insufficient and dangerous in the next period. "Liberal theology, endowed with technical skill," showed error in Biblical tradition from a critical point of view, and in place of the Biblical evidences it substituted conjecturally the details of a natural history of religion, which it composed after the Hegelian formula to the effect that in the "historical revelation" there is to be seen the development of a religious idea, an act in the drama of the natural development of humanity (so F. C. Baur, E. Reuss, and Wellhausen). The results of this modern criticism were propagated among the people through the press and by pamphlets in a wild confusion along with the older, would-be enlightening defamations of the Bible (so by Reimarus, Venturini, and Bahrdt). Over against this sprang up a comprehensive literature which sought to gain those who were estranged from the Bible and to reassure disquieted readers. It was based on an acknowledgment of the part the revelation of God has played in the education of the race, and in a scientific manner discarded the unjustified conclusions of the so-called constructive criticism, at least as far as the New Testament is concerned. In this intellectual battle it became evident that the estimate of the Bible stands in an indissolubly reciprocal relation to the position taken toward positive Christianity in general. ### 4. Wherein the Bible is Unique. It is therefore absolutely necessary (especially for the ministry and for ecclesiastical instruction) to have a clear insight into that which makes our Bible the unique "Book of Books." This is obtained by observing what it is that has given the Bible its historical position. Throughout the whole course of its working in the human race the Bible appears only in close connection with the Church, the essential activity of which, according to the Augsburg Confession (vii), is the preaching of "the Word." The common object of both is to convey the revelation of the living God. Whoever has become a believer in the Gospel and recalls his experience perceives also that the service of the Church by which he was led to it was inspired by the Bible, and further observation of life and history teaches that the efficacy of the work of the Church is dependent on the use it makes of the Bible. For only in the Scripture is found the unchangeable and therefore authoritative form of preaching which first induced faith in Christ and continues so to do. On the other hand, the Christian also recognizes that his personal relation to the Bible is due to the "living voice of the Gospel" and that through the Church he comes into personal relation with the Bible. He understands also that the Bible is the book of the Church (so Luther), but not a text-book or devotional book which in all its parts is immediately useful to the individual Christian. In it are found productions which are far remote from one another in date, which originally were intended for entirely different circles with quite peculiar wants. On this account only the cooperation of different gifts and the diligence of generations working on a scientific basis can bring out its full content. Under the assumption of this service of the Church each living Christian has the possibility of coming thus through his Bible into immediate touch with the historical revelation of his God from the promise of the covenant to the beginning of the mission to the Gentiles. While historical inquiry establishes the historical continuation, and divides the whole Bible into single historical accounts and documents, the view of most Bible-readers is directed only to the Bible as a whole, and seeks in every fragment a word of God applicable to immediate questions and wants. These divergent interests must be united by observing that the individual parts, by being comprehended as "the Bible," receive a new worth, and that in this very form they obtain an imperishable, effective continuity, instead of being merely individual monuments of past times. The collection is not an accidental one, but transcribes in characteristic features the life of the human race as it developed under the influence of the history of revelation. To him therefore who sees in reliance on God the stay of human life, the Bible will also be the book of the human race. For Christian belief the Bible appears thus as the great fact in which God has inseparably interwoven the faith-awakening knowledge of his revelation with the history of the human race, and in it is discerned the clear testimony to the goal of the human race and the conquering offer of God's grace. M. KAEHLER. BIBLIOGRAPHY: M. Arnold, *Literature and Dogma, *latest ed., New York, 1902 (a rich book, but on rationalistic basis; it called forth many replies which were answered in *God and the Bible, *1884); J. H. Crocker, *The New Bible and its New Uses *(Unitarian, ultrarationalistic); G. J. Metzger, *Der alte Bibelglaube und der moderne Vernunftglaube, * Stuttgart, 1893 (evangelical); J. T. Sunderland, *The Bible . . . its Place among the Sacred Books of the World, * New York, 1893 (Unitarian); J. Denney, *Studies in Theology, *London, 1895 (by a leader in English evangelical thought); A. M. Fairbairn, *Place of Christ in Modern Theology, *London, 1895 (moderate in its theological position); P. Müller, *Freisinn und Bibelglaube, *Hamburg 1896; W. Sanday, *Inspiration, *London, 1896 (advanced in the O. T. part, conservative in treating the N. T.); R. L. Ottley, *Aspects of the Old Testament, *London, 1898; T. Zahn, *Die bleibende Bedeutung des neutestamentlichen Kanons für die Kirche, *Leipsic, 1898; S. Bernfeld, *Das Buch der Bücher, *Berlin, 1899; C. A. Briggs, *General Introduction to the Study of Holy Scripture, * New York, 1899 (comprehensive and scholarly); R. B. MacArthur, *Bible Difficulties and their Alleviative Interpretations, *Boston, 1898; idem, *The Old Book and the Old Faith, *ib. 1899 (decidedly conservative); L. W. Batten, *The Old Testament from the Modern Point of View, *New York, 1901; R. G. Moulton, *Short Introduction to the Literature of the Bible, * Boston, 1901; P. Gardner, *Historic View of the New Testament, *London, 1904 (from a scientific standpoint); F. Bettex, *Die Bibel Gottes Wort, *3d ed., Stuttgart, 1903, Eng. transl., Cincinnati, 1904; J. E. Carpenter, *The Bible in the Nineteenth Century, *London, 1903 (scholarly and reverent, but on scientific basis); J. Haussleiter, *Die Autorität der Bibel, *Munich [1904], 1905; M. Dods, *The Bible, its Origin and Nature, *New York, 1905 (Dr. Dods is well known as a conservative critic); J. M. McMullen, *The Supremacy of the Bible, *ib. 1905; W. Barry, *The Tradition of Scripture, its Origin, Authority, and Interpretation, *London. 1906; C. F. Kent, *Origin and Permanent Value of the O. T., *New York, 1906; A. T. Pierson, *The Bible and Spiritual Criticism, *ib. 1906; G. F. Wright, *Scientific Confirmations of O. T. History, *ib. 1906; W. C. Selleck, *New Appreciation of the Bible, *Chicago, 1907; H. F. Waring, *Christianity and its Bible, *ib. 1907.

**BIBLE CHRISTIANS. **See METHODISTS, I., 8.

### BIBLE CHRISTIANS (BRYANITES). William O'Bryan (§ 1). Early Organization and Growth (§ 2). Dissension (§ 3). Extension to America and Australia (§ 4). Union with the Methodists in Canada (§ 5). Union in Australia and England (§ 6). Bible Christians or Bryanites are popular names of a body of Christians officially known as the Bible Christian Connection. The designation "Bryanites" is from their founder, William O'Bryan; that of "Bible Christians" was due to the persistent use of the Bible in private devotions and public services by a peasantry in general but scantily provided with the book, and to the consistent practise of its precepts by their early ministry. The sect has usually been classed with the Methodists and is now united with them. ### 1. William O'Bryan. William O'Bryan, the founder, was born in Gunwen (near Lostwithiel, 23 m. w. of Plymouth), Cornwall, England, Feb. 6, 1778. He was the son of a yeoman, was possessed of a vigorous mind and retentive memory, and, having a good elementary education, was, intellectually, considerably above his class. His home influences were devoutly religious and resulted in his conversion at eighteen, when he began at once to exhort. He was licensed shortly after as a "local preacher" with the hope of entering the Wesleyan itinerancy; meanwhile he engaged in business. Serious illness (1804) reawakened in him a profound conviction of his call, which delay and opposition had weakened for a time. For five years more he was content to work on the Bodmin circuit as a local preacher of the Wesleyans, while still in business. His fine presence, courteous manner, great magnetism, and above all his fervent godliness gave him much popularity as a preacher. In his keen hunting for souls, he grew restive under restraint, overstepped the boundary of the circuit and plunged into the "wild wastes of Cornwall and North Devon," where the voice of Methodism had never been heard. This in the mind of the Wesleyan authorities was a "dangerous irregularity" of method, against which Mr. O'Bryan had been cautioned, and, when he appeared at the district meeting as a candidate for the itinerancy, caused his "first" rejection; the financial responsibility which would be incurred by accepting a married man, as he now was, was named as the "second" cause for his "final" rejection. He at once entered unoccupied fields in a new campaign. His unquestioned moral uprightness, indefatigable labors, and unsparing self-sacrifice made his evangelical message remarkably successful; and the generosity which prompted him to urge all his converts to enter the Church that had rejected him from its highest office of ministry compels admiration. A tendency to despotic rule, to which by nature and force of circumstances he was inclined (see below, § 3), led to a separation in 1829 from the Connection which he had founded, and in 1835 to his emigration to the United States with residence in New York City. He revisited his spiritual children more than once and was heartily welcomed. A generous pension was provided for his support by the body. He died in Brooklyn, Jan. 8, 1868, and was buried in Greenwood Cemetery. ### 2. Early Organization and Growth. The germ of the Bible Christian denomination consisted of twenty-two persons, converts of Mr. O'Bryan, who were organized into a society on Oct. 9, 1815, in the house of John Thorne, Shebbear, Devonshire, England. Within a year this number became eighteen ministers and 1,500 members; and at the sixth year seventy-eight ministers and 6,200 members. To carry forward a work extending so rapidly, Mr. O'Bryan adopted John Wesley's plan and "chose and appointed" both men and women as itinerants. The proportion of women was large in the early history of the Church, and their work was eminently successful; yet their number steadily declined and ultimately none remained in the itinerancy. With this working force evangelism was extended into Devonshire and Cornwall, the Scilly and Channel Islands, and later by emigration (1820-30) to America. ### 3. Dissension. Organization into societies and circuits required meeting-places and chapels–at first preaching was mostly in the field, the village green, in hired halls, and in houses–and all property acquired for such purpose was held in Mr. O'Bryan's name. He also presided over the conference, the first being held at Launceston (1819), and composed of ministers only. To all this absolutism, there was serious objection, and an effort to secure an amended deed by which all property should be held in trust for the Connection was begun in 1826. A crisis was reached at the eleventh conference (1829), when opposition to Mr. O'Bryan's expressed intention "that if all the conference were opposed to his views, his single vote was to determine every case," resulted in his adjourning the conference, and withdrawing with comparatively few sympathizers. The conference refused to recognize his authority, elected Andrew Cory president in his stead, and proceeded with business. It was resolved "that the conference be the organ of government; its membership, ministers and laymen; and its next place of meeting annually fixed." The conference thus declared against an episcopacy, as it also decided against ecclesiasticism by admitting laymen to church government in equal numbers with clerical members. Eight years later these separatists negotiated terms of reunion, but Mr. O'Bryan never again united. ### 4. Extension to America and Australia. Many members of the infant Church emigrated to the colonies and the United States. In 1831 the Missionary Society of the Bible Christians in England sent John Glass and Francis Metherall as missionaries to Canada West and Prince Edward Island respectively. They also organized missions (1846) in the States of Wisconsin, Ohio, and Michigan. In 1850 James Way and James Rowe were sent out to Australia, and later work was begun in New Zealand. For the next quarter of a century the Church enjoyed undisturbed prosperity, establishing three publishing houses, and a denominational college at Shebbear, Devonshire, England. In 1882, 300 ministers and 34,000 members were reported. This was the high-water mark numerically. ### 5. Union with the Methodists in Canada. These years of extension had awakened, in a much divided Methodism, a sense of the advisability of "union," in both England and the colonies. The center of discussion was Canada, where five Methodist sects wasted their energy in vigorous, if not unseemly, rivalry. As early as 1866 the Bible Christians and Methodist New Connection approached the Methodist Protestants of the United States upon the question of union, but the overture ended in friendly expressions only. In 1870 the Methodist New Connection made overtures to the Bible Christians, and in 1874 the former were absorbed by the Wesleyan Methodists of Canada. The Bible Christians announced as their policy–a policy consistently held since organization–"That any basis of union to be acceptable to this Conference *must secure to the laity their full share of privileges * in the government of the Church." In 1882 a committee was appointed by the Bible Christians to meet with three other committees, representing the Wesleyan Methodists, the Primitive Methodists, and the Methodist Episcopal Church of Canada. This committee was explicitly instructed to reaffirm "That no union would be possible for their Church that did not provide for a representation of the laity in all church courts." A basis of union was provided acceptable to all parties, voted upon by every society, and in 1884 union was fully and legally perfected. The uniting churches chose as a name "The Methodist Church of Canada." The parent body graciously consented to the separation, which affected the work in Canada and the United States only. ### 6. Union in Australia and England. The energy and resources of the English and Australian conferences were now devoted to an enlargement of home missions and in the establishment of a foreign mission in China, which has been successful. A union of the Australian conference with other Methodist sects in that colony left but the parent body bearing the name; and in Aug., 1906, this Church voted unanimously to unite with the Methodist New Connection and the United Methodists, the union to be formally and legally consummated in 1907. The name of "United Methodist Church" was chosen for the new organization. At the time of approving the union the Bible Christians had 638 chapels, 202 ministers, and 30,000 members. FRANCIS METHERALL WHITLOCK. BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. Thorns, *A Jubilee Memorial of the Rise and Progress of the Bible Christian Connexion, * London, 1888; J. G. Hayman, *A Hist. of the Methodist Revival of the Last Century in Relation to North Devon, *ib. 1885; [John Thorne], *James Thorne of Shebbear, a Memoir . . . from his Diary and Letters, by his Son, *ib 1873; F. W. Bourne, *The Centenary Life of James Thorne, *ib. 1895; *Brief Biographical Sketches of Bible Christians, * Jersey, 1905; *The Book of Discipline for the People Known as Bible Christians, * London, the Bible Christian Book Room.

### BIBLE READING BY THE LAITY, RESTRICTIONS ON. The Ancient Church. The Middle Ages. The Roman Catholic Church since the Reformation. Action by the Council of Trent (§ 1). Rules of Various Popes (§ 2). Rules and Practice in Different Countries (§ 3). The Greek Church. The Evangelical Churches. ### I. The Ancient Church: It is indisputable that in Apostolic times the Old Testament was commonly read (John v, 47; Acts viii, 28; xvii, 11; II Tim. iii, 15). Roman Catholics admit that this reading was not restricted in the first centuries, in spite of its abuse by Gnostics and other heretics. On the contrary, the reading of Scripture was urged (Justin Martyr, xliv, *ANF, *i, 177-178; Jerome, *Adv. libros Rufini, *i, 9, *NPNF, *2d ser., iii, 487); and Pamphilus, the friend of Eusebius, kept copies of Scripture to furnish to those who desired them. Chrysostom attached considerable importance to the reading of Scripture on the part of the laity and denounced the error that it was to be permitted only to monks and priests (*De Lazaro concio, *iii, *MPG, *xlviii, 992; *Hom. ii in Matt., MPG, * lvii, 30, *NPNF, *2d ser., x, 13). He insisted upon access being given to the entire Bible, or at least to the New Testament *(Hom. ix in Col., MPG, *lxii, 361, *NPNF, *xiii, 301). The women also, who were always at home, were diligently to read the Bible (*Hom. xxxv on Gen. xii, MPG, *liii, 323). Jerome recommended the reading and studying of Scripture on the part of the women (*Epist., *cxxviii, 3, *MPL, *xxii, 1098, *NPNF, *2d ser., vi, 259; *Epist., *lxxix, 9, *MPG, *xxii, 730-731, *NPNF, *2d ser., vi, 167). The translations of the Bible, Augustine considered a blessed means of propagating the Word of God among the nations (*De doctr. christ.,* ii, 5, *NPNF, *1st ser., ii, 536); Gregory I recommended the reading of the Bible without placing any limitations on it (*Hom. iii in Ezek., MPL, *lxxvi, 968). ### II. The Middle Ages: Owing to lack of culture among the Germanic and Romanic peoples, there was for a long time no thought of restricting access to the Bible there. Translations of Biblical books into German began only in the Carolingian period and were not originally intended for the laity. Nevertheless the people were anxious to have the divine service and the Scripture lessons read in the vernacular. John VIII in 880 permitted, after the reading of the Latin gospel, a translation into Slavonic; but Gregory VII, in a letter to Duke Vratislav of Bohemia in 1080 characterized the custom as unwise, bold, and forbidden (*Epist., *vii, 11; P. Jaffé, *BRG, *ii, 392 sqq.). This was a formal prohibition, not of Bible reading in general, but of divine service in the vernacular. With the appearance, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, of the Albigenses and Waldenses, who appealed to the Bible in all their disputes with the Church, the hierarchy was furnished with a reason for shutting up the Word of God. The Synod of Toulouse in 1229 forbade the laity to have in their possession any copy of the books of the Old and the New Testament except the Psalter and such other portions as are contained in the Breviary or the Hours of the Blessed Mary. "We most strictly forbid these works in the vulgar tongue" (Harduin, *Concilia, *xii, 178; Mansi, *Concilia, *xxiii, 194). The Synod of Tarragona (1234) ordered all vernacular versions to be brought to the bishop to be burned. James I renewed thin decision of the Tarragona synod in 1276. The synod held there in 1317 under Archbishop Ximenes prohibited to Beghards, Beguines, and tertiaries of the Franciscans the possession of theological books in the vernacular (Mansi, *Concilia, *xxv, 627). The order of James I was renewed by later kings and confirmed by Paul II (1464-71). Ferdinand and Isabella (1474-1516) prohibited the translation of the Bible into the vernacular or the possession of such translations (F. H. Reusch, *Index der verbotenen Bücher, *i, Bonn, 1883, 44). In England Wyclif's Bible-translation caused the resolution passed by the third Synod of Oxford (1408): "No one shall henceforth of his own authority translate any text of Scripture into English; and no part of any such book or treatise composed in the time of John Wycliffe or later shall be read in public or private, under pain of excommunication" (Hefele, *Conciliengeschichte, *vi, 984). But Sir Thomas More states that he had himself seen old Bibles which were examined by the bishop and left in the hands of good Catholic laymen (Blunt, *Reformation of the Church of England, * 4th ed., London, 1878, i, 505). In Germany, Charles IV issued in 1369 an edict to four inquisitors against the translating and the reading of Scripture in the German language. This edict was caused by the operations of Beghards and Beguines. In 1485 and 1486, Berthold, archbishop of Mainz, issued an edict against the printing of religious books in German, giving among other reasons the singular one that the German language was unadapted to convey correctly religious ideas, and therefore they would be profaned. Berthold's edict had some influence, but could not prevent the dissemination and publication of new editions of the Bible. Leaders in the Church sometimes recommended to the laity the reading of the Bible, and the Church kept silence officially as long as these efforts were not abused. ### III. The Roman Catholic Church since the Reformation: Luther's translation of the Bible and its propagation could not but influence the Roman Catholic Church. Humanism, through such men as Erasmus, advocated the reading of the Bible and the necessity of making it accessible by translations; but it was felt that Luther's translation must be offset by one prepared in the interest of the Church. Such editions were Emser's of 1527, and the Dietenberg Bible of 1534. The Church of Rome silently tolerated these translations. ### 1. Action by the Council of Trent. At last the Council of Trent took the matter in hand, and in its fourth session (Apr. 18, 1546) adopted the *Decretum de editione et usu librorum sacrorum, *which enacted the following: "This synod ordains and decrees that henceforth sacred Scripture, and especially the aforesaid old and vulgate edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible; and that it shall not be lawful for any one to print, or cause to be printed, any books whatever on sacred matters without the name of the author; or in future to sell them, or even to possess them, unless they shall have been first examined and approved of by the ordinary." When the question of the translation of the Bible into the vernacular came up, Bishop Acqui of Piedmont and Cardinal Pacheco advocated its prohibition. This was strongly opposed by Cardinal Madruzzi, who claimed that "not the translations but the professors of Hebrew and Greek are the cause of the confusion in Germany; a prohibition would produce the worst impression in Germany." As no agreement could be had, the council appointed an index-commission to report to the pope, who was to give an authoritative decision. ### 2. Rules of Various Popes. The first index published by a pope (Paul IV), in 1559, prohibited under the title of *Biblia prohibita * a number of Latin editions as well as the publication and possession of translations of the Bible in German, French, Spanish, Italian, English, or Dutch, without the permission of the sacred office of the Roman Inquisition (Reusch, ut sup., i, 264). In 1584 Pius IV published the index prepared by the commission mentioned above. Herein ten rules are laid down, of which the fourth reads thus: "Inasmuch as it is manifest from experience that if the Holy Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue, be indiscriminately allowed to every one, the rashness of men will cause more evil than good to arise from it, it is, on this point, referred to the judgment of the bishops or inquisitors, who may, by the advice of the priest or confessor, permit the reading of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue by Catholic authors, to those persons whose faith and piety they apprehend will be augmented and not injured by it; and this permission must be had in writing. But if any shall have the presumption to read or possess it without such permission, he shall not receive absolution until he have first delivered up such Bible to the ordinary." Regulations for booksellers follow, and then: "Regulars shall neither read nor purchase such Bibles without special license from their superiors." Sixtus V substituted in 1590 twenty-two new rules for the ten of Pius IV. Clement VIII abolished in 1596 the rules of Sixtus, but added a "remark" to the fourth rule given above, which particularly restores the enactment of Paul IV. The right of the bishops, which the fourth rule implies, is abolished by the "remark," and the bishop may grant a dispensation only when especially authorized by the pope and the Inquisition (Reusch, ut sup., i, 333). Benedict XIV enlarged, in 1757, the fourth rule thus: "If such Bible-versions in the vernacular are approved by the apostolic see or are edited with annotations derived from the holy fathers of the Church or from learned and Catholic men, they are permitted." This modification of the fourth rule was abolished by Gregory XVI in pursuance of an admonition of the index-congregation, Jan. 7, 1836, "which calls attention to the fact that according to the decree of 1757 only such versions in the vernacular are to be permitted as have been approved by the apostolic see or are edited with annotations," but insistence is placed on all those particulars enjoined by the fourth rule of the index and afterward by Clement VIII (Reusch, ut sup., ii, 852). ### 3. Rules and Practice in Different Countries. In England the reading of the Bible was made by Henry VIII (1530) to depend upon the permission of the superiors. Tyndale's version, printed before 1535, was prohibited. In 1534 the Canterbury convocation passed a resolution asking the king to have the Bible translated and to permit its reading. A folio copy of Coverdale's translation was put into every church for the benefit of the faithful, and fastened with a chain. In Spain the Inquisitor-General de Valdes published in 1551 the index of Louvain of 1550, which prohibits "Bibles (New and Old Testaments) in the Spanish or other vernacular" (Reusch, ut sup., i, 133). This prohibition was abolished in 1778. The Lisbon index of 1824 in Portugal prohibited quoting in the vernacular in any book passages from the Bible. In Italy the members of the order of the Jesuits were in 1596 permitted to use a Catholic Italian translation of the Gospel-lessons. In France the Sorbonne declared, Aug. 26,1525, that a French translation of the Bible or of single books must be regarded as dangerous under conditions then present; extant versions were better suppressed than tolerated. In the following year, 1526, it prohibited the translation of the entire Bible, but permitted the translation of single books with proper annotations. The indexes of the Sorbonne, which by royal edict were binding, after 1544 contained the statement: "How dangerous it is to allow the reading of the Bible in the vernacular to unlearned people and those not piously or humbly disposed (of whom there are many in our times) may be seen from the Waldensians, Albigenses, and Poor Men of Lyons, who have thereby lapsed into error and have led many into the same condition. Considering the nature of men, the translation of the Bible into the vernacular must in the present be regarded therefore as dangerous and pernicious" (Reusch, ut sup., i, 151). The rise of Jansenism in the seventeenth century, and especially the appearance, under its encouragement, of Quesnel's New Testament with moral reflections under each verse (*Le Nouveau Testament en françois avec des reflexions moroles sur chaque vers, * Paris, 1699), which was expressly intended to popularize the reading of the Bible, caused the renewal, with increased stringency, of the rules already quoted. The Jesuits prevailed upon Clement XI to publish the famous bull *Unigenitus, * Sept. 8, 1713, in which he condemned seven propositions in Quesnel's work which advocated the reading of the Bible by the laity (cf. H. J. D. Denzinger, *Enchiridion, *Würzburg, 1854, 287). In the Netherlands, Neercassel, bishop of Emmerich, published in 1677 (in Latin) and 1680 (in French) a treatise in which he dealt with the fourth rule of the Tridentine index as obsolete, and urged the diligent reading of the Bible. In Belgium in 1570 the unlicensed sale of the Bible in the vernacular was strictly prohibited; but the use of the Antwerp Bible continued. In Poland the Bible was translated and often published. In Germany papal decrees could not very well be carried out and the reading of the Bible was not only not prohibited, but was approved and praised. Billuart about 1750, as quoted by Van Ess, states, "In France, Germany, and Holland the Bible is read by all without distinction." In the nineteenth century the clergy took great interest in the work of Bible Societies. Thus Leander van Ess acted as agent of the British and Foreign Bible Society for Catholic Germany, and the society published the New Testament of Van Ess, which was placed on the Index in 1821. The princes-bishop of Breslau, Sedlnitzki, who afterward joined the Evangelical Church, was also interested in circulating the Bible. As the Bible Societies generally circulated the translations of heretics, the popes–Leo XII (May 5, 1824); Pius VIII (May 25, 1829); Gregory XVI (Aug. 15, 1840; May 8, 1844); Pius IX (Nov. 9, 1846; Dec. 8, 1849) issued encyclicals against the Bible Societies. In the syllabus of 1864 "socialism, communism, secret societies, . . . and Bible Societies" are placed in the same category. As to the effect of the papal decrees there is a difference of opinion within the Catholic Church. In theory the admonition of Gregory XVI no doubt exists, but practise often ignores it. ### IV. The Greek Church The Greek church knows of no such restriction of use of the Bible as that of the Roman Church. Nevertheless the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 answered the first of the four questions: "Whether the Holy Scripture can be read by all Christians," in the negative. Nicholas I of Russia abolished in 1826 the Bible Society founded by Alexander I for the propagation of the Bible in the Russian vernacular. ### V. The Evangelical Churches: Luther strove to open the Bible to all, and his version served that purpose. The principle that every Evangelical Christian is at liberty to read the Bible remained uncontroverted, though Semler (*De antiquo ecclesiæ statu commentatio, *37, 60, 68) makes the assertion that the sacred writings, especially the apostolic epistles, were not intended for the use of the people and the congregations; that in the ancient Church no universal use of the Bible existed, and that the catechumens especially were prohibited from using the Bible. Bible-compendiums for special purposes and separate circles also came into use in the Evangelical Church. Veit Dietrich published in 1541 his *Summarium *of the Old and the New Testament; Cromwell's soldiers had *The Soldier's Pocket Bible *of 1643 (facsimile edition, *Cromwell's Soldier's Bible, *London, 1895). The restriction upon Bible-reading in the Evangelical Church became of practical importance only in the schools. For didactic purposes Amos Comenius recommended compendiums and special manuals of Scripture, which the scholar was to use till he could read the Gospel in the original. The didactic needs were gradually satisfied by the introduction of text-books of "Biblical history," the Catechism, and collections of Bible sentences. From time to time the question has been agitated whether the whole Bible or so-called school Bibles should be used in the schools. The principal reason adduced in favor of the latter is that certain passages are objectionable because they deal with sexual relations. But these reasons are not well founded, since reading of the Bible has never been a cause of demoralization. The moral earnestness which without veiling calls things by their right names is to be preferred to a careful paraphrasing and veiling of the sense which only the more excite impure desires. (GEORG RIETSCHEL.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: T. G. Hegelmaier, *Geschichte des Bibelverbots, * Ulm, 1783; N. Le Maire, *Sanctuarium profanis occlusum sive de sanctorum bibliorum in lingua vulgari seu vernacula tractatus, *Würsburg, 1662 (from the Fr. of 1651), this was reproduced in substance in *Die Bibel kein Lesebuch für Jedermann, *Münster, 1845; A. Arnauld, *De la lecture de l'écriture sainte, *Paris (c. 1690); C. W. F. Walch, *Kritische Untersuchungen vom Gebrauch der heiligen Schrift unter den alten Christen in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, * Leipsic, 1779; F. von Ess, *Der heilige Chrysostomus oder die Stimme der katholischen Kirche über das nützliche, heilsame und erbauliche Bibellesen, * Darmstadt, 1824; J. B. Malon, *La Lecture de la sainte Bible an langue vulgaire, *2 vols., Louvain, 1846; *Vom Lesen der heiligen Schrift, * Mains, 1846; F. H. Reusch, *Die Indices librorum prohibitorum des sechszehnten Jahrhundarts, * Tübingen, 1886; W. Walther, *Die deutsche Bibelübersetzung des Mittelalters, * Braunschweig, 1889; J. H. Kurtz, *Church History, *§§ 105, 3; 185, 1, New York, 1890; the text of the bull *Unigenitus *may be found in Reich, *Documents, *pp. 386-389, and the authoritative statement of the Greco-Russian Church in Schaff, *Creeds, *iii, 433-434.

### BIBLE SOCIETIES. British Bible Societies. Precursors of the British and Foreign Bible Society. The British and Foreign Bible Society. Origin and Constitution (§ 1). Present Organization (§ 2). Foreign Work (§ 3). Dissensions. Seceding Societies (§ 4). The National Bible Society of Scotland. The Hibernian Bible Society. The Trinitarian Bible Society. The Bible Translation Society. Bible Societies on the Continent of Europe. Germany. France. The Netherlands. Scandinavia Russia. Switzerland. Bible Societies in America. The American Bible Society. Organization (§ 1). Constitution and Management (§ 2). Summary of Work (§ 3). Foreign Work (§ 4). Controversies (§ 5). The American and Foreign Bible Society and the American Bible Union. The Bible Association of Friends in America. Bible societies are benevolent associations formed to increase the circulation of the Bible and making special efforts to supply the Scriptures to those who from poverty or other causes are destitute of them. Printing the Bible or New Testament in suitable styles, translation into all important languages and even into the less important dialects, and some effective system of distribution in all accessible places are commonly regarded as essential features of the work of such societies. In some cases the books are given without price; but it is not usual to give away a large proportion. The test of manufacture and of distribution, however, has to be provided by voluntary contributions. The Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, founded in London in 1698, was the first to undertake to provide the common people with the Bible. It continues this beneficent work as one branch of its publication enterprise, and has been the means of providing fairly good translations of the Scriptures in many obscure languages of Asia, Africa, and the Pacific Islands. The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, founded in 1701, has also done and is still doing a good work in circulating the Scriptures in connection with its extensive missions. The Scottish Society for Propagating Christian Knowledge, founded in 1709, added the work of circulating the Bible to its missionary enterprises in Scotland and in America. The first society formed for the exclusive purpose of publishing the Bible at a low price seems to have been the Canstein Bible Institute, established in 1710 at Halle in Germany by Baron Canstein (see below, II, 1). ### I. British Bible Societies. ### 1. Precursors of the British and Foreign Bible Society: In the last half of the eighteenth century several societies sprang up in Great Britain which had Bible distribution as part of their programme; such as the Book Society for Promoting Religious Knowledge among the Poor (1750), the Bible Society, later known as the Naval and Military Bible Society (1780), the Society for the Support and Encouragement of Sunday Schools (1785), the Association for Discountenancing Vice and Promoting the Knowledge and Practise of the Christian Religion (established in Dublin, 1792), the French Bible Society (established in London for printing the Bible in France, 1792), and the Religious Tract Society (London, 1799; see TRACT SOCIETIES). ### 2. The British and Foreign Bible Society: ### 1. Origin and Constitution. These enterprises, however, did not supply the need. The Rev. Thomas Charles of Bala in Wales became much impressed with the need of the common folk about him, who could not obtain the Bible except by persevering effort and much self-denial; the Bible was not only scarce but costly. Mr. Charles finally devoted himself to finding some effective means of supplying his people with the Scriptures. At a meeting of the Religious Tract Society in London in 1802, he aroused great interest by his vigorous presentation of the need of the people of Wales. The Rev. Joseph Hughes, secretary of the Religious Tract Society, exclaimed, "Surely a society might be formed to provide Bibles for Wales; and if for Wales, why not for the world?" This remark contained the germ from which grew the British and Foreign Bible Society. The idea of a Bible Society for the world led to discussion and to study of the destitution of the people. The Rev. C. F. A. Steinkopf, pastor of the German Lutheran Church in London, gave effective information of the situation in European countries. Members of the Religious Tract Society, although they did not publicly appear, had much to do with the preparatory work. On Mar. 7, 1804, a public meeting was held at the London Tavern, on the call of Mr. Hughes. Three hundred persons attended the meeting. It was quickly evident that a society for increasing the circulation of the Bible presented common ground, upon which all sects and parties could stand. Dissenters met churchmen, and in their interest in the needs of the masses, they forgot for a time their divergent interpretations of the same book. The sole condition necessary to union of action was that a text accepted by all should be issued without note or comment. At this meeting a hastily drawn up set of by-laws was adopted. An executive committee of thirty-six laymen was chosen, fifteen from the Church of England, fifteen from the Dissenting bodies, and six foreigners residing in London. The Rev. Joseph Hughes (Baptist) and the Rev. Josiah Pratt (Church of England) were elected secretaries. Seven hundred pounds were subscribed for the work of the society, and the Bishop of London, Dr. Porteus, was elected President. The constitution of the society was soon afterward prepared; the Rev. John Owen, of the Church of England, was added to the staff of the society as a third secretary, and on nomination of Lord Teignmouth, a former governor-general in India, the Rev. C. F. A. Steinkopf was appointed secretary for foreign lands. Besides the Bishop of London, the Bishops of Durham, Exeter, and St. Davids, and many other influential persons, among whom were William Wilberforce and Granville Sharp, long known as antislavery leaders, joined this movement. ### 2. Present Organization. As at present organized, the business of the society is directed by a committee made up as indicated above. Every subscriber of five guineas annually is a governor, and every subscriber of one guinea annually is a member of the society. Every governor, and every minister who is a member, has the privilege of attending and voting at all meetings of the committee. The president, the vice-presidents (numbering more than a hundred), and the treasurer are considered *ex officio *members of the committee. There are two secretaries and three superintendents charged with different departments of the work besides several assistant secretaries. To excite wider interest and to facilitate the distribution of the Bible, auxiliary and branch societies are formed, which pay their collections into a common fund and receive back a certain proportion of the sum collected in Bibles for distribution. There were in 1906 more than 5,800 of the auxiliary and branch societies and associations in England and Wales alone. The society began its career by first meeting the wants of Wales. Twenty thousand Welsh Bibles and five thousand Testaments were printed. Providentially but a short time before this, the art of stereotyping had been invented. When in 1806 the first wagon-load of Bibles came into Wales, it was received like the ark of the covenant; and the people with shouts of joy dragged it into the city. The society also distributed the Bible in an improved Gaelic translation in the Highlands of Scotland, and turned its attention to the Irish; in short, it undertook to supply Great Britain and Ireland with Bibles. ### 3. Foreign Work. But the society did not forget that it is a foreign as well as a British Bible Society. When it began operations Europe was convulsed with war and not so much was done as would otherwise have been accomplished in the way of supplying the destitute in European countries. Mr. Steinkopf and Robert Pinkerton made extensive tours through Germany, Switzerland, and Russia, and everywhere local Bible societies sprang into existence in their wake. Many of these societies, formed in 1812 and later, have done good work, being aided with funds and with grants of Bibles by the British Society. About the time of the formation of the British Society two Scotchmen, John Paterson and Ebenezer Henderson, went to Copenhagen, intending to go out as missionaries to India under the Danish-Halle mission at Tranquebar. Their plan fell through, but they met an Icelander, Thorkelin, in Copenhagen, who told them of the destitution of his countrymen. There were said to be only fifty Bibles in Iceland for a population of fifty thousand. The two Scotchmen laid the matter before the British and Foreign Bible Society, which promised to pay half of the expense of printing five thousand Testaments in Icelandic. The printing was stopped by the outbreak of war. But in 1812 Mr. Henderson received permission to remain in Copenhagen to complete the printing of the whole Bible in Icelandic, and, notwithstanding the war, to correspond with the Bible society in England regarding this work. The confidence thus shown in the motives of the society was certainly remarkable at that epoch; and it had much to do with the founding of the Danish Bible Society in 1814. The British Society extended its work gradually to the British colonies, where it works through auxiliary societies. In Canada, the Canadian Bible Society, which has united a large number of local auxiliaries in one, is a society auxiliary to the British Society, and has a secretary appointed by the parent society in London. In Australia the society has fifty-two auxiliaries with nearly 500 branches. In India, with the exception of Burma, the society carries on its work through six strong auxiliary societies. In Cape Colony the South-African auxiliary has for its field the whole territory south of the Orange River. The whole number of auxiliaries and branch societies affiliated with the British Society outside of the United Kingdom exceeds 2,200. The whole number of these local societies, in Great Britain and abroad, which the British and Foreign Society aids and from which it receives donations, is over 8,160. Besides these auxiliary societies the parent society makes use of agencies, each in charge of a special agent, devoted to the increase of the circulation of the Bible in his own field. These agencies cover the continent of Europe, and Turkey, Siberia, China, Korea, and Japan in Asia. In the three last-named countries special arrangements with the American Bible Society and the National Bible Society of Scotland prevent clashing and secure combination for the translation of the Scriptures. Agencies of the British society also promote the distribution of the Bible in Egypt and North Africa and in nearly all of the colonies of East and West Africa. Where neither auxiliary nor agency has been established the society works through the missions which are in occupation of the ground in any part of the world. ### 4. Dissensions. Seceding Societies. This wide-spread work has not been brought to its present extension without hindrances and difficulties. The High-church party in the Church of England has at times opposed the Bible Society, preferring to work through the Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, which takes care to have the Bible supplemented by the Book of Common Prayer. Others have insisted that the Bible is a dangerous book to put in the hands of ignorant men without note or comment, and for this reason have opposed the Bible Society. In 1825 dissension arose within the Bible Society, which continued during two years, over the question of the Apocrypha. It was formally resolved in 1827 that the fundamental law of the society forbids its circulating the Apocrypha, and that therefore no persons or societies that circulate the Apocrypha can receive aid from the society. This decision led to the separation of a considerable number of European societies from the British society which had founded them. The discussion also resulted in the secession of the Scottish societies which originated the agitation against the publication of the Apocrypha (see below, 3). In 1831 another agitation was raised against the presence of Unitarians on the Board of Managers. The society having refused to alter its constitution so as to exclude non-Trinitarians, a separate society called the Trinitarian Bible Society was formed (see below, 5). With the growth of foreign missions, a question as to translation of the words relating to baptism became acute; and the controversy finally led to the formation of the Bible Translation Society, which was supported by Baptists who preferred to translate "immerse" rather than to transfer the Greek word *baptizein *(see below, 6). But there has been a continuous and remarkable growth of the society in spite of all obstacles and opposition. In 1904 the centenary of the society was celebrated in almost all countries of the Christian and non-Christian world. "Bible Day" in Mar., 1904, will long be remembered not only as a day of an immense popular declaration of faith in the Bible as the revelation of God's will to men, but as a time for expressing the warmest love and sympathy, and gratitude withal, to the society which then completed a hundred years of self-sacrificing service of the nations. Not only were special gifts sent into the treasury for the general work of the society, but a special centenary fund of $1,256,000 was raised in that and the following year to be used as a reserve for more firmly planting the outposts of the society. The total issues of the British and Foreign Bible Society, in the year ending Mar. 31, 1908, amounted to 5,416,569 copies of the Bible or its parts. The total issues of the society from its organization to Mar. 31, 1907, amount to 203,931,768 copies, of which more than 80,000,000 copies were in the English language. The president of the British and Foreign Bible Society is the Marquis of Northampton. Its headquarters are at 146 Queen Victoria St., London, E. C.; its periodicals are *The Bible in the World * and *The Bible Society Gleanings.* ### 3. The National Bible Society of Scotland: In 1809 the Edinburgh Bible Society was formed, in 1812 the Glasgow Bible Society, and in 1821 the Glasgow Auxiliary Bible Society. As mentioned above, these societies seceded from the British and Foreign Bible Society in consequence of the controversy about circulating editions of the Bible containing the Apocrypha. In 1859 the National Bible Society was formed, and in 1861 all these Scottish societies combined to form a new organization which was incorporated as the National Bible Society of Scotland. The fields of this society are in Europe and Asia. One-fifth of its issues in 1906-1907 were in Roman Catholic countries and about one-half in China. Its issues in the year ending Mar., 1907, amounted to 1,671,900 copies. ### 4. The Hibernian Bible Society: This society was organized in 1806 as an auxiliary to the British and Foreign Bible Society. It is now independent, and devotes its attention mainly to the needs of Ireland. In the year ending Mar., 1907, it circulated 37,258 copies, which were purchased by the society. The headquarters are in Dublin. ### 5. The Trinitarian Bible Society: Formed in 1831 as a protest against Unitarianism, this society issued in the year ending Dec. 31, 1907, 89,214 copies of the Bible or its parts. The headquarters of the society are at 7 Bury St., London, W. C. ### 6. The Bible Translation Society: This society was organized in 1843 to serve the special interests of the British Baptist missions. It is now a part of the Baptist Missionary Society, making no separate publication of its issues, and having its headquarters at the Mission House, 19 Furnival St., London. ### II. Bible Societies on the Continent of Europe. ### 1. Germany: The first German Bible Society was the Canstein Bible Institute, founded in Halle in 1710 by Karl Hildebrand, Baron Canstein, with the definite purpose of placing the Bible within reach of the poor. The Institute has issued up to the beginning of 1907, over 7,000,000 copies of the Bible and its parts. The issues for 1907 were 38,696 copies. The (first) Nuremberg Bible Society was formed in 1804, and received aid from the British and Foreign Bible Society. In 1806 it was removed to Basel in Switzerland and took the name of the Basel Bible Society. Its issues during the year 1906 amounted to 32,708 copies. The Berlin Bible Society was formed in 1806 as a result of the energy of Father Jänicke, a Moravian pastor, and was aided by the British and Foreign Bible Society in its early years. In 1814 it was converted into the Prussian Bible Society. It now has many branches and devotes its attention mainly to the circulation of the Bible in Germany. In the year 1906 its issues amounted to 212,911 Bibles and Testaments. The headquarters of the society are Klosterstrasse 71, Berlin C. The **Württemberg Bible Institute **was formed in 1813 under the influence of Messrs. Steinkopf and Pinkerton, of the British and Foreign Bible Society. Its issues reported in 1906 were 334,953 copies. The headquarters are at Christophstrasse 6, Stuttgart. The **Berg Bible Society **was formed at Elberfeld in the old Duchy of Berg in 1814. It furnishes Scriptures for use abroad in some small quantities. The total of its issues in 1906 was 151,558 copies, and the total of its issues in the 93 years of its existence are 2,228,353 copies. The headquarters of the society are at Marienstrasse 28, Elberfeld. The **Saxon Bible Society **was formed in the year 1814. It has forty-two branches, and besides its publications in German, it has published an edition of the New Testament in the Chagga language, spoken in the northern part of German East Africa. Its total issues in 1906 amounted to 48,065 copies. The headquarters are at Zinzendorfstrasse 17, Dresden. The **Bavarian Protestant Bible Society **was formed in 1823. It is also called the **Central Bible Society. ** Its issues in 1906 were 12,930 copies. The headquarters of the society are at Nuremberg. There are also many local and state societies, of which those of Hamburg, Sleswick, and Strasburg print as well as distribute Bibles. A Roman Catholic Bible Society, the **Regensburg Bible Institute, **was organized in 1805 by G. M. Wittmann, head of the seminary at Regensburg, with the assistance of some bishops and many laymen. A translation of the New Testament was prepared and 60,000 copies were distributed in ten years, but in 1817 the Institute was suppressed by Pope Pius VII. In 1815 another Roman Catholic Bible Society was founded at Heiligenstadt, which connected itself with the Prussian society and organized auxiliaries. Leander van Ess at Marburg was especially interested and his translation of the New Testament was widely disseminated. He also founded the **Christian Brotherhood for Disseminating the Holy Scriptures **with the support of the British and Foreign Bible Society. The Heiligenstadt society flourished till 1830 and maintained an existence till 1864, but received its support chiefly from Protestants after the former date. The translation of the New Testament made by J. E. Gossner was also circulated by the English society. ### 2. France: The **French Bible Society **(London) referred to above began the Bible movement in France, but the outbreak of the Revolution prevented the circulation of French Bibles printed with English money. The **Protestant Bible Society of Paris **was formed in 1818, and received aid from the British and Foreign Bible Society for a time. The subsidy was withdrawn after a few years because the Paris Society included the Apocrypha in its Bibles. The issues of this society in 1906 were 8,061 copies. A sharp controversy among the French Protestants respecting the French version led in 1864 to the formation of the **Bible Society of France. **This society excluded the Apocrypha from its Bibles and held to the version of J. F. Osterwald of which it is now publishing a new revision. It has received aid from the American Bible Society, and it circulates the Bible in the French colonies in Asia and Africa. Its issues in 1906 were 34,556 copies. ### 3. The Netherlands: The **Netherlands Bible Society **was formed in 1814. Its issues in the year 1904 amounted to 93,977 copies, of which 57,573 copies were sent abroad to the Dutch East Indies, Dutch Guiana, and South Africa. The headquarters of the society are at Heerengracht 366, Amsterdam. ### 4. Scandinavia: The **Danish Bible Society **was organized in 1814. Its circulation in 1906 amounted to 45,289 copies. The **Norwegian Bible Society ** was formed in 1816 under the influence of the British and Foreign Bible Society. Its issues in 1904 were 63,300 copies, of which 751 copies were sent to Denmark, and 11,041 copies to the United States of America. Its total issues in eighty-eight years ending Dec. 31, 1904, were 1,153,260 copies. The headquarters of the society are at Christiania. The **Swedish Bible Society **was organized in 1814. Its circulation in 1906 was 12,414 copies and its total circulation from the beginning, 1,242,515 copies, of which 666 were in the Lapp language. ### 5. Russia: The **Russian Bible Society with Imperial Sanction **was formed in 1863. It circulates the Bible in Russian and other languages under the supervision of the Holy Synod. Its reports show the contributions of the czar and czarina and the grand dukes, but do not specify clearly the circulation. It makes use of colporteurs and seems to do serious work. A Russian Bible Society formed in 1812 did an important work in Bible translation, but was suppressed by imperial ukase in 1826. The **Russian Evangelical Bible Society ** was organized in 1831 for the purpose of circulating the Bible among Lutherans and in the German language. Its circulation in 1904 was 22,219 copies. The **Finnish Bible Society ** was formed in 1812 and its issues in 1903 were about 30,000 copies. ### 6. Switzerland: The **Basel Bible Society, ** transferred to Basel from Nuremberg, has been mentioned above ( II, 1). Local Bible societies exist in many of the cantons of Switzerland. They seem, however, to be merely agents of distribution receiving Bibles from other societies, notably from the British and Foreign Bible Society. Their circulation is therefore included in that of the other societies. HENRY OTIS DWIGHT. ### III. Bible Societies in America. ### 1. The American Bible Society: The Revolutionary War produced a great scarcity of Bibles in the United States. One year after the Declaration of Independence Congress was memorialized to authorize the printing of an edition of the Bible. This memorial was referred to a committee, who found the difficulties, especially, of procuring proper material, type, and paper, to be so great that Congress ordered the importation at its own expense of 20,000 English Bibles from Holland, England, or elsewhere. The scarcity still continuing, in 1782 Congress recommended to the people of the United States an edition of the Bible printed by Thomas Aitken, of Philadelphia, "being satisfied of the care and accuracy of the execution of the work." It was not until 1808 that the first Bible Society was organized in Philadelphia. In 1809 societies were organized in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey in the order named and by 1816 there were 128 such societies. ### 1. Organization. The idea of uniting these societies is one organization was a natural one and was much discussed. The missionary travels of the Rev. Samuel J. Mills in the West and South, reported in religious periodicals, increased the desire for a national organization, which he strongly advocated. On Jan. 1, 1816, Elias Boudinot, the president of the New Jersey Bible Society, made a public communication on the subject, and on Jan. 17 he issued a circular letter appointing Wednesday, May 8, 1816, as the time for holding a convention for, this purpose in New York. Sixty delegates representing twenty-eight Bible societies (besides several other persons admitted to seats in the convention) met on the day named in the Garden Street Collegiate Reformed Dutch Church, representing the Presbyterian, Congregational, Methodist, Episcopal, Dutch Reformed, and Baptist Churches, and the Society of Friends. The convention was in session for two days, adopted a constitution and in accordance therewith elected managers, who met in the City Hall, May 11, and elected officers, Elias Boudinot being made president. ### 2. Constitution and Management. Under this constitution "the sole object shall be to encourage a wider circulation of the Holy Scriptures without note or comment" (art. i). The board of managers is composed of thirty-six laymen, one-fourth of whom go out of office every year, but are eligible for re-election. Every clergyman who is a life member may meet and vote with the board of managers, provided he receives no salary or compensation for services from the society. The managers meet regularly every month, consider and act on all matters presented by ten standing committees besides other matters originating in the board itself and report all their proceedings to the annual meeting of the members of the society held on the second Thursday of May and usually in New York. The society was incorporated in 1841. The societies which already existed became for the most part auxiliary to the national organization and in addition many other auxiliary societies were organized under its direction, the number at one time reaching 2,200. Many of these, however, have ceased to exist, the number now being 541. The "Bible House," Astor Place, N. Y., the society's headquarters, was erected in 1852 and was paid for by funds contributed for the special purpose and not from current receipts for benevolent work. ### 3. Summary of Work. The ninety-first annual report of the board of managers was presented May 9, 1907. The total cash receipts were $575,820.94. The total issues of that year were 1,910,853, of which 1,010,777 were issued from the Bible House in New York, and 900,076 from the society's agencies abroad, being printed on mission presses in China, Japan, Siam, Syria, and Turkey. The total issues of the society in Bibles, Testaments, and portions amount to 80,420,382 copies, distributed se follows: Bibles 20,293,636 Testaments and portions 58,215,889. ### 4. Foreign Work. The efforts of the society were at first directed mainly to meeting the needs of the people of the United States, but from the very first it was in spirit and intention a foreign as well as a home mission society. Bibles at the very beginning were supplied to the North-American Indians. The third annual report shows that steps were already taken for sending Spanish Bibles to Buenos Ayres and the next year the society was reaching out to West Africa. In 1836 the first foreign agency was instituted in Constantinople, and in 1864 the agency for the La Plata region in South America. During the past thirty years this work has largely increased and regular agencies have been established in Japan, China, Brazil, Mexico, Korea, Cuba, Siam and Laos, Central America, Porto Rico and the Philippines, besides Venezuela and Colombia, where the agencies have been temporarily discontinued. These agencies have distributed a total of 9,453,918 Bibles, Testaments, and portions in China alone. Besides this the society has continually cooperated with missions and missionaries in countries in all quarters of the globe. It has stimulated Bible translation, initiating it in some cases, cooperating with others more frequently and securing needed revisions under its patronage and partly or wholly at its expense. It has been thus interested in about 100 translations and revisions in all. ### 5. Controversies. The labors of the society have been broken twice by serious differences among its friends and supporters. In 1835 missionaries in Burma published at the expense of the society a translation of the New Testament which rendered the Greek word *baptizein *and its cognate terms by the English "immerse " or an equivalent. After much discussion the managers resolved that they felt at liberty "to encourage only such versions as conform in the principle of their translation to the common English Version--at least so far as that all the religious denominations represented in this society can consistently use and circulate such versions in their several schools and communities," and missionary boards were requested in asking aid to state that the versions they proposed to circulate were in accordance with this resolution. The Baptists took offense and a controversy ensued, the consequence of which was the formation of the American and Foreign Bible Society (see below, 2). In 1847 the committee on versions was instructed to undertake a careful collation of different editions of the English Bible with a view to perfecting its text in minutiæ. Their final report, made May 1, 1851, stated that in collating five standard copies of English and American imprint with the original edition of 1611 nearly 24,000 variations were found solely in the text and punctuation, not one of which marred the integrity of the text or affected any doctrine or precept of the Bible. A standard then determined upon with the unanimous approval of the board of managers was accepted generally by the public and for several years Bibles printed accordingly circulated without the slightest objection. But in 1856, and more decidedly in 1857, the right of the society to circulate such an edition was sharply challenged. Considerable public excitement followed; the matter was debated in religious and even secular journals as well as in ecclesiastical bodies, and the board of managers after long consideration, and debate finally took action, Jan. 28, 1858, as follows: Resolved, that this society's present standard English Bible be referred to the standing committee on versions for examination; and in all cases where the same differs in the text or its accessories from the Bibles previously published by the society, the committee are directed to correct the same by conforming it to previous editions printed by this society, or by the authorized British presses, reference being also had to the original edition of the translators printed in 1611; and to report such corrections to this board, to the end that a new edition, thus perfected, may be adopted as the standard edition of the society. The committee reported in 1859 and 1860; and from this "standard edition" all the society's English Bibles are now printed. The constitution of the society originally restricted it to circulating only "the version now in common use," in the English language. In 1904 at the annual meeting of the society on the recommendation of the board of managers the constitution was amended so as to permit the publication of the Revised Version of the English Bible, either in its British or American form, and under this permission some editions of the American Standard Revised Version are now published by the society under an arrangement with the publishers. JOHN FOX. ### 2. The American and Foreign Bible Society and the American Bible Union: The American and Foreign Bible Society was organized at Philadelphia in April, 1836, by Baptists who felt aggrieved at the action of the American Bible Society concerning the translation of the Greek *baptizein, *referred to above (see III, 1, § 5). Rev. S. H. Cone was made president. The society was declared to be "founded upon the principle that the originals in the Hebrew and Greek are the only authentic standards of the Sacred Scriptures, and that aid for the translating, printing, or distributing of them in foreign languages should be afforded to such versions only as are conformed as nearly as possible to the original text; it being understood that no words are to be *transferred * which are susceptible of being literally *translated.*" The constitution adopted declared (art. ii) "that in the distribution of the Scriptures in the English language, the commonly received version shall be used until otherwise directed by the society." Dissatisfaction with this policy led to the secession of certain members and the formation in 1850 of the American Bible Union, which demanded that the principle of circulating "such versions only as are conformed as nearly as possible to the original text" should be applied to the English version, and avowed as its object "to procure and circulate the most faithful versions of the Sacred Scriptures in all languages throughout the world." The Union secured the services of a number of Baptist and other Biblical scholars, especially the Rev. Drs. H. B. Hackett, A. C. Kendrick, and T. J. Conant. The entire New Testament and portions of the Old were revised and published. Italian, Spanish, Chinese (Ningpo colloquial), Siamese, and SgauKaren New Testaments were also prepared. The Union ultimately reunited with the American and Foreign Bible Society, and in 1882 the latter passed over its work and good-will to the American Baptist Publication Society (Philadelphia), which since then has performed the duties of the Bible Society, and is carrying on the work of revision inaugurated by the earlier societies. The revision has now (1907) reached the Book of Ezra, and will be completed, it is hoped, by the end of 1908. ### 3. The Bible Association of Friends in America The Bible Association of Friends in America was organized in 1830. It has been, in the main, a distributing agency, circulating the Scriptures printed by others, but in 1905-06 printed an edition of 2,925 Testaments and Psalms. In 1906 it reported total receipts of $3,930.59 and payments of $2,412.06. Its distribution in that year was 6,534 volumes, of which 2,030 were Bibles. The headquarters are at 207 Walnut Place, Philadelphia, Pa. BIBLIOGRAPHY: On the general question consult: *Abriss der Geschichte des Ursprungs und Wachsthums der Bibelgesellschaften, *Barmen, 1870; *Summary Notice concerning Bible Societies in General and Those of France in Particular, *from the Fr., Northampton, 1827; W. H. Wyckoff, *A Sketch of the Origin, History . . . of Bible Societies, *New York 1848. On the BFBS consult: W. Canton, *Hist. of the BFBS, * 2 vols., London, 1904; idem, *Story of the Bible Society, * ib. 1904; J. Owen, *Hist. of the Origin and First Ten Years of the BFBS, *2 vols., ib. 1816; *Papers Occasioned by the Attempts to Form Auxiliary Bible Societies in Various Parts of the Kingdom, *ib. 1812; *Jubilee Memorial of the BFBS, * ib. 1854; G. Browne, *Hist. of the BFBS, *2 vols., ib. 1859; *La Société biblique britannique et étrangère, 1804-89. Notice au point de vue historique, philosophique, et religieux, *Nantes, 1889; H. Morris, *Founders and Presidents of the Bible Society, *London, 1895; *Bible House Papers, *ib. 1899 sqq. (in progress); *Behold a Sower. Popular . . . Report of BFBS for 1900-01, * ib. 1902; T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule, *Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scripture in the Library of the BFBS, *2 vols., ib. 1904; T. H. Darlow, *There is a River, *ib. 1906; *Bible Association Reports. *By Helen Plumptre, Worksop, 1843. The organs of the society are the *Monthly Reporter of the BFBS, *London, 1858-88, succeeded by the *Bible Society Monthly Reporter, *1889 sqq. The other British Societies issue various publications, such as *Annual Reports, Quarterly Records, *and *Occasional Papers, *in which their history may be traced. For the foreign societies there are also available their reports, besides which the following may be consulted: C. F. Hezekiel, *Geschichte der Cansteinschen Bibel Anstalt, * ed. A. H. Niemeyer, Halle, 1827; O. Bertram, *Geschichte der Cansteinschen Bibelanstalt, *ib. 1863; W. Thilo, *Geschichte der preussischen Haupt-Bibelgesellschaft, 1814-64, *Berlin 1864; E. Brecst, *Die Entwickelung der preussischen Haupt-Bibelgesellschaft, 1864-91, *ib. 1891. For the American Bible Society consult: *The American Bible Society's Manual, containing a Brief Sketch of the Society, *New York 1865, revised ed., 1887; W. P, Strickland, *Hist. of the American Bible Society, *ib. 1849; *American Bible Society's Reports, *1816-71, 4 vols., ib. n.d. (a reprint); *American Bible Society. Report of the Transference of the Library of the Society to the New York Public Library, *ib. 1897. The organ is the *Bible Society Record *(a monthly).

### BIBLE TEXT. The Old Testament. The Premasoretic Period. The Masoretic Text (§ 1). The Earlier Text (§ 2). Change in Style of Writing (§ 3). Attempts to Fix the Text (§ 4). The Pronunciation Fixed, but the Text Still Unvocalized (§ 5). Word-Division (§ 6). Division into Verses (§ 7). Division into Sections (§ 8). The Masoretic Period. The Masoretes (§ 1). Their Work (§ 2). Codices (§ 3). The Postmasoretic Period. The Chapter-Division (§ 1). Old Testament Manuscripts (§ 2). The Printed Text (§ 3). Critical Works and Commentaries (§ 4). The New Testament. History of the Written Text. The Autographs of the New Testament Books (§ 1). The Manuscripts (§ 2). Their Material and Form (§ 3). The Ammonian Sections (§ 4). Early Divisions of the Text (§ 5). Divisions for Liturgical Reading (§ 6). Early Corruption of the Text (§ 7). Varieties of Text Produced by Early Criticism (§ 8). The Uncial Manuscripts (§ 9). The Cursive Manuscripts, Evangelistaries, etc. (§ 10). History of the Printed Text. Complutensian and Erasmian Editions (§ 1). Editions of Stephens and Beza (§ 2). Editions between 1657 and 1830 (§ 3). Griesbach and his Followers (§ 4). Lachmann (§ 5). Tischendorf (§ 6). Tregelles (§ 7). Westcott and Hort (§ 8). Other Critics of the Text (§ 9). More Recent Tendencies (§ 10). Principles of Textual Criticism. The Basal Rule (§ 1). Other Canons (§ 2). Results of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. Chapter and Verse Divisions. Chapter Divisions (§ 1). Verse Divisions, Old Testament (§ 2). Verse Divisions, New Testament (§ 3). ### I. The Old Testament. ### 1. The Premasoretic Period: ### 1. The Masoretic Text. The extant Hebrew text of the Old Testament text is commonly called the Masoretic, to distinguish it from the text of the ancient versions as well as from the Hebrew text of former ages. This Masoretic text does not present the original form but a text which within a certain period was fixed by Jewish scholars as the correct and only authoritative one. When and how this official Masoretic text was fixed was formerly a matter of controversy, especially during the seventeenth century. One party headed by the Buxtorfs (father and son), in the interest of the view of inspiration then prevalent, held to the absolute completeness and infallibility, and hence the exclusive value, of the Masoretic text. They attributed it to Ezra and the men of the Great Synagogue, who, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, were supposed to have purified the text from all accumulated error; added the vowel-points, the accents, and other punctuation-marks (thus settling the reading and pronunciation); fixed the canon; made the right division into verses, paragraphs, and books; and, finally, by the providence of God and the care of the Jews, the text thus made was believed to have been kept from all error, and to present the veritable Word of God. This view of the text prevailed especially when Protestant scholasticism was at its height, and may be designated as the orthodox Protestant position. It was opposed by another party headed by Jean Morin and Louis Cappel, who, in the interest of pure historicity or in Antiprotestant polemics, combated these opinions, maintained the later age of the Masoretic text, and sought to vindicate value and usefulness for the old versions and other critical helps. They fell into many errors in respect to the details of the history of the text and overrated the value of Extramasoretic critical helps; but their general view was supported by irresistible arguments and is now universally adopted. This view, instead of deriving the existing text from a gathering of inspired men in Ezra's time, assigns it to a much later date and quite different men, and, instead of absolute completeness, claims for it only a relative one with a higher value than other forms of the text. A glance at the history of the text will show how this agreement has been brought about. ### 2. The Earlier Text. Concerning the oldest history of the text of the Old Testament writings there exists almost no positive information. The books were written probably upon skins, perhaps also on linen; as paper was used from very early times in Egypt, it is possible that it was employed; parchment appears to have been used later. The roll seems to have been the usual form (Ps. xl, 8; Jer. xxxvi, 14 sqq.; Ezek, ii, 9; Zech. v, 1); the pen was a pointed reed (Jer. viii, 8; Ps. xiv, 1); the character was the Old Hebrew, which was almost identical with the Phenician and Moabitic (on the Moabite Stone). Specimens of this writing are also preserved in the Siloam inscription (c. 700 B.C.), on gems (of the eighth or seventh century), on coins of the Hasmoneans and those belonging to the time of the Jewish-Roman war, and, in somewhat different form, in Samaritan writings. Like the Phenicians and Moabites, the Hebrews separated the words by a point or stroke, but these signs do not seem to have been used regularly, since the Septuagint often makes word-divisions different from those of the Masoretic text. Jewish tradition mentions several passages in which the separation of words was regarded as doubtful. The difference between ancient and modern texts consisted in this, that the former were written without vowels and accents. The Hebrew writing, like Semitic writing in general, was essentially consonantal; vowels were not written. While the language lived, this occasioned no difficulty to the speakers or readers. No details are at hand concerning the way in which the text was multiplied and preserved; but inasmuch as the writings did not then have in popular estimation the character they came later to possess, it is likely that they were less carefully handled, and that the same amount of pains was not taken in copying them. This statement rests upon the fact that those parts of the Old Testament which we possess in double forms vary in ways that indicate a corruption of the text reaching back to precanonical times when copies were neither made nor corrected so laboriously. ### 3. Change in Style of Writing. A new epoch commenced after the Exile, when the holy writings were raised to canonical dignity and as holy writings were venerated and handled with ever-increasing care and conscientiousness. This veneration was not accorded to all Biblical writing at once, but only to that part of the canon called the law. The epoch begins with Ezra, and extends to the close of the Talmud, c. 500 A.D. During this period not only were the form of writing and the text fixed, but also the pronunciation and division; in short, the major part of the present Masorah was collected in verbal form. A change of an external kind was the development of a sacred writing, under the influence of the Aramaic character, the so-called "square" or "Assyrian" character. Jewish tradition ascribes the introduction of the square character to Ezra, and calls it expressly an Aramaic writing that the Jews adopted in place of their Hebrew, which they left to the Samaritans. A study of Assyrian, Persian, and Cilician seals and coins, of the Aramaic monuments from the third to the first century B.C., and of the Palmyrene inscriptions from the first to the third century A.D. has permitted the tracing of the development of the present Hebrew alphabet through a thousand years, back to the eighth century. Ezra, therefore, may have influenced the use of the Aramaic alphabet, but the square character was not developed in his day, nor for centuries afterward; nor was the Aramaic alphabet then used outside of the narrow circle of the scribes. For not only did the Samaritans retain the ancient script for their Pentateuch, but among the Jews also it must have been used for a long time, since it is found on coins down to the time of Bar Kokba. Matt. v, 18 proves that the Aramaic writing had become popular by the time that Gospel was written, since in the ancient Hebrew the letter "*yodh*" was by no means the smallest. Taking all in all, it may be assumed with certainty that the use of the new alphabet in Bible-manuscripts of the last Prechristian centuries was general, a result which is also confirmed by a careful examination of the Septuagint with reference to the manuscripts used by the translators (especially must this have been the case with the Tetragrammaton retained in many copies of the Greek translation, which was no doubt written in the Aramaic script, since it was read erroneously by the Christians). Considering this development it may be assumed that the latest Old Testament writings were written, not in the ancient Hebrew but in Aramaic, by the authors themselves. After the Aramaic writing was once in use among the Jews, it soon took the form in which we now have it. The descriptions which Jerome and the Talmud give of the different letters fully harmonize with the form which is still found in manuscripts. The minute rules laid down by the Talmud as to calligraphy and orthography made further development of the square writing impossible, and therefore the writing of the manuscripts varies scarcely at all through centuries (excepting perhaps that the German and Polish Jews have the so-called *Tam *script, which is somewhat angular, whereas the Spanish Jews have the *Welsh *or more rounded script). ### 4. Attempts to Fix the Texts. The veneration shown for the canonical writings during this period naturally led to a greater care in treatment of them and above all to perception of the necessity of critically fixing the text. As soon as the ancient writings obtained canonical authority, were used in divine service, and became the standard of doctrine and life, the necessity of having one standard text naturally asserted itself. The preparation of such a text began with the law; the other two divisions (the prophets and the hagiographa) became authoritative only in the course of centuries (see CANON OF SCRIPTURE, I), and naturally their text did not receive attention in the earlier period. However, criticism during that period was of little value. There is no doubt that faithful and correct copies existed, especially of such books as were publicly read, but this could not prevent errors and mistakes from creeping into copies which were generally circulated. When Josephus (*Contra Apion, *I, viii) and Philo (cf. Eusebius, *Præparatio evangelica, *VIII, vi, 7) speak of the great care bestowed by the Jews upon their sacred writings, this can not be referred to earlier centuries, and concerns more the contents than the linguistic minutiae of the text. In the oldest critical documents–the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint–there is evidence (about 500-100 B.C.) to show that the manuscripts most approved and most widely diffused contained many verbal differences. And these variations are not to be charged, as was formerly done, to carelessness or wilfulness on the part of the Hellenistic Jews and Samaritans, but are explained by the lesser importance attached to exact uniformity of text and to the existence of mistakes in the current copies. And when the Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch agree in good readings, and still oftener in bad ones, against the Masoretic text, it may be concluded that these readings were spread by many copies current among the Palestinian Jews, and are therefore not to be regarded as offensive. But after the destruction of Jerusalem, when Judaism was subject to the authority of the rabbis, it became possible to prepare a uniform standard text, although this idea was not realized until many generations had worked upon it. The Greek versions of the second century had already fewer variations from the Masoretic text. Still nearer the latter text is the Hebrew text of Origen and Jerome. The Talmud itself bears witness, by the agreement of its Biblical quotations with the Masoretic text, that the consonantal text was practically finished before the Talmudic era closed. It is not possible to say upon what principles the text was treated; but the way in which the custodians presented the individuality of the several authors, books, and periods is remarkable, and proves that intentional and arbitrary changes of the text were not made by these critics. That they changed passages for dogmatic, especially for Antichristian, reasons, as has sometimes been asserted, has long ago been acknowledged to be a baseless accusation. Where they mention changes, they make clear than they followed the testimony of manuscripts, the number of which was probably not very great. The fact that in the first centuries after Christ the text approximates our present Masoretic reading shows that a certain recension became authoritative which was possible only after a certain manuscript had been taken as the norm. Of such a standard codex, copies could easily be made, or one could correct his own copies in accordance with it. Scholars like Olshausen and Lagarde speak therefore of some such archetype, which was slavishly followed in every respect. The critical apparatus of the time is concealed in dissociated fragments in the later Masorah, but can not be separated from the other matter. The Talmud and the older midrashim allow a little insight into the critical efforts of the time. Thus mention is made of the "corrections of the scribes," of the "removals of the scribes" (meaning that in five passages a falsely introduced "and" was removed), and of the points in the Hebrew text over certain words to show that these words were critically suspected, such as the inverted " *nun*," Num. x, 35, and the three kinds of reading ( *keri*; see KERI AND KETHIBH), viz., "read but not written," "written but not read," and "read [one way] but written [another]." The three kinds of reading have, it is true, for the most part only exegetical value; e.g., they give the usual instead of the unusual grammatical forms, show where one must understand or omit a word, or where the reader should use a euphemistic expression for the coarse one in the text; they are therefore scholia upon the text. It is possible that these "readings" are also fragments of the critical apparatus. However this may be, it is evident that at that period the text was fixed and that the matter in question concerned only subordinate details of the text. ### 5. The Pronunciation Fixed, but the Text Still Unvocalized. The development of the pronunciation or of the vocalization and the division of words, verses, and sections kept pace with the settlement of the text. That the ancient writing had no vowel-points has already been stated; but even during this entire period to the close of the Talmud the sacred text was without vowels and other points. The old versions, particularly the Greek, and Josephus depart so widely from the Masoretic text that they could not possibly have used the present pointed text. The expedient which charges the translators with these differences is of no avail, since it is not any one version which alone shows such differences; they all differ. Origen, too, published a Hebrew text in the Hexapla which differed from the Masoretic. Jerome knew nothing about vowel-points, not even the diacritical point making the difference between "s" and "sh." The Talmud and the modern ecclesiastical or ritual manuscripts of the Jews present an unpointed text. There is no doubt that, as Elias Levita stated, the Masoretic system of punctuation is of later origin, and that during this entire period the sacred text was without points. But this does not mean that during the same period the reading of the unvoweled text was still unsettled among the Jews; it must rather be assumed that with the official fixing of the text there was developed also a certain mode of understanding and reading it. Of course time was required to bring it into vogue; but before the end of the period it was so firmly established that Jerome's pronunciation differed very little from the Masoretic, and he was so sure of its correctness that he appeals to it against the text of the versions; and the Talmud gives it throughout correctly. Before the Masoretes the pronunciation was fixed, not yet written, but handed down by word of mouth, although some scholars may have used signs in their books to assist their memory. ### 6. Word Division. Closely connected and mutually dependent were pronunciation and the division of words. The latter must have been finally settled at this period. The sign of division was the small space between words. The final letters, being limited in number, can not be regarded as word-separating signs. Jerome used a text with a division of words and knew the final letters; in the Talmud, *Menahot *30a states how large must be the space between the words; the synagogue-scrolls, though still without vowels, have nevertheless the division by spaces, following the custom of the ancient manuscripts from Talmudic time; and the fact that a number of "readings" correct the traditional division of words speaks again in favor of the high antiquity of the division of words in the present texts. ### 7. Division into Verses. The division into verses is by no means contemporary in origin with the vocalization, but much earlier. The verse division depends in poetry upon the parallelism, in prose upon the division of sentences and clauses. That the latter were not marked in oldest times is certain; in poetical texts the members may have been distinguished either by space or by breaks of the line. This mode of writing poetical texts was formerly general, and is found in the older Hebrew manuscripts; for the poetical texts, Ex. xv; Deut. xxxii; Judges v; and II Sam. xxii, it is even prescribed (*Shabbat* 103b; *Sopherim* xii), and is therefore still customary. With the introduction of the Masoretic accents, poetry was written close, like prose. This verse-division was taught in the schools; but no rules are given for its writing, nor did any punctuation-marks indicate it in this period. ### 8. Division into Sections. Earlier than the division into verses is that into larger or smaller sections; these were more necessary for the understanding of the Scriptures and for their reading in divine worship. Perhaps some of them were in the original text. The sections of the law were at least Pretalmudic; for they are mentioned in the Mishnah and frequently in the Gemara; in the latter they are traced to Mosaic origin; in *Shabbat* 103b, *Menahot* 30 care is enjoined as to the sections in copying the law, and therefore they occur also in synagogue-rolls. They are indicated by spacing; the larger sections by leaving the remainder of the line at their close unfilled, the next great section beginning with a new line, on which account they were called "open"; the smaller sections were separated from each other by only a small space, and were therefore called "closed" or "connected." Thus not only the law but also the other two parts of the canon were divided. For the division of the whole canon, and the arrangement of the books, see CANON OF SCRIPTURE, I. From what has been said, it follows that the reading of the text, the vocalization, the division into words, verses, and sections depend upon the gradual settlement by the scribes; their reading can claim neither infallibility nor any absolutely binding power; and though their labor betrays a thorough and correct understanding of the text, the necessity may yet arise when the exegete must deviate from tradition. Extraordinary pains were taken to perpetuate in its purity the text thus divided and vocalized. Signs of this care, such as the rules for calligraphy and for writing the extraordinary points, have already been mentioned. The Posttalmudic treatises *Masseket sopherim *and *Masseket sepher torah *contain full details for copying. Nevertheless fluctuations are met with in the Masoretic period, and it must therefore be assumed that learned labor had not yet covered all details or made final settlement. ### 2. The Masoretic Period: ### 1. The Masoretes. The third period of the textual history is usually reckoned as extending from the sixth until the eleventh Christian century (when Jewish learning was transferred from the East to North Africa and Spain); it embraces the age of the Masoretes proper, and has for the Bible text in general the same importance as the Talmudic period had for the law. The efforts of the scholars to fix the reading and understanding of the sacred text were overshadowed somewhat by the study of the Talmud. After the close of the Talmud the work was resumed and cultivated in Babylonia and Palestine (at Tiberias). In both schools the work of former generations was continued; but the Palestinians, who acted more independently than the more Talmudically inclined Babylonians, finally got the victory over the Babylonian school. In both schools they were no longer satisfied with a mere oral transmission of rules and regulations, but committed them to writing. There is no continuous history of the men of the Masorah and of the progress of their work preserved; but the marginal notes in ancient Biblemanuscripts and the fragments of other works show that the oldest Masoretes can be traced back to the eighth century. The main effort of this period (as the name *Masorcah, *"tradition," indicates; see MASORAH) was to collect and to write down the exegetico-critical material of the former period; and this makes sufficiently clear the one part of their work. But the Masoretes also added some new matter. Anxiously following the footsteps of the older critics in their effort to fix and to guard the traditional text, they laid down more minute rules of a linguistic and grammatical character, and in this respect a great part of the contents of the Masorah is indeed new. ### 2. Their Work. They took the consonantal *textus receptus *just as it stood, and finally settled it in the minutest details, as is seen from the variants which became a matter of controversy between the East and the West, the Babylonians and the Palestinians, which to the number of 216 Jacob ben Hayyim published for the first time in the second edition of the Bomberg Rabbinic Bible; these have reference mostly to the vowel-points. This list of variants, as is now known, is by no means complete. They also appended critical notes to the text, in part derived from the Talmudic period, in part new (especially the "grammatical conjectures"), showing that where, according to the grammar and the genius of the language, one should expect another reading, nevertheless the text must stand. Finally the great majority of the alternative "readings" date from the Masoretes. The Masoretes fixed the reading of the text by the introduction of the vowel-signs, the accents, and the signs which affect the reading of the consonants *(daghesh, mappik, raphe, *and the diacritical point to distinguish between the letters "*sin*" and "*shin*"). The pronunciation they thus brought about was no invention, but embodied the current tradition. Nevertheless, one can not accept every Masoretic reading as infallible and unchangeable, especially when one considers that the tradition no doubt often fluctuated and that with such fluctuation the less correct reading may often have come into the text. Besides the system found in the majority of manuscripts, there exists another which has only recently become known called the "superlinear" system, because the vowel-signs are placed above the letters; this is found in some Babylonian and South Arabian manuscripts. The same is also the case with the accents. The division of the text into verses, introduced by the Masoretes, was neither Babylonian nor Palestinian, but one which the Masoretes themselves seem to have established. At the beginning of this period the end of the verses was marked by *soph pasuk, *and, when the accents mere introduced, by *silluk, *besides. The old sections were retained, though not recognized as entirely correct, and the old traditional sign for the section, the smaller spacing (the little s in printed texts), was respected. The closed sections were marked in manuscripts and prints by a s, the open ones by a p in the empty space before the initial word. In addition there were introduced the Babylonian division into sections or *parashiyoth *(in the law) and *haphtaroth *(in the prophets), for Sabbath public reading. As these sections generally agree with the beginning and the end of an open or closed section, they were marked by a threefold p [i.e., p p p] or s [s s s] in the empty space before the beginning. ### 3. Codices. But even these efforts could not entirely remove variations. Hence, before the end of this period, the learned either attempted to find out by an elaborate comparison the correct punctuation and to fix it, or marked the important variations in the punctuation, or added a caution to each apparently strange and yet correct punctuation. The greater mass of notes which the Masoretes added to the text relate to these matters. Besides some other Masoretic manuscripts of the Bible which are quoted in the Masoretic notes of the codices or in the writings of the rabbis as authoritative, such as the *codex Hilleli, * the Jericho-Pentateuch, and others, two codices were especially famous as model codices of the Old Testament, the codex of Naphtali (Moses ben David ben Naphtali) and the codex of Asher (Aaron ben Moses ben Asher), both from the first half of the tenth century. (Aaron lived at Tiberias, Moses in Babylon; but the latter can not be regarded as a representative of the "Babylonian" text-tradition.) They were once much examined by scholars; many of their variants are noted in the Masoretic Bible-manuscripts; a list of 864 (better 867) variants, which refer almost exclusively to vowels and accents, has been published after Jacob ben Hayyim in Bomberg's and the other Rabbinic Bibles, as well as in the sixth volume of the London Polyglot; but these variants are neither correct nor complete. On the codex of Asher finally rests the whole Masoretic text of the Occidentals; of the variant readings comparatively few were received into it. As the older scribes had already shown extraordinary solicitude for the preservation of the text and its correct reading by counting its sections, verses, words, letters, and by noting where and how often and when certain words, letters, or anomalies occur in the Bible, which verse is the longest and which the shortest, and like minutiae, the Masoretes of course continued this work, wrote it down, and preserved it in manuscripts. The punctuation of the text as developed by the Masoretes proved itself so useful and met so well an essential need of those later times that it soon went over into manuscripts and, with the exception of synagogue-manuscripts, almost none were written which did not contain either the pointed text alone or the pointed beside the unpointed. The other Masoretic material was written either beside and below the text of the Biblical books on the margins and at the close of the same, or in separate masorah-collections (see MASORAH). ### 3. The Postmasoretic Period: ### 1. The Chapter Division. After the completion of the Masoretic textual work and the collection of the notes having reference to it, no essential change was made in the text; consequently this period is the time of the faithful preservation, multiplication, and circulation of the Masoretic text. An essential innovation was the introduction of the now customary division into chapters, which was invented by Stephen Langton at the beginning of the thirteenth century, and applied to the Vulgate. Isaac ben Nathan adopted it for his Hebrew concordance (1437-38, published 1523), on which occasion the verses of the chapters were also numbered. The chapter-division was first applied to the Hebrew in the second edition of Bomberg's Bible, 1521; the numbering of verses was first adopted for the Sabionetta Pentateuch, 1557, and that of the whole Bible in Athias's edition of 1661 (see below, III, §§ 1-2). ### 2. Old Testament Manuscripts. Another feature of this period is that a sufficient number of manuscripts is preserved to give an immediate knowledge of the text. The Hebrew Bible-manuscripts may be divided into two classes, the public or sacred and the private or common. The first were synagogue-rolls, and have been prepared so carefully and watched so closely that the intrusion of variants and mistakes was hardly possible. But they contain only the Pentateuch or the Pentateuch with the five Megilloth or "Rolls" (i.e., Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther), and the haphtaroth (see above, 2, § 1) in the text of the Masoretes without their additions. These manuscripts are, for the most part, of recent origin, although antique in form, being written on leather or parchment. The private manuscripts are written on the same material, and also upon paper in book form, with the Masoretic additions more or less complete. It is often difficult, indeed impossible, to determine the date and country of these manuscripts. But none of those now known are really very old. The oldest authentic date is 916 A.D. for the codex containing the prophets with Babylonian punctuation, and 1009 A.D. for an entire Hebrew Bible, both of which belong to the Firkowitsch collection in the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg. According to the most recent investigation the MS. orient. 4445 in the British Museum (containing Gen. xxv, 20-Deut. i, 33) may be a little older. As a rule the oldest manuscripts are the more accurate. The number of errors that crept in, especially in private manuscripts, which were prepared without any official oversight, awakened solicitude and led to well-directed efforts to get a pure text by means of collating good Masorah-manuscripts (cf. B. Kennicott, *Dissertatio generalis, * Oxford, 1780, l-lvi; J. G. Eichhorn, *Einleitung, *Leipsic, 1803, 136b). In this line the labors of Meïr ha-Levi of Toledo (d. 1244) in his work on the Pentateuch called "The Masorah, the Hedge of the Law" (Florence, 1750; Berlin, 1761) are celebrated. ### 3. The Printed Text. The art of printing opened a way of escape from copyists' errors, and it was taken very early. The Psalter was printed first, at Bologna in 1477 [on the earlier prints, cf. B. Pick, *History of the Printed Editions of the Old Testament, *in *Hebraica, *ix (1892-1893), 47-116], the first complete Bible at Soncino in 1488; Gerson's edition (the edition which Luther used for his translation) followed (Brescia, 1494). Substantially the same text is contained in the first edition of Bomberg's Rabbinic Bible (1517; see BIBLES, RABBINIC), also in the editions of Robert Stephens (1539 sqq.) and of Sebastian Münster. The second independent edition derived from manuscripts is that in the Complutensian Polyglot (1514-17; see BIBLES, POLYGLOT, I). The text has vowels but no accents. The third important recension is contained in the *Biblia Rabbinica Bombergiana, ed. II., cura R. Jacob ben Chajim * (Venice, 1525-26); it is edited according to the Masorah, which the editor first revised, and contains the entire Masoretic and Rabbinic apparatus. It is more or less reproduced in prints published during the sixteenth and in the beginning of the seventeenth centuries. Besides these original recensions, editions were published having a mixed text; the Hebrew text of the Antwerp Polyglot (1569-72), which is followed by the small editions of Plantin, the Paris and London Polyglots, and the editions of Reineccius, is based upon that of the Complutensian and Bomberg. Another recension is represented in the editions of Elias Hutter (1587), Buxtorf, and Joseph Athias with preface by J. Leusden (1661 sqq.), for which some very ancient manuscripts were collated. Athias's edition became also the basis of later editions like that of Jablonski (1699), Van der Hooght (1705), Opits (1709), J. H. Michaelis (1720), Hahn (1832), and Theile (1849). ### 4. Critical Works and Commentaries. None of these editions presents the Masoretic text in its original form. The large collections of variants by B. Kennicott, *Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum cum variis lectionibus *(2 vols., Oxford, 1776-80), more especially by De Rossi, *Variæ lectiones Veteris Testamenti *(4 vols., Parma, 1784-88) and *Supplementa ad varias sacri textus lectiones * (1798), are valuable for some Extramasoretic readings which they offer, but they are less valuable for critical purposes. More important for textcritical purposes are (besides the work of Meïr ha-Levi, ut sup.) the "Light of the Law" of Menahem de Lonzano (Venice, 1618) and particularly the critical commentary on the Old Testament by Solomon Minorzi (Mantua, 1742-44; Vienna, 1813), the works of Wolf ben Samson Heidenheim, and especially the thorough work on the Masorah by S. Frensdorff (*Massora magna, * part I, Hanover, 1878, and *Oklah we-Oklah, *1864). Of great service were the publication of the works of the oldest Jewish grammarians and lexicographers and the discovery of fragments and publication of codices like that on the prophets of the year 916 (published by Strack, *Prophetarum posteriorum codex Babylonicus Petropolitanus, * St. Petersburg, 1876). The fruits of these preliminary works are contained in the correct editions of the Masoretic text by Baer and Ginsburg. Baer, who was assisted by Delitzsch, published the Old Testament with the exception of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy [both editors died without completing their work]. Ginsburg's edition is entitled *The New Massoretico-Critical Text of the Hebrew Bible *[2 vols., London, 1894. It should be studied with the same author's indispensable *Introduction to the Massoretico-critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible *(London, 1897)]. Valuable as such correct editions of the Masoretic text are, they represent only a single recension, whose source is the *textus receptus *mentioned above, which was fixed in the first Christian centuries. With this recession the text-critical and exegetical treatment of the Old Testament can not be satisfied. Before the received text was made canonical there existed different forms of the text, which in many cases stood nearer to the original than that sanctioned by the Jews. The main witness here is the Septuagint, a correct edition of which is an absolutely necessary though extremely difficult task. But Old Testament textual criticism can not be satisfied with a comparison even with this older form of the text. In many cases the corruption of the text is so old that only a criticism both cautious and bold can approximate to the genuine text. In modern times some very important contributions have been made, such as J. Olshausen, *Emendationen zum Alten Testament *(Kiel, 1826); idem, *Beiträge zur Kritik des überlieferten Textes im Buche Genesis * (1870); J. Wellhausen, *Text der Bücher Samuelis *(Göttingen, 1871); F. Baethgen, *Zu den Psalmen, *in *JPT *(1882); C. H. Cornill, *Das Buch des Propheten Ezechiel *(Leipsic, 1886); S. R. Driver, *Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel *(London, 1890); A. Klostermann, *Die Bücher Samuelis und der Könige * (Munich, 1887), idem, *Deutero-Jesaia *(Munich, 1893); G. Beer, *Der Text des Buches Hiob *(part i, Marburg, 1895); the *Sacred Books of the Old Testament *(the so-called Polychrome or Rainbow Bible), ed. P. Haupt (Baltimore, London, and Leipsic, 1894 sqq.); and Kittel's edition, Leipsic, 1905-06. (F. BUHL.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: Besides the introductions to the Old Testament (especially of J. G. Eichhorn, 4th ed., Göttingen, 1823-25; W. M. L. de Wette, 8th ed. by E. Schrader, pp. 111-156, Berlin, 1869; C. H. Cornill, §§ 49-53, Freiburg, 1905; F. E. König, §§ 3-30, 92, Bonn, 1893; C. H. H. Wright, London, 1891, and W. H. Bennett, ib. 1900) and the works mentioned in the text consult: J. Morinus, *Exercitationum biblicarum de Hebræi Græcique textus sinceritate Libri duo, *Paris, 1669; L. Capellus, *Critica sacra, * Paris, 1860, new edition with notes by Vogel and Scharfenberg, Halle, 1775-86; H. Hody, *De bibliorum textibus originalibus, *Oxford, 1705; H. Hupfeld, in *TSK, *1830, 1837; A. Geiger, *Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel, * Breslau, 1857; L. Loew, *Beiträge zur jüdischen Alterthumskunde, *Leipsic, 1870 (deals with materials and products of writing); H. L. Strack, *Prolegomena critica in Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum, *Leipsic, 1873 (very full upon extant and lost MSS., and on the testimony of the Talmud to the text); A. Kuenen, *Les Origines du texte masoretique * (from the Dutch), Paris, 1875; *Palæographical Society, Oriental Series, Facsimiles of MSS. and Inscriptions, *London, 1875-83 (deals with many important codices of the O. T.); A. Harkavy, *Neuaufgefundene hebräische Bibelhandschriften, *St. Petersburg, 1884 (characterizes fifty-one Hebrew MSS. and fragments); V. Ryssel, *Untersuchungen über die Textgestalt und die Echtheit des Buches Micha, *Leipsic, 1887 (198 pages concern the text); G. C. Workmen, *The Text of Jeremiah, a Critical Investigation of the Greek and Hebrew, *Edinburgh, 1889; T. K. Abbott, *Essays chiefly on the Original Texts of the Old and New Testaments, * London 1891 (on Masoretic and Premasoretic text); F. Buhl, *Kanon und Text des Alten Testaments, *Leipsic, 1891, Eng. transl., Edinburgh, 1892 (useful for beginners); A. Loisy, *Histoire critique du texte et des versions de la Bible, *2 Vols., Paris, 1892-95; F. G. Kenyon, *Our Bible and the Ancient MSS., Being a History of the Text and its Translations, *London, 1896; W. A. Copinger, *The Bible and its Transmission, . . . View of the Hebrew and Greek Texts, *London, 1897; E. Kautzsch, *Abriss der Geschichte des alttestamentlichen Schrifttums, *in appendix to his edition of *Die heilige Schrift, *Freiburg, 1896, Eng transl. as a separate work, New York, 1899; T. H. Weir, *A Short History of the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, *London, 1899; R. Kittel, *Ueber die Notwendigkeit und Möglichkeit einer neuen Ausgabe der hebräischen Bibel, *Leipsic, 1902; P. Kahle, *Der masoretische Text des alten Testaments nach der Ueberlisferung der babylonischen Juden, *Leipsic, 1902; T. K. Cheyne, *Critica biblica, *parts 1-5, London 1903-1905; F. W. Mosley, *Psalter of the Church; Septuagint Psalms Compared with the Hebrew, *ib. 1905. On the ancient Hebrew and square writing consult: D. von Muralt, *Beiträge zur hebräischen Paläographie und zur Geschichte der Punktuation, *in *TSK, *1874; S. R. Driver, *Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel, *pp. xi-xxxv, London, 1890; Vollers, in *ZATW, *1883, pp. 229 sqq.; L. Blau, *Zur Einleitung in die heilige Schrift, *pp. 48-80, Strasburg, 1894; R. Butin, *The Ten Nequdoth of the Torah; or the Meaning and Purpose of the Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch, *Baltimore, 1906 (an important and scientific discussion of textual critical value). On the Mesoretic material in the Talmud and Midrash consult: H. L. Strack, *Prolegomena critica in Vetus Testamentum, *ut sup.; L, Blau, *Masoretische Untersuchungen, *Strasburg, 1891; idem, *Zur Einleitung in die heilige Schrift, *100 sqq., ut sup. On the vowels and accents (especially on the superlinear system) cf. Strack's edition of the Babylonian codex of the prophets, p vii, ut sup.; idem, *Zeitschrift für die gesammte lutherische Theologie und Kirche, *1877, pp. 17-52; idem, in *Wissenschaftliche Jahresberichte über die morgenländischen Studien, *1879, p. 124; J. Derenbourg, in *Revue critique, *1879, pp, 453 sqq.; W. Wickes, *A Treatise on the Accentuation of the Three Poetical Books, *1881; *A Treatise on the Accentuation of the twenty-one so-called Prose-Books, *pp. 142 sqq., London, 1887; G. F. Moore, in *Proceedings of the American Oriental Society, *1888; D. S. Margoliouth, *The Superlinear Punctuation, *in *PSBA, *1893, pp. 164-205; A. Buchler, *Untersuchungen zur Entstchung und Entwickelung der hebräischen Accente, *Vienna, 1892. On the division into sections, chapters, etc., cf. *REJ, *iii, 282 sqq., vi, 122 sqq., 250 sqq., vii, 146 sqq.; Theodor, in *Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, *1885, 1886, 1887; O. Schmid, *Ueber verschiedene Einteilungen der heiligen Schrift, *Graz, 1891. The catalogues of Hebrew MSS. are mentioned in H. L. Strack, *Prolegomena, *pp. 29-33, 119-121, ut sup.; idem, in *Einleitung in das A. T., *p. 182, Munich, 1898; and with special fulness in Ginsburg, *Introduction, *ut sup. ### II. The New Testament. ### 1. History of the Written Text: ### 1. The Autographs of the New Testament Books. The autographs of the New Testament very early disappeared, owing to the constant use of the perishable papyrus; for this appears to have been the material (II John 12). If they were really not in the handwriting of the apostles, but in that of their amanuenses, as Paul's Epistles generally were (Rom. xvi, 22; II Thess. iii, 17), it is easier to account for the phenomenon. The papyrus rolls preserved to the present day were never much used; indeed, the most of them have been found in sarcophagi, and so, of course, were never used at all. The ink was lampblack mixed with gum dissolved in water, copperas (sulphate of iron) being sometimes added. The pen was of reed (*calamus*). The writing was entirely in uncials (capitals), with no separation of the words (except rarely to indicate the beginning of a new paragraph), no breathings, accents, or distinction of initial letters, and few, if any, marks of punctuation. The evangelists may have denominated their compositions "Gospels," although Justin regularly speaks of the "Memoirs of the Apostles"; but all addition to the name is later, and presupposes a collection of the Gospels. In the case of the Epistles the brief address, e.g., "To the Romans," was probably added by the original sender, and other marks of genuineness given (cf. II Thess. iii, 17). The Muratorian Canon (second half of the second century; see MURATORIAN CANON) calls Acts and the Apocalypse by these names, and so proves the early use of these designations. The designation "Catholic (i.e., General) Epistle" is first met with at the close of the second century (Apollonius, in Eusebius, *Hist. eccl., *V, xviii, 5, where the First Epistle of John is probably meant). The application and limiting of the term to the whole of the present collection is of later date; for even in the third and fourth century it was customary to give this term to epistles, like that of Barnabas or those of Dionysius of Corinth, which were not specially addressed. ### 2. The Manuscripts. The external history of the New Testament text for a thousand years prior to the invention of printing can be traced by means of manuscripts. Before the formal close of the canon (end of fourth century) there were probably few single manuscripts of the entire New Testament. Of the three thousand known manuscripts of the New Testament, only about thirty include all the books. Some of those of the fourth and fifth century now preserved contain not only the Greek Old Testament (À, A, B, C), but also writings which, though not canonical, were read in churches and studied by catechumens. Thus, attached to the *Codex Sinaiticus *(À) were the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas; to the *Codex Alexandrinus * (A), two "epistles" ascribed to Clement of Rome and the so-called *Psalterium Salomonis. * The four Gospels were most frequently copied, the Pauline Epistles oftener than the Catholic Epistles or the Acts, least often the Apocalypse. The Gospels were usually arranged in the present order, then came the Pauline Epistles, the Acts, and the Catholic Epistles; the Apocalypse always last. The arrangement of the Epistles differed; indeed, there was no model. (On the various arrangements cf. C. A. Credner, *Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, *ed. G. Volkmar, Berlin, 1860; C. R. Gregory, *Prolegomena, *Leipsic, 1884, pp. 131 sqq.; T. Zahn, *Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, * Erlangen, 1883, ii, 343 sqq.) ### 3. Their Material and Form. After papyrus had gone out of use, parchment or vellum came in and was used from the fourth to the eleventh century; then came in cotton paper, and afterward linen paper (cf. W. Wattenbach, *Das Schriftwesen im Mittelalter, *Leipsic, 1896, pp. 139 sqq.). The growing scarcity of parchment led to the reuse of the old skins, the former writing being erased or washed off; and unfortunately it oftener happened that it was a Biblical manuscript which was thus turned into a patristic one than the reverse. Such manuscripts are termed *Codices palimpsesti * (palimpsests) or *rescripti. *By the use of chemicals the original text has often been recovered in modern times. The most famous New Testament palimpsest is the *Codex Ephraemi *(C), of the fifth century, rewritten upon in the twelfth. As papyrus disappeared from use, the book form was generally substituted for the rolls, in manuscripts written on parchment or paper. The books were mostly made up of quaternions, i.e., quires of four sheets, doubled so as to make sixteen pages, less frequently of five, though later quires of six sheets were common. The division of the page into columns was at first retained, two being the usual number (e.g., *Cod. Alex.*); but in many manuscripts (e.g., *Cod. Ephraemi*) the lines ran across the page. [Exceptionally, À has four columns, B three.] From the seventh and eighth centuries the present accents were more or less used, but very arbitrarily and irregularly. The uncials gradually changed their earlier simple round or square forms, and from the tenth century yielded to the cursives. The earliest punctuation was by means of a blank space and a simple point. Euthalius, a deacon in Alexandria, in the year 458 published an edition of the Epistles of Paul, and soon after of the Acts and Catholic Epistles, written stichometrically, i.e., in single lines containing only so many words as could be read, consistently with the sense, at a single inspiration. This mode of writing was used long before in copying the poetical books of the Old Testament. It involved, however, a great waste of parchment, so that, in manuscripts of the New Testament, it was superseded after a few centuries by punctuation-marks. ### 4. The Ammonian Sections. Divisions of the text were early made for various purposes. In the third century Ammonius of Alexandria prepared a Harmony of the Gospels, taking the text of Matthew as the basis. Eusebius of Cæsarea, in the early part of the fourth century, availing himself of the work of Ammonius, divided the text of each Gospel into sections, the length of which, varying greatly (in John xix, 6 there are three, and in twenty four other instances two, in a single verse), was determined solely by their relation of parallelism or similarity to passages in one or more of the other Gospels, or by their having no parallel. These sections (often erroneously ascribed to Ammonius) were then numbered consecutively in the margin of the Gospel in black ink; Matthew having 355, Mark 233 (not 236), Luke 342, and John 232. They were distributed by Eusebius into ten tables or canons prefixed to the Gospels, and containing the sections corresponding in– Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, 71. Matthew, Mark, Luke, 111. Matthew, Luke, John, 22. Matthew, Mark, John, 26. Matthew, Luke, 82. Matthew, Mark, 47. Matthew, John, 7. Luke, Mark, 14. Luke, John, 21. Sections peculiar to Matthew 62, Mark 21, Luke 71, John 97. Under the number of each section in the margin of the several Gospels was written in red ink the number of the canon or table to which it belonged. On turning to its place in this table, the number of the corresponding section or sections in the other Gospels stands with it, so that the parallel passages may readily be found. For example, the first verse of Matt. iv forms the fifteenth Eusebian section; the number two under this refers to the second canon or table, where it appears that section fifteen in Matthew corresponds to six in Mark, and fifteen in Luke; i.e., to Mark i, 12, and Luke iv, 1. In some manuscripts the parallel sections are indicated at the bottom of the page. They thus correspond to our marginal references. Cf. Eusebias, *Epist. ad Carpianum; *J. Burgon, *The Last Twelve Verses of S. Mark * (London, 1871), pp. 295 sqq. ### 5. Early Divisions of the Text. Wholly different in character and purpose from the Eusebian sections, and probably older, is a division of the Gospels into sections called *titloi, * also *kephalaia majora *(in Latin manuscripts, *breves*), found in most manuscripts from the Alexandrine and the Ephraem (A, C) of the fifth century onward. Of these sections Matthew contains 68, Mark 48, Luke 83, John 18. The numbers by which they are designated in the margin of manuscripts refer to the titles describing their contents at the top or bottom of the page, or in a list prefixed to each Gospel, or often in both places. A certain portion at the beginning of each Gospel is not numbered; for example, the first chapter in Matthew corresponds with our chap. ii, 1-15, and is entitled *peri tön magön, *"Concerning the Magi." There is a similar division in the Acts and Epistles, to which Euthalius (about 458 A.D.), though not its inventor, gave wide currency by his stichometric edition of these books. The Apocalypse was divided by Andrew, bishop of Cæasrea in Cappadocia (about 500 A.D.), into twenty-four *logoi, *or chapters, and each of these chapters into three *kephalaia, *or sections, the former number answering to the twenty-four elders spoken of in the book (Rev. iv, 4); the latter suggested by the threefold division of human nature into body, soul, and spirit (comp. I Thess. v, 23), as the author himself declares. In the Vatican manuscript (B), there is a division of the Gospels into much shorter chapters (Matt. 170, Mark 62, Luke 152, John 80), very judiciously made. This has been found in only one other manuscript, the *Codex Zacynthius *(E). In the Acts and Epistles the Vatican manuscript has a twofold division into chapters, one very ancient, the other later, but both different from the Euthalian. In the older division, the Pauline Epistles are treated as one book. (For further details see Tischendorf, *Novum Testamentum Vaticanum, *Leipsic, 1867, p. xxx; Scrivener, *Introduction, *i, London, 1894, pp. 56 sqq.) Other ancient divisions of the New Testament into chapters were more or less widely current, especially in Latin and Syriac manuscripts. The superscriptions, "Epistle of Paul," "Catholic Epistles," etc., can not be earlier than the fourth century, since they imply a canonical collection. The subscriptions at the end of the Pauline Epistles in many manuscripts are generally ascribed to Euthalius. At least six of these are untrustworthy (I Cor., Gal., I and II Thess., I Tim., Tit.). For the modern divisions of the Bible into chapters and verses see III below. ### 6. Divisions for Liturgical Reading. An ancient division of the text is the lessons, or lections, from the Gospels on the one hand, and the Acts and Epistles on the other, read in the public services of the Church. The history of these is obscure, and they varied much at different periods and in different regions. The lessons for the Sundays and chief festivals of the year seem to have been the earliest; next were added lessons for the Saturdays, and finally for every day in the week, with special commemoration of saints and martyrs. Euthalius marked, in the Acts, 16 of these "lessons"; in the Catholic Epistles, 10; in the Pauline Epistles, 31; in all, 57. He was probably not, as many have supposed, their inventor. The system of lessons which ultimately prevailed in the Greek Church appears in our evangelistaries and lectionaries (more properly praxapostoli), containing the lessons from the Gospels and the Acts and Epistles respectively. The ordinary manuscripts of the Greek Testament were often adapted for church service by masking the beginning and end of each lesson, with a note in the margin of the time or occasion for reading it, and by prefixing to them a *Synaxarion, *or table of the lessons in their order; sometimes also a *Menologion, *or calendar of the immovable festivals and the saints' days, with their appropriate lessons. ### 7. Early Corruption of the Text. Turning to the internal history of the New Testament text, it is evident that its original purity was early lost. The quotations of the latter half of the second century contain readings which agree with later texts, but are not apostolic. Irenæus alludes (Hær., V, xxx, 1) to the difference between the copies; and Origen, early in the third century, expressly declares that matters were growing worse (*in Matt., *xix, 19, vol. iii, p. 671, ed. De la Rue, Paris, 1733-59), as is proved by the quotations of the Fathers of the third and fourth centuries. From this time onward we have the manuscript text of each century, the writings of the Fathers, and the various Oriental and Occidental versions, all testifying to varieties of reading for almost every verse, which undoubtedly occasioned many more or less important departures from the sense of the original text. How came this? The early Church did not know anything of that anxious clinging to the letter which characterizes the scientific rigor and the piety of modern times, and therefore was not so bent upon preserving the exact words. Moreover, the first copies were made rather for private than for public use; copyists were careless, often wrote from dictation, and were liable to misunderstand. Attempted improvements of the text in grammar and style; proposed corrections in history and geography; efforts to harmonize the quotations in the New Testament with the Greek of the Septuagint, but especially to harmonize the Gospels; the writing out of abbreviations; incorporation of marginal notes in the text; the embellishing of the Gospel narratives with stories drawn from non-apostolic though trustworthy sources, e.g., John vii, 53 to viii, 11, and Mark xvi, 9 to end,–it is to these causes that we must attribute the very numerous "readings," or textual variations. It is true that the copyists were sometimes learned men; but their zeal in making corrections may have obscured the true text as much as the ignorance of the unlearned. The copier, indeed, came under the eye of an official reviser; but he may have sometimes exceeded his functions, and done more harm than good by his changes. ### 8. Varieties of Text Produced by Early Criticism. Attempts were made by learned Fathers to get the original text; and three men of the third century–Origen, the Egyptian Bishop Hesychius, and the Presbyter Lucian of Antioch–deserve mention for their devotion to this object. The last two undertook a sort of recension of the New Testament (cf. Jerome, *Epist. ad Damasum); * but it is not known exactly what they did, and their influence was small. In regard to Origen, while he did not make a formal recension of the New Testament text, his critical work was of the highest importance. Notwithstanding these diversities, there were, as early as the fourth and fifth centuries, affinities between manuscripts prepared in the same district, which seem to betray certain tendencies, as is proved by the Fathers, the versions, and the Greek manuscripts themselves. Thus critics are justified in speaking of an Oriental and Occidental, or, more correctly, an Alexandrian or Egyptian, and a Latin, as also of an Asiatic or Greek, and a Byzantine or Constantinopolitan text. According to this theory, the Alexandrian was used by those Jewish Christians of the East who already used the Septuagint; particularly was this text preserved and spread by the learned Alexandrian school. The Latin text characterizes not only the manuscripts prepared by Latins, but the Greek manuscripts they used. The Asiatic manuscripts were used chiefly by native Greeks in Greece, or in the Asiatic provinces having intercourse with Greece. The Byzantine manuscripts belonged to the Church of that empire. The latter alone had a certain official uniformity, and were, in the latter centuries, almost the only manuscripts circulated in the empire. This class of manuscripts is also the only one perfectly represented in existing documents, and is the result of the gradual mixture of older recensions under the predominance of the Asiatic or Greek. Each of these recensions is more or less altered and corrupted; so that it is often more difficult to assign a particular reading to its proper class than to find out the original. Finally, the differences and relationships are by far most strongly marked in the Gospels, least so in the Apocalypse, and again are more distinct in the Pauline Epistles and the Acts than in the Catholic Epistles. (Cf. C. Tischendorf, *Novum Testamentum Græce, editio academica viii, *Leipsic, 1875, pp. xxiv sqq.) ### 9. The Uncial Manuscripts. The number of uncial manuscripts of the New Testament, ranging in date from the fourth to the tenth century, is 114. This does not include eight psalters containing the text of the hymns in Luke i, 46-55, 68-79, ii, 29-32, designated by Tischendorf O a-h, nor the lectionaries, evangelistaries, and praxapostoli. About half of these 114 are mere fragments, containing but a few verses or at most a few chapters. They may be arranged as follows with reference to their probable date: Cent. IV, 2: À with the whole New Testament; B, Gospels, Acts, Catholic, and Pauline Epistles (mutilated). Cent. V, 15: A C I1,2,3 Ib Q1 Q2 Tag Twoi b2 d7,10,14. Cent. VI, 24: D1 D2 E2 H3 I4.7 N1 Na O2 Ob2 P1 R1 Tbceh Z Qcefg S F d11. Cent. VII, 17: Fa G2 I5.6 R2 Tdimpq Wilmn Qab d12. Cent. VIII, 19: B2 E1 L1 S2 Tinors Wabk Y Qd Z Y W d6.8. Cent. IX, 31: E3 F1.2 G2 Gb H2 K1.2 L3 M1.2 O1 P2 Tfk V Wc-ho Xb G D Qh L P d9. Cent. X, 6: G1 H1 S1 U X b1. Of these only one, À, has the New Testament entire, and only four others, ABC Y, the greater part of it. The remainder are distributed, according to the principal divisions of the New Testament, as follows: Gospels, 81: Complete or nearly so, 12: D E K L M S U V G D P W; containing considerable portions, 14: F G H N P Q R X Z L X S F b; containing at most a few chapters or verses, 55: Fa I1.8.4.7 Ib Na O Ta-f.h-r Twoi Wa-o Xb Qa-h d6-12. Acts, 13: Complete or nearly so, 5: D E L P S; the rest with larger (H) or smaller portions (G Gb Fa I2.5.6 b). Catholic Epistles, 5: Complete or nearly so, 4: K L P S, and the fragment b. Pauline Epistles, 20: Complete or nearly so, 7: D E F G K L P; containing larger or smaller fragments, 13: Fa H Ib M N O Ob Q R S Tgs d14. Apocalypse: besides À A C, B2 contains the complete text; P has some small gaps. In reference to the character of their text, Tischendorf classifies the uncials as follows: in the Gospels the oldest form of the text, predominantly Alexandrine in its coloring, is found, though with many differences, in À A B C D I Ib L P Q R Tabc X Z D Qcg X; next to these stand Fa N O Wabc Y Qabef. A later form of the text, in which the Asiatic coloring prevails, is presented by E F G H K M S U V G L P Qh, among which E K M G L P Qh, incline most toward the first class. For the Acts and Catholic Epistles, À A B C give the oldest text, to which, in the Acts, D I approach, and, less closely, E G; also, in the Catholic Epistles (except I Pet.), P; while in the Acts, H L P, and, in the Catholic Epistles, K L, come nearest to the later form of the text. In the Pauline Epistles the oldest text is represented by À A B C H I O Q, with the Greco-Latin manuscripts D F G; M P approach this; while K L N stand nearest to the more recent text. The text of the Apocalypse appears in its oldest form in À A C, to which P comes nearer than B (cf. Gregory, *Prolegomena, *pp. 185 sqq.). Tregelles exhibits the "genealogy of the text" and affinities of the manuscripts in the Gospels in the following form: Westcott and Hort attach a superlative value to B, Tischendorf to À. The same manuscript may differ in character in different parts of the New Testament: thus, A is not so excellent in the Gospels as elsewhere; D is especially good in the Gospel of Mark; À and D agree most closely in the Gospel of John; the cursive 1 is remarkably valuable in the Gospels, but not so in the rest of the New Testament. The following is a complete list of the 114 uncial manuscripts: À: Codex Sinaitiens, found by Tischendorf (1844 and 1859) in the Convent of St. Catherine at the foot of Mount Sinai, now preserved in St. Petersburg. Forty-three leaves of the Old Testament portion of the manuscript, known as the Codex Friderico-Augustanus, are in the library of Leipsic University. Besides twenty-six books of the Old Testament, of which five form the Codex Friderico-Augustanus, the manuscript contains the entire New Testament without the least break, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the first third of the Shepherd of Hermas. The Alexandrian copyist has frequently shown his imperfect knowledge of Greek, and his haste. The license in handling the text, common in the first three centuries, is greater than in B A C, though much lees than in D. Nevertheless, the superiority of the Codex Sinaiticus to all other New Testament manuscripts, with the single exception of B, is fully proved by the numerous places in which its reading has the support of the oldest quotations or the most ancient versions. The text is in four columns, which is a unique arrangement. The Pauline Epistles, among which is Hebrews after II Thessalonians, come directly after the Gospels; the Acts and the Catholic Epistles, then the Apocalypse, follow. The date of the codex is the fourth century. It has a special value from the fact that, owing to the corrections it received in the sixth and seventh centuries and later, its pages represent, after a fashion, the history of the changes in the New Testament text. The codex was published (1862) in facsimile type from the Leipsic press, in four folio volumes, at the expense of the emperor of Russia, Alexander II. The edition was limited to three hundred copies. The New Testament part was published separately in a critical edition by Tischendorf, *Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum cum epistola Barnabæ et fragmentis Pastoris etc., * Leipsic, 1863, and in a more popular form, *Novum Testamentum Græce ex Sinaitico codice omnium antiquissimo, *Leipsic, 1865 (cf. C. Tischendorf, *Die Sinaibibel, Ihre Entdeckung, Herausgabe, und Erwerbung, *Leipsic, 1871; C. R. Gregory, *Prolegomena, * pp. 16-17; F. H. A. Scrivener, *A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus, *Cambridge 1867). A: Codex Alexandrinus, now in the British Museum, presented in 1628 by Cyril Lucar, patriarch of Constantinople, to Charles I. The New Testament begins with Matt. xxv, 8; and contains the whole except John vi, 50-viii, 52, and II Cor. iv, 13-xii, 6, with the First Epistle of Clement and part of the second. It was printed in facsimile by C. G. Woide, London, 1786, in ordinary type by B. H. Cowper, ib. 1860, who corrected some mistakes of Woide, and in photographic facsimile by the trustees of the British Museum, ed. E. M. Thompson (4 vols., London, 1879-83). Tischendorf places it about the middle of the fifth century; Scrivener at the end of the fourth or very little later. B1: Codex Vaticanus, no. 1209, in the Vatican Library. The manuscript contains, besides the Old Testament, the entire New Testament, with the exception of Heb. ix, 14 to end and II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Revelation. Juan Sepulveda, writing to Erasmus about 1533, mentions it. The first collation of the manuscript, made in 1669, by Bartolocci, then librarian of the Vatican, exists only in manuscript in the Paris library. Another was made by Birch, 1788-1801. The collation made for R. Bentley by an Italian named Mico was published by Ford, 1790. J. L. Hug wrote a learned *Commentatio de antiquitate codicis vaticani *(Freiburg, 1810). The manuscript was then in Paris, but it was later restored to Rome, when it became practically inaccessible. An inaccurate and critically worthless edition of the whole manuscript was issued by Cardinal Mai (5 vols., Rome, 1828-38). C. Vercellone, J. Cozza, and G. Sergio published an edition of the entire codes in 6 vols. (New Testament is vol. v) in Rome, 1868-81, and a photographic reproduction was published by the Vatican (1889). The age of the manuscript is about the same as that of the Sinaitic, and possibly corrections are by the same first hand in both; and in the Vatican by a second hand contemporary with the first. B2: Codex Vaticanus 2066 (eighth century), formerly Basilian Codex 105, contains Revelation, was first imperfectly edited by Tischendorf in *Monumenta sacra inedita *(Leipsic, 1846), and more completely in *Appendix Novi Testamenti vaticani *ib. 1869). By Tregelles the manuscript was designated Q. C: Codex Ephrasmi (fifth century), now no. 9 in the National Library at Paris; its text was altered in the sixth century and again in the ninth. In the twelfth century the original writing was washed off to make room for the Greek text of several ascetic works of Ephraem Syrus (d. 373). Pierre Allix, at about the close of the seventeenth century, noticed the traces of the old writing under the later characters. Wetstein in 1716 collated the New Testament part so far as it was legible. In 1834 and 1835 the librarian Carl Hase revived the original writing by the application of the Giobertine tincture (prussiate of potash). Tischendorf, after great labor, brought out in 1843 an edition of the New Testament part of the manuscript, and in 1845, of the Old Testament fragments, representing the manuscript line for line, in facsimile. The codes contains portions of the Old Testament on sixty-four leaves, and five-eighths of the New Testament. D1: Codex Bezæ (about 550 A.D.), from the monastery of St. Irenæus in Lyons, now in the University Library at Cambridge, a present in 1581 from Theodore Beza. It contains, with few lacunæ, the Greek and Latin text of the Gospels and Acts and III John 11-15, stichometrically written, perhaps in Gaul. Edited by Kipling in 1793, but in a far better manner by Scrivener (*Bezæ Codex Cantabrigiensis*) in 1864. No known manuscript has so many and so remarkable interpolations. Much study has been given to it, e.g., J. R. Harris, *Codex Bezæ *(Cambridge, 1891). D2: Codex Claromontanus of the Pauline Epistles, including Hebrews (second half of sixth century). Beza found it in the Monastery of Clermont, hence the name; now in the Paris Library. Contains the Greek and Latin text written stichometrically. It was retouched at different times, and exhibits especially two periods of the text. The Latin text represents the oldest version,–that of the second century. It was collated by Tregelles in 1849 and 1850, and edited by Tischendorf in 1852 in facsimile. E1: Codex Basiliensis A. N. III, 12 (750 A.D.), in Basel, a nearly complete manuscript of the four Gospels, collated by Tregelles (1848), also by Tischendorf and J. C. Müller (1843). E2: Codex Laudianus (end of sixth century), in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, a present from Archbishop Laud in 1636; was brought to England in 668; Bede (d. 735) used it when writing his *Expositio retractata *of the Acts. It contains an almost complete Greco-Latin text of the Acts; edited in 1715 by Hearne, and in 1870 by Tischendorf in *Monumenta sacra inedita, novu collectio, *vol. ix. E3: Codex Sangermanensis, a Greco-Latin manuscript of the Pauline Epistles (end of ninth century), now in St. Petersburg, the Greek text being a clumsy copy of the Codex Claromontanus. Of no critical value except for the Latin text. Sabatier published it in the third part of his *Bibliorum sacrorum Latina versio *(1749). F1: Codex Boreeli (ninth century), now in Utrecht University, contains the four Gospels, but with many lacunæ. Full description is given in J. Heringa, *Disputatio de codice Boreeliano, * ed. H. E. Vinke (Utrecht, 1843). F2: Codex Augiensis (ninth century), contains Pauline Epistles in Greek and Latin, Hebrews only in Latin, and the Latin is not an exact translation of the Greek. Richard Bentley, bought it at Heidelberg and his nephew presented it to Trinity College, Cambridge. It was collated by Tischendorf (1842), Tregelles (1845), and edited by Scrivener (1859). Fa: Designates those passages from the Gospels, Acts, and Pauline Epistles written on the margin of the Coislin Octateuch in Paris early in the seventh century. It was edited by Tischendorf in *Monumenta sacra inedita *(1846). G1: Codex Harleianus (tenth century), contains the Gospels, defective, now in the British Museum, brought by A. Seidel from the East in the seventeenth century. It was collated by J. C. Wolf (1723), Griesbach, Tischendorf, and Tregelles. G2: A seventh century fragment of the Acts (ii, 45-iii, 7), brought by Tischendorf from the East in 1859 (see L2). Gb: Six leaves of a ninth century manuscript now in the Vatican, five leaves edited by Cosza in *Sacrorum bibliorum vetustissima fragmenta, *iii (Rome, 1877). The sixth leaf was discovered by C. R. Gregory, in 1886. G3: Codex Boernerianus (ninth century), contains the Pauline Epistles, is now in the Dresden Royal Library, is in Greek and Latin. The Greek text agrees closely with that of F2. It was edited by Matthæi in 1792, partly collated by Tregelles and others (see under D). H1: Codex Seidelii (tenth century), contains the Gospels, but defectively, now in the Hamburg Public Library, was collated by Tregelles. H2: Codex Mutinensis (ninth century), contains Acts except about seven chapters, now at Modena, collated by Tischendorf (1843) and Tregelles (1845). H3: Fragments of a sixth century manuscript of the Pauline Epistles in the edition of Euthalius, of which forty-one leaves have been found; twenty-two are in the National Library at Paris, eight in the Laura Monastery on Mt. Athos, two in the Synodal Library at Moscow, one in the Rumjanzew Museum there, three in the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg, three in the Ecclesiastical Academy at Kief, and two in the University Library at Turin. (Cf. H. Omont, *Notice sur un très ancien manuscrit grec, * Paris, 1889.) I1-7: Codex Tischendorfianus II, twenty-eight palimpsest leaves from the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries, under the Georgian language, in a text related to that of NABC. Seven leaves contain parts of Matthew; two, parts of Mark; five, parts of Luke; eight, parts of John; four, of Acts; two, of Pauline letters. They were discovered by Tischendorf in the East, and by him published in the *Monumenta sacra inedita, nov. col., *vol. i (1855). Ib (formerly Nb): Four palimpsest leaves (early fifth century), containing sixteen verses from John xiii, xvi; now in the British Museum; deciphered by Tischendorf and Tregelles, published by the former in *Monumenta sacra inedita, nov. col., *vol. ii (1857). K1: Codex Cyprius of the Gospels, complete (middle or end of ninth century); now in the National Library in Paris. Collated by Tischendorf (1842) and Tregelles (1849 and 1850). K2: Codex Mosquensis of the Catholic and Pauline Epistles (ninth century); brought from Mount Athos to Moscow. Lacks a part of Romans and I Corinthians. Collated by Matthæi. L1: Codex Regius of the Gospels (eighth century), now in the National Library in Paris, almost complete. Closely related to N and B and the text of Origen. Published by Tischendorf in *Monumenta sacra inedita * (1846), in facsimile. L2: Codex Angelicus of the Acts and Catholic Epistles (formerly G), and of the Pauline (formerly I) (ninth century), now in the Angelica Library of the Augustinian monks at Rome. Contains Acts viii, 10, to Heb xiii, 10. Collated by Tischendorf (1843) and Tregelles (1845). M1: Codex Campianus of the Gospels, complete (end of ninth century), now in the National Library in Paris. Copied and used by Tischendorf (1849). M2: Codex Ruber of the Pauline Epistles (ninth century). Two folio leaves at Hamburg (Heb. i, 1-iv, 3, xii, 20-xiii, 25), and two at London (I Cor. xv, 52-II Cor. i, 15; II Cor. x, 13-xii, 5). Written in red, hence its name. Edited by Tischendorf in *Anecdota sacra et profana *(1855, corrected, 1861). N1: Codes Purpureus (late sixth century), a manuscript of the Gospels on purple parchment in silver letters. Forty-five leaves were early known: thirty-three are in the Monastery of St. John at Patmos, six in the Vatican, four in the British Museum, two in the Imperial Library at Vienna. One hundred and eighty-four leaves more were discovered in a village near Cæsarea in Cappadocia and bought by M. Nelidow, Russian ambassador at Constantinople (cf. C. R. Gregory, in *TLZ, *1896, pp. 393-394). The Vienna, London, and Vatican leaves were edited by Tischendorf in his *Monumenta sacra inedita * (1846), who used the leaves from Patmos (as collated by John Sakkelion) in his *Novum Testamentum, ed. viii, critica major. *These last were also edited by Duchesne in *Archives des missions scientifiques *(3 series, iii. 386 sqq.). Na: Two fragments of a manuscript very much like N1, seen by Tischendorf in the collection of Bishop Porfiri of St. Petersburg; they contain a portion of Mark ix, and came from the library of the Alexandrian patriarch in Cairo. N2: Two leaves (ninth century), containing Gal. v, 12-vi, 4, and Heb. v, 8-vi, 10, brought by Tischendorf to St. Petersburg. O1: Eight leaves (ninth century) containing a part of John i and xx, with scholia. Now in Moscow (S. Syn. 29, formerly 120). Edited by Matthæi (1785), and, after him, by Tregelles, with Codes Zacinthius (see below, À), Appendix (1861). O2: Two leaves (sixth century) containing II Cor. i, 20-ii, 12. Brought from the East to St. Petersburg by Tischendorf in 1859. Oah: Fragments (sixth century to ninth) containing the hymns from Luke i, 46 sqq., 68 sqq., ii, 29 sqq., now (Oa) in Wolfenbüttel, (Ob) Oxford, (Oc) Verona, (Od) Zurich, (Oe) St. Gall, (Of) Moscow, (Og) Turin, and (Oh) Paris. Oa was edited by Tischendorf in *Anecdota sacra et profana *(1855), and O d in *Monumenta sacra inedita, nov. col., *vol. iv (1869), and O bc by Bianchini (1740). Ob: Pauline Epistles, a single leaf (sixth century), contains part of Eph. iv, 1-18, collated by Tischendorf at Moscow in 1868. P1: Codex Guelpherbytanus I (sixth century), a palimpsest at Wolfenbüttel, contains a part of all of the Gospels, was edited by Tischendorf in *Monumenta sacra inedita, nov. col., *vol. vi (1869). P2: Codex Porphyrianus (ninth century), a palimpsest, contains Acts, Catholic and Pauline Epistles, and Revelation, but with lacunæ; the text of the Apocalypse is especially good. It was brought to St. Petersburg by the Russian bishop Porfiri, and edited by Tischendorf in *Monumenta sacra inedita, nov. col., *vols. v-vi (1865-69). Q1: Codex Guelpherbytanus II (fifth century), a palimpsest containing fragments of Luke and John, now at Wolfenbüttel; was edited by Tischendorf in *Monumenta sacra inedita, *vol. iii. Q2: Papyrus fragments (fifth century) of I Cor. i, vi, vii, in the collection of Bishop Porfiri, collated by Tischendorf in 1892. R1: Codex Nitriensis (sixth century), a palimpsest containing parts of Luke, came from a monastery in the Nitrian desert, now in the British Museum, collated by Cureton, then by Tregelles (1854) and Tischendorf (1855), and edited by the last in *Monumenta sacra inedita, nov. col., *vol. ii (1857). R2: Codex Cryptoferratensis (late seventh century), a palimpsest fragment containing II Cor. xi, 9-19, published by Cozza in *Sacrorum bibliorum vetustissima fragmanta, *ii (Rome, 1867). S1: Codex Vaticanus 354 (949 A.D.), containing the Gospels complete, collated by Tischendorf for his *ed, viii.* S2: Codex Athous Lauræ (eighth or ninth century), containing Acts, Catholic Epistles, and Rom., I Cor. i, 1-v, 8, xiii, 8-xvi, 24, II Cor. i, 1-xi, 23, Eph. iv, 20-vi, 20, in the Laura Monastery on Mt. Athos, examined by Gregory in 1886. Ta: Codex Borgianus I (fifth century), fragments containing Luke xxii, 20-xxiii, 20, and John vi, 28-67, vii, 6-viii, 31, now in the College of the Propaganda at Rome, the first collated by H. Alford (1866), the second by Tischendorf and published by Giorgi (1789). Tb: Fragments (sixth century) of John (i, 25-42, ii, 9-iv, 14, 34-50), now at St. Petersburg. Tc: Fragments, similar to Ta, containing Matt. xiv, 19-27, 31-34, xv, 2-8. Td: Fragments (seventh century) of a Greco-Coptic evangelistary (Matt. xvi, 13-20, Mark i, 3-8, xii, 35-37, John xix, 23-27, xx, 30-31) discovered by Tischendorf in the Borgian Library at Rome. Te: A fragment (sixth century) containing Matt iii, 13-16, found in Upper Egypt, now in the University Library at Cambridge, England, used by Hort, and copied by Gregory in 1883. Tf: Another fragment (ninth century), also from Upper Egypt, of a Greco-Coptic evangelistary, containing Matt. iv, 2-11, copied by Gregory in 1883, now in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. Tg: Two fragments (fourth to sixth century) containing I Tim. iii, 15-16, and vi, 2, now in the Egyptian Museum of the Louvre; published by T. Zahn in *Forschungen, *iii, 277 sqq. (Leipsic, 1884). Th: Three leaves (sixth or seventh century) containing Matt. xx, 3-32, xxii, 4-16, found in Cairo by A. Papadopulos-Kerameus. Ti-r: Fragments (seventh to tenth century) of six Greco-Coptic and three Greek manuscripts, containing parts of the Gospels, found in the Schnudi Monastery near Akhmim, Egypt, now in the National Library at Paris, published by E. Amélineau in *Notices et extraits, *vol. xxxiv, part ii (Paris, 1895), 363 sqq. The text is related to that of Ta. Ts: Two leaves (eighth to tenth century), also from the Schnudi Monastery, containing I Cor. i, 22-29. Twoi: Nine leaves (fifth century) with Greco-Coptic text of Luke xii, 15-xiii, 32, John viii, 33-42, formerly owned by Woide, now in the library of the Clarendon Press at Oxford, published by Ford, 1799. U: Codex Nanianus (ninth or tenth century), contains the Gospels, now in the Library of St. Mark, Venice, collated by Tischendorf and Tregelles. V: Codex Mosquensis (eighth or ninth century), contains the Gospels nearly complete to John vii, 49, written at Mt. Athos, collated by Matthæi (1785). Wa: Two leaves (eighth century) containing parts of Luke ix-x, now in the National Library at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in *Monumenta sacra inedita *(1846). Wb: A palimpsest, probably originally belonging with Wa, of fourteen leaves, containing fragments of Matt., Mark, and Luke, found by Tischendorf at Naples and by him deciphered in 1866. Wc: Three fragments (ninth century) of a Greco-Latin manuscript of the Gospels from Mark ii and Luke i, now at St. Gall, edited by Tischendorf in *Monumenta sacra inedita, nov. col., *vol. iii (1860). Wd: Fragments of four leaves (ninth century) containing parts of Mark vii, viii, ix, now in the library of Trinity College, Cambridge, published by Scrivener, *Adversaria critica sacra *(Cambridge, 1893), pp. xi sqq. We: Twelve leaves (ninth century) containing parts of John ii-iv, seven leaves in the monastery of St. Dionysius on Mt. Athos (collated by Pusey for Alford), three in the library of Christ Church College, Oxford (examined by Tischendorf), and two in the National Library at Athens (discovered by Gregory in 1886). Wf: A palimpsest (ninth century) containing part of Mark v, in the library of Christ Church College at Oxford. Wg: Thirty-six leaves of a palimpsest (ninth century) containing part of the four Gospels, now in the British Museum. Wh: Two leaves of a palimpsest (ninth century) containing parts of Mark iii, discovered by Gregory in 1883. Wi: Two leaves (seventh or eighth century) with parts of Luke iv, copied by Gregory in Paris in 1884. Wk: Two leaves (eighth or ninth century) with parts of Luke xx and xxiii, also copied by Gregory in Paris, 1884. Wl: Two leaves of a palimpsest (seventh century) containing Mark xiii, 34-xiv, 29, discovered by Gregory in the National Library at Paris, 1885. Wm: Four leaves of a palimpsest (seventh or eighth century) containing parts of Mark, in the National Library at Paris, discovered by Gregory, 1885. Wn: Four leaves (seventh century) containing John vi, 71-vii, 46, in Vienna. Wo: Sixteen leaves of a palimpsest (ninth century) containing parts of the Synoptic Gospels, in the Ambrosian Library at Milan. X: Codex Monacensis (ninth or tenth century) containing numerous fragments of the Gospels and a commentary, in the University Library at Munich. Collated by Scholz, Tischendorf, and Tregelles. Xb: Fourteen leaves (ninth or tenth century) containing Luke i, 1-ii, 40, incomplete, in the Court and State Library at Munich. Y: Codex Barberini 225 (eighth century), six leaves containing parts of John, published by Tischendorf in *Monumenta sacra inedita *(1846). Z: Codex Dublinensis rescriptus (sixth century), an important palimpsest with numerous fragments of Matthew, in Trinity College, Dublin. Published in facsimile by Barrett (1801), accurately deciphered by Tregelles (1853), newly edited by T. K. Abbott (Dublin, 1880). G: Codex Tischendorfianus IV (ninth century) contains large parts of Matthew and Mark. Luke and John are complete. It was found by Tischendorf in the East, part of it is in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, and the larger part at St. Petersburg. It strongly resembles K1. D: Codex Sangallensis (ninth century), a nearly complete copy of the Gospels (one leaf lacking) with interlinear Latin translation approximating the Vulgate text. It is in St. Gall, possibly copied there, and is possibly the same (for the Gospels) manuscript as G3 (Pauline Epistles). (Cf. J. R. Harris, *Codex Sangallensis, *Cambridge, 1891.) Qa: Codex Tischendorfianus I (seventh century), four leaves with parts of Matt. xii-xv, found by Tischendorf in the East in 1844 and 1853, now in the library of the University of Leipsic, edited by Tischendorf in *Monumenta sacra inedita, nov. col., *vol. ii (1857). Qb: Six leaves (seventh century) containing fragments of Matt. xxii-xxiii and Mark iv-v, brought by Tischendorf to St. Petersburg in 1859. Qc: Two folio leaves (sixth century) containing Matt. xxi, 19-24 and John xviii, 29-35, brought by Tischendorf and Bishop Porfiri to St. Petersburg. Qd: A fragment (eighth century) containing Luke xi, 37-45, brought by Tischendorf to St. Petersburg. Qe: A fragment (sixth century) containing Matt. xxvi, 2-7, 9. Qf: Four leaves (sixth century) containing parts of Matthew and Mark. Qg: A fragment (sixth century) containing John vi, 13-24, similar to O2. Qh: Three fragments (ninth century) of a Greco-Arabic manuscript of the Gospels. Qe-h: are all in the collection of Bishop Porfiri at St. Petersburg, and were collated by Tischendorf. L: Codex Tischendorfianus III (ninth century) containing Luke and John complete, with occasional scholia in uncials on the margin, partly of a critical kind. Now in the Bodleian Library, Oxford; collated by Tischendorf (who brought it from the East) and Tregelles. X: Codex Zacynthius (eighth century), a palimpsest containing Luke i, 1–xi, 33, with some gaps; brought from the Island of Zante, and presented in 1821 to the British and Foreign Bible Society, London; deciphered and published by Tregelles in 1861. The text, which is very valuable, is surrounded by a commentary. P: Codex Petropolitanus (ninth century) of the Gospels complete, excepting seventy-seven verses. Brought to St. Petersburg by Tischendorf from Smyrna. S: Codex Rossanensis (sixth century), containing Matt. i, 1–Mark xvi, 14 and belonging to the chapter of the Cathedral Church at Rossano, written on very fine purple vellum in silver letters, with the three first lines in both columns at the beginning of each Gospel in gold. It is adorned with eighteen remarkable pictures in watercolors, representing scenes is the Gospel history, with forty figures of the prophets of the Old Testament. Its miniatures bear a striking resemblance to those of the celebrated Vienna purple manuscript of Genesis. It numbers a hundred and eighty-eight leaves, some of which have been much injured by dampness. It originally contained the four Gospels. The text, as well as the writing, resembles that of Codex N1 of the Gospels. It was discovered in the spring of 1879, at Rossano in Calabria (Southern Italy), by Dr. Gebherdt of Göttingen and Professor Harnack of Giessen, who have published a full description of it with two facsimiles of the writing and outline sketches of the miniatures, is an elegant quarto entitled *Evangeliorum codex Græcus Purpureus Rossanensis *(Leipsic, 1880). The illuminations are reproduced in exact facsimile by Antonio Munoz (Rome, 1907). The text seems to hold a position about midway between that of the older uncials and those of the ninth and tenth centuries, agreeing most remarkably with N1, often with ADP, or with D and the Old Latin, against the mass of later manuscripts. F: Codex Beratinus (probably sixth century), containing Matt. vi, 3–Mark xiv, 62, with some lacunæ, on purple vellum and in possession of the Church of St. George at Berat, Albania, made generally known by P. Batiffol in 1885. Y: Codex Athous-Lauræ (eighth or ninth century), containing the New Testament except Matthew, Mark i, 1–ix, 4, Heb. viii, 11—ix, 19, and Revelation, is in the Laura Monastery on Mt. Athos, was examined by Gregory in 1886. W: Codex Athous Dionysii (eighth or ninth century), containing the four Gospels, is in the Monastery of St. Dionyeius on Mt. Athos, was examined by Gregory id 1886. b1: Codex Athous Andreæ (ninth or tenth century), containing the four Gospels but with lacunæ, is in the Monastery of St. Andrew on Mt. Athos, was examined by Gregory in 1886. b2: Codex Patiriensis (fifth century), twenty-one palimpsest leaves containing fragments of Acts and of the Catholic and the Pauline Epistles, now in the Vatican Library, was described by Batiffol (1891), partly read by W. Sanday (1895). g: The sign attached by Gregory to a fragment of N1 before he knew its relationship. d6-12, 14: Small fragments (fifth to ninth century) of the Synoptics and I Corinthians in the convent of St. Catharine on Mt. Sinai, discovered by J. R. Harris and published in *Biblical Fragments from Mt. Sinai *(London, 1890). ### 10. The Cursive Manuscripts, Evangelistaries, etc. Besides the uncials, there are known for the Gospels over 1,200 cursives designated by Arabic numerals, over 950 evangelistaries of which about 100 are in uncial writing, varying in date from the tenth to the twelfth century. For the Acts and the Catholic Epistles there are over 400 cursives, for the Pauline Epistles about 500, and for the Apocalypse 180. Of lectionaries there are known over 260, only a very few of which antedate the tenth century. The following are noteworthy, either because of the value of their readings or for the influence they have had on the text: 1 Gospels, Acts, Catholic and Pauline Epistles: Codex Basiliensis (tenth or twelfth century), especially valuable for the text of the Gospels, contains the apparatus of Euthalius on the Acts and Epistles. Kindred to it in the Gospels are 209, 118, 131. 1 Apocalypse: Codex Reuchlini (twelfth century), used by Erasmus (1516), in the University Library at Basel. 13 Gospels: Codex Parisiensis (thirteenth century), has some lacunæ, was collated by Wetstein, Griesbach, and W. H. Ferrar, and is closely related to 69, 124, and 346, while 543, 788, and 826 belong to the same group. 13 Acts and Catholic Epistles, 17 Pauline Epistles, and 33 Gospels are all parts of the same manuscript (ninth, tenth, or eleventh century), and the text agrees often with that of the best uncials; collated by Griesbach, and Tregelles (1850). 14 Apocalypse, 31 Acts and Catholic Epistles, 37 Pauline Epistles and 69 Gospels are parts of the same manuscript (Leicester Codex, fourteenth or fifteenth century), collated by Tregelles, Scrivener, and Abbott (cf. 13 supra). 34 Acts and Catholic Epistles, 40 Pauline Epistles, 81 Gospels, and 92 Apocalypse are parts of the same manuscript (Codex Montfortianus, sixteenth century), at Trinity College, Dublin, collated by O. T. Dobbin (1854). 47 Pauline Epistles (eleventh or twelfth century), in the Bodleian Library, collated by Tregelles. 95 Apocalypse (Codex Parham, eleventh or twelfth century), belongs among the best witnesses to Revelation, collated by Scrivener. 565 Gospels (ninth or tenth century) in letters of gold on purple parchment, with especially ancient readings in Mark; designated 81 by Westcott and Hort, now in St. Petersburg. ### 2. History of the Printed Text: ### 1. Complutensian and Erasmian Editions. For more than half a century after the invention of printing, the original text of the New Testament remained unpublished. The credit of first printing it belongs to Cardinal Ximenes de Cisneros, archbishop of Toledo, who made it vol. v of his Polyglot Bible (see BIBLES, POLYGLOT, I). The manuscripts depended upon were comparatively modern and of inferior value. Though the volume is dated June 10, 1514, the New Testament was not published before 1521 or 1522, and thus was preceded by the Greco-Latin New Testament of 1516, published by Froben of Basel, and edited by Erasmus, who used as the basis of his text, in the Gospels, an inferior Basel manuscript of the fifteenth century (cod. 2), and one of the thirteenth or fourteenth century in the Acts and Epistles (cod. 2). With these he collated more or less carefully one more manuscript of the Gospels (cod. 1), two in the Acts and Catholic Epistles (codd. 1 and 4), and three in the Pauline Epistles (codd. 1, 4, 7). The oldest of these (cod. 1, tenth century) has a good text in the Gospels; but Erasmus made very little use of it; the others are comparatively modern, and poor. For the Apocalypse he had only a single manuscript of the twelfth century, wanting the last six verses, which he translated into Greek from the Latin Vulgate. In various other places in the Apocalypse he followed the readings of the Vulgate in opposition to the Greek, as he did in a few cases elsewhere. The first edition of Erasmus was sped through the press with headlong haste (*præcipitatum fuit verius quam editum*, as Erasmus himself says) in order that the publisher, Froben, might get the start of the Complutensian. It consequently swarms with errors. A more correct edition was issued in 1519: Mill observed about four hundred changes in the text. For this and later editions, one additional manuscript (cod. 3) was used in the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles. In the third edition (1522) the changes were much fewer; but it is noted for the introduction of I John v, 7, from the Codex Montfortianus (sixteenth century). In the fourth edition (1527) the text was altered and improved in many places, particularly in Revelation, from the Complutensian Polyglot. That of the fifth (1535) and last (Erasmus died in 1536) hardly differs from the fourth. ### 2. Editions of Stephens and Beza. The next editions which call for notice are those of the great printer and scholar Robert Stephens (Estienne, Stephanus; see STEPHENS), three published at Paris (1546, 1549, and 1550; the first two, in small 12mo, are known as the *O mirificam *editions, from the opening words of the preface, which is the same in both; the last, a magnificent folio, is called the *editio regia*), and one at Geneva (16mo, 1551), in which the present division into verses was first introduced into the Greek text (see below, III, § 3). The edition of 1550, notwithstanding its various readings in the margin from fifteen manuscripts and the Complutensian Polyglot, is mainly founded on the fourth or fifth edition of Erasmus. Scrivener has noted a hundred and nineteen places in which it differs from all of the manuscripts used. The text of the edition of 1551 varies but slightly from that of 1550. The four folio editions of Theodore Beza (Geneva, 1565, 1582, 1588 or 1589, and 1598), as well as his five 8vo editions (1565, 1567, 1580, 1590, 1604) follow, for the most part, Stephens's editions of 1550 or 1551, with changes here and there, many of which are not improvements. Stephens's edition of 1551 is commonly spoken of in England as the *textus receptus*; but on the Continent the first Elzevir edition, printed at Leyden in 1624, has generally received that designation. The expression is borrowed from the preface to the second Elzevir edition (1633), in which occur the words, *Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum. *The text of the seven Elzevir editions (1624, 1633, 1641, Leyden; 1656, 1662, 1670, 1678, Amsterdam), among which there are a few slight differences, is made up almost wholly from Beza's smaller editions of 1565 and 1580; its editor is unknown. The *textus receptus, *slavishly followed, with slight diversities, in hundreds of editions, and substantially represented in all the principal modern Protestant translations prior to the nineteenth century, thus resolves itself essentially into that of the last edition of Erasmus, framed from a few modern and inferior manuscripts and the Complutensian Polyglot, in the infancy of Biblical criticism. In more than twenty places its reading is supported by the authority of no known Greek manuscript. ### 3. Editions between 1657 and 1830. The editions from 1657 to 1830, with the exception of that of Griesbach (see below, § 3), are important, as regards the text, mainly for their accumulation of critical materials. In Walton's Polyglot (London, 1657; see BIBLES, POLYGLOT, IV), Stephens's Greek text of 1550 was accompanied by the Vulgate, Peshito-Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic, and, in parts of the New Testament, other ancient versions, with a critical apparatus including the readings of Codd. A, D1, D2, Stephens's margin, and eleven cursive manuscripts collated by or for Archbishop Ussher. In Bishop Fell's edition (Oxford, 1675), which reproduces substantially the Elzevir text, other authorities, including readings of the Coptic and Gothic versions, are given in the notes, though the title page *(ex plus 100 MSS. codicibus*), is very misleading. The edition of John Mill (Oxford, 1707, fol.; improved and enlarged by Ludolph Kuster, Amsterdam, Leipsic, and Rotterdam, 1710), the work of thirty years, marks an epoch in the history of textual criticism by its vast additions to the store of critical material through the collation of the new manuscripts, the collection of readings from the ancient versions, and especially from the quotations found in the writings of the Christian Fathers, and by its very learned and valuable prolegomena. Mill gave his judgment on many readings in his notes and prolegomena, but did not venture to form a text of his own, reprinting Stephens's text of 1550 without intentional variation. The projected edition of the Greek Testament and Latin Vulgate in parallel columns, by the illustrious critic Richard Bentley deserves a brief notice. Proposals for printing were issued in 1720, and a large amount of materials was collected at great expense, including a collation of cod. B (published by Ford in 1799); but the work was never completed. It was to have been founded on the oldest Greek and Latin manuscripts compared with the principal ancient versions and the quotations in the Fathers of the first five centuries. (Cf. A. A. Ellis, *Bentleii critica sacra, * Cambridge, 1862; R. C. Jebb, *Bentley, *London, 1882.) The edition of Johann Albrecht Bengel (Tübingen, 1734, 4to), while it had the advantage of some new manuscripts, was specially valuable for its discussions and illustrations of the principles of criticism, and its classification of manuscripts; but, except in the Apocalypse, Bengel did not venture to introduce any reading, even though he believed it unquestionably genuine, which had not previously appeared in some printed edition. His judgment of the value of different readings was, however, given in the margin (cf. E. Nestle, *Bengel als Gelehrter, *Tübingen, 1893, pp. 39 sqq.). The magnificent edition of Johann Jakob Wetstein (2 vols. fol., Amsterdam, 1751-52), the work of forty years, greatly enlarged the store of critical material by extensive collation of manuscripts and researches into the quotations of the Fathers, and by his description of this material in very valuable and copious prolegomena (reprinted, with additions by Semler, Halle, 1764). He gives also the readings of the chief printed editions which preceded him, and describes them fully. He introduced the present method of denoting the uncial manuscripts by Roman capitals, and the cursives and lectionaries by Arabic figures. Besides the critical matter, Wetstein's edition is a thesaurus of quotations from Greek, Latin, and Rabbinical authors, illustrating the phraseology of the New Testament, or containing passages more or less parallel in sentiment. His publisher insisted on his reprinting the *textus receptus *(substantially that of the Elzevirs); but he gives his critical judgment in the margin and the notes. Other editions to be briefly mentioned are those of F. C. Alter (Vienna, 1786-87), giving the readings of twenty-two Vienna manuscripts and of four manuscripts of the Slavonic version; of Andrew Birch ( *Quatuor Evangelia Græce, *Copenhagen, 1788, 4to, and *Variæ lectiones, *1798, 1800, 1801), exhibiting the readings of many manuscripts collated in the libraries of Italy, Spain, and Germany, by himself and others; and of C. F. Matthæi ( *Novum Testamentum Græce et Latine *[the Vulgate], 12 vols., 8vo, Riga, 1782-88; also *Novum Testamentum Græce, *3 vols., 8vo, Wittenberg, etc., 1803-07), for which over a hundred manuscripts were used, mostly from the library of the Holy Synod at Moscow. Matthæi was a careful collator, but a very poor critic; and his manuscripts generally were of inferior quality. ### 4. Griesbach and his Followers. The first edition of Johann Jacob Griesbach was published in 1774-75 (the first three Gospels in synopsis); but it was only in the second edition (2 vols., 8vo, Halle, 1796-1806) that be first made really good use of the materials gathered by his predecessors, and augmented by his own collections. A manual edition was issued at Leipsic in 1805, the text of which, differing somewhat from that of the larger edition, expresses his later critical judgment. Following in the track of Bengel and Semler, Griesbach sought to simplify the process of criticism by classifying his manuscripts and other authorities. He made three classes or recensions–the Alexandrian, the Western, and the Constantinopolitan or Byzantine–to the latter of which the mass of later and inferior manuscripts belongs. Though his system is not now accepted in its details, much truth lay at the bottom of it. His principles of criticism were sound; and in his application of them he displayed rare tact and skill. In 1827 a third edition of the first volume of his Greek Testament was published, with important additions, under the editorship of Dr. David Schulz. Griesbach's *Symbolæ critica *(Halle, 1785-93), and *Commentarius criticus *on Matthew and Mark, parts i, ii, with *Meletemata critica *prefixed to part ii, Jena, 1798, 1811, are still valuable. A number of manual editions founded on that of Griesbach, but inclining more to the *textus receptus, *as those of H. A. Schott (Leipsic, 1805,1813, 1825,1839), with a good Latin translation; G. C. Knapp (Halle, 1797, 1813, 1824, 1829, 1840), with a useful *Commentatio isagogica, *or introduction, and carefully punctuated and divided; J. A. H. Tittmann (ster., Leipsic, 1820, 1828, 16mo; 1824, 1831, 8vo); A. Hahn (Leipsic, 1840, 1841, revised ed. 1861; reprinted at New York, 1842, by Edward Robinson); K. G. W. Theile (ster., Leipsic, 1844, 11th ed. 1875, by O. von Gebhardt), with the variations of the chief modern editors, parallel passages, etc.; also S. T. Bloomfield's *Greek Testament with English Notes *(London, 1832, 9th ed., 1855, 2 vols., 8vo), mark no progress in criticism beyond Griesbach, but rather a retrograde movement. The same is true of the large edition of the Catholic scholar J. M. A. Scholz (2 vols., 4to, Leipsic, 1830-1836), whose extensive travels and researches in libraries enabled him to add a very large number of new manuscripts (according to Scrivener, 616) to the list of those previously known. But of these only thirteen were collated entire; a few others in the greater part; many in only a few chapters; many more simply inspected, or only enrolled in the list. Scholz was a poor critic, and as an editor and collator incredibly careless. He divided his manuscripts into two classes or recensions–the Alexandrian and the Constantinopolitan, giving the preference to the latter. But in applying his system, he was happily inconsistent, particularly in his second volume, and at a later period of his life (1845) abandoned it. His edition met with no favor from intelligent scholars; but in England, where Biblical criticism was at its lowest ebb, it was welcomed and praised by many, and its text reprinted. ### 5. Lachmann. A new period in the history of textual criticism was inaugurated by the appearance (Berlin 1831) of a small edition of the Greek Testament by the distinguished classical scholar Carl Lachmann, followed by a larger edition, in which the authorities for the Greek text were supplied by Philipp Buttmann, with the Latin Vulgate in the lower margin, critically edited from codd. Fuldensis, Amiatinus, and other manuscripts (2 vols., 8vo, Berlin, 1842-50). Lachmann's aim in these editions was not to reproduce the original text according to his best judgment (for this he deemed conjectural criticism to be necessary in some cases), but to present as far as possible on purely documentary evidence the text current in the Eastern churches in the fourth century as a basis for criticism. He paid no attention to the *textus receptus, *and used no cursive manuscripts, but founded his text wholly on ancient authorities; viz., codd. A B C D P Q T Z of the Gospels, A B C D E in the Acts and Catholic Epistles, A B C D G in the Pauline Epistles, and A B C in the Apocalypse, with the Latin Vulgate, and codd. *a *(Vercellensis, fourth century), *b *(Veronensis, fifth century), and *c *(Colbertinus, eleventh century) of the Old Latin, for the Gospels, besides the Latin versions of the Greco-Latin manuscripts in the above list; of the Fathers he used Irenæus, Cyprian, Hilary of Poitiers, Lucifer of Cagliari, and, in the Apocalypse, Primasius. His attempted task was not fully accomplished, partly because the text of some of the most important manuscripts which he used (B C P Q, and the Latin Codex Amiatinus) had been but very imperfectly collated or edited, partly because the range of his authorities was too narrow, and partly because he was sometimes, apparently at least, inconsistent in the application of his principles. But he was the first to found a test wholly on ancient evidence (Griesbach disregarded what he deemed unimportant variations from the received text); and his editions, to which his eminent reputation as a critic gave wide currency especially in Germany, did much toward breaking down the superstitious reverence for the *textus receptus *which had long prevailed. ### 6. Tischendorf. Next to be noted are the editions of Tischendorf and Tregelles. Through their combined labors we have a solid basis for a completely critical edition of the Greek Testament in the accurate knowledge, not possessed before, of all manuscripts of the oldest class (not including lectionaries), comprising many newly discovered, among them the Sinaitic of the fourth century. Lobegott Friedrich Constantin Tischendorf spent about eight years of his life in travels in search of manuscripts (for which he visited the East three times–in 1844, 1853, and 1859), or in collating with extreme care or transcribing and preparing for publication the most important of those in the various libraries of Europe which were before known, but had not been published or thoroughly examined. The following uncial Greek manuscripts (see the list above) were discovered by Tischendorf: À G2 I N2 O2 Tb.d G Qa-d L P; first used by him: Fa Ib N1 Ob-f Ob2 P2 Q2 R1.2 Ta.c Wb-e Qe-h; published: À B1.2 C D2 E2 Fa I Ib L1 M2 N1 Oa P1.2 Q1 R1 Wa.c Y Qa; (cf. C. R. Gregory's *Prolegomena *to Tischendorf's *Novum Testamentum Græce, ed. viii, *i, Leipsic, 1884, p. 31). His editions of the texts of Biblical manuscripts (including some of the Septuagint) comprise no less than seventeen large quarto and five folio volumes, not including the *Anecdota sacra et profana *(1855, new ed. 1861), or the *Notitia editionis Codicis Sinaitici *(1860), two quarto volumes containing descriptions or collations of many new manuscripts; and many of his collations, or copies of manuscripts, remain unpublished. The titles of Tischendorf's various writings, most of them relating to Biblical criticism, fill pages 7-22 of Gregory's *Prolegomena. *His first edition of the Greek Testament (Leipsic, 1841) was promising as a first essay, but of no special importance except for the refutation, in the prolegomena, of Scholz's theory of recensions. In the *Editio Lipsiana secunda *(1849) the critical apparatus was much enlarged, and the text settled on the basis of ancient authority, generally with good judgment. In 1859 appeared the *Editio septima critica maior *(2 vols.), in which very large additions were made to the critical apparatus, not only from manuscripts, Greek and Latin, but from the quotations in the writings of the Christian Fathers, and the evidence was for the first time fully stated, both for and against the readings adopted. In the first volume, Tischendorf, influenced perhaps by Scrivener, showed a tendency to allow greater weight to the later uncials and cursives than he had done in his edition of 1849; but he soon found that he was on the wrong track; and on the whole, if orthographical changes are included, his edition of 1859 differs more widely from the *textus receptus *than that of 1849. Its publication was immediately followed by Tischendorf's third journey to the East, and the discovery of the great Sinaitic manuscript, together with the acquisition of much other new critical material. After the publication of the Codex Sinaiticus in 1862, in a magnificent edition of four volumes folio, in facsimile type, with twenty-one plates of actual facsimiles, at the expense of the Russian Government, the edition being limited to three hundred copies, he issued in 1863, in 4to, his *Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum, *in ordinary type, but representing the manuscript line for line, with full prolegomena; and his *Novum Testamentum Græce ex Sinaitico Codice, Vaticana itemque Elzeviriana lectione notata, *in 1865, 8vo, with a supplement of additions and corrections in 1870. After some other publications, particularly the second edition of his *Synopsis evangelica *in 1864, in which the Sinaitic manuscript was first used, he undertook his last great critical edition of the Greek New Testament, *Novum Testamentum Græce, editio octava critica maior *(issued in eleven parts, i, Leipsic, Oct., 1864, xi, at the end of 1872; collected into two volumes, 8vo, 1869-72). This edition far surpassed all that had preceded it in the richness of its critical apparatus, and, as compared with that of 1859, rests much more on the authority of the oldest manuscripts, particularly the Sinaitic. The preparation of the prolegomena by Tischendorf himself was prevented by his sudden illness and subsequent death, and was entrusted to an American scholar residing in Leipsic, Caspar René Gregory, who had also the valuable assistance of Ezra Abbot. In the interest of the work Dr. Gregory made special journeys through Europe and into the Orient, and was thus enabled to give first-hand descriptions and collations of many manuscripts. It was published in three parts at Leipsic, 1884-94. Besides the works mentioned, the most important publications of Tischendorf pertaining to the textual criticism of the New Testament are: *Codex Ephraemi Syri rescriptus * (1843, 4to; Old Testament part, 1845); *Monumenta sacra inedita *(1846, 4to); *Evangelium ineditum *(1847, 4to); *Codex Amiatinus *(Vulgate; 1850, new ed.1854); *Codex Claromontanus *(1852, 4to); *Monumenta sacra inedita, nova collectio, *vols. i-vi, ix (1855-70, 4to); *Novum Testamentum Vaticanum *and *Appendix Novi Testamenti Vaticani *(1867-69, 4to); cf. *Responsa ad columnias Romanas *(1870, 8vo), also *Appendix codicum celeberrimorum, Sinaitici, Vaticani, Alexandrini *(1867, 4to); *Die Sinaibibel, ihre Entdeckung, Herausgabe, und Erwerbung *(1871, large 8vo). His *Novum Testamentum triglottum, Græce, Latine, Germanice *(Leipsic, 1854, 2d ed., 1865) is a convenient book, the three parts of which were also issued separately, and in various combinations. The Greek is his own text, with the variations of the *textus receptus*; the Latin, the Vulgate critically revised from the oldest manuscripts, with the variations of the Clementine edition; the German the genuine text of Luther, though in modern orthography. Tischendorf also issued many manual editions of the Greek Testament, the three latest in his lifetime being published in 1875 by Tauchnitz, Brockhaus (to match his edition of the Septuagint), and Mendelssohn (*Editio academica septima*), respectively. His large editions of 1859 and 1869-72 were issued with the critical apparatus greatly abridged, but giving the chief authorities for all the important various readings, with the titles *Editio septima critica minor * (1859) and *Editio octava critica minor *(1872-77). ### 7. Tregelles. Samuel Prideaux Tregelles ranks next to Tischendorf in the importance of his critical labors, and in single-hearted devotion to his chosen task. In 1848 he issued a Prospectus for a critical edition of the Greek Testament, the text of which was to be founded solely on the authority of the oldest Greek manuscripts, the ancient versions to the seventh century, and the citations of early writers, including Eusebius. No account was made of the "received text," or of the great mass of cursive manuscripts. Completeness and accuracy in the exhibition of the evidence of the witnesses used were especially aimed at. Like Tischendorf, Tregelles visited (in 1845-46, 1849-50, and 1862) the principal libraries in Europe for the purpose of collating manuscripts the text of which had not before been published. These were the uncials B2 D2 E1 F2 G1 H1.2 Ib K1 L2 M1.2 R1 U X Z G L, the cursives 1, 13, 17, 31, 37, 47, 61, 69, and also Codex Zacynthius (X). In many cases Tregelles compared his collations with those of Tischendorf, and settled the differences by a reexamination of the manuscript. In 1861 he edited the *Codex Zacynthius *(X), republishing in an appendix the fragments of O. His edition of *The Greek New Testament, Edited from Ancient Authorities, with their Various Readings in Full, and the Latin Version of Jerome, * was issued in London in seven successive parts: i, Matthew, Mark, 1857; ii, Luke, John, 1861; iii, Acts and Catholic Epistles, 1865; iv, Romans to II Thessalonians (iii, 3), 1869; v, Hebrews (with II Thess. iii, 3-18) to Philemon, 1870; vi, Revelation, 1872. Part vii, *Prolegomena and Addenda and Corrigenda, * appeared in 1879, four years after his death, edited by Dr. Hort and A. W. Streane. Though Tregelles added far less than Tischendorf to our store of critical material, he did more to establish correct principles of criticism, and his various writings had a wide and most beneficial influence in England. He also published, in 1854, *An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament, with Remarks on its Revision upon Critical Principles, * and, in 1856, *Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, *forming part of vol. iv of the tenth and later editions of Horne's *Introduction. * This volume was also issued separately, and in the eleventh edition of Horne's *Introduction * (1861) appeared with "Additions" and a "Postscript." ### 8. Westcott and Hort. In 1881 appeared *The New Testament in the Original Greek. The Text Revised by Brooke Foss Westcott . . . and Fenton John Anthony Hort * (Cambridge and London). The American edition (New York) has a valuable introduction by Philip Schaff, with the cooperation of Ezra Abbot. Dr. Schaff also prepared a compact manual of New Testament criticism, *A Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version *(New York, 1883), which embodies the substance of this introduction, thoroughly revised. The teat of Westcott and Hort is accompanied by an *Introduction and Appendix *(1882) in which the authors discuss the need of criticism for the text of the New Testament, the methods of textual criticism, the application of its principles to the text, the nature and details of their edition, and add notes on select readings and orthography, with orthographical alternative readings, and quotations from the Old Testament. In 1895 the text appeared in larger form, and, in 1896, the *Introduction *in finally revised form. This edition is not accompanied with any critical apparatus; it rather was the object of the authors, by a careful study of the materials furnished by their predecessors, augmented somewhat, however, by their own researches, to trace the history of the text as far as possible; to distinguish its different types, and determine their relations and their comparative value; to investigate the special characteristics of the most important documents and groups of documents; and, finally, to apply the principles of criticism which result from these studies to the determination of the original text. Their view of the genealogical relations of the chief ancient texts excited strong opposition in certain quarters, but their work was recognized as the most important contribution to the scientific criticism of the New Testament text which had yet been made. They distinguish four principal types of text: the Western, characterized by a tendency to paraphrase or to modify the form of expression, and also to interpolate from parallel passages or from extraneous sources, represented especially by D and the Old Latin versions, also in part by the Curetonian Syriac; the neutral represented by B and largely by À, preserving best the original form; the Alexandrian, much purer than the Western, but betraying a tendency to polish the language; and the Syrian, the latest form, a mixed text, borrowing from all, and aiming to be easy, smooth, and complete. They regard B as preeminent above all other manuscripts for the purity of its text; the readings of À and B combined as generally deserving acceptance as genuine, their ancestries having "diverged from a point near the autographs"; and they attach great weight to every combination of B with another primary Greek manuscript, as L C T D X A Z 33, and, in Mark, D. Westcott and Hort (see WESTCOTT, BROOKE FOSS; HORT, FENTON JOHN ANTHONY) began their work in 1853. Their method of cooperation was first independent study, then comparison. The *Introduction *is chiefly the work of Dr. Hort, whose name is one of the greatest in the history of textcriticism. He carried into the study of the text a large knowledge of church history and patristic theology, and it was this breadth of historical knowledge which made the *Introduction *the great work it is. The genealogical theory, suggested by Bengel and elaborated by later scholars, was here worked into a truly monumental form. A thorough acquaintance with this book is necessary to the student if he would have a clear insight of the deepest tendencies in the text studies of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries or an understanding of the course taken by text-study in the present. Conscious agreement with it or conscious disagreement and qualification mark all work in this field since 1881. ### 9. Other Critics of the Text. Of the many other scholars whose labors have aided in the establishment of the text of the Greek New Testament, the Anglican scholar Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener deserves mention especially for his editions and collation of manuscripts. His *Plain Introduction of to the Criticism of the New Testament * (Cambridge, 1861; 4th ed., by E. Miller, 2 vols., London, 1894) is a standard work. Scrivener was an able defender of the later manuscripts as witnesses to the original text against Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort. In this contention he had the doughty support of John William Burgon in *The Revision Revised *(London, 1883). Among Americans, Ezra Abbot and Joseph Henry Thayer; among Hollanders, W. C. Van Manen, J. Cramer, and J. J. Prins; among Frenchmen, P. Batiffol, J. P. P. Martin, and E. Amélineau; among Italians, Angelo Mai, Carlo Vercellone, and J. Cozza; and among Germans, F. Blass, E. Nestle, B. Weiss, E. Riggenbach, and O. von Gebhardt have made important contributions to textual criticism. ### 10. More Recent Tendencies. When Westcott and Hort published their text in 1881 and when, in 1882, Hort's masterpiece on introduction followed, there was a disposition in some quarters to believe that New Testament scholarship had come somewhere near a critical *textus receptus. *The genealogical theory first broached by Bengel seemed, after a century and a half of toil, to have led the student into a definite path which would surely lead to a final goal. But significant changes, in feeling if not in opinion, are beginning to manifest themselves. Westcott and Hort mark a main epoch in text study. More clearly than their predecessors, they showed that the study of the text was inseparable from the study of church history. But the hypothesis which Hort so powerfully worked out has to some extent wrought its own undoing. The lines of study that it suggested have brought to light so many new facts and so many serious problems that the tone of certitude at one time in fashion has passed away. To Scrivener's description of Westcott and Hort's text as a *splendidum peccatum* few will assent. Yet, beyond question, the situation has materially changed. The "Western Text" or, to call it by a safer name, the "Syro-Western Text," which Westcott and Hort took to be a fairly well delineated fact, has become an imperious problem. The genealogical theory has fulfilled the chief function of a good working hypothesis by introducing order into chaos and pointing to the promising lines of attack upon the vast body of data awaiting the student. But genealogical certitude has declined. With its decline has come a growing disposition to concede to exegesis a certain right against the overweening authority of any group of manuscripts, however imposing. The good text-critic should also be an accomplished exegete. In Barnnard Weiss the two qualities are in a measure blended. Hence, at a critical point like Rom. v, 1, the exegete in him goes against the authority of A B C D E K L, Vulgate, Peshito, etc., and adopts xcomen instead of xcwmen. Monumental work is not at present the order of the day. The searching investigations of the versions, the detailed and comprehensive study of patriotic quotations, larger and clearer knowledge of the mental conditions under which an entire group of texts are likely to have undergone perceptible, even if inconsiderable, changes—in a word, a vast amount of labor lies ahead. The doing of it will require a very considerable time. Meanwhile the confidence and finality of a quarter-century ago are to be replaced by a restrained skepticism. ### 3. Principles of Textual Criticism: ### 1. The Basal Rule. It is impossible, within the limits here allowed, to state and illustrate the principles of criticism applicable to the text of the Greek Testament. A few hints may, however, be given. The object, of course, is to ascertain which, among two or more variations of the text presented by our manuscripts or other authorities, is the original. No kind of evidence, external or internal, is to be neglected. The problem is to be solved by a process of reasoning upon probabilities; and what has to be considered, in every case, is which hypothesis will best explain all the phenomena. This fact is sometimes partially stated under the form of the rule that *that reading is to be accepted as genuine which will best explain the origin of the other variations. *This is an important rule; but there must be taken into account not merely the nature of the variations, but the number, independence, and character of the witnesses that support them. The process of criticism is not a mechanical one. Authorities must be weighed, not counted. One good, very early manuscript may be worth more than a thousand copies derived from a late and corrupted archetype. Again, though the presumption is in favor of the oldest manuscripts, mere antiquity does not prove the excellence of a copy. ### 2. Other Canons. One of the essential prerequisites to intelligent criticism is a thorough study of the occasions of error in manuscripts. This involves a knowledge of paleography and of the history of pronunciation. The similarity of certain letters or abbreviations in their older forms gave occasion to errors which can be only thus explained; and in the corruption of the Greek language, vowels and diphthongs originally distinct in sound were pronounced alike (itacism). A study of the tendencies and habits of transcribers is also involved. Many manuscripts, in the alterations they have received from later hands, illustrate the manner in which the text was corrupted. Among the maxima resulting from such a study, in connection with the consideration of external testimony, are these: (1) *The more difficult reading is to be preferred * (Bengel's great rule). This applies to those variations which are to be ascribed to design. Transcribers would not intentionally substitute a harsh, ungrammatical, unusual, Hebraistic expression, one that caused a difficulty of any kind, for an easier one. (2) *The shorter reading is to be preferred *(Porson's "surest canon of criticism"). The tendency of scribes was almost always to add, rather than to omit. They did not like to have their copies regarded as incomplete. It was common to insert in the margin of manuscripts, or between the lines, glosses; or explanations of unusual or difficult expressions, also words or clauses which served to supplement the language of one Gospel from the parallel or similar passages in another, or to complete abridged quotations of the Old Testament from the fuller text of the Septuagint. Words accidentally omitted were also placed in the margin, or between the lines. A transcriber might thus easily mistake these glosses, or supplements, of his predecessor for accidental omissions and transfer them to his text. This rule does not apply to cases where an omission can be satisfactorily explained by homæoteleuton; that is, cases where two successive sentences or parts of sentences have a like ending. The scribe copies the first of these, then his eye glances to the like ending of the second, and he thinks that that is what he has just copied, and omits unconsciously the intervening words. Another prerequisite to successful criticism is a careful study of the principal documents and groups or classes of documents, in connection with the history of the text, so far as it can be traced, in order to determine by a process of comparative criticism their peculiar characteristics, their weak points and their strong points, and the relative antiquity and value of their texts. This process includes the ancient versions and the quotations in the writings of the principal Christian Fathers. It can not be here detailed. Griesbach did good work in this direction, and it has been the special study of Westcott and Hort. It is thus possible to weigh the external evidence in particular cases with some approach to accuracy. ### 4. Results of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament: The host of "various readings" which an examination of ancient manuscripts, versions, and quotations, has brought to light, perhaps a hundred and fifty thousand in number, alarms some simple-minded people. Analysis at once dispels the alarm. It is seen that a very large proportion of these readings, say nineteen-twentieths, are of no authority, no one can suppose them to be genuine; and nineteen-twentieths of the remainder are of no importance as affecting the sense. Of how much, or rather, of how little, importance, for the most part, the remainder are, can readily be seen by comparing the Revised Version of the New Testament (with its marginal notes) with the text of the Authorized Version, or by an examination of the various readings of the chief modern editors in Scrivener's *Novum Testamentum textus Stephanici A.D. 1550 . . . accedunt variæ lectiones * (8th ed., Cambridge, 1877). The great number of various readings is simply the result of the extraordinary richness of critical resources, Westcott and Hort remark, with entire truth, that "in the variety and fulness of the evidence on which it rests, the text of the New Testament stands absolutely and unapproachably alone among ancient prose-writings." BIBLIOGRAPHY: On the paleography of the N. T.: S. P. Tregelles, *An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament; with Remarks on its Revision upon Critical Principles, together with a Collation of the Critical Texts of Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, with that in Common Use, *London, 1854; E. A. Bond and E. M. Thompson, *Facsimiles of Ancient MSS, *ib. 1873-82; W. Wattenbach, *Anleitung zur griechischen Palæographie, *Leipsic, 1877; idem, *Schrifttafeln zur Geschichte der griechischen Schrift, *2 parts, Berlin, 1876-77; idem and F. A. von Welsen, *Exempla codicum Græcorum litteris minusculis scriptorum, *Heidelberg, 1878; idem, *Scripturæ Græcæ specimina, *Berlin, 1883; N. Gardthausen, *Griechische Palæographie, *Leipsic, 1879; J. R. Harris, *New Testament Autographs, *in supplement to *AJP, *no. 12, 1882; idem, *Stichometry, *New York, 1893; T. W. Allen, *Notes on Abbreviations in Greek MSS, with Facsimiles, *Oxford, 1889; F. Blass, *Palæographie, *in *Handbuch der klassischen Alterthumswrissenschaft, * vol. i, Munich. 1892; W. A. Copinger, *The Bible and its Transmission, *London, 1897; F. G. Kenyon, *Our Bible and the Ancient MSS, *ib. 1897; idem, *Bible Manuscripts in the British Museum, Facsimiles, * ib. 1901; C. F. Sitterly, *Praxis in Greek MSS of the N. T. The mechanical and literary Processes involved in their Writing and Preservation, * New York, 1898; R. Proctor, *The Printing of Greek in the Fifteenth Century, * no. 8 of *Illustrated Monographs, * issued by the Bibliographical Society, London, 1900; *DB, *iv, 944-957. For the old printers consult—on Christopher Plantin: M. Rooses, *Christopher Plantin, imprimeur Anvernois, * Antwerp, 1884; idem, *Christopher Plantin, Correspondance, * Ghent, 1886; T. L. de Vinne, *Christopher Plantin and the Plantin-Moretus Museum at Antwerp, *New York, 1885; L. Degeorge, *La Maison Plantin à Anvers, *Paris, 1886. On the Stephens: G. A. Crapelet, *Robert Estienne, imprimeur royal, *Paris, 1839; A. A. Renouard, *Annales de l'imprimerie des Estienne *ib. 1843; L. Feugère, *Essai sur la vie et les ouvrages de Henri Estienne, *ib. 1853. On the Elzevirs: C. Pieters, *Annales de l'imprimerie Elsévirienne, * Ghent, 1860; A Willems, *Les Elzévier: histoire et annales typographiques, *Brussels, 1880. Late critical editions are C. Tischendorf, *Novum Testamentum Græce, ed. 8. critica major, * Leipsic, 1864-72; *Prolegomena, *by C. R. Gregory, ib. 1884-94, small ed. of text of 8. ed., with selections of readings, ib. 1878; F. H. A. Scrivener and E. Palmer, *The Greek Testament with the headings adopted by the Revisers of the Authorized Version, * Oxford, 1882; B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, *N. T. in the Original Greek, *Am. ed. with introduction by P. Schaff, 3d ed., New York, 1883; W. Sanday, *Lloyd's ed. of Mill's Text with Parallel References, Eusebian Canons . . . and three Appendices *(published separately, containing variants of Westcott and Hort, and a selection of important readings with authorities, together with readings from Oriental versions, Memphitic, Armenian, and Ethiopic), Oxford, 1889; O, von Gebhardt, *Novum Testamentum *(with variants of Tregelles and Westcott and Hort), 6th ed., Leipsic, 1894; B. Weiss, *Das Neue Testament, Textkritische Untersuchungen und Textherstellung, *ib. 1894-1900; F. Blass, *Acta Apostolorum sive Lucæ ad Theophilum liber alter secundum formam quæ videtur Romanam, * ib. 1896; idem, *Evangelium secundum Lucam sive Lucæ ad Theophilum liber prior secundum formam quæ videtur Romanam, *ib. 1897; E. Nestle, *Testamentum Novum Græce cum apparatu critico, * Stuttgart, 1898 (the use of editions with the MS. variants will still be required); *Novum Testamentum Græcum, editio Stutgardiana, *ib. 1898 (based on collation of Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, Weymouth, and Weiss; contains for the Gospels and Acts a selection of MS. readings, chiefly from *Codex Bezæ*). Treatises on various phases of the history of N. T. textual criticism are: F. H. A. Scrivener, *A Full and Exact Collation of about twenty Greek MSS of the Holy Gospels (hitherto unexamined) . . . in the British Museum the Archiepiscopal Library at Lambeth, . . . with a critical Introduction, *Cambridge, 1853; idem, *A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, *4th ed., by E. Miller, London, 1894 (conservative); O. T. Dobbin, *The Codex Montfortianno, *ib. 1854; F. W. A. Bäthgen, *Der griechische Text des Cureton'schen Syrers, *Leipsic, 1885; J. R. Harris, *The Origin of the Leicester Codex of the N. T., *London, 1887; U. J. M. Bebb, *Evidence of the Early Versions and Patristic Quotations on the Text of . . . the N. T., *in *Studia Biblica, * ii, Oxford, 1890; H. C. Hoskier, *A Full Account and Collation of the Greek Cursive Codex Evang. 504, *London, 1890 (contains in Appendix C, *A full and exact comparison of the Elzevir Editions of 1624 and 1635*); G. H. Gwilliam, *The Material for the Criticism of the Peshitto N. T., *in *Studia Biblica, *iii, 47-104, Oxford, 1891; F. H. Chase, *The Old Syriac Element in the Text of Codex Bezæ, *London, 1893; Mrs. A. S. Lewis, *The Four Gospels translated from the Syriac Palimpsest, *ib. 1894; R. C. Bensley, J. R. Harris, and F. C. Burkitt, *The Four Gospels in Syriac transcribed from the Syriac Palimpsest, *Cambridge, 1894; G. N. Bonwetsch and H. Achelis, *Die christlichen grischischen Schriftsteller vor Eusebius, *Berlin, 1897; E. Miller, *The Present State of the Textual Controversy respecting the Holy Gospels, *London, 1899 (conservative); idem *The Textual Controversy and the Twentieth Century, * ib. 1901; G. Salmon, *Some Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the N. T., *ib. 1897; M. R. Vincent, *A Hist. of the Textual Criticism of the N. T., *New York, 1899; K. Lake, *The Text of the N. T., *London, 1900; F. G. Kenyon, *Handbook to Textual Criticism of the N. T., *ib. 1901; idem, *Evidence of Greek Papyri with Regard to Textual Criticism, * ib. 1905. On the Revisers' text consult W. M. Sanday in *Expositor, *1881. The principles of textual criticism are discussed at length in Hort's *Introduction *to Westcott and Hort's Greek Testament, London, 1881, where also is found the most elaborate discussion of the Sinaitic and Vatican MSS. On the Sinaitic MS. consult also F. H. A. Scrivener, *Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus, *3d ed., London, 1867; C. Tischendorf, *Die Anfechtungen der Sinaibibel, *Leipsic, 1883; idem, *Die Sinaibibel, ihre Entdeckung, Herausgabe und Erwerbung, *ib. 1871; idem, *Waffen der Finsterniss wider die Sinaibibel, *ib. 1863. Convenient manuals are: E. Nestle, *Einführung in das griechische Neue Testament, * Göttingen, 1897. A valuable collection of editions of the Greek Testament, mostly amassed by the late Dr. Isaac H. Hall, is in the library of Union Theological Seminary, New York. During the last three years considerable discussion has been aroused on the subject of the text, to which the following are the most important contributions: For 1902: J. M. Bebb, in *DB, *iv, 848-855, 860-864; F. Blass, *Evangelium secundum Johannem cum variæ lectionis delectu, *Leipsic; F. C. Burkitt, *The Date of Codex Bezæ, *in *JTS, *vol. iii; F. C. Conybeare, *Three Early Doctrinal Modifications of the Text of the Gospels, *in *Hibbert Journal, *i, 96-113; M. D. Gibson, *Four remarkable Sinai MSS, *in *Expository Times, *xiii, 509-511; S. K. Gifford, *Pauli epistolas qua forma legerit Joannes Chrysostomus, * Halle; E. J. Goodspeed, *The Haskell Gospels, *in *JBL, *xxi, 100-107; C. R. Gregory, *Textkritik des N. T., *vol. ii, Leipsic; C. E. Hammond, *Outlines of Textual Criticism applied to the N. T., *Oxford; J. R. Harris, *A curious Bezan reading vindicated, *in *Expositor, * pp. 189-195; idem, *On a Recent Emendation in the Text of St. Peter, *ib., pp. 317-320; idem, *The History of a Conjectural Emendation * (ib., pp. 378-390); A. Hjelt, *Die altsyrische Evangelienübersetzung und Tatians Diatessaron, *in T. Zahn's *Forsehungen, * viii, 1, Leipsic; K. Lake, *Codex 1 of the Gospels and its Allies, *Cambridge; idem, *Texts from Mount Athos, *in *Studia Biblica, *vol. v, part 2, pp. 89-185, London; A. S. Lewis, *Studia Sinaitica XI. Apocrypha Syriaca, *London; G. R. S. Mead, *The Gospels and the Gospel. Study in most recent Results of lower and higher Criticism, *London; A. Merx, *Die vier kanonischen Evangelien nach ihrem ältesten becannten Texte. Uebersetzung und Erläuterung der syrischen im Sinaikloster gerfundenen Palimpsesthandschriften, part 2: Erläuterungen, *1st half: *Matthäus, *Berlin; E. Nestle, *The Greek Testament, with Introduction and Appendix on irregular Verbs, *by R. E. Weidner, New York; idem, in *DB *iv, 645-652, 732-741; H. von Soden, *Die Schriften des N. T. in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt, * vol. i, part 1, Berlin; B. Weiss, *Das Neue Testament, * 3 vols., Leipsic; H. J. White, in *DB, *iv, 873-890. For 1903: L. Blau, *Ueber den Einfluss des althebräischen Buchwesens auf die Originale und auf die ältesten Handschriften der LXX, des N. T. und der Hexapla, *Berlin; F. C. Burkitt, *On Codex Claromonianus, *in *JTS, *iv, 587- 588; idem, *The Syriac Interpretation of John xiii, 4, *in *JTS, *iv, 436-438; idem, in *EB, *iv, 4981-5012; idem, *Further Notes on Codex k, *in *JTS, *v, 100-107; W. E. Crum, *Coptic Ostraka from the Collection of the Egypt Exploration Fund, the Cairo Museum, and others, * London; M. D. Gibson, *Four Remarkable Sinai Manuscripts, *in *Expository Times, *xiii, 509-511; J. E. Gilmore, *Manuscript Portions of three Coptic Lectionaries, *in *PSBA, *xxiv, 186-191; G. H. Gwilliam, *The Age of the Bodleian Syriac Codex Dawkins 3, *in *JTS, *iii, 452 sq.; idem, *Place of the Peshitto Version in the Apparatus criticus of the Greek N. T., *in *Studia Biblica, *v, 3, pp. 187-237; K. Lake, *Dr. Weiss', Text of the Gospels, *in *AJT, *vii, 249-258; A. Schmidtke, *Die Evangelien einer alten Unzialcodex, *Leipsic; W. B. Smith, *The Pauline Manuscripts F and G, *in *AJT, *vii, 452-485, 662-688; C Taylor, *The Pericope of the Adulteress, *in *JTS, *iv, 129-130; B. Weiss, *Die Perikopa von der Ehebrecherin, *in *ZWT, *xlvi, 141-158; A. Wright, *A Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek,* 2d ed., London; O. Zöckler, *The Textual Question in Acts, *transl. by A. Steimle, New Rochelle. For 1904: F. Blass, *Ueber die Textkritik im N. T., *Leipsic; F. C. Burkitt, *Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe. The Curetonian Version of the four Gospels, with the Readings of the Sinai Palimpsest and the early Syriac patristic Evidance, *2 vols., Cambridge; *Codex Veronensis . . . denuo ed. J. Belsheim, *Prague; R. D'Onston, *The Patristic Gospels. An English Version of the Holy Gospels as they existed in the second Century, *London; J. T. Marshall, *Remarkable Readings in the Epistles found in the Palestinian Syriac Lectionary; *in *JTS, *v, 437-445; J. B. Mayor, *Notes on the Text of ll Peter, *in *Expositor, *pp. 284-293; idem, *Notes on the Text of the Epistle of Jude, *ib., pp. 450-460; J. O. F. Murray, *Textual Criticism, *in *DB, *extra vol., pp. 208-236; W. Sanday, *The Present Greek Testaments of the Clarendon Press, *in *JTS, *v, 279-280; *A New Greek Testament, prepared by E. Nestle. Text with Critical Apparatus, *London; *Novum Testamentum . . . Latine secundum editionem sancti Hieronymi . . . recensuit *J. Wordsworth–H. J. White, part ii, fasc. 2, *Actus Apostolorum, *Oxford; C. H. Turner, *A Re-Collation of Codex k of the Old Latin Gospels, *in *JTS, *v, 88-100. 1905: R. F. Weymouth, *The Resultant Greek Text, *with readings of Stephens (1550), Lachmann, Tregelles, Lightfoot, and (for the Pauline Epistles) Ellicott, also of Alford and Weiss for Matthew, the Basel ed., Westcott and Hort and Revisers, London, 1892, 3d ed., 1905. 1906: F. H. A. Scrivener, *Novum Testamentum, Textus Stephanici, Variæ Lectiones of Beza, the Elzevirs, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers, * London, 1887, ed. E. Nestle, 1906; A. Deissmann, *The New Biblical Papyri at Heidelberg, *in *Expository Times, * pp. 248-254. The literature of the work which is being done may be found year by year in the *Bibliographie der theologischen Literatur *and in *AJT.* ### III. Chapter and Verse Divisions: ### 1. Chapter Divisions. The purpose of the present division into chapters and verses was to facilitate reference. These divisions sometimes, but not generally, ignore logical and natural divisions. Common opinion concerning chapter divisions attributes them to Cardinal Hugo of Saint Cher for use in his concordance to the Latin Vulgate (c. 1240, first printed, with modification, at Bologna, 1479). This opinion rests on the direct testimony of Gilbert Genebrard (d. 1597), that "the scholastics who with Cardinal Hugo were authors of the concordance" made the division. Quétif and Echard, a century and a half later than Genebrard, ascribe to Hugo only the subdivision of the chapters presently to be mentioned. The better opinion is, that Stephen Langton, archbishop of Canterbury (d. 1228), made the chapter division to facilitate citation. Before the invention of printing it had already passed from Latin manuscripts to those of other tongues, and after the invention of printing it became general. It has undergone slight variations from the beginning to the present day. Many early printed Bibles, especially Greek Testaments, besides these chapters retain also the old *breves* or *titloi* noted in the margin (see above, II, 1, § 5). The chapters were at first subdivided into seven portions (not paragraphs), marked in the margin by the letters A, B, C, D, E, F, G, reference being made by the chapternumber and the letter under which the passage occurred. In the shorter Psalms, however, the division did not always extend to seven. In Ps. cxix it seems not to have been used at all. This division (except in the Psalms) was modified by Conrad of Halberstadt (c. 1290), who reduced the divisions of the shorter chapters from seven to four; so that the letters were always either A-G or A-D. This subdivision continued long after the introduction of the present verses, but in the seventeenth century was much modified, some chapters having more than four, and less than seven, subdivisions. ### 2. Verse Divisions, Old Testament. The present verses differ in origin for the Old Testament, New Testament, and Apocrypha. In the canonical Testament they appear in the oldest known manuscripts (see above, I, 1, § 7, 2, § 2), though they were not used for citation by the Jews till the fifteenth century. The earlier printed Hebrew Bibles marked each fifth verse only with its Hebrew numeral. Arabic numerals were first added for the intervening verses by Joseph Athias, at Amsterdam, 1661, at the suggestion of Jan Leusden. The first portion of the Bible printed with the Masoretic verses numbered was the Psalterium Quincuplex of Faber Stapulensis, printed at Paris by Henry Stephens in 1509. In 1528 Sanctes Pagninus published at Lyons a new Latin version of the whole Bible with the Masoretic verses marked and numbered. He also divided the Apocrypha and New Testament into numbered verses; but these were three or four times as long as the present ones. ### 3. Verse Divisions, New Testament. The present New Testament verses were introduced by Robert Stephens in his Greco-Latin Testament of 1551 (see above, II, 2, § 2). Stephens says in his preface that the division is made to follow the most ancient Greek and Latin copies. But it will be difficult, if not impossible, to find any Greek or Latin manuscripts whose divisions coincide very nearly with Stephens's verses. Doubtless he made this division with reference to his concordance to the Vulgate, then preparing, published in 1555. This Latin concordance, like former ones, contains references to the letters A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and also to the numbers of the verses of each chapter "after the Hebrew method" of division. This latter, the preface states, has special reference to an *operi pulcherrimo et præclarissimo *which he is now printing, which must mean his splendid Bible of 1556-57, 3 vols., containing the Vulgate, Pagninus, and the first edition of Beza's Latin New Testament. Meanwhile, for present convenience, he is issuing a more modest Bible (Vulgate), with the verses marked and numbered. This latter was his Vulgate of 1555 (Geneva)–the first whole Bible divided into the present verses, and the first in which they were introduced into the Apocrypha. The text is continuous, not having the verses in separate paragraphs, like the New Testament of 1551, but separated by a ¶ and the verse-number. The verse-division differs in only a very few places from that of 1551; and a comparison shows that the concordance agrees rather with the division of 1551 than with that of 1555. The statement so often made that the division was made "on horseback" while on a journey from Paris to Lyons must be qualified. His son asserts that the work was done while on the journey, but the inference most natural and best supported is that the task was accomplished while resting at the inns along the road. In other languages the division appeared first as follows: French, New Testament, Geneva, 1552, Bible, Geneva, 1553 (both R. Stephens); Italian, New Testament, L. Paschale (Geneva?), 1555; Dutch, New Testament, Gellius Ctematius (Gillis van der Erven), Embden, 1556, Bible, Nikolaus Biestkens van Diest, Embden, 1580; English, Genevan New Testament, 1557, Genevan Bible, 1560; German, Luther's Bible, perhaps Heidelberg, 1568, but certainly Frankfort, 1582. In Beza's editions of the Greek Testament (1565-1604) sundry variations were introduced, which were followed by later editors, notably the Elzevirs (1633, etc.); and many minor changes have been made, quite down to the present day. A very convenient and illuminating "table of ancient and modern divisions of the New Testament," giving the divisions in the Vatican manuscript, the *titloi, *the Ammonian *kephalaia, *the *stichoi, remata, *and the modern chapters and verses, is given in Scrivener, *Introduction, *i, 68. The *titloi, kephalaia *and tables of the Eusebian canons are available in such editions as Stephens's Greek Testament of 1550, and Mill's of 1707, 1710. The Greek Testament by Lloyd (Oxford, 1827) and by Mill (1859) give the Eusebian canons. For a synopsis of variations in manuscripts consult J. M. A. Scholz, *Novum Testamentum Græce, *i, Frankfort, 1830, pp. xxvii-xxix. The Stephanic verses have met with bitter criticism because of the fact that they break the text into fragments, the division often coming in the middle of the sentence, instead of forming it into convenient and logical paragraphs, an arrangement which has seldom found favor. But their utility for reference outweighs their disadvantage. They should never be printed in separate paragraphs (as in the English Authorized Version), but the text should be continuous and the numbers inserted in the margin (as in the Revised Version). BIBLIOGRAPHY: C. R. Gregory, *Prolegomena, *i, 140-182, Leipsic, 1894; the *Introductions * of Tregelles and Scrivener, ut sup. under II; B. F, Westcott and F. J A. Hort, *N. T., Introduction and Appendix, *pp. 318 sqq., of Am. edition, New York, 1882; I. H. Hall in *Sunday School Times, *Apr. 2, 1881. Consult also W. Wright, in Kitto's *Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature, *"Verse," London, 1845 (the ed. of 1870 is not so good); *DCA, *ii, 953-967.

### BIBLE VERSIONS. ### A. Ancient Versions. 1 Greek Versions. The Septuagint. Origin (§ 1). Printed Editions (§ 2). Early Corruption of the Text (§ 3). The Hexapla of Origen (§ 4). Lucian and Hesychius (§ 5). Versions Made from the Septuagint (§ 6). Manuscripts (§ 7). Later Greek Translations. Aquila (§ 1). Symmachus (§ 2). Theodotion (§ 3). Latin Versions. The Latin Bible before Jerome. The Old Latin Bible. The Itala (§ 1). Manuscripts and Editions (§ 2). Quotations in Latin Writers (§ 3). The Bible of Jerome (the Vulgate). Jerome's Work. The New Testament (§ 1). The Old Testament (§ 2). History to the Invention of Printing (§ 3). Earlier Printed Editions (§ 4). The Sixtine-Clementine Edition (§ 5). Later Work. Problems (§ 6). Later Latin Translations. Syriac Versions. The Peshito. Origin and Name (§ 1). The Old Testament (§ 2). The New Testament (§ 3). Later Versions. The Samaritan Pentateuch. Aramaic Versions (the Targums). Origin and Language (§ 1). Targum Onkelos (§ 2). Targum Jonathan (§ 3). Other Targums of the Law and Prophets (§ 4). The Hagiographa (§ 5). The Armenian Version. Egyptian Coptic Versions. The Ethiopia Version. The Georgian (Iberian) Version. The Gothic Version of Ulfilas. ### B. Modern Versions. Arabic Versions. Celtic Versions. Dutch Versions. English Versions. The Earliest Versions (§ 1). Wyclif (§ 2). Tyndale (§ 3). Coverdale. Other Editions (§ 4). The Douai Bible (§ 5). The Authorized Version (§ 6). The Revised Version (§ 7). Minor Versions (§ 8). Rare and Curious Editions (§ 9). Finnish and Lappish Versions. French Versions. The Earlier Versions (§ 1). Guyard des Moulins (§ 2). Protestant Versions (§ 3). Roman Catholic Versions (§ 4). German Versions. Old German Fragments (§ 1). Printed Bibles Before Luther (§ 2). Luther's Bible (§ 3). Revision of Luther's Version (§ 4). Other Versions (§ 5). Greek Versions, Modern. Hebrew Translations of the New Testament. Hungarian (Magyar) Versions. The First Versions (§ 1). The Komáromi Bible (§ 2). Modern Versions (§ 3). Italian Versions. Lithuanian and Lettish Versions. Persian Versions. Portuguese Versions. Scandinavian Versions. Before the Reformation (§ 1). Since the Reformation (§ 2). Slavonic Versions. The Old Church Slavonic Version (§ 1). Russian Versions (§ 2). Bulgarian and Servian Versions (§ 3). Slovenian and Croatian Versions (§ 4). Bohemian Version (§ 5). Wendish or Sorbic Versions (§ 6). Polish Versions (§ 7). Spanish Versions. Bible Versions in the Mission Field. Bible versions, or translations of the original Hebrew and Greek of the Old and New Testaments, may be treated in an encyclopedia from different points of view: (1) from the critical, as instruments with which to reconstruct the original text; (2) from the exegetical, as showing how the Bible was understood in different times and places; (3) from the historical, as documents for showing the extent of the Bible and of its propagation among the nations of the earth; (4) from a literary and philological standpoint, since the Bible versions are often the earliest monuments of the respective languages. Versions are either primary and direct, as the Septuagint, or secondary and indirect, derived versions, as the Old Latin. [They now exist, either for the entire Bible or a part, in more than five hundred languages. During 1906 eleven new versions were added and translation or revision is in progress in over one hundred tongues. Scriptures for the blind are issued by the British and Foreign Bible Society in fifteen languages.] Manifestly only a selection of the more important versions can be treated here. Of the complete Bible in the original languages there is as yet but one edition in existence: *Biblia Sacratam Veteris quam Novi Testamenti cum Apocryphis secundum fontes Hebræos et Græcos, * ed. C. B. Michaelis (2 vols., Züllichau, 1740–41; cf. the correspondence on this point in the *Sunday School Times, *Sept. and Oct., 1899, raised by a statement in the *TLZ, *1899, no. 14). E. NESTLE. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Among older works the following are indispensable: J. H. Hottinger, *Dissertationum theologicophilologicarum fasciculus, * Heidelberg, 1660 (deals with Jewish and Christian translations); Richard Simon, *Histoire critique du Vieux Testament, * Amsterdam, 1680, Eng. transl., London, 1682; idem, *Histoire critique des versions du Nouveau Testament, * Rotterdam, 1690, Eng. transl., London, 1692; idem, *Histoire critique du texte du Nouveau Testament, *Rotterdam, 1689, Eng. transl., London, 1689; idem, *Nouvelles observations sur le texte et les versions du Nouveau Testament, *Paris, 1695 (on Simon consult H. Margival, in *Revue d'histoire et de littérature religisuses, * Jan., Feb., 1896). Bibliographical information is to be sought in the following: J. Le Long, *Bibliotheca Sacra, emendata . . . ab A. G. Masch, *2 parts in 5 vols., Halle, 1778-90 (part 1 deals with editions of the original texts, part 2, in 4 vols., deals with versions); Article *Bibel *in J. S. Ersch and J. G. Gruber, *Allgemeine Encyklopädie, * reprinted as a separate volume, Leipsic, 1823; *The Bibles in the Caxton Exhibition, * London, 1878; *British Museum Catalogue, *entry "Bible," 4 parts, including *Appendix, *London, 1892-99 (the fullest list printed of editions of the Bible and of its parts); T. H. Darlow and F. H. Moule, *Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scripture in the Library of the British and Foreign Bible Society, *vol. i, *English, *London, 1903, vol. ii not yet issued. Of specific interest are: L. Hain, *Repertorium bibliographicum, *5 vols., Stuttgart, 1825-91, *Supplement *by W. A. Copinger, 3 vols., London, 1891-1902, *Appendices *by D. Reichling, Munich, 1905-06; W. T. Lowndes, *Bibliographer's Manual, *4 vols., London, 1857-64; J. C. Brunet, *Manuel du Libraire, *7 vols., Paris, 1860-78. Consult also the works of Loisy, Copinger, and Kenyon given under BIBLE TEXT, I; the table of *Bible Translations *in J. S. Dennis, *Centennial Survey of Foreign Missions, *New York, 1904; T. Häring, *Das Verständniss der Bibel in der Entwicklung der Menschheit, *Tübingen, 1905, and *DB, *iv, 848-865, extra volume, 236-271, 402-420. ### A. Ancient Versions. ### I. Greek Versions. ### 1. The Septuagint: ### 1. Origin. The Bible version most important in every respect is the Alexandrian translation of the Old Testament, the so-called Septuagint. "Custom now holds to the version which is called the Septuagint," writes Augustine ( *De civitate Dei, *xviii, 42). The term "Septuagint" is an abbreviation of *secundum septuaginta interpretes; *the subscription of Genesis in the *Codex Vaticanus *is "According to the Seventy"; Codex A has before Isaiah, "the Edition of the Seventy"; this is based on the story that King Ptolemy Philadelphus, by the advice of his librarian Demetrius Phalereus, asked from the high priest Eleazar of Jerusalem seventy-two scholars, who translated for him in seventy-two days the law, and, after a later form of the legend, in seventy-two (or thirty six) cells, the seventy-two or thirty-six copies being found without any variation when brought together and compared. The story is first told in the so-called "Letter of Aristeas" (see ARISTEAS), who pretends to be one of the officers sent by Philadelphus to Jerusalem, and is wholly unhistorical. As the date of the version ancient chronicles mention the 2d, 7th, 17th, 18th, 19th, or 20th year of Philadelphus, the year 1734, 35, 36, or 37 of Abraham; as its day the 8th of Tebeth, a day of darkness like that on which the golden calf was made (cf. Margoliouth, in the *Expositor, *Nov., 1900, 348-349). Philo relates, on the contrary, that the Jews of Alexandria kept in his time an annual festival "in commemoration of the time when the interpretation first shone out, and they praised God for his works in times new and old." He knows that the interpreters asked God's blessing on this undertaking; "for he answered their prayers that more and more the whole race of men might be assisted to correctness of life in thought and deed." This aspiration was fulfilled when the version became one of the chief instruments for the preparation and propagation of Christianity (on this aspect of the version cf. E. W. Grinfield, *Apology for the Septuagint, *London, 1850; W. R. Churton, *The Influence of the Septuagint on the Progress of Christianity, *London, 1861; A. Deissmann, *Die Hellenisierung des semitischen Monotheismus, * Leipsic, 1903). It is not yet certain whether the translation is due, as the legend purports, to the literary interest of a king who was a bibliophile; or, as is the common view at present, to the religious wants of the Jewish community of Alexandria; or to the needs of an intended Jewish propaganda. For the latter view the prologue of Ecclesiasticus may be mentioned, which is, at the same time, the first witness to speak of all three parts of the Hebrew Bible as already extant in Greek; Aristeas, Philo, and Josephus speak only of the law. Of the several books of the Old Testament only Esther has a statement about the translation of the book, which is referred generally to Soter II (114 B.C.), but by H. Willrich (*Judaica, *Göttingen, 1900) to Ptolemy XIV (48 B.C.). At the end of Job is the strange notice: "This is interpreted from the Syrian book." ### 2. Printed Editions. The first part of the Septuagint to be multiplied by the printing-press was the Psalms in the Greek and Latin Psalter of Bonacursius (Milan, Sept. 20, 1481; in Greek alone, Venice, 1486, and again by Aldus Manutius about 1497). The complete editions fall into four classes according as they are derived from one or another of four original editions, of which the first (designated as *c*) is the Complutensian Polyglot of Cardinal Ximenes, printed 1514-17 but not published until 1521 (see BIBLES, POLYGLOT, I; cf. Franz Delitzsch, *Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Polyglottenbibel des Cardinals Ximenes, *Leipsic, 1871, supplemented 1878-86; T. H. Darlow and F. H. Moule, *Historical Catalogue . . . of the BFBS, *ii, London, 1908, 1 sqq.). Of the manuscripts used for the Greek Old Testament we know with certainty *Vat. Gr. *330 and 346, and *Venet. *5 (=Holmes-Parsons 108, 248, and 68). The second (*a*) is the Aldine Bible published by Andreas Asulanus, father-in-law of the elder Aldus (Venice, 1518). Among the manuscripts used were Holmes-Parsons 29, 68, 121, all of Venice. The third and most important is the *Editio Sixtina * (*b*), published by Pope Sixtus V (Rome, 1586 [1587]) on the basis of *Codex Vat. Gr. *1209 (=B1 in the article BIBLE TEXT, II, 1, § 9). Besides *c *and *a*, the manuscripts Holmes-Parsons 16, 19, 23, 51 seem to have been used, especially for the scholia, which were collected chiefly by Petrus Morinus and enlarged by Flaminius Nobilius in the Latin translation published 1588. The fourth edition (4 vols. folio and 8 vols. 8vo, Oxford, 1707-20) was begun by Johannes Ernst Grebe, who published vols. i and iv (1707, 1709), and after his death (1711) was completed by Francis Lee (vol. ii, 1719) and George Wigan (vol. iii, 1720). It is based on the *Codex Alexandrinus *(A; see BIBLE TEXT, II, 1, § 9) with use of other sources, especially Origen's Hexapla, has useful prolegomena, and possesses a merit of its own. These editions have been often reproduced–the Sixtine edition most frequently–with more or less of editorial labor (for list of reprints, etc.; also mention of the more important editions of single books of the Greek Old Testament, cf. the Hauck-Herzog *RE, *iii, 4-9 and Swete, *Introduction, * 171-194). But no existing edition of the Septuagint satisfies present wants, for none gives an exact reproduction of the manuscript or manuscripts which it follows, nor does any provide a full *apparatus criticus. * The first attempt to satisfy the latter want was made in the great work begun by Robert Holmes and completed after his death (1805) by James Parsons, *Vetus Testamentum Græcum cum variis lectionibus *(5 vols., Oxford, 1798-1827; cf. Swete, *Introduction, *184-187; *Church Quarterly Review, *Apr., 1899, 102 sqq., and the annual accounts published during the progress of the work from 1789 to 1805). The text is that of b. Not less than 164 volumes of manuscript collations prepared for this work are still in the Bodleian Library. All manuscripts, versions, and quotations were put under contribution. Despite some drawbacks in the plan and still more in the execution, the work deserves admiration; it is still indispensable to all who wish full information about the Old Testament in Greek. The advance made in the course of the nineteenth century is due, on the one hand, to the discovery of new materials (e.g. the *Codex Sinaiticus*; see BIBLE TEXT, II, 1, § 9); on the other, to greater exactness in handling witnesses. Both these advantages are evident in the work of C. Tischendorf, P. de Lagarde, and H. B. Swete. Tischendorf (*Vetus Testamentum Græce juxta LXX interpretes, *2 vols., Leipsic, 1850; 7th ed., 1887) repeated the text of b and enriched it with variants from the *Codex Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, *and (after 1869) the *Sinaiticus, *adding rich prolegomena. Lagarde's work, though left incomplete, was monumental (for list of his publications, see LAGARDE, PAUL ANTON DE). Swete reproduced in his edition *(The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint, *3 vols., Cambridge, 1887-94; 2d ed., 1895-99; 3d ed., 1901-07) for the first time not the printed text of b, but the Vatican manuscript itself, in the first edition according to the facsimile impression of Fabiani-Cozza (Rome, 1869-81), which for the second has been revised (by E. Nestle) after the photographic reproduction. Where the manuscript is deficient the text has been taken from the oldest manuscript accessible in a trustworthy form, while under the text variants have been given from some of the oldest manuscripts, as *Sinaiticus, Alexandrines, *and Ambrosianus. The merit of this edition is that it gives the materials with greatest accuracy; its defect, that it does not make any attempt to construct the text according to the principles of textual criticism, but follows the leading manuscript even in its most glaring faults. And in some books at least (e.g. in Ecclesiasticus), the oldest manuscripts are far from being the best. But this deficiency is fully explained by the fact that the edition is intended to be but the basis of a great critical edition now in course of preparation, of which the first part has already appeared, *The Old Testament in Greek, according to the Text, of Codex Vaticanus Supplemented from Other Uncial Manuscripts, with a Critical Apparatus Containing the Variants of the Chief Ancient Authorities for the Text of the Septuagint, *ed. A. E. Brooke and N. McLean, vol. i, *The Octateuch, part i, Genesis *(Cambridge, 1906; cf. *JTS, *iii, 601-621, and E. Nestle, *Die grosse Cambridger Septuaginta, *in *Verhandlungen des XIII. Internationalen Orientalistenkongresses, *1902; idem, *Septuagintastudien, *vol. v, 1907 ). There are two English translations: *The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament according to the Vatican Text, translated into English, with the principal various readings of the Alexandrine copy, and a table of comparative chronology, *by Sir Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton (2 vols., London, 1844; has also the Greek text); the other by Charles Thomson (Philadelphia, 1808; new ed., *The Old Covenant, commonly called the Old Testament, *by S. F. Pells, 2 vols., London, 1904). ### 3. Early Corruption of the Text. That there is yet not a satisfactory edition of the Septuagint is not because of want of materials for its preparation—there is on the contrary an *embarras de richesse*—but of its complicated history. The history of a translation will always be more complicated than that of an original text, but in this case it is the more so as the Septuagint is a work of Jewish origin, taken over into the Christian Church. Of the pre-Christian period of its history next to nothing is known. There are some Hellenistic writers who used the Septuagint, as Demetrius, Eupolemus, Aristeas (the historian), Ezekiel, and Aristobulus; but the preserved fragments of their writings are too few and incomplete to establish more than the mere fact that they used the Septuagint. Philo made extensive use of the law, but his quotations from the rest of the Old Testament are very few, and from Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Lamentations, Ezekiel, and Daniel he does not quote at all. Besides, his writings can be traced back only to the library of Origen, and have been transmitted to us probably exclusively through Christian copyists. For Josephus we must be content to know that for his description of the restoration he used what is now called I Esdras; but about his relation to the chief manuscripts there is uncertainty. Even the quotations in the New Testament do not justify very definite statements, except that they prove that already in those times the copies were not free from textual corruption (cf. Heb. iii, 9; xii, 5). A little later the situation is described by Origen-speaking, it is true, chiefly of the manuscripts of the New Testament, but what he says holds good also of those of the Old Testament: "Now it is clear that there has come a great difference in copies, either through the laziness of scribes or from the audacity of those who introduced corruptions as amendments, or of others who took away from or added to their new text such things as seemed good to them." ### 4. The Hexapla of Origen. If the situation was already bad, since any copyist or reader who was acquainted with the original might change single passages on comparison with the Hebrew, it became worse when new translations appeared, especially those of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion (see below, 2). At last a systematic comparison of the Septuagint with the Hebrew and these versions was carried out by Origen in the Hexapla (see ORIGEN), and what appeared to him a safeguard against the calamity that threatened the text turned out–not by his fault, but through later ignorance and carelessness–the worst aggravation of it. In continuation of the passage just quoted, he goes on to say that through the guidance of God he found a way to correct the dissonance in the copies. Using the Hebrew as a criterion, and adopting the text of the Septuagint which confirmed the Hebrew, he made the two the ground text, and marked changes by diacritical signs. It is pardonable that he took his Hebrew text–whence he got it is not known–as the original text; but it was contrary to sound criticism to take those readings of the Septuagint which agreed with the Hebrew for the true ones, instead of those which differed from it (cf. the third axiom of Lagarde for the restoration of the Septuagint, *Mittheilungen*, i, 21). Nevertheless we should be extremely thankful if the work of Origen had been preserved. Until 1896 it was known only from the descriptions of Eusebius, Jerome, Epiphanius, and some later writers, and by specimens preserved in scholia of Biblical manuscripts, a great part also by a literal Syriac translation (see below, § 6). In 1896 Giovanni Mercati discovered in a palimpsest of the Ambrosian Library of Milan the first continuous fragments of a copy of the Hexapla, and in 1900 another and much older piece was found by C. Taylor among the Greek palimpsests from the Cairo genizah in the Taylor and Schechter collection. These fragments show that Origen put generally only one Hebrew word, or at the most two, in one line; the extent of the work, therefore, must have been much greater than was previously supposed. The later fate of the original is unknown. Jerome saw and used it in the library at Cæsarea; it may have been destroyed there during the invasion of the Arabs. Origen arranged his work in six columns, the first containing the Hebrew text in Hebrew letters, the second the same in a Greek transcription, the third the translation of Aquila, the fourth that of Symmachus, the fifth the Septuagint, the sixth the translation of Theodotion. For some books, especially the Psalms, Origen had a fifth, sixth, and even a seventh translation at his disposal (see below, 2, § 3). In the Septuagint column he used the system of diacritical marks which was in use with the Alexandrian critics of Homer, especially Aristarchus, marking with an obelus–under different forms, as ¸, called lemniscus, and ¾, called hypolemniscus–those passages of the Septuagint which had nothing to correspond in Hebrew, and inserting, chiefly from Theodotion under an asterisk (*), those which were missing in the Septuagint; in both cases a metobelus (g) marked the end of the notation. This column was copied afterward with additional excerpts from the other versions on the margins; and, if it had been copied with all its critical marks, it would have been well, but later copyists neglected these, completely and produced what we may call kryptohexaplaric manuscripts, completely spoiling by this carelessness the value of the Septuagint for critical purposes. Such a copy, for instance, is, for Kings, the *Codex Alexandrinus; *and it is but a poor defense of these copyists that the same process has been repeated in the nineteenth century by the Moscow and Athens reprints of Grabe's edition of that codex. ### 5. Lucian and Hesychius. After Origen, Eusebius and his friend Pamphilus were careful to continue or disseminate his exegetical labors. Copies of the Pentateuch are known which were compared with the Samaritan text (cf. S. Kohn, *Samareitikon und Septuaginta, * in *Monatsschrift für Wissenschaft des Judenthums, * new series, i, 1894, pp. 1-7, 49-67; *ZDMG, *1893, p. 650). Jerome mentions besides Eusebius and Pamphilus, Lucian and Hesychius, the text of the former being used from Constantinople to Antioch, that of the latter in Alexandria and Egypt, while the provinces between, especially Palestine, kept to the copies of Origen as published by Eusebius and Pamphilus (*Præfatio in paralipomena; Adv. Rufinum, *ii, 27). About neither the work nor the person of Hesychius (see HESYCHIUS, 1) is there complete certainty. He may have been the martyr bishop mentioned by Eusebius (*Hist. eccl., *viii, 13) together with Phileas of Thmuis. The result of his labors is sought now for the Octateuch in the manuscripts 44, 74, 76, 84, 106, 134; for the prophets, especially Isaiah and the Twelve, in the *Codex Marchalianus * and its supporters 26, 106, 198, 306 (cf. N. McLean, in *JTS, *ii, 1901, p. 306, and A. Ceriani, *De Codice Marchaliano, *Rome, 1890, pp. 48 sqq., 105 sqq.). Lucian was a deacon of Antioch, who died a martyr at Nicomedia 312 (see LUCIAN THE MARTYR). He must have known a Hebrew text which showed many peculiarities, especially in the historical books, and perhaps used for his purposes the Syriac version. The first part of his work has been edited by Lagarde in *Librorum Veteris Testamenti canonicorum, pars prior, græce * (Göttingen, 1883; cf. his *Mittheilungen, *ii, 171). But this revision must not be confounded with the original Septuagint any more than the English Revised with the Authorized Version. Since the fourth century very little has been done in the Greek Church for its Bible. Emperors directed beautiful copies of it to be written–e.g., Constantine ordered fifty copies through Eusebius for the new churches of his capital, and for Constans Athanasius procured "copies of the divine writings," one of which is perhaps preserved in the famous *Codex Vaticanus. *Other royal persons wrote them with their own hands. ### 6. Versions Made from the Septuagint. Latin was probably the first language into which the Septuagint was translated. (On the Latin version, or rather versions, of the Septuagint see below, II, 1. It is a pity that so little of these labors has been preserved, and that these few remnants are so difficult of access.) After the Latin versions came the Egyptian (see VII), Here the difficulty of the language makes these helps for restoration of the Septuagint accessible to few. Similar is the case with the most neglected branch of the Semitic languages, the Ethiopic (see VIII). The Arabic versions (see B, I) are for a great part too late to have much weight for the critic of the Septuagint. The Gothic version (see X) is an outcome of the Lucianic recension, for which it would have great importance, both for age and literalness, but very little of the Old Testament is preserved in Gothic. The Lucianic recension is also the basis of a Slavonic version (see B, XVI) and through it of the Georgian (see IX). The Armenian version (see VI) is again of great importance, also the so-called Syro-Hexaplar version made in the year 616-617 by Paul, bishop of Tella (Constantine in Mesopotamia), in a cloister near Alexandria with the utmost fidelity from manuscripts which went back by few intervening links to the very copies of the Hexapla and Tetrapla of Origen. The greater is the pity, therefore, that only fragments have been preserved, and that especially the codex which André du Maes (Masius, d. 1573) had in his hands, containing the historical books (including part of Deuteronomy and Tobit), has been lost, and that only a part of this Bible (poetical and prophetic books) is still preserved in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, hence called *Codex Syro-hexaplaris Ambrosianus *(published in a photolithographic facsimile edition by A. Ceriani as vol. vii of the *Monumenta sacra et profana, * Milan, 1874). The fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, Judges, and I and II Kings have been most carefully edited in the last work of Paul de Lagarde, *Bibliothecæ Syriacæ, a Paulo de Lagarde collectæ quæ ad philologiam sacram pertinent *(Göttingen, 1892). For earlier works on this version cf. E. Nestle, *Litteratura Syriaca *(reprinted from his *Syrische Grammatik, *Berlin, 1888), 29-30; cf. also T. S. Rordam, *Libri Judicum et Ruth *(Copenhagen, 1859-61), and F. Field, *Otium Norvicense, *i (Oxford, 1864), and his edition of the Hexapla (Oxford, 1875). There are also fragments in the special dialect called Syro-Palestinian, on which cf. Swete, *Introduction, *114, and F. C. Burkitt, in *JTS, *ii, 174 sqq. Up to the present day in several Churches these versions based on the Septuagint have been retained and even in those where they have been replaced by translations from the original, as in the Latin West through Jerome or in modern Europe through the Reformation, the influence of the Septuagint is still very marked; note, for instance, the names of the Biblical books in the latest of these revisions, the English Revised Version. ### 7. Manuscripts. The versions just mentioned are one of the three sources which exist for the recovery of the true text of the Septuagint, the first class being, of course, the Greek manuscripts still in existence, the third the quotations of ancient writers. A list of the more ancient manuscripts of the Septuagint was given in the eighteenth century by Stroth in Eichhorn's *Repertorium *(Leipsic, 1777 sqq.), vols. v sqq.; the most complete list was formerly that in the prefaces of Holmes-Parsons; then in the prolegomena of Tischendorf and in Lagarde's *Genesis Græce; *but reference may now be made to Swete, *Introduction, *pp. 122-170. A few remarks on some of them may be offered. The four great uncials, À or S, A, B, and C, are the chief manuscripts also for the New Testament (see BIBLE TEXT, II, 1, § 9). For À there is needed a photographic reproduction or a complete new collation. The notations from A in Swete's Septuagint need revision, at all events in the first volume. Of B a new photographic reproduction is in preparation; on the suggestion of Rahlfs that B is dependent on Athanasius, cf. E. Nestle, *introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament *(London, 1901), 62, 181, where (note 1) read Constantius instead of Constans. Concerning the famous illuminated *Codex Cottonianus * (D), which was badly injured by fire in 1731, nothing new has come to light since Swete wrote; it is well to mention the name of Martin Folkes as editor, by whom were issued the facsimiles in the *Vetusta monument *of 1747. On the purple illuminated Genesis of Vienna (L), there is a dissertation by W. Lüdtke (Greifswald, 1897), who is inclined to ascribe this oldest Biblical history with illuminations to the second part of the fifth century. To the eighteen uncial manuscripts enumerated by Swete *(Introduction, * pp. 146-148) as not yet used for any edition of the Septuagint and remaining without a symbolical letter or number, may be added: fragments of Genesis at Vienna (cf. *Philologischer Anzeiger, *xiv, 1884, 415); a Hebrew-Greek palimpsest containing fragments of Ps. cxliii, cxliv; and parts of four leaves from a papyrus codex of Genesis, of the late second or early third century (Oxyrhynchus papyri no. 656). On the minuscules scarcely anything has been done lately, except that some will be used in the Cambridge edition mentioned above (§ 2). For facsimiles, cf. F. G. Kenyon, *Facsimiles of Biblical Manuscripts in the British Museum * (London, 1901). The question, in which set of manuscripts the purest text is to be found, is not yet settled. It is the more complicated since the Old Testament is a collection of books which in one and the same manuscript may have had a very different pedigree; for whole Bibles (*pandectes, *such as manuscripts À, A, and B) do not seem to have been produced much before the time of Eusebius or Origen. ### 2. Later Greek Translations: The rupture between Church and Synagogue led to new translations. The authors of at least three of them are known by name, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. ### 1. Aquila. Of the Fathers of the Church, Irenæus is the first who mentions Aquila of Pontus as a translator of the Bible. Epiphanius calls him a "Greek" and a relation of Hadrian, and tells that he was placed by Trajan in charge of the rebuilding of Jerusalem, that he became a Christian but returned to the Jewish faith. Epiphanius places his translation in the twelfth year of Hadrian, 430 years, four months, less nine days after the Septuagint. Jewish sources mention a proselyte Aquila, a contemporary of Rabbis Eliezer, Joshua, and Akiba, who met Hadrian and is called his nephew, and is praised as translator of the Bible in the words of Ps. xlv, "thou art fairer than the children of men"; some passages of his translation are quoted. It is not clear as yet, whether or how the dates of Epiphanius and the statements of the PseudoClementine writings about Aquila, the disciple of Simon Magus, are to be combined. That Aquila the translator of the Bible is the well-known husband of Priscilla in the New Testament is a fancy of Hausdorff. His translation, the use of which was permitted in the synagogue by Justinian, is the most literal ever produced, and enough has been preserved to judge of its value and character. Up to 1897 all known of it went back to the Hexapla of Origen (cf. F. Field, *Origenis Hexaplorum quæ supersunt, * 2 vols., Oxford, 1867-75, and, on Field, J. H. Burn, *Expository Times, * Jan., 1897). In 1897 for the first time a continuous portion of his translation came to light in a palimpsest of the Cairo Synagogue, showing the tetragrammaton written in Old Hebrew letters. The statement of Jerome that Aquila made two versions, "a second edition, which the Hebrews call 'the accurate one,'" seems to be correct. Some new fragments to be added to Field are in J. B. Pitra, *Analecta sacra *(Paris, 1876); E. Klostermann, *Analekta zur Septuaginta *(Leipsic, 1895); Jerome, in *Anecdota Maredsolana, *iii, 1. ### 2. Symmachus. According to Epiphanius, Symmachus was a Samaritan, and lived not under Severus, but under "Verus" (i.e., Marcus Aurelius; cf. Lagarde, *Symmicta, *ii, Göttingen, 1880). Geiger identified the translator with Symmachus ben Joseph, disciple of Rabbi Meir (*Jüdische Zeitschrift für Wissenschaft und Leben, *i, 1862, pp. 62-64). Origen got the manuscript of his translation from a certain Juliana of Cæsarea, who had received it with other works of Symmachus from Symmachus himself. Whether the Cæsarea where she lived was that of Palestine or Cappadocia is in doubt. In the sixteenth century Symmachus's works were still in existence at Rodosto near Constantinople (cf. R. Förster, *De antiquitatibus et libris manuscriptis Constantinopolitanis, *Rostock, 1877; T. Zahn, *TLB, *1893, p. 43). Symmachus wrote the most elegant Greek of all these translators. Jerome quotes in three passages a second translation. ### 3. Theodotion. Theodotion, according to Irenæus, was from Ephesus; according to Epiphanius, from Pontus; he went over from Gnosticism to Judaism. His work is a revision of the Septuagint and has therefore been placed by Origen in his Hexapla next to the column of the Septuagint. For the same reason Origen made use chiefly of Theodotion to supply such passages as were missing in the Septuagint (cf. I Sam. xvii, 12 sqq.; Jer. xxxiii, 14-26; xxxix, 4-13). For the Book of Daniel his version came into general use in the Church, while the older Greek version has been preserved only in the one codex (*Chisianus*) discovered 1772. Readings similar to those of Theodotion are found before his time (on this question cf. E. König, *Einleitung, *ii, 108; *TLB, *1897, 51; Stärk, *ZWT, *1895, 288). Howorth offers some unconventional views (*PSBA*, 1891-92) on the question whether Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah in our editions of the Septuagint are from Theodotion. That his name has the same meaning as that of the Targumist Jonathan seems accidental. Besides these versions, which covered the whole Old Testament–note, however, that for Samuel we have no quotations from Aquila–Origen succeeded in finding, at least for certain parts, more translations; the one which he numbered five, in Nicopolis near Actium; the sixth with other Hebrew and Greek books in a clay jar near Jericho in the time of Antoninus, the son of Severus. Deserving of brief mention is a Greek translation which is 1,000 years younger than the preceding, the *(Græcus Venetus, *which first became known in 1740 through the catalogue of the library of San Marco. The complete and final edition is due to O. von Gebhardt *(Græcus Venetus, Pentateuchi, Proverbiorum, Ruth, Cantici, Ecclesiastæ, Threnorum, Danielis græca versio, *with preface by F. Delitzsch, Leipsic, 1875). Delitzsch is inclined to see in the translation the work of a Jew, Elisseus, who lived at the court of Murad I in Prusa and Adrianople; von Gebhardt, that of a proselyte. The rendering of "Yahweh" by *ontourgos, ousiotes * and the use of the Doric dialect for the Aramaic portions of Daniel are interesting. E. NESTLE. BIBLIOGRAPHY: The following is only a selection out of the vast body of literature available. The critical Introductions and Commentaries on the Old Testament and on separate parts deal more or less fully with the subject. For the literature on Polyglots see BIBLES, POLYGLOT; for that on Aristeas see ARISTEAS; and on printed editions of the Septuagint cf. H. B. Swete, *Introduction, *pp. 171-194, London, 1902. On the Septuagint in general consult besides the works mentioned in the text: J. H. Hottinger, *Exercitationes Anti-Morinianæ, *Zurich, 1644; idem, *Dissertationum . . . fasciculus, *Heidelberg, 1660; A. Calovius, *Criticus sacer, *Leipsic, 1646; L. Cappellus, Critica sacra, Paris, 1650; J. Buxtorf, *Anticritica, seu vindiciæ veritatus Hebraicæ, *Basel, 1653; J. Ussher, *De Græca septuaginta interpretum versione syntagma, *London, 1655; J. Morinus, *Exercitationes ecclesiasticæ et biblicæ, * Paris, 1669; H. Hody, *De bibliorum textibus originalibus, * Oxford, 1705; J. E. Grabe, *Epistola ad J. Millium, *Oxford, 1705; idem, *De vitiis septuaginta interpretum, *ib. 1710; E. Leigh, *Critica sacra, *5th ed., London, 1706; A. Trommius, *Concordantiæ Græcæ versionis, *Amsterdam, 1718; W. Whiston, *Essay toward Restoring the True Text of the Old . . . Testament, * London, 1722, and *Supplement *(to the same), 1723; J. G. Carpsov, *Critica sacra, *Leipsic, 1728; W. Wall, *The Use of the Septuagint Translation, *in his *Brief Critical Notes, *London, 1730; C. F. Houbigant, *Prolegomena in scripturam sacrum, *Paris, 1746; B. Kennicott, *The State of the Printed Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, *Oxford, 1753; idem, a second *Dissertation *on the same subject 1759; J. D. Michaelis, *Programma . . . über dis 70 Dollmätscher, *Göttingen, 1767; H. Owen, *Enquiry into the Present State of the Septuagint Version, *London, 1769; idem, *Critica sacra, *1774; idem, *A Brief Account . . . of the Septuagint Version, *1787; J. C. Biel, *Novus thesaurus philologicus, *The Hague, 1779-80; J. F. Schleusner, *Lexici in interpretes græci Veteris Testamenti, *Leipsic, 1784-88; C. A. Wahl, *Clavis librorum Veteris Testamenti, *Leipsic, 1853; G. Bickell, *De indole ac ratione versionis Alexandrinæ . . . Jobi, * Marburg, 1862; F. Delitzsch, *Studien . . . der complutensischen Polyglotte, *Leipsic, 1886; A. Scholz, *Masorethischer Text und die LXX-Uebersetzung des . . . Jeremias, *Regensburg, 1875; idem, *Die alexandrinische Uebersetzung des . . . Jesaias, *Würzburg 1880; E. Flecker, *Scripture Onomatology . . . Critical Notes on the Septuagint, *London, 1883; W. J. Deane, in *The Expositor, * 1884, pp. 139-157, 223-237; E. Nestle, *Septuagintastudien, *vols. i-v, Ulm, 1886-1907, Maulbronn, 1899-1903; J. G. Carleton, *The Bible of our Lord and his Apostles, *London, 1888; E. Hatch, *Essays in Biblical Greek, * London, 1889 (cf. criticism by Hort, in *The Expositor, * Feb. 1897); A. Schulte, *De restitutione . . . versionis Græcæ . . . Judicum, *Leipsic, 1889 G. C. Workman, *Text of Jeremiah . . . Greek and Hebrew, *Edinburgh, 1889; P. de Lagarde, *Stichometric, *in *Mittheilungen, * iv, 205, Göttingen, 1891; F. C. Conybeare on *Philo's Text, *in *The Expositor, *Dec., 1891, pp. 456-466; H. B. Swete, on *Grätz's Theory, *in *Expository Times, *June, 1891; J. Taylor, *Massoretic Text and . . . Versions of . . . Micah *London, 1891; *Transactions of the Congress of Orientalists in London, *London, 1894; E. Hatch and H. A. Redpath, *Concordance to the Septuagint, *London, 1892-1900; F. C. Conybeare, *Philonean Text, *in *JQR, *Jan., 1893, pp. 246-280, Oct., 1895, pp. 88-122; H. A. Redpath, in *The Academy, *Oct. 22, 1893; G. Morin, *Une revision du psautier, *in *Revue bénédictine, *1893, part b, pp. 193-197; H. H. Howorth, in *The Academy, *1893, July 22, Sept. 18, Oct. 7, Dec. 16, 1894, Feb. 17, May 5, June 9 (cf. W. A. Wright, ib. 1894, Nov. 3, and T. K. Cheyne, 1894, Nov. 10); V. Nourisson, *La Bibliothèque des Ptolémées, *Alexandria, 1893; S. Silberstein, *Codex Alexandrinus and Vaticanus des dritten Königsbuches, *in *ZATW, *1893-94; G. A. Deisemann, *Bibelstudien, *Marburg, 1895-96, Eng. transl. Edinburgh, 1901; H. A. Kennedy, *Sources of New Testament Greek, *Edinburgh, 1895; E. Klostermann, *Analecta zur Septuaginta, *Leipsic, 1895; Max Löhr, *Vorarbeiten zu Daniel, *in *ZATW, *xv (1895), 75-103, 193-225; E. Nestle, *Zum Codex Alexandrinus, *in *ZATW, *xv (1895), 261-262; idem, *Zur Hexapla des Origenes, *in *ZWT, *xxxviii, 231; H. E. Ryle, *Philo and Holy Scripture, *London, 1895; F. Johnson, *Quotations of the New Testament, *London, 1896; A. F. Kirkpatrick, *The Septuagint, *in *The Expositor, *April, 1896, 213-257; E. Klostermann, *Die Mailänder Fragmente, *in *ZATW, *1896, pp. 334-337; J. Fürst, in *Semitic Studies in Memory of A. Kohut, *Berlin, 1897; E. Nestle, *Einführung in das grischische Neue Testament, * Göttingen, 1897, Eng. transl., London, 1901; J. H. Moulton, *A Grammar of New Testament Greek, *vol. i, *Prolegomena, *pp. 1-41, Edinburgh, 1906; A. Merx, *Der Werth der Septuaginta für die Textkritik des A. T., *in *JPT, *ix, 65; A. Rahlfs, *Septuaginta-Studien, *parts i-ii, Göttingen, 1904-07. On Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, besides the references in Irenæus, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, and Epiphanius, consult: C. A. Thieme, *Pro puritate Symmachi, *Leipsic, 1755; R. Anger, *De Onkelo Chaldaico, *ib. 1845; F. Field, *Origenis Hexaplorum quæ supersunt, *i, pp. xvi sqq., Oxford, 1867; G. Mercati, *L'Età di Simmaco interprete, *Modena, 1892; L. Hausdorff, *Zur Geschichte der Targumim nach talmudischen Quellen, *in *Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums, *xxxviii (1893), 5-7; L. Blau, *Zur Einleitung in die heilige Schrift, *Budapest, 1894; M. Friedmann, *Onkelos und Akylas, *Vienna, 1896; S. Kraus-Budapest, in *Festschrift zum achtzigsten Geburtstage M. Steinschneiders, *Leipsic, 1896; F. C. Burkitt, *Fragments of the Books of Kings . . . , *Cambridge, 1897; *DCB, *i, 150-151, ii, 14-23 (valuable); *DB, *iv, 864-865; *EB, *iv, 5017-19. ### II. Latin Versions: The origin of the earliest Latin versions is unknown. This fact is easily explained if the case was stated correctly by Augustine: "Those who translated the Scriptures from Hebrew into Greek can be enumerated; but the Latin translators by no means. For in the early days of the faith when any one received a Greek manuscript into his hands and seemed to have ever so little facility in language, he dared to translate it" (*De doctrina Christiana, *ii, 11). Again (ii, 14) he mentions "the abundance of interpreters." Augustine is probably right in the supposition that Latin versions did not exist in pre-Christian times. At all events there are no traces of Jewish undertakings in this direction. The history of the Latin versions is divided into two unequal parts by the work of Jerome and closes with an account of later versions independent of Jerome, particularly those made by Protestants. ### 1. The Latin Bible before Jerome: ### 1. The Old Latin Bible. The Itala. The statement of Augustine about the great variety of Latin translations is corroborated by the documents, manuscripts, and quotations preserved, for the New Testament of course much more than for the Old. But even for the latter one may cite, e.g. for Deut. xxxi, 17, at least eight variant readings; and in the New Testament for Luke xxiv, 4, 5, at least twenty-seven variant readings. In other words, as Jerome says, "as many readings as copies"; and these readings are not merely different renderings of an identical Greek text, but correspond to various Greek readings, a fact which seems to demonstrate the more clearly the existence of different translations. Nevertheless Jerome speaks frequently as if there was but one ancient translation, which he opposes as "the common edition" and an "old translation" to his own undertaking. Some variations at least arose in the way sketched by Jerome—"by stupid interpreters badly translated, by presumptuous but unskilled men perversely amended, by sleepy copyists either added to or changed about." Nevertheless it is impossible to reduce all these variations to consecutive stages of one original translation and therefore scholars use the term "Old Latin versions" (in the plural) and avoid especially the name formerly used; viz., "Itala." This designation went back to a single passage of Augustine (*De doctrina Christiana, *ii, 14, 15); after he had fixed the principle "that the uncorrected texts should give way to the corrected ones at least when they are copies of the same translation," he goes on to say: "Among translations themselves the Itala is to be preferred to the others, for it keeps closer to the words, without prejudice to clearness of expression." There can be no doubt that he puts here one translation, which he prefers, in opposition to several other translations; therefore it was not well done to comprehend all that is left of the Latin Bibles from the time before Jerome under this name Itala. Some have tried to change the text, but *Itala *is the correct reading. Augustine must mean a version used in or having come from Italy, probably the northern part of the peninsula. Isidore of Seville (*Etymologiæ, *vi, 4) in the seventh century clearly understood by "Itala" the work of Jerome. This view was restated in 1824 by C. A. Breyther, was considered possible by E. Reuss, and well founded by F. C. Burkitt (*The Old Latin and the Itala, *in *TS, *iv, 3), with the limitation that Augustine had not yet in view the whole of Jerome's labor, but only its beginning—the revision of the Gospels. It is therefore advisable to avoid completely the name "Itala" and to use "Old Latin" for the Bible before Jerome. The home of this Bible is not to be sought in Rome, where Greek was the language of the infant Church and its literature, but most probably in Africa. It is true, many of the linguistic peculiarities ascribed to Africa are shared by the *lingua rustica *in other parts of the Latin world, and it has become customary to distinguish an African and a European branch of the Latin Bible; nevertheless the origin of this whole literature seems to have been in Africa. Translations of certain books which in early times were of almost canonical standing—such as the Epistle of Barnabas, the *Shepherd *of Hermas, and the First Epistle of Clement—are closely connected with these versions (cf. Harnack, *Litteratur, *i, 883; O. Bardenhewer, *Geschichte der altkirchlichen Litteratur, *i, Freiburg, 1902). ### 2. Manuscripts and Editions. Because the Old Latin versions have been replaced in the use of the Church by the version of Jerome, only a few manuscripts of the Old Latin have survived and these as fragments and palimpsests only, but of high antiquity. It is a great pity that they are not yet collected in such a way as to make their use easy, especially for the Old Testament, since they are all important for the criticism of the Septuagint. This was recognized by the Roman commission which prepared the *Editio Sixtina *of the Septuagint. They collected with great care the Biblical quotations from the Latin ecclesiastical writers. Petrol Morinus, Antonius Agellius, and Lælius Malwerda were the members of the commission to whom this part of the task was entrusted. Their labors were used in the scholia of the Greek edition of 1586 [1587], but still more freely in its Latin translation, published by Flaminius Nobilius (Rome, 1588; reprinted with the Greek text at Paris, 1624; without it, Venice, 1609, 1628; Antwerp, 1616). But the chief work is *Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinæ versiones antiquæ . . . opera et studio Petri Sabatier, 0. S. B., e congregatione S. Mauri, *(3 vols., Reims, 1739-49, with new title, Paris, Didot, 1751). Before Sabatier, are to be mentioned J. M. Carus (Cardinal Tommasi), *Sacrorum Bibliorum iuxta editionem seu LXX Interpretum seu B. Hieronymi veteres tituli, *etc. (2 vols., Rome, 1688; 2d ed. in *Thomasii Opera, *ed. Vezzosi, i, Rome, 1747); and *Ecclesiastes ex versione Itala cum notis Bossueti *(Paris, 1693). For full list of manuscripts and editions, cf. the Hauck-Herzog *RE, *iii, 28-33. The manuscripts of the New Testament are enumerated also in Scrivener's *Introduction, *ii (London, 1894), 45-54 (revised by H. J. White); in Gregory's *Prolegomena *to Tischendorf's New Testament, iii, 952-971, and *Textkritik des Neuen Testaments *(Leipsic, 1900), 598-613; and in the prefaces of Jerome's New Testament edited by J. Wordsworth and H. J. White *(Novum Testamentum Domini nostri Jesu Christi Latine secundum editionem S. Hieronymi ad codicum manuscriptorum fidem recensuit Johannes Wordsworth. In operis soeietatem adsumpto Henrico Juliano White, * part i, the four Gospels, Oxford, 1889-98; part ii, section i, Acts, 1905). In the critical apparatus of the New Testament they are designated by the small letters of the Latin alphabet. The following additions may be made to what is contained in the *RE *(ut sup.): Old Testament: P. Sabatier, *Bibliorum Sacorum Latinæ versiones antiquæ, *i (Reims, 1744), 904 (for a fragment of Job; cf. S. Berger, *Histoire de la Vulgate, *Paris, 1893, 86); G. M. Bianchini, *Vindiciæ canonicarum scripturarum *(Rome, 1740; Psalms from the Codex Veronensis); F. Mone, *Lateinische und Grischische Messen *(Frankfort, 1850), 40 (for fragments of Psalms from a palimpsest in Carlsruhe); P. de Lagarde, *Probe einer neuen Ausgabe der lateinischen Uebersetzung des Alten Testaments *(Göttingen, 1885; for Psalms); H. Ehrensberger, *Psalterium vetus *(Tauberbischofsheim, 1887); *Heptateuchi partis posterioris versio Latina antiquissima e codice Lugdunensi *(Lyons, 1890; cf. F. Vigouroux in *Revue des questions historiques, *Jan.-Apr., 1902); P. de Lagarde, *Septuagintastudien, * ii (Göttingen, 1892; for III Esdras); J. Belsheim, *Libri Tobit, Judit, Ester . . . Latina translatio e codice . . . Monachensi *(Trondhjem, 1893); V. Schultze, *Die Quedlinburger Itala-Miniaturen . . . in Berlin *(Munich, 1898; he refers them to the fourth century); P Corssen, *Zwei neue Fragmente der Weingartener Prophetenhandschrift, nebst einer Untersuchung über das Verhältnis der Weingartener und Würzburger Prophetenhandschriften *(Berlin, 1899); P. Thielmann, *Bericht über das gesammelte handschriftliche Material zu einer kritischen Ausgabe der lateinischen Uebersetzungen biblischer Bücher des Alten Testaments, *in *Sitzungsberichte der königlichen Bayerischen Akadamie der Wissenschaften, *1899, ii, 2; G. Hoberg, *Die älteste lateinische Uebersetzung des Buches Baruch *(Freiburg, 1902); A. M. Amelli, *De libri Baruch vetustissima Latina versione . . . epistola *(Montecassino, 1902); W. O. E. Oesterley, *Old Latin Texts of the Minor Prophets, *in *JTS, *v (1904), 76, 242, 378, 570, vi, 67, 217. The Psalms from the Mozarabic Liturgy are in *MPL, *lxxxv. New Testament: Gospels: The *Fragmenta Curiensia (a) * are edited in *OLBT, *ii (London, 1888); for *Codex Saretianus (j), *cf. G. Amelli, *Un antichissimo codice biblico latino purpureo *(Montecassino, 1893); Acts: *Codex Demidovianus (dem), *probably of the thirteenth century, now lost, a mixed text, was edited by C. F. Matthæi (*Novum Testamentum, *Riga, 1782); for the *Codex Laudianus (e), *see BIBLE TEXT, II, 1, § 9; it was revised by White for Wordsworth White; on the *Codex Perpinianus (p), *thirteenth century, a mixed text, collated by White, cf. S. Berger, *Un Ancien Texte latin des Actes des Apötres, *in *Notices et Extraits des manuscrits, *xxxv (Paris, 1895); cf. further *Liber comicus sive lectionarius missæ quo Toletana ecclesia ante annos MCC utebatur, *ed. G. Morin (*Anecdota Maredsolana, *i, Maredsous, 1893). Pauline Epistles: for the manuscripts *d, e, f, g, *cf. H. Rönsch, in *ZWT, *1882, p. 83. Apocalypse: cf. H. Linke, *Studien zur Itala *(Breslau, 1889). The *Codex Corbeiensis (ff2), *with fragments of the Catholic Epistles, Acts, and the Apocalypse from the Fleury palimpsest (Paris, 6400 G), have been lately edited by E. S. Buchanan (Oxford, 1907, in *OLBT,* v). On the relation of the different texts, cf. for the New Testament Hort's *Introduction *(London, 1881) and Wordsworth-White; for the Old Testament Kennedy in *DB, *iii, 49 sqq. On the language, cf. H. Rönsch, *Itala und Vulgata *(Marburg, 1869), on which work cf. J. N. Ott, in *Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie, *cix, 1874, pp. 778, 833. ### 3. Quotations in Latin Writers. Of the highest importance for the restoration of the Old Latin Bible are the quotations of the older Latin writers. Their countries are known and thus the home of the Biblical texts is located. Yet many questions are still unsettled; e.g., did Tertullian know and use a Latin translation or are his quotations taken by him from the Greek and translated into Latin? Heinrich Hoppe (*Syntax und Stil des Tertullian, *Leipsic, 1903) denies that Tertullian knew a Latin version of the Old Testament. T. Zahn makes the same assertion for the New Testament. Quotations from almost all books are found in the *Liber de divinis scripturis sive speculum *(designated as *m*), ascribed to Augustine, published by A. Mai in *Spicilegium Romanum, *ix, 2 (Rome, 1843), 1-88, and in *Nova patrum bibliotheca, *i, 2 (1852), 1-117; better by F. Weihrich, in *CSEL, *xii (cf. Weihrich's dissertation, *Die Bibel-Excerpte de divina scriptura, *Vienna, 1893). Several fragments are also in C. Vercellone, *Dissertationi accademiche *(Rome, 1864). On the quotations in general, cf. H. Rönsch, is *ZHT, *x, 1867, 606-634, 1869, 433-479, 1870, 91-150, 1871, 531, 1875, 88; L. J. Bebb, in *Studia Biblia, *ii (London, 1890), 195 sqq.; Scrivener's *Introduction *(London, 1894), 167-174; Gregory's *Prolegomena, *iii (Leipsic, 1894), 1131-1246; and Kennedy, in *DB, *52-53. The writers that are of primary importance are: Alcimus Avitus, archbishop of Vienna c. 450-517; Ambrose, bishop of Milan 374-397; Ambrosiaster, the name liven to a most important commentator on the thirteen Epistles of St. Paul (cf. T. Zahn, in *NKZ, *xvi pp. 419 sqq., and A. Souter, *TS, *vii, 4, Cambridge, 1905); Arnobius, presbyter in Africa fourth century; *Exhortationes de pænitentia, *ascribed to Cyprian; *Liber de aleatoribus *(according to Harnack as early as Cyprian); *Liber de pascha computus *(written in Africa c. 243); *Liber de promissionibus *(ascribed to Prosper of Aquitaine); *Liber collationis legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum *(ed. P. Krüger and T. Mommsen in *Collectio librorum juris antejustiniani, *iii, Berlin, 1891); Augustine, bishop of Hippo 354–430 (from this author alone Lagarde collected 13,276 quotations of the Old Testament and 29,540 of the New Testament); Capreolus, bishop of Carthage c. 431; Cassian, monk at Marseilles (d. about 435); Commodian (perhaps middle of third century); Cyprian, bishop of Carthage (d. 258; cf. Sanday, in *OLBT, *ii; Lagarde, *Symmicta, *i, 74; *Mittheilungen, *ii, 54; P. Corssen, *Der cyprianische Text der Acta Apostolorum, *Berlin, 1892); Teaching of the Twelve Apostles; Philastrius, bishop of Brescia (c. 380; ad. Marx, in *CSEL, *xxxviii); Fulgentius, bishop of Ruspe (c. 468–533); Gildas of Britain; Eucherius; Hilarius, bishop of Poitiers (d. 380; cf. Zingerle, in *Kleine philologische Abhandlunpen, *Innsbruck, 1887); Irenæus, bishop of Lyons (c. 180, *Novum Testamentum Irenæi; *to be published in *OLBT *by Prof. Sanday); Jovinian (in the time of Jerome); Lactantius (in Africa c. 260-340); Lucifer, bishop of Cagliari (d. 371; cf. Dombart, in *Berliner Philoiogische Wochenschrift, *1866, no. 6); Julius Firmicus Maternus (c. 345); Maximin (cf. *TLZ, *1900, 17); Novatian (at Rome c. 252; cf. Harnack, in *TU, *xiii, 4); Origen (Latin translation; c. 251); Optatus, bishop of Mileve in Numidia, c. 368; Primasius, bishop of Adrumetum, sixth century (cf. Haussleiter, in Zahn, *Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, *iv, Berlin, 1900, 1–224); Pelagius of Ireland; Priscillian, bishop of Avila in Spain, fourth century (cf. *CSEL, *xviii); Salvianus of Marseilles, c. 450 (cf. Ullrich, *De Salviani scripturæ sacræ versionibus, *Neustadt, 1893); Tertullian of Carthage, c. 150–240 (cf. Rönsch, *Das Neue Testament Tertullians, *Leipsic, 1871, and J. N. Ott, in *Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie, *1874, p. 856); Tyconius, in Africa, c. 340 (cf. F. C. Burkitt, in *TS, *iii, 1, 1894); Verecundus (cf. Lagarde, *Septuagintastudien, *i); Victorinus, bishop of Pettau in Pannonia, c. 300 (cf. Haussleiter, in *ZWT, *vii, 239–257); Vigilius, bishop of Thapsus, c. 484. Some parts of the Old Latin Bible are still in ecclesiastical use and even in the works of Luther Denifle has shown readings from this source. The same is the case with some of the translations in the vernacular dialects of medieval Europe, such as the Anglo-Saxon (cf. for instance R. Handke, *Ueber das Verhältnis der westsächsischen Evangelienübersetzung zum lateinischen Original, * Halle, 1896; A. S. Cook, *Biblical Quotations in Old English Prose Writers, *New York, 1898; Max Förster, in *Englische Studien, *Leipsic, 1900, p. 480). ### 2. The Bible of Jerome (the Vulgate): ### 1. Jerome's Work. The New Testament. Toward the end of the fourth century the inconvenience from which the Western Church suffered because there was no single authorized Latin version of the Bible must have been seriously felt, and Damasus, bishop of Rome (d. 384), commissioned Jerome to prepare an authoritative revision, probably in the year 382. The letter with which Jerome dedicated the first part (the Gospels) to the pope gives the only authentic record of the work and its scope (cf. *NPNF, *2d ser., vi, 487–488). Jerome accepts the task set him by Damasus, notes its extreme difficulty and the resulting peril to himself, anticipates the harshest criticism of himself and of the results of his labor, and states that his emendations have been as conservative as possible. Not withstanding Jerome's modesty concerning his work, it has had an unparalleled history, inasmuch as it became the Bible of the whole Occident. To estimate Jerome's work properly, it would be necessary (1) to know what were the Latin texts which he had to revise; (2) what were the Greek texts which he chose as standard; (3) to have his work in its original form. The last is now realized, at least for the first part of the New Testament, since the monumental edition of Wordsworth-White. The Greek manuscript or manuscripts used by Jerome must have been of the type of the *Codices Vaticanus *and *Sinaiticus; *there are, however, some readings not attested by any Greek manuscript (cf., for instance, John x, 16, *unum ovile; *xvi, 13, *docebit; *and on this question cf. the letter of Wordsworth and White in *The Academy,* Jan. 27, 1894; their *Epilogue, *657–672; E. Mangenot, in *RSE, *Jan., 1900). About Jerome's Latin texts there is still less information. Wordsworth and White printed under Jerome's text that of the *Codex Brixianus (f) *as most nearly related to it; but according to Burkitt and Kaufmann it is rather a text of Jerome himself adapted to the Gothic version. Jerome's statement in his prefatory letter that he changed as little as possible is probably true; for the language indicates that the Gospels came from different translators. Identical expressions in Greek are quite differently rendered into Latin (cf. the history of the Passion in the different Gospels, and notice for instance *lagenam aquæ baiulans = amphoram aquæ portans *or the rendering of "high priest " in Matthew by *princeps sacerdotum, *in Mark by *summus sacerdos, *in John by *pontifex*). It is, therefore, quite wrong to treat the Vulgate of the Gospels as a harmonious work, and it is clear that the value of it for textual criticism is greatly enhanced, since it preserves the text of the time when the Gospels were not yet united into one collection. Whether also in the second part of the New Testament such differences can be detected has not yet been investigated. It is not even quite certain how far Jerome revised the second part of the New Testament. Only the Gospels have his prefaces, and Augustine writes to him only of the Gospel: "We give no small thanks to God for your work in which you have interpreted the Gospel from the Greek." Jerome, however, answers: "If, as you say, you suspect me of emending the New Testament"; and in 398 he wrote to Lucinius Beticus, to whom he sent the first copy ready (*Epist., *lxxi, 5, *NPNF, *2d series, vi, 154): "The New Testament I have restored to the authoritative form of the Greek." In his *De vir. ill. *he says: "The New Testament I have restored to the true Greek form, the Old I have rendered from the Hebrew." ### 2. The Old Testament. Jerome's work on the Old Testament was more thorough. First he revised the Psalter [from the Septuagint] in 383 in Rome. This revision was introduced by Damasus into the liturgy and is hence called the *Psalterium Romanum *in distinction from the *Psalterium vetus *or the unrevised Old Latin. It was in use in Italy till Pius V (1566–72), and it is still used in St. Peter's in Rome and in Milan, partly in the Roman Missal and in one place in the Breviary, in the hortatory Psalm xcv (xciv). About four years later in Palestine Jerome revised the Psalms a second time, making use of the critical marks of Origen, the obelus and asterisk. This revision is known as the Gallican Psalter, as it was first used chiefly in Gaul (it seems through Gregory of Tours), but finally it became the current version in the Latin Church (through Pius V), of course without the critical marks. At last Jerome translated the Psalms from the Hebrew at the suggestion of Sophronius about 392 (not 405, as Lagarde has it); but this remained a private labor and is not found in many manuscripts. The best edition of this version is Lagarde's *Psalterium juxta Hebræos Hieronymi *(Leipsic, 1874). About the same time with his second revision of the Psalter Jerome revised the translation of Job (preserved in a few manuscripts, especially at Oxford and St. Gall; edited by Lagarde, *Mittheilungen, *ii, 189 sqq.; cf. Caspari, in *Actes du huitième congrès des Orientalistes, *i, Leyden, 1893, 37-51) and most of the books of the Old Testament; but he lost the work "by the deceit of somebody." Therefore he undertook the greater labor of translating the Old Testament afresh direct from the Hebrew. He began in 390 with Samuel and Kings and published them with his *Prologus galeatus*; then followed Job, the Prophets, and Psalms. About the chronological order of the rest absolute certainty is not reached.1 2 He left Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Maccabees, and Baruch without revision. According to his own statement he translated the three Solomonic writings in three days, Tobit in one day, Judith in one night; for the latter two his Jewish teacher translated to him the Aramaic into Hebrew and he dictated the Latin to a copyist (cf. G. Grützmacher, *Hieronymus, *i, Leipsic, 1901, 73-77. On Jerome's method, cf. G. Hoberg, *De S. Hieronymi ratione interpretandi, *Bonn, 1886; M. Rahmer, *Die hebräischen Traditionen in den Werken des Hieronymus, *Breslau, 1861). ### 3. History to the Invention of Printing. At first Jerome's work was not well received, especially because he had dared to part with the Septuagint, which even Augustine believed to be equally inspired with the original Hebrew. An African bishop on finding *hedera * ("ivy") in the Book of Jonah in the new version instead of the accustomed *cucurbita *("gourd") raised a tumult in his Church. Jerome's former friend Rufinus wrote expressly against the new work. "So great is the force of established usage," says Jerome, "that even acknowledged corruptions [of text] please the greater part, for they prefer to have their copies pretty rather than correct." On the other hand he knows "that they attack it in public and read it in secret." At the time of his death (420) the attacks and criticism of his opponents had ceased. We are not informed where and when complete Bibles of Jerome's version were first produced and introduced into the use of the Church. In Spain it seems to have been at a pretty early time. Cassiodorus (d. about 570) was one of the first, if not the very first, who took care to produce correct copies. From his copies are derived the introductory pieces in the *Codex Amiatinus *(cf. H. J. White, in *Studia Biblica, *ii, Oxford, 1890, 273; P. Corssen, *Die Bibeln des Cassiodorius, JPT, *1883, 1891). Pope Gregory the Great wrote at the end of the sixth century: "I indeed circulate the new translation; but when the course of argument demands it, I use now the new and now the old by way of proof; and this because the Apostolic See, over which under God I preside, uses both and by the study of both my toil is lightened." By that time the name *Vulgata * ("common," "ordinary"), which before had meant the Septuagint and its Latin translation, had gone over to the work of Jerome. Roger Bacon says of it "that [version] which is diffused among the Latins is that which the Church receives in these days: "But even in the printed editions of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries this name is not yet as invariable as we are inclined to suppose; and despite the warning of Walafrid Strabo, "let none desire to amend one from the other," mixing in all degrees of the old and the new texts took place and survives up to the present not only in manuscripts, but even in the printed text, as when in II Kings i, 18, the first part is from the Old Latin, and the second from Jerome. Charlemagne found several recensions in use in his dominions. In a capitulary of 789 he ordered that there should be "in each monastery and parish good copies of the catholic books, and the boys must not be permitted to deface them either in reading them or by writing on them; and if there be necessity for writing [copying] a Gospel, Psalter, or Missal, men of maturity are to do it, using all care." In 797 he committed to Alcuin the "emendation of the Old and the New Testament"; and the copy of the Biblical books, "bound together in the sanctity of one most glorious body," which Alcuin offered to him on Christmas 801, must have been the first copy of this revision, of which the *Codex Vallicellanus * at Rome is the best representative in existence. As Alcuin was himself of Northumbria, he probably had his text brought from there, and fortunately just there the purest text seems to have survived (cf. Berger's *Histoire *and Wordsworth-White). At the same time Bishop Theodulf of Orléans (787-821) worked at a revision, but on very different lines. Being a Visigoth, he took Spanish manuscripts as the basis, but incorporated in the margins various readings; fortunately his work found no large circulation. It is still represented by some fine manuscripts (cf. Berger, 145-184, and Delisle, in *Bibliothèque de l'École des Charles, *vol. xl, Paris, 1879). About the labors of Lanfranc of Canterbury precise information is not obtainable; but the normal copy produced with the help of Jewish scholars by Stephen Herding, third abbot of Cîteaux for the members of his order is still preserved at Dijon (cf. J. P. Martin, in *RSE, *1887). Later on, critical observations on the true readings of certain passages were collected in the so-called *Correctoria Biblica. *The principal *Correctoria *are (1) the *Correctorium Parisiense, *prepared about 1236, also called *Senonense, *sneered at by Roger Bacon, who in 1267 called the Parisian text, in a letter to Pope Clement IV, "horribly corrupt"; "the correctors," he says, are "corruptors, for any reader whatsoever in the lower orders corrects as he pleases, in like manner also the preachers, and similarly the students change as they like what they do not understand"; (2) the *Correctorium Sorbonicum, * a sort of epitome of the larger *Correctoria; * (3) the *Correctorium *of the Dominicans, prepared under the auspices of Hugo of St. Cher, which sometimes went back of the Latin text to Greek and Hebrew manuscripts; (4) the *Correctorium Vaticanum, * the work of the Franciscans, perhaps especially of Willermus de Mara. (Cf. on the *Correctoria, *besides S. Berger, in *RTP; *xvi, 41, especially Denifle, in *Archiv für Litteratur-und Kirchengeschichte, *iv, Berlin, 1883, 263, 471.) By the influence of the University of Paris the text used there was the one which was most current in the Middle Ages and consequently that which found its way into the first printed editions, and gained thereby still more influence. To enumerate even the more important of the manuscripts of the Vulgate is here impossible. There are lists in J. Le Long, *Bibliotheca sacra *(i, Paris, 1723, 234 sqq.), and in C. Vercellone, *Variæ lectiones vulgatæ Latinæ Bibliorum editionis *(i, Rome, 1860, lxxxii sqq., ii, 1864, xvii sqq.). Scrivener's *Introduction *(ii, London, 1804, 67-90) has a select list of 181 manuscripts, chiefly of the New Testament, by H. J. White; Berger's *Histoire *(Paris 1893, 374-422) one of 253; Gregory's *Prolegomena *(iii, Leipsic, 1894, 983-1108) notes some 2,270, and his *Textkritik *(2 vols., Leipsic, 1900-02) 2,369, reserving some for an appendix. H. J. White (*DB, *iv, 886-889) classifies them under the following headings: (1) Early Italian texts; (2) Early Spanish texts; (3) Italian texts transcribed in Britain; (4) Continental manuscripts written by Irish or Saxon scribes and showing a mixture of the two types of text; (5) Type of text current in Languedoc; (6) Other French texts; (7) Swiss manuscripts, especially of St. Gall; (8) Aleuinian recension; (9) Theodulfian recension; (10) Medieval texts. ### 4. Earlier Printed Editions. Naturally Bibles and parts of the Bible were among the earliest of printed books, and as a matter of course the text presented was the Vulgate. The Mazarin Bible, so called, because a copy in the library of Cardinal Mazarin first attracted the attention of bibliographers–i.e., the Bible in forty- two lines, not that in thirty-six–is now proved to be the first Bible printed by Gutenberg. His Psalter of 1457 is the first book with a printed date, while the Psalter of 1459 is one of the most costly of books. A Bible printed at Mainz 1462 is the first dated Bible. The first Bible printed at Rome is of 1471, by Sweinheim and Pannartz, printed in 250 copies. Of ninety-two editions of the fifteenth century which can be localized, thirty-six belong to Germany (to Nuremberg 13, Strasburg 8, Cologne 7, Mainz 3, Speyer 2, Bamberg 1, and Ulm 1, the latter of 1480 being the first Bible with summaries); twenty-nine belong to Italy, twenty-four of them to Venice. In England in the whole period none is known. The first quarto Bible is believed to have been printed at Piacenza 1475, and the first octavo at Basel 1491 (because of its small size called the first "poor man's Bible"). An undated Bible, probably of 1478, has for the first time the verses: Fontibus ex græcis hebræorum quoque libris Emendata satis et decorata simul Biblia sum præsens, superos ego testor et astra. Copinger mentions 124 editions of the Latin Bible prior to 1500, of the sixteenth century he knows 438 editions, of the seventeenth 262, of the eighteenth 192, of the nineteenth (till 1892) 133, in all 1,149. These figures show that, under the influence of the religious and intellectual awakening, the sixteenth century was the time of the Latin Bible. The bad state of the text soon became evident and attempts were made to improve it from the original texts, as by the editors of the Complutensian Polyglot (see BIBLES, POLYGLOT, I), and, among Protestants, first by Andreas Osiander (Nuremberg, 1522) and at Wittenberg, in an edition of the Pentateuch, Joshua-Kings, and the New Testament, ascribed to Luther and Melanchthon (1529), then by Lukas Osiander at Tübingen (9 vols., 1573-1586), with an "exposition." Of greater importance are the attempts to correct the text from the Latin manuscripts, to which Lorenzo della Valle had called attention in the fifteenth century. Erasmus published his *In Latinam Novi Testamenti interpretationem ex collatione græcorum exemplarium annotationes apprime Wiles * at Paris in 1505. The French printer Robert Stephens in particular corrected the text from manuscripts and put variant readings on the margins (cf. Wordsworth, in *OLBT, * i, 1883, 47-54). For his edition of 1528 he used three good manuscripts, for the larger of 1540 not less than seventeen; his impression of 1555 is the first complete Bible with the modern verse division, and his text became the basis of the official Roman text through the mediation of the edition undertaken by the theological faculty of Louvain under the guidance of Johannes Hentenius after comparison of some thirty manuscripts (Louvain, 1547). ### 5. The Sixtine-Clemintine Edition. All these editions were private undertakings. In its fourth session (Apr. 8, 1546), the Council of Trent decreed that "of all Latin editions the old and vulgate (*vulgata*) edition be held as authoritative in public lectures, disputations, sermons, and expositions; and that no one is to dare or presume under any pretext to reject it." The council decreed at the same time that "this same old and vulgate edition be printed in as correct form as possible." It does not appear that steps were taken to entrust a special person or body with the latter task. The edition of Hentenius was used for a long time as the best available. At last several popes took the matter in hand, and after various attempts of Pius IV and Pius V, at last Sixtus V carried the work to completion through a committee, with Cardinal Antonio Caraffa at its head, and published the *Biblia Sacra Vulgatæ Editionis tribus tomis distincta. Romæ: ex Typographia Apostolica Vaticana M.D.XC *(on a second title-page: *Biblia Sacra Vulgatæ Editionis ad concilii Tridentini præscriptum emendata et a Sixto V. P. M. recognita et approbata). *In the constitution *Æternus ille *(Mar. 1, 1589; not included in the *Bullarium Romanum; *printed in Thomas James, *Bellum papale, *London, 1600, and L. van Ess, *Geschichte der Vulgata, *Tübingen, 1821, 269) Sixtus had declared the edition "true, lawful, authentic, and not to be questioned in disputations, either public or private." No future edition was to be published without the express permission of the Holy See, and for the next ten years it was forbidden to reprint it in any place except the Vatican; can; all future editions were to be carefully collated with it, "that no smallest part be changed, added to, or taken away," and they were to be accompanied with the official attestation of the inquisitor of the province or of the bishop of the diocese, no variant readings, scholia, or glosses being allowed on the margins. In August of 1590 Sixtus V died, and was followed by several short-lived popes; in 1592 Clement VIII called in all copies of the edition which were within reach–copies are, therefore, of extreme rarity–and replaced it under the direction of Cardinal Bellarmine with a new *Biblia Sacra Vulgatæ Editionis. Romæ: Ex Typographia Apostolica Vaticana M.D.XCII *(on the second title-page: *Biblia Sacra Vulgatæ Editionis Sixti Quinti Pont. Max. Jussu recognita atque edita*). The accompanying bull decreed: "From the form of this copy let not even the least particle be changed, added to, or taken away, unless it happens that some fault is unmistakably due to typographical carelessness–let this be inviolably observed." The reasons for this whole proceeding are not quite clear. That the printing of the first edition was not correct enough is not true; as a matter of fact the Sixtine edition is typographically more correct than the Clementine, but the text of the Clementine is an improvement on that of the Sixtine. Sixtus was personally interested in the work and changed the text frequently to accord with that of Stephens, while the editors of the Clementine edition followed more often that of Hentenius. There are some 3,000 differences between the two editions. Nevertheless the names of both popes were placed on the title-pages of the later reprints, first, it seems, at Lyons, 1604, then at Mainz, 1609, the official title being now: *Sixti V. et Clementis VIII. Pontt. Maxx. jussu recognita atque edita. *A quarto edition was issued in 1593 with "marginal references, explanations of Hebrew names, and an index of subjects," and a small quarto edition in 1598 with a *correctorium. *All four editions (1590, 1592, 1593, 1598) are compared by Leander van Ess in his edition of the Vulgate (3 parts, Tübingen, 1822-24). Of editions by other editors, those of C. Vercellone (Rome, 1861) and particularly M. Hetzenauer (Innsbruck, 1906) may be mentioned; the latter has useful appendices. ### 6. Later Work. Problems. Since the edition of 1592 scarcely any attempt has been made in the Roman Church to apply to its Bible the most necessary emendation. D. Vallarsi printed an emended text (Verona, 1734), under the title *Divina bibliotheca, *in his edition of the works of Jerome. [A Biblical commission was appointed late in the pontificate of Leo XIII, and Pius X has lately commissioned members of the Benedictine Order to revise the Vulgate. It is intended to restore, so far as possible, the exact text of Jerome.] Among Protestants, Richard Bentley contemplated a new edition of the Latin New Testament together with the Greek (see BIBLE TEXT, II, 2, § 3); about the same time J. A. Bengal did much for it; in the nineteenth century S. Berger in France should have the greatest credit for clearing up the history of the Latin Bible; at last Wordsworth-White have issued what must be called the first critical edition of the Latin New Testament; and in Bavaria P. Thielmann is engaged in publishing those books of the Old Testament which were not translated by Jerome himself. It is a matter of surprise that a task so easy and interesting as the criticism of the Latin Bible has received so little attention. Berger knew more than 8,000 manuscripts of the Latin Bible; few of them have been properly investigated. What kind of surprises they may offer is shown by the recent discovery of two different translations of the Third Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians in two manuscripts of the tenth and thirteenth centuries at Milan and Laon. The order of the Biblical books in the manuscripts; the prefaces and summaries (cf. on this point *Les Préfaces jointes aux livres de la Bible dans les manuscrits de la Vulgate; mémoire posthume de M. Samuel Berger, *in the *Mémoires de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, *ser. i,. vol. xi, part 2, 1902); the capitulation and divisions; the illumination and miniatures (many of the manuscripts belong to the most beautiful productions of Christian art); ecclesiastical or private notes; connection with the vernacular versions, influence upon the dialects of Europe; lists of the passages in literature which mention manuscripts of the Latin Bible; and many other points may be named as those which await investigation. ### 3. Later Latin Translations: That the Latin Vulgate was not sufficient was asserted in the Middle Ages by scholars like Nicolaus de Lyra and Raymond Martini. The English Benedictine Adam Easton (d. 1397) is said to have been one of the first to think of a new translation. It was Erasmus, however, who vindicated the right to place new Latin translations by the side of the Vulgate through his translation of the New Testament (Basel, 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527, 1535, and more than 200 times since the death of Erasmus; see BIBLE TEXT, II, 2, § 1; ERASMUS, DESIDERIUS). He has had many followers who have translated into Latin either the Old or the New Testament or both, as well as separate books of the Bible, even as late as the nineteenth century. But the time has passed when Latin versions were necessary or helpful; since the Reformation translations into the vernacular languages have taken their place. The more important new translations of the whole Bible are those of the Dominican Sanctes Pagninus (Lyons, 1528; revised and annotated by Michael Servetus, Lyons 1542), of Arias Montanus in the Antwerp Polyglot (1572), and one prepared under the direction of Cardinal Cajetan (1530 sqq.; see CAJETAN, THOMAS). The Old Testament was newly translated by the Hebraist Sebastian Münster (Basel 1534-35 and often); by Leo Jud and (after Jud's death) T. Bibliander, C. Pellican, P. Cholinus, and R. Gualtherus (Zurich, 1543); by Sebastian Castellio (complete ed., Basel, 1651, with a dedication to King Edward VI of England); by Immanuel Tremellius, a Jew of Ferrara, and his son-in-law, Franciscus Junius. (du Jon; 5 parts, Frankfort, 1575-79; best ed., with full index, by P. Tossanus, Hanau, 1624. Tremellius's work was well received); by J. Piscator (24 parts, Herborn, 1601-1616; really a revision of Tremellius); by Thomas Malvenda, a Spanish Dominican (left incomplete at Malvenda's death in 1628 and first published with his *Commentarii, *5 vols., Lyons, 1650); by J. Cocceius (published with his commentaries, *Opera, *vols. i-vi, Amsterdam, 1701; incomplete; contains also most of the New Testament); by Sebastian Schmid, a Strasburg Lutheran, who worked forty years on the translation (Strasburg, 1696; photographic facsimile, with manuscript notes by Swedenborg, ed. R. L. Tafel, Stockholm, 1872); by Jean Le Clerc (Claricus; Amsterdam, 1693-1731); by C. F. Houbigant (4 vols., Paris, 1753); by J. A. Dathe (Halle, 1773-89); and by H. A. Schott and J. F. Winzer (Leipsic, 1816). Forty years after the first edition of the New Testament of Erasmus, Beza's Latin New Testament appeared (Geneva, 1556, 1565, 1582, 1588, 1598, and more than 100 subsequent editions; by the *BFBS, *1896). A translation by H. A. Schott was published at Leipsic in 1805. The latest works of the kind are by F. A. A. Näbe (Leipsic, 1831) and A. Göschen (Leipsic, 1832). For other translations, including those of separate books of the Bible, cf. the Hauck-Herzog *RE, *iii, 49-58. On translations of the Psalms into Latin verse, cf. Hugues Vaganay, *Les Traductions du Psautier en vers latin au seizième siècle, *in *Compte rendu du quatrième Congrès international des Catholiques *(Freiburg, 1898), part vi, *Sciences philologiques.* E. NESTLE. BIBLIOGRAPHY: On the Latin Bible before Jerome consult: H. Rönsch, *Itala und Vulgata, *Marburg, 1875; idem, in *ZWT, *1875, pp. 76, 81, 425, 1876, pp. 397, 1881, p. 198; Desjacques, in *Études, religieuses, Philosophiques, historiques et littéraires de la compagnie de Jésus, *1878, pp. 721-724; L. Ziegler, *Die lateinischen Uebersetzungen vor Hieronymus und die Itala des Augustinus, *Munich, 1879; G. Koffmane, *Geschichte des Kirchenlateins bis auf Augustinus-Hieronymus, *Breslau, 1879-81; P. Corssen, *Die vermeintliche "Itala" und die Bibelübersetzung des Hieronymus, *in *JPT, *1881, pp. 507-519; F. Zimmer, in *TSK, *1889; F. C. Burkitt, *The Old Latin and the Itala, *in *TS, *iv, 3, Cambridge, 1896; E. Ehrlich, *Beiträge zur Latinität der Itala, *Rochlitz, 1895; idem, *Quæ sit Italæ quæ dicitur verborum tenacitas, *Leipsic, 1889; P. Monceaux, *Les Africains. Étude sur la littérature Latine d'Afrique *and *La Bible Latine en Afrique, *in *REJ, *1901; *DB, *iii, 47-84; *EB, *iv, 5022-24. On the Vulgate consult: S. Berger, *Histoire de la Vulgate, *Paris, 1893 (this work was crowned by the Academy, pp. xx-xxiv contain a full list of earlier literature); G. Riegler, *Geschichte der Vulgata, *Sulzbach, 1820; L. Van Ess, *Pragmatisch-kritische Geschichte der Vulgata, *Tübingen, 1824; A. Schmitter, *Kurze Geschichte der hieronymianischen Bibelübersetzung, *Freysing, 1842; F. Kaulen, *Geschichte der Vulgata, *Mainz, 1868; O. Rottmanner, in *Historisch-Politische Blätter, *cxiv, 31-38, 101-108; *DB, *iv, 873-890. On the grammar and the language consult: W. Nowack, *Die Bedeutung des Hieronymus für die alttestamentliche Textkritik, *Göttingen, 1875; J. A. Hagen, *Sprachliche Erörterungen zur Vulgata, *Freiburg, 1863; J. B. Heiss, *Zur Grammatik der Vulgata, *Munich, 1864; V. Loch, *Materialien zu einer lateinischen Grammatik der Vulgata, * Bamberg, 1870; P. Hake, *Sprachliche Bemerkungen zu dem Psalmentexte der Vulgata, *Arnsberg, 1872; H. Gölzer, *Étude . . . de la latinité de St. Jérôme, *Paris, 1884; P. Thielmann, in *Philologus, *xlii, 319, 370; G. A. Saalfeld, *De bibliorum sacrorum Vulgatæ editionis græcitate, *Quedlinburg, 1891; W. M. C. Wilroy, *The Participle in the Vulgate N. T., *Baltimore, 1892; L. B. Andergassen, *Ueber den Gebrauch des Infinitive in der Vulgata, *1891; P. Thielmann, *Beiträge zur Textkritik der Vulgata, *Speier, 1883; S. Berger, in *Revue de théologie et de Philosophie, *xvi (1883), 41 sqq.; idem, in *Mémoires de la société des antiquaires de France, *lii, 144; P. Martin, in *Le Muséon, *vii (1888), 88-107, 169-196, viii (1889), 444; H. P. Smith, in *Presbyterian and Reformed Review, *April, 1891; E. von Dobschütz, *Studien zur Textkritik der Vulgata, *Leipsic, 1894 (cf. on it H. J. White, in *Critical Review, *1896, pp. 243-246); J. Ecker, *Porta Sions, Lexikon zum lateinischen Psalter, * viii, 234 1,936 columns, Trier, 1904; F. Kaulen, *Sprachliches Handbuch zur biblischen Vulgata, *Freiburg, 1904 (cf. on it Jülicher, in *TLZ, *1905, no. 6). On the printed text consult: W. A. Copinger, *Incunabula biblica, etc.,* London, 1892; cf. L. Delisle, in *Journal des savans, *1893, pp 202-218, where Copinger's 124 editions prior to 1500 are reduced to ninety-nine, and W. Müller, in *Dziatzko's Bibliothekswissenschaftliche Arbeiten, *no. 6, 1894, pp. 84-95); L. Hain, *Repertorium bibliographicum, *4 vols., Paris, 1826-38, *Index *volume, Leipsic, 1891, *Supplement *by W. A. Copinger, 3 vols., London, 1895-1902, *Appendices *by D. Reichling, fasciculus 1, Munich, 1905 (gives ninety-seven editions prior to 1500). On the first printed Bible consult K. Dziatzko, *Gutenbergs früheste Druckerpraxis auf Grund einer Vergleichung der 42zeiligen und 36zeiligen Bibel, *Leipsic, 1891; L. Delisle, in *Journal des savans, *1894, pp. 401-413; *British Museum Catalogue, *entry *Bible.* ### III. Syriac Versions. ### 1. The Peshito: ### 1. Origin and Name. According to some Syrians certain of the Biblical books (enumerated by Ishodad, bishop of Haditha, c. 852) were translated into Syriac under Solomon at the request of Hiram, king of Tyre. Another tradition refers this work to a priest Asa or Ezra, who was sent by the king of Assyria to Samaria, and the rest of the Old Testament with the New to the days of King Abgar V of Edessa and the apostle Addai (i.e., Thaddæus; see ABGAR. Cf. II Kings xvii, 24, I Chron. xv, 18, in the editions of Lee and Ceriani; J. P. N. Land, *Anecdota Syriaca, *iii, Leyden, 1870, 11; Bar Hebræus on Ps. x; *JA, *1872, 458). Bar Hebræus makes the strange statement that, according to Eusebius (cf. *Hist. eccl., *VI, xvi, 4, and VI, xvii), Origen found the Syriac version in the keeping of a widow at Jericho; and equally curious is the tradition which refers the translation of the New Testament to Mark. Some manuscripts of the Psalms state that they were translated from Palestinian into Hebrew, from Hebrew into Greek, from Greek into Syriac. Theodore of Mopsuestia (commentary on Zeph. i, 6) rightly says: "These books were translated into Syriac by some one, but who he was no one knows to this day." Some scholars have thought to discover, at least for the New Testament, the influence of the Latin Vulgate; more probable is the supposition that at least some parts of the Old Testament are pre-Christian or certainly Jewish; and the home of the translation is not Jerusalem and Palestine (*JA, *1872, 458) or Antioch, but Edessa and its neighborhood. The name which is commonly given to the oldest and most important Syriac version, "Peshito" ("Peshitto"), is first found with Moses bar Kepha (d. 913) and in Masoretic manuscripts of the ninth and tenth centuries (cf. N. P. S. Wiseman, *Horæ Syriacæ, *Rome, 1828, p. 223; J. P. P. Martin, *Introduction à la critique textuelle du Nouveau Testament, *Paris, 1883, p. 101; *ZDMG, *xxxii, 589). It means "the simple" in contradistinction to the more elaborate versions, such as that made from the Greek by Paul of Tella (see below, 2; on the name, cf. K. W. M. Montijn and J. P. N. Land, in *Godgeleerde Bijdragen, *1882; F. Field, *Origenis Hexapla, *i, Oxford, 1875, p. ix; *ZDMG, * xlvii, 157, 316; A. Mez, *Die Bibel des Josephus, * Basel, 1895, 4; F. C. Burkitt, *Early Eastern Christianity, * London, 1904, chap. ii). ### 2. The Old Testament. The Syriac Old Testament is practically the same as that of the Palestinian Jews. Chronicles, however, was missing in the Nestorian canon and, as it seems, also in that of the Jacobites; at least it is not treated in their Masoretic manuscripts, but it is found in very old manuscripts. Ezra-Nehemiah too are not treated in the Masoretic manuscripts nor Esther by the Nestorians, while in Jacobite manuscripts this book together with Judith, Ruth, Susanna, and Thecla forms the "Book of Women" (cf. A. Baumstark, in *Oriens Christianus, *iii, Leipsic, 1901, 353). After the Law there follows as the second part the "Book of Sessions," i.e., Job, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Proverbs, Ecclesiasticus, Ecclesiastes, Ruth, Song of Solomon. Among the prophets, Isaiah (sometimes divided at xxv, 2) is followed by the minor prophets, then Jeremiah (with a division at xxxii, 6) with Baruch i-ii and the Epistle of Jeremiah, then Ezekiel and Daniel. Manuscripts with the Apocrypha are called "catholic" or "pandects"; they do not contain I Esdras, Tobit, or the Prayer of Manasses, but have an Apocalypse of Baruch, IV Esdras, and even the story of Shamuna and Josephus, *War, * V, as IV and V Maccabees. Tobit, as far as chap. vii, 11, is preserved only in the translation of Paul of Tella, but from that point on there is a still later text. Accurate manuscripts give stichometrical lists (cf. Martin, *Introduction, *677; J. R. Harris, *On the Origin of the Ferrar Group, *London, 1893, 10, 26; *DB, *iv, 650). The character of the translation is different in various books; it is very literal in the Law, influenced by the Septuagint in Isaiah and the minor prophets, probably also in the Psalms. Ruth is paraphrastic. Chronicles resembles a Jewish targum, while the Syriac Proverbs has been used in the Targum. Ecclesiasticus is taken from the Hebrew. ### 3. The New Testament. Up to 1858 only one old version of the New Testament in Syriac was known in Europe; viz., that published for the first time by J. A. Widmanstadt (Vienna, 1555). Textual critics considered it "the queen of the Bible translations." In 1858 W. Cureton published in London, from manuscripts which had come into the British Museum in 1842, *Remains of a very Antient Recension of the Four Gospels in Syriac hitherto Unknown in Europe. *The great value of this recension was soon recognized, and was greatly enhanced when, in 1892, a second manuscript of it was discovered in a palimpsest on Mount Sinai by Mrs. A. S. Lewis and her sister, Mrs. M. D. Gibson, which was published under the title, *The Four Gospels in Syriac Transcribed from the Sinaitic Palimpsest by the Late R. L. Bensly . . . J. R. Harris . . . and F. C. Burkitt. With an Introduction by Agnes Smith Lewis * (Cambridge, 1894). Mrs. Lewis published *Some Pages of the Four Gospels Retranscribed from the Syriac Palimpsest with a Translation of the Whole Text *(London, 1894). F. C. Burkitt published *Evangelion da-Mepharreshe: The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, with the Readings of the Sinai Palimpsest and the Early Syriac Patristic Evidence Edited, Collected, and Arranged *(vol. i, text and translation, vol. ii, introduction and notes, Cambridge, 1904). Burkitt's title is taken from the heading or subscription of the two manuscripts and means "the Gospel of the Separated" (i.e., "the Separated Gospels"), used in contradistinction to the *Diatessaron *of Tatian, which was called among the Syrians "the Gospel of the Combined" ("the Combined Gospels"). Herein is indicated the first problem in the history of the Syriac New Testament. It is well known that a harmony of the Gospels was used in the Syriac Church till the beginning of the fifth century, when Theodoret removed the copies in his diocese, and Rabbulas of Edessa ordered that the "Gospel of the Separated" should be read in church. The great question concerns the relationship of the Peshito, the Mepharreshe, and Tatian. It seems certain that the three are interrelated. It seems further to have been proved by Burkitt that the Peshito is the latest, and is in all probability the revision which Rabbulas of Edessa (d. 435) is said to have undertaken. The decision of the other question, whether the Mepharreshe or Tatian is the earlier, is made difficult by the fact that Tatian's work is not preserved in its original form, and further by the fact that the two representatives of the Mepharreshe, the manuscripts of Cureton and Lewis, differ greatly. But on the whole it seems most probable that Tatian was the first to bring the Gospel to the Syrians in the form of his *Diatessaron, * and that then on the basis of his harmony the version of the separate Gospels originated. Burkitt is inclined to believe that this was toward the end of the second century, perhaps under the influence of the Church of Antioch, through Paul of Edessa. The opposite view, that the Mepharreshe is earlier than Tatian, is taken by Hjelt, who believed he was able to show that the Gospels in the Mepharreshe were translated by different hands, and that the first Gospel especially betrays a Jewish character. Without the discovery of new evidence the question will be very difficult to decide. No manuscript of an early Syriac version of the Acts and the Pauline Epistles is known. But that there was an older version can be proved from the quotations of such early writers as Aphrarates and Ephraem, and perhaps also from readings in the Armenian version. In early times the apocryphal correspondence with the Corinthians was placed with the Epistles of Paul. The Catholic Epistles were at first totally unknown, as is expressly stated by Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodore bar Koni (cf. A. Baumstark, in *Oriens Christianus, *i, 176, iii, 555). In the Peshito as we have it the three greater of them are found, in accordance with the use of the Church of Antioch. Still later the four others were added. It is strange that the Nestorian inscription of Singan-fu (see NESTORIANS) speaks of twenty-seven books of the New Testament. Revelation never formed part of the canon among the Syrians (cf. on the Syriac canon, T. Zahn, *Grundriss der Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, * Leipsic, 1904, § 6; J. A. Bewer, *The History of the New Testament Canon in the Syrian Church, *Chicago, 1900; W. Bauer, *Der Apostolos der Syrer, *Giessen, 1903), and whether the Pauline collection included Philemon can not be decided. ### 2. Later Versions: The Nestorian patriarch Mar Abba (d. 552) is said by Bar Hebræus, Ebed Jesu, and Amru to have translated and explained the Old and New Testaments from the Greek; but nothing more is known about it. In 508 Philoxenus of Mabug with the help of his coadjutor Polycarp translated at least some parts of the Old Testament and undertook a new version of the New Testament. Parts of Isaiah preserved in a manuscript of the British Museum may belong to this version (ed. A. Ceriani, *Monumenta sacra et profana, *v, 5, Milan, 1873, 1-40). According to Bernstein, the Gospels are contained in manuscript A2 of the Angelican library at Rome. Isaac H. Hall published a *Syriac Manuscript. Gospels from a pre-Harklensian Version, Acts and Epistles of the, Peshitto Version, Written (probably) between 700 and 900 A.D. Presented to the Syrian Protestant College *[Beirut] (Philadelphia, 1884). The minor epistles, first published by E. Pococke in 1630 and since often found in editions of the Syriac New Testament, are very likely part of this version, and so is the version of Revelation discovered by J. Gwynn and published by him (Dublin, 1897). About one hundred years later the work of translation was resumed, for the Old Testament, by Paul of Tella (the so-called Syro-Hexaplar version; see above, I, 1, § 6), and, for the New Testament, by Thomas of Heraclea (Harkel in Mesopotamia). This version was published by J. White under the inappropriate title, *Versio Philoxeniana *(Oxford, 1778-1803). A lacuna in the Epistle to the Hebrews was filled in by R. L. Bensly (*Harklean Version of the Epistle to the Hebrews xi, 28-xiii, 25, * London, 1889). W. Deane began a new edition but was prevented from finishing it. Its completion, especially for the Acts, is much to be desired. For his marginal notes, Thomas made use of a manuscript closely related to the Greek codex D (cf. A. Pott, *Der abendländische Text der Apostelgeschichte, * Leipsic, 1900, and Hilgenfeld, in *ZWT, * xliii, 1900, p. 3). The Syriac text of Revelation published by De Dieu (Leyden, 1627) and now in the common Syriac New Testaments belongs to this version (cf. J. Gwynn, in *Hermathena, *1898, 227-245). On the revision of the Old Testament undertaken by Jacob of Edessa in 704-705, cf. Kamphausen, in *TSK, *1869, 753, and A. Ceriani, *Monumenta sacra et profana, *v, 1 (Milan, 1871). Mention must also be made of the Palestinian version (used by the Melchite Church in Palestine and Egypt). Of the Old Testament, only fragments remain. The New Testament has been known from an evangeliarium at Rome since 1789 (published by F. Miniscalchi-Erizzo, Verona, 1861-1864, and by Lagarde, *Bibliotheca Syriaca, *Göttingen, 1892). Since that time many new texts have been brought to light, especially through Mrs. Lewis. A full list is given in the *Lexicon syropalæstinum * of F. Schulthess (Berlin, 1903), pp. vii-xvi. F. C. Burkitt (*JTS, *ii, 183) gives reasons for believing that this literature may have a connection with the attempts of Justinian in the fifth century to extirpate the Samaritans, and of Heraclius early in the sixth century to harass the Jews. This peculiar dialect is important lexically, as being closely akin to the language spoken in Galilee. E. NESTLE. BIBLIOGRAPHY: The first parts of the Bible printed in Syriac are in Ambrosius Theseus, *Introductio in Chaldaicam linguam, Syriacum alque Armenicam, *Pavia, 1539 (cf. *ZDMG, *lviii, 1904, 601). The Old Testament appeared first in the Paris Polyglot, vols. vi-ix, 1632-45, then in the London Polyglot, vols. i-iv, 1654-57, reprinted by S. Lee for the *BFBS, *London, 1823 (other copies, 1824; on their differences—one set contains Ps. cli, the other not—cf. *ZDMG, *lix, 1905, 31), and at Urumiah (with modern Syriac added), 1852. The text is very bad, resting on a single late manuscript at Paris adapted by Gabriel Sionita, editor of the Paris Polyglot, from which the London Polyglot and Lee took it with scarcely any correction the Urumiah edition, at least in some parts, with but few corrections (cf. W. E. Barnes, *An Apparatus critical to Chronicles in the Peshitta Version, *Cambridge, 1897; G. Diettrich, *Ein Apparatus criticus zur Pesitto zum Propheten Jesaia, *Giessen, 1905). Bernstein and Rahlfe have published emendations, the former in *ZDMG, *iii, 1849, 387-396, the latter in *ZATW, *ix, 1889, 161-210. A. M. Ceriani published a photographic reproduction of the *Codex Ambrosianus, *Milan, 1876-83. The Apocrypha was published by Lagarde, Leipsic, 1861. The first critical edition of the Gospels was by P. E. Pusey and G. H. Gwilliam, Oxford, 1901; for the rest of the New Testament there are the editions of the American mission at Urumiah, 1846, New York, 1846, etc. The edition most used in textual criticism hitherto has been that of J. Leusden and C. Schaaf, Leyden, 1709 and 1717, reprinted by Jones, Oxford, 1805 (cf. Tischendorf on Matt. x, 8, with the note of Pusey-Gwilliam). The entire Bible was printed by the Dominicans at Mosul, 1887-91. A list of editions to 1888 is contained in Nestle, *Litteratura Syriaca *(reprinted from *Syrische Grammatik, * Berlin, 1888), 17-30. Consult further: Beck, *Editiones principes Novi Testamenti Syriaci, * Basel, 1771; J. Le Long, *Bibliotheca sacra, emendata . . . ab A. G. Masch, *i, part 4, pp. 54-102, 5 vols., Halle, 1778-90; A. M. Ceriani, *Le Editioni e i manoscritti delle versione Siriache del vecchio Testamento, * Milan, 1889; *Printed editions of the Syriac New Testament, *in *Church Quarterly Review, * July, 1888, 255-297; *Syriac New Testament translated into Eng. by J. Murdock, with a bibliographical Appendix, * by I. H. Hall, 6th ed., Boston, 1893; G. H. Gwilliam, *The Ammonian Sections, Eusebian Canons and Harmonizing Tables in the Syriac Tetraeuangelium, *in *Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, *ii, Oxford, 1890; idem, *Materials for the Criticism of the Peshitto, *ib, iii, 1891; Scrivener, *Introduction, *ii, 6-40; F. C. Burkitt, *Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, Introduction, *vol. i, London, 1905. On the Old Testament in the Peshito consult: J. Prager, *De veteris testamenti versions Syriaca quam Peschitto, *Göttingen, 1875; J. Perles, *Meletemata Peschitthoniana, *Breslau, 1860; J. M. Schönfelder, *Onkelos und Peschittho, *Munich, 1869. On parts of the Old Testament: L. Hirsel, *De Pentateuchi versionis Syriacæ indole, *Leipsic, 1815; S. D. Lussatto, *Philoxenus sive de Onkelosi Chaldaica Pentateuchi versione, * Vienna, 1830; F. Tuch, *De Lipsiensi codice Pentateuchi Syriaco, *Leipsic, 1849; E. Schwartz, *Die syrische Uebersetzung des 1. Samuelis, *Berlin, 1897; J. Berliner, *Die Peschitta zum 1. Buch der Könige, *Berlin, 1897; S. Fränkel, in *JPT, *1879, pp. 508, 720 (on Chronicles); A Oliver, *A Transl. of the Syriac Peschito Version of the Psalms, * Boston, 1861; F. Bäthgen, *Untersuchungen über die Psalmen nach der Peschito, *Kiel. 1878; idem, in *JPT, *viii (1882), 405, 593; F. Dietrich, *Commentato de psalterii usu *in *ecclesia Syriaca, *Marburg, 1862; B. Oppenheim, *Die syrische Uebersetzung . . . der Psalmen, *Leipsic, 1891; J. F. Berg, *Influence of the Septuagint upon the Peshitta Psalter *New York, 1895; Techen, *Glossar, *in *ZATW, *xvii (1897), 129, 280 (on Psalms); Baumann (on Job), in *ZATW, *xviii-xx (1898-1900); J. A. Dathe, *De ratione consensus . . . Syriacæ Proverbiorum, * Leipsic, 1764; A. S. Kamenetzky (on Ecclesiastes), in *ZATW *xxiv (1904); G. Dietrich, *Die Massorah der östlichen und westlichen Syrer, *London, 1899; idem, *Textkritischer Apparat, *1905 (Isaiah); C. H. Cornill, *Das Buch des Propheten Ezechiel, * pp. 137-156, Leipsic, 1886; C. A. Credner, *De prophetarum minorum versionis Syriacæ . . . indole, *Göttingen, 1827; M. Sebök (Schönberger), *Die syrische Uebersetzung der zwölf Prophsten, *Breslau, 1887; V. Ryssel, *Untersuchungen über die Textgestalt . . . des Buches Micha, *Leipsic 1887; J. J. Kneucker, *Das Buch Baruch, *pp. 190-198, Leipsic, 1889; T. Nöldeke, *Die Texte des Buches Tobit, *in *Monatsberichte der Berliner Akadamie, *1879, pp. 45-69. On the New Testament: *The Peshito Versions of the Gospels, *ed. G. W. Gwilliam, London, 1901. On the Curetonian: C. Hermansen, *De codice evangeliorum Syriaco, *Copenhagen, 1869; Le Hir, *Étude sur une ancienne version syriaque des evangiles, *Paris, 1859; G. Wildeboer, *De waarde der syrische evangelian, door Cureton ontdekt, *Leyden, 1880; Fr. Bäthgen, *Evangelienfragmente, *Leipsic, 1885; H. Harman, *Cureton Fragments, *in *JBL, * 1885, June-Dec., pp. 28-48. On the Mepharreshe, J. R. Crowfoot, *Fragmenta Evangelica, * London, 1870; idem, *Collation in Greek of Cureton's Syriac Fragments, * ib. 1872. On the Sinai Palimpsest: M. D. Gibson, *How the Codex was found, *Cambridge, 1893; Mrs. R. L. Bensly, *Our Journey to Sinai . . . with a Chapter on the Sinai Palimpsest, * London, 1896; K. Holshey, *Der neuentdeckte Codex Syrus Sinaiticus, *Munich, 1895; A. Bonus, *Collatio codicis Lewisiani . . . cum codice Curetoniano, * Oxford, 1896. For further accounts of the Lewis codex consult the files of the *Athenæum, Academy, Contemporary Review, Expository Times, Guardian, Church Quarterly Review, TLZ, *and similar journals for the years 1893-96. On the Peshito in textual criticism consult: *The Oxford Debate on The Textual Criticism of the New Testament, * London, 1897; T. W. Etheridge, *Horæ Aramaicæ. With a Transl. of . . . St. Matthew and . . . Hebrews from the . . . Peshita, *London, 1843; idem, *The Apostolical Acts; Transl. from the Peshito and a later Text, *London, 1849; W. Norton, *A Transl. . . . of the Seventeen Letters . . . of the Peshito Syriac, * London, 1890; J. Gwynn, *Older Syriac Version of the four Minor Catholic Epistles, * in *Hermathena, *1890. On Tatian: A. Hjelt, in T. Zahn, *Forschungen, *vii, 1 (1903); Mrs. Lewis, in *Expositor, *Aug., 1897, June, 1890. ### IV. The Samaritan Pentateuch: This must not be confounded with the Hebrew text of the Pentateuch in Samaritan characters or with the Arabic version used by the Samaritans. All three are contained in the famous triglot manuscript in the Barberini Library at Rome of the year 1227 (for facsimile cf. G. M. Bianchini's *Evangeliarium quadruplex, * Rome, 1749, or, on a reduced scale, F. G. Kenyon, *Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, * London, 1896, pl. v). The question of the age of this targum depends on the decision of the question whence the readings are taken which are found under the rubric *to Samaraitikon * in some fifty marginal notes of Origen's Hexapla (to the passages collected by Field add Lev. xv, 8; Deut. viii, 22, xxxiv, 1-3, from the margins of Lagarde's *Bibliotheca Syriaca*). The most probable view seems to be that not Origen but Eusebius took these notes from the Hebrew Pentateuch as used among the Samaritans. On a Samaritan inscription found at Amwas (Emmaus) cf. *Revue Biblique, *1896, p. 433. E. NESTLE. The Samaritan Pentateuch is essentially the same as the Hebrew. The variations, aside from those of a linguistic character, are the following: the narrative of action or declaration by Moses is often preceded by the statement that he acted or spoke by divine direction; Gen. ii, 2a, "seventh" is changed to "sixth"; anthropomorphisms are removed, and in Gen. xx, 13, xxxi, 53, xxxv, 7, Ex. xxii, 8, the plural predicate after Elohim is changed to the singular to avoid a polytheistic implication; "Ebal" (Deut. xxvii, 4) was displaced by Gerizim for national reasons. The Samaritan Pentateuch is proved by these changes to be a revision of the Jewish, but a revision made in early times (possibly pre-Christian), though the modern tendency is to ascribe the text now extant to the second Christian century. BIBLIOGRAPHY: The text was first printed in the Paris Polyglot, 1643, then in Walton's Polyglot, 1657. Other editions of the whole or of parts are: A. Brüll, *Das samaritanische Targum zum Pentateuch, * Frankfort, 1873-75, with two appendices which appeared 1875-76; H. Petermann and C. Vollers, *Pentateuchus Samaritanus . . ., *i, *Genesis, * Berlin, 1872, ii, *Exodus, *1882, iii, *Leviticus, *1883, iv, *Numeri, *1885, v, *Deuteronomium, *1891; J. W. Nutt, *Fragments of a Samaritan Targum, *London, 1874; F. Field, *Origenis Hexaplorum, *i, p. lxxxii-lxxxiv, Oxford, 1875; S. Kohn, in *Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judantume, * 1894; pp. 1-7, 49-67. On various phases of the relation to text-criticism consult: J. Morinus, *Exercitationes in utrumque Samaritanorum Pentateuchum, * Paris, 1881; idem, in the Preface of his edition of the Septuagint, 1828; W. Gesenius, *De Pentateuchi Samaritani indole, *. . . Halle, 1815; G. B. Winer, *De versionis Pentateuchi Samaritanæ indole, * Leipsic, 1817; S. Kohn, *De Pentateucho Samaritano . . ., *ib. 1865; idem, *Samaratanische Studien, *Breslau, 1868; idem, *Zur Sprache, Literatur und Dogmatik der Samaritaner, * Leipsic, 1876; idem, in *ZDMG, *xxxix (1885), 165-226; A. Cowley, in *JQR, *viii (1896), 562 sqq., and in *JE, * x, 687; idem, *A Supposed Early Copy of the Samaritan Pentateuch, * in PEF, *Quarterly Statement, *Oct., 1904; P. Kahle, *Textkritische und lexikalische Bemerkungen zum samaritanischen Pentateuchtargum, *Leipsic, 1898; J. Skinner, *Notes on a newly acquired Samaritan MS, *in *JQR, * xiv (1901), 26-36; W. E. Barton, *The Samaritan Pentateuch, *in *Bibliotheca sacra, *lx (1903); R. Gottheil, in *JBL, *xxv, part 1, 1906; J. A. Montgomery, *The Samaritans, *Philadelphia, 1907. ### V. Aramaic Versions (The Targams): ### 1. Origin and Language. These are Aramaic paraphrases of the Old Testament (*targum* – "interpretation, translation," from *targem, * "to explain, translate"; cf. Ezra iv, 7) prepared for use in the synagogue, and took their rise from the custom of repeating and explaining the Hebrew sacred text in the Aramaic tongue, which after the exile became the vernacular of the Jews in Palestine and elsewhere. At first the targum was a free oral exposition; then it gradually acquired fixed form, and at last was reduced to writing. It is frequently found in manuscripts following the Hebrew text verse by verse. When the Law was read, the paraphrase was given after every verse; with the Prophets three verses were allowed to be taken together. The language of the Targums used to be called Chaldee, because Jerome so named the Aramaic portions of the Hebrew Bible, which are written in a dialect very akin to that of the Targums. In reality, these have preserved the Jewish form of the Aramaic, the next cognate dialect being Syriac, the form of the Aramaic used by the Christians of Edesea, while still other cognate dialects are those of the Palmyrene inscriptions and of the Samaritans (see SEMITIC LANGUAGES). The grammatical and lexicographical use of the Targums is hampered by the fact that no edition has as yet appeared that takes account of all the materials now available. Mercier vocalized the texts after the Syriac, Buxtorf after the Biblical Aramaic; the edition printed by Foa (Sabbionetta, 1557) seems to rest on a manuscript in which the supralinear system of vocalization had been changed into that of Tiberias, but with many faults and inconsistencies. The most original system of vocalization is that preserved in manuscripts from Yemen, on which cf. the works of Merx, Berliner, Landauer, Kautzsch, Margoliouth ( *The Superlinear Punctuation, *in *PSBA, * xxiii, 164-205), and Barnstein ( *The Targum of Onkelos to Genesis, *London, 1896), and the editions of Prätorius ( *Joshua, *Berlin, 1899; *Judges, *1900). ### 2. Targum Onkelos. For the greater part of the Old Testament there is more than one Targum. One on the Pentateuch is attributed in some passages of the Talmud to the helpers of Ezra. According to the Babylonian Talmud (*Megillot * 3a), Onkelos delivered it orally in Palestine; but this is the result of confusing Onkelos with Aquila, who translated the Old Testament into Greek (see above, I, 2, § 1), and "Judaic Pentateuch-Targum" is a better name than "Targum of Onkelos," which has been in use since Bomberg's Rabbinic Bible of 1517. In the third century its text seems to have been considered fixed, and manuscripts are mentioned several times, but Origen and Jerome apparently did not know a Targum, and hence we may conclude that it did not find official recognition before the fifth century. Its language is different from that of both Talmuds, and seems to render the original into the language of the place and time of its origin (Palestine) as faithfully as a translation which is somewhat paraphrastic can do. The Hebrew text on which it rests is practically our Masoretic text, and it is of interest as representing the exegetical tradition of the Jews. It is quite literal, gives a messianic interpretation of Gen. xlix, 10, and Num. xxiv, 17, additions to Gen. xlix, Num. xxiv, Deut. xxxii, 33, and avoids all anthropomorphisms. Like the Hebrew text, it has been the subject of Masoretic studies, which have been edited by Berliner *(Die Massorah zum Targum Onkelos, *Leipsic, 1877). ### 3. Targum Jonathan. The Targum of the Prophets has been ascribed to Jonathan ben Uzziel, Hillel's greatest disciple; others give as its redactor Joseph ben Hiyya of Babylon (d. about 333); but it did not receive its final written form before the fifth century. It is more paraphrastic than the Targum of the Law, which induced Cornill to think that it is older. Eichhorn and Bertholdt thought they recognized different hands. The paraphrase is greatly influenced by the book of Daniel. Isa. liii is understood of the Messiah, whose suffering atones for Israel. Great enmity is shown against Rome. ### 4. Other Targums of the Law and Prophets. The two Targums just described represent the Judaic Aramaic; of a mixed character is the language of Targums Yerushalmi I and II on the Law. Some verses are missing from the former, and the latter is preserved only in fragments. Certain other fragments found in various manuscripts and editions of the Pentateuch are designated by Dalman (*Grammatik, *§ 6, 3) as Yerushalmi III. There are similar fragments of a Targum on the Prophets published by Lagarde from the margins of Reuchlin's codex (on which cf. Bacher, in *ZDMG, *xxviii). Bassfreund (*Das Fragmententargum zum Pentateuch, *Breslau, 1896) and similarly Dalman (*Grammatik, *§ 6, 4) see in Onkelos the oldest Palestinian Targum and in Yerushalmi I and II a later development. M. Ginsburger, on the contrary (*Pseudo-jonathan, *Berlin, 1903, preface), and Bacher find in them traces of a very old Palestinian Targum, which has been worked over by Onkelos. The comment in these pieces is sometimes very fantastic. ### 5. The Hagiographa. The Targums of the Hagiographa are not translations, but commentaries; the Targum of the Song of Solomon, for instance, is a panegyric of the Jewish nation with foolish anachronisms, the Targum of the Psalms is in some parts literal, in others explanatory. The Targum of Proverbs is a working over of the Syriac translation (cf. Pinkuss, in *ZATW, *xiv, 65, 161). As the Hagiographa were not read in the Synagogue as regularly as the Law and the Prophets (cf. Lk. iv, 16; Acts xiii, 15; xv, 21), their Targums are to some extent private literary works of differing character. For Ezra-Nehemiah and Daniel no Targum is known, unless the Aramaic parts of Daniel are fragments of a Targum. For Esther there are two Targums. E. NESTLE. BIBLIOGRAPHY: The best grammar is G. Dalman, *Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch, *Leipsic, 1894, *Ausgabe mit Dialektproben, *1896, 2d ed., 1905 (gives valuable compend of literature). The first special dictionary for the Targum is the *Meturgeman *of Elias Levita, Isny, 1541; quite complete but unsatisfactory linguistically is J. Levy, *Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Targumim, *2 vols., Leipsic, 1867-68. The whole range of Aramaic literature is treated in Nathan ben Jehiel *Sepher he-aruk *(c. 1100 A.D.), first printed without place and date, but before 1480 A.D., new ed., by A. Kohut, Vienna, 1878-92 (cf. *JE, *ix, 180-182). Others are: G. F. Boderianus (1573), printed in the Antwerp Polyglot; J. Buxtorf, *Lexicon chaldaicum, *1640, new ed., B. Fischer, Leipsic, 1869-75; M. Jastrow, *Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Jerushalmi and the Midrashic Literature, * 2 vols., New York, 1903 (the most accessible); G. Dalman, *Aramäisch-neuhebräisches Wörterbuch mit Lexikon der Abbreviaturen, * von G. Händler, Frankfort, 1897-1901. The Targum of Onkelos was first printed Bologna, 1482, with Hebr. text and Rashi's commentary; best edition by Foe, at Sabbionetta, 1557, republished by A. Berliner at Berlin, 1884 (cf. Lagarde, *Mittheilungen, *ii, 163-182); latest edition in the Hebrew Pentateuch *Sefer keter tora * at Jerusalem, 1894-1901. Parts are in A. Merx, *Chrestomathia Targumica, * Berlin, 1883; in E. Kautzsch, *Ueber eine alte Handschrift des Targum Onkelos, *Halle, 1893; and G. Dalman, *Aramäische Dialektproben, *Leipsic, 1896. Translations are that in Eng, by J. W. Etheridge, including Onkelos, Jonathan, and the Jerusalem fragments, 2 vols., London, 1862, and the Latin transl. by P. Fagius, Strasburg, 1546. On the text-critical value and other relations consult: S. Landauer, *Die Masorah zum Onkelos, * Leipsic, 1877; H. Barnstein, *Targum of Onkelos to Genesis, * London, 1896; G. Diettrich, *Grammatische Beobachtungen, * in *ZATW, *xx (1900), 148-159; E. Brederek, in *TSK, *lxxiv (1901), 351-377; A. Merx, *Die Vokalisation der Targume, * in *Verhandlung des 5ten orientalischen Congress, *ii, part 1, pp. 142-188. On the person of Onkelos consult: D. Luzzatto, *Philoxenus, *Cracow, 1895; M. Friedmann, *Onkelos und Akylas, * Vienna, 1896; *JE, *ii, 36-38, ix, 405, xii, 58-59. The editions of the Targums of Jonathan are: For the "Former Prophets" 1st edition, Leiria, 1494, for the whole, in the first Rabbinic Bible, Venice, 1517; by Lagarde after Reuchlin's MS., 1872 (cf. A. Klostermann in *TSK, *xlvi, 1873, 731-767); Joshua and Judges by Praetorius from South Arabian MSS., Berlin, 1899-1900; Jonah and Micah by Merx, in his *Chrestomathia, *ut sup.; Nahum by Adler, in *JQR, *vii (1895), 630-657; Jer. i-xii by Wolfsohn, 1903; Ezekiel, i-x by Silbermann, 1902; the Haftaroth in the Hebrew Pentateuch *Sefer keter torah, *ut sup. Consult also: C. W. H. Pauli, *The Chaldee Paraphrase on the Prophet Isaiah, *London, 1871; Z. Frankel, *Zu dem Targum der Propheten, *Breslau, 1872; W. Bacher, in *ZDMG, *xxviii (1874), 1-72, 157, 319; H. S. Levy, *Targum on Isaiah, with Commentary, *London, 1889. Yerushalmi I and II were first published in Bomberg's Rabbinic Bible, Venice, 1517. The best editions of both are by M. Ginsburger, *Pseudo-Jonathan, *Berlin, 1903, and *Das Fragmententhargum, *1899 (cf. Barnstein, in *JQR, * xiii, 1899, 167; *ZDMG, *lviii, 1904, 374-378). On both Targums, cf. Dalman, *Grammatik, *§ 6, 1-2; on an important manuscript of Yerushalmi II at Nuremberg, cf. Lagarde, *Mittheilungen, *iii, Göttingen, 1889, 87. The Targum of the Hagiographa: The first edition of Job, Ps., Prov., and the Rolls was in the Rabbinic Bible, Venice, 1517, which books were reprinted by Lagarde in 1873; the best edition of the Targum on Esther is by M. David, Berlin, 1898 (cf. Posner, *Das Targum Rischon zu Esther, *Breslau, 1896); Ecclesiastes, from South Arabian *MSS., *by A. Levy, ib. 1905. Consult E. Brederek, *Konkordanz zum Targum Onkelos, *Giessen, 1906; H. L. Strack, *Einleitung in das A. T., *§ 84, Munich, 1906. ### VI. The Armenian Version: The Armenian translation of the Old Testament rests on the Greek, though it shows in certain passages and books traces of revision either from the Syriac or from the Hebrew. The Greek text used seems to have been dependent on Origen, for in some Armenian manuscripts hexaplaric marks are found. In the manuscripts (not in the printed editions) various pseudepigraphic books appear. The Armenian Psalter printed for the British and Foreign Bible Society at Venice, 1850, was rejected in consequence of these additions. Ecclesiasticus has been translated twice, first in the fifth century, this version being printed in the Venice Bible, 1860; again probably in the eighth century, found in Zohrab's edition of the Armenian Bible of 1805. On the statements of Koriun, Lazar of Parpi, and Moses of Chorene, that the Scriptures were translated by Mesrob, Sahag, Eznik, and others between 396 and 430 from manuscripts brought from Edessa, Constantinople, and Alexandria, cf. Conybeare, *DB, *i, 152 (see ARMENIA, II, §§ 2-3). A collation of the Armenian version was made for Holmes-Parsons (see above, I, 1, § 2), and is being made afresh for the forthcoming Cambridge Septuagint by McLean (cf. Swete, *Introduction, *London, 1900, p. 118). Theodoret states that in his time the language of the Hebrews was translated into that of the Armenians, Scythians, and Sauromatians. A concordance to the Armenian Bible has been printed in the cloister of San Giacomo at Jerusalem (1895). The uncanonical writings of the Old Testament found in Armenian manuscripts in the library of San Lazzaro were translated into English by J. Issaverdens (Venice, 1901); on Ter Moosesjan's *History of the Translation of the Bible into Armenian, * cf. H. Goussen, in *Nouvelle Revue de Théologie, *1904, p. 9. For the New Testament Mill used some notes on the Armenian version by W. Guise and L. Piques. For Tregelles C. Rieu collated Zohrab's edition of 1805. His notes were used by Tischendorf in the eighth edition of his New Testament; Gregory catalogued sixty-four manuscripts in Europe (outside of Russia) and America. At Moscow is a copy of the Gospels dated 887, at Echmiadzin is the manuscript 222 written in 989, but with an ivory binding which is much older. Conybeare discovered in this manuscript, after Mark xvi, 8, the words *Ariston eritzou *("of the presbyter Arist[i]on"), which probably preserve the name of the author of the close of the second Gospel. The Gospels have invariably the so-called Ammonian sections; the Acts and Epistles of Paul, the Euthalian additions (see AMMONIUS OF ALEXANDRIA; EUTHALIUS); at their end is found the apocryphal correspondence of Paul with the Corinthians. After John follows sometimes the apocryphal "Rest of John." The Apocalypse is said to be a recension made by Nerses Lambron in the twelfth century; a much older version is indicated by H. Goussen (cf. Gregory, *Textkritik, *Leipsic, 1902, p. 568). The inclusion of the apocryphal correspondence of Paul with the Corinthians and other characteristics of this version and the whole history of the Armenian Church confirm the view that the Armenian version was first based on the Syriac Bible and afterward revised from the Greek; cf. on this question Conybeare and Burkitt. E. NESTLE. BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Armenian Bible was first printed, Amsterdam, 1666, from a single MS.; of this the edition by Mechitar, Venice, 1733, was in the main a reprint; the first critical edition was by Zohrab, Venice, 1805. Consult Scrivener, *Introduction, *ii, 148-154; Gregory, *Textkritik, *i, 565-573; F. C. Conybeare, in *DB, *i, 151-154, and in *The Expositor, *1893, pp. 242 sqq., and Dec., 1895; F. C. Burkitt, in *EB, *iv, 5011, 5028; A. Abeghian, *Vorfragen zur Entstehungsgeschichte der altarmenischen Bibelübersetzungen, *Marburg, 1906; idem, *Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der altarmenischen Bibelübersetzungen, *Tübingen, 1907. ### VII. Egyptian Coptic Versions: According to Zosimus Panopolitanus, the Hebrew Bible was translated into Egyptian at the same time as the Septuagint (see above, I, 1, § 6); according to the life of St. Anthony, he heard the Gospel read in church in the Egyptian language. But the latter statement is not certain enough to justify the supposition that the Egyptian version of the New Testament goes back to the middle of the third century. At that time Christianity in Egypt seems to have been restricted to the Greek-speaking towns. Modern scholars distinguish linguistically as many as five or six Coptic dialects; for the textual critic the Coptic versions fall into three divisions, although a former generation knew only one and called it the Coptic, i.e., the Egyptian, version. These divisions are: (1) The Saidic or the version of Upper Egypt, sometimes called the Thebaic; (2) the Fayyumic (formerly called the Bashmuric), with which text the fragments in the Middle-Egyptian dialect agree; (3) the version now in ecclesiastical use among all Copts or Egyptian Christians, called Bohairic. The Bohairah ("Lake") is a district near Alexandria and Lake Mareotis, the modern Beherah. There is a fourth dialect called Akhmimic; but the version of the Catholic Epistles in this dialect, preserved in a very ancient manuscript, is properly classed with the Saidic version. Bashmuric had already died out in the time of Athanasius. The Bohairic version was for a long time the only one known to European scholars, and is still supposed by some to be the earliest version in any Egyptian dialect; but with better reason others see in it a late recension, characterized by greater faithfulness to the Greek, the basal Greek text being best represented by the Greek Codex L and, among the Fathers, not by Clement and Origen, but by Cyril. Of the Saidic manuscripts some of the more ancient are bilingual, the Greek occupying the page on the left hand of the open book; the Bohairic manuscripts, on the contrary, are often accompanied by an Arabic translation, but there is no instance of a Greco-Bohairic manuscript. When written in two columns the Greco-Saidic manuscripts have both Greek columns on the left and both Saidic on the right, and occasionally the two pages of the codex give different readings. The text of this version generally supports that represented by Codex B, but it has some strange "Western" singularities; for instance, to Luke xxiii, 53, it is added that Joseph placed a stone at the door of the sepulcher, which twenty men were scarcely able to move, and in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus the name of the former is given as "Nineveh." Revelation seems to have been considered uncanonical, for it is not found with the rest of the New Testament. E. NESTLE. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Ersch and Gruber, *Allgemeine Encyclopädie, * Section 2, vol. xxxix, 12-36; J. P. Martin, in *Polybiblion, *i, 126, Paris, 1886; A. Schulte, *Die koptische Uebersetzung der vier grossen Propheten, *Münster, 1893; Scrivener, *Introduction, *ii, 91-144; H. Hyvernat, *Étude sur les versions Coptes de la Bible, *in *Revue Biblique, *v (1896), 3, 427-433, 540-569, vi (1897), 1, 48-74; Gregory, *Textkritik, *i, 528-553; *DB, *i, 668-673; *EB, *iv, 5006-11, 5027; W. E. Crum is accustomed to note new Biblical texts in the annual *Archæological Report *of the Egypt Exploration Fund (cf. that for 1905-06, pp. 66 sqq.). On the Bohairic version of the Old Testament, especially the Pentateuch, cf. A. E. Brooke, in *JTS, *iii, 258-278. For the Bohairic New Testament there is now the fine edition of the Clarendon Press by G. Horner, *The Coptic Version of the N. T. in the Northern Dialect, otherwise called the Memphitic and Bohairic, with Introduction, critical Apparatus, and literal Eng. transl., *vols. i-ii, Gospels, 1898, vols. iii-iv, Acts and Epistles, 1905. The Saidic New Testament is edited by P. J. Balestri in *Sacrorum bibliorum fragmenta copto-sahidica Musei Borgiani, * vol. iii, Rome, 1904; the Berlin manuscript of the Psalter, by A. Rahlfs, *GGA, *iv, 4,1901; cf. also J. O. Prince, *Two Versions of the Coptic Psalter, *in *JBL, *xxi, 92-99; E. O. Winstedt, *Sahidic Biblical Fragments in the Bodleian Library, *in *PSBA, *xxvii, 2; and C. Wessely, *Sahidischgriechische Psalmenfragmente, *Vienna 1907. For parts of the Old Testament cf. Lagarde's *Pentateuch, *Leipsic, 1867, *Psalterii versio Memphitica, *Göttingen, 1875, and (for Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, and Psalms) his *Ægyptiaca, *1883; vols. i and ii of the Borgian Fragments, by Ciasca, 1885-89; on the importance of the Egyptian version of Job, cf. Lagarde, *Mittheilungen, *Göttingen, 1884, i, 203. ### VIII. The Ethiopic Version: In Ethiopic there exists a translation of the Bible which has continued the only one authorized among Abyssinian Christians, and even among the Jewish Falashas; and it still maintains its ancient authority, although the Ethiopic long ago ceased to be spoken. There is no reliable information as to the exact time or manner of its origin; but it is certain that it was made from the Septuagint in the early days of Abyssinian Christianity, between the fourth and the sixth century. It is very faithful, being, for the most part, a verbal rendering of the Greek, readable and fluent, and in the Old Testament often renders closely the ideas and the words of the Hebrew. Dillmann projected an edition of the Ethiopic Old Testament in five volumes, of which he lived to publish vols. i, Gen.-Ruth (1853), ii, Sam.-Kings (1861-71), and v, the Apocrypha (1894). He arranged the manuscripts in three groups: (1) those which contain the original translation from the Septuagint uncorrupted; (2) those the text of which has been revised and completed from the Greek; (3) those which have been corrected from the Hebrew. From the circumstance that the Ethiopic Church was dependent on that in Egypt, it is probable that the particular recession of the Septuagint from which the Ethiopic translation was made was the Hesychian (see above, I, 1, § 5). But the early Aramaic speaking missionaries influenced the translation, as is shown by the numerous Aramaic words which are employed to convey Christian ideas. Possibly the Bible was translated, at least in part, by these missionaries or their pupils. The division into chapters was introduced at a later day into Abyssinia, under European influences. The Ethiopic Bible includes the Apocrypha, except the books of Maccabees, which were either not translated or very early lost, and several pseudepigrapha, and puts them upon perfect equality with the canonical writings; and in this way the number of books is given as eighty-one, forty-six for the Old Testament, thirty-five for the New. (See ABYSSINIA AND THE ABYSSINIAN CHURCH.) (F. PRÄTORIUS.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: For lists of Ethiopic MSS. available consult the *Catalogues *by A. T. d'Abbadie, Paris, 1859 (a general list), by C. F. A. Dillmann (for British Museum), London, 1847 (for Bodleian Library), Oxford, 1848, and (for Berlin) Berlin, 1878, by W. Wright (for British Museum), London, 1877, and by H. Zotenberg (for Bibliothèque Nationale), Paris; *ZDMG, *v, 164 sqq. (for those in Tübingen), *ZDMG, *xvi (for Vienna), *Bulletin scientifiqus publié par l'Académie des Sciences, *ii, 302, iii, 145 sqq. (for those in St. Petersburg), and a general list in C. R. Gregory, *Prolegomena, *iii, 900-912, Leipsic, 1894. On the version consult: C. F. A. Dillmann, in *Jahrbücher der biblischen Wissenschaft, *v (1853), 144-151; Reckendorf, in *ZATW, *vii (1887), 61-90; P. J. Bachmann, *Dodekapropheton æthiopum, *part 1, *Obadiah, *Halle, 1892, Part 2, *Maleachi, *1893, *Die Klagelieder, *1893, *Jesaia, *1893; L. Goldschmidt, *Bibliotheca æthiopica, *Leipsic, 1893; Hackspill, in *ZA, *xi (1897), 150-151. The subject is treated also in C. R. Gregory, *Prolegomena, *iii, 894-900, ut sup.; in the *Einleitung *of König, 1893, p. 113, of Jülicher, 1894, p. 388, and of Cornill, 1898, p. 338, and the *Introduction * of Scrivener, ii, 154-155. The best ed. of the Old Testament is that of Dillmann (ut sup.). The New Testament was first printed at Rome in 1548-49 by the Abyssinian Tasfa-Sion or, as he is also called, Peter the Ethiopian, reprinted in the London Polyglot. An ed. was issued by T. P. Platt for the BFBS in 1828-30, reprinted at Leipsic, 1899. ### IX. The Georgian (Iberian) Version: The earliest translations of parts of the Bible in the language of the Iberians belong to the fifth century, and seem to betray the influence of the Syriac version. David and Stephen in the eight century are the first names known of men engaged in revision of the Iberian Bible. A papyrus Psalter is assigned to the seventh or eighth century, and a copy of the Gospels is dated a century later (facsimile in Tsagareli). The edition printed at Moscow, 1743, has been retouched from the Slavonic. S. C. Malan in 1862 used this version for his edition of the Gospel of John. On the Georgian manuscripts of the library at Paris there is a recent paper by A. Khakhanov. E. NESTLE. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Scrivener, *Introduction, *ii, 156; A. A. Tsagareli, "Information about the Monuments of Georgian Literature" (Russian), parts i-iii, St. Petersburg, 1886-94; C. R. Gregory, *Prolegomena, *iii, 922-923, Leipsic, 1894; idem, *Textkritik, *i, 573; J. M. Bebb, in *DB, *iv, 861; A. Palmieri, *Le Versione Georgiane della Bibbia, *in *Bessarione, *2 ser., vol. v, 259-268, 322-327, vi, 72-77, 189-194, Rome, 1901-02. On the people consult: A. Leist, *Das georgische Volk, *Dresden, 1903. ### X. The Gothic Version of Ulfilas: Ulfilas, the Moses of the Goths, as Constantine styled him (cf. *TSK, *1893, 273), was made bishop probably in 341 at Antioch and died in 381 or 383. He gave to his people the alphabet and the Bible, but, according to Philostorgius (*Hist. eccl., *ii, 5), omitted to translate the books of Kings because he thought they contained too much about war for the good of his fierce countrymen. Of the Old Testament very few fragments are left; viz., Gen. v, 3-30; Ps. lii, 2-3; Ezra xv (i.e. Neh. v), 13-16; xvi, 14-xvii, 3; xvii, 13-45. The translation follows the recension of Lucian (see above, I, 1, § 5). The Gothic priests Sunnias and Fretela, who were in correspondence with Jerome about the true readings of certain passages in the Psalter some twenty years after the death of Ulfilas (cf. Jerome, *Epist., *cvi), were perhaps engaged in a revision of the Gothic Psalms. That the Psalms were sung in Gothic at Constantinople is testified by Chrysostom (cf. the dissertation of J. Mühlau, *Zur Frage nach der gotischen Psalmenübersetzung, *Kiel, 1904). On the fragments of Ezra (Nehemiah), cf. E. Langner, *Die gotischen Nehemia-fragmente *(Sprottau, 1903). More of the New Testament is preserved, thanks to the *Codex Argenteus *now in Upsala, also by a palimpsest from Weissenburg discovered in Wolfenbüttel in 1756, and fragments at Turin discovered by Angelo Mai in 1817 and by Reifferscheid in 1886. The *Codex Argenteus *must have had a very near relationship to *Codex f. *of the Latin Bible (cf. M. Haupt, *Die Vorrede der gotischen Bibelübersetzung, * in his *Opuscula, *vol. iii, Leipsic, 1876; Burkitt, *JTS, *i, 129; Kauffmann, *ZDP, *xxxii, 305-335; Dräseke, *ZWT, *1907). It was perhaps part of a Greek, Gothic, and Latin Testament. The version is very faithful, following the text used by Chrysostom. More than 100 Greek and Latin words were retained by Ulfilas (cf. C. Elis, *Ueber die Fremdwörter und fremden Eigennamen in der gotischen Bibelübersetzung, *Göttingen, 1903). E. NESTLE. BIBLIOGRAPHY: E. Bernhardt, *Kritische Untersuchungen über die gothische Bibelübersetzung, *Meiningen, 1867; K. Weinhold, *Die gothische Sprache im Dienste des Christenthums, *Halle, 1870; A. Kisch, *Der Septuaginta-Codex des Ulphilas *in *Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, *xxii (1873), 42-46, 85-89, 215-219; O. Ohrloff, *Die Bruchstücke . . . der gothischen Bibelübersetzung, *Halle, 1873; idem, in *ZDP, *vii (1878), 251-295; A. Schaubach, *Ueber das Verhältnis der gothischen Bibelübersetzung . . . zu der Lutherischen . . . *, Meiningen, 1879; G. Kaufmann, in *Zeitschrift für deutsches Alterthum, *xxvii (1883); K. Marold, *Kritische Untersuchungen über den Einfluss des Lateins auf die gotische Bibelübersetzung, * Königsberg, 1881; C. R. Gregory, *Prolegomena, * iii, 1108, Leipsic, 1894; F. Kauffmann, in *ZDP, *xxix (1896), 306-337; W. Bangert, *Der Einfluss lateinischer Quellen auf die gothische Bibelübersetzung, * Rudolstadt, 1880; W. Luft and F. Vogt, in *Zeitschrift für deutsches Alterthum, *xlii (1898); J. Mühlau, *Zur Frage nach der gotischen Psalmenübersetzung, *Kiel, 1904. On the language consult: G. H. Balg, *Comparative Glossary of the Gothic Language, *8 parts, New York, 1887-90; J. Wright, *A Primer of the Gothic Language, *London, 1899; on the Gothic alphabet, W. Loft, *Studien zu den ältesten germanischen Alphabeten, *Gütersloh, 1898. The *Codex Argenteus *was first published by Franciscus Junius (du Jon), Dort, 1665; with the other fragments, glossary, etc., by H. C. de Gabelentz and J. Loebe, Leipsic, 1836 and 1846; in facsimile by A. Uppström, Upsala, 1854, supplemented in 1857 by ten leaves which had been stolen but afterward recovered. The edition most used in Germany is by F. L. Stamm, Paderborn, 1858, 9th ed., with dictionary by M. Heyne and grammar by F. Wrede, 1896. Another ed. with apparatus is by E. Bernhardt, Halle, 1875 (text ed., 1884). There is an American edition by G. H. Balg, *The First Germanic Bible, *Milwaukee, 1891. Partial eds. are J. Bosworth, *The Gothic and Anglo-Saxon Gospels . . . with . . . Wycliffe and Tyndale, *London, 1885, new ed., 1907, and W. W. Skeat, *Mark, *London, 1882. ### B. Modern Versions. ### I. Arabic Versions: "There are more Arabic versions of the Gospels than can be welcome to theology, with its press of work," wrote Lagarde in the preface of his edition of the four Gospels in Arabic (Leipsic, 1864). There are translations made from Hebrew, Samaritan, Coptic, Latin, Syriac, and Greek. There was not, as it seems, a translation into Arabic before Mohammed (cf. M. J. de Goeje and M. Schreiner, in *Semitic Studies in Memory of Alexander Kohut, *Berlin, 1897, p. 495). John of Seville is said to have produced an Arabic Bible about 737; the chronicle of Michael Syrus mentions an Arabic translation of the Gospels made under direction of John, patriarch of Antioch, at the command of the emir Amru. The "Indians" mentioned by Chrysostom between Egyptians and Persians as in possession of the Scriptures in their mother tongue may be South-Arabians, but there is no additional information about this version. Of translations from the Hebrew Old Testament, by far the most important is the work of Saadia ben Joseph, the Gaon, from the Fayyum (d. 942; see SAADIA). On Saadia and his translation, cf. H. Ewald and L. Dukes, *Beiträge zur Geschichte der ältesten Auslegung und Spracherklärung des alten Testaments, *ii (Stuttgart, 1844); S. Munk, in *La Bible, traduction nouvelle . . . par S. Cahen, *ix (Paris, 1838), 73-159; M. Steinschneider, *Die arabische Literatur der Juden * (Frankfort, 1902), 56 sqq.; and especially the edition of his collected works by J. H. Derenbourg, vol. i, the Pentateuch (Paris, 1893); iii, Isaiah (1896); iv, Proverbs (1899); v, Job (ed. Bacher, 1899). On the question of the text, cf. P. Kahle, *Die arabischen Bibelübersetzungen . . . *(Leipsic, 1904), no. viii, and against him Bacher, in *TLZ, *1905, no. 8. Saadia's translation of the Pentateuch was printed first in Hebrew letters with the Hebrew text, Targum and a Persian translation at Constantinople, 1546, then in the Paris and London Polyglots (see BIBLES, POLYGLOT, III, IV). For Genesis and Exodus, cf. Lagarde, in his *Materialien zur Kritik *(Leipsic, 1867). Kahle used for his Specimen a manuscript of Florence and Wolfenbüttel, not used by Derenbourg. On Isaiah, cf. Derenbourg, in *ZATW, *1890, pp. 1-84. Of Job there is an edition by J. Cohn (Berlin, 1889). On the Psalms, cf. the dissertations of Haneberg in *AMA, * 1841, iii, 2; J. Cohn, in *Magazin für die Wissenschaft des Judentums, *1881. On Canticles, cf. A. Merx, *Die Saadjanische Uebersetzung des Hohen Liedes ins Arabische *(Heidelberg, 1882). On Proverbs, cf. a dissertation of Jonas Bondi (Halle, 1888). On Saadia's system of translating, cf. W. Engelkemper, *De Saadiæ Gaonis vita, bibliorum versione, hermeneutica *(Münster, 1897). There are other Arabic translations made from the Hebrew by Jews such as the *Arabe Erpenii, *a translation of the Pentateuch made by an African Jew in the thirteenth century (published by Erpenius, Leyden, 1622), and a translation of the Psalms made by the Karaite Japhet ben Eli (ed. J. J. L. Bargès, Paris, 1871); a specimen of his commentary on Genesis is in Kahle, viii; his commentary on Deuteronomy was edited by S. Margoliouth, in *Anecdota Ozoniensia, *Semitic series, vol. i, part 3, 1899. Hosea and Joel from an Oxford manuscript were edited by Schröter, in *Archiv für wissenschaftliche Erforschung des Alten Testaments, *i and ii (1869-70). A *Fragment einer arabischen Pentateuchübersetzung *was published by J. Hirsch, Leipsic, 1900. The first specimen of an Arabic translation of the Samaritan text was published by A. C. Hwiid (Rome, 1780) from the famous triglot in the Barberini library; then by Paulus, 1789 and 1791; better by de Sacy, in *Mémoires de l'Académie des Inscriptions, *xlix, 1-199; S. Kohn, in *Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, *vol. v, part 4 (Leipsic, 1876), 1-499; J. Bloch, *Die samaritanisch-arabische Pentateuchübersetzung *(Berlin, 1901); and Kahle, ut sup., no. vi. The Samaritans seem to have used at first the translation of Saadia; soon after 1000 they made a translation of their own, which was revised in the middle of the thirteenth century by Abu Said; Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus of this version were edited by Kuenen, 1851-54 (cf. A. Cowley, in *JE, *x, 677). Many Coptic manuscripts have an Arabic translation by the aide of the Coptic text; in other manuscripts containing only an Arabic version, this is derived from the Coptic (cf. *Arab. 3 *in the Greek Pentateuch of Holmes-Parsons; see above, I, 1, § 2); for Job such a translation has been edited by Lagarde, *Psalterium, Job, Proverbia arabice *(Göttingen, 1876); on Psalms, cf. *Psalterium Coptice, *ed. M. G. Schwartze (Leipsic, 1843), v. From the Latin, either made from it or corrected by it, are the Roman editions such as that of Sergius Risi (Arabic and Latin, 3 vols., Rome, 1871), the Gospels (1591), and Psalms and Prophets (1814). A new recension by Rafael Tuki contains only Genesis-Nehemiah and Tobit (2 vols., 1752). The edition of 1671 without the Apocrypha has been frequently reprinted by the BFBS since 1822 after it had reprinted the Arabic portion of the London Polyglot under the supervision of J. D. Carlyle (Newcastle, 1811). In 1858 the Gospels, in 1860 the New Testament, in 1865 the Old Testament appeared in the new translation begun by the American missionary Eli Smith and finished by C. V. A. Van Dyck at Beirut, with the help of native scholars. It has been frequently reprinted in Beirut, Oxford, London, and New York. In competition with this translation are two from Roman Catholics, the one undertaken by the Dominicans of Mosul under the direction of Joseph David (4 vols., 1875-78), the other by the Jesuits in Beirut (3 vols., 1876-82; reproduced by photolithography in 1 vol. 1897; cf. on these editions Kahle, iii sqq.; A. G. Ellis, *Catalogue of Arabic Books in the British Museum, *London, 1894 sqq.; the Bible Catalogue of the same library; and Darlow-Moule, *Historical Catalogue of the Collection of the BFBS, *ii, London, 1908). Independent translations of the New Testament are those of Salomo Negri (London, 1727) and of Nathanael Sabat (Calcutta, 1816). There is also an edition of the Psalms by Negri (London, 1725; cf. G. A. Freylinghausen, *Memoria Negriana, *Halle, 1764). From the Syriac Bible is the text of Judges, Ruth, Samuel, I Kings i-xi, II Kings ii, 17 to the end, Chronicles, Neh. ix, 28 to end, and Job in the Paris and London Polyglots. The first four books are, according to Rödiger, by the same author, the rest by different authors. Psalms, Proverbs, and Job have been reissued by Lagarde (*Psalterium, *etc., ut sup.) and the whole with few alterations by the BFBS (1811, ut sup.). A Psalter in Syriac and Arabic in Syriac letters (the so-called Karshunic script; i.e., Gersom's manner of writing) was printed by Maronite monks of Mount Lebanon at Koschaya, 1610 (perhaps as early as 1585), and reprinted in Arabic type by Lagarde. Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy in the *Materialien *of Lagarde seem to have been derived from the Syriac Bible. A translation of the Syriac Hexapla of the Pentateuch and Wisdom is the work of Hareth ben Senan ben Sabat (cf. Nestle, in *ZDMG, * 1878, p. 468; Holmes-Parsons, *Præfatio ad Pentateuchum,* and Kahle, ut sup., ix). The fragments of Job were edited by Baudissin, 1870. From the Greek are translated the prophets and the poetical books (except Job) in the Polyglots perhaps also the Psalms as edited by Athanasius, patriarch of Antioch (Aleppo, 1706), reprinted by Lagarde with a translation of the tenth century by Abu al-Fath Abdallah ben Fadhl. Gregory (*Textkritik, *Leipsic, 1902) mentions 137 Arabic manuscripts for the New Testament. On no. 136, cf. Stenij, *Die altarabische Uebersetzung der Briefe an die Hebräer, an die Römer und an die Korinther * (Helsingfors, 1901). For the manuscripts on Mount Sinai, cf. the catalogue of Mrs. M. D. Gibson, in *Studia Sinaitica, *iii (Cambridge, 1894), and her publication of a part of an Arabic translation of the Epistles of St. Paul in no. ii (1893) of the same collection; also in no. vii (1899), an Arabic translation of Acts and of the seven Catholic Epistles from an eighth or ninth century manuscript. On the revision of the Arabic made about 250 at Alexandria by Hibath Allah ibn al-Assaly with various readings from the Greek, the Syriac, and the Coptic, cf. D. B. Macdonald, in the *Hartford Seminary Record, *Apr., 1893. Finally, the Arabic version of Titian's *Diatessaron *(ed. Ciasca, Rome, 1888) must not be forgotten. E. NESTLE. BIBLIOGRAPHY: On the MSS. the one indispensable book is I. Guidi, *Le traducioni degli evangelii in arabo . . . ,* Rome, 1888; and valuable is also C. R. Gregory, *Prolegomena, *iii, 928-947, Leipsic, 1894. On the version and editions consult: Walton's *Polyglot, Prolegomena, *chap. 14, London, 1852; C. F. Schnurrer, *Bibliotheca arabica, de Pentateucho arabico . . . , *Tübingen, 1780; H. E. G. Paulus, *Commentatio critica, *Jena, 1789; R. Holmes, *Vetus Testamentum Græce, *the Preface to the Pentateuch, Oxford, 1798; J. Roediger, *Commentatio . . . de interpretatione Arabica . . . , *Halle, 1824; idem, *De origins . . . Arabica . . . interpretationis, *ib. 1829; J. Gildemeister, *De evangeliis in Arabicum . . . translatis, *Bonn, 1865; Gregory, *Textkritik; *Scrivener, *Introduction, *ii, 161-164; F. C. Burkitt, in *DB, *i, 138-138 (a lucid presentation). ### II. Celtic Versions: No version of the Bible or of single Biblical books in any of the Celtic dialects has come down from the pre-Reformation period, though a few Biblical extracts in Old Irish (8th-11th centuries) are extant in homilies. After the establishment of the English Church in 1560 as the State Church, Bishop Nicholas Walsh of Ossory and others made an effort toward giving the Bible to the Irish people, and the New Testament, translated by William O'Donnell, archbishop of Tuam, was published at Dublin in 1603 in Irish characters. This edition was republished at London in 1681, and in 1685 the Old Testament, translated by Bishop William Bedell of Kilmore and others, was issued. This edition was often reprinted, especially in a revised form by the British and Foreign Bible Society in 1827. A translation of the New Testament into the modern dialect of Munster by Dr. R. O'Kane appeared at Dublin, 1858. Of the Roman Catholic translation prepared by Archbishop John MacHale of Tuam from the Vulgate, the first volume only (Genesis-Joshua) has appeared (Tuam, 1861). Gaelic, which is spoken in the Highlands and western isles of Scotland, is related to Irish; consequently the Scottish Minister Robert Kirke, in order to satisfy the needs of the Protestant Highlanders, had O'Donnell's Irish translation of the New Testament printed in Roman letters and supplied with an Irish-Gaelic glossary (London, 1690). To provide the Gaelic-speaking Highlanders with a Bible of their own, the Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge published in 1767 the New Testament translated by James Stuart of Killin, and in 1783-1801 a translation of the Old Testament prepared by John Stuart, Jr., and John Smith. At the instance of the same society, Dr. Mark Hildesley, bishop of Man, distributed different parts of the Bible among the Manx-speaking clergy of the Isle of Man, with the view of having a translation prepared into this tongue. The whole was revised by P. Moore and his pupil John Kelly. In 1770-72 the Bible in Manx was printed for the above society at Whitehaven under the supervision of J. Kelly, and is the basis of all later editions. Before the Reformation hardly any parts of the Bible were translated into Cymric. In 1562 the House of Commons resolved to have the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer translated into Cymric within four years, and made the bishops of Bangor, St. Asaph, Hereford, Llandaff, and St. Davids responsible for its execution. The New Testament was published in London in 1567, and in 1588 the whole Bible (revised by Bishop Richard Parry, 1620). All later issues follow Parry's revised text. The Bible has never been translated into Cornish. A manuscript belonging to the first half of the eighteenth century contains a translation of Gen. i, iii; Matt. iv, vi, 9-13, vii; and the ten commandments. Before the beginning of the nineteenth century only short passages of the Bible had appeared in the Breton. The British and Foreign Bible Society published at Angoulême in 1827 the New Testament translated by the Breton scholar Le Gonidec into the dialect of Léon. The translation was made from the Vulgate, and was for other reasons unsuitable. A new translation by the Baptist missionary John Jenkins was printed at Brest in 1847. Le Gonidec's translation of the Old Testament was revised by Troude and Milin, and published at Saint-Brieuc in 1866. In 1883 the Trinitarian Bible Society published a New Testament in the dialect of Tréguier, prepared by the Breton Protestant G. Ar C'hoat, and in 1889 the whole Bible. A Roman Catholic translation of the New Testament was published in Guingamp in 1853, and an edition of the Psalms at Paris in 1873. For linguistic purposes C. Terrien translated the Gospel of Matthew into the dialect of Vannes (Lundayn, 1857) at the instance of Lucien Bonaparte. (H. ZIMMER.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. Reid, *Bibliotheca Scoto-Celtica, *Glasgow, 1832; the *Scottish-Celtic Review, *Nov., 1881, pp. 150 sqq.; T. Llewelyn, *An Historical Account of the British or Welsh Versions and Editions of the Bible, *London, 1768; W. Rowland, *Llyfryddiaeth of Cymry, *pp. 10-21, 41-50, 93-97, Llandloes, 1869; *Revue Celtique, *vi, 382, xi, 180-190, 368; *Bible of Every Land, *pp. 151-173, London, 1861; I. Ballinger, *The Bible in Wales, *London, 1906. ### III. Dutch Versions: The first printed Dutch version (Delft, 1477), was made, apparently by a layman, probably about 1300 from the Latin. Some parts, which the translator was unwilling to popularize, as Deut. xxii, 13-21, are passed over with a reference to the Latin text. Difficult passages have explanations mostly from the *Historia scholastica *of Peter Comestor. The printed edition omits Psalms and the New Testament, though both are contained in a good manuscript of this version at Vienna. A very good translation of the Psalms is found is several incunabula. About 1,300 translations of the New Testament, or at least of the church lessons or of the life of Christ, began to be made. A translation of the New Testament of Erasmus appeared at Delft in 1524, and two years before at Antwerp a translation of Luther's version was printed by Hans van Roemundt (repeated at Basel, 1525 and 1526, also, a little altered, at Amsterdam, 1526). The Old Testament with the Pentateuch and Psalms translated from Luther, the rest the text of the Delft edition revised, was printed, also by Roemundt, in 1525 in four small vols.; and the first complete Dutch Bible was printed at Antwerp in 1526 by Jacob van Liesveldt. It was reprinted and corrected several times until 1546, when Charles V prohibited the edition. Roman Catholic editions of the New Testament followed in 1527, 1530, and 1533, in Dutch and Latin in 1539. The whole Bible did not appear until after the meeting of the Council of Trent, at Cologne in 1548 by Alexander Blanckart, and at Louvain in the same year by Nicolaus van Winghe with a sharp preface against the Protestant editions. In 1599 it was revised after the official Vulgate of 1592, again in 1717 by Ægidius Wit of Ghent. After 1820 the Roman Catholics were allowed to use editions without notes, and such an edition of 1599, called the Mörentorf Bible (from its publisher), was circulated by the British and Foreign Bible Society. The division of Dutch Protestantism into various parties, Lutherans, Mennonites, and Reformed, caused the production of various versions. The Lutherans received a version in 1558 after Bugenhagen's edition in Low German; it has been several times revised and reprinted up to 1851. The Mennonites used a version printed by Nicolaes Biestkens at Emden in 1560, the first Dutch edition with verse divisions. The Reformed received another in 1556, based on the Zurich Bible of 1548-49 (see below, VII, § 5); but in 1562 they adopted a version based on Luther's, called the Deux Aes or Eulenspiegel Bible (from the marginal notes at Neh. ii, 5 and Ecclus. xix, 5). The Remonstrants used at first the *Staatenbibel *(see below) but received a New Testament of their own from Hartsoeker in 1680. After the beginning of the seventeenth century the necessity of improving the Dutch versions was felt and was shown especially by W. Baudartius of Zutphen, who published in 1614 an emended translation. As early as 1594 the States General determined on undertaking a revision. The result is the *Staatenbibel*. At first Philips van Marnix was entrusted with the task of a new translation; in 1596 Johannes Drusius was appointed his assistant. The Synod of Dort discussed the question in eight sessions in Nov., 1618, and May, 1619. The work of translation was completed in 1632, the revision of the Old Testament Sept., 1634, that of the New Testament, Oct. 10, 1635. The first edition was printed, with and without notes, in 1636, but not published before July 29, 1637. An official list of misprints followed in 1655 and in 1711 for the first time an edition was stereotyped. An edition of 500 copies of the New Testament was printed for Peter the Great in 1717, and of the Old Testament in five parts in 1721, in two columns, one being left blank in order to receive in St. Petersburg the Russian text. Language and orthography raised difficult questions in a revision of 1762, and another by Henry Cats and W. A. van Hengel in 1834. The first impression for the British and Foreign Bible Society was made in 1812. About the middle of the last century members of the theological faculty of Leyden began a new revision; the New Testament was finished in 1866; work on the Old Testament was interrupted for a time, but was resumed in 1884 by A. Kuenen and his pupils, H. Oort, W. H. Kosters, and J. Hooykas. The first instalment appeared at Leyden in 1897, the first part (Gen.-Esther) in 1900, the second part (Job-Malachi) in 1901. Of other translations that by J. H. van der Palm (1825 and often) is worthy of mention. The New Testament has been translated by G. Vissering, a Mennonite (1854), by S. P. Lipman, a Roman Catholic (1861), and by G. J. Vos of the Reformed Church (1895). E. NESTLE. BIBLIOGRAPHY: The really important work is Isaac Le Long, *Boek-Zaal der nederduitsche Bybels, *Amsterdam, 1732, 2d ed., 1764. Consult also *Bible of Every Land, *pp. 181-186, London, 1861; H. van Druten, *Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche Bijbelvertaling, *2 vols., Leyden, 1896-97; G. N. De Vooys, *ThT, *March, 1903; J. M. Bebb, in *DB, * extra vol., pp. 414-415. On the *Staatenbibel *consult N. Hinlopen, *Historie van de Nederlandsche Oversettinge des Bybels, *Leyden, 1777; P. Meyjes, *Jacobus Revius, *Amsterdam, 1895; J. Heinsius, *Klank-en Buigingsleer van de taal des statenbijbels, * Amsterdam, 1897. ### IV. English Versions: ### 1. The Earliest Versions. Setting aside the Biblical poetry that is in the main wrongly ascribed to the Anglo-Saxon Cædmon, and the translation of John's Gospel which Bede finished on his deathbed, but of which nothing further is known, the Psalms seem to have been the first part of the Bible to be translated into English. An Anglo-Saxon paraphrase is extant containing the first fifty Psalms in prose, the rest in verse (ed. B. Thorpe, Oxford 1835), which has been incorrectly attributed to Aldhelm, bishop of Sherborne, who died in 709, and to King Alfred; the name of the translator is not known, but he did his work after 778 and used the Latin, not the Greek text, as did all the others down to and including Wyclif. A translation of the four Gospels was made probably in the ninth century (ed. Matthew Parker, 1571; T. Marshall, 1665; B. Thorpe, *The halgan Godspel on Englisc. The Anglo-Saxon Version of the Holy Gospels, *London, 1842; Joseph Bosworth and George Waring, *The Gothic and Anglo-Saxon Gospels, *London, 1865; new ed., 1907), and interlinear glosses for the Psalms and the Gospels in the ninth and tenth centuries *(Psalterium Davidis Latino-Saxonicum vetus, * London, 1640). The so-called Vespasian Gospels probably belong to the first half of the ninth century (cf. J. Stevenson, *Anglo-Saxon and Early English Psalter, *2 vols., London, 1843-47; H. Sweet, *The Oldest English Texts, Early English Text Society, * vol. 83, London, 1885, pp. 183-420; E. Wende, *Ueberlieferung und Sprache der mittelenglischen Version des Psalters und ihr Verhältnis zur lateinischen Vorlage, *Breslau, 1884). There are other similar glosses to the Psalter in the libraries of Cambridge University and Trinity College, Cambridge, in the British Museum, in the Bodleian at Oxford, in Lambeth Palace, and Salisbury Cathedral. For other Gospel versions, cf. G. Stevenson and G. Waring, *The Lindisfarne and Rushworth Gospels *(4 vols., Durham and London, 1854-65); K. W. Bouterwek, *Die vier Evangelien in altnorthumbrischer Sprache * (Gütersloh, 1857); W. W. Skeat, *The Gospel according to Matthew, etc. *(Cambridge, 1887,—Mark, 1871; *Luke, *1871; *John, *1878); A. S. Cook, *A Glossary of the Old Northumbrian Gospels *(Halle, 1894). Alfric translated the Pentateuch and Joshua in 997-998. The following may also be mentioned: homilies on the lessons by the Augustinian monk Ormin in the twelfth or thirteenth century (the so-called Ormulum); the translation of the Psalms by William de Shorham, vicar of ChartSutton, near Leeds in County Kent, about 1325 (the manuscript in Trinity College, Dublin, owned by John Hyde and perhaps written by him, may be a revision of this translation); and the commentary with a translation of the Psalms by Richard Rolle of Hampole near Doncaster, Yorkshire, written about 1330 (cf. H. R. Bramley, *The Psalter . . . by Richard Rolle . . . Edited from Manuscripts, *Oxford, 1884; Heinrich Middendorff, *Studien über Richard Rolle von Hampole, *Magdeburg, 1888). ### 2. Wyclif. The language developed and the thoughts of men strode onward. John Wyclif entered the lists to war for the pure truth, and he determined to give the people the Bible. With the help of his pupil Nicholas of Hereford he seems to have translated the whole Bible, and when he was charged with heresy and driven from Oxford in 1382, he withdrew to Lutterworth and revised the whole very carefully. His pupil John Purvey appears also to have revised some things in the Old Testament; he did all he could to spread the translation abroad after Wyclif's death (cf. *The New Testament in English, Translated by John Wyclif circa 1380, now first printed from a contemporary manuscript. . . . Printed at Chiswick by Charles Whittingham for William Pickering, *London, 1848; Josiah Forshall and Frederic Madden, *The Holy Bible . . . in the Earliest English Versions Made . . . by John Wycliffe and his Followers, * 4 vols., Oxford, 1850, with a list of 170 manuscripts; J. ten Brink, *Geschichte der englischen Litteratur, *vol. ii, by Alois Brandl, Strasburg, 1893, pp. 5-32, especially pp. 27; A. Richter, *Das Wycliffesche Evangelium Johannis im 500. Bde. der Tauchnitzer Collection of British Authors, die Wycliffesche Bibelübersetzung, und das Verhältnis des ersteren zu der letzteren, *programme of the gymnasium at Wesel, Aug. 30, 1862). The first English Bible, the first Bible at all in a modern tongue, was well received by the people, but for a century and a half was the object of attack by Priests and nobility. Even long after the discovery of printing no one could think of publishing this translation. It finally came out as a literary necessity in 1731, edited by J. Lewis (reprinted by H. H. Baber, London, 1810, and by Batter, London, 1841; the edition of 1848 is named above). For another version of this period consult the work of a Swedish lady, Anna C. Paues, *A Fourteenth Century English Biblical Version *(Cambridge, 1904). ### 3. Tyndale. The first to translate the New Testament in English from the original Greek was William Tyndale. He printed Matthew and Mark first, somewhere on the Continent, in 1524 and 1525, and then the whole New Testament in quarto, partly at Cologne at Peter Quentel's before 1526, partly, it seems, at Worms (at Peter Schöffer's?) in 3,000 copies, and in octavo at Cologne at Schöffer's in 3,000 copies. Both editions were in England by about March, 1526 (cf. *The First Printed English New Testament Translated by William Tyndale. Photolithographed. . . . Edited by E. Arber, * London, 1871; *The First New Testament Printed in the English Language . . . by William Tyndale. Reproduced in facsimile . . . by F. Fry, * Bristol, 1862; James Loring Cheney, *The Sources of Tyndale's New Testament, * Halle, 1883, especially pp. 39, 40; W. Sopp, *Orthographie und Aussprache der ersten neuenglischen Bibelübersetzurtg von William Tyndale, *Marburg, 1889). The hierarchy attacked Tyndale's work violently. The first public burning of the volume appears to have taken place in the autumn of 1526. William Warham, archbishop of Canterbury, thought in May, 1527, that his agents had bought up all the copies of all three editions. In 1528 the readers of the New Testament had to take their turn at being burned. Tyndale published the Pentateuch Jan. 17, 1530 (see TYNDALE, WILLIAM), Joshua in 1531. ### 4. Coverdale. Other Editions. William Roye, George Joye (afterward a bitter enemy), Miles Coverdale, John Rogers, and John Frith were among the friends who from time to time worked with Tyndale. Coverdale completed at Antwerp, Oct. 4, 1535, the printing of his translation of the whole Bible "out of Douche and Latyn" (i.e. the German of Luther and the Zurich Bible of 1524-29–see below, VII, § 5–and the Vulgate), using also Tyndale's work. This was the first complete Bible in English; in it the non-canonical books of the Old Testament are in an appendix by themselves, named "Hagiographa." In 1537 the "Matthew" Bible came out, a speculation on the part of the king's printer, although most of it was perhaps printed in Antwerp; it was a combination of Tyndale and Coverdale, made by John Rogers (alias Matthew) in Antwerp. In 1539 appeared the "Taverner" Bible, a revision of the Matthew Bible by Richard Taverner. The "Great" Bible was brought out by Cromwell, Earl of Essex, Thomas Cranmer, and Thomas More, and a committee of prelates and scholars, and was printed under Coverdale's supervision, partly at Paris, till the Inquisitor-General attacked it Dec. 17, 1538, and then in London, where the volume was finished in Apr., 1539; the second edition ("Cranmer's" Bible, 1540) was "apoynted to the vse of the churches"; the Psalter from this Bible still stands in the prayer-book of the English Church. In 1557 William Whittingham published at Geneva an English New Testament with Stephens's verse-division of 1551 (see BIBLE TEXT, III, §§ 2-3) and with many corrections of the translation. In 1558 Coverdale began in Geneva a new Bible, but returned to England in 1559, while Whittingham, Anthony Gilby, and Thomas Sampson finished the printing of the handsome edition known as the "Geneva" Bible in Apr., 1560. Archbishop Parker with eleven bishops and four minor prelates began in 1583 a revision of the edition of 1539, which was completed Oct. 5, 1568, as the "Bishops'" Bible; but it was not especially liked; in the churches they used chiefly the Bible of 1539 and at home the Geneva Bible. See BIBLES, ANNOTATED, AND BIBLE SUMMARIES, II, §§ 1-2. ### 5. The Douai Bible. The Roman Catholic fugitives on the Continent now prepared an English version and published the New Testament at Reims in 1582; the Old Testament followed in two volumes at Douai in 1609-10 (the first edition of the "Douai" Bible; cf. Gregory Martin, *A Discoverie of the Manifold Corruptions of the Holie Scriptures by the Heretikes of our Daies, *etc., Reims, 1582; William Fulke, *A Defence of the Sincere and True Translations of the Holie Scriptures . . . against . . . Gregorie Martin, *London, 1583, ed. C. H. Hartshorne for the Parker Society, Cambridge, 1843). [Both works profess to be "faithfully translated out of the authentical Latin, diligently conferred with the Hebrew, Greek, and other editions in divers languages," and are provided with arguments of books and chapters, annotations, and "other helps for the better understanding of the text, and specially for the discovery of the corruptions of divers late translations, and for clearing the controversies in religion of these days." The New Testament was reprinted at Antwerp in 1600; the two Testaments were united by Richard Challoner in a five volume edition published in London, 1749-50. The version was promoted by Cardinal William Allen and the translation was by Gregory Martin, a former fellow of St. John's College, Oxford, revised by Allen, Richard Bristow, fellow of Exeter College, Oxford, and probably others. The annotations, tables, etc., for the Old Testament were by Thomas Worthington, a graduate of Oxford (Brasenose College) and president of Douai College 1599-1613. The long interval between the publication of the two Testaments was due to lack of means as the translation of both was completed before 1582. The English of the translation is faulty owing to too close following of the Vulgate, and from the critical standpoint it possesses the advantages and defects inherent in that Latin version. An elaborate preface of more than twenty pages explains and justifies the translation. The notes are characterized by the controversial spirit of the time in which they were produced. The Douai version became the standard Bible of the English Roman Catholics and, with extensive changes in language and orthography introduced in Challoner's various editions (see CHALLONER, RICHARD), still remains such. American editions were published in New York in 1854 and 1861. Consult Henry Cotton, *Rhemes and Doway *(Oxford, 1855); F. E. C. Gigot (Roman Catholic), *General Introduction to the Study of the Scriptures *(New York, 1900), pp. 345 sqq.] ### 6. The Authorized Version. Puritan dissatisfaction with existing versions, or perhaps with the existence of another version than the one used and approved by themselves, was urged by John Reynolds, head of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, at the Hampton Court Conference in Jan., 1604. The idea of a new Bible translation, to be made ostensibly at his instance and under his direction, was congenial to James I. By the summer of 1604 the preliminaries were completed. A commission of six "companies," each of nine scholars (two companies each in Westminster, Oxford, and Cambridge; actually forty-seven members took part; for names of the translators, the division of the work, and much other information about the Authorized Version in convenient form, cf. Mombert's *Hand Book, *chap. xiii; Schaff's *Companion, *chap. vii), was appointed by James and very strict rules were laid down for the work. After years of labor (although some say that the work really began only in 1607 and lasted but two years and a half), during which some passages were wrought over fourteen or even seventeen times, the version appeared in 1611 in two folio editions, set up and printed at the same time so as to have a large number of copies very quickly; in the same year a duodecimo edition came out, of which only one copy (in the Lenox Library, New York City) is said to be known, and in 1613 what is called the second folio edition. The translation was then called "The Authorized Version" (although it does not appear ever to have been "authorized") or "King James's Version," and the title read "Appointed to be read in Churches." The translation was good, clear, dignified, idiomatic, and suited to the people. Of course, like everything new, it was at first and for a long time sharply attacked, but little by little it made its way, and in 1661 the Epistles and Gospels in the English prayer-book were changed to this translation. F. H. A. Scrivener published a critical edition of this version: *The Cambridge Paragraph Bible of the Authorized English Version, * etc. (Cambridge, 1873), in which he compared many of the reprints, as well as the revisions of Dr. Paris in 1762, Dr. Blayney in 1769, and of the American Bible Society in 1867; unfortunately Scrivener does not give the exact text of 1611 or of 1613. ### 7. The Revised Version. On Feb. 10, 1870, on motion of Samuel Wilberforce, bishop of Winchester, the Convocation of Canterbury determined upon a revision of the Authorized Version (cf. Mombert, *Hand Book, *chap. xiv; Schaff, *Companion, *chap. viii). About thirty-seven scholars were asked to take up the Old Testament, and about twenty-nine the New Testament, although the number really working at any time was less. At least five religious bodies besides the Church of England shared in the work. In like manner two groups of scholars from nine different religious bodies took up the work in America and the results of the deliberations were exchanged across the sea. The Greek text of the New Testament (cf. *The Greek Testament with the Readings Adopted by the Revisers of the Authorized Version, *Oxford, 1881) was thoroughly worked over and the translation made on the basis of the result compared with the translation of 1611, and in every detail filed and polished. The revised New Testament was published in England May 17, 1881, and in America, May 20, 1881; the Old Testament appeared May 19, 1885. Three million copies of the New Testament were sold within a year. The reception, especially in England, was at first, as was to be expected, not very friendly. A very few indeed were dissatisfied because too few alterations had been made. The great mass struggled against the change of old familiar words and found support in one scholar or another. Some conservative scholars condemned the English dress while they approved the changes made in the original text, and others took offense at the new readings in the original text, because they considered the common readings sacred. America had a peculiar reason for complaint, seeing that many an expression which American scholars had preferred was to be found only in the appendix, and they were bound not to issue a new edition within fourteen years. That time was up in 1896, and the American edition, a model of exact work, appeared in New York in 1901. As the years pass the revision gains friends, and gains them more rapidly than did the revision of 1611. CASPAR RENÉ GREGORY. ### 8. Minor Versions. The following is a list (incomplete) of translations of the Bible or parts of it into English or attempts at revision of the Authorized Version by individuals previous to the revision of 1881-85 (see also BIBLES, ANNOTATED, AND BIBLE SUMMARIES, II). Daniel Mace, a Presbyterian clergyman, N. T. (2 vols., London, 1729; Gk. text with a scholarly but eccentric transl.); Anthony Purver, a Quaker, *A New and Literal Transl. of All the Books of the O. and N. T. *(2 vols., London, 1784; has notes); Edward Harwood, *A Liberal Transl. of the N. T. *(2 vols., London, 1768; described as an attempt to translate the sacred writings with the "freedom, spirit, and elegance" of other translations from the Greek; has notes and includes the First Epistle of Clement); Henry Southwell, entire Bible (London, 1782; the A. V. with notes, "wherein the mistranslations are corrected"); George Campbell, professor in Aberdeen, *The Four Gospels *(2 vols., London, 1789; has dissertations and notes); Gilbert Wakefield, a Unitarian N. T. (3 vols., London, 1791); James Macknight, *All the Apostolical Epistles * (4 vols., Edinburgh, 1795; has commentary, notes, and life of Paul); William Newcome, archbishop of Armagh, N. T. (2 vols., Dublin, 1796; from Griesbach's text; a Unitarian version based on Newcome's work was issued by Thomas Belsham in 2 vols., London, 1808; Newcome also published "attempts" at improved versions of the Minor Prophets, 1785, and Ezekiel, 1788 his manuscript materials for a revised O. T. are in Lambeth Palace); Nathaniel Scarlett, successively a Methodist, Universalist, and Baptist, N. T. (London, 1798; with notes); David Macrae, *A Revised Transl. and Interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures, after the Eastern manner, from concurrent authorities of the critics, interpreters, and commentators' copies and versions, showing that the inspired writings contain the seeds of the valuable sciences, *etc. (2 parts, London, 1798-99); Charles Thomson, entire Bible, the O. T. from the Septuagint (4 vols., Philadelphia, 1808); John Bellamy, O. T. through Song of Sol. (London, 1818 sqq.; has notes); Alexander Campbell, founder of the Disciples of Christ, N. T. (1826; see CAMPBELL, ALEXANDER); Rodolphus Dickinson, an American Episcopalian, N. T. (Boston, 1833; has notes); Noah Webster, the lexicographer, the Bible "with amendments of the language" (New Haven, 1833; the amendments were the removal of obsolete words or "those deemed below the dignity and solemnity of the subject, the correction of errors in grammar, and the insertion of euphemisms, words, and phrases which are not very offensive to delicacy"); Nathan Hale, N. T. (Boston, 1836; from Griesbach's text); Granville Penn, N. T. (London, 1838); C. Wellbeloved a Unitarian, Pentateuch and Job-Song of Sol. (2 vols., London, 1838; "a new transl" with notes); Samuel Sharpe, the Egyptologist, N. T. (London, 1840; from Griesbach's text) and O. T. (3 vols., 1865; there were eight eds. of the former and four of the latter during the author's life; Sharpe's revision is commended for skilful removal of the archaisms of the A. V.); Edgar Taylor, N. T. (London, 1840; from Griesbach's text; a meritorious version); Joshua V. Himes, the "Millerite," N. T. (Boston, 1849); James Murdock, N. T. from the Peshito (New York, 1851); Andrews Norton, Gospels (2 vols., Boston, 1855); Gospel of John (London, 1857) and Pauline Epistles (1861) by Henry Alford, George Moberly, W. G. Humphry, C. J. Ellicott, and John Barrow; L. A. Ambrose, N. T. (Boston, 1858; with chronological arrangement and "improved" chapter and verse divisions); L. A. Sawyer, N. T. (Boston, 1858), entire Bible (New York, 1879 sqq.); Robert Young, author of the concordance, entire Bible (Edinburgh, 1883; very literal); T. S. Green, *The Twofold N. T. *(London, 1864; Gk. text and new transl. in parallel columns); Henry Alford, N. T. (London, 1869); G. R. Noyes, professor in Harvard, N. T. (Boston, 1869; from Tischendorf's text; Prof. Noyes also published translations of Job, 1827, Psalms, 1831, the Prophets, 1833, and Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles, 1846); J. N. Derby, N. T. (2d ed., London, 1872); J. B. Rotherham, N. T. (London, 1872; from text of Tregelles, with introduction and notes); Samuel Davidson, N. T. (London, 1875; from Tischendorf's text, with introduction); J. B. McClellan, Gospels (London, 1875; based on A. V. with a "critically revised" text); Julia E. Smith, entire Bible (Hartford, 1876); *The Revised English Bible *(O. T. by F. W. Gotch and Benjamin Davies, N. T. by G. A. Jacob and S. G. Green, London, 1877; with notes, tables, and maps); *The Sunday School Centenary Bible, *by T. K. Cheyne R. L. Clarks, S. R. Driver, A. Goodwin, and W. Sanday (London, 1880; republished, 1882, as *The Variorum Teacher's Bible*). The American Bible Union, formed in 1850 (see BIBLE SOCIETIES, III, 2), undertook an English version which should reflect Baptist views in the language used, and published the N. T. (2d revision, New York and London, 1869) and certain books of the O. T. Since 1882 the work has been continued by the American Baptist Publication Society of Philadelphia, and is now nearing completion. Among the scholars who have collaborated in this version are John A. Broadus, T. J. Conant, H. B. Hackett, William R. Harper, Alvah Hovey, A. C. Kendrick, Ira M. Price, J. R. Sampey, and B. C. Taylor. A present day tendency is represented by *The Bible in Modern English, *translated direct from the original languages by Ferrar Fenton, with critical introduction and notes (St. Paul's epistles, London, 1894; N. T. complete, 1895; O. T., 1903). The following are by Roman Catholics: John Caryll, a layman, secretary to the queen of James II end intimately associated with the family of James, the Psalms (St. Germains, 1700; a prose version from the Vulgate taking Bellarmine as a guide); Cornelius Nary, pariah priest of St. Michan's, Dublin, *The N. T. . . newly Translated out of the Latin Vulgate *Dublin, 1718; has annotations and notes); Robert Witham, president at Douai, *Annotations on the N. T. *(2 vols., Douai, 1730; explains the "literal sense," "examines and disproves" false interpretations, and gives "an account of the chief differences betwixt the text of the ancient Latin version and the Greek"); "Troy 's Bible" (Dublin, 1791; ed. the Rev. Bernard MacMahon, who had already edited three annotated editions of the Reims N. T.; this Bible is annotated and the text of the N. T. differs considerably from Challoner; the name comes from J. T. Troy, titular archbishop of Dublin, who approved the work); Alexander Geddes, Genesis–II Chronicles and the Prayer of Manasses (2 vols., London, 1792-1797) and Psalms i-cviii (1807; see GEDDES, ALEXANDER); the "Newcastle N. T." (1812; differs from every other known edition in the Gospels and Acts); John Lingard, *A New Version of the Four Gospels *(London, 1836; for the most part from the Greek; has notes); F. P. Kenrick, bishop of Philadelphia, later archbishop of Baltimore, N. T. (2 vols., New York, 1849-51; "a revision of the Rhemish translation with notes"); F. A. Spencer, O. P., N. T. (New York, 1898 sqq.; from the Greek). The work of Bishop Challoner has been referred to above (§ 5). ### 9. Rare and Curious Editions. The following are certain rare and curious editions of the English Bible with the passage or fact which gives to each its name. *The Breeches Bible: *the Geneva Bible of 1560 Gen. iii, 7 reads "They sewed fig leaves together and made themselves breeches" (also in Wyclif); the *Bug Bible: *an edition of the Matthew Bible in 1551; Ps. xci, 5 reads "So that thou shall not nede to be afraid for any bugges [i.e., bogies] by night" (also in Coverdale and Taverner) the *Caxton Memorial Bible: *Oxford, 1877, printed and bound in 100 copies in twelve hours; the *Discharge Bible: *London, 1802; I Tim. v, 21 "I discharge [for charge] thee before God"; the *Ears to Ear Bible: *Oxford, 1807; Matt. xiii, 43, "Who hath ears to ear" (also has "good works" for "dead works" in Heb. ix, 14); the *Goose Bible: *Dort editions of the Geneva Bible because the Dort press had a goose as its emblem; the *He and She Bibles: *the first and the second folio editions of the version of 1611; in Ruth iii, 15, the former reads "He measured six measures of barley and laid it on her: and he went into the city"; the latter "and she went into the city"; both issues were used by printers as copy until in and after 1814 all have "she" (cf. the Revised Version, text and margin); the *Leda Bible: *the first Bishops' Bible (1568); it used a series of initial letters prepared for Ovid's *Metamorphoses *and that for the Epistle to the Hebrews represented Leda and the swan (also called the Treacle Bible, see below); the *Murderers' Bible: *has "murderers" for "murmurers" in Jude 16, also other misprints; the *Placemakers' Bible: *the second edition of the Geneva Bible (1562); has "placemakers" for "peacemakers " in Matt. v, 9; the *Rebekah Bible: *London, 1823; Gen. xxiv, 61, "And Rebekah arose and her camels" (for "damsels"); the *Rosin Bible: *the first Douai Bible (1609-10): Jer. viii, 22 "Is there no rosin in Gilead?" (A. V. "balm"); the *Standing Fishes Bible: *London, 1806; Ezek. xlvii, 10, "The fishes [for fishers] shall stand upon it"; (the error was repeated in editions of 1813 and 1823); the *Thumb Bible: *Aberdeen, 1670; it is about one inch square and half an inch thick; the *To Remain Bible: *Cambridge, 1805; Gal. iv, 29, "Persecuted him that was born after the Spirit to remain even so it is now" (the words "to remain" has been written on the proof in answer to a query whether or not a comma should be deleted; the error was retained in an edition printed for the Bible Society in 1805-06 and in an edition of 1819); the *Treacle Bible: *the first Bishops Bible (1568; also called the Leda Bible, see above); Jer. viii, 22, "Is there no tryacle in Gilead" (cf. the Rosin Bible); the *Vinegar Bible: *Oxford, 1716-17; has "vinegar" for "vineyard" as the heading to Luke xx (it was printed by J. Baskett, and though the most sumptuous of the Oxford Bibles, soon came to be styled "a basketful of printer's errors"); the *Wicked Bible: *London, 1631; the negative was left out of the seventh commandment (it was printed by the king's printer and there were four editions in the same year; all were suppressed and the printer was fined £300); another Wicked Bible (London, 1653) makes Paul ask, I Cor. vi, 9, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God?" the *Wife-Hater Bible: *Oxford, 1810; Luke xiv, 26, "If any man come to me and hate not his father . . . yea, and his own wife [for life] also, be can not be my disciple." The list of misprints might be greatly extended. A Cambridge Bible of 1829, printed and proof-read with great care, introduced "thy doctrine" for "the doctrine" in I Tim. iv, 18, and the error reappeared for many years. An Edinburgh octavo of 1837 has; Jer. iv, 17, " because she hath been religious [rebellious] against me." Perhaps the finest Bible ever printed at Cambridge (1638) has a famous error in Acts vi, 3, which is said to have cost Cromwell £1,000 as a bribe—"whom ye [for we] may appoint." Cotton Mather relates that a Bible printed before 1702 made David complain in Ps. cxix, 161, "Printers [princes] have persecuted me without a cause." The "wicked" Bible of 1631 does not furnish the only instance of an infelicitous omission of a negative; an Edinburgh Bible of 1760 reads, Heb. ii, 18, "He took on him the nature of angels" (correct reading "he took not"); another (Edinburgh, 1818) has, Luke vi, 29, "Forbid [not] to take thy coat also"; and a London Bible of 1817 reads, John xvii, 25, "O righteous Father, the world hath [not] known thee." On the other hand an Edinburgh edition of 1781 makes the Psalmist's prayer (cxix, 35) "Make me not to go in the path of thy commandments." The errors of an Oxford Bible of 1804 include, Num. xxxv, 18, "The murderer shall surely be put together" (for "to death"), I Kings viii, 19, "out of thy lions [loins]," and, Gal, v, 17, "For the flesh lusteth after [against] the Spirit." A Cambridge Bible of 1819 reads in Mal. iv, 2, " shall the son [sun] of righteousness arise . . . and shall [for ye shall] go forth." An Oxford Bible of 1820 has, Isa. lxvi, 9, "Shall I bring to the birth and not cease [cause] to bring forth?" A Cambridge Bible of 1826 has "heart" for "hart" in Ps. xlii, 1, and the error was repeated in an edition of 1830. A Bible printed at Utica, N. Y., in 1829 begins Jas. v, 17, "Elias was a man possible like unto us" ("subject to like passions as we are"). One of Jesper Harding's early editions, published at Philadelphia, has in I Kings i, 21, "The king shall dagger sleep with his fathers" (the copy read "The king shall † sleep with his fathers"). A Bible published at Hartford in 1837 makes II Tim. iii, 18, read, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable . . . for destruction [instruction] in righteousness." An edition printed for the American Bible Society in 1855 has in Mark v, 3, "Who had his dwelling among the lambs [tombs]." The Great Bible in 1539 introduced the mistranslation "fold" for "flock" in John x, 16, and it was not corrected till the Revised Version. Some of the renderings in the early versions are extremely quaint. In Gen. xxxix, 2, Tyndale has, "And the Lord was with Joseph and he was a lucky fellow," and in Matt. vi, 7, "When ye pray, babble not much." Coverdale renders Judges xv, 9, "Then God opened a gome tooth in the cheke bone so the water went out," and I Kings xxii, 34, "Shott the King of Israel between the mawe and the lunges." English-speaking Jews have used freely the Authorized Version, also, since its appearance in 1885, the revised Old Testament. *The Jewish School and Family Bible *(4 parts, London, 1851-61) has a new translation by A. Benisch, and *The Jewish Family Bible *(London, 1884) has a revision of the Authorized Version by M. Friedländer; the latter was sanctioned by the chief rabbi of the British Jews. Isaac Leeser, a pioneer Jewish rabbi and founder of the Jewish press in America, published a translation of the complete Old Testament at Philadelphia in 1854, giving practically new versions of the Prophets, Psalms, and Job and following the Authorized Version in other parts. In 1898 the Jewish Publication Society of America (Philadelphia) took in hand the preparation of a complete revision, with M. Jastrow, Sr., as editor-in-chief and K. Kohler and F. de Sola Mendes as associate editors. In 1905 Dr. Kohler's translation of the Psalms was issued (cf. the *JE*, iii, 194-195). BIBLIOGRAPHY: The most complete view of the literature on the subject is given in S. G. Ayres and C. F. Sitterly, *The History of the Eng. Bible, *New York, 1898 (a bibliography almost exhaustive, arranged in rubrics). The most complete account up to the time of its publication is J. Eadie, *The Eng. Bible, an External and Critical Hist. of . . . Eng. Translations, *2 vols., London, 1876. The most recent, and worthy of confidence, is H. W. Hoare, *Evolution of the English Bible . . . 1882-1885, *London, 1902 (exceedingly handy). Consult further: T. J. Conant, *Popular History of the Translation of the Holy Scriptures into the Eng. Tongue, *New York, n.d.; *The English Hexapla, *published by Bagster, London, n.d., has a valuable preface; *The Bible of Every Land, *pp. 189-205, ib. 1861 (contains specimen paragraphs from several versions); C. Anderson, *Annals of the Eng. Bible, * new ed. by H. Anderson, ib. 1862; *Anglo-American Bible Revision, by Members of the American Revision Committee, *New York, 1879; J. Stoughton, *Our Eng. Bible, its Translations and Translators, *London, 1879; B. Condit, *Hist. of the Eng. Bible, *New York 1882; W. F. Moulton, *Hist. of the Eng. Bible, *London 1882; B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, *The New Testament in the Original Greek, * vol. ii, *Introduction and Appendix, * London, 1881, New York, 1882; J. I. Mombert, *Handbook of the Eng. Versions, *London, 1907 (valuable); A. S. Cook, *The Bible and Eng. Prose Style, * Boston, 1892; idem, *Biblical Quotations in Old Eng. Prose Writers . . . Introduction on Old Eng. Versions, *New York, 1904 (the work of a master, minute and exact); J. Wright, *Early Bibles of America, *ib. 1892 (on printed editions); R. Lovett, *Printed Eng. Bibles 1525-1885, *ib. 1894; T. H. Pattison, *Hist. of the Eng. Bible, *ib. 1894; G. Milligan, *The Eng. Bible, a Sketch of its Hist., * Edinburgh, 1895; P. Schaff, *Companion to the Greek Testament and the Eng. Version, *4th ed., New York, 1896 (deals with the A. V. and R. V.); J. W. Beardslee, *Bible among the Nations; Study of the great Translators, *ib. 1899; G. L. Owen, *Notes on the Hist. and Text of our Early Eng. Bible, * London, 1901; E. H. Foley, *The Language of the Northumbrian Gloss to the Gospel of St. Matthew, *New York, 1903; R. Demans, *W. Tindale: A Biography. Being a Contribution to the Early History of the English Bible, *London, 1904; Anna C. Paues, *Fourteenth Century Eng. Version A. Prologue and Parts of the N. T. now first edited from the MSS., *London, 1904; B. F. Westcott, *General View of the Hist. of the Eng. Bible, *ib. 1905 (the latest ed. of Bishop Westcott's scholarly work); J. R. Slater, *The Sources of Tyndale's Version of the Pentateuch, *Chicago, 1906; S. Hemphill, *Hist. of the R. V. of the N. T., *London, 1906; I. M. Price, *Ancestry of our Eng. Bible, *Philadelphia, 1907. *The Gospels in West Saxon, *ed. J. W. Bright, are appearing in Boston, *Matthew, *1904, *Mark, *1905, *Luke, *1906, cf. *The Gospels, Gothic, Anglo-Saxon, Wycliffe, and Tyndale Versions, *London, 1907. ### V. Finnish and Lappish Versions: Although Swedish was formerly the principal language of Finland, which remained a Swedish province till the year 1809, during the period of the Reformation the land acquired a Finnish ecclesiastical language. A young Finn, Michael Agricola (see FINLAND, § 2) became acquainted with Luther at Wittenberg. Having returned to his native land in 1539, he began to translate religious books into Finnish. His translation of the New Testament was published first in 1548; the Psalms and some of the Prophetical books in 1551-52. In 1642 the entire Bible in Finnish by E. Petræus, M. Stadius, H. Hofman, and G. Favorin was published in Stockholm, Finland having at that time no printing establishment. There were new editions in 1683-85 by H. Florinus, and in 1758 by A. Litzelius; a new translation by A. V. Ingman appeared in 1859. The Lappish and Finnish languages are cognates, the former having several dialects. The Lapps were nominally Christians early in the Middle Ages, but had little real knowledge of Christianity. Thomas von Westen did much for Christian instruction among them during the years 1714-23. Some Christian works were published in Lappish; parts of the Bible were translated and sent to Copenhagen, where they were destroyed by a fire. The Norwegian Bible Society having resolved in 1821 to publish a Lappish translation of the Bible, Provost Kildahl offered his services in 1822 in conjunction with a teacher named Gundersen. Kildahl died the same year, but the work was continued by Gundersen and later by Niels Stockfleth. The first two Gospels were printed in 1838, and the complete New Testament in 1840 (new eds.1850 and, revised, 1874). Stockfleth translated also parts of the Pentateuch (1840), and the Psalms (1854). A Lapp, Lars Hätta, translated the whole Old Testament, which, after being revised by Prof. J. A. Friis and Seminary-Director Quigstad in Tromsö, was printed in 1875. All these are in the Norwegian-Lapp dialect. In the Swedish-Lapp dialect a handbook containing the lessons from the Gospels and the Epistles for the church-year, the Psalms, Proverbs, and Ecclesiasticus was published by J. J. Tornäus at Stockholm in 1648. The New Testament was translated by Per Fjellström and published in 1755; a new edition and also the entire Bible was issued at Hernösand in 1811. J. BELSHEIM. BIBLIOGRAPHY: *Bible of Every Land, *pp. 319-324, London, 1881. ### VI. French Versions: ### 1. The Earlier Versions. The beginnings of a French Bible may be traced at least to the early twelfth century. In all probability pupils of Lanfranc (d. 1089) translated the Psalter for the first time into the French-Norman vernacular. At that time there was scarcely any difference between the Norman and the French (i.e. the dialect used in the Île-de-France, a province having Paris as its capital). The Psalter, together with the canticles used in the Church, was offered to the French-speaking people in a double form; viz., (1) after the *Psalterium Hebraicum, * i.e. the Psalter translated by Jerome directly from the Hebrew (cf. *Le Livre des Psaumes, * ed. from Cambridge and Paris manuscripts, F. Michel, Paris, 1876); (2) after the *Psalterium Gallicanum, * i.e. according to the Psalter carefully revised by Jerome from the Septuagint (cf. *Libri Psalmorum versio antiqua Gallica, *ed. F. Michel, Oxford, 1860; see above A, II, 2, § 2). These translations were made word for word, and are interlinear, the Latin text standing between the lines of the French. The translations from the Gallican Psalter were so well received that down to the Reformation no one ventured on a new rendering. The manuscripts of the French Psalter which are still extant, more than 100 in number, without an exception go back to the old Norman Psalter. About fifty years later Revelation was translated into French in the Norman provinces; also Samuel and Kings (cf. *Les Quatre Livres des Rois, Publiés par le Roux de Lincy, *Paris, 1842). In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries numerous translations originated (cf. G. Paris, *La Littérature française au moyen âge, *Paris, 1890, § 136; J. Bonnard, *Les Traductions de la Bible en vers français, *Paris, 1884). Toward 1170 Peter Waldo, the head of the Poor Men of Lyons, better known later as the Waldenses, brought out translations of several parts of the Bible into the vernacular, which had been made by Lyonnaise priests at his expense, and Pope Innocent III did not rest till these suspicious writings were everywhere suppressed by the Inquisition. Nevertheless some remnants of this old Waldensian literature have been saved from the hands of the inquisitors at Metz and Liége. ### 2. Guyard des Moulins. Of the versions which have been printed, and of which it is possible to give some account, mention may be made of that of Guyard des Moulins, canon of St. Peter's at Aire in Artois, on the borders of Flanders. Taking the *Historia scholastica* of Peter Comestor, composed in 1170 and containing a digest of the Bible history with glosses, he made a free translation of it between 1291 and 1295; added a sketch of the history of Job, Proverbs, and probably the other books ascribed to Solomon; substituted for Comestor's history of the Maccabees a translation of Maccabees from the Vulgate; and in general made the whole conform more closely to the text of the Vulgate than Comestor had done. Psalms, the Prophets, and the Epistles and Revelation were not in the work as first issued, and it is uncertain whether Acts was not also omitted; they were added, however, in later issues. These parts, brought together, received the name *Biblium historiale (Bible historiale; * see BIBLES, HISTORICAL), and it was printed and reprinted in great numbers. An edition completed by different hands and making thus the first complete Bible, was issued by order of Charles VIII about 1487, edited by the king's confessor, Jean de Rely, and printed by Vérard in Paris. Twelve editions of this appeared between 1487 and 1545. This is called *La Grande Bible *to distinguish it from a work entitled *La Bible pour les simples gens, *a summary of the history of the Old Testament, of which five editions, four undated, one dated 1535, have been examined. Previous to the edition of 1487, an edition of the New Testament of the same translation as that found in the supplemented work of Guyard, but not by Guyard himself, was printed at Lyons by Bartolomée Buyer, edited by two Augustinian monks, Julien Macho and Pierre Farget. It is undated, but is referred to the year 1477, and justly claims to be the *editio princeps *of the French Scriptures. ### 3. Protestant Versions. In the year 1523 there appeared at Paris, from the press of Simon de Colinea, an anonymous translation of the New Testament (often reprinted), to which was added in the same year the Psalter and, in 1528, the rest of the Old Testament, issued at Antwerp in consequence of attempts on the part of the French clergy to suppress the book. There can be no doubt that the well-known humanist Jacques Lefèvre d'Étaples (see FABER STAPULENSIS) was the author of this version. The complete work appeared in one volume at Antwerp, 1530. It was placed on the papal Index in 1546; but in 1550 it was reissued at Louvain, edited by two priests, Nicolas de Leuze and François van Larben, who revised the work, striking out all that savored of heresy. The first Protestant version was prepared by Pierre Robert Olivetan within the space of one year, and printed in 1535 by Pierre de Wingle at Serrières, near Neuchâtel, in Switzerland, at the expense of the Waldensians. It was reprinted several times, in one case with a few emendations from the pen of Calvin, in 1545. The Roman critics had denounced Olivetan's work as of little value because of his supposed ignorance of the languages. But he really knew and used the Hebrew to advantage, and the Old Testament was quite well done; but either through press of time or less accurate knowledge of Greek, the New Testament was inferior. To remedy the defects of Olivetan's version, the "venerable company" of pastors of Geneva undertook a revision of the work and was assisted by Beza, Simon Goulart, Antoine Fay, and others. The editor was Bonaventure Corneille Bertram, who gives an account of his work in the *Lucubrationes Franktallenses *(in Pearson's *Critici Sacri, *vol. viii). This revised edition appeared in 1588. In this as well as in the following editions the divine name Yahweh was translated by *l'Éternel *and this rendering is retained to this day in the Protestant Bible of France. During the seventeenth century this revision of Olivetan's version, known as the "Geneva Bible," was again revised by different ministers; the editions of G. Diodati (Geneva, 1644), Samuel Des Marets (Amsterdam, 1669), and David Martin (New Testament, Utrecht, 1696; whole Bible, 1707) are the first of such revisions. Martin's Bible was again revised by the Basel minister Pierre Roques (1744), and is to this day disseminated by Bible Societies along with other editions. Twenty years before Roques published Martin's revised text, J. F. Osterwald, a pastor at Neuchâtel, published anew the Geneva Bible in 1724, and another and revised edition in 1744, in which he embodied the results of the exegetical science of the time. As Osterwald's translation became the standard version, it was adopted by the British and Foreign Bible Society and issued from time to time. A thoroughly revised version prepared by M. Fossard and other French pastors was published by the French Bible Society in 1887, and this revised text was then adopted by the British and Foreign Bible Society. The following are other Protestant versions: S. Chastillon (Castalio), complete Bible (2 vols., Basel, 1555); J. Le Clerc (Clericus), N. T. (Amsterdam, 1703); I. de Beausobre and J. Lenfant, N. T. (Amsterdam, 1718; often reprinted in Germany and Switzerland); Charles Le Cène, Bible (Amsterdam, 1741); H. A. Perret-Gentil, professor at Neuchâtel, O. T. (Neuchâtel, 1847 sqq.); E. Arnaud, N. T. (Toulouse, 1858); A. Rilliet, N. T. (Geneva, 1859); M. J. H. Oltramare, N. T. (Geneva, 1872); Louis Segond, O. T. (Geneva, 1874), N. T. (1879), whose work has been printed by the Oxford University press; E. Stapfer, N. T. (Paris, 1889). ### 4. Roman Catholic Versions. Of versions by Roman Catholics, the most important are a translation of the New Testament published anonymously (Trévoux, 1702), but ascribed with correctness to Richard Simon, and a series of versions which proceeded from Port Royal and the Jansenists. As early as the middle of the seventeenth century, Antoine Godeau published a translation of the Bible, at first in parts, then as a whole. In 1687 the New Testament followed, printed by the Elzevirs at Amsterdam, for a bookseller of Mons, whence it is often called the Mons Testament. The translators were Antoine and Louis Isaac Lemaistre de Sacy (see LEMAISTRE DE SACY, LOUIS ISAAC), aided by Antoine Arnauld, Pierre Nicole, Claude de Sainte-Marthe, and Thomas du Fossé. The Old Testament, translated by Louis Isaac Lemaistre de Sacy, was added later (1671), and the New Testament by Pasquier Quesnel appeared in 1687. These translations exercised great influence, partly on account of the elegance of the language, partly on account of the notes, which served devotional purposes. Their method is not a literal rendering, but is paraphrastic. The translation of the New Testament generally known as that of De Sacy was often republished, and is still widely used in France, being circulated by the British and Foreign Bible Society. René Benoist published a translation of the Bible in 1566. Jacques Corbin, an advocate of Paris, presented the Vulgate in a translation more Latin than French in 1643. The Latin New Testament of Erasmus was translated into French by Michel de Marolles, abbé of Villeloin (1649), who also published a version of the Psalms (1644). Denys Amelote, a priest of the Oratory, translated the New Testament Vulgate into very good French (1666). Dominique Bouhours, a Jesuit, also issued a French New Testament (1697). In the eighteenth century C. Huré (1702), Augustin Calmet (1707), N. Le Gros (1739), and others made versions, all more or less dependent on the Vulgate. In more recent times the Psalms and Job have been often translated. The entire Bible by E. Genoude (Paris, 1821 sqq.) had great success. The Gospels by Lamennais (Paris, 1846) are a model of style, but because of the notes are really a socialistic polemic. [Other names and works which may be mentioned are: M. Orsini, *La Bible des familles catholiques *(Paris, 1851); H. F. Delaunay, who translated the annotated Bible of J. F. Allioli into French (5 vols., Paris, 1856); J. A. Gaume, *Le Nouveau Testament *(2 vols., Paris, 1863); M. A. Bayle, who furnished the translation for Paul Drach's annotated Bible(Paris, 1869 sqq.); P. Giguet, who translated the Septuagint (4 vols., Paris, 1872); H. Lasserre, * Les Saints Évangiles *(Paris, 1887); the Abbé Boisson (Paris, 1901); the Abbé Glaire, who furnished the French translation for the polyglot Bible of F. Vigouroux (Paris, 1898 sqq.); and the Abbé Crampon, *La Sainte Bible, *revised by the Jesuit fathers with the collaboration of the professors of St. Sulpice (Paris, 1907).] Translations of the Old Testament by Jews are found in S. Cahen's annotated Bible (18 vols., Paris, 1831-51) [and in the Old Testament translated under the direction of Zadoc Kahn, chief rabbi of France (1901 sqq.)]. (S. BERGER†.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: The most important contributions on the subject have been produced by S. Berger, as follows: *La Bible française au moyen âge, *Paris, 1884; *Les Bibles provençales et vaudoises, *in *Romania, *xviii (1889); *Nouvelles recherches sur les bibles provençales et catalanes, *ib. xix (1890), cf. P. Meyer, in *Romania, *xvii (1888), 121, and H. Suchier, in *Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, *iii (1879), 412. For enumeration of French Bibles consult *British Museum Catalogue, *entry "Bibles, French," 175-188, and the *Appendix, *"Bibles, French," 18; O. Douen, *Catalogue de la société biblique de Paris, *1862; *Bible of Every Land, *pp. 254-260, 281-283, London, 1861 (incomplete, but clear so far as it goes). Consult also J. Le Long, *Bibliotheca sacra, *vol. i, Paris, 1723; E. Reuss, *Fragments littéraires et critiques relatifs à l'histoire de la Bible française, * in *Revue de théologie et philosophie, *ii, iv-vi, xiv, new series, iii-v (1851-67, exceedingly important); idem, *Geschichte der heiligen Schriften des Neuen Testaments, *pp. 465 sqq., Brunswick, 1887; E. Pétavel-Olliff, *La Bible en France, ou les traductions françaises des saintes écritures, * Paris, 1864; É. Cadiot, *Essai sur les conditions d'une traduction populaire de la bible en langue française, *Strasburg, 1868; G. Strümpell, *Die ersten Bibelübersetzungen der Franzosen 1100-1300, *Brunswick, 1872; A. Matter, *Note sur la révision de la bible d'Osterwald, *Paris, 1882; J. Bonnard, *Les Traductions de la bible en vers français au moyen âge, *Paris, 1884 P. Quievreux, *La Traduction du N. T, de Lefèvre d'Étaples, *Paris, 1894; P. Meyer, *Notice du MS. Bibliothèque Nationals F 6447, *Paris, 1897; A. Laune, *La Traduction de l'A.T., de Lefèvre d'Étaples, * Paris, 1895; *Revue de l'histoire des Religions, *xxxii, 56; *DB, *extra vol., pp. 402-406. ### VII. German Versions: ### 1. Old German Fragments. After the Gothic version of Ulfilas (see above, A, X), the oldest fragment of the Bible in a Germanic tongue is probably the Matthew of Monsee, of the year 738 (twenty-two leaves are in Vienna, two in Hanover; on the left page is the Latin, on the right German), a Bavarian working over of a Frankish or Alsacian original. The best edition is A. Hench, *The Monsee Fragments newly Collated, with Text, Introduction, Notes, Grammatical Treatise, and Exhaustive Glossary and Facsimile *(Strasburg, 1890). The "German Tatian," of which the chief manuscript is at St. Gall (second half of the ninth century, in two columns, left in Latin, right in German), originated about 830 in 1 Fulda. The Latin rests upon a manuscript written about 540 for Bishop Victor of Capua, which is still preserved in Fulda, and the German follows the Latin very closely (best edition by E. Sievers, *Tatianus. Lateinisch und Altdeutsch, *Paderborn, 1874, 2d ed., 1892). Heccard, count of Burgundy, in 876 gave as a present an *Evangelium Theudiscum * with other books (cf. P. Lejay, in *Revue des Bibliothèques, *July–Sept., 1896). Walton, in his Polyglot (Prolegomena, p. 34a), asserts that "Rhenanus testifies that Waldo, bishop of Freising [884-906] about the year 800 [sic!] translated the Gospels into German" (cf. Hauck, *KD, *ii, 620, 704, 712). Detached fragments of the Gospels have been published by F. Keinz *(SMA, *1869, p. 546) and J. Haupt ( *Germania*, xiv, 1869, p. 440), which are in a handwriting of the twelfth century, but show the accents used earlier in the school of Notker Balbulus (see NOTKER, 1; cf. W. Walther, *Die deutsche Bibelübersetzung des Mittelalters, *3 vols., Brunswick, 1889-91, 455-465). For the Heliand and Otfrid's *Liber Evangeliorum *or *Krist, * see HELIAND, THE, AND THE OLD-SAXON GENESIS; OTFRID OF WEISSENBURG). The first translator after Ulfilas known with certainty is Notker Labeo of St. Gall (d. June 29, 1022; see NOTKER, 5). His Job is lost, but his translation of the Psalms can be almost completely reconstructed from his German and Latin commentary on them (best ed. in P. Piper's *Schriften Notkers und seiner Schule, *3 vols., Freiburg, 1883-84; facsimile in Vogt and Koch, *Deutsche Litteraturgeschichte, * Leipsic, 1904, and Walther, ut sup., 563). Williram, after 1048 abbot of Ebersberg in Bavaria (see WILLIRAM), made a translation of the Song of Solomon, which found so much favor that nineteen manuscripts are still known, one written as late as 1528 (cf. Walther, 523-536, with facsimile, and J. Seemüller, *Die Handschriften und Quellen von Willirams Paraphrase, *Strasburg, 1877, and *Willirams Paraphrase, *1878; Hauck, *KD, *iii, 968). An interlinear version of the Psalms from the cloister of Windberg, written 1187, was published by E. G. Graff, *Deutsche Interlinearversionen der Psalmen *(Quedlinburg, 1839; cf. Walther, 566; also A. E. Schönbach, *Bruchstücke einer fränkischen Psalmenversion, *in *ZDAL, *xxiv, 2, pp. 177-186). Other manuscripts of this kind are mentioned by Walther, 568. Some twenty manuscripts and two impressions (the one probably by Knubloezer in Strasburg about 1477, the other by Peter Drach in Worms 1504) have preserved the commentary of Nicolaus de Lyra (see LYRA, NICOLAUS DE), containing translations into German by Heinrich von Mügeln, who was for a time with the emperor Charles IV at Prague and seems to have left him on account of his edict of 1469 against the German books on Holy Scripture (cf. Helm, in Sievers's *Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache, *xxi, 1897, p. 240, xxii, 1898, p. 135). Especially interesting is Walther's eighth group of translations of the Psalms (which include all Latin-German Psalters printed in the Middle Ages and two or three manuscripts) on account of the fact that the German text does not go back to the Latin Vulgate is common use, but to Jerome's version from the Hebrew (see above, A, II, 2, § 2). To Walther's ninth group belongs the splendid Psalter of St. Florian in three languages, Latin, Polish, and German, which was made either for the Polish queen Marguerite, daughter of the emperor Charles IV, or for Mary, sister of the Polish queen Hedwig of Anjou. Another translation is due to Henry of Hesse, rector of the University of Heidelberg, who died 1427, a Carthusian. On the eve of the Reformation Duke Eberhard I of Württemberg was careful to have translations made for him (cf. *TLZ, *iv, 473; 571). ### 2. Printed Bibles before Luther. Besides 202 (203) manuscripts, Walther enumerates between 1466 and 1521 eighteen impressions of complete German Bibles, twenty-two of Psalters, and twelve of other parts. Of the eighteen complete Bibles, fourteen are in High German. They differ from the common Latin Bible by containing the Epistle to the Laodiceans and by placing Acts after the Epistles of St. Paul. The prayer of Manasses is missing in the first two and placed after Chronicles in the rest. Their correct chronological order is: (1) Strasburg, Mantel, c. 1466 (Hain, *Repertorium bibliographicum, *no. 3130). (2) Strasburg, Eggestein, c. 1470 (Hain, 3129). (3) Augsburg, Pflansmann, c. 1473 (Hain, 3131). (4) Augsburg, G. Zainer, c. 1473, a thorough revision of 2 (Hain, 3133). (5) Swiss, 1474 (Hain, 3132). (6 and 7) Augsburg, G. Zainer, and A. Sorg, 1477 (Hain, 3134-3135). (8) Augsburg, A. Sorg, 1480, a repetition of Zainer's impression of 1477 (Hain, 3136). (9) Nuremberg, A. Koburger, 1483 (Hain, 3137). (10) Strasburg, Grüninger, 1485 (Hain, 3138). (11-14) All printed in Augsburg, by H. Schönsperger, 1487, 1490 (Hain, 3139-40), H. Otmar, 1507, and Silvanus Otmar, 1518. All these editions give in the main one and the same version, but Zainer (4 above) undertook a thorough revision, which had much influence. Koburger (9 above) also made changes. The version was already more than 100 years old when first printed. Its home is not yet ascertained, but there are traces which indicate Bohemia. The Latin text underlying this version is interesting especially in Acts, where it has preserved many Old Latin readings. Led by an entry in a manuscript of Nuremberg, F. Jostes tried to prove that a certain Johannes Rellach of Resöm (?) in the diocese of Constance, who he thinks was a Dominican, was the author of this version about 1460 (cf. his *Meister Johannes Rellach, ein Bibelübersetzer des 15. Jahrhunderts, * in *Historisches Jahrbuch, *Munich, 1897, 133-145). Kurrelmeyer *(Die deutsche Bibel, *Tübingen, 1904 sqq.) seems to think the version older than this Rellach, who may have undertaken a revision of it, and he has not pronounced upon the alleged Waldensian origin of the version; the manuscript of Tepl may have been in Waldensian hands, but this does not prove a Waldensian origin. There are certain peculiar readings in which the version agrees with the Provençal translation. A different translation containing only the Old Testament is represented by the "Wenzel" Bible at Vienna, translated from the Latin at the command of the emperor Wenceslaus by Martin Rotlev later than 1389 (facsimile in Vogt and Koch, ut sup.). A "Bible for the Poor" at Maihingen of 1437 gives a German working over of the 212 hexameters in which Alexander Villadeus summarized all the chapters of the Bible (e.g. Gen. i–vii: *sex, prohibet, peccant, Abel, Enoch, archa fit, intrant*) and counts seventy-six books, fifty-eight prologues, 1,457 chapters, and 1,606 verses in the Psalter. To the same group belongs a manuscript now at Maihingen (1472), beautifully illustrated by Furtmeyer for Albert IV of Bavaria, which has between Deuteronomy and Job Matt. i-v, 44, like a manuscript in the British Museum written by the same copyist in 1465 (cf. the *Athenæum *for May 31, 1884, and R. Priebsch, *Deutsche Handschriften in England, * i, Erlangen, 1896). For other versions, cf. Walther. The Low German Bibles include the Old Testament of Delft (1477), without Psalms, and the famous Picture Bible of Cologne (about 1478; cf. R. Kautzsch, *Die Holzschnitte der Kölner Bibel von 1479, *in *Studien zur deutschen Kunstgeschichte, *vii, 1896, and G. Gerlach, in Dziatzko's *Arbeiten, *ii, 13, Leipsic, 1896). The Song of Solomon in this Bible is not translated but is given in Latin. The Bible of Lübeck of 1494 gives, up to II Kings vii, an original translation; from that chapter onward text and pictures of the Cologne Bible. The edition of Ludwig Trutebul (Halberstadt, 1522) is very scarce. On the Psalters cf. Walther, 682-703, and Kurrelmeyer, ut sup. On the "Wenzel" Bible, cf. *AJP, *xxi, 62-75, and F. Jelinek, *Die Sprache der Wenzelbibel, *Görz, 1898-99. On the pre-Lutheran Bibles, cf. A. E. Schönbach, *Miscellen aus Grazer Handschriften, ii. Reihe, Deutsche Uebersetzungen biblischer Schriften, *Graz, 1899; idem, *Ueber ein mitteldeutsches Evangelienwerk aus St. Paul, * Vienna, 1897, and L. J. M. Bebb, in *DB, *extra vol., 411-413. ### 3. Luther's Bible. Contemporaneously with Luther others were engaged in translating parts of the Bible into modern German, e.g., Böschenstein, Lange, Krumpach, Amman, Nachtgal, Capito, and Fröhlich; but their works are forgotten (see also below, § 5). Not contemplating at first the entire Bible, Luther began with the penitential Psalms (Mar., 1517, improved 1525) and followed with the Lord's Prayer and Ps. cx in 1518, the Prayer of Manasses with Matt. xvi, 13-20, in 1519, and other pieces. At the end of 1521 he began with the New Testament. He writes on Dec. 18, 1521: "Meanwhile I am gathering notes, being on the point of translating the New Testament into the vernacular;" two days later: "Now I am laboring on annotating and translating the Bible into the common speech;" on Jan. 13, 1522, to Amsdorff: "Meanwhile I am translating the Bible, though I have undertaken a task beyond my strength. The Old Testament I can not touch unless you lend your aid" (cf. G. Bossert, in *TSK, *1897, pp. 324, 349, 366). The New Testament was in type Sept., 1522; it was published with woodcuts at Wittenberg without name of printer or of translator (*Das Newe Testament Deutzsch*) and was sold for one and one-half florins. In December a second edition followed (cf. R. Kuhrs, *Verhältnis der Decemberbibel zur Septemberbibel. Kritischer Beitrag zur Geschichte der Bibelsprache M. Luthers. Mit einem Anhang über Joh. Lange's Matthäusübersetzung, *Greifswald, 1901). Of the Old Testament, part i (the five books of Moses) was ready in 1523; parts ii and iii (the historical and poetical books) in 1524; the prophets did not follow until 1532; and the Apocrypha as a whole not until the first complete Bible in 1534. Eleven editions were published during Luther's lifetime, besides numerous reprints. For the Old Testament he used the edition of Brescia, 1494 (the copy is now at Berlin); for the New Testament, the second edition of Erasmus (1519), but he consulted the Vulgate, and for the Old Testament had the assistance of his friends Melanchthon, Bugenhagen, Aurogallus, and all available helps. In the preface to Sirach he mentions the earlier German translation, but he seems on the whole independent of it. The influence of Luther's work was great even outside of Germany. It formed the basis of the Danish translation of 1524, of the Swedish and Dutch of 1528, of the Icelandic of 1540, and, through the mediation of Tyndale, influenced the English Authorized Version of 1611. Large parts of Luther's autograph printer's copy are preserved, and the first part is in print in *D. Martin Luther's Deutsche Bibel, *Weimar, 1906. A catalogue of the original editions of Luther's Bible was published by H. E. Bindseil (*Verzeichniss der Original-Ausgaben, *etc., Halle, 1840), who also, in collaboration with H. A. Niemeyer, issued a critical reprint of the edition of 1545 with a collation of the earlier impressions (7 vols., Halle, 1845-55). J. G. Hagemann, *Nachricht von denen fürnehmsten Uebersetzungen der heiligen Schrift *(Brunswick, 1750), gives a list of editions to 1749. In the Hauck-Herzog *RE, *iii, 74-75, about ninety places are named in which Luther's Bible has been printed, with the date of the first edition in each place. It includes the following towns in America: Germantown, Penn., 1743 (the first Bible in a European language printed in America; see SOWER, CHRISTOPHER) and 1763 (cf. *Basler Bibelbote, *1899, 52); New York, 1854 (N. T.) and 1857 (complete Bible); Philadelphia, 1846. Reading, Penn., 1813, and Lancaster, Penn., 1819, may be added. A chronological list would show the influence of Pietism. The first Berlin edition (1699), for example, was due to Spener. The first Low German Bible, by J. Hoddersen, was printed by L. Diets at Lübeck in 1533; the last was that of Lüneburg, 1621. ### 4. Revision of Luther's Version. By the middle of the nineteenth century six or seven different recensions of Luther's version were in use in Protestant Germany (cf. C. Mönckeberg, *Tabellarische Uebersicht der wichtigsten Varianten der bedeutendsten gangbaren Bibelausgaben; * New Testament, Halle, 1865, Old Testament, 4 vols., 1870-71). In 1863 a Committee was named by the Eisenach Conference (see EISENACH CONFERENCE) to undertake a final revision. As the result of the labors of this committee the revised New Testament appeared in 1867 and again in 1870, Genesis in 1873, the Psalms in 1876, the whole Bible (the so-called *Probebibel*) in 1883. At last, in Jan., 1890, the whole work was finished and the first impression was published at Halle in 1892. The revised edition was adopted in most parts of Germany, though in Mecklenburg it is still opposed. A comparison with the English revision shows that the German was much too timid (cf., on the one side, P. de Lagarde, *Die revidierte Lutherbibel des Halleschen Waisenhauses, *Göttingen, 1885, also in *Mittheilungen, *iii; on the other, E. V. Kohlschütter, *Die Revision der Lutherschen Bibelübersetzung, *1887, and A. Kamphausen, *Die berichtigte Lutherbibel, * Berlin, 1894; also *TJB, *1886, where twelve pamphlets for and against the revision are named; O. H. T. Willkomm, *Was verliert unser Volk durch die Bibelrevision? *Zwickau, 1901). Luther's work was criticized early, especially by his Roman Catholic opponents–e.g., by Hieronymus Emser, to whom Urbanus Rhegius replied in 1524 (see EMSER, HIERONYMUS; RHEGIUS, URBANUS; cf. G. Kawerau's *Hieronymus Emser, *Halle, 1898; for criticism from the modern point of view, cf. P. de Lagarde, *Die revidierte Lutherbibel, *ut sup.). The Wittenberg edition of 1572 introduced the summaries of Veit Dietrich. A. Calovius added in 1661 a " Biblical Calendar" by which it was possible to read the Psalms four times every year, Proverbs twice, and the rest of the Bible with Luther's prefaces once. The Wittenberg faculty added a new preface in 1669. The verse of the "three witnesses" (I John v, 7) was first introduced into a Frankfort edition of 1575, into a Wittenberg impression in 1596. Dietrich's summaries were replaced by those of Leonhard Hutter in 1624; in this edition a Roman Catholic compositor changed "everlasting gospel" in Rev. xiv, 6, to "new gospel," the verse being often applied to Luther, and subsequent editions were printed from the sheet as copy. Several editions gave great offense because of changes in the text or additions–e.g., an edition by N. Funk (Altona, 1815) was asserted to teach a "new faith" because of changes in the indexes and notes. The Bible Institute founded at Halle by Karl Hildebrand, Baron Canstein came to have great influence; after 1717 standing type or stereotyped plates were used and millions of copies of the Halle text were circulated (see BIBLE SOCIETIES, II, 1). ### 5. Other Versions. The Anabaptists Hans Denk and Ludwig Hätzer translated the Prophets before the completion of Luther's version (published by Peter Schöffer, Worms, 1527; many later editions); their work was used by other translators and has been praised for scholarship and style (cf. J. J. I. Döllinger, *Die Reformation, *i, Regensburg, 1846, 199; Heberle, in *TSK, *xxviii, 1855, 832; L. Keller, *Ein Apostel der Wiedertäufer, *Leipsic, 1882, 210 sqq.). The preachers of Zurich published a complete Bible in six parts (1525–1529), using Luther's work so far as available and adding the Prophets (part iv) themselves and the Apocrypha (part v, including III and IV Esdras and III Maccabees but not the Prayer of Azariah, the Song of the Three Children, the Prayer of Manasses, or the Additions to Esther) by Leo Jud. The complete Bible was printed in 1530, without prefaces and glosses, the Apocrypha at the end. The edition of 1531 (2 vols.) has a short admonition and introduction for "the Christian reader of these Biblical Books" probably by Zwingli; also summaries, parallel references, woodcuts, and a new translation of the poetical books. The edition of 1548 (2 vols.) professes to have been compared word for word with the Hebrew, but really does not differ from editions of 1542 and 1545; it became the basis of later editions. The verse division was first introduced in 1589. A revision of the Zurich New Testament was undertaken by J. J. Breitinger in 1629, by a *collegium biblicum *in 1817, 1860, 1868, and 1882, and a new revision of the New Testament and Psalms appeared in 1893 (cf. E. Riggenbach, *Die schweizerische revidierte Uebersetzung des Neuen Testaments und der Psalmen, *Basel, 1895). Besides the Zurich Bible three other "composite" Bibles (i.e., Luther's translation so far as it had appeared with the missing parts supplied from other translations) were published before 1534: (11 Worms, Peter Schöffer, 1529, the so-called "Baptist" Bible, having Hätzer and Denk's version of the Prophets; it was the first Protestant Bible to use the word *Biblia *in the title, retained in Luther's Bible till the eighteenth century; (2) Strasburg, Wolff Köpphl, 1530, Prophets by Hätzer and Denk, Apocrypha by Jud; (3) Frankfort, C. Egenolph, 1534, in which only a part of the Apocrypha was not Luther's. The Epistle to the Laodiceans was included in these editions. About one hundred, years after Luther new versions began to appear. The first complete Bible was that of J. Piscator (Herborn, 1602), called the "Straf mich Gott" Bible because the translator added in smaller type to Mark viii, 12, *Wann disem geschlecht ein zaichen wirdt gegeben werden, so straffe mich Gott *("If a sign be given to this generation, so strike me God;" cf. R. Steck, *Die Piscatorbibel, * Bern, 1897). The Berleburg Bible (8 vols., 1726–1742) and the Wertheim Bible (1735) were prepared in the interest of mysticism and rationalism respectively (see BIBLES, ANNOTATED, AND BIBLE SUMMARIES, I, §§ 3, 4). Later versions are by J. D. Michaelis (O. T., 13 vols., Göttingen, 1769 sqq.; N. T., 2 vols., 1790); J. H. D. Moldenhauer (O. T., 10 vols., Quedlinburg, 1774 sqq.; N. T., 2 vols., 1787–88); Simon Grynæus (5 vols., Basel, 1776-77; a paraphrase in modern style, the historical books of the O. T, abridged, the Gospels harmonized); and G. F. Griesinger (Stuttgart, 1824). Better than these is the version of W. L. M. de Wette and J. C. W. Augusti (6 vols., Heidelberg, 1809-14; later editions by De Wette alone). Bunsen's annotated Bible (9 vols., Leipsic, 1858-70) has a translation of the Hagiographa by A. Kamphausen, of the Apocrypha and N. T. by H. J. Holtzmann, other portions by Bunsen. Translations of the New Testament alone include: J. Crell, J. Stegman the elder, and others, the Socinian N. T. (Rakow, 1630); J. Felbinger, also a Socinian (Amsterdam, 1660); J. H. Reitz, Reformed (Offenbach, 1703); C. E. Triller (Amsterdam, 1703); Count Zinzendorf (Ebersdorf, 1727); Timotheus Philadelphus (i.e., J. Kayser, a Stuttgart physician, 1733); C. A. Heumann (Hanover, 1748); J. A. Bengal (Stuttgart, 1753); C. T. Damm (3 vols., Berlin, 1765); C. F. Bahrdt ("the latest revelations of God," 4 vols., Riga, 1773-74); J. C. F. Schulz (vol. i, the Gospels, 1774); P. M. Hahn (Winterthur, 1777); G. W. Rullmann (3 vols., Lemgo, 1790-91); J. A. Bolten (8 vols., Altona, 1792-1806); J. O. Theiss, Gospels and Acts (4 vols., Hamburg, 1794-1800); J. J. Stolz (2 vols., Zurich, 1795; a second ed. of a version by Stolz, J. L. Vögeli, and C. Häfeli, 2 vols., 1781-82); G. F. Seiler (2 vols., Erlangen, 1806); J. C. R. Eckermann (3 vols., Kiel; 1806-08); J. W. F. Hetzel (Dorpat, 1809); C. F. Preiss (2 vols., Stettin, 1811); L. Schuhkrafft (Stuttgart); J. Gossner (Munich, 1815); H. A. W. Meyer (Göttingen, 1829); E. G. A. Böckel (Altona, 1832); J. K. W. Alt (4 parts, Leipsic, 1837-39); K. von der Heydt (Elberfeld, 1852; used by the Plymouth Brethren); F. Rengsdorf (Hamburg, 1860); C. Weizsäcker (Tübingen, 1875; 9th ed.,1900); C. Reinhardt (Lahr, 1878); E. Zittel (3 vols., Carlsruhe, 1880-85); C. Stage (Reclam, Leipsic, 1896; "in present-day speech"); H. Wiese (Berlin, 1905). Roman Catholic versions have been numerous. Hieronymus Emser's New Testament (Dresden, 1527; see EMSER, HIERONYMUS) was merely a slight revision of Luther after the Vulgate. J. Dietenberger, a Dominican, published the entire Bible at Mainz in 1534 (cf. F. Schneider, *Johann Dietenberger's Bibeldruck, *Mainz, 1901). In the New Testament he followed Emser chiefly, in the Apocrypha Leo Jud, in the Old Testament he took much from Luther. C. Ulenberg revised this version in 1630, and the clergy of Mainz in 1662; thenceforth it was commonly called the "Catholic" Bible. Later Roman Catholic versions are: T. A. Erhard (2 vols., Augsburg, 1722); the Benedictines of the cloister of Ettenheimmünster (Constance, 1751); I. Weitenauer (14 vols., Augsburg, 1777-81); F. Rosalino (3 vols., Vienna, 1781); K. H. Seibt (Prague, 1781); H. Braun (13 vols., Augsburg, 1788-1805; worked over by J. F. Allioli, 6 vols., Nuremberg, 1830-32); D. von Brentano, T. A. Dereser, and J. M. A. Scholz (N. T. by Brentano, 3 vols., Kempten, 1790-91; revised and O. T. added by Dereser and Scholz, 15 vols., Frankfort, 1797-1833); K. and L. van Ess (3 vols., Sulzbach, 1807-22); H. J. Jäck (Leipsic, 1847). Translations of the New Testament alone are: C. Fischer (Prague, 1784); B. B. M. Schaappinger (3 vols., Mannheim, 1787-99); S. Mutscheile (2 vols., Munich, 1789-90); B. Weyl (Mainz, 1789); J. G. Krach (2 vols., Freiburg, 1790); C. Schwartzel (8 vols., Ulm, 1802-05); M. Wittmann (Regensburg, 1809); J. M. Sailer (Graz, 1822); J. H. Kistemaker (Munich, 1825; circulated by the British and Foreign Bible Society, which now also circulates Allioli's translation); B. Weinhart (Freiburg, 1900); A. Arndt, S. J. (Regensburg, 1903); B. Grundl (Augsburg, 1903). Finally, mention should be made of the scholarly translation of the canonical Old Testament, edited by E. Kautzsch in collaboration with F. Baethgen, H. Guthe, A. Kamphausen, R. Kittel, K. Marti, W. Rothstein, R. Ruëtschi, V. Ryssel, K. Siegfried, and A. Socin (Freiburg, 1894; 2d ed., 1896). In the supplementary translation of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Prof. Kautzsch had the assistance of G. Beer, F. Blass, C. Clemen, A. Deissmann, C. Fuchs, H. Gunkel, H. Guthe, A. Kamphausen, R. Kittel, E. Littmann, M. Löhr, W. Rothstein, V. Ryssel, F. Schnapp, K. Siegfried, and P. Wendland. Since 1899 cheap editions called *Textbibel, *both with and without Weizsäcker's New Testament, have been circulated. German Israelites have translations of the Old Testament prepared under the direction of L. Zunz (Berlin, 1837) and by S. Bernfeld (Berlin, 1902). There are also versions in the Jewish-German (Yiddish). E. NESTLE. BIBLIOGRAPHY: The one work on early German translations is W. Walther, *Die deutsche Bibelübersetzung des Mittelalters, *3 vols., Brunswick, 1889-91; cf. *Bible of all Lands, *pp. 178-187, London, 1861, and *DB, *extra vol., pp. 411-414. The subject of the printed German Bible before Luther has been much elucidated by W. Kurrelmeyer of Baltimore, who has prepared an edition from a collation of all impressions and manuscripts; vols. i and ii, the N. T., have already appeared as nos. 234 and 238 of the *Bibliothek des litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, *Tübingen, 1904 and 1905; vols. iii-iv of the O. T., nos. 243, 248, ib. 1907. F. Jostes (Roman Catholic) has long had a history in preparation. Consult L. Hain, *Repertorium bibliographicum, * vol. i, Paris, 1826; L. Keller, *Die Reformation und die älteren Reformparteien, *Leipsic, 1885; idem, *Die Waldenser und die deutschen Bibelübersetzungen, *v, 189, ib. 1886; F. Jostes, *Die Waldenser und die vorlutherische deutsche Bibelübersetzung, *p. 44, Münster, 1885; idem *Die Tepler Bibelübersetzung, *Münster, 1886; idem, *"Die Waldenserbibeln" und . . . Johannes Rellach, *in *Historisches Jahrbuch, *xv (1894), 77 sqq.; H Haupt, *Die deutsche Bibelübersetzung der mittelalterlichen Waldenser . . ., *Würzburg, 1885; idem, in *Centralblatt für Bibliothekswesen, *1885, pp. 287-290; idem, *Der waldensische Ursprung des Codex Teplensis . . ., *Würzburg, 1886; M. Rachel, *Die Freiberger Bibelhandschrift, *Freiburg, 1886; S. Berger, *La Question du codex Teplensis, *in *Revue historique, *xxx (1886), 164, xxxii (1886), 184· K. Schellhorn, *Ueber das Verhältnis der Freiberger und der Tepler Bibelhandschrift, *Freiberg, 1896; W. Walther, *Ein angeblicher Bibelübersetzer des Mittelalters, *in *Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift, * viii, 3 (1896), 194-207; Schaff, *Christian Church, *vi, 351 sqq. On Luther's Bible consult: J. G. Palm, *Historie der deutschen Bibelübersetzung Dr. M. Lutheri, *1517-34, ed. J. M. Göze, Halle, 1772; G. W. Panzer, *Entwurf einer vollständigen Geschichte der deutschen Bibelübersetzung M. Luthers, 1517-81, *Nuremberg, 1791; J. Janssen-Pastor, *Geschichte des deutschen Volkes, *vii, 531-575, Freiburg, 1893; Schaff, *Christian Church, *vi, 340-368; Moeller, *Christian Church, *iii, 34-35. On the language of Luther's Bible consult: R. von Raumer, *Einwirkung des Christentums, *Stuttgart, 1845; P. Pietsch, *M. Luther und die hochdeutsche Schriftsprache, * Breslau, 1883; K. Burdach, *Die Einigung der neuhochdeutschen Schriftsprache, *Halle, 1884; B. Lindmeyer, *Der Wortschatz in Luthers Emsers und Ecks, Uebersetzung des N. T.'s, *Strasburg, 1899; F. Dauner, *Die oberdeutschen Bibelglossare des xvi. Jahrhunderts, *Darmstadt, 1898; Böhme, *Zur Geschichte der sächsischen Kanzleisprache, * Reichenbach, 1899; W. W. Florer, *Substantivflexion bei Martin Luther, *Ann Arbor, 1899; H. Byland, *Der Wortschatz des Züricher A. T.'s von 1525 und 1531 . . ., * Berlin, 1903. On translations after Luther consult: J. Mezger, *Geschichte der Bibelübersetzungen in der schweizerisch-reformierten Kirche, *Basel, 1876; A. Kappler, *Die schweizerische Bibelübersetzung, *Zurich, 1898; idem, *Die neue Revision der Züricher Bibel, *in *Neue Züricher Zeitung, *Nov. 2 and 27, 1904. On Roman Catholic versions consult: G. W. Panzer, *Geschichte der römisch-katholischen Bibelübersetzung, *Nuremberg, 1781; J. Janssen-Pastor, ut sup.; G. Keferstein, *Der Lautstand in den Bibelübersetzungen von Emser und Eck, *Jena, 1888. ### VIII. Greek Versions, Modern: Parts of the Old Testament were translated by Jews into modern Greek as early as the end of the Middle Ages. A version of the Pentateuch made in 1547 has been edited by C. Hesseling (Leipsic, 1897). On the whole the Greek Church has been anxious to make the people acquainted with the Bible, a fact evinced especially in the sixteenth century by the efforts of Damascenus the Studite. But when, at the instance of Cyril Lucar, Maximos Kalliupolites published in 1638 an edition of the New Testament in the original Greek with a modern Greek version, the Church as a whole did not favor it, though the patriarch Parthenios permitted its circulation. This text was reprinted in London in 1703 by the monk Seraphim, also in 1710 at Halle, and by C. Reineccius in his polyglot Bible of 1713 (see BIBLES, POLYGLOT, V). In the East, Seraphim's edition was expressly prohibited by the patriarch Gabriel of Constantinople (1702-04). A new period began when the British and Foreign Bible Society took the matter in hand. As early as 1810 it published the text of Maximos, and English influence induced the patriarchs Cyril VI and Gregory V to permit its circulation. Other issues followed in 1814, 1819, and 1824. The deficiencies of the old text having been long known, it was decided to bring out a new translation, which should approach more nearly the ancient Greek. For this work the monk Hilarion was employed under the direction of the learned Archbishop Conatantius of Sinai, afterward patriarch. But when, in consequence of a controversy over the Apocrypha (1825-27), the society introduced bibles without the Apocrypha, the Greek Church would not circulate them. Moreover, after the war of liberation the desire to be entirely independent of Occidental aid greatly increased and orthodox reaction set in anew. The version of such learned Greeks as Typaldos, Bambas, and others found no more favorable reception. This disposition has continued. The latest version of the New Testament by A. Pallis (Liverpool, 1902), written in common Greek, has not been approved. The patriarch Joachim III has renewed the prohibition of Bible translation. PHILIPP MEYER. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Korals, in *Atakta, *vol. iii (1830); J. Wenger, *Beiträge zur Kenntnis der grischischen Kirche, *Berlin, 1839; *Bible of Every Land, *pp. 241-244, London, 1861; É. Legrand, *Bibliographie Hellénique, *3 vols., Paris, 1885-1903 (for 15th and 16th centuries); idem, *Bibliographie Hellénique, *5 vols., ib. 1894-1903 (for the 17th century); A. D. Kyriakos, *Geschichte der orientalischen Kirchen, 1453-1898, * Leipsic 1902; *Bible Society Reporter, *Jan. and May, 1902; *DB, *extra vol., p. 420. ### IX. Hebrew Translations of the New Testament: The anciently attested Hebrew original of the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel according to the Hebrews are not to be included in this treatment (see MATTHEW, II; APOCRYPHA, B, I, 19). Of existing Hebrew versions of the New Testament, the more important are the following: **1. Versions by Jews:** (1) The *Evangelium Matthæi in lingua Hebraica cum versione Latina, *by Sebastian Münster, appeared at Basel, 1537 (2d ed., Paris, 1541; 3d ed., with Hebrews in Hebrew and Latin, Basel, 1557). (2) The *Evangelium hebraice Matthæi recens e Judæorum penetralibus erutum, * with Latin translation, edited by Jean du Tillet and Jean Mercier (Paris, 1555) is part of a translation of the Gospels by Schemtob Schaprut (1385), which may be preserved in a Vatican manuscript. (3) A complete translation of the New Testament was made by Ezekiel Rachbi (d. 1772), and an assistant from Germany. **2. Versions by Christians: **(1) Elias Hutter made a Hebrew translation of the complete New Testament for his polyglot editions (Nuremberg, 1599, 1602; see BIBLES, POLYGLOT, V); a better edition of this version was issued by B. Robertson (London, 1661), and the first part of the same by R. Caddick (London, 1798). (2) Johannes Baptista Jona translated the four Gospels (Rome, 1668). (3) A translation of Matthew by Johannes Kemper (d. 1714), with Latin rendering by A. Borelius, is preserved in manuscript in the library of the University of Upsala. (4) The Epistle to the Hebrews, translated by F. A. Christiani, appeared in Leipsic, 1676, and Luke i, 1-xxii, 14, by I. Fromman at Halle, 1735. (5) The translation of the whole New Testament prepared for the London Society for Promoting Christianity among the Jews appeared in 1821, and in revised form in 1840 and 1866. (6) The edition of the British and Foreign Bible Society, begun in 1864, was made by Franz Delitzsch (Leipsic, 1877; stereotyped ed., 1881; revised ed., 1885; again revised by Delitzsch and edited by G. Dalman, 1892). (7) The translation of the Trinitarian Bible Society, begun by Isaac Salkinson and completed by C. Ginsburg, was issued in London, 1885. (G. DALMAN.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: On 1: A. Herbst, *Die von Sebastian Münster . . . Übersetzungen des Evangeliums Matthai, *Göttingen, 1879; F. Delitzsch, *Brief an die Römer, *pp. 22, 105, 103-109, Leipsic, 1870; S. Schechter, in *JQR, *vi, 144-145. On 2: F. Delitzsch, ut sup., pp. 21-38; *Theologisches Literaturblatt, *1889-1890; G. Dalman, in *Hebraica, *ix, 226-231 and *Theologisches Literaturblatt, *1891, pp. 289 sqq.; J. Dunlop, *Memories of Gospel Triumphs, * pp. 378-386, London, 1894. ### X. Hungarian (Magyar) Versions: ### 1. The First Versions. János Erdösi (or Sylvester; b. 1504; died c. 1560) made the first Hungarian translation of the New Testament. After studying in Cracow and Wittenberg (1526-29), he returned to his native land and worked at Sárvár under the patronage of the magnate T. Nádasdi, who erected the first Hungarian printing-press in Uj-Sziget (Neanesis). There Erdösi's translation was printed in 1541. Erdösi was afterward professor of Hebrew in Vienna (1542-52); driven out by the Jesuits, he went to Debreczin and, in 1557, to Löcse (Leutschau) as teacher and preacher. A little later, G. Heltai, pastor at Kolosvár (Klausenburg), and his three colleagues translated the New Testament, with several books of the Old Testament (Kolosvár, 1552-61). Péter Juhász (Melius), pastor and superintendent at Debreczin (1558-72), rendered into Hungarian the books of Job and Kings (Debreczin, 1565), and the New Testament (Szegedin, 1567); of the latter work no copy is known. T. Félegyházi, professor and pastor at Debreczin, published a translation of the New Testament at Debreczin in 1586. Gaspar Károli (d. 1591), a pupil of Melanchthon, pastor at Gönc (not far from Kassa), translated the entire Bible with the Apocrypha and published it at Visoly, 1590. This is styled the Visoly Bible, and it has remained in use to the present. It has passed through many editions with some slight corrections. ### 2. The Komáromi Bible. During the religious wars (1604-45) against the Austrian monarchs the Hungarian nation heroically fought for political and religious liberty; to the great Protestant princes of Transylvania, Bocskai, Bethlen, and George (György) Rákóczi the Protestant Church is much indebted, for without them it would have suffered the fate of the Bohemian Church. The victorious Rákóczi family caused 10,000 copies of the Bible to be published at Várad in 1657. The years 1660 to 1781 were a dark period for Hungarian Protestants, during which the Austrian government, under Jesuitical influences, took control of the entire kingdom, and the freedom gained in the Reformation was lost. The crisis came in 1671-81, the so-called "decade of mourning." This grievous situation explains the fact that Hungarian bibles had to be printed in foreign countries. The learned Reformed pastor of Debreczin, György Csipkés Komáromi, an excellent Hebrew scholar, in order to meet the common wish and to make the Bible keep pace with the growth of the language, made a new translation which was approved by the synods in 1681. The city of Debreczin at enormous cost had an edition of 4,000 copies printed at Leyden in 1718. When the edition reached the frontier it was seized by the Jesuits (who had secured from the king an order to that effect) and carried to their house at Kassa. The agitated citizens and council of Debreczin used all means available to recover the books and at length secured a royal edict from King Charles III (June 29, 1723) granting them a free Bible (P. Bod, *Historia Hungarorum ecclesiastica, *iii, 89). So great was the power of the Jesuits, however, that they frustrated the royal edict, and the bishop of Eger, Count F. Barkóczy, carried the Komáromi bibles to his palace and threw them all into damp cellars, where they remained till 1754, when on Nov. 1 he burned them in the court of his palace before a large gathering (cf. *The Bible Society Monthly Reporter *Mar., 1904, p. 69). A few copies retained in Varsó, hidden in the Prussian ambassador's house, were brought to Debreczin in 1789. The Roman Catholics, on their part, had the Bible translated by a Jesuit scholar György Káldi, and this translation appeared at Vienna, 1626 (see KÁLDl, GYÖRGY). In the nineteenth century Baron A. Bartakovics, archbishop of Eger, ordered a new translation, which was made by his secretary, the learned Tárkányi (d. 1886); this "Eger Bible" was published at the cost of the archbishop in 1862, and again in 1892. ### 3. Modern Versions. Samuel Kámori, professor in the Lutheran theological academy at Pozsony (Pressburg), attempted a new translation of the whole Bible with the Apocrypha (Budapest, 1870). Because of the translator's modern style and his inadequate knowledge of the Magyar tongue, notwithstanding its fidelity to the original, this version can not be used by the people. A revision of the old Károli text was proposed as early as 1840, and the British and Foreign Bible Society assumed the task. The first revision of the New Testament was accomplished by J. Menyhárt, professor of exegesis in Debreczin College, and by W. Györi, Lutheran pastor of Budapest. It was issued at Budapest in 1878 and, being sharply criticized, did not gain acceptance. The work of revision began more seriously in 1886, when T. Duka, a native of Hungary and a member of the committee of the Bible society in London, secured the aid of that great organization. Competent men were chosen from among the professors and pastors of both Churches. After many years' labor, the revised Old Testament left the press at Budapest in 1898. This noble work needs further revision, and the Hungarian Church awaits the moment when the second revision, soon to appear, will be ready. Work on the revision of the New Testament is progressing. After the great revolution of 1848 and between 1851 and 1861, the constitution of Hungary was suspended by the Austrian government and the circulation of the Bible was prohibited. The Bible depot, the property of the British Society, was ordered to be removed, and was located at Berlin; since the coronation of Francis Joseph I all hindrances have been removed, and under the Hungarian state government circulation of the Bible is free. F. BALOGH. BIBLIOGRAPHY: *Bible of Every Land, *pp. 325-327, London, 1861; F. Verseghi, *Dissertatio de versione Hungarica scripturæ sacræ, *Budapest, 1822; T. Duka, in *Bible Society's Monthly, *London, 1892; *KL, *ii, 770-771; Hauck-Herzog, *RE, *pp. 115-118 (gives the literature in Hungarian); *BD, *extra vol., p. 417. ### XI. Italian Versions: Legend has it that Jacobus de Varagine, bishop of Genoa, made an Italian translation of the Bible. There can be no doubt that one was prepared as early as the thirteenth century. The earliest printed Italian Bible is that of Nicolò di Malherbi, an abbot of the Camaldolites, based on the Vulgate and published Venice, 1471. In 1530 Antonio Bruccioli published at Venice his translation of the New Testament and in 1532 the entire Bible. In the same year the New Testament by the Dominican Zaccaria was published at Venice, and in 1551 that of Domenico Giglio. After this time Geneva became the home of the Italian Bible. A congregation of refugees settled there about the middle of the sixteenth century, and for their benefit Massimo Teofilo, a former Benedictine of Florence, translated the New Testament from the Greek (Lyons, 1551). For the Old Testament Bruccioli's version was revised and thus in 1562 the first Protestant Bible in the Italian language appeared (at Geneva). It was entirely superseded in 1607 by the translation of G. Diodati of Lucca. This version, made directly from the original texts, stands in high esteem for fidelity and has been repeatedly reprinted by different Bible societies. A version affecting great elegance, but by no means as faithful because made from the Vulgate, is that of Antonio Martini, archbishop of Florence (Turin, 1776). This version has also been repeatedly reprinted by the British and Foreign Bible Society, and in 1889 sqq. an illustrated edition was published by the Catholic publisher Sonzogno at Milan. [A version of the Gospels and Acts in modern Italian prepared under the direction of the St. Jerome Society of Rome by Giuseppe Clementi, a secular priest and professor of Italian literature, with brief notes by Giovanni Genocchi of the Mission of the Sacred Heart, and preface by Giovanni Semeria of the Order of St. Paul (Barnabites), was printed at the Vatican Press with the approbation of Pope Leo XIII in 1902. The work was well received by the public and by scholars, and was approved and circulated by many dignitaries of the Roman Church, although some feared its influence. The completion of the New Testament and translation of the Old, which was contemplated by the Society, has been postponed, as it seemed inadvisable to Pope Pius X to give the Italian people the epistles of St. Paul at the present time. The volume published is sold at a nominal price, and about 500,000 copies, it is claimed, have been distributed. (S. BERGER†.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: S. Berger, *La Bible Italienne au moyen âge, * in *Romania, *xxiii (1894), 358 sqq. (contains bibliography and list of MSS.); *Bible of Every Land, *pp. 277-279, London, 1861; J. D. Hales, *The Bible or the Bible Society? The Corruption of God's Word in the Italian Version of Martini, *London, 1861; J. Carini, *Le Versione della Biblia in volgari italiano, * S. Pier d'Arena, 1894; S. Minocci, *Versions Italiennes de la Bible, *in Vigouroux, *Dictionnaire de la Bible; KL, *ii, 741-742; *DB, *extra vol., 406-408. ### XII. Lithuanian and Lettish Versions: A forerunner of the Bible translation for Protestant Lithuanians was the rendering of the Scripture lessons from the Gospels and Epistles by B. Willent (Königsberg, 1579) from Luther's text (edited by F. Bechtel, in Bezzenberger's *Litauische und lettische Drucke des 16. Jahrhunderts, *part 3, Göttingen, 1882). The first translator of the Bible in a fuller sense was Jan Bretkun (Bretkunas), minister at Labiau and Königsberg (d. 1602 or 1603). He translated the whole Bible, 1579-90. The manuscript, preserved in the university library at Königsberg, is described by A. Bezzenberger, *Beiträge zur Geschichte der litauischen Sprache * (Göttingen, 1877), pp. vi-vii. Only the Psalms were published (Königsberg, 1625) and the editor, J. Rhesa, introduced many changes. The Reformed Lithuanians, anxious for a Bible, in 1657 commissioned Samuel Boguslaw Chylinski to go to England and have the Bible printed there (cf. H. Reinhold, in *Mittheilungen der litauischlitterarischen Gesellschaft, * vol. iv, part 2, p. 105). The Old Testament as far as the Psalms was presented to the synod at Wilna in print in 1663, other parts in manuscript. Of this Bible impression only three copies, all imperfect, are known to exist. Chylinski was the translator. The New Testament, translated by Samuel Bythner, was published at Königsberg, 1701, for the benefit of the Lutherans (new ed., Berlin, 1866). A New Testament translated by different ministers was published at Königsberg in 1727. The Old Testament was prepared in the same way and the whole Bible was published at Königsberg, 1735. In the beginning of the nineteenth century the need of a new edition of the Bible was felt, and the work was undertaken, with the help of the British and Foreign Bible Society, by a number of clergymen and especially by L. J. Rhesa. It was based on Luther's version, with comparison of the Hebrew and Greek originals, and was published at Tilsit, 1824. For the Roman Catholic Lithuanians, Joseph Arnulf Giedraitis (Polish, Giedrojé), bishop of Samogitia, translated the New Testament from the Vulgate (Wilna, 1816). The oldest specimen of Lettish printing, the *Enchiridion *(Königsberg, 1586-87; called in later editions *Vademecum *and "Hand-Book"), contains among other writings for ecclesiastical use the Scripture lessons for Sundays and festivals for the Evangelical Letts (in later editions enlarged by parts of the Old Testament). The first Lettish Bible, translated by E. Glück and C. B. Witten, was published at Riga, 1685-89. In 1877 A. Bielenstein published at Mitau a thoroughly revised edition. (A. LEISKIEN.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: L. J. Rhesa, *Geschichte der Litthauischen Bibel, * Königsberg, 1816; H. Reinhold, *Die sogenannte Chylinskische Bibelübersetzung, * in *Mittheilungen der litauischlitterarischen Gesellschaft, *vol. iv, part 2. p. 105; Napiersky, *Chronologischer Conspect der lettisch-litterarischen Gesellschaft, *vol. iii, 1831; *Bible of Every Land, *pp. 310-313, London, 1861; Bielenstein, *Zum 300jährigen Jubiläum der Lettischen Literatur, *Riga, 1886. Consult also the *Annual Reports *of the BFBS. ### XIII. Persian Versions: Chrysostom mentions Persians as well as Syrians, Egyptians, Ethiopians, and other nations as being in possession of the Gospel; but it is very doubtful whether there was at that time a version of Scripture in the Persian tongue, since Syrian influence predominated in the Persian Empire. It is said, however, that Chosroes II had the Scriptures brought from Edessa (cf. *TLZ*, 1896, 432, and Theodoret, *Hist. eccl., *i, 5). All that was known in Europe till 1700 of Biblical and other texts is found in Lagarde, *Persische Studien *(Göttingen, 1884), 3-8. A translation of the Pentateuch by the Persian Jew Jacob ben Joseph Tawus, printed in Hebrew characters, is contained in a polyglot Pentateuch of Constantinople (1546), and was transcribed into Persian characters with a Latin translation by T. Hyde in vol. iv of Walton's Polyglot. The Gospels, translated from the Greek, were edited by Abraham Wheelocke and, after his death, by Pierson (London, 1657), and another translation from the Syriac was printed in vol. v of Walton's Polyglot, and used by Tischendorf after the edition of C. A. Bode (Helmstadt, 1750-51). In Paris are parts of two different translations of the Old Testament, the one made from the Hebrew, the other from the Aramaic (cf. Zotenberg, *Catalogue des manuscrits Hebreux, *etc., Paris, 1866 sqq., and Lagarde, *Persische Studien, *i, 69, and ii, and his *Symmicta, *ii, Göttingen, 1879, 14-17). On Jewish reports about the Bible in the language of Elam and Media cf. L. Blau, *Einleitung in die heilige Schrift *(Budapest, 1894), 80-94. E. NESTLE. For partial translations of the Bible, particularly of the Pentateuch, the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, the Minor Prophets, Esther, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Job, and Lamentations, preserved in manuscript, cf. *JE, *iii, 190, vii, 318-319. The oldest fragments of this character are probably those found in the Pahlavi *Shikandgümänïg Vijär, *which dates from the latter part of the ninth century (ed. Jamasp-Asana and E. W. West, Bombay, 1887; transl. by E. W. West, *SBE, * xxiv, 117 sqq.). These fragments are Gen. i, 2-3, ii, 16-17, iii, 9, 11-16, 18-19, vi, 6; Ex. xx, 5; Deut. xxix, 4, xxxii, 35; Ps. xcv, 10; Isa. xxx, 27-28, xliii, 19; Matt. i, 20, v, 17, vii, 17-18, xii, 34, xv, 13, xviii, 32; Luke v, 31-32, vi, 44, xv, 4; John i, 11, 14, viii, 23, viii, 37-38, 42-45, 47; and Rom. vii, 19-20. They were quoted for anti-Christian polemics, and from the forms of the proper names seem to have been derived from a Syriac original, though traces of the Targum of the pseudo-Jonathan (see above, A, V, § 3) may be discovered in the renderings of Ex. xx, 5 and especially of Gen. iii, 14 (cf. L. H. Gray, in *Actes du XIV. congrès international des orientalistes, *i, Paris, 1905, 182-186). Equally interesting are the fragments of the New Testament in Estrangelo script but in an Iranian dialect (probably Sogdhian, thus constituting almost the only known remains of this dialect), discovered in Turfan, Eastern Turkestan, in 1903. These citations are Manichean in origin, and the following passages are thus far known: Matt. x, 14 sqq.; Luke i, 63-80; John xx, 19 sqq.; Gal. iii, 25 sqq., and a number of smaller fragments which are adaptations and compilations rather than translations (cf. F. W. K. Müller, in appendix to the *Abhandlungen der Berliner Akademie, *1904, pp. 34-37, and *Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie, * 1907, pp. 260-270). Mention may also be made of a Persian version of Gen. i-vi, 6, by Abhichand, a Hindu converted to a mixture of Judaism and Mohammedanism by the Judeo-Persian poet Sarmad early in the seventeenth century, and preserved in the *Dabistan. *This version differs materially from the translation of Jacob Tawus. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Walton's *Polyglot, *Prolegomena, 16, and S. Clericus, in vol. iv; S. Munk, *Une version persane MS. de la Bibliothèque Royals, *Paris, 1838; *Bible of Every Land, *pp. 64-71, London, 1861; A. Kohut, *Beleuchtung der persischen Pentateuchübersetzung, *Heidelberg, 1871; T. Nöldeke, in *ZDMG, *li (1893), 548; Horn, Aus *italienischen Bibliotheken, * in *ZDMG, *li (1893); Scrivener, *Introduction, *ii, 165; Gregory, *Textkritik, *i, 575-578. ### XIV. Portuguese Versions: Portuguese versions begin with that by Joao Ferreira d'Almeida, a former Roman Catholic priest (New Testament, Amsterdam, 1681; Old Testament, revised and continued by Danish missionaries, Tranquebar, 1719-1751). A Roman Catholic version, with annotations, by Antonio Pereira de Figueiredo, was published in Lisbon, 1778 sqq. (23 vols.; revised ed., greatly improved, 1794-1819). A version based on Almeida's translation was made by the Rev. Thomas Boys, and published by the Trinitarian Bible Society (London, 1843-47). The British and Foreign Bible Society has often printed revised editions of both Almeida's and Pereira's versions. The need of a better and more accurate translation of the Bible in the Portuguese language is generally recognized by Protestant missionaries and laborers in Portugal and Brazil. (S. BERGER†.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: *Bible of Every Land, *p. 271-276, London, 1861; S. Berger, in *Romania, *xxviii (1899), 543 sqq. (gives a full account of the literature); *DB, *extra vol., pp. 410-411. ### XV. Scandinavian Versions: ### 1. Before the Reformation. Of the Scandinavian countries, Norway and its colony, Iceland, had at a very early period a national literature in the Old Norwegian tongue (incorrectly called Old Norse). To the earliest period of Bible translation belongs the *Stjorn *("Dispensation," sc., of God), which includes Gen.-II Kings. This is not a translation but a paraphrase of these books on the basis of the Vulgate, with explanatory remarks from different authors–Josephus, Augustine, Peter Comestor, Vincent of Beauvais, and others. The preface states that it was prepared under the patronage of King Haakon V (1299-1319), and from a note in one of the manuscripts it appears that Brand Jonson, bishop of Hole in Iceland (d. 1264), made the translation. If this note is correct, Jonson probably translated the middle and most ancient part (Ex. xix–Deut. xxxiv). The *Stjorn* was edited by Prof. C. R. Unger (Christiania, 1862). In the Old Norwegian literature there exist many homilies, legends of the saints, and apocryphal Acts of the Apostles which contain many Bible texts; these were put together and published by J. Belsheim under the title *Af Bibelen i Norge og paa Island i Middelalderen *(Christiania, 1884). The earliest traces of a translation of the Bible into Old Swedish appear in the time of St. Bridget. In her "Revelations" as well as in accounts of her life it is said that she had a copy of the Bible made in Swedish. This was undoubtedly only an exposition of the Pentateuch composed by her father confessor Matthias in Linköping (d. 1350; see BRIDGET, SAINT, OF SWEDEN). Joshua and Judges were translated later by Nils Ragnvaldson (d. 1514), while Judith, Esther, Ruth, and Maccabees were translated by Jens Budde of the Nådendal monastery. There is also extant a translation of the Apocalypse, made prior to 1520. All these Biblical works, based on the Vulgate, were edited by G. E. Klemming, in *Svenska Medeltidens Bibelarbeten * (2 vols., Stockholm, 1848-55). An old Danish version based on the Vulgate, containing the first twelve books of the Old Testament, is contained in a manuscript of the Mariager monastery in Jutland, antedating 1480. The first eight books were edited by Prof. C. Molbech (Copenhagen, 1828). A translation of the Psalms of the same period is extant in different manuscripts. Some of them were edited by C. J. Brandt, in *Gamle danske Läsebog *(Copenhagen, 1857). ### 2. Since the Reformation. In both Denmark and Sweden the entire Bible was first translated in the period of the Reformation. Norway was united with Denmark from 1380 to 1814 and the Danish language, being cognate with the Norwegian, became the common literary language in the two countries. The New Testament was first rendered into Danish by Hans Mikkelsen, formerly burgomaster of Malmö, who followed Christian II into exile in the Netherlands in 1523. This New Testament appeared at Leipsic in 1524. Being a mixture of Danish and German, the language was uncouth. A better translation was made by Christen Pedersen (d. 1554), the first editor of the history of Denmark by Saxo Grammaticus and of other older works. Pedersen's New Testament was printed at Antwerp 1529 and again in 1531, and in the latter year his translation of the Psalms appeared. Previous to this (1528) a translation of the Psalms made by Frans Wormordsen, a Dutchman by birth, was published at Rostock. All these followed the Vulgate closely, but were influenced by Luther and Erasmus. The Danish Reformer Hans Tausen (d. 1561, as bishop of Ribe [Ripen]) translated the Pentateuch from Luther's version (Magdeburg, 1535). Peder Tidemand translated Judges (Copenhagen, 1539), and Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus (Magdeburg, 1541). The first complete Bible in Danish was published at Copenhagen is 1550, following, according to the instructions of Christian III, as much as possible Luther's version. The greater part of the work was done by Christen Pedersen, assisted by a number of professors. A new edition followed, 1589, reprinted 1633. A translation from the original languages, prepared by Hans Paulsen Resen (d. 1638), appeared in 1607, and, revised by Bishop Hans Svane or Svaning (the so-called Svaning Bible), again in 1647 and was used till the middle of the nineteenth century. In 1819 Bishop F. C. K. H. Münter with others undertook a revision of the New Testament, and the whole Bible, revised by C. Rothe, C. Hermansen, and C. Kalkar under the presidency of Bishop H. L. Martensen was published in 1872. There are translations made by other scholars, such as C. Bastholm (New Testament, 1780), O. H. Guldberg (New Testament, 1794), the whole Bible, by J. C. Lindberg (1837-56) and C. Kalkar (1847), the four Gospels by K. F. Viborg (1863), and the New Testament by Bishop T. S. Rördam (1886; 2d ed., 1894-95). A Roman Catholic version of the New Testament after the Vulgate was published by J. L. V. Hansen in 1893. After the separation of Norway from Denmark in 1814, three revisions of the New Testament were made (1819, 1830, and 1873), the most important being by Prof. Hersleb in 1830. A new translation of the Old Testament undertaken by Adjunct Thistedahl and Profs. Kaurin, Holmboe, Caspari, and Nissen was published in parts (1857-1869; revised ed. completed 1890), and of the New Testament by Bishops F. W. Bugge, A. C. Bang, and others was published in 1904. The New Testament was rendered into the Norwegian vernacular, which much resembles the Old Norwegian, by Prof. E. Blix, I. Aasen, M. Skard, and J. Belsheim, and published in 1889 (new ed., 1899). A translation of parts of the Old Testament is in preparation and the Book of Psalms was printed in 1904, Genesis in 1905. A translation of the New Testament for the use of Roman Catholics has also been published. During the Reformation period Iceland also received the Bible in its old Norwegian-Icelandic tongue. An Icelander, Odd Gottskalkson, of Norwegian descent, translated the New Testament, which was published at Roskilde, 1540. The whole Bible translated after Luther's version by Bishop Gudbrand Thorlakson appeared in 1584 (revised 1644). A new translation by Bishop Stein Jonson was issued in 1728, but the rendering was not smooth, so the older version of Thorlakson was reprinted at Copenhagen in 1747, and the New Testament again in 1750 and 1807, followed in 1813 by a reprint of the whole Bible. In 1827 a new translation of the New Testament was published, followed by a revised edition of the whole Bible in 1841, and by a revised edition, Oxford, 1863. When Gustavus Vasa became king of Sweden in 1523, wishing for a Swedish translation, he applied to Archbishop Johannes Magni of Upsala, requesting him with the help of the clergy to prepare a translation of the New Testament. The archbishop devised a plan which, however, was opposed by some of the ministers. Bishop Hans Brask of Linköping said that "it were better for Paul to have been burned, than to be known by every one." The New Testament translated by the chancellor Lorenz Andreä with the assistance of Pastor Olaus Petri was published at Stockholm 1526. The whole Bible, translated by Lars Petri, archbishop of Upsala (d. 1573), was issued 1540-41. This Bible, made after Luther's, was for a long time the church Bible of Sweden. A revised edition by the two bishops Gezelius in Abo (father and son; see GEZELIUS, JOHANNES) was highly praised. Different commissions for translating the Bible were appointed; one, consisting of twenty-three members, spent a long time in preparing a translation with a rationalistic tendency; but the "specimens" published from time to time found no favor. In 1844 the commission was reconstituted, with Prof. A. Knös as one of its most active members. The New Testament prepared by the cathedral provosts C. A. Thoren and H. M. Melin and published in 1853-77 was not favorably received. A better reception met the version of the New Testament prepared by Archbishop Sundberg, Cathedral Provost Thoren, and Bishop Johanson, published in 1882. A new translation of the Old Testament is in preparation. The Bible version of Cathedral Provost Melin was published in 1865-89. J. BELSHEIM. BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. Belsheim, *Veiledning i Bibelens Historie, * pp. 252 sqq., Christiania, 1880; J. A. Schinmeier, *Geschichte der schwedischen Bibel-Uebersetzungen und Ausgaben, *Leipsic, 1777; P. W. Becker, *De J. P. Resenii versione Danica, *Copenhagen, 1831; C. Molbeoh, *Bidrag til en historie af de Danske Bibeloversaettelser, *ib. 1840; *Bible of Every Land, *pp. 214-225, London, 1861; C. W. Bruun, *Bibliotheca Danica, *Copenhagen, 1872; J P. Häggman, *Forteckning öfver svenska upplagor af Bibeln, *Upsala, 1882; *KL, *ii, 767-769; *DB, *extra vol., pp. 415-416. ### XVI. Slavonic Versions: ### 1. The Old Church Slavonic Version. The history of Bible versions in the Slavonic begins with the second half of the ninth century. The oldest translation, commonly called the Church Slavonic, is closely connected with the activity of the two apostles to the Slavs, Cyril and Methodius, in Moravia, 864-865 (see CYRIL AND METHODIUS). The oldest manuscripts are written either in the so-called Cyrillic or the Glagolitic character. The former is the Greek majuscule writing of the ninth century with the addition of new characters for Slavic sounds which are not found in the Greek of that time; the latter was a style of the Greek minuscule with the addition of new signs as in the Cyrillic alphabet. The oldest manuscripts are written in the Glagolitic, which is older than the Cyrillic. The oldest manuscripts extant belong to the tenth or eleventh century, and the first complete collection of Biblical books in the Church Slavonic language originated in Russia in the last decade of the fifteenth century. It was made by Archbishop Gennadius of Novgorod, and the Old Testament was translated partly from the Vulgate, and partly from the Septuagint. The New Testament is based upon the old Church Slavonic translation. During the sixteenth century a greater interest in the Bible was awakened in South and West Russia, owing to the controversies between adherents of the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholics and Uniates. In the second half of the sixteenth century the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, and parts of the Psalter were often printed at Lemberg and Wilna, though the oldest edition of the Acts and Epistles was issued at Moscow in 1564. In 1581 the first edition of the Slavonic Bible was published at Ostrog, a number of Greek manuscripts, besides the Gennadius Bible, having been used for this edition. But neither the Gennadius nor the Ostrog Bible was satisfactory, and in 1663 a second somewhat revised edition of the latter was published at Moscow. In 1712 the czar Peter the Great issued a ukase ordering the printed Slavonic text to be carefully compared with the Greek of the Septuagint and to be made in every respect conformable to it. The revision was completed in 1724 and was ordered to be printed, but the death of Peter (1725) prevented the execution of the order. The manuscript of the Old Testament of this revision is in the synodal library at Moscow. Under the empress Elizabeth the work of revision was resumed by a ukase issued in 1744, and in 1751 a revised "Elizabeth" Bible, as it is called, was published. Three other editions were published in 1756, 1757, and 1759, the second somewhat revised. All later reprints of the Russian Church Bible are based upon this second edition, which is the authorized version of the Russian Church. ### 2. Russian Versions. The Church Slavonic is not intelligible to the Russian people. An effort to produce a version in the vernacular was made by Frantsisk Skorina (d. after 1535), a native of Polotsk in White Russia. He published at Prague, 1517-19, twenty-two Old Testament books in the "Russian language," in the preparation of which he was greatly influenced by the Bohemian Bible of 1506 (see below, § 5). Other efforts were made during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, but the Church Slavonic predominated in all these efforts. Peter the Great felt that the mass of the Russian people needed a Bible in the vernacular and authorized Pastor Glück in 1703 to prepare such an edition. Unhappily Glück died in 1705 and nothing is known of his work. It was left to the nineteenth century in connection with the establishment of the Russian Bible Society (founded in 1812 at St. Petersburg, with the consent of Alexander I; see BIBLE SOCIETIES, II, 5) to prepare a Bible in the vernacular. The work was under taken by Philaret, rector of the Theological Academy of St. Petersburg (afterward metropolitan of Moscow), and other members of the faculty of the academy. The Gospels were published in 1818 and in 1822 the entire New Testament. In 1820 the translation of the Old Testament was undertaken, and in 1822 Philaret's translation of the Psalms was published. In 1825 the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth were issued. The year 1826 saw an end to the activity of the Bible Society in the ban put upon all kinds of private associations, even when non-political. Not before 1858 was the work of translation resumed. In 1876 the entire Bible was published in one volume. The Old Testament books, though based upon the Hebrew, follow the order of the Septuagint and the Church Slavonic Bible. The Apocryphal books also form a part of the Russian Bible. The British and Foreign Bible Society also issued a Russian edition, omitting, however, the Apocrypha. ### 3. Bulgarian and Servian Versions. The Bulgarians too were provided during the nineteenth century with translations of Biblical books into the vernacular. In 1828 the New Testament was published at Bucharest (2d ed., 1833), translated by the pastors Sapunov and Seraphim. For the British and Foreign Bible Society the archimandrite Theodosius, abbot of the Bistrica monastery, translated the New Testament, which was printed at London in 1828. The entire edition was sent to St. Petersburg and is said to have been destroyed there. A new translation of the New Testament was published at Smyrna in 1840 (3d ed., Bucharest, 1853, and often). In 1867 the American Bible Society printed in New York a translation of the New Testament and other editions were issued at Constantinople in 1866 and 1872. The Old Testament "translated from the original" was also published there in three parts (1862-64), but without the Apocrypha. An edition of the entire Bible "faithfully and accurately rendered from the original" was published by the same society at Constantinople in 1868 (3d ed., 1874). A translation of the New Testament into Servian was made by Vuk Stefanovic Karajic, the founder of modern Servian literature, and published at Vienna in 1847. The Old Testament was translated by Vuk's pupil Dyuro Danichic and issued at Belgrade in 1868. The language in both is excellent. The Servian Bible of Atanasiie Ivanovic Stoikovic (published by the Russian Bible Society at St. Petersburg, 1824) is not written in the vernacular, but is a mixture of Church Slavonic and Servian. ### 4. Slovenian and Croatian Versions. The Bible versions for the Slovenes are most closely connected with the activity of the Reformer of Carniola, Primus Truber (1507-86; see TRUBER, PRIMUS), and his associates and successors; they were intended for the Evangelical Slovenes. Truber translated the Gospel of Matthew, which was printed at Reutlingen in 1555; in 1557 the first part of the New Testament was published at Tübingen, the second part in 1560, and the complete New Testament was issued in 1582; the Psalms appeared in 1566. Dalmatin, who assisted Truber, translated the Old Testament, and an edition of the entire Scriptures in Slovenian was published under his direction at Wittenberg in 1584. Stevan Kuezmics published a New Testament for the Hungarian Slovenians in their dialect at Halle in 1771. An edition published at Güns (Köszeg) in 1848 has the Psalms added. In 1784 a part of the New Testament for the use of Roman Catholics was printed at Laibach, translated from the Vulgate by several hands. The second part of the New Testament was issued in 1786, and the Old Testament between 1791 and 1802. Efforts were also made to prepare a Bible version for the Evangelical Croats or for those who should be brought over to the Evangelical faith. A New Testament translated by Anton Dalmata and Stipan Consul was printed in Glagolitic characters (2 parts) at Tübingen, 1562-63. In the seventeenth century efforts were made to give a translation to the Catholic Croats and Servians in the so-called Illyrian dialect, but nothing was printed till the nineteenth century when a Bible in Latin letters together with the parallel text of the Vulgate, translated into "the Illyric language, Bosnian dialect" by Petrus Kataucsich, was published at Budapest (6 parts, 1831). It followed the Vulgate slavishly. ### 5. Bohemian Versions. The Czech literature of the Middle Ages is very rich in translations of Biblical books, made from the Vulgate (cf. the list of manuscripts and prints in J. Jungmann, *Historie Literatury Ceské, * Prague, 1849). During the fourteenth century all parts of the Bible seem to have been translated at different times and by different hands. The oldest translations are those of the Psalter. The New Testament must also have existed at that time, for according to a statement of Wyclif, Anne, daughter of Charles IV, received in 1381 upon her marrying Richard II of England a Bohemian New Testament. It is certain that Huss had the Bible in Bohemian before him as a whole and he and his successors undertook a revision of the text according to the Vulgate. The work of Huss on the Bible antedated 1412. During the fifteenth century the revision was continued. The first complete Bible was published at Prague, 1488; other editions were issued at Kuttenberg, 1489, and Venice, 1506. These prints were the basis of other editions which were published from time to time. With the United Brethren a new period began for the translation of the Bible. In 1518 the New Testament appeared at Jungbunzlau at the instance of Luke of Prague. It was not satisfactory and the same must be said of the edition of 1533. Altogether different was the translation made by Jan Blahoslav from the original Greek (1564, 1568). The Brethren anon undertook the translation of the Old Testament from the original and appointed for this work a number of scholars, who based their translation upon the Hebrew text published in the Antwerp Polyglot. The work began in 1577 and was completed in 1593, and from the place of printing, Kralitz in Moravia, it is known as the Kralitz Bible (6 parts, 1579-93, containing also Blahoslav's New Testament). This excellent translation was issued in smaller size in 1596, and again in folio in 1613 (reprinted at Halle in 1722, 1745, 1766; Pressburg, 1787; Berlin, 1807). After the year 1620 the publication of non-Catholic Bibles in Bohemia and Moravia ceased, and efforts were made to prepare Bibles for the Catholics. After some fruitless beginnings the work was entrusted to certain Jesuits, who took the Venice edition of 1506 as the basis, but relied greatly, especially for the Old Testament, on the Brethren's Bible. Between 1677 and 1715 the so-called St. Wenceslaus Bible was published at the expense of a society founded in honor of the saint. A new edition appeared at Prague 1769-71. A thoroughly revised edition, using the text of the Brethren's Bible, was published in 1778-80. Still more dependent on the Brethren's Bible was Prochaska's New Testament (Prague, 1786), and his edition of the whole Bible (1804). Editions of Prochaska's text, slightly amended, were issued in 1851 and 1857. The Bible edited by Besdeka (Prague, 1860) gives the text of the Brethren's Bible with slight changes. G. Palkovic translated the Bible from the Vulgate into Slovak (2 parts, Gran, 1829). ### 6. Wendish or Sorbic Versions. The oldest Sorbic Bible version, that of the New Testament of 1547, is extant in a manuscript in the Royal Library at Berlin. The translator was Miklawusch Jakubica, who employed a dialect (the Lower Sorbic) now extinct. In the eighteenth century Gottlieb Fabricius, a German, made a translation of the New Testament which was printed in 1709. In a revised form this version was published by the British and Foreign Bible Society in 1860. The Old Testament, translated by J. G. Fritz, was printed at Kottbus in 1796. An edition of the entire Bible was published by the Prussian Bible Society in 1868. Michael Frentzel, Pastor in Postwitz (d. 1706), translated the New Testament into the Wendish of Upper Lusatia (Upper Sorbic), and his version was published by his son, Abraham Frentzel (Zittau, 1706). A complete edition of the Bible, the work of different scholars, was first published at Bautzen, 1728. A second revised edition was prepared by Johann Gottfried Kühn and issued in 1742; a third improved edition prepared by Johann Jacob Petschke was published in 1797. Passing over other editions, it is worth while to note that the ninth edition of the complete Bible (Bautzen, 1881) was revised by H. Immisch and others and contains a history of the Upper Lusatian Wendish Bible translation. For the Roman Catholic Wends of Upper Lusatia G. Luscanski and M. Hornik translated the New Testament from the Vulgate, and published it at Bautzen, 1887-92; the Psalms were translated from the Hebrew by J. Laras (Bautzen, 1872). ### 7. Polish Versions. The history of the Polish translation of the Bible begins with the Psalter (cf. W. Nehring, *Altpolnische Sprachdenkmäler, * Berlin, 1886). A manuscript of the second half of the fourteenth century, in the abbey of St. Florian, near Linz, in Latin, Polish, and German is probably the oldest. A critical edition of the Polish part was published by Nehring *(Psalterii Florianensis pars Polonica, * Posen, 1883) with a very instructive introduction. Besides the Florian Psalter there is the Psalter of Pulawy (now in Cracow) belonging to the end of the fifteenth century (published in facsimile, Posen, 1880). Polish Bibles originated after the middle of the fifteenth century. An incomplete Bible, the so-called Sophia Bible (named after Queen Sophia, for whom it was intended, according to a remark from the sixteenth century; also called the Sárospatak Bible from the place where it is preserved), contains Genesis, Joshua, Ruth, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, II (III) Esdras, Tobit, and Judith (ed. A. Malecki, *Biblia Krolowéj Zofii, *Lemberg, 1871). With the Reformation period activity in the work of translation increased as the different confessions endeavored to supply their adherents with texts of the Bible. An effort to provide the Lutherans with the Bible in Polish was made by Duke Albert of Prussia in a letter directed in his name to Melanchthon. Jan Sieklucki, preacher at Königsberg (d. 1578), was commissioned to prepare a translation, and he published, the New Testament at Königsberg, 1551 and 1552. The Polish Reformed (Calvinists) received the Bible through Prince Nicholas Radziwill (1515-65). A company of Polish and foreign theologians and scholars undertook the task, and, after six years' labor at Pincow, not far from Cracow, finished the translation of the Bible which was published at the expense of Radziwill in Brest-Litovak, 1563 (hence called the Brest or Radziwill Bible). The translators state that for the Old Testament they consulted besides the Hebrew text the ancient versions and different modern Latin ones. The Brest Bible was not universally welcomed. The Reformed suspected it of Socinian interpretations; the Socinians complained that it was not accurate enough. The Socinian Simon Budny especially charged against the Brest Bible that it was not prepared according to the original texts, but after the Vulgate and other modern versions, and that the translators cared more for elegant Polish than for a faithful rendering. He undertook a new rendering, and his translation ("made anew from the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin into the Polish") was printed in 1572 at Nesvizh. As changes were introduced in the printing which were not approved by Budny, he disclaimed the New Testament and published another edition (1574). The charges which he made against the Brest Bible were also made against his own, and the Socinian Adam Czechowicz published a new and improved edition of the New Testament (Rakow, 1577). The interesting preface states that Czechowicz endeavored to make an accurate translation, but did not suppress his Socinian ideas; e.g., he used "immersion" instead of "baptism." Another Socinian New Testament was published by Valentinus Smalcius (Rakow, 1606). The Brest Bible was superseded by the so-called Danzig Bible, which finally became the Bible of all Evangelical Poles. At the synod in Ozarowiec, 1600, a new edition of the Bible was proposed and the work was given to the Reformed minister Martin Janicki, who had already translated the Bible from the original texts. In 1603 the printing of this translation was decided upon, after the work had been carefully revised. The work of revision was entrusted to men of the Reformed and Lutheran confessions and members of the Moravian Church (1604), especially to Daniel Mikolajewski (d.1633), superintendent of the Reformed churches in Great Poland, and Jan Turnowski, senior of the Moravian Church in Great Poland (d. 1629). After it had been compared with the Janicki translation, the Brest, the Bohemian, Pagnini's, and the Vulgate, the new rendering was ordered printed. The Janicki translation as such has not been printed, and it is difficult to state how much of it is contained in the new Bible. The New Testament was first published at Danzig, 1606, and very often during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The complete Bible was issued in 1632, and often since. The Danzig Bible differs so much from that of Brest that it may be regarded as a new translation. It is erroneously called also the Bible of Paliurus (a Moravian, senior of the Evangelical Churches in Great Poland, d. 1632); but he had no part in the work. For the Roman Catholics the Bible was translated from the Vulgate by John of Lemberg (*Leopolita*, hence this was called the Leopolitan Bible) and published at Cracow, 1561, 1574, and 1577. This Bible was superseded by the new translation of Jakub Wujek (a Jesuit, b. about 1540; d. at Cracow 1593). Wujek criticized the Catholic and non-Catholic Bible versions and spoke very favorably of the Polish of the Brest Bible, but asserted that it was full of heresies and of errors in translation. With the approbation of the Holy See the New Testament was first published at Cracow, 1593, and the Old Testament in 1599, after Wujek's death. This Bible has often been reprinted. Wujek's translation follows, in the main, the Vulgate. (A. LESKIEN.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: For the beginnings of Slavic versions consult: *Vita sancti Methodii, russo-slovenice et latine, *ed. F. Miklosich, Vienna, 1870; C. Dümmler, *Die pannonische Legende vom heiligen Method,* in *Archiv für Kunde öster. Geschichtsquellen*, vol. xiii; idem and F. Miklosich, *Die Legende vom heiligen Cyrillus*, in *Denkschriften der Wiener Akademie, phil.-histor. Classe, *xix (1870); Jagié, *Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Kirchenslav-Sprache, *Vienna, 1900. On the history of versions consult: S. W. Ringeltaube, *Nachricht von polnischen Bibeln, *Danzig, 1744; R. G. Ungar, *Allgemeine böhmische Bibliothek, *part 1, *Theologie, *Prague, 1786 (a bibliography of Bohemian versions); J. Dobrowsky, *Ueber den ersten Text der böhmischen Bibelübersetzung, * Prague, 1798; idem, *Glagolitica, *ib. 1807; C. F. Schnurrer, *Slavischer Büchernachdruck in Würtemberg im 16. Jahrhundert, *Tübingen, 1799; G. J. Dlabacz, *Nachricht von einem bisher noch unbekannten böhmischen A. T., * Prague, 1804; *Bible of Every Land, *pp. 291-310, London, 1861; I. Kostrencic, *Geschichte der protestantischen Litteratur der Südslaven, 1559-65, *Vienna, 1874; W. R. Morfill, *Slavonic Literature, *London, 1883; *Archiv für Slavische Philologie, *by V. Jagié, especially supplement vol. by F. Pastirnek, Berlin, 1892 (contains bibliographical lists of works on Slavonic subjects for the years 1876-91, including whatever has appeared during that time on the Russian Bible); V. Vondrák, *Die Spuren der altkirchenslavischen Evangelienübersetzung, *Vienna, 1893; F. Ahn, *Bibliographische Seltenheiten der Truberlitteratur, *Leipsic, 1894; L. J. M. Bebb, *The Russian Bible, *in *Church Quarterly Review, *Oct., 1895, pp. 203-225; T. Elze, *Die slovenischen protestantischen Druckschriften des xvi. Jahrhunderts, * Venice, 1896; Scrivener, *Introduction, *ii, 157 sqq.; *BD, *extra vol., pp. 417-420. ### XVII. Spanish Versions: It is very difficult to decide at what time the first Spanish version was made. In treating of Spanish Bibles, a distinction should be made between the Catalonian and the Castilian speech. Of Biblical manuscripts in the former there are many from the fifteenth century, one (of the New Testament) from the fourteenth. Report has it that the Dominican Romeu Sabruguera of Mallorca (d. 1313), who translated the Psalms, worked on a translation of the entire Bible; but the report can not be verified. Most of the Catalonian translations of parts of the Bible (Proverbs, the Prophets, Pauline and Catholic Epistles) depend on the Vulgate and early French versions; a translation of the Psalms depends wholly on the French; the Gospels in the oldest manuscripts are not based on the Vulgate but on a text in southern French. Of an alleged translation supposed to have been printed in Valencia, 1478, no bibliographical datum or exemplar is known, only a few fragments being so attributed. Of the Castilian translations almost as little is known, since no efficient examination of Spanish manuscripts has yet been made. If tradition may be accepted, the oldest version belongs to the thirteenth century, having been made at the request of Alphonso of Castile and John of Leon; but there is no confirmation of this statement. It is a remarkable fact that the early Castilian versions of the Old Testament were made by Jews, and the basis was, naturally, the Hebrew text. Luis de Guzman, grand master of the Order of Calatrava, entrusted in 1422 to the learned rabbi Moses Arragel of Maqueda the work of translating and annotating the Scriptures, but with the help and under the supervision of the Franciscan Arias of Enzinas (Enciena) and others of the clergy. It accords with this that most of the manuscripts follow the order of the Hebrew canon. Of printed texts the first in chronological order is the New Testament by Francis of Enzinas (Antwerp, 1543); next a Bible printed in two editions (Ferrara, 1553), one for Jews, the other for Christians (reprinted Amsterdam, 1611, 1630; revised ed., 1661). In 1556 Juan Perez published (ostensibly at Venice, really at Geneva) an edition of the New Testament, which follows the original Greek. In 1569 a Bible was published, probably at Basel, in the translation of Cassiodoro de Reina. Another edition with slight changes was published by Ricardo del Campo, 1596, and an entirely revised edition by Cipriano de Valera was published at Amsterdam, 1602. The oldest Jewish-Spanish printed translation of the Pentateuch is that of Constance, 1547. The Old Testament in Hebrew and Spanish was published by Solomon Proops at Amsterdam in 1762. It was not until the end of the eighteenth century that a Roman Catholic scholar undertook to give his Spanish countrymen a new translation, with the Latin text and a commentary. The author of this work (10 vols., Valencia, 1790-93; 20 vols., Madrid, 1794-97) was Felipe Scio de San Miguel, bishop of Segovia. It was often reprinted. A more recent translation, having respect to the original texts, was published by Felix Torres Amat, bishop of Astorga (9 vols., Madrid, 1824-29; 6 vols., 1832-35; reprinted, 17 vols., Paris, 1835). A corrected edition of Amat's version was published under the care of Señor Calderon, by the Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge in 1853. In 1893 the American Bible Society published a thoroughly revised edition of Valera's Bible, which may be regarded as practically a new version. The work was done by H. B. Pratt. A New Testament in the Catalan, translated by J. M. Pratt, was issued by the British and Foreign Bible Society. (S. BERGER†.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: S. Berger, *Nouvelles recherches sur les bibles . . . catalanes, *in *Romania, *xix, 1890; idem, *Les Bibles castillance, *ib. xxviii, 1899 (contains bibliography and list of MSS.); J. M. de Egurén, *Memoria de los codices notables, *Madrid, 1859; J. Rodriguez de Castro; *Biblioteca española, *vol. i, ib. 1781; J. L. Villanueva, *De la leccion de la S. Escritura en lenguas vulgares, *Valenzia, 1791; *Bible of Every Land, *pp. 261-267, London, 1861; *The Governor of Madrid's Bible, *ib. 1871; J. E. B. Mayor, *Spain, Portugal, and the Bible, *ib. 1895; G. Borrow, *The Bible in Spain, *latest ed., ib. 1905; *KL, *ii, 743-744; *DB, * extra vol., pp. 408-410. ### XVIII. Bible Versions in the Mission Field: Eusebius (*Theophania, *iii, 28) says that the writings of the Apostles were translated in the whole world, in all languages of Greeks and barbarians; and Chrysostom and Theodoret repeat the remark with still greater emphasis. Nevertheless from this early time till the rise of Pietism and the founding of missionary and Bible societies little was done by the official Church or Churches for the translation and circulation of the Bible. The first *Report *of the British and Foreign Bible Society has an account of what was then the most famous collection of Bibles (at Stuttgart) and estimates the number of languages represented there at forty-one. The Bibles presented to the Society in its first year were in forty-six languages, from Arabic and Armenian to Turkish and Welsh. The catalogue of Bibles of the British Museum includes ninety-seven languages. The hundredth *Report *of the British and Foreign Bible Society, in the "Historical Table of Languages and Dialects in which the Translation, Printing, or Distribution of the Scriptures has been at any time promoted by the Society" (pp. 434 sqq.), gives 378 languages; versions in twenty-four languages prepared by other societies have been removed from the list. [The total number of languages into which the Bible, or parts of it, has now been translated is about 500.] The best conspectus is afforded by T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule, *Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scripture in the Library of the British and Foreign Bible Society *(2 vols., London, 1903-08). E. NESTLE. BIBLIOGRAPHY: *The Bible of Every Land, *London, 1881; R. N. Cust, *Language as Illustrated by Bible Translations, * ib. 1880; idem, *Essays on the Languages of the Bible and Bible Translations, *ib. 1890; idem, *Three Lists of Bible Translations accomplished . . . to Aug. 1, 1890, *ib. 1890; J. S. Dennis, *Centennial Survey of Foreign Missions, *New York, 1901; E. Wallroth, in *Allgemeine Missionzeitschrift, * xviii, 1901; T. Nicol, *The Bible and the Church and the Mission Field, *in *London Quarterly Review, *Jan., 1904. The *Reports *of the various Bible Societies furnish the sources.

### BIBLES, ANNOTATED, AND BIBLE SUMMARIES. German. The Ernestine and Tübingen Bibles (§ 1). Württemberg Bibles (§ 2). The Marburg, Berleburg, and Ebersdorf Bibles (§ 3). The Wertheim Bible (§ 4). Later Works (§ 5). English. Matthew's and the Geneva Bible (§ 1). The Bishops' Bible (§ 2). The Authorized Version (§ 3). John Canne's Notes, 1647 (§ 4). Other Works to 1701 (§ 5). Matthew Henry. Other Works to 1750 (§ 6). Various Works after 1750 (§ 7). Thomas Scott and Others to 1810 (§ 8). Adam Clarke, D'Oyly and Mant, and Bellamy, 1810-34 (§ 9). Other Works 1816-38 (§ 10). Republication in America (§ 11). Original American Works (§ 12). Later Works, English and American (§ 13). [Under this title certain works are mentioned which give the text of the Bible with annotations aiming to promote its proper use and understanding. They are of the nature of commentaries, and a distinction is not to be sharply drawn. The annotated Bible, however, will always include the text, to which the helps are strictly subordinate; the commentary is published for the sake of the comments and frequently does not include the text.] ### I. German: When the Reformation made the Bible the common property of the people, it was not only the source of their faith and piety, but the only literature, the whole intellectual world, of the uneducated classes. The more Luther's Bible was cherished as the compendium of religious and ethical truth and became the daily reading of the people, the more it needed explanatory notes. As early as 1531-33 Luther published his "Summaries of the Psalms," which were incorporated by Bugenhagen in his North Saxon Bible (Lübeck, 1534). In the High German Bible, "summaries and brief contents of all the chapters" are found first appended to the Augsburg edition of 1535. Real annotations appeared as parts of the book only after Luther's death, first as marginal notes or in smaller type under the text (the Wittenberg editions of Lufft, 1551, and Krafft, 1572, the latter containing the arguments and notes of Veit Dietrich, the Nuremberg preacher). ### 1. The Ernestine and Tübingen Bibles. It would be a mistake to imagine that the Reformation early brought the Bible into every house. There were no small cheap editions, and the Thirty Years' War made the earlier ones still scarcer. Duke Ernest the Pious of Saxe-Weimar (d. 1675; see ERNEST I, THE PIOUS) brought about the publication of the famous Ernestine Bible, on which, after plans laid out by him, nearly thirty prominent theologians worked. Every community was to possess a copy; if they were poor, the duke provided it wholly or in part. The actual work of preparation began in 1630 and was completed in 1640. It contained, besides pictures and maps, and a running commentary, tables of weights, coins, etc., the topography of Jerusalem, and the creeds and Augsburg Confession. It was originally sold at six thalers, but the price gradually rose with later improvements and additional illustrations, until its general circulation was impeded. The Tübingen Bible (1730) is an adaptation of this, less firm in its dogmatic stand, by Christoph Matthäus Pfaff, professor at Tübingen, and his brother-in-law, Johann Christian Klemm. ### 2. Württemberg Bibles. The same spirit that actuated Duke Ernest induced Eberhard III of Württemberg to publish the "Württemberg Summaries" in 1669, the first attempt to give a clear, precise, and connected paraphrase of the whole Scriptures. A revised and enlarged edition appeared at Leipsic in 1709, followed by others. The complete revision published in 1787 by Magnus Friedrich Roos, Karl Heinrich Rieger, and others of the school of Bengel was less clear, objective, and orthodox. Another Württemberg edition which deserves mention is the New Testament published in 1701 by the court preacher Johann Reinhard Hedinger; it was marked by Pietistic deviations from traditional theology, and attracted attention by its sharp rebukes of the sins of the people at large and especially of the clergy. ### 3. The Marburg, Berleburg, and Ebersdorf Bibles. The new spirit of mystical Pietism which influenced the last-named work was fully revealed in the Marburg Bible (1712), as might be inferred from the main title, "Mystical and Prophetic Bible." The interpretation of type and prophecy in this follows the federal theology of Cocceius, that of Canticles and Revelation Madame Guyon. It was the forerunner of a larger work in the same spirit, the Berleburg Bible of 1726-42 (8 vols. folio), projected and prepared chiefly by Johann Heinrich Haug. The text is a revision of Luther's, with comparison of the English and French versions; the commentary reflects the views of the Philadelphian communities, and quotes the mystical books current among them, especially Madame Guyon's, but its teaching goes back beyond Dippel and Petersen to Jakob Böhme, or even to Origen in some points. It lacks unity of belief and of treatment; it is the work not of a single mystic, giving voice to his inner convictions, but of a propagandist sect with practical tendencies. It is not without value, however, from different points of view; it edifies by its continual application of Scriptural words to the spiritual life, and it prepares the way for historical criticism by an appendix containing apocrypha (Old and New Testament), pseudepigrapha, and postapostolic writings. In the same year (1726) appeared the Ebersdorf Bible, in the preparation of which Zinzendorf shared. Its commentaries are altogether in his spirit, and it was received with favor only by the friends of the Herrnhut community. ### 4. The Wertheim Bible. When the emotional mysticism of the Pietists gave way to the prosaic, commonplace conceptions of the age of Enlightenment, attempts were made to replace the older commentaries by works conceived in the new spirit. The Wertheim Bible (1735) aroused great excitement in its day, both in Church and State, though its interest now is purely historical. This was only the first part of a projected whole, and contained merely the Pentateuch. The gist of the long, involved preface is that the traditional ideas about the Scriptures rested on prejudice and unscientific conceptions, and that the attempt was now made to found an exposition of their real meaning on adequate grounds of reason and historical evidence. It proposes to give a free translation, adapted to modern comprehension, though faithful in substance, and supplemented by the necessary explanations. The translation is hopelessly bald and common place to our taste; the editor showed some originality, however, as for example in venturing to discard the traditional division of chapters and verses. The general philosophical principles, as well as the critical and historical, are those of Wolf; in spite of many blunders, a fair knowledge of Hebrew is displayed. The editor's name is not given, but it was soon known. He was Johann Lorenz Schmidt, a graduate of Jena, personally much respected, who was then tutor to the young Count von Löwenstein at Wertheim in Franconia. He was arrested at the beginning of 1737 and the book was confiscated by the imperial authorities. After a year's close imprisonment, he was allowed more liberty, and escaped to Holland. The literary war which raged around the Wertheim Bible was fierce and not uninteresting. In 1738 Schmidt published a collection of reviews and polemical pamphlets, with his own replies. His work found imitators; another of a similar nature, with modern deistic explanations, appeared in 1756, but had little success; and the excitement over the frankly rationalistic commentary of Nicolaus Funk (Altona, 1815) was not wide-spread (cf. J. N. Sinnhold, *Ausführliche Historie der Wertheim Bibel, *Erfurt, 1739). ### 5. Later Works. The eighteenth century was not destitute of attempts to carry on the old tradition in a spirit of orthodox edification. The first was that of Christoph Starke (New Testament, 3 vols., 1733 sqq.; Old Testament, 6 vols., 1741 sqq.), which gave Luther's text with extended comments from older expositors and ascetic writers, introductions to each book, and a summary of each chapter. Next came the Hirschberg Bible (1756-63), an excellent work which fell flat at the time and was rescued from oblivion only by a reprint in 1844 under the patronage of Frederick William IV. The age was not favorable to the spread of Biblical study, and but a few readers were found for the commentary translated from English expositors by R. Teller, J. A. Dietelmayer, and Brucker (19 vols., 1749-70), or for the edition of Michaelis (1769-92). But the revival of religious devotion ultimately made itself felt in this field. Friedrich von Meyer's revised translation with short, pointed comments and uncritical introductions appeared in 1819. More widely read were Richter's (1834-40) and Lisco's (1833-43). A more learned and thorough work was that of Otto von Gerlach in 6 vols., which is still popular in North Germany, as is the *Calwer Handbuch der Bibelerklärung *(1849) in the South. Other more recent editions which may be mentioned here are those of Bunsen (9 vols., 1858-70), Christian Müller *(Collegium Biblicum, *6 vols., 1879-84), Johann Peter Lange (36 vols., 1856-77), K. A. Dächsel (illustrated, 7 vols., 1865-80), and R. J. Grau (2 vols., 1877-80). [J. F. Allioli's annotated Bible (6 vols., Nuremberg, 1830-34) has been very popular among Roman Catholics.] (H. HÖLSCHER.) ### II. English: As a rule, Bible societies publish the Scriptures "without note or comment "–a wise plan, for it secures the widest circulation of the Word of God. In early times, however, when a person bought a Bible, he found between the covers not only the Old and the New Testaments, but a commentary in the notes attached, a concordance at the end, and a small dictionary in the introduction and tables. These special editions had their day, and fell into disuse, for very evident reasons. The numerous comments made the volume too bulky for convenience and general use; the notes were likely to be one-sided and subjective, so that a man's theology might be judged by his Bible, from its being supplied with comments by Doddridge, or those of D'Oyly and Mant; however acceptable the annotations might be for a time, eventually they were superseded by later scholarship. Moreover, in the last half-century commentaries, Bible dictionaries, and concordance have grown into great volumes, and constitute a distinct class of literature. They have found their true places apart from the inspired words of the Bible. ### 1. Matthew's and the Geneva Bible. Annotated Bibles date back to the time of the Reformation. Matthew's Bible (1537) had annotations, and John Rogers, who was the real translator of this Bible, showed by his notes, especially on the subjects of faith, holy life, and repentance, that he was in full touch with the most advanced Protestantism. The Geneva Bible (1560) attained its great popularity and fame by its prologues and marginal notes. These annotations are so numerous and miscellaneous that it is not easy to give in a brief statement a fair representation of their general tenor. Many are strongly antipapal, and for that reason they were especially acceptable to overzealous Reformers. As might be expected, the Geneva notes are also Calvinistic. When the Geneva Bible was first published, Calvin was the ruling spirit in Geneva. All the features of his theological, ecclesiastical, political, and social system are accordingly reflected in the marginal annotations of the English Bible that issued from the city of his residence. The political doctrine of the book was as much disliked by kings of the absolute order, as were the ecclesiastical notes by infallible popes, and one of the reasons that led King James, in 1604, to agree readily to a new translation of the Scriptures, was his dislike of the politics preached on the margins of the Geneva Bible. ### 2. The Bishop's Bible. The marginal notes in the Bishops' Bible (1568) are not very numerous, and they are generally not interesting. They were designed mostly for readers of weak capacity. A few, which are valuable and entertaining, are taken verbatim, without acknowledgment, from the Geneva Bible. Some of them, too, remind of Geneva caps and predestination in a way that would scarcely be expected in a Bible issued by a body of prelates. The distribution of notes in the Bishops' Bible is very irregular and unequal. In some books hard to understand, such as the prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah, the notes are very sparse, so that five or six consecutive pages may be found here and there without a single annotation; while in other books, such as Genesis, Exodus, Job, and the Epistles of St. Paul, the notes are very frequent. ### 3. The Authorized Version. In the original edition of the Authorized Version (1611), the number of marginal references to corresponding passages, including those in the Apocrypha, was about 9,000. Large as this number seems, it is but a small fraction of what the references now amount to in some well-edited Bibles. These references, doubtless, have their value, but it can not be denied that many of them obscure the meaning of the statements to which they are attached. It is different, however, with what are called the marginal notes. In the original edition (1611) these notes were nearly as numerous as the marginal references. In the Old Testament there were 6,588 references and 6,637 notes; in the New Testament 1,517 references and 765 notes; in the Apocrypha 885 references and 1,017 notes. These notes are brief and non-polemical, differing in these respects very markedly from the annotations in both Matthew's and the Geneva Bible. They indicate, for the most part, alternative or more literal renderings. In some cases they specify variant readings in the original text, and, in other cases, they give brief explanations of words or expressions. Not a few of the alternative renderings they present have been adopted, either verbatim or substantially, in the revised version of 1881-85. The headings of chapters in the translation of 1611 were new. In the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the Great Bible, all the chapters were headed with a short table of contents; but the King James translators prepared tables of their own. And these tables, drawn up in 1611, appear in many editions at the present day unaltered, save in some twelve instances. ### 4. John Canne's Notes, 1647. Other Bibles with notes from the pen of annotators appeared and in course of time became very popular. These annotators did not write so much for the learned as for the common people, and their Bibles became household and family books, laying stress more or less on the devotional side. John Canne a Baptist minister (d. 1667?), was the author of three sets of notes which accompanied three editions of the Bible. His great ambition was "to make the Bible its own interpreter." His first authenticated version appeared in 1647 at Amsterdam, under the title, *The Bible, with Marginal Notes, Shewing Scripture to be the Best Interpreter of Scripture. * The work was often reprinted (9 editions, between 1662 and 1754). Orme, in his *Bibliotheca Biblica *(Edinburgh, 1824), says of it, "The marginal references of Canne are generally very judicious and apposite. They still retain a considerable reputation, though most of the latter editions which pass under the name of Canne's Bible are full of errors, and crowded with references which do not belong to the original author." ### 5. Other Works to 1701. In 1657 there was published *Annotations upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament. . . . Wherein the text is explained, doubts resolved, Scriptures paralleled, and various readings observed by the labor of certain learned divines thereunto appointed and therein employed, as is expressed in the preface, * 2 vols., London, 1657. This work is usually called the "Assembly's Annotations," from the circumstance of its having been composed by members of the Westminster Assembly.–Another popular work of the same character was *Annotations upon the Holy Bible wherein the sacred text is inserted, and various readings annexed; together with the parallel Scriptures. The more difficult terms explained; seeming contradictions reconciled; doubts resolved, and the whole text opened. By the Rev. Matthew Poole, * London, 1863, 2 vols., fo. The work was published in many editions. Poole, an eminent non-conformist divine (1624-79), did not finish it; but it was completed after his death.–Not less popular was a work entitled, *The Old and New Testament, with Annotations and parallel Scriptures. By Samuel Clarke, A.M., *London, 1690. Bishop Lloyd's Bible (London, 1701) was the first to incorporate Archbishop Ussher's chronology. ### 6. Matthew Henry. Other Works to 1750. In 1708 appeared the first volume of Matthew Henry's well-known *Exposition of the Old and New Testament; *four other volumes (to the end of the Gospels) were published in 1710, and a sixth volume (the Book of Acts) from Henry's manuscript after his death (1714); the work was completed by various non-conformist clergymen (see HENRY, MATTHEW). It long enjoyed a high and deserved reputation, and is distinguished, not for depth of learning or originality of views, but for sound practical piety, and the large measure of good sense which it discovers.–Dr. Edward Wells edited between the years 1709 and 1728, *An Help for the more Easy and Clear Understanding of the Holy Scriptures, after the following method: *1. *The common English translation rendered more agreeable to the original. *2. *A paraphrase wherein the text is explained, and divided into proper sections, and lesser divisions. *3. *Annotations. *4. *Preface, *8 vols.–Patrick, Lowth, Whitby, and Arnold's *Commentary on the Bible, *a work of a similar character, appeared in London, 1727-60, 7 vols., and was reprinted as late as 1821. According to Orme, Patrick was "the most sensible and useful commentator on the Old Testament. He had a competent measure of learning for the undertaking, of which he never makes any ostentatious display. The elder Lowth completed the work on the Old Testament, and Whitby commentated on the New Testament. Neither Patrick nor Lowth has so much Arminianism as Whitby, though they all belong to the same theological school. Whitby was superior to both in acuteness and research, but if the reader do not find in them the same talent, he will be exposed to less injury from specious and sophistical reasonings against some important doctrines of Christianity."–John Gill published *An Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, in which the sense of the sacred text is given; doctrinal and practical truths are set in a plain and easy light; difficult passages explained; seeming contradictions reconciled; and whatever is material in the various readings, and the several Oriental versions, is observed. The whole illustrated by notes from the most ancient Jewish writings. By John Gill, D.D., *9 vols. fo., London, 1748-63; 9 vols. 4to, London, 1809. Gill gives a summary of each chapter. Orme says of him, "Had Dr. Gill fulfilled the promise of his title page, no other commentary on the Bible could have been required. But he moves through his exposition like a man in lead, and overwhelms the inspired writers with dull lucubrations and rabbinical lumber. He is an ultra-Calvinist in his doctrinal sentiments; and often spiritualizes the text to absurdity. If the reader be inclined for a trial of his strength and patience, he may procure the burden of Dr. Gill. He was, after all, a man of undoubted learning, and of prodigious labour."–A very popular work was an English translation of Jean Frédéric Osterwald's *Argumens et réflexions sur l'écriture sainte *(Neuchâtel, 1709-15 and often; see OSTERWALD, JEAN FRÉDÉRIC), which appeared under the title, *The Arguments of the Books and Chapters of the Old and New Testaments, with practical observations. Translated by John Chamberlayne, Esq., *London, 1749, 3 vols.; fifth edition, enlarged, 2 vols., London, 1779. ### 7. Various Works After 1750. Chamberlayne's work was followed by *A New and Literal Translation of all the Books of the Old and New Testaments, with Notes critical and explanatory. By Anthony Purver *(2 vols., London, 1764). Purver was a Quaker and originally a shoemaker. He taught himself Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, in order that he might understand the Bible. His work is often ungrammatical, and unintelligible; the notes are very similar to the text and, what is worse, full of pride and ill-nature. Notwithstanding these defects, Purver sometimes gives a better rendering than occurs in the Authorized Version.–One year later appeared *The Evangelical Expositor; or a Commentary on the Holy Bible, wherein the Sacred Text is inserted at large, the sense explained, and different passages elucidated, with practical observations, etc. By T. Haweis, LL.B., M.D., *London, 1765, 2 vols.; Glasgow, 3 vols. 4to, and various editions. Haweis (d. 1820) was rector of Aldwinkle, Northamptonshire; his work had little value.–Next to be mentioned is *The Complete Family Bible: or a Spiritual Exposition of the Old and New Testament; wherein each chapter is summed up in its context, and the sacred text inserted at large, with Notes, spiritual, practical, and explanatory. By the Rev. Mr. Cruden, *London, 1770, 2 vols.–In the same year appeared a similar work under the title, *A Commentary on the Books of Old and New Testaments, in which, are inserted the Notes and Collections of John Locke, Esq., Daniel Waterland, D.D., and the Right Hon. Edward, Earl of Clarendon, and other learned persons, with practical improvements. By W. Dodd, LL.D., *London, 1770, 3 vols. This is mostly a compilation, the chief value of which consists in notes furnished from the original papers of John Locke, Dr. Waterland, Lord Clarendon, Gilbert West, and some others. Great use is also made of some of the printed and long-established commentaries on Scripture, such as Calmet, Houbigant, and Doddridge. Adam Clarke said, rather hyperbolically, that it was on the whole by far the best comment that had yet appeared in the English language.–The next work to be mentioned is *The Self-Interpreting Bible, containing the Old and the New Testaments, to which are annexed an . . . introduction, marginal references and illustrations . . . explanatory notes . . . etc., etc. By the late Rev. John Brown, Minister of the Gospel at Haddington, *London, 1778, 2 vols. It was repeatedly reprinted, and proved almost as popular south as north of the Tweed.–Henry Southwell published a *Bible, Authorized Version; with notes etc.; wherein the mis-translations are corrected, * London, 1782.–Another work of a similar character is *The Holy Bible, containing the Books of the Old and New Testaments, carefully printed from the fatal edition (compared with others) of the present translation; with notes by Thomas Wilson, D.D., Bishop of Sodor and Man, and various renderings, collected from other translations, by the Rev. Clement Crutwell, editor, *London, 1785, 8 vols. Bishop Wilson's notes are merely brief hints either for the explanation or the practical improvement of particular passages. Dr. Thomas Paris, in the Cambridge bible of 1762, and Dr. B. Blayney, in the Oxford Bible of 1769, added considerably to the number of marginal notes and references. ### 8. Thomas Scott and Others to 1810. But far more popular than any of the works already mentioned was the Bible with commentary edited by Rev. Thomas Scott. It had the largest circulation and sustained it through many years. It appeared under the title, *The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments; with original notes, practical observations, and copious marginal references. By Thomas Scott, Rector of Aston Sandford *(London, 1788, and often). As a commentary Dr. Scott's work was superior to any that had appeared before its time. Horne, usually a discriminating judge, speaks of it in high praise (cf. his *Manual of Biblical Bibliography, *London, 1839, p. 259).– In 1799 appeared *A Revised Translation and Interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures, after the Eastern manner, from concurrent authorities of critics, interpreters, and commentators' copies and versions; shewing that the inspired writings contain the seeds of the valuable sciences, being the source whence the antient philosophers derived them, also the most antient histories and greatest antiquities, and are the most entertaining as well as instructing to both the curious and serious *(by David Macrae, or J. M. Ray, J. McRay, or D. McRae; Glasgow, 1799; 2d ed., 1815; 4to, also in 3 vols. 8vo.). The author introduced many approved renderings, but marred the simplicity and dignity of the Authorized Version.–Another noteworthy annotated Bible is that of John Reeves, which appeared in ten volumes in London, 1802. The explanatory notes are based on Wells's *Paraphrase, * and the commentaries of Patrick, Lowth, Whitby, and others. A similar work was the so-called "Reformers' Bible," *The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments, according to the Authorized Version, with short Notes by several learned and pious Reformers, as printed by Royal Authority at the time of the Reformation, with additional Notes and Dissertations, *London, 1810. The notes in the Old Testament in this edition are taken from the Geneva Bible, the annotations of the New Testament from the Latin of Theodore Beza. ### 9. Adam Clarke, D'Oyly and Mant, and Bellamy, 1810-34. Also in 1810 there began to be published *The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments: the Text carefully printed from the most correct copies of the present authorized translation, including the marginal readings and parallel texts; with a Commentary, and Critical Notes, designed as a help to a better understanding of the Sacred Writings. By Adam Clarke, LL.D., F.A.S., *London, 1810-26. The author, a Wesleyan minister (see CLARKE, ADAM), attained a high reputation as a student of Oriental languages. The scope of the commentary is expressed in its own words: "In this work the whole of the text has been collated with the Hebrew and Greek originals, and all the ancient versions; the most difficult words analyzed and explained; the most important readings in the Hebrew collections of Kennicott and De Rossi on the Old Testament, and in those of Mill, Wetstein, and Griesbach on the New, are noticed; the date of every transaction, as far as it has been ascertained by the best chronologers, is marked; the peculiar customs of the Jews and neighboring nations, so frequently alluded to by the prophets, evangelists, and apostles, are explained from the best Asiatic authorities; the great doctrines of the Law and Gospel of God are defined, illustrated, and defended; and the whole is applied to the important purposes of practical Christianity." A considerable popularity was achieved also by D'Oyly and Mant's commentary, *The Holy Bible according to the Authorized Version, with Notes explanatory and practical, taken principally from the most eminent writers of the United Church of England and Ireland; together with appropriate introductions, tables, indexes, maps, and plans, prepared and arranged by the Rev. G. D'Oyly, B.D., and Rev. Richard Mant, D.D., * Oxford and London, 1814, 3 vols., and various subsequent editions printed at Cambridge and Oxford. "This work, which was published under the sanction of the venerable Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, professes to communicate only the results of the critical inquiries of learned men, without giving a detailed exposition of the inquiries themselves. These *results, *however, are selected with great judgment, so that the reader who may consult them on difficult passages will rarely be disappointed. Of the labour attending this publication some idea may be formed, when it is stated that the works of upward of one hundred and sixty authors have been consulted for it, amounting to several hundred volumes. On the fundamental articles of Christian verity–the Deity and atonement of Jesus Christ, and the personality and offices of the Holy Spirit–this work may be pronounced to be a library of divinity" (Horne, ut sup., pp. 261-262).–A work of a similar character was *The Holy Bible, newly translated from the original Hebrew, with Notes critical and explanatory. By John Bellamy, *London, 1818-34. Orme considers it a strange hodgepodge of error, confidence, misrepresentation, and abuse of learned and valuable writers in all the departments of Biblical literature. ### 10. Other Works 1818-38. Rev. B. Boothroyd edited *A New Family Bible, and Improved Version, from corrected Texts of the Originals, with Notes critical and explanatory; and short Practical Reflections on each Chapter, *Pontefract and London, 1818-23, 3 vols. The author has very happily blended critical disquisition with practical instruction, and an invariable regard to the spirit and design of revelation.–In 1821 there appeared *The Plain Reader's Help in the Study of the Holy Scriptures; consisting of Notes, explanatory and illustrative, chiefly selected or abridged from the Family Bible, published by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. By the Rev. William Thomas Bree, M.A., *Coventry, 1821-22. The aim was to supply brief and untechnical notes at a moderate price for readers who could not procure or consult larger works.–In 1824 appeared *The Holy Bible, arranged and adapted for family reading, with notes, etc. by a Layman of the Church of England *(2 vols., London).–Another popular Bible was the so-called *Cottage Bible and Family Expositor; containing the Authorized Translation of the Old and New Testaments, with Practical Reflections and short Explanatory Notes, calculated to elucidate difficult and obscure Passages. By Thomas Williams, * London, 1825-27, 3 vols., and various subsequent editions. This unassuming but cheap and useful commentary on the Holy Scriptures was professedly designed for persons and families in the humbler walks of life.–There is also to be mentioned *The Comprehensive Bible; containing the Old and New Testaments, according to the Authorized Version, with the various readings and marginal notes usually printed therewith; a general introduction, containing disquisitions on the genuineness, authenticity, and inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, various divisions and marks of distinction in the sacred Writings,–ancient versions,–coins, weights, and measures,–various sects among the Jews: introductions and concluding remarks to each book; the parallel passages contained in the Rev. J. Scott's Commentary, Canne's Bible, Rev. J. Brown's Self-Interpreting Bible, Dr. A. Clarke's Commentary, and the English Version of the Polyglott Bible systematically arranged ; philological arid explanatory notes. With chronological and other indexes *(by William Greenfield, London, 1827).–In 1828 there was published *The Holy Bible . . . principally designed to facilitate the audible or social reading of the Sacred Scriptures; illustrated with notes, historical, geographical, and otherwise explanatory, and also pointing out the fulfilment of various prophecies. By William Alexander*–vol. i–the Pentateuch–York, 1828; two other volumes were planned but did not appear). This Bible owed its origin to efforts of members of the Society of Friends. Passages "unsuitable for a mixed audience" were printed in italics below the text.–C. Girdlestone edited *The Old and New Testament, with a commentary, consisting of short lectures for the daily use of families, *London, 1835-42.–Another Bible of the same style was the *Treasury Bible. First division: containing the authorized English Version of the Holy Scriptures, as printed in Bagster's Polyglott Bible, with the same copious and original selection of references to parallel and illustrative passages, and similarly printed in a centre column. Second division: containing the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, consisting of a rich and copious assemblage of upwards of five hundred thousand parallel texts, from Canne, Brown, Blayney, Scott, and others, with numerous illustrative notes, *London, 1835.–In 1837 there was published *The Condensed Commentary and Family Exposition of the Holy Bible: containing the best criticisms of the most valuable Biblical Writers, with practical reflections and marginal references; chronology, indexes, etc., etc. By the Rev. Ingram Cobbin, M.A., *London, 1837. This work is literally a condensed commentary, derived from the best accessible sources. The notes are brief, but well chosen, and are partly critical and explanatory, partly practical. They are taken from nearly two hundred writers, British and foreign.–Another annotated Bible was edited by the Rev. C. Wellbeloved, *The Holy Bible, a New Translation, with introductory remarks, notes explanatory and critical, and practical, reflections, *2 vols., London, 1838. It is Unitarian and designed principally for the use of families. The standard English version of the Roman Catholics (the "Douai" Bible; see BIBLE VERSIONS, B, IV, § 5), was provided with notes setting forth and defending the Roman standpoint. The later annotated English Bibles of the Catholics are based chiefly upon these notes. Richard Challoner and George Leo Haydock (*The Holy Bible, *2 vols., Manchester, 1811-14; revised Reims and Douai text with extensive notes) are well-known Roman Catholic annotators. Most of the "minor versions" enumerated in § 8 of the article on English versions (BIBLE VERSIONS, B, IV) are annotated. ### 11. Republication in America. The popular works of England were reissued in America. The first American edition of Scott's commentary was printed and published by W. Woodward of Philadelphia in 1804 in 4 vols. Other issues followed by different publishers, most of them from the press of Woodward of Philadelphia, and that of Samuel T. Armstrong of Boston. The most popular form of the book was an octavo of six volumes. Scott's Bible had a continuous sale for more than forty years, and as late as 1841 W. E. Dean, 2 Ann Street, New York, published an edition in three volumes.–Adam Clarke's commentary was published by Ezra Sargeant, 86 Broadway, New York, in 1811.–Osterwald's *Observations *appeared in 1813 with this imprint: "New York: Published by Evert Duyckinck, John Tiebout, G. & R. Waite, and Websters & Skinners of Albany, George Long, Printer."–The first American edition of Matthew Henry's *Exposition * appeared in Philadelphia in 1816, published by Towar and Hogan in six volumes. They also issued a stereotyped edition in three volumes in 1829. Burder and Hughes of the same city issued a six volume edition in 1828, with preface by Archibald Alexander.–D'Oyly and Mant's Bible with commentary was reprinted in New York in 1818-20 by T. and J. Swords, 160 Pearl Street. This edition has additional notes from the pen of the Rt. Rev. John H. Hobart, D.D., bishop of New York, who quotes from a large number of Biblical scholars, mainly in the Anglican, Scottish, and American Episcopal Churches, who had not been noticed by the English editors.–Thomas Williams's *Cottage Bible, *reedited by the Rev. William Patton, was printed in two octavo volumes by Conner & Cooke, New York, in 1833. It contains numerous engravings and several maps, and was intended chiefly for the use of Sunday-schools and Bible-classes. The plates were sold by the New York printers, and in after-years the editions were issued at Hartford, Conn.–Greenfield's *Comprehensive Bible *was issued in 1839 with the imprint of "Robinson & Franklin, successors to Leavitt, Lord & Co., 180 Broadway." The book is a thick quarto of 1,460 pages. The American issue was also published by Lippincott, Gambo & Co., Philadelphia, in 1854, and by J. B. Lippincott & Co. in 1857. Canne's marginal notes and references appeared in many editions of American household and family Bibles, and John Brown's *Self-Interpreting Bible *was frequently reproduced. The American Tract Society early published a family Bible with brief notes and instructions and many editions were printed. Eugene Cummiskey, of Philadelphia, published various editions for Roman Catholics, such as *The Holy Bible, translated from the Latin Vulgate, with annotations, references, etc. *Isaiah Thomas, the famous author of the *History of Printing in America, *published and sold the Authorized Version with notes at his press in Worcester Mass.; various editions appeared after 1791. ### 12. Original American Works. One of the earliest productions of the Philadelphia press was *The Christian's New and Complete Family Bible, *published by William Woodhouse in 1790. It was issued in numbers, and the Rev. Paul Wright, D.D., vicar of Oakley, is supposed to have been the editor.–*The Columbian Family and Pulpit Bible *bears the imprint, "Boston: Published by Joseph Teal, printed by J. H. A. Frost, opposite U. S. Bank, Congress Street, 1822." It claims to be a "corrected and improved American edition of the Popular English Family Bible," supplied "with concise notes and annotations, theological, historical, chronological, critical, practical, moral, and explanatory"; also containing "sundry important received various readings from the most ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and the most celebrated versions of Scripture. Also, sundry corrections and improvements of our excellent English version (generally admitted by learned Christians of every name) with references to authors, versions, and manuscripts; also, an illustrative argument prefixed to each sacred book or epistle, from the best authorities." The volume is a folio, embellished with thirty-six engravings. The book was issued in numbers and had more than three thousand subscribers. The Rev. Jonathan Homer, D.D., of Newton, Mass., revised the observations, and condensed some of the notes and enlarged others.–In 1826 *The Collateral Bible * made its appearance with the following imprint: "Philadelphia: Printed by Samuel F. Bradford, and by E. Bliss and E. White, New York. J. Harding, Printer, 1826." This book was edited by William McCorkle, assisted by the Rev. Ezra Stiles Ely, D.D., a Presbyterian minister, and the Rev. Gregory T. Bedell, A.M., rector of St. Andrew's Church, Philadelphia. "In this work the best marginal references are printed at large, and in connection with every passage, by which means every parallel or related phrase in the sacred volume is brought at once under the eye, so as to present the whole scope and subject of every text at a single view" (Horne, *Biblical Bibliography, *p. 86). The three volumes comprised only the Old Testament, and the New Testament part was never attempted.–*The Devotional Family Bible *was edited by the Rev. Alexander Fletcher, D.D., "with practical and experimental reflections on each verse of the Old and New Testaments, and rich marginal references." An edition in quarto with fifty-seven illustrations was published with this imprint: "London and New York: Virtue, Emmins and Company." The title-page has no date, though O'Callaghan assigns the publication to the year 1835. ### 13. Later Works, English and American. Of more modern works of a similar character the following may be mentioned: the Lange commentary, translated and edited, with additions, by Philip Schaff and others (25 vols., New York, 1866-88); the work commonly known as the "Speaker's Commentary" (because suggested by the Right Hon. J. Evelyn Denison, speaker of the House of Commons), ed. F. C. Cook (10 vols., London, 1871-81); the *Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, *ed. J. J. S. Perowne (48 vols., Cambridge, 1877 sqq.); Bishop Ellicott's *Commentary for English Readers * (8 vols., London, 1877-84); J. H. Blunts *Annotated Bible . . . a Household Commentary on the Holy Scriptures *(3 vols., London, 1878); Clark's *Handbooks far Bible Classes, *ed. M. Dods and A. Whyte (47 vols., Edinburgh, 1879 sqq.); the *American Commentary *(Baptist; N. T. complete, ed. Alvah Hovey, 7 vols., O. T., 4 vols.–Lev. and Num., Job, Eccles., Prov. and Song of Songs–published at present, 1881 sqq.); the *International Illustrated Commentary on the New Testament, *ed. Philip Schaff (4 vols., New York, 1889); J. G. Butler, *Bible Work *(11 vols., 1892); the *New Century Bible, * ed. W. F. Adeney (N. T. complete, 13 vols.; O. T., 10 vols. issued, London, 1901 sqq.); and the *Temple Bible *(31 vols., London, 1901-03; especially useful for reading because the text is paragraphed according to the sense, and chapter and verse divisions are relegated to the margin). The so-called "Teachers' Bibles," of which many were published during the last quarter of the nineteenth century, may also be mentioned. BIBLIOGRAPHY: G. W. Panzer, *Geschichte der deutschen Bibelübersetzung Dr. M. Luthers von 1517-81, *Nuremberg, 1791; J. A. Göz, *Ueberblick über Luthers . . . Dolmetschung der heiligen Schrift und die . . . seiner Zeitgenossen, *Nuremberg, 1824; W. Orme, *Bibliotheca Biblica, * Edinburgh, 1824; F. H. Horne, *Manual of Biblical Bibliography, * London, 1839; M. Göbel, *Geschichte des christlichen Lebens in der rhein-westfälischen evangelischen Kirche, * vols. ii, iii, Coblenz, 1852-60; A. Beck, *Ernst der Fromme, * 2 vols., Weimer, 1865; A. Ritschl, *Geschichte des Pietismus, * vols. i, ii, Bonn, 1880-84; W. Böhne, *Die pädagogischen Bestrebungen Herzog Ernst . . . von Gotha, * Gotha, 1888; G. Frank, *Die Wertheimer Bibelübersetzung vor dem Reichshofrat in Wien, *in *ZKG, *xii (1891), 2.

**BIBLES FOR CHILDREN: **Various attempts have been made to present the Bible in the form of a "child's book." The selection of parts best adapted to immature minds and the omission of the unsuitable, with simplification of language, are the chief aims in such attempts. Illustrations, coarse print, and other typographical devices are naturally used freely. Such books spring from the conviction that the Bible contains spiritual truth for all and is the greatest instrument for awakening religious feeling and quickening moral perception, but that its usefulness for these ends is necessarily conditioned upon the form of presentation and that the latter may well be varied for different classes of readers. The following list mentions some noteworthy books of this sort in English, but makes no claim to completeness. *An Abridgement of the Holy Scriptures. By the Rev. Mr. Sellon, late Minister of St. James's, Clerkenwell, *published in 1781 and many later eds., at Hartford by Hale and Hosmer, 1813. *The Bible for Children. Arranged from the King James Version. With a Preface by the Rev. Francis Brown, D.D., and an Introduction by the Right Rev. Henry C. Potter, D.D. * [compiled by Mrs. Joseph B. Gilder], New York [1902]. *The Bible Story Re-told for Young People; the Old Testament Story by W. H. Bennett; the New Testament Story by W. F. Adeney, *London, 1897. *The Bible for Young People, *translated from the Dutch of H. Oort and I. Hooykas by P. H. Wicksteed, 6 vols., London, 1873-79; 2d ed., 1882. *The Children's Bible, or an History of the Holy Scriptures to which is added a new manual of devotions for children; by a divine of the Church of England, *London, 1759. *The Child's Bible. With plates. By a Lady of Cincinnati, * Philadelphia, Henry F. Anners, 1834. *A Compendium of the Religious Doctrines, Religious and Moral Precepts, Historical and Descriptive Beauties of the Bible; with a Separate Moral Selection from the Apocrypha; being a Transcript of the received Text: Intended for the use of Families, but more particularly as a Reading Book for Schools. *By Rodolphus Dickinson, Esq., . . . Greenfield, Mass., Horace Graves, Printer, 1814. *A curious Hieroglyphick Bible, or Select Passages in the Old and New Testaments, represented with emblematical figures, for the amusement of youth; designed chiefly to familiarize tender age, in a pleasing and diverting manner, with early ideas of the Holy Scriptures*–a very popular work which appeared in many editions (12th ed., London, 1792; Worcester, Mass., Isaiah Thomas, 1788; Dublin, 1789; etc.). It is a child's book, containing short passages of Scripture in which some of the words are represented by small cuts. *The Holy Bible abridged: or the History of the Old and New Testament. Illustrated with Notes, and adorned with cuts. For the Use of Children. To which is added, A Compleat Abstract of the Old and New Testament, with the Apocrypha, in Easy Verse, *New York, Hodge, Allen, and Campbell, 1790. *The School and Children's Bible; prepared under the superintendence of the Rev. William Ropers, . . . * London, 1873. It presents the Bible in a shortened form, "adapted for the use of children, and rearranges the matter." *The Bible for Young People, *New York, 1902, n. e., 1906. *Scripture Lessons for schools on the British system of mutual instruction. Adopted in Russia by order of the Emperor Alexander I., *London, 1820. According to the preface, these selections were originally made in Russian at St. Petersburg in 1818-19, and adopted in Russian schools at the instance of Prince Alexander Galitzin, minister of instruction. The Committee of the British and Foreign School Society then determined to issue them in the chief languages of Europe. The extracts are divided into: (1) Historical Lessons from the Old Testament; (2) Lessons on Duty toward God and Man; (3) Lessons from the Evangelists and the Acts.

**BIBLES, HISTORICAL (STORY-BIBLES): **The usual term applied to a compilation of Holy Scripture which, confining itself chiefly to the historical portions, adapts them to educational purposes. This may be done either by a faithful repetition of the Biblical narratives or by thoroughgoing changes in the selection of the material, by the representation of facts, and by devotional application. In this article the term is confined to certain medieval works which, written in the language of the people and in popular style, constituted in their time the chief literary media for disseminating the knowledge of Bible history. ### The Earliest Story-Bibles. It is an interesting fact that the historico-devotional mode of considering the Bible received attention only when the people themselves began their spiritual and religious emancipation. As soon as the vernacular was allowed to become the language of religious instruction, among the Anglo-Saxons and in Germany at the time of Charlemagne, literary phenomena appear which at least to a certain extent fall under the conception of Story-Bibles. It is said that the poetical productions of Cædmon in their original form treated the whole Bible history to the day of judgment; in the *Krist *of Otfrid of Weissenburg and in the Low Saxon *Heliand* not only was sacred history given in poetical form, but in picturesqueness and minuteness of details it appealed directly to the spirit of the people. Several other Story-Bibles in poetical form were subsequently composed, especially in Germany; among them the work of Rudolf of Ems seems to have become most popular. In the Biblical literature of Holland may be mentioned the "Riming Bible" of Jacob of Maerlant. Much older are the poetical compilations of Biblical history in the French language, especially that of Herman of Valenciennes and the popular *Roman de S. Fanuel * which piquantly interweaves evangelical history with apocryphal and miraculous stories. Compilations in prose were also written; it may be said, however, that the strictly literal method of translation made slow progress and fully asserted itself only at the time of the Reformation. It is strange that the history of the Old Testament was treated more frequently than that of the New Testament; probably, being the older and more unknown record, it was better adapted for a free compilation. ### Their Character and Sources. The space devoted to Genesis was large in proportion to that given to the other books of the Old Testament. At times an attempt was made to insert in chronological order the few facts known of secular history. As to the sources, many legendary elements from older times may have been incorporated from popular tradition. But most of these works presuppose a written source. The material, so far as it can not be traced immediately to the Vulgate, may easily be found in the popular collection of glosses of Walafrid Strabo or in the historical works of Vincent of Beauvais, of Gottfrid of Viterbo, and others. Moreover, later Story-Bibles used earlier works of the same nature. Thus the *Historia scholastica *of Peter Comestor was the source of several German and French works. Similarly, poetical works became the sources of works in prose. A popular Story-Bible of Germany may be traced to the poetical production of Rudolf of Ems, and French literature possesses prose compilations of older riming Bibles; even in the *Quatre Livres des rois *of the twelfth century there are found occasional rimes or even larger passages in verse, all of which clearly show that the original form of the Biblical story in popular literature was poetic. It was only gradually that higher theological education found its way back to the Bible text in its proper form. In Spain originated the *Historia general, *under the influence of King Alfonso the Wise (1252-84). He entrusted to certain scholars the task of writing a great collective work on the basis of the *Historia scholastica *of Peter Comestor, in which the whole history of the world should be represented in the framework of the Biblical stories with the addition of extensive portions from secular history. There is a distinction between the French expressions *bibles historiées *and *bibles historiales. Histoire *in Old French means "picture," because to people of no education history in the form of pictures was most easily available. Hence *bible historiée *means "illustrated Bible" (see BIBLES, ILLUSTRATED), while *bible historiale *denotes "Story-Bible." *Bibles historiales *are, then, the works treated above. Of this sort was the translation of the *Historia scholastica *of Peter Comestor into the dialect of Picard by Guyard des Moulins, canon of Aire in Artois (1295), a work which, in connection with a literal translation of the Bible dating from the thirteenth century, formed for hundreds of years one of the most popular Story-Bibles (see BIBLE VERSIONS, B, VI, § 2). It was reserved for the Reformation to place in the hands of Christian people the whole Bible according to the original texts, without glosses and additions, and thus with the beginning of that period the Story-Bible had fulfilled its mission. (S. BERGER†.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: M. Güdemann, *Haggadah und Midrasch-Haggadah, *Berlin, 1884; D. H. Müller and J. v. Schlosser, *Die Haggadah von Sarajevo, *Vienna, 1898; T. Merzdorf, *Bibliothekarische Unterhaltungen, *Oldenberg, 1850; E. Reuss, *Die deutsche Historienbibel, *Jena, 1855; idem, *Geschichte der heiligen Schriften des N. T., *§§ 463-464, Brunswick, 1887; *Les Quatre Livres des rois, *ed. Le R. de Liney, Paris, 1841; E. Reuse, in *Revue de théologie et philosophie, *xvi (1857), 1 sqq.; H. Palm, *Eine mittelhochdeutsche Historienbibel, *Breslau, 1867; J. Bonnard, *Les Traductions de la Bible en vers français, *Paris, 1884; *Le Roman de S. Fanuel, *ed. C. Chabaneau, ib. 1889; L. Delisle, *Livres d'images destinés à l'instruction religieuse des laïques, *Paris, 1890; S. Berger, *Les Bibles Castillanes, *in *Romania, *xxviii, 1899.

### BIBLES, ILLUSTRATED. Illustrated Manuscripts, Roman and Byzantine (§ 1). Teutonic and Celtic Manuscripts (§ 2). Manuscripts of the Eleventh Century (§ 3). Biblia Pauperum (§ 4). Illustrated Bibles of the Reformation and Later (§ 5). The Nineteenth Century (§ 6). ### 1. Illustrated Manuscripts, Roman and Byzantine. The history of illustration goes back beyond the Christian era; the ancients adorned manuscripts of Homer, Vergil, and Livy with drawings and richly painted designs, and illustrations were introduced for educational purposes into the works of Vitruvius on architecture, Aratus on astrology, and Vegetius on the art of war. In like manner, from the time of Constantine and probably earlier, illustration was applied to manuscripts of the Bible. Presumably to this decoration may be referred what Jerome and Chrysostom say in reprobation of the luxury which people allowed themselves in the ornamentation of the Scriptures. The high veneration paid to the Bible explains the zeal with which miniature-painting was pursued in the early Church. The extant illustrated manuscripts do not apparently go further back than the fourth century (the fragment of Genesis in the Vienna library; the Vatican Joshua; the evangeliarium of Rossano; and a Syriac evangeliarium of 586 in the Laurentian library at Florence). In these many features, such as the architecture, costume, action, the introduction of allegorical figures and personifications, indicate the nature of the scene or its locality, which are derived from ancient art and reveal the prevalence of a good tradition. Among them are small pictures executed in body-colors with idyllic artistic feeling, after the manner of the older mural painting. The miniatures of the Vienna Genesis are still partly in the purely illusionist style which had been dominant since the Flavian period, like the paintings in the Baths of Constantine; but the greater part of them are in a style specially adapted to book illustration, more a draftsman's than a painter's. They exhibit the continued influence of the narrative art of the Roman empire in the second and third centuries, as shown in the pictures from the Odyssey on the Esquiline, on Roman sarcophagi, and in the pictures of Philostratus; this defined the specific style of all Christian compositions until the sixteenth century. The illustrations of the Paris Psalter and other manuscripts which may be assigned to the end of the fourth century are characteristic of the end of Greek and the beginning of Roman painting. The Joshua continues the Roman triumphal style, with strong affinity to the reliefs of Trajan's Column. In the Byzantine empire the influence of the ancient civilization was long felt; but a more ornamental tendency came in with the iconoclastic controversy. It is true there are some illustrations of the ninth and tenth centuries, a psalter and a commentary on Isaiah in the Vatican, another psalter and the sermons of Gregory Nazianzen in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris, which are worthy to stand by the side of the early Christian specimens; but as a rule the drawing grows harder and stiffer. Ornamentation, on the other hand, is richer; the gold ground becomes more usual, the initial letters are made prominent, and the ornamental borders are more noteworthy. Mosaic and enamel painting set the style for the miniatures as well. The standard of Byzantine painting is laid down in the Mount Athos "Guide to Painting" (1458; translated into German by G. Schäfer, Treves, 1855). The development of illustration in the West was altogether different. Here, too, the influence of the early Christian tradition was operative; but the entrance of the Teutonic nations into the Church brought new impulses and new problems. They were, indeed, barbarians, without any native artistic style; but they brought with them a joyous power of accomplishment, a feeling for nature, and a bold love of truth which had far-reaching effects. ### 2. Teutonic and Celtic Manuscripts. The Roman tradition continued among the Lombards and the Franks; but art became ruder and less refined. In the early Christian and Byzantine manuscripts the decoration had been usually confined to the addition of pictures; the Teutonic peoples extended it to the text itself. The initials are almost buried in bright colors and elaborate decoration, the leaves framed in colored designs. The scribe was often the painter. These characteristics appear plainly in the Irish manuscripts–the "Book of Kells" at Trinity College, Dublin, and those of Würzburg, Treves, and St. Gall. The influence of Gregory the Great helped to preserve the early Christian traditions among the Anglo-Saxons and Franks until within the Carolingian period (the Purple Gospel in the British Museum and an evangeliarium at Cambridge, seventh century). An independent conception comes out first in the illustrations proper, without any feeling for perspective, but with an attractive effort to attain truth and naturalness (Ashburnham Pentateuch, seventh century). Under the Carolingians great schools were founded for artistic copying of manuscripts at Tours, Orleans, Metz, Reichenau, St. Gall, Treves, etc. Their work was connected with the old tradition by its sober-minded simplicity and its careful technique (evangeliarium of Godescalc, Paris; another at Vienna; another of St. Médard, 826, at Soissons; another of King Lothair, 843, and the Bible of Charles the Bald, 850, both in Paris). In the provinces the development, though less beautiful, was more independent (Bible of Alcuin, British Museum). Here the draftsman takes precedence of the painter, but the work is marked by originality and poetic imagination and power (Utrecht Psalter, ninth century; a benedictionale at Chatsworth; evangeliaria of Otto I at Aix-la-Chapelle, of Egbert at Treves, c. 980, of Echternach at Gotha, c. 990, and of Otto III at Aix-la-Chapelle). Then the decoration becomes gradually more elaborate, the pictorial and ornamental parts begin to interchange their qualities, the initiate and borders are rich and gay. ### 3. Manuscripts of the Eleventh Century. In the eleventh century the Cluniac mood of struggle and renunciation prevails; the spiritual excitement and vivid fancy of the time are shown in the Bible-illustrations; wasted forms in stiff garments set forth the ascetic ideal of their creators; truth to nature disappears entirely. And yet there is great progress in every domain of the intellectual life-it is the age of Bernard. Even in the miniatures there are signs of the awakening of the individual life; beneath all the passion and combat there are a quiet melancholy and longing for peace. Henry II endowed his Bamberg foundations with beautifully painted books, and at Hildesheim an important scriptorium, influential throughout the north of Europe, was founded by Bernward, himself a pioneer in painting. Here the forms are hard and traditional, but the content is new and full of deep and animated feeling. After the rise of general civilization under the Hohenstaufens, the bars of form were to a great extent broken down. The joy of living came back, and led the imagination once more into the comprehension of beautiful things, both graceful and dignified. There is a better feeling for outline, and the study of the heritage of antiquity seems to revive. The Bruchsal evangeliarium at Carlsruhe shows surprisingly good drawing and natural movement, as does another of about 1200 in the cathedral library at Treves; best of all is that of Henry the Lion, formerly in the cathedral treasury at Prague but now in the possession of the Duke of Cumberland, and the Merseburg Vulgate. A brilliant period for miniature-painting was opening; but its tone was characterized rather by breadth than by depth, and the more popular it became, the more the profound symbolism of the early times disappeared. Illustration was now bestowed less on Bibles than on books used in public worship, until at the end of the Middle Ages artistic interest once more covered the whole Bible; but new life really came into this branch of illustration with the invention of wood-engraving. ### 4. Biblia Pauperum. The transition to illustrated Bibles for the people is seen in the *Biblia pauperum *of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries–short representations of the earthly life of Christ in simple drawings, generally uncolored, ranging in number from thirty-four to fifty. Each event depicted is accompanied by two antitypes from the Old Testament and by four prophets with appropriate citations, and the pictures are explained in Latin or in German. The most important examples of these "Bibles of the Poor" are those of St. Florian in Lower Austria, of the Lyceum library at Constance, in the Vienna and Munich libraries [and in the ducal library at Wolfenbüttel]. ### 5. Illustrated Bibles of the Reformation and Later. With the invention of printing and engraving, especially wood-engraving, both the Bible and art became common property. Reproductions of the *Biblia pauperum, *which now first became really accessible to the "poor," are among the most celebrated of early block books. The German Bibles before Luther (Augsburg 1477, Cologne c. 1480, Nuremberg 1483, Lübeck 1494) have woodcuts. Finally Dürer, with the wonderful vision which could realize even the majestic pictures of the Apocalypse, teased Biblical illustration to its highest dignity. With the vernacular text, eagerly sought after as it was, a great variety of illustrations went hand in hand. Luther recognized their importance to the Reformation cause and promoted illustration zealously, and Melanchthon drew rough sketches, which he gave to Lucas Cranach for execution. Bible-illustration has never had such a vogue as in the first half of the sixteenth century. The most splendid edition was published by Krafft of Wittenberg in 1576 and 1584. With Bibles of the middle of the century Biblical illustrating took a new direction, when line-engraving gradually forced wood-engraving into the background. The latter was used mainly for cheap popular editions, while artistic tendencies were mainly displayed by the former. In 1607 the fifty-two pictures from the *logge *of the Vatican, the so-called Raffael Bible, engraved by Badalocchio and Lanfranco, were published, followed by another important series of line-engravings, the *Icones biblicæ *and *Historiæ sacræ *published by Merian at Frankfort, 1625-27, and a long list of similar works in Germany, France, and Italy. In the eighteenth century wood-engraving almost entirely died out, except for cheap ephemeral productions, while line-engraving flourished in the hands of the Dutch school, who shared the renown of the French. German art was mainly imitative, and produced little that is noteworthy in Biblical illustration. Good editions, on the other hand, were published during this period in Holland by Mortier, 1700; Danckers, 1700; Luyken, 1740; Schots, 1749. In France the best were those of Basnage, 1705, and Martin, 1724. In England, besides the Oxford Bible of 1717, there were the editions of Royaumont, 1705; Clarke, 1759; and Fleetwood, 1769. In all these the Dutch-Flemish spirit appears, with its wide, free, joyous life; the fundamental principles of illustration are based on imitation of painting; Rubens, and Rembrandt for etching, are the highest authorities. In the nineteenth century Bible-illustration took a new impulse from England. The modern romantic manner and straining after effect entered into it, largely as a result of the great *Holy Bible with Engravings from Pictures and Designs by the most Eminent Artists, * published in London, 1800. [This, however, had been anticipated by the *Historical Part of the Holy Bible *with illustrations engraved by John Cole (London, 1730) and a volume with the same title illustrated by John Sturt, as well as by the James Tittler Bible (4 vols., 1794-95). It was followed by a series of efforts, such as the *Pictorial Bible *by Charles Knight, with woodcuts (London, 1828-29, New York, 1843), another of the same name, but with steel engravings (London, 1847-49), a numerous series of *Bible Picture Books *issued by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge and the Religious Tract Society, and *Bible Illustrations, * issued by Frowde (London, 1896).] ### 6. The Nineteenth Century. The interest in the Orient which came up with Napoleon's Egyptian campaign, in alliance with the strong realistic tendency of the century, brought in a wholly new sort of illustrated Bible, like Brown's *Family Bible *(London and New York), with views of towns and landscapes in addition to historical pictures. Later, wood-engraving revived reached once more an unexpected height of excellence, and succeeded in getting in touch with the great masses of the people. Notable products of this revival (in Germany) were Oliver's Bible of 1834; Overbeck's forty fine illustrations to the New Testament (1841); the Cotta edition of 1850, with 175 wood-engravings after the first artists of Germany; and, best of all the German editions, that published by Wigand (Leipsic, 1852- 1860), with 240 illustrations by Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld (Eng. ed., Leipsic, 1855-60; London, 1869). The technically brilliant but too theatrical designs of Doré won great popularity. The Germans have recently published several noteworthy editions, such as the "Pfeilstücker Bible" in 1887, with many explanatory archeological drawings, and the "Star Bible" published by Hinrichs (Leipsic) in 1892, with reproductions of classical pictures for the Old Testament and Hofmann's for the New. [One of the latest attempts at Biblical illustration is the work of the French artist J. J. J. Tissot (d. 1902), who, during a ten years' residence in Palestine, prepared a series of sketches based upon study of the Biblical places and environment. *The Life of our Lord Jesus Christ, *with 365 compositions in color and black and white, was published in 4 vols. in 1899-1900, and *The Old Testament, * with 396 similar illustrations, in 1904 (2 vols.).] (H. HÖLSCHER.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: A. de Bastard, *Peintures et ornements des MSS., *especially vol. iii, 8 vols., Paris, 1832-69 (4th-16th centuries, a very complete work); idem, *Peintures, ornements . . . de la Bible de Charles le Chauve . . . à Paris, *ib. 1883; H. Shaw, Illuminated Ornaments of the Middle Ages, London, 1833 (6th-17th centuries, elaborate and costly); idem, *Handbook of the Art of Illumination, *ib. 1869; J. O. Westwood, *Illuminated Illustrations of the Bible, copied from Select MSS. of the Middle Ages, * ib. 1846 (with descriptive letterpress); H. N. Humphreys, *Illuminated Books of the Middle Ages, *ib. 1849 (historical and illustrative); H. A. Müller, *Das Evangelistarium Heinrichs III. in der Stadtbibliothek zu Bremen, *Bremen, 1862; W. R. Tymms, *Art of Illuminating, *London, 1866 (noteworthy); J. O. Westwood, *Facsimiles of the Miniatures and Ornaments of Anglo-Saxon and Irish MSS., * ib. 1868; J. H. Todd, *Descriptive Remarks on Illuminations, *ib. 1869 (deals largely with the Book of Kells); J. E. Wocel, *Die Bilderbibel des Belislav, *Prague, 1871; A. Frind, *Scriptum super Apocalypsin cum imaginibus, * ib. 1872; F. W. Delamotte, *Primer of the Art of Illumination, * London, 1874; W. de G. Birch and H. Jenner, *Early Drawings and Illuminations; Introduction to the Study of Illuminated MSS., *ib. 1879 ("a handsome book for specialists"); A Springer, *Psalterillustrationen im frühen Mittelalter, *Leipsic, 1881; idem, *Die Genesisbilder in der Kunst des frühen Mittelalters, *ib. 1884; O. von Gebhardt, *The Miniatures of the Ashburnham Pentateuch, *London, 1883; R. Muther, *Die ältesten deutschen Bilderbibeln, *Munich, 1883; F. X. Kraus, *Die Miniaturen des Codex Egberti . . . zu Trier, *Freiburg, 1884; idem, *Geschichte der christlichen Kunst, *i, 447 sqq., ib. 1896; *Geschichte der deutschen Kunst, *vol. iii, H. Janitschek, *Die Malerei, *Berlin, 1890; K. von Lützow, *Geschichte des deutschen Kupferstichs und Holzschnitts, *vol. iv, ib. 1891; S. Beissel, *Das . . . Evangelienbuch im Dome zu Hildesheim, *Hildesheim, 1891; J. Strzygowski, *Das Etschmiadzin Evangeliar, *Vienna, 1891; C. von Kobell, *Miniaturen und Initialen aus MSS. des 4.-16. Jahrhunderts, *Munich, 1892; J. H. Middleton, *Illuminated MSS. in Classical and Modern Times, *London, 1892 (letterpress elaborate and comprehensive); W. von Hartel and F. Wickhoff, *Die Wiener Genesis, *Vienna, 1895; S. Berger, *Les Manuels pour l'illustration du Psautier, *in *Mémoires de la société des antiquités, *1898, lvii; G. E. Warner, *Illuminated MSS., *London, 1900; the illustrations of the Evangeliarium of Rossano are reproduced in the exact size of the originals by A. Munoz, Rome, 1907. On the *Biblia Pauperum *consult: S. L. Sotheby, *Principia typographica, *London, 1858; J. T. Berjeau, *Biblia pauperum, *London, 1859; A. Camesina and G. Heider, *Die bildlichen Darstellungen der Biblia pauperum . . . in St. Florian, *Vienna, 1863; E. la Roche, *Die älteste Bilderbibel, die sogenannte Biblia pauperum, *Basel, 1881; W. L. Schreiber, *Manuel de l'amateur de la gravure . . . au xve. siècle, *7 vols., Leipsic, 1891-1900; F. Laib and F. J. Schwarz, *Biblia pauperum, *Freiburg, 1899; E. M. Thompson, *On a MS. of the Biblia pauperum, *in *Bibliotheca, *iii, 1897; *Biblia pauperum. Unicum der Heidelberger Universitäts-Bibliothek, in 34 Lichtdrucktafeln und 4 Tafeln, *Berlin, 1906.

### BIBLES, POLYGLOT. The Complutensian Polyglot. The Antwerp Polyglot. The Paris Polyglot. The London Polyglot (Walton's Polyglot). Minor Polyglots. Polyglot Bibles are editions of the Bible presenting the text in several languages side by side. The practical needs of the Jews after Hebrew ceased to be a living tongue led to the preparation of manuscripts giving, with the original Hebrew, translations or paraphrases in Aramaic, Greek, Arabic, Persian, and the languages of Europe. Like conditions in the Church were met in similar manner. Certain manuscripts of the New Testament in both Greek and Latin are mentioned in the article BIBLE-TEXT, II, 1, § 9. An edition in the original and in modern Greek was printed in 1638 at the instance of Cyril Lucar (see BIBLE VERSIONS, B, VIII), and the needs of Syria, Egypt, and Armenia are met in like manner by editions still issued by Rome and by Protestant Bible Societies. The so-called glossaries (see GLOSSES, BIBLICAL) and interlinear versions giving the Vulgate and the vernacular text of the Middle Ages may also be mentioned in this connection. And there are numerous modern copies of the Vulgate accompanied by an English, German, French, Spanish, or Italian translation. The name Polyglot, however, can not strictly be given to editions presenting but two languages (Gk. *polys *= "many"), and, in common usage, is restricted to certain particular works, viz.: **I. The Complutensian Polyglot, **one of the most noted and rarest of Biblical works, was undertaken under the supervision and at the expense of Cardinal Francisco Ximenez de Cisneros, archbishop of Toledo and chancellor of Castile (d. 1517), and was prepared by the most famous scholars of Spain, such as Demetrius Ducas of Crete, Antonio of Lebrija, Diego Lopez de Stunica, Ferdinand Nuñez de Guzman, and Alphonso of Zamora. After years of labor the work was printed at Alcala (Latin, *Complutum*) between 1513 and 1517, being finished only a few months before the death of the cardinal, and was published in 1520 with the sanction of Pope Leo X. It consists of six folio volumes, the first four including the Old Testament, the fifth the New Testament, and the sixth being a Hebrew-Chaldee lexicon with grammatical and other notes (printed separately as *Alphonsi Zamorensis introductiones artis grammaticæ Hebraicæ, * Alcala, 1526). The languages are (1) the Hebrew of the Old Testament; (2) the Targum of Onkelos; (3) the Septuagint (here printed for the first time and with remarkable alterations of the manuscripts to make the text fit the Hebrew or the Latin); (4) the Vulgate; (5) the Greek New Testament. Latin translations of the Targum and Septuagint are appended. The title-page and last page are given in reduced facsimile in Schaff's *Companion to the Greek Testament *(New York, 1885). **II. The Antwerp Polyglot **(*Biblia Regia*) was printed at the expense of Philip II of Spain by the famous Antwerp printer Christophe Plantin (8 vols., folio, 1569-72). Benedictus Arias Montanus (see ARIAS, BENEDICTUS) had charge of the work, with the help of Spanish, Belgian, and French scholars, among them André Maes, Guy le Fèvre de la Boderie, and François Rapheleng. Volumes i-iv contain the Old Testament, vol. v the New; besides the original texts, the Vulgate, and the Septuagint with Latin translation, Aramaic targums of the Old Testament (with the exception of Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles) are given, with Latin translation; also the old Syriac (Peshito) version of the New Testament, lacking II Peter, II and III John, Jude, and the Apocalypse; it is printed with both Syriac and Hebrew characters and has a Latin translation. Volumes vi-vii contain the Hebrew lexicon of Sanctes Pagninus, the Syriac-Chaldee lexicon of Le Fèvre de la Boderie, a Syriac grammar by Maes, a Greek dictionary and archeological treatises by Arias Montanus, and many brief philological and critical notes. The last volume repeats the Hebrew and Greek texts with interlinear Latin translations, by Sanctes Pagninus of the former, and the Vulgate for the latter; this part of the work, especially the New Testament, has often been reprinted. The critical preparation was defective and the manuscripts used were of secondary importance; in many places there is dependence on the Complutensian work. **III. The Paris Polyglot, **the most magnificent but scientifically least important of all, was printed at the expense of Guy Michel le Jay in seven languages (10 vols., 1629-45). Volumes i-iv are merely reprints of the Antwerp Bible. Volumes v-vi contain the New Testament from the same edition, augmented by the Syriac Antilegomena and an Arabic version with Latin translation. The other volumes contain (1) the so-called Samaritan Pentateuch with its Samaritan translation (see BIBLE VERSIONS, A, IV); (2) the Syriac; and (3) an Arabic version of the Old Testament, all with Latin translations. The Oratorian Jean Morin prepared the Samaritan texts and the Maronite Gabriel Sionita did most of the Syriac work. **IV. The London Polyglot (Walton's Polyglot)**, the most scholarly and the commonest of all, was undertaken by Brian Walton, afterward bishop of Chester, and completed in 1657 (6 vols., London). Walton had the help of nearly all contemporary English scholars, particularly the Orientalists Edmund Castell, Edward Pococke, Thomas Hyde, Dudley Loftus, Abraham Wheelocke, Thomas Greaves, and Samuel Clarke. The excellence of this Polyglot over others consists in the greater number of old Oriental versions and the much greater and more intelligent work of the editor. The first four volumes contain the Old Testament in the Hebrew with the Antwerp interlinear version, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint from the Vatican edition of 1587 with the variants of the Alexandrine codex, the fragments of the Itala collected by Flaminius Nobilius, the Vulgate from the Vatican edition with the corrections of Lucas of Brügge, the Peshito augmented by the translation of certain apocrypha, a better edition of the Arabic version, the Targums from Buxtorf, the Samaritan translation of the Pentateuch, and the Ethiopic version of the Psalms and Song of Songs. These texts (nine in all), with Latin translations of the Greek and the Oriental, are arranged side by side or one under the other. Two additional Targums, that of Pseudo-Jonathan and that of Jerusalem, with a Persian translation are given in vol. iv. The New Testament appears in vol. v, the text with few changes from Robert Stephens's folio edition of 1550; then are given Arias's version and the variants of the Alexandrine codex, Syriac, Latin, Ethiopic, and Arabic versions, and the Gospels in Persian, with literal Latin translations. Walton's *Apparatus, *a critical-historical introduction in vol. i, was not superseded for more than a century, and was several times republished. Volume vi contains critical collections to all the texts published. Finally Edmund Castell's *Lexicon Heptaglottum *(2 parts, Cambridge, 1669) is usually counted as an integral part of this Polyglot. **V. Minor Polyglots:** Less important are (1) the *Heidelberg Polyglot (Polyglotta Sanctandreana; * Old Testament, 1586; New Testament added, 1599), probably edited by Bonaventure Corneille Bertram, professor of Hebrew at Geneva 1566-84, afterward preacher at Frankenthal. It contains the original texts and Septuagint, with Latin translations, and the Vulgate, all from the Antwerp Polyglot. (2) The *Hamburg Polyglot *(1596) consists of six volumes by David Wolder, giving in four columns the Greek texts, the Vulgate, Pagninus's Latin translation of the Old Testament and Beza's of the New, with Luther's German version, to which Elias Hutter's Hebrew Bible of 1587 was added with new title-page bearing the date 1596. (3) The *Nuremberg Polyglot, *the work of Elias Hutter, comprises (*a*) an Old Testament in six languages (1599), carried only to the Book of Ruth; (*b*) a Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and German Psalter (1602); (*c*) a New Testament in twelve languages (2 parts, 1599)–Syriac, Italian, Hebrew, Spanish, Greek, French, Vulgate, English, German, Danish, Bohemian, and Polish; (*d*) a New Testament in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and German, taken from the preceding (1602). (4) The *Leipsic Polyglot *of Christianus Reineccius, rector at Weissenfels, has the New Testament in five languages (1713) and the Old Testament in four (2 vols., 1750-51). (5) The *Bielefeld Polyglot, *ed. R. Stier and C. G. W. Theile (4 vols., ii and iii in two parts, 1846-55), contains the Old Testament in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and German, the New Testament in the last three languages, with variants of different German versions in the fourth column; there are also copies with the English version in place of the German. Lastly, mention may be made of the *Biblia Hexaglotta * of E. R. de Levante (6 vols., London, 1874-1876), and Bagster's *Biblia sacra polyglotta, *with prolegomena by S. Lee (London, 1831). Other works including only portions of the Bible do not fall within the scope of this article. E. NESTLE. BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. Le Long, *Bibliotheca Sacra, emendata . . . ab A. G. Masch, *part i, chap. 4, pp. 331-408, Halle, 1778; idem, *Discours historique sur les principales éditions des Bibles polyglottes, *pp. 554 sqq., Paris, 1713; B. Pick, *History of Printed Editions . . . and Polyglot Bibles, *in *Hebraica, *ix (1892-93), 47-116.

**BIBLES, RABBINIC, **called also Great Bibles *(Mikra'ot Gedolot): *Hebrew Bibles containing, besides the original text, the commentaries of sundry Jewish rabbis. The first of these Bibles was published by Daniel Bomberg, edited by Felix Pratensis (4 parts, Venice, 1517-18); it contains, besides the Hebrew, the Aramaic paraphrases and commentaries of eight different writers on certain books, Masoretic notes, and other matter. As the editor was a convert to Christianity, his work did not prove acceptable to the Jews. Its faults induced Bomberg to undertake another edition, for which he employed as editor the celebrated Masoretic scholar Jacob ben Hayyim, who in after-life also embraced Christianity. This edition, the Hebrew title of which means "The Holy Gate of the Lord," was published at Venice (4 vols., 1524-25) and, like the first edition, contains the Hebrew text, the Aramaic commentaries, and the Masoretic notes. The editor's introduction, containing a treatise on the Masorah, has been translated into English by Christian David Ginsburg ( *Jacob ben Chajim's Introduction to the Rabbinic Bible, *London, 1865), who based *The Massoretic Critical Text of the Hebrew Bible *(1894) on this edition of Hayyim. A revised and improved edition of the second Bomberg Bible was published (Venice, 1546-48) under the supervision of Cornelius Adelkind. The changes made in this edition were the omission of some commentaries and the substitution of others. Bomberg's fourth Rabbinic Bible, by J. de Gara, was carried through the press and corrected by Isaac ben Joseph Salem and Isaac ben Gershon Treves (4 vols., Venice, 1568). The correctors remark at the end of the work that they have reinserted in this edition the portion of the Masorah omitted in the edition of 1546-48. Appended to this is the so-called Jerusalem Targum on the Pentateuch. A Rabbinic Bible (4 vols., Venice, 1617-18) was published by Pietro and Lorenzo Bragadini and edited by the celebrated Leon of Modena. It contains the Aramaic paraphrases, the Masorah, and the Rabbinic commentaries of De Gara's edition. This edition, however, is of less value to the critical student, being censored by the Inquisition. Buxtorf's Rabbinic Bible or *Biblia sacra Hebraica et Chaldaica cum Masora, quæ critica Hebræorum sacra est, magna et parva ac selectissimis Hebræorum interpretum commentariis *(4 parts, 2 vols., Basel, 1618-19) has a Latin preface by Buxtorf, a table of the number of chapters in the Bible, and a poem of Aben Ezra in the Hebrew language. Besides the Hebrew and the Aramaic paraphrases, it contains the commentaries of Rashi, Aben Ezra, and others, and Buxtorf's *Tiberias sive commentarius masorethicus triplex. *The whole is formed after Jacob ben Hayyim's second edition (1546-48), with some corrections and alterations by Buxtorf. Buxtorf's Bible is imperfect, but in spite of its deficiencies, the student must still thank the editor for his work, which, however, was criticized by R. Simon in his *Histoire critique du Vieux Testament *(p. 513). The next Rabbinic Bible was the *Sepher Kehillat Moshe, * or "Book of the Congregation of Moses," edited by Moses Frankfurter (4 vols., Amsterdam, 1724-27). This is the most valuable of all the Rabbinic Bibles. It is founded upon the Bomberg editions, and gives not only their contents, but also those of Buxtorf's, with much additional matter. The latest Rabbinic Bible is the *Mikra'ot Gedolot *published at Warsaw (12 vols., 1860-68) by Lebenson. This gigantic work contains thirty-two commentaries, old and new, among others the critical commentary of Norzi. The Hebrew text is on the whole very correct, the size is more convenient than that of its predecessors, and the edition is recommended by the best Jewish authorities in Poland and Austria. B. PICK. BIBLIOGRAPHY: The one book for consultation is C. D. Ginsburg, *Introduction to the Massoretico-critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible, *London, 1897; cf. B. Pick, in *Hebraica, * ix (1892-93), 47-116.

**BIBLIA PAUPERUM** ("Bible of the Poor"). See BIBLES, ILLUSTRATED, § 4.

**BIBLIANDER (BUCHMANN), THEODOR: **Swiss theologian and teacher; b. at Bischofszell (11 miles s.s.e. of Constance), Switzerland, 1504 (1509?); d. at Zurich Nov. 26, 1564. He studied Hebrew under Jacob Ceporinus in Zurich, in 1526 under Pellican and Œcolampadius at Basel, and later on under Capito. When Duke Frederick II of Liegnitz in 1527 asked for teachers for his high school, the Council of Zurich sent him Bibliander, who served there two years with distinction. He then returned home and was appointed Zwingli's successor in the theological professorship at Zurich in 1531. Bibliander's specialty was linguistics, and he used to call himself *homo grammaticus; *he was versed in the Semitic dialects and was master of several modern languages. From the beginning his rendering of the Prophets was successful, was indorsed by Bullinger and Pellican, and caused J. H. Hottinger to call him the father of exegetical theology in Switzerland. He wrote also on Hebrew Grammar and on Comparative Linguistics. Perhaps the greatest sensation he caused was that produced by his publication of the Koran (1543, rev. ed., 1550); the magistrates at Basel tried to prohibit the book, but Luther interfered in defense of it and of the translator. Bibliander issued studies on the Gospel of Mark and the *Protevangelium Jacobi, * translating them into Latin. His works betray a rich historical knowledge. Especially worthy of mention in this regard are his *De Ratione Temporum *(1551) and *Temporum Supputatio *(1558). Most of his writings were never published, but are preserved in manuscript at Zurich. Next to Bullinger, Bibliander appears as the most respected representative of the Church at Zurich. He participated in all theological and ecclesiastical discussions, preserving the heritage of Zwingli. He assisted in the publication of Zwingli's and Œcolampadius's letters (1536). In some treatises he openly attacked the Catholic Church and the Tridentinum (*De Legitima Vindicatione Christianismi, * 1553), and antagonized the Roman propaganda, appealing to England as the land of Christian liberty. He advocated missions to the Jews and Mohammedans, and went so far as to start on mission work, being restrained only by Bullinger's representations. He was made *emeritus * and given a pension in 1560. (EMIL EGLI.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: A list of the writings of Bibliander is given in H. J. Leu, *Allgemeines Lexicon, *iv, 11-14, 20 vols., Zurich, 1747-65. For his life consult J. J. Christinger, *T. Bibliander, ein biographisches Denkmal, *Frauenfeld, 1867; E. Egli, *Analecta reformatoria, *vol. ii, Zurich, 1901.

**BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. **See ARCHEOLOGY, BIBLICAL.

**BIBLICAL CANON**. See CANON OF SCRIPTURE.

### BIBLICAL CRITICISM. Conception and Problem. The History of the Term (§ 1). Limitations and Sphere of the Critic (§ 2). Biblical Criticism (§ 3). The Critical Method. Fundamental Assumptions (§ 1). Classification (§ 2). Function (§ 3). The Departments of Criticism. Criticism of the Canon (§ 1). Textual Criticism and Apparatus (§ 2). Linguistic Criticism (§ 3). Historical Criticism (§ 4). Criticism of Style (§ 5). Reconstructive Criticism (§ 6). History of Criticism. Meaning and Limitations (§ 1). Hellenistic and Patristic Criticism (§ 2). Criticism from the Time of the Reformation (§ 3). Modern Criticism (§ 4). Biblical Criticism in the Roman Catholic Church. ### I. Conception and Problem: Criticism, like interpretation, is an art; the two are related to each other as sisters, and both are nourished by science. Interpretation is the art of bringing to the comprehension what has really been handed down and of grasping it as it really is; criticism is the art of rightly estimating what has been actually apprehended according to its real value. Interpretation without criticism befogs and enervates; criticism without interpretation is vague and mere intellectual play. Since man can not understand without exercising the faculty of judgment, in work that deals with spiritual verities the two are not separated, yet the point of view from which they approach the same object is as different as their method. Interpretation proceeds inductively, collecting everything which bears upon the understanding of the matter; criticism proceeds deductively, furnishing the canons by which to value that understanding. While one asks about the fact, the other asks about the truth of it; one builds, the other classifies and estimates the material and tests the building process. Criticism is the inverse of interpretation, and more. While it pronounces upon the results of interpretation, it opens new questions about the trustworthiness or untrustworthiness, the completeness or fragmentariness, the genealogy and the significance of the object; and thus it affords a starting-point for final valuation and definition. It is skill, partly natural, partly acquired, in distinguishing and appropriating true from false, good from bad, beautiful from ugly, whether derived from contemplative perception and revelation or through chance or tradition. Its purpose is positive, though its result may often be negative. It knows no other authority than that of the case before it, no other method than that demanded by the same. ### 1. The History of the Term. The word has been in use since Plato's time; he distinguished between criticism and construction, the two being employed in the science of knowledge. Aristotle introduced a distinction between the critical and the literary arts, which was taken up by the Alexandrian school in connection with literature and particularly with poetry. Clement of Alexandria established in his review of Greek culture the fact that *grammatikos *as a technical term is later than *kritikos. *Terminology, however, was unstable in the ancient world. *Philologos * was differentiated from *philosophos, *meaning not the independent inquirer but the critic and expounder of classical productions. As the art of valuing, criticism is the product of the eighteenth century. The Encyclopedists called it in particular the restorer of ancient literature, in general the art of open-eyed examination of human productions and of judging them justly. ### 2. Limitations and Sphere of the Critic. The critic stands in an opposition between subjective and objective. The obscure, the ugly, the disorderly, the arrogant, the artificial - everything which tends to distort a pure impression - arouse the critical function, which manifests itself in simple aversion or blame, or in a deliberate exposition of the causes of distortion. Limitations to understanding lie also in the person. Complex and difficult to grasp are the conditions and impulses which deceive, divert, and suborn the faculty of judgment. Personal taste, inexperience, dogmatic presupposition, arrogance - such hindrances are as numerous as the emotions of the soul. A valuable inheritance sometimes suffers injury by the encroachments of critical ineptitude. Whoever regards a thing as worthy has a sense of loss, even if the criticism be pertinent; much more is that the case if in the critical process insincerity and arbitrariness be present. It is not surprising, therefore, that esthetic and religious natures are filled with aversion to criticism and distrust of it. Goethe once said that a book which had accomplished great results was simply above the operations of criticism, and that criticism is generally a mere habit of moderns. Such an attitude seems to the critic mere obedience to blind authority. Great events and much of literature have rested on fictitious bases. Apocrypha and pseudepigrapha claim genuineness. Such facts are warrant enough for the activities of critical science. ### 3. Biblical Criticism. The general standards of criticism, like those of interpretation, rest on logic, philosophy, and rhetoric. It applies those standards to the particular case, and the general rules are modified to accord with the demands of the occasion. Since the Scriptures of the Old and the New Testaments have a special importance as a related whole, Biblical criticism is a special and independent branch. It deals with sources, history, and religion; it tests the historical worth of the documents which set forth the religion of the two Testaments. It has as its object the discovery of the religious life operative therein by reason of which this literature has its special meaning. There is a double outlook here; insight into the essence of religion and into the essence of historic fact. Biblical criticism is on its other side historical criticism. Hence its function is to separate the natural progress of events and the religious limitations of the Biblical exposition of history in order to comprehend their relations upon the basis of this separation. Religious occurrences it must seek to explain upon psychological, pathological, and historico-religious grounds. Lessing says that "the dramatic poet is not a historian; historical verity is not his purpose, only the means to it." Is this poet then a falsifier of history? Similarly for the Biblical writers historical truth is only a means for offering religious truth; it is the channel of the revelation from God. Consequently the task is to examine case by case in order to determine how far historical reality carries revelation. Its own standpoint, therefore, is assured to this science. It asks with what right and under what conditions and limitations the Scriptures exist as a religious collection. It gives historical rating to the contents. Its leading word is - discriminate, which it uses in promoting recognition of worth or its opposite, of fact or mere appearance. ### II. The Critical Method: ### 1. Fundamental Assumptions. To achieve real service in Biblical criticism appreciation of the religious factor is necessary. The critic, however, may not walk in a rut if he is to attain a right position. After he has through interpretation grasped the object of investigation, he gives it rating according to the conditions and warrant of the facts of the case. He proceeds upon the immanent, not the transcendent. And after the right criterion is found, he has to remember that a complete and not a partial or fragmentary investigation is required, and further that fast hold must be laid upon equipoise between critical acuteness and the perception of what is possible and plain. Eccles. vii, 20 has its application here, "God made man upright, but he has sought out many inventions." What is the inherent standard of Biblical criticism? The historical narratives of the Bible are, so far as they deal with religious life, interpretations of history and testimonies to faith. To express a right judgment the critic must determine the relation between the historical and the religious and decide which is the more prominent. De Wette regarded the Pentateuch as poetry; the opposite view makes the Bible historical only. Between these extremes lies the recognition that the Bible employs history for religious purposes. Is this religious significance to be regarded as expert emphasis upon the worth and force of a real occurrence or was it used to support some dogmatic purpose? Is it found in or read into the case? Is it in the main possible to recognize the fact in the religious dress? These possibilities the critic must take into account as he holds the scales of truth, testing the composite parts of the Bible and proceeding thence to a consideration of the Bible as a whole. Upon this ground only can the decision be rendered how far the historic facts which the Bible reports stand in organic connection with their religious valuation and whether they may be regarded as history or as legend, fable, or myth. The varying ratio of the admixture of the historical and the religious and the degree of its significance must be observed; and especially the interval between the Old Testament and the New in their historical relations, original limitations, and purposes must be kept in mind. It is one thing to appreciate the essential qualities of Hebrew national literature, covering a thousand years in its development, and another to apprehend the worth and character of the New Testament, which is the literature of a religious propaganda covering but two generations. Yet the critic's methods are essentially the same, corresponding to the varied historical limitations of the subject-matter. When the question of the essence of Christianity arises, the bearing of the Old Testament religion upon Christianity is to be decided and grasped. ### 2. Classification. The fundamental axiom shows that each literary production, as well as each body of writings which has a common bond, requires its appropriate method both of interpretation and of criticism. Means and end will agree when the character of the whole presents itself in the parts; the last-named will separate and individualize themselves where origins and relations differ. The classifications of Biblical criticism arise not out of logical abstractions but out of the demands made by the individualistic Biblical qualities. Criticism of the canon asks how and with what right the two Testaments were united in one book, how and by what methods the correct text of that which has come down is to be ascertained, what was the origin and what is the historical worth and what the relation of the present form of the books to the original form. It draws conclusions from the data furnished by interpretation. On the basis of the recognition (1) of the suitability of means to ends and (2) of the literary individuality, it pronounces upon the worth of a document as a source and upon its relation to the whole to which it belongs and which it serves. The science divides, therefore, into criticism of the text, of the language, of the history, of the style, and constructive criticism. ### 3. Function. Since subjectively criticism finds its occasion in the limits of the understanding, its starting-point is doubt about the trustworthiness and the arrangement of what has come down. This doubt proceeds to ask the reason for this impression. If the reason lies not in the spiritual being of the doubter but in the object, then some defect is understood to exist in expression, contents, or style. The critic has then to discover the kind of defect and to discern its cause. As a means to this, Jerome directs the critic to digest, arrange, deduce, construct. In other words, the critic first diagnoses the case and then applies the remedy. And in this process comparison is constantly employed, holding in view the separate parts and the united whole. The division of the field of the critic into external and internal, higher and lower, does not have any essential truth at its root, and should be rejected for that given at the end of the last paragraph. ### III. The Departments of Criticism: ### 1. Criticism of the Canon. That the Old Testament existed as a holy authority for the synagogue and that the New in connection with the Old had the same value for the Church is the fact the success and the right of which criticism has to investigate. It notes the process of formation of the canon and the internal testimony of the canonical writings as related to the authority attributed to them. It asks whether the canon was made or whether it grew, whether and how far its parts are pseudepigraphic. For the Old Testament there is outside testimony only from late Judaism and the Talmud; for the New there is a wealth of evidence arising from the circumstances under which it came into existence by about 180 A.D. One result of criticisms is to reveal the motive of canon-formation and also the correctness of the separation of the literature made authoritative by comparison of it with the noncanonical (see CANON OF SCRIPTURE). ### 2. Textual Criticism and Apparatus. A preliminary in this work is the collection of the text-critical apparatus which shall present an orderly and complete picture of the condition of the text. The documents must be described and their characteristics brought to light. The sources of text-criticism are manuscripts in the original languages, lectionaries of selected parts, translations, citations; for the Old Testament the Masorah, for the Septuagint and the New Testament also patristic commentaries and scholia. The variant readings in this mass of materials are to be arranged and classified, a preliminary to which is the valuation of the text-sources on the basis of age, genealogy, and trustworthiness. In the Old Testament the difference of the Masoretic text from that of the Septuagint proves the two to be independent witnesses; but the fact that the text of the latter is not yet settled makes difficult the task of arbitrating between the two. On the other hand, the New Testament writings were not, before the time of Origen, handled with the care bestowed by the Jews on the text of the law. The collection of apparatus for the New Testament text presents not only an agitated sea of differences in orthography and word-forms which create little or no difference in sense, but also a series of variations which affect the meaning and educed the wail of Origen that they were the result not only of carelessness on the part of the scribes but also of wilfulness and design. The task is to bring order into this mass of variations. There have been discerned three principal types of text, the Alexandrian, the Western, and the Constantinopolitan. The text of the Synoptic Gospels shows the most serious variations, in which purpose is manifest to make parallel passages read in the same way and to supply omissions. The text of Revelation and of the Lucan writings also is in a bad condition. Great differences exist between the text of the Alexandrian and the Greco-Latin types. The last word on relative values has not yet been said, and the matter is still further complicated by the fact that the minuscules have not yet been taken fully into consideration, and they contain very many excellent and independent readings. See BIBLE TEXT. The purpose of comparison of variant texts is approximation to the original. The critic estimates the age of a document. For this much help has been received from the papyri and parchments recovered in Egypt, from which it has been learned that the earliest texts were written in capitals and without accents or marks of punctuation, and that the word or syllable was broken at the end of the line as the demands of space required. Study of the processes of reproduction of manuscripts has shown that errors are either mechanical or designed. The former are illustrated by the doubling of a word or a passage or the omission of the same either by an error of the eye or of the ear, or by the substitution of one word or letter for another which resembles it either in form or sound. Of conscious or designed variations from the original, some were brought about by attempts to smooth a rough passage or to illumine an obscure one, to correct real or supposed errors, to make two parallel passages read in the same way, or to change the reading so as to support some dogmatic interest. The Old Testament was originally written without punctuation or helps to reading and pronunciation; the possibility of error is, therefore, greatly increased as compared with the Greek text, the vowels of which were always written. ### 3. Linguistic Criticism. After interpretation has set forth the lexicographic and grammatical character of the language, criticism inquires into the relation of expression to thought, unity in the methods of expression, and individual characteristics in writing as related to the general character of the language, and into the various influences which have controlled the form. Dissimilarity in style in parts argues dissimilarity in authorship; disarrangement or disorder suggests interpolation. Especially valuable are the tests which depend upon uniformity in the use of certain fundamental notions such as those of the kingdom of God, life, faith, righteousness, spirit, flesh. Similarly use is made of collection and comparison of idioms which characterize a writing or a group of writings, and in this case critical judgment is of great importance. Individuality is thus discovered, since the idiosyncrasies of writers are in the main unconscious and undesigned. And rhetorical qualities also come into play, the tendency to a type of expression or fondness for certain words or kinds of figures or turns of sentence. Recognition of characteristic ways of using language adds to text-critical apparatus, since it not only presents the facts of different readings and of peculiarities, but also notes their effects, influences, and modifications. So that text-criticism and criticism of the language work together in correcting an unintelligible or corrupt text by employing conjecture. By this is not meant merely subjective sagacity or ineptly used technical skill. Conjecture is the result of study of the causes of error in the text which marks them as mechanical or designed, and then seeks a reading in accordance with the habit and character of the document under examination, a reading which on known principles of error in transmission will produce the particular error. ### 4. Historical Criticism. Historical criticism is applied not merely to works on history but to any literary product of the past which claims or really has importance for any historical reason. The result of this process is pronouncement upon the worth of any particular document as a source. It deals with the genuineness, unity, integrity, and trustworthiness of a writing, asks whether it is as the author wrote it or whether it has been corrupted or falsified, whether it reflects the habit of the author assumed or of the times in which it is placed. Since it is seldom that explicit external testimony to a document is available, criticism usually proceeds upon internal evidence. But this is not always decisive. Conceivably, the tradition of Israel's sojourn in Egypt might have arisen out of the story of the Babylonian exile. So of the New Testament writings, the decision whether they are really documents of the apostolic age depends finally upon the judgment of their character as a whole and upon appraisement of the distance between them and the postapostolic and apocryphal literature. The three points upon which the critic is intent are not of equal weight. Thus, though the *authenticity *of a writing be denied on internal grounds, the worth of the writing as a source is not thereby necessarily denied, for the document may have been produced anonymously, may be a genuine witness for the times in which it was written, and yet have had a name wrongly attached to it later. Examples of this are the Books of Samuel, the Gospel of Matthew, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, which last is a genuine document of the apostolic age, though the authorship is undetermined. So *integrity *does not of itself determine source-value. Investigation in this direction discovers gaps or additions and relates them to historic *credibility. * The final test has reference to this duality. Investigation into a writing as a whole leads to the discussion of its composition. Criticism of sources enters here, which on the basis of the linguistic character of the finished work and of its parts decides whether the work is a unit or is composite. In the latter case the questions arise what was the original form and how far it has been changed by the successive hands through which it has passed; whether the parts are in their original form or have been worked over, and in the latter case whether in some dogmatic interest. Such are the problems which arise respecting the Pentateuch and the Gospels. Decision in favor of the trustworthiness of a document in itself a unit and complete is carried a step further toward assurance by comparison with the general whole to which it belongs. This involves consideration of linguistic characteristics, of the circle of ideas in which it moves, the general trend of thought. Account is taken of external testimony. In this case error has to be guarded against, since the trustworthiness and competence of the witness is itself a subject for investigation. The criticism of the Epistle to the Philippians gives an illustration of the difficulties of the process, where irreconcilably different conclusions have been reached by Baur, Holster, and P. W. Schmidt. The most important problem affecting credibility arises from the specific character of the Biblical narratives. What attitude shall be assumed toward miracles? How far are the reports legendary or mythical? What is the relation of the religious idea to the question of the historicity of the reports and of their worth as sources? The position taken will depend upon the philosophical position of the critic. The theist does not disavow belief in miracles and values the divine self-consciousness of Jesus as testimony to his living participation in deity. But the historic spirit of the times enters a caveat by noting the limitation placed on the reporters by the characteristics of the times in which they lived. Moreover, he who accepts Jesus as a wonder-worker is not called on as a critic to prove the reports of miracles reliable; nor is he who accepts Jesus as God's son required to prove the stories of the infancy, analogies of which are so abundantly available. But with the recognition that there are obscurities in the reports of miracles and that poetry, legend, and myth are used by the Bible, the last word has not been spoken on the historicity of Biblical narratives. When the English minister Mitchell said in relation to the wars of Frederick the Great that the latter was fighting for the freedom of the human race, he gave an interpretation of history but did not alter the historic fact. It is then possible that without altering the facts the Gospels, under the impression made by the person of Jesus, acknowledge him as Son of God and Savior of the world. If the theologian speaks of salvation as a fact which has become known in history, that is not a dogmatic dislocation but a correct valuation of the historical order in which the Christian religion and its Old Testament precursor reveal themselves. ### 5. Criticism of Style. "Style is only the order and progress in which thought takes form; it supposes the union and exercise of all the intellectual faculties, and it is the man" (Buffon). This utters the final decision in the reaching of which the critical and hermeneutical faculties unite more closely than in the processes named above. It asks the question, what purposes did the writing have and how did it attain them? It takes into account the total impression made by the document, the progress of thought and the conception of history it embodies; it notes clearness and force or indefiniteness and unwieldiness, originality or accord with accustomed forms. And in the background is ever a reference to the historical setting and relationships. Historical criticism may shove compositeness in a document and answer the question whether the elements are united by a loose idea or are worked into each other. In the latter case criticism of style shows the relation of the parts to the whole. When historical criticism has thoroughly investigated historical conditions and order, the question of credibility in a new sense arises. Was the purpose objective or personal, did the ideal enter into the personal, did personal interests and passion modify the objectivity of the writing? For documents run to *Tendenz *whenever they are not purely objective narrative. ### 6. Reconstructive Criticism. The results from the processes so far reviewed are now positive, now negative. They produce decisions upon the completeness, reliability, and value of what has been transmitted. That done, the relation of the product under discussion to the original actuality in particular and in general remains to be investigated. What is historic reconstruction? Niebuhr's *History of Rome *was the first concrete example of the results of the process. It embodied his endeavor to pierce through the displacements and exaggerations of national pride which influenced the historical form of the statements and to discover actuality as it was and developed. His method is and remains the method of constructive criticism. The first step, then, is criticism of sources, which not only reveals their nature and value, but grasps also their connection with the original fact, their original relations, their mutual dependence or independence. In religious literature it is necessary to have regard to the conceptions embodied to see whether these are the original gift of the religion or whether they have entered during the course of the development. Hence the sources have to be traced to their original form, conceptions are abstracted, the historical course of events displayed, and the method by which events have worked out of the objective and essential conditions discovered. The dominant method of source-criticism is literary. It deals with documentary indication, traces backward parallel traditions and distinguishes their relationship, genealogy, and dependence; it shows their original or secondary character, seeks the occasions of their deviations; in documents it would discern the seams of joining, the manner and form of the insertions. And then often the question arises whether an oral or a written source lies in the background. And besides this there is in Biblical literature the complicating factor of the editors; so that modern criticism is well represented graphically by the "Rainbow Bible" In the foreground of interest now is the proving of the relationship of Biblical presentations and conceptions to the original form and sense and the attempt to show their interrelationship. Are the leading Biblical conceptions original and in their original form? Do the terms used carry their original meanings, or has the original sense become detached and connected itself with some other term? The answers to such questions will lead back to the early forms of the religion of the Old Testament and of Christianity, will produce a history of religious ideas; but the work is yet in its infancy. Even the prehistoric cult-motive, found in totemism, animism, and belief in demons will not clone the inquiry; there is the background of the self-seeking impulses which led men to placate ghosts and employ magic and sorcery. And the relations of these to the Old Testament and the New are yet under discussion. They indeed point out in which direction criticism must direct its researches. The highest and most difficult task is the reconstruction of the historic process, the monuments of which are found in the criticized writings. It purposes a presentation of the entire circle of ideas, and seeks to discover from the deficient sources the original connection, and from the reports brought together the original development. The results then are historical, the basis sought is the most ultimate facts attainable, but the degree of assurance necessarily varies. In Biblical science the two objective points are the recovery of the history of Israel and of the history of the origins of the Christian Church. The crux of the first is the relationship of the prophetic literature to the Pentateuch. Is the latter preprophetic or postprophetic and postexilic? Another question still under discussion is the historical value of the body of tradition about the patriarchs and Moses; estimates of the highest importance and bearing upon character hang upon the decision. The reconstruction of New Testament history depends upon the decision as to the existence or non-existence of usable sources of history in the New Testament. The new Dutch school returns a negative answer on the ground that New Testament literature is mostly pseudepigraphic. Everything here depends upon criticism of sources, upon the decision about the bases of the Synoptic Gospels, the Johannine literature, the Christology of the Epistles. Upon decisions rendered here hangs also the estimate of the person and work of the founder of Christianity. For the conception of apostolic times critical valuation of the worth of Acts as a source is required, and a determination of its relation to the Pauline Epistles and of the genuineness of the latter. In this case also conclusions the most opposite are reached with necessarily opposite results in the construction of history. The difficulties of the reconstruction of Biblical history are thus suggested, and in the work only a beginning has been made. Real progress is possible only if the critic is not self-deceived in respect to the continuity and completeness of the sources and the objective basis of his hypotheses, and if he does not forget that the history which he undertakes to reconstruct neither claims to nor can supply the religious force which is operative in history. ### IV. History of Criticism: ### 1. Meaning and Limitations. This might be made to embrace all work conducted with critical insight as well as of all branches of Biblical science with the hypotheses and conclusions. Decision must be made between a review of the results and of the conditions and valuations which have given the impulse to a new series of questions. With the latter goes a description of the methods necessitated by the newer conditions. It is also to be remarked that criticism and interpretation, so to speak, alternate and relieve each other. Interpretation flourishes when tradition is accepted at its face value; criticism, when doubt has called in question that value, though indeed criticism is never beyond call. ### 2. Hellenistic and Patristic Criticism. The Greeks were the fathers of criticism. No other people of the ancient world employed critical methods; the memory, not judgment, held sway. Judaism was no exception, for the Masorah is text-criticism in a limited sense only. But among the Greeks criticism was the handmaid of interpretation. Homer was their canon, furnishing the model of the completest expression of human relationships. Consequently, text-criticism found there its task and elaborated its methods, while interpretation was also at work. The questions of integrity, authenticity, and credibility were raised, but of course the answers were such as the age was qualified to give. It has often been denied that in the patristic age criticism existed. But patristic literature set itself the task of suppressing the old canon and replacing it by the new canon of the Old Testament and the New. And in this task criticism was a necessary agent. Alexandria and Antioch were the two seats of the new learning, the headquarters where the methods of the Greeks were applied in pursuit of the new object (see ALEXANDRIA, SCHOOL OF; ANTIOCH, SCHOOL OF). Even the fourfold division of the science employed by the Greeks was adopted, though the whole work proceeded from a different standpoint. For the Greeks the esthetic was the principal thing, for the Church Fathers the religious; in both cases criticism served interpretation. The great undertaking of Origen to bring order into the corrupt text of the Septuagint remained incomplete and only introduced further confusion. What opinion is to be entertained of the recessions of Lucian and Hesychius is not yet certain. Jerome's efforts to obtain a better text of the Vulgate advanced text-criticism but little. In the matter of the canon of the New Testament, the genealogy of texts, the public use of the Scriptures, and their genuineness were discussed. Explanations were offered of the differences found in the writings ascribed to John. And in the councils and synods the matter of canonicity was raised for churchly authority to decide. ### 3. Criticism from the Time of the Reformation. With the Reformation criticism took a new start upon a basis prepared by humanism, but within the bounds set by patristic criticism. The inspiration of the Bible was assumed, for the need felt was for nourishment of the spirit. Criticism assumed more definite forms after attempts were made to fix the teaching of the Evangelical Church. The early Protestant doctrine of inspiration attempted to exalt into law what had been till then simple religious statement. A wall was built upon the Protestant doctrine of Scripture against the Roman Catholic conceptions. Apologetics and harmonistics were created. The doctrine of verbal inspiration came into play until text-critical apparatus began to accumulate. Then dogmatic pronouncement upon the contents of Scripture, upon its clearness and sufficiency, stumbled over fact, and the earlier dogma of inspiration came to grief. Under such conditions Biblical criticism developed and became more opposed to dogmatism. Its apostle was Spinoza, who in his *Tractatus theologicopoliticus *authoritatively formulated the problem for the future. The skepticism of the seventeenth and the deism and rationalism of the eighteenth centuries changed not the form of the problem, but only the tone of the critic. Spinoza had given a comprehensive description of the exigency produced by a theology benumbed by dogmatics. His desire was to produce an undogmatic Christianity through criticism of the documents. Christianity was to be apprehended as teaching for practical life and not as philosophy. Religion was not to contradict reason. Criticism attacked the problem of the text and proceeded to discussion of the canon and its contents. Meanwhile the view was held that religion was something different from theology. The first attempts to build up a critical method were in the region of the Roman classics. J. Robertellus (*De arte sive ratione corrigendi antiquorum libros disputatio, *Padua, 1557) defined the sources of error in the text as additions, eliminations, transpositions, extensions, condensations, separations (of parts belonging together), joinings (of parts which should be kept apart), and variations. Caspar Scioppius (1597) argued against the "rash and audacious attempts to better the text." Johannes Clericus (1697) connected criticism of the classics and of the Bible. Perhaps he was the first to see that the canon had a history. L. Cappellus (1634), A. Pfeiffer (1680), and J. G. Carpzov (1728) argued for the unassailable authority of Scripture, but Carpzov's conjectural emendation of the Masoretic text aroused the acorn of the orthodox, who declared this text inviolable, as Ball and Erasmus had that of the Vulgate. But a new turn was given when the Oratorian J. Morinus (1633) exalted the text of the Septuagint over that of the Masoretes because derived from purer sources, though this valuation was discredited by the insecure readings of the Septuagint. Mill (1707) and Wetstein (1751) collected a rich apparatus for the New Testament, and Bengal proposed to alter the *Textus receptus *upon the basis of manuscript readings properly discriminated. The great Bentley's proposal to form a new recession of the Greek text (on the basis of MS. A and of the Vulgate) was wrecked on the rocks of the opposition of the theologians. The criticism of sources was established in Bentley's disproof of the genuineness of the *Letters of Phalaris. *That method was applied to Biblical literature only in individual instances among the Arminians and Socinians, as example of which is found in H. Grotius's work on Thessalonians. The application of this to the Old Testament was first made in Astruc's discussion of Genesis (1753). The antidogmatic position of criticism became ever more pronounced in the eighteenth century. English deism attacked clumsily the historicity of the Old Testament Scriptures. Skepticism rejoiced over the proof of variety in origin of Biblical writings. Rationalism sought to prove that history is no puzzle and all proceeds in rational order. Leasing's discussion with Goetze over the "Wolfenbüttel Fragments" fathomed deep waters. Against the reckless criticism of English deism appeared Lardner's *Ancient Jewish and Heathen Testimonies to the Truth of the Christian Religion * (1764-67), while through Michaelis and Semler criticism sought to find equipoise. The modern age of critical research began with the end of the eighteenth century. Its aim is an undogmatic method founded on fact, and its task is reconstruction of history on the basis of a grasp of original conditions and of the actual course of development. It makes use of psychology, linguistics, literary art, and history, and it attempts to guard against the one-sided application of any or all of these, recognizing that subjective criticism world produce results inconsonant with the spirit of the times in which the literature discussed was produced. The historical point of view as applied to the Bible was first expressed by Herder. Schleiermacher and Eichhorn made contributions to it, but not without error. Strauss's intellectual method overlooked criticism of sources. Bruno Bauer's reconstruction of the early history of Christianity on the basis of Philo, Seneca, and Greco-Roman philosophy was bettered by F. C. Baur, who sought a factual basis. Vatke's work on the Old Testament has been confirmed and extended by Reuss, Graf, Wellhausen, and Kuenen. How Biblical criticism has changed its center of gravity is illustrated by the dictionaries. Teller's *Wörterbuch des Alten Testaments *(6th ed., 1805) was ultrarationalistic. Winer's work (3d ed., 1847) expressed the materialistic doubt of De Wette. Schenkel's *Bibellexicon *(1869-75) represented the Tübingen school. Riehm-Baethgen (1897) shut the latter out as much as possible, in which line the new *Dictionary of the Bible *of Hastings follows, while the *Encyclopaedia Biblica * occupies the most advanced position and complains that criticism of the New Testament is less advanced than that of the Old. (G. HEINRICI.) ### V. Biblical Criticism in the Roman Catholic Church: It is a well-known fact that the subject of Biblical criticism has never received so much attention among Roman Catholic as among Protestant scholars. This disparity of interest in a topic so important is doubtless largely due to the fundamentally different attitude of the two Churches toward the Bible itself. While the early Reformers claimed to set aside tradition and church authority, and to make the Bible - and the Bible alone - the foundation-stone of their respective creeds, the Catholic theologians and controversialists, on the other hand, emphasized anew the principle of central organic authority. For Catholics the supreme and ultimate guide in matters of religion, faith, and morals is the infallible authority of the living Church-authority which in their view has been inherited from the Apostles and the Divine Founder of Christianity. This organized society is considered as the divinely appointed custodian of all revelation, whether contained in the Scriptures or in the storehouse of Christian tradition and to this society belongs, under divine guidance, the official and authoritative interpretation of Holy Writ. The great and exclusive importance given to the Bible in the Protestant communions naturally called for a deep and comprehensive study of the Scriptures; and this, in the nature of things, was bound to develop on critical lines; whereas Catholics, resting content with the principle of church authority, continued to look upon the Bible as something incidental and secondary in comparison with the living, teaching organization. Hence less interest on the part of the latter in the various branches of Biblical investigation, and likewise less alarm at the changes wrought by the so-called destructive criticism in the traditional views concerning the Bible. But, while the general interest in the topic has been less marked among Catholics, it is true that scholars belonging to that faith have made valuable contributions to the rise and growth of scientific Biblical criticism. The first, perhaps, who deserves mention is the French Oratorian Richard Simon (1638-1712) who, setting aside the abstract, *a priori *methods previously in vogue, began a study at once historical and critical of the principal topics pertaining to the origin and growth of the Bible. The results of his investigations, which were too far in advance of his age to receive intelligent appreciation from his contemporaries, were embodied in a series of volumes, which, however much they may have been superseded by writings of later scholars, are nevertheless extremely interesting as setting forth the true critical method and applying it with a freedom which was bound to provoke opposition and censure on the part of orthodox theologians such as Bossuet (see SIMON, RICHARD). It was the Catholic physician Jean Astruc who gave a valuable key and a starting-point to the modern documentary analysis of the Pentateuch by his essay published in 1753. Another Catholic clergyman who figures prominently among the pioneers in the field of scientific Biblical study is the Scotchman Alexander Geddes (1737-1802; see GEDDES, ALEXANDER). Foremost among modern and contemporary Catholic scholars who have distinguished themselves in the field of Biblical criticism must be placed the abbé A. F. Loisy, who to a vast erudition and a remarkably keen critical acumen has unfortunately joined a sarcasm of exposition and a rashness of speculation which have brought him into serious disfavor with the authorities of the Church. The more moderate school of Catholic Biblical scholars includes a relatively large and ever growing number of adherents who, always subject to the limitations imposed by church authority, frankly accept the well-authenticated results of scientific critical investigation. Obviously these scholars are not so free and independent in their researches as their nonCatholic brethren, but Catholic apologists claim that while the restrictions imposed do at times curtail unduly the freedom of investigators whose views though correct may not harmonize with traditionally received opinions, they serve, on the other hand, as a salutary check on critical speculations of the more radical and advanced type. Moved by the acute controversies which, within the last quarter of a. century have grown up in the field of Bible study and caused so much alarm in most of the orthodox communions, Pope Leo XIII instituted a Biblical Commission which was to be a standing tribunal composed of Scripture specialists and theologians, for the settlement on scientific as well as authoritative grounds of the various knotty questions raised by higher criticism. Under the present pope, however, while the number of members and consultors of this tribunal was greatly augmented, a large majority was conceded to the theologians as distinguished from the Biblical scholars; and the decisions rendered thus far have little or no interest for the scientific world, as they constitute simply a reaffirmation, without specified reasons, of the traditional positions. In the Church at present the trend of authoritative direction as regards the Scriptures is unfavorable to Biblical criticism, as is plain from the Syllabus of Modern Errors and the encyclical against Modernism issued by Pius X in 1907 (see SYLLABUS). JAMES F. DRISCOLL. BIBLIOGRAPHY: For works on textual criticism see BIBLE TEXT; on the history of criticism consult: H. Cave, *The Battle of the Standpoints; the Old Testament and the Higher Criticism, *London, 1892 (brief and popular); H. S. Nash, *The History of the Higher Criticism of the New Testament, *New York, 1900, new ed., 1907 (an argument for scientific Bible study). For exposition of methods consult C. A. Briggs, *General Introduction to the Study of Holy Scripture, *New York, 1899 (exhaustive); A. C. Zenos, *Elements of the Higher Criticism, *ib. 1895 (useful); F. Ast, *Wissenschaftliche Darstellung der Grammatik, Hermeneutik und Kritik, *Landshut, 1808; F. Hitzig, *Begriff der Kritik am Alten Testament, *Heidelberg, 1831; F. D. E. Schleiermacher, *Ueber Begriff und Einteilung der philosophischen Kritik, * in his *Sämmtliche Werke, *III, iii, 387-404; Berlin, 1835; A. Kuenen, *Critices et hermeneuticae librorum Novi Testamenti lineamenta, *Leyden, 1889; F. Blass, *Hermeneutik und Kritik, *in *Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, *I, i, 127-128, Munich, 1891; F. Godet and others, *Higher Criticism, Six Papers, *New York, 1893; C. W. Rishell, *Higher Criticism, *Cincinnati, 1893 (needs revision); E. Bernheim, *Lehrbuch der historischen Methode, * Leipsic, 1894; H. Hildebrand, *Die höhere Bibelkritik, *Paderborn, 1902; W. Möller, *Biblical Criticism, *London, 1903; G. W. Gilmore, *Biblical Criticism, *in *The Monist, *xiv (1904), 215 sqq. For criticism of higher-critical methods and results consult: E. Böhl, *Zum Gesetz und zum Zeugniss, eine Abwehr wider die neu-kritische Schriftforschung im Alten Testament, *Vienna, 1883; O. Naumann, *Wellhausen's Methode, *Leipsic, 1886; F. Vigouroux, *Les Livres saints et la critique rationalists, *4 vols., Paris, 1886-90; J. J. Blunt, *Undesigned Coincidences in the Writings of Both the Old and the New Testaments, *republished, New York, 1890; R. F. Horton, *Revelation and the Bible, *London, 1892; E. Rupprecht, *Die Anschauung der kritischen Schule Wellhausens, *Erlangen, 1893; A. Zahn, *Ernste Blicke in den Wahn der modernen Kritik des Alten Testaments, * Gütersloh, 1893; F. R. Beattie, *Radical Criticism, an Exposition and Examination of the Radical Critical Theory, * Chicago, 1894; L. Munhall, *Anti-higher Criticism, *New York, 1894 (extreme in its conservatism); S. Leathes, *Claims of the Old Testament, *ib. 1897; W. H. Green, *General Introduction to the Old Testament, *New York, 1899 (Dr. Green was the exponent of the most conservative type of Biblical study, and his strictures on higher criticism will be found in his *Moses and the Prophets, *1883, *The Hebrew Feasts in their Relation to Recent Critical Hypotheses, *1886, *Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch, *1895, and *Unity of the Book of Genesis, *1895); W. Möller, *Are the Critics Right? *ib. 1903; F. D. Storey, *Higher Criticism Cross-examined, *Philadelphia, 1905; J. Orr, *The Problem of the O. T , *London, 1906 (conservative). For application and statement of critical methods consult: G. D'Eichthal, *Mélanges de critique biblique, * Paris, 1896; Smith, *OTJC, *cf. R. Watts, *The Newer Criticism and the Analogy of the Faith, *Edinburgh, 1883 (Watts is a reply to Smith); J. P. Smyth, *The Old Documents and the New Bible, *London, 1890; T. K. Cheyne, *Aide to the Devout Study of Criticism, *ib. 1892; W. Sanday, *Inspiration, *ib. 1896 (advanced in dealing with the O. T., conservative as respects the N. T.); idem, *Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, *ib. 1905; W. F. Adeney, *How to Read the Bible, *ib. 1897 (a helpful handbook); G. A. Smith, *Modern Criticism and the Preaching of the Old Testament, * ib. 1901; R. Balmforth, *The Bible from the Standpoint of Higher Criticism, *2 vols., New York, 1904-05; T. W. Doane, *Bible Myths and their Parallels in Other Religions, *ib. 1905. On the interrelations of criticism, the Bible, and archeology consult: H. A. Harper, *The Bible and Modern Discoveries, *Boston, 1889; H. E. Ryle, *Early Narratives of Genesis, *London, 1892; T. Laurie, *Assyrian Echoes of the Word, *ib. 1894; A. H. Sayce, *Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments, *ib. 1894 (archeological, reaching the same conclusions as the critics, yet violently assailing them); W. St. C. Boscawen, *Bible and the Monuments, *ib. 1895; F. Hommel, *Ancient Hebrew Tradition as Illustrated by the Monuments, *ib. 1897 (the standpoint is similar to Sayce's); D. G. Hogarth, *Authority and Archeology, *ib. 1899 (in its Biblical parts sober, and a corrective of Sayce and Hommel); I. M. Price, *Monuments and the Old Testament, *Chicago, 1900; T. G. Pinches, *The Old Testament in the Light of Historical Records and Legends of Assyria and Babylonia, *London, 1902; Schrader, *KAT.*

**BIBLICAL HISTORY.** See ISRAEL, HISTORY OF, I.

### BIBLICAL HISTORY, INSTRUCTION IN: ### Conditions Before the Reformation. Fundamental to all Christian teaching and attainment, especially according to the Protestant view, is a knowledge of the Bible; and this knowledge naturally begins with the characters, events, and institutions of the Bible - a sum total of knowledge which may be comprehended under the general expression Bible history. Thence the individual is led on to the weightier matters of Christian doctrine and the manner of the Christian life. The organized and premeditated efforts of the earlier Church to impart Christian instruction (See CATECHUMENATE; CATECHESIS, CATECHETICS; CATECHISMS; HOMILETICS; etc.) aimed more directly at the latter, assuming that the former already existed. In the New Testament, knowledge of Old Testament history is presupposed. This knowledge was communicated at home ( II Tim. iii, 15) or by readings at public services ( I Tim. iv, 13). The aim of a portion of the New Testament Scripture (the Gospels and Acts) was to keep alive in the congregations the knowledge of the New Testament history. In the primitive Church, besides public service, home training (Eusebius, *Hist. eccl., *vi, 2; Chrysostom on Eph. vi, 4) and private reading (Cyril, *Catech., *iv, 35; *Apostolic Constitutions, * vii, 39) were means of imparting Biblical history to beginners in Christianity. During the Middle Ages no systematic school instruction in Biblical history could be furnished for lack of common schools, and self-instruction was not possible for the people because the Bible was commonly in Latin and costly, and but few of the laity could read even the works provided for them in their mother tongue (See BIBLES, HISTORICAL). The great mass were limited to the translations by preachers of the texts of their sermons, or narrations of Bible stories in the sermon; also, scenes especially from the life of Jesus or dramatic spectacles from the Biblical record helped to preserve in the lay world the knowledge of Biblical essentials (see RELIGIOUS DRAMAS). In Reformation time as well as in the following centuries, there was no general systematic schooling in Biblical history; the common-school system was as yet a merely formative conception, and text-books of Bible history (for list cf. Reu) were designed for higher schools or for the home. ### Biblical Instruction in Schools. Not until Christian common schools were introduced did instruction in Biblical history become a systematized branch of public education. Among the text-books thus used may be mentioned the *Biblische Historien *of Justus Gesenius (1656), and the *Zweimal 52 auserlesenen biblischen Historien * of Johann Hübner (1714). These books are the prototypes of modern German manuals, and such manuals have now generally taken the place of the Bible, from which in earlier times Biblical history, was taught by reading aloud. The Roman Catholic Church also teaches Biblical history; a text-book widely in vogue was that of Christoph von Schmid (d. 1856). At present the Bible histories of the Catholics are combined with their diocesan catechisms. Their new catechism, which according to the desire of Pius X is to become the Catholic standard or uniform catechism (*Compendio della dottrina christiana, *1905), contains a *Breve storia della religione*. It thus appears that modern Churches, in contrast with the primitive Church, have reached the conviction that catechumens should gain the necessary amount of knowledge of Bible history not immediately from the Bible, but from a text-book prepared for this educational object. But the fact is still more significant that the Churches are convinced of the necessity of a knowledge of Biblical history. ### Methods and Principles. This conviction rests on the knowledge that Christian belief is the product of a history which came to pass between God and humanity, and that the knowledge and understanding of this salvation on the part of individual Christians must proceed from acquaintance with this history. The selection of Bible stories for catechumens is adapted to this principle. The various manuals of Biblical history deviate from one another in details of selection, but are in substantial agreement in the matter of setting forth the main events of sacred history according to their historical succession. An exception occurs in the case of compilations intended for children who are not yet catechetical scholars; for these there is need of particular Bible narratives adapted to the years of childhood and related to the church festivals. With reference to the connection between instruction in Biblical history and instruction in the catechism, a change has come about, since in earlier times instruction in the former had practically no independent significance, but was designed to subserve the catechism; the contrary situation, however, obtains today, certain modern instructors making Biblical history the main issue, while catechetical scholars are confined to the fundamentally illustrative or especially adapted Biblical relations. Concerning the method of instruction, there is a consensus of modern conviction to the effect that the textbook should coincide as far as possible with the wording of the Bible as generally in use. The earlier method of reading the narrative from the Bible, or having it read aloud by a pupil, has been discarded. It is better to have a story related by the teacher; and the preferable method is that his oral discourse should adhere altogether or with close approximation to the phrasing of the textbook. In particular the decisive and striking utterances of the *dramatis personae * should be reproduced exactly. Opportunity for explanation and application is afforded by the subsequent discussion. The use of maps and pictures, with which modern Biblical text-books are provided, tends to give the matter more of an objective background, but pictures are not so necessary as they formerly were, when pupils had fewer books. [In the United States, religious instruction being necessarily excluded from the public schools, the teaching of Bible history belongs to the Church and the home. See SUNDAY SCHOOLS.] W. CASPARI. BIBLIOGRAPHY: C. A. G. von Zezschwitz, *Katechtik, *II, 2, chaps. 2-4, Leipsic, 1872-74; K. H. Holtsch, *Studien über den biblischen Geschichtsunterricht, *Breslau, 1870; W. H. G. Thomas, *Methods of Bible Study, *New York, 1903; L. Emery, *Introduction à l'étude de la théologie protestante, * pp. 122-132, Paris, 1904; J. M. Reu, *Quellen zur Geschichte des biblischen Unterrichte, * Gütersloh, 1906.

### BIBLICAL INTRODUCTION. Old Testament. Nature and Scope of the Discipline (§ 1). Method of Treatment (§ 2). History (§ 3). To the Renaissance (§ 4). The Reformation Period (§ 5). The Seventeenth Century (§ 6). The Eighteenth Century (§ 7). The Nineteenth Century (§ 8). New Testament. History of the Discipline. To the Reformation (§ 1). The Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (§ 2). Michaelis (§ 3). Semler, Schmidt, and Others (§ 4). Baur (§ 5). Later Work (§ 6). The Conception and the Task. History of New Testament Scriptures (§ 1). History of the Canon (§ 2). Textual Criticism and Versions (§ 3). ### I. Old Testament: ### 1. Nature and Scope of the Discipline. The science of Old Testament Introduction, like that of Biblical Introduction in general, has developed from indefinite beginnings, and has not yet won the assured and universally recognized form which most other theological disciplines have assumed. The name *eisagoge * was used in the fifth century by the Syro-Greek monk Adrian, the terms *introductorii libri *and *introductores *in the sixth by Cassiodorus. But these terms carried the meaning of a general and instructive direction how to read the Bible, a guide to its correct understanding, an exposition of the correct principles of exegesis. A complete understanding of the Bible involves, however, a number of auxiliary sciences - linguistics, exegesis, history of literature, general history, archeology, geography, Biblical theology, etc., all useful in obtaining a right apprehension of Scripture. But so large a conception of the science was not reached all at once. It was J. G. Carpzov who first appreciated the comprehensive nature of the discipline and defined it as the precise setting forth of those matters a knowledge of which prepares the approach to the reading of the sacred books. Similarly DeWette understood by Introduction all knowledge which contributed to the intelligent reading of the Bible, and which set it forth as a whole and in its parts in relation to history. Keil regarded it as an exposition of those matters the understanding of which prepares for a fruitful reading of Scripture, by which he understands only a history of the text, of the origin of the individual writings, the story of the rise of the canon, and of the general conception of Scripture. A new start was made by H. Hupfeld, who held that Introduction sought to discover what were the writings embraced in the Bible and how they had come to be what they are. In other words, what is sought are the extent and original character of the writings, and a knowledge of the vicissitudes through which they have passed in attaining their present form, unity, worth, and effectiveness. But care is needed in following such a formulation lest one make of Old Testament Introduction simply a history of Hebrew literature, a mistake made by Reuss, who included in his work the letter of Aristeas and the writings of Philo. The first consideration of this science must be its service to theology; its principal concern is with the books of the canon held by the Jews of Palestine, and only secondarily with the circle of writings derived from Hellenistic sources. Care must also be taken not to limit the task of Introduction so as to take away its freedom and to bind it in effect to the pronouncements of tradition as to authorship. On the other hand, Introduction is not what Riehm would make it, the literary-historical characterization of the Bible as the authentification of a divine revelation. It has its own functions to perform in the service of theological science, and its usefulness must not be diminished by setting it at tasks which it may not undertake. Its work is a preparation for that of exegesis and for that of Biblical theology. As Reuss has well expressed the fact, the science of Introduction is not the house itself, but is the set of calculations and estimates necessary for the actual processes of building. ### 2. Method of Treatment. From the preceding it follows that the articulation of this discipline in the general science of theology is fixed. In the arrangement and handling of its subject-matter it demands and requires great freedom; on the other hand, certain lines are laid down along which it must operate. Thus, while the origin of the separate writings and the story of their transmission (history of the text) are its concern, it is a matter of choice whether consideration of the individual writings precede or follow consideration of their collection into a canon. Not unimportant is the question of method of investigating the individual writings. Thus, the chronological order certainly lies near to hand, as in the treatment by Wildeboer and Kautzsch; yet, illuminating as this method is, weighty considerations may be urged for another way of proceeding. If one is disposed to emphasize the theological character of the discipline, concentrating his attention upon the writings received into the canon, the chronological, historical-literary order assumes a complexion of incompleteness, since only a small part of Hebrew literature found place in the canon and that part was not composed with the object of being gathered into a collection. By a simpler grouping the advantage is gained of awakening no expectations which are doomed to disappointment. Then, too, there are practical difficulties attending such a method. Over the origin of most Old Testament writings rests a darkness not yet dispelled and probably never wholly to be banished. Moreover, many of the writings, such as the historical books, are complex in origin, and refer to preceding compositions of which too little is known to admit of their being taken into a history of the literature. These same books also bear traces of being transmitted and worked over by hands the methods of operation of which are altogether uncertain. This historical method consequently leads frequently into a cul-de-sac. It is, therefore, not without reason that many have adopted the literary-historical method, following the grouping of the canon so far as to consider the historical books by themselves, the Prophets in another section, and so on, while the three departments of Introduction are history of the canon, of the separate books, and of the text. Whether a history of exegesis is to be included in this branch of study is debatable. For the history of the Bible in a narrower sense it is not important; yet in itself and its relationship it has such value that there is some justification for including in Introduction what properly belongs in hermeneutics. ### 3. History. The history of this science shows in all its phases the same marked trait; viz., that the Church, which would fair remain in restful and thankful enjoyment of the Scriptures as handed down, has been compelled by outside pressure to take up the problems of the origins of those Scriptures and either to modify or discard the traditions regarding them. In the earliest times this pressure came partly from Jewish sources, later from linguistic science and philosophy, and later still from the Roman Catholic Church, which sought to undermine the Protestant principle. Only the salient points of the development of Introduction can be here given. ### 4. To the Renaissance. The beginnings are found in the treatment of the canon in the prologue to Ecclesiasticus, in Josephus and the Talmud, and in the controversy between the Jews and some of the Church Fathers respecting the Palestinian and the Alexandrian canon. This led up to the text-critical labors of Origen. The next name is that of Jerome, about whose time began work on Introduction, but with the limits is treatment already referred to above, by Adrian and Casaiodorus, the latter of whom dealt briefly with the history of the text and of the canon. A slight advance was made in the work of Junilius Africanus (about 550) called *Instituta regularia divinae legis*. This classified the books according to their contents as history, prophecy, proverbs, and simple teaching, and according to their degree of authority as perfect, medium, or of no authority; it distinguished also between poetical and prose writings. In this connection must be mentioned Augustine's *De doctrina Christiana, *which treated of the extent of the canon and of the use of translations. The Church of the Middle Ages was content with the work done by Cassiodorus, Augustine, and Junilius. But among the Jews there were the stirrings of a more vigorous life, exemplified in the investigations of Ibn Ezra in the region of special introduction. ### 5. The Reformation Period. By the revival of learning the Christians were made familiar with the results of Jewish investigations which were soon to lead to the enrichment of isagogical science. The interest in the Hebrew language grew into a wider concern for Oriental philology, which had a fertile field in the translations of the Old Testament, soon to become of use in the department of text-criticism. The earliest fruits ripened among the Roman Catholics in the work of a convert from Judaism, Sixtus of Sienna (d. 1599), the *Bibliotheca sancta, * which distinguished between protocanonical and deuterocanonical writings, and which dealt also with matters of special introduction. The Reformers did not enter this field, though the exegetical works of Calvin contain materials for special introduction, and Luther necessarily had to do with the extent of the canon. Important was the work of Carlstadt, *De canonicis scripturis * (1520), in which he showed the superiority of the Jewish canon and made the canonicity of a Biblical writing depend not upon the authorship but upon its relation to that canon. The period immediately following the Reformation produced nothing notable. A. Rivetus (d. 1662) represents the standpoint of the age in his definition of Scripture as that which proceeds from God as the special author, who not only impelled (the scribe) to write and gave the thoughts, but even suggested the order and the words. ### 6. The Seventeenth Century. Out of this dogmatic quiet the theologians were shaken by the newer criticism, which began in the realm of the text. The Reformer Cappellus undertook investigations which showed that the traditional text was not altogether trustworthy, and he was followed by the Catholics Morinus and Richard Simon (d, 1712). The latter's *Histoire critique * was epoch-making in that it employed the literary-historical method, and showed that the Pentateuch could not be wholly the work of Moses and that other historical books had been worked over. Simon had been preceded by Hobbes, whose *Leviathan *had used the method of internal testimony, and Spinoza, whose *Tractatus theologico-politicus *had advanced a number of positions which were to be established later. Simon's book awakened much opposition and was suppressed, only to be reproduced in a Protestant land (Rotterdam, 1685). The ideas of Simon were further established in Protestant regions by the work of Johannes Clericus, though the tendencies of Protestantism were conservative, and its supporters came later to hope that the learning of Carpzov would establish firmly the truth of the traditional views. ### 7. The Eighteenth Century. In the second half of the eighteenth century new doors were opened to Biblical criticism, especially by the researches of Semler. At that time the attitude of criticism toward the Old Testament was unfriendly; it treated the collection from the historical standpoint only, but insisted upon understanding the times in which the writings originated. Of religion little was discovered in the Old Testament. Herder came to the help of the defenders of the Bible with his discovery of the poetry it contained, and this newer light was intensified in the work of Eichhorn, which outshone all the works of his predecessors and contemporaries. Special interest attaches to the researches of Eichhorn in general introduction, while the work of special introduction gained from his treatment of the books as constituting a Hebrew national literature. Yet permanent results were lacking from that period, excepting only the discovery by Astruc which forecast the documentary analysis of the Pentateuch. ### 8. The Nineteenth Century. A new era was opened by De Wette, who combined the literary with the historical method. Ewald carried the process on, not indeed in a work on Introduction, but in exegetical researches in which he employed it, using along with it a sympathetic appreciation rather than a rigid logic. Meanwhile the Pentateuchal problem was pushing to the front in the works of Vatke and Reuss, to receive its most advanced consideration from Wellhausen and Kuenen. The side of the defense had meanwhile not been inactive, as the works of Hengstenberg, Hävernick, and Keil abundantly prove, all of which contributed something toward the solution of the problems discussed. Between the two extremes represented by the men named come others who approach one or the other tendency, but the general characteristic of their labor is to bring into accord the assured results of criticism and the faith of the Church in revelation. The most notable example of this kind of work is Driver's *Introduction. *But the final solution of the problems raised by the science of Introduction will come not from that discipline but from the other branches of theology which build upon it. (F. BUHL.) ### II. New Testament. ### 1. History of the Discipline: ### 1. To the Reformation. The employment of the term "Introduction" with its present connotation in connection with the New Testament dates in modern times from Michaelis. But as in the case of the Old Testament, beginnings had been made long before. Besides the men mentioned above (I, § 4) as working in this department, Tyconius and Eucherius of Lyons attempted to supply the needed information about the origin, occasion, purpose, and history of the New Testament writings. The antagonism to the apocryphal books and heretical parties such as the Marcionites with their variant canon and the Montanists with their new prophecy enhanced in the second and third centuries the Church's valuation of the Christian books which had come to it from the apostolic age. The Muratorian Canon employed a legendary report of the origin of the Gospels, not to explain individual peculiarities, but to establish the dogmatic unimportance of variations in the Gospel narratives. Similarly, the church practice of using in service the private letters of Paul as well as the public letters and of excluding the spurious ones from use was established. The vacillation of the Church in reference to such writings as the Apocalypse of Peter and the Sheperd of Herman, the Marcionitic criticism of the canon of the Gospels and of the Pauline epistles, the opposition of the Alogi to the Johannine writings as being the production of a heretic of the apostolic age, the writings of Melitus and Hippolytus about the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse - all these suggest the way in which the need for a kind of Introduction made itself felt in even those early times. So a beginning was made in the writing of Dionysius on the Apocalypse, while the sentiments and traditions of the different Churches began to take systematic form in the writings of Origen. Eusebius used considerable space in his works in setting forth the varied views and early testimonies concerning the New Testament books. Jerome followed in the steps of Eusebius, but without contributing much that was new in this particular line of investigation. The doctrinal contests of the fourth and succeeding centuries turned the channel of investigation away from the history of the canon, and for a considerable time there appeared only reproductions of the early opinions about the New Testament books in the prefaces to the commentaries or summaries and synopses which came into being and which gave a general view of the arrangement, contents, and origin of the New Testament writings. ### 2. The Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. The silence of the Middle Ages gave place during the Reformation to the utterances of the Catholic scholars Sanctes Pagninus of Lucca (d. 1541), Sixtus of Sienna (d. 1599), and A. Rivetus, who wrote an *Isagoge sive introductio *to both the Old and New Testaments (Leyden, 1627). These works contained much information in this department, along with dogmatic discussions concerning inspiration and the relations of Scripture and tradition. Richard Simon published (at Rotterdam) his three works upon the critical history of the New Testament (*Histoire critique du texte, *1689, *des versions, * 1690, and *des principaux commentateurs, *1693, *du Nouveau Testament*), and thus won his place as the father of New Testament Introduction. By "*critique*" he understood the investigations for the establishment of the original text; and, by his history from the sources, he impugned not only the Protestant claim of "a witness of the Spirit," but also the scholastic treatment, which, resting upon imperfect acquaintance with antiquity, could not prove that Christianity was a religion based on facts and that the Bible was the record of those facts. In the effort to establish the New Testament text, he traversed a large part of the province of Introduction. ### 3. Michaelis. The next name is Johann David Michaelis, who wrote the *Einleitung in die göttlichen Schriften des Neuen Bundes *(Göttingen, 1750). He disclaimed dependency upon Simon, and yet his work was really, in its first shape, based upon Simon. With each succeeding edition it was greatly improved; but, even in the fourth and last edition (1788), its standpoint was a strongly rational supernaturalism. The differences to be noted between the editions are mainly that his attacks on the "doubters" became milder, and that he gave up the inspiration of the historical books, denied also the inspiration of the non-apostolic books (among which he reckoned apparently the Epistle to the Hebrews), and declared that the "inner witness of the Spirit" was of as little worth as the witness of the Church in proof of the inspiration of any book. ### 4. Semler, Schmidt, and Others. Johann Salomo Semler made the next contribution of importance (in his *Abhandlung von freier Untersuchung des Kanons, *4 parts, Halle, 1771-75), when he distinguished between the word of God, which contained the doctrines of directly spiritual value, and the Holy Scriptures, which contained them only sporadically. There is, however, no historical proof that any particular passage was the word of God; the inner witness for the truth was the only source of proof. The Church had the right, exercised by the ancient Church and by the Reformers, to say what books should constitute the canon. It can not be said that Introduction was influenced permanently by Semler; the greater impulse was given by Michaelis, who was followed by J. E. C. Schmidt (1804), Eichhorn (1804-14), Hug (1808), Berthold (1812), and De Wette (1826), while in England Horne (1818) had included in his work the domains of Biblical geography and antiquities, which were excluded by the Germans. Schmidt applied the phrase "historico-critical" - since so widely used - to his Introduction; Eichhorn started his fruitful "original Gospel" theory; Hug, in an unexcelled manner, investigated the relations of the synoptists. Schleiermacher (1811) called attention to the need of a reconstruction of this branch of study, declaring that its object was a history of the New Testament, so that its present readers might be, in their knowledge of the origin of the books and their text, on a level with the first. Credner (1832 sqq.) projected a fairly complete scheme for a treatment of the subject, embracing the history of the science of Introduction, history of the origin of the New Testament Scriptures, history of the canon, of translations, of the text, and of interpretation. This scheme he was not permitted to carry out, though his posthumous publications completed the history of the canon. Reuss followed Credner's lead in the *Geschichte der heiligen Schriften des Neuen Testaments *(Brunswick, 1842), while Hupfeld made a contribution in his *Begriff und Methode der . . . biblischen Einleitung *(Marburg, 1844). ### 5. Baur. Ferdinand Christian Baur (d. 1860) has had by far the most influence upon New Testament studies of any man of modern times. He attempted nothing less than a reconstruction of all apostolic and postapostolic history and literature, from the four Pauline epistles (Galatians, I and II Corinthians, and Romans) which alone he considered genuine. Starting with the idea that the difference between Paul and the rest of the apostles was fundamental, he declared that those New Testament writings which either put the relations of the apostles in a more favorable light or seemed to ignore their differences altogether were either forgeries or the products of a later time. But his historical considerations were derived from Hegel's philosophy, and his criticism rested upon dogmatic convictions. New discoveries of vital importance in the field of church history and patristics and the recovery of the *Codex Sinaiticus *and of parts of Tatian's *Diatessaron *from Ephraem's commentary have given a new basis for a historical discussion of the New Testament and its origin and contents. It is the irony of history upon Baur's methods that the modern Dutch school have used Baur's methods to discredit the four "genuine" epistles. These four points may be made against Baur: (1) He reasoned in a circle; for he examined critically, first the sources of the history, and then the history of the sources. The reasoning which reduced the genuine Pauline epistles to four reduces the four to none; so that Paul is robbed of his title to have produced any writing which lasted. (2) Baur certainly was extraordinarily familiar with the old Christian literature; but he read it with prejudice, and not with a desire to learn anything different from his preconceptions. (3) He was lacking in the sense of the concrete and the value of the individual, and therefore could not grasp complicated relations and their results. (4) If it is self-evident that one must understand what he criticizes, and that his criticism must rest upon thorough exegesis, then Baur surely was unfitted for his labor; for he was weak as an exegete and his school has done little in exegesis. ### 6. Later Work. It may, however, be added that the deficiencies in Baur's method of work were supplied by others. B. F. Westcott's *General Survey of the History of the Canon *(London, 1855 and often), E. Reuss's *Histoire du canon *(Strasburg, 1863), A. Hilgenfeld's *Kanon und die Kritik des Neuen Testaments * (Halle, 1863), T. Zahn's *Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons *(2 vols., Leipsic, 1888-92), and A. Loisy's *Histoire du canon du Nouveau Testament * (Paris, 1891) are productions of this character. Such works as W. M. Ramsay's *Church in the Roman Empire *(London, 1893) have served also as correctives of much of the work which has been accomplished in Germany. The studies of F. Bleek (6th ed., 1893; Eng. transl. of 2d Germ. ed., 1869), Hilgenfeld (1875), Holtzmann (1892), Salmon (1894), S. Davidson (1894), Godet (1893-99; Eng, transl. 1894-99), Zahn (1900), and Jülicher (1901; Eng. transl, 1904), and of the Roman Catholics Trenkle (1897) and Schäfer (1898) in Introduction are important contributions to the science. ### 2. The Conception and the Task: ### 1. History of the New Testament Scriptures. In order to obtain an adequate comprehension of the books which together make up the New Testament as witnesses for a historical movement and to secure for them safe utilization as historic sources, there is required a scientific investigation of their origin. That is, there must be inquiry into the time in which, the circumstances under which, the purpose for which, and the personal relations of the persons by whom they were produced. In other words, the method of research is literary-historical. Whether this can be called a science is debatable, since criticism is the art of distinguishing the genuine from the spurious. But if it be granted that an examination from a historical standpoint of the writings of the New Testament and an adequate exposition of the history of their origin is really scientific, it is none the less a fact that the process has a theological character. For the fact that this literature is Greek and sprang up in the Roman world does not do away with the other fact that it originated in certain communities which had in certain vital respects their existence apart from the world about them. The religious element marks it off from the other productions of the time, and the history of this literature is one aide of the history of the Church. If Christianity depends upon the historic reality of a revelation mediated by Christ and authoritatively expounded by the apostles, it is no unimportant result that it can reach historical foundations for the early productions. And those foundations are found in the writings brought together in the New Testament. The supereminent value in this respect of these writings is sufficient justification for considering them apart. But the investigation must not start from a dogmatic conception of what the canon is. The ground fact is that even from the second century this collection has existed in the Church and has been accepted as the one legitimate source for the history of the revelation made through Christ. But if it should appear that there are in the New Testament writings which in general character and in origin separate themselves widely from the rest of the New Testament Scriptures, or if there were outside that collection writings which affiliate themselves with the New Testament Scriptures, Introduction can not content itself with disregarding those facts. It is hardly likely, however, that such discoveries will be made as will compel a radical departure from the accepted procedure, that there will come to light such writings as are referred to in Luke i, 1 sqq., or the correspondence of Paul with the Corinthians implied in I Cor. v, 9; vii, 1. Even such discoveries as those last mentioned would not be likely materially to change accepted results, and the business of the discipline would still be with the New Testament Scriptures. ### 2. History of the Canon. Along with the history of the separate writings which make up the New Testament goes as a second part the history of the combination of these into the canon in which they have been transmitted to the present time. It is of importance to examine and exhibit the historical antecedents and developments which compassed the formation of this collection, the irregularity and vacillation which existed during several centuries, and the adjustment which produced a final and universally accepted result. The examination of the origins of the individual writings and that of the origin of the collection supplement each other. The one brings to light the common spirit which animated the individual writers, the other reveals the influence which those writers exercised over the churches. And it is noteworthy that the collection was begun almost, if not quite, before the latest writers had finished their work, so that no appreciable interval of time separated the two operations of writing and of collection. And so, notwithstanding the different areas in which these two processes work, they belong together as sections of the one discipline of the literary history of the New Testament. ### 3. Textual Criticism and Versions. As to the inclusion of other departments in this branch of study, usage differs. Some have included therein not only the history of the text and of translations, but also the history of the theological handling of the same. But, strictly speaking, neither the story of the vicissitudes of transmission nor the history of translations belongs here. If with Credner and Reuss the history of translations is put as a part of the history of the propagation of the New Testament, its proper place is in the history of missions. So far as the versions assist in the recovery of the original text, the treatment of them belongs in a guide to the exercise of text-criticism or in the prolegomena to editions of the New Testament. To be sure, the history of the earlier text and that of the old versions have importance for the history of the canon because of the fact that not so much individual books as the entire collection or at least great parts of the collection were copied and translated. Were greater certainty than is yet the case attainable concerning the Syriac and the Latin versions, great gains would be made in the history of the canon of the New Testament. But it must be remembered that not all branches which contribute to results in any given line of research are to be included in the department of science in which they are used. (T. ZAHN.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: On the general introduction to the whole Bible consult: C. A. Briggs, *Study of Holy Scripture*, New York, 1899 (the best book for a comprehensive survey); G. T. Ladd, *Doctrine of Sacred Scripture,* ib. 1883 (full but dry); E. Rapin, *Les Livres de l'Ancien et du Nouveau Testament,* Moudon, 1890; A. Schlatter, *Einleitung in die Bibel,* Stuttgart, 1894 (conservative). On the Canon of the O. T. it is sufficient to mention: A. Kuenen, *Historisch-kritisch onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds,* 3 vols., Leyden, 1885-93 (the fullest discussion); F. Buhl, *Kanon und Text des Alten Testaments,* Leipsic, 1891, Eng. transl., Edinburgh, 1892 (a model); H. E. Ryle, *Canon and Text of the O. T.,* London, 1892 (reliable, indispensable); G. Wildeboer, *Het Onstaan van den kanon des Ouden Verbonds,* Groningen, 1889; Eng. transl., London, 1885 (all students should have it); E. Kautzsch, *Abriss der Geschichte des alttestamentlichen Schrifttums,* in his *Heilige Schrift des A. T.,* Freiburg, 1896, Eng. transl., *Outline of the Hist. of the Literature of the O. T.,* New York, 1899 (fresh and interesting). On O. T. Introduction the one indispensable book is Driver, *Introduction,* latest impression, London, 1897. Consult also J. P. P. Martin, *Introduction à la critique générale de l'A. T.,* 3 vols., Paris, 1888-89; A. F. Kirkpatrick, *The Divine Library of the O. T.,* London, 1892 (conservative); S. Davidson, *Introduction to the O. T.,* 3 vols., ib. 1894 (the antithesis of Kirkpatrick); H. L. Strack, *Einleitung in das A. T.,* Munich, 1898; W. H. Green, *General Introduction to the O. T.,* 2 vols., New York, 1898-99 (the extreme in conservatism); W. R. Smith, *O. T. in Jewish Church,* Edinburgh, 1902; C. H. Cornill, *Einleitung in das A. T.,* Freiburg, 1905, Eng. transl., 1907; J. E. McFadyen, *Introduction to the O. T.,* New York, 1905; K. Budde, *Geschichte der althebräischen Litteratur,* Leipsic, 1906; C. L. Gautier, *Introduction à l'A. T.,* 2 vols., Lausanne, 1906. On the N. T. the works have been sufficiently indicated in the text, though worthy of mention are A. Loisy, *Histoire du Canon du N. T.,* Paris, 1891; *Biblical Introduction; N. T.,* by W. Adeney, London, 1899; B. W. Bacon, *Introduction to N. T.*, New York, 1900; H. von Soden, *Urchristliche Literatur-Geschichte,* i, *Die Schriften des N. T.,* Berlin, 1905, Eng. transl., 1905.

### BIBLICAL THEOLOGY. Origin and History (§ 1). Study of New Testament Theology (§ 2). The Old Testament (§ 3). Limitations (§ 4). Constructive Work (§ 5). The True Aim (§ 6). Biblical theology, or the orderly presentation of the doctrinal contents of Scripture, is a comparatively modern branch of theological science. In general the term expresses not so much the construction of a theology which is Biblical in an especial sense as a method of dealing with the Biblical matter which is midway between exegesis and dogmatics. Its object and limitation can be shown best by tracing its history. ### 1. Origin and History. So long as the Church felt or admitted no discord between its tradition and the Biblical tradition, there was no need to compare or contrast the contents of the Bible with the teaching of the Church. On this account the beginnings of a Biblical theology appear in the circles of the theologians of the Reformation, who perceived in Scripture the test by which to try ecclesiastical tradition. Since to them the Bible was the sufficient, self-explaining basis of dogmatics, by this juxtaposition the possibility was given of a separate treatment of the doctrinal contents of the Bible. The first timid effort confined itself to a discussion of the customary quotations (Sebastian Schmidt, *Collegium Biblicum in quo dicta Veteris et Novi Testamenti juxta seriem locorum . . . explicantur,* 1671). Under the influence of Pietism the close connection of dogmatics and the Bible was relaxed, because in the latter was seen less an infallible source of knowledge than a means of grace (A. F. Büsching, *Gedanken von der Beschaffenheit und dem Vorzuge der bibl.-dogm. Theologie von der scholastischen,* Lemgo, 1758, and similar works). When in the eighteenth century J. S. Semler and his school busied themselves in discovering the differences in date and characteristics of the different books of the Bible, and brought to light the dissonance between crystallized dogma and New Testament teaching (a dissonance greater still in the case of the Old Testament), the desire naturally arose to show the essential agreement of the teaching of the Church and that of the Bible by an unprejudiced study of the latter (G. T. Zachariä, *Biblische Theologie oder Untersuchtung des biblischen Grundes der vornehmsten kirchlichen Lehren,* 5 vols., Göttingen, 1771-86). The rationalistic school, in opposition to the formulated dogma of the Church, endeavored to read its own views (those of natural religion) into the Bible (C. F. Ammon, *Entwicklung einer reinen biblischen Theologie, *Erlangen, 1792; G. P. C. Kaiser, *Die biblische Theologie oder Judaismus und Christianismus nach einer freimütigen Stellung in die kritisch-vergleichende Universalgeschichte der Religionen und in die universale Religion, *2 vols., Erlangen, 1813). In contradistinction to this there was during the nineteenth century an eager desire to give the purely historical results of examination of the Bible. In this way, the fact of differences of conception in the parts of the Bible was fully brought to light. ### 2. Study of New Testament Theology. Probably under the influence of Schleiermacher especial attention was directed to the New Testament, and the "systems" of the different apostles were separately treated (the Pauline by Meyer, 1801, L. Usteri, 1824; the Johannine by K. Frommann, 1839). Along with this an effort was made to show the unity of the Gospel in the very variety of individual conceptions (of the many important works, note A. Neander, *Geschichte der Pflanzung . . . der christlichen Kirche, *Hamburg, 1832; B. Weiss, *Lehrbuch der biblischen Theologie,* Berlin, 1868; W. Beyschlag, *Neutestamentliche Theologie, *Halle, 1891). At the same time another class of theologians was eagerly engaged in tracing the differences of the individual conceptions to their very roots. According to Hegel's formula the crystallized dogma was a synthesis of the two sharp opposites of Paulinism and the primitive apostolate, and this development was followed up in all its details from a literary-historical point of view (F. C. Baur; H. E. G. Paulus; F. C. A. Schwegler, *Nachapostolisches Zeitalter, * Tübingen, 1846; O. Pfleiderer, *Paulinismus, *Leipsic, 1873; C. Holsten, *Evangelium des Paulus und Petrus, *Rostock, 1868; A. Hilgenfeld, *Urchristentum, *Jena, 1854). In like manner the life of Jesus and its sources were treated, in connection with which work there originated a countless number of monographs on the selfconsciousness of Jesus and the titles he assumed. The result from this point of view was the conviction that New Testament theology has to deal not with a completed whole, but with a mobile and developing Christianity. Hence "Biblical Theology" and "Introduction" together represent simply a part of the apparatus of general church history (cf. A. Hausrath, *Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, * Heidelberg, 1868; O. Pfleiderer, *Urchristentum, * Berlin, 1887). ### 3. The Old Testament. Parallel to this development of New Testament theology was that of Old Testament theology. Students came to discern the narrowness and onesidedness of the Old Testament religion, upon which Hengstenberg vainly insisted in his obliteration of the limits between the Old and the New Testament. In acknowledging the principle of slow historical genesis, others sought to understand the development of the Old Testament religion by the principle that no doctrine is completed in the Old Testament, no doctrine in the New Testament is altogether new (G. F. Oehler, *Theologie des Alten Testaments, *Tübingen, 1873-74; similarly Schultz and Riehm). J. Wellhausen *(Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, *Berlin, 1886) and A. Kuenen produced a revolution in the treatment of the Old Testament. Under the influence of their religious-historical suppositions and literary-critical conclusions, Old Testament theology served to describe how from the supposed original conditions, from animism and totemism, the prophetic monotheism of the prophets and ultimately the theocratic ceremonialism of postexilic Judaism gradually developed (B. Duhm, *Theologie der Propheten, * Bonn, 1875; R. Smend, *Alttestamentliche Religionsgeschichte, * Freiburg, 1893; S. Kayser and Marti). In this way the Old Testament religion was placed on a level with other religions, and the surprisingly rich discoveries concerning the ancient Orient and the rising science of the history of religion grasped hands with this method of treatment. It was a natural consequence to show that the New Testament possesses a rich heritage of religious fancy common to ethnic religions (cf. especially H. Gunkel, *Schöpfung und Chaos, *Göttingen, 1895; *Religionsgeschichtliche Abhandlung des Neuen Testaments, * 1904). The idea of unity and special individuality of the New Testament thus goes by the board. ### 4. Limitations. In glancing over the development of Biblical theology, it is surprising to see how this branch has worked out its own disintegration. In the beginning the aim was to make the Bible the only and sole source of Christian doctrine in the Reformers' understanding of the phrase, by allowing it to speak for itself without introducing any diluting medium. The investigator sought to penetrate its polymorphous nature, and finally saw that under his touch the uniting bond had disappeared which formerly kept together the disparate parts and made it an undivided object of scientific research. This self-immolation the discipline owes to a one-sided maintenance of the historical and religious-historical method. Biblical theology must indeed be a historical science; but the adjective must not become a noun and the method must not master the subject. For in this study there are fundamental perceptions which can not be obtained by literary criticism and general historical researches. Thus the subject itself - namely, the whole Bible - suggests the question whether the subject-matter is the remains of a religious literature or documents, productions, and descriptions of a history which is fixed by a revelation from God. And the answer to this question is of the greatest import for the investigation. How different must be the verdict of higher criticism, provided the miracles or the declarations of Jesus are regarded as *a priori * historically possible or impossible; how much the selection of the matter decides whether one shall find only religious-ethical views, or historical facts of the "religion of Jesus," or that "the belief in Christ" belongs to the essence of Christianity. ### 5. Constructive Work. For this reason there has always existed an opposition to the development described above. The history of salvation with its literary deposit ought not to be resolved into a purely human development. The impression is gained rather that the Bible contains a primary life of faith, having the character of uncorrupted self-consistency and unbroken independence, and that consequently there is underneath a uniform and fundamental idea. As standing for this, mention must be made of K. I. Nitzsch, *System der christlichen Lehre *(Bonn, 1829), and H. Ewald, *Lehre der Bibel von Gott *(3 vols., Leipsic, 1871), and particularly of J. C. K. von Hofmann, whose great work *(Die heilige Schrift des Neuen Testaments zusammenhängend untersucht, *completed by Volck, Munich, 1886) culminated in the description of the history of the entire New Testament preaching as a historical development of the uniform word which is not the product of the individual authors. Hermann Cremer ( *Biblisch-theologisches Wörterbuch der neutestamentlichen Gräcität, *8th ed., Gotha, 1895) endeavored in a new way to bring into view the unity of the contents of Scripture by collecting the individual notions of the Bible and following their development from the Hebrew into the Greek. According to him there are not only different modes of expression at different times, but there is a Biblelanguage, a linguistic body of the divine word, ever developing itself. It is a scientific necessity that Biblical theology regard the individuality of the Bible as the basal principle of its entire activity. For the religion of the Bible is not merely a part of the historical past; it is an active factor in the present. In like manner the Bible is not merely a document showing the manner in which the Christian Church originated; it is the authentic tradition of the word of God, out of which the Church is ever originating (M. Kaehler, *Der historische Jesus, * 2d ed., Leipsic, 1896). On this account Biblical theology must always proceed from the unexceptionable agreement, which can only be reached at the end of a development; its way leads, therefore, from the New to the Old Testament, through the whole to the parts. Since, however, that result is nowhere offered in complete form, it is the task of this branch to educe from that which exists what is essential - the entirety - so that the examination of the particular is ever a means to an end, and is always under the control of the final aim of the work. ### 6. The True Aim. Accordingly it is not the task of Biblical theology to criticize the theology of the Bible and to judge it by the measure of a probable understanding of the original to be obtained scientifically, but to show as a matter of fact what the contents of the Bible are and at the same time to bring into view the different forms and shapes in which these contents are offered. It owes to the Church a pure exhibition of the "word" by the preaching of which the Church has lived in all ages. On this account no help is gained by considering some "probable gospel of Jesus," sought behind the sources, but the necessity is that the Jesus Christ of primitive tradition be described, and that in the various forms in which it has been handed down. Again, the highest aim is always to produce a theology of the entire Bible (such an effort is K. Schlottmann, *Kompendium der biblischen Theologie, *2d ed., Leipsic, 1895). But the separate treatment of the Testaments will generally recommend itself for practical reasons, since a great deal of preliminary work is necessary on the Old Testament, and because the difference of degrees of revelation must be indicated. But the correlation between the two must, after all, never be overlooked. It is a matter of course that the Biblical theology of the whole Bible can never dispense with exegesis. But it raises itself above the purely exegetical by its relation to systematic theology. It is released from the duty of exhibiting all the mazes and changes of development which are not essential to the understanding of the unified whole. On the other hand, it must not be misled into compressing Biblical riches into a narrow, one-sided system, which will take the form of contemporary dogmatics, for the dogmatic interest will take charge of the process of digesting the immense amount of subject-matter. One task of Biblical theology is to open the way of return from contemporary crystallization into formulas in dogmatics to the source itself. In this sense it will be of very great service to evangelical theology, provided it directs us to disclose more clearly and richly God's word in Holy Scripture and thus protests in the name of the document of revelation against every claim of human infallibility, for "God alone is infallible" (Zwingli). M. KAEHLER. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Discussions on the methods of the discipline are in: C. A. Briggs, *Study of Holy Scripture, *pp. 569-606, New York, 1899 (historical and critical, discriminating); G. R. Crooks and J. F. Hurst, *Theological Encyclopaedia and Methodology, *pp. 249-255, New York, 1894; A. Cave, *Introduction to Theology, *pp. 405-421, Edinburgh, 1896; W. Wrede, *Ueber Aufgabe und Methode der sogenannten neutestamentlichen Theologie, *Göttingen, 1897; L. Emery, *Introduction à l'étude de la théologie protestante, *pp. 122-127, Paris, 1904 (the foregoing all contain bibliographies). An excellent review of recent literature is furnished in the *Theologische Rundschau, * May, 1907 (an excellent periodical devoted to the review of works on theology). Works additional to those in the text which deal with the whole of Biblical theology or of some phase of both the O. and the N. T. are: L. Noack, *Die biblische Theologie, *Halle, 1853; F. Gardner, *The Old and the N. T. in their Mutual Relations, *New York, 1885; H. Schultz, *Alttestamentliche Theologie, *Göttingen, 1885, Eng. transl., Edinburgh, 1892; W. L. Alexander, *A System of Biblical Theology, *2 vols., Edinburgh, 1888; C. L. Fillion, *L'Idée centraIe de la Bible, *Paris, 1888; C. G. Chavannes, *La Religion dans la Bible, *2 vols., Paris, 1889; C. H. Toy, *Judaism and Christianity, *Boston, 1890 (called by Dr. Briggs "the best book on the subject"); A. Duff, *O. T. Theology, *Edinburgh, 1891 (original); R. H. Charles, *Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life in Israel, Judaism and Christianity, * London, 1899 (the one book in the field). Additional and worthy books on O. T. theology are: C. H. Piepenbring, *Théologie de l'Ancien Testament, *Paris, 1886, Eng. transl., New York, 1893; A. Dillmann, *Handbuch der alttestamentlichen Theologie, *Leipsic, 1895 (posthumous); W. H. Bennett, *Theology of the O. T., *London, 1896 (a handbook); R. Smend, *Lehrbuch der alttestamentlichen Religionsgeschichte, *Freiburg, 1899; A. B. Davidson, *The Theology of the O. T., *Edinburgh, 1904 (somewhat disappointing). Additional works on the N. T. are W. F. Adeney, *Theology of the N. T., *London, 1894 (corresponds to Bennett on the O. T.); H. J. Holtzmann, *Lehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie, *2 vols., Tübingen, 1897 (one of the best on the subject); G. B. Stevens, *Theology of the N. T., *New York, 1899; E. P. Gould, *Biblical Theology of the N. T., *New York, 1900; D. F. Estes, *An Outline of N. T. Theology, *ib. 1901; J. Bovon, *Théologie du N. T., *2 vols., Lausanne, 1893-94, vol. i, 2d ed., 1902.

**BIBLICISTS, BIBLICAL DOCTORS: **A name sometimes given to those who, during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, demonstrated religious truths by the Scriptures and by the authority of the Fathers, in contrast to others, who abandoned Scripture and tradition in order to give full rein to their fancy and philosophy. The most of the latter were Dominican and Franciscan monks who, since their orders held no property, had no libraries, and, owing to their unsettled and vagrant lives, had little opportunity for the study of books. Some of the Biblical doctors were scholars, and produced valuable works; but the majority of them were servile imitators of their predecessors.

**BIBRA, NICHOLAS OF**. See NICHOLAS OF BIBRA.

**BICKELL, GUSTAV:** German Roman Catholic theologian and Orientalist; b. at Cassel July 7, 1838; d. at Vienna Jan. 15, 1906. In 1862 he became privat-docent of Semitic and Indo-Germanic philology at Marburg, and in the following year went in the same capacity to Giessen. Two years later he became a convert to Roman Catholicism, was ordained priest in 1866, and from 1867 to 1874 taught Oriental languages in the academy of Münster, where he was appointed associate professor in 1871. From 1874 to 1891 he was professor of Christian archeology and Semitic languages in the University of Innsbruck, and from the latter year until his death was professor of Semitic philology at the University of Vienna. He wrote: *De indole ac ratione versionis Alexandrinae in interpretando libro Jobi *(Marburg, 1862); *Sancti Ephraemi Syri carmina Nisibena *(Leipsic, 1866); *Grundriss der hebräischen Grammatik *(2 vols., 1869-70; Eng. transl. by S. I. Curtiss, 1877); *Gründe für die Unfehlbarkeit des Kirchenoberhauptes *(Münster, 1870); *Conspectus rei Syrorum literariae *(1871); *Messe und Pascha * (1872, Eng. transl. by W. F. Skene, Edinburgh, 1891); *Sancti Isaaci Antiocheni opera omnia *(2 vols., Giessen, 1873); *Kalilag und Damnag, alte syrische Uebersetzung des indischen Fürstenspiegels * (text and translation, Leipsic, 1876); *Metrices biblicae regulae exemplis illustratae *(Innsbruck, 1879); *Synodi Brixinenses saeculi quindecimi *(1880); *Carmina Veteris Testamenti metrica *(1882); *Dichtungen der Hebräer *(1882); *Koheleths Untersuchung über den Wert des Daseins *(1884); and *Das Buch Job nach Anlass der Strophik und der Septuaginta auf seine ursprüngliche Form zurückgeführt und im Versmasse des Urtextes übersetzt *(Vienna, 1894).

**BICKELL, JOHANN WILHELM:** Writer on canon law; b. at Marburg Nov. 2, 1799; d. at Cassel Jan. 23, 1848. He studied law at Marburg and Göttingen; was professor of jurisprudence at Marburg, 1824-34; president of the supreme court of Hesse-Cassel, 1841, and minister of state, 1846. He wrote *Ueber die Entstehung . . . des Corpus Juris Canonici *(Marburg, 1825); *Ueber die Reform der protestantischen Kirchenverfassung *(1831); *Ueber die Verpflichtung der evangelischen Geistlichen auf die symbolischen Schriften *(Cassel, 1839; 2d ed., 1840); of his *Geschichte des Kirchenrechts, *only one volume was completed (part i, Giessen, 1843; part ii, Frankfort, 1849).

**BICKERSTETH, EDWARD:** The name of three clergymen of the Church of England. 1. A leader of the Evangelicals; b. at Kirkby Lonsdale (60 m. n. of Liverpool), Westmoreland, Mar. 19, 1786; d. at Watton (21 m. w.s.w. of Norwich), Hertfordshire, Feb. 28, 1850. He was at first a lawyer and practised at Norwich, but he was always of deeply religious temperament and in 1815 received priest's orders and was sent to Africa by the Church Missionary Society to inspect the work there. Returning in Aug., 1816, he became one of the society's secretaries and for the rest of his life spent much time traveling in the service of the society; in 1830 he became rector of Watton. He was an active opponent of the Tractarian Movement, and was one of the founders of the Evangelical Alliance and of the Irish Church Missions Society. His published works were numerous and many were very popular; the more important (*A Help to the Study of the Scriptures, *21st edition; *A Treatise on Prayer, * 14th edition; *A Treatise on the Lord's Supper, *13th edition; *A Guide to the Prophecies, *8th edition; and others) were collected in sixteen volumes (London, 1853). He also compiled *Christian Psalmody *(Hereford, 1833), a much-used hymn-book, and edited the *Christian's Family Library *(50 vols.). BIBLIOGRAPHY: T. R. Birks, *Memoir of E. Bickersteth, *2 vols., London, 1858 (by his son-in-law); *DNB, *v, 3-4. 2. Dean of Lichfield, nephew of the preceding; b. at Acton (12 m. s. by e. of Bury St. Edmund's), Suffolk, Oct. 23, 1814; d. at Leamington (80 m. n.w. of London) Oct. 7, 1892. He studied at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge (B.A., 1836; M.A., 1839; D.D., 1864), and at Durham University; became curate of Chetton, Shropshire, 1838; at the Abbey, Shrewsbury, 1839; Penn Street, Buckinghamshire, 1849; vicar of Aylesbury and archdeacon of Buckinghamshire, 1853; honorary canon of Christ Church, Oxford, 1866; dean of Lichfield, 1875; resigned in 1892. In 1864, 1866, 1869, and 1874 he was prolocutor of the lower house of convocation of Canterbury, and as such was a member of the committee of New Testament revisers. He was a High-churchman. He published *Diocesan Synods in Relation to Convocation and Parliament *(London, 1867); *My Hereafter *(1883); edited the fifth edition of R. W. Evans's *Bishopric of Souls *(1877), with a memoir of the author; and contributed the commentary on Mark to the *Pulpit Commentary *(1882). 3. Bishop of South Tokyo, Japan, eldest son of Edward Henry Bickersteth; b. at Banningham (10 m. n. of Norwich), Norfolk, June 26, 1850; d. at Chisledon (30 m. n. of Salisbury), Wiltshire, Aug. 5, 1897. He was educated at Cambridge (B.A., 1873), and was ordained priest in 1874. He was curate at Hampstead, London, 1873-75; fellow of Pembroke College, Cambridge, from 1875 till 1877, when he headed the Cambridge Mission for Delhi, India. In this mission he so impaired his health that he was obliged to return to England in 1882, and he became rector of Framlingham, Suffolk. In 1886 he was consecrated bishop of Japan. He was an extreme High-churchman and strove to reproduce this type of church life among the Japanese. The result was the so-called "Catholic Church of Japan" ( *Nippon Sei Kokwai*). In 1887 a visit to Korea bore fruit in the establishment of a mission in that country. In 1892 his visit to the Anglican mission stations in Japan convinced him that there should be more bishops; accordingly his diocese was made that of South Tokyo. Again his health gave way and he returned home to die. His lectures for Japanese divinity students were published under the title *Our Heritage in the Church * (London, 1898). BIBLIOGRAPHY: S. Bickersteth, *Life and Letters of Edward Bickersteth, Bishop of South Tokyo, *London, 1905 (by his brother).

**BICKERSTETH, EDWARD HENRY: **Bishop of Exeter, son of Edward Bickersteth, 1; b. at Islington, London, Jan. 25, 1825; d. in London May 16, 1906. He was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge (B.A., 1847), and was ordered deacon in 1848, and ordained priest in the following year. He was curate of Banningham, Norfolk (1848-51); rector of Hinton Martell, Dorset (1852-55); vicar of Christ Church, Hampstead (1855-85); rural dean of Highgate (1878-85), and dean of Gloucester (1885). He was consecrated bishop of Exeter in 1885, but resigned five years later on account of age. He wrote *Water from the Well Spring *(London, 1852); *The Rock of Ages *(1857); *Commentary on the New Testament *(1864); *Yesterday, To-day, and Forever * (poem in twelve books, 1866; prized as a devout revelation of heaven); *The Spirit of Life *(1869); *Hymnal Companion to the Book of Common Prayer * (1870); *The Two Brothers and Other Poems, *(1871); *The Reef and Other Parables *(1873); *The Shadowed Home and the Light Beyond *(1874); *Words of Counsel to the Clergy and Laity of the Diocese of Exeter *(1888); *Charge at Third Visitation *(1895); *From Year to Year *(1895); *The Feast of Divine Love *(1896); and *Charge at Fourth Visitation * (1898). He was the author of a number of well-known hymns. BIBLIOGRAPHY: F. K. Aglionby, *Life of E. H. Bickersteth, * London, 1907.

**BICKERSTETH, SAMUEL: **Church of England, second son of Edward Henry Bickersteth; b. at Hampstead Sept. 9, 1857. He was educated at St. John's College, Oxford (B.A., 1881), and was ordered deacon in 1881 and ordained priest in the following year. He was successively curate of Christ Church, Lancaster Gate (1881-84); chaplain to the bishop of Ripon (1884-87); vicar of Belvedere, Kent (1887-91); and vicar of Lewisham (1891-1905). Since 1905 he has been vicar of Leeds and rural dean. He has written *Life and Letters of Edward Bickersteth, D.D., Bishop of South Tokyo *(his brother, London, 1899), and is the editor of the *Preachers of the Age *series.

**BIDDING PRAYER: **Originally *bidding of prayers, * signifying "the praying (offering) of prayers," one of the meanings of the verb "to bid" down to the Reformation being "to ask pressingly, to beg, to pray." As this meaning became obsolete the phrase was interpreted to mean "the ordering or directing of prayers"; i.e., an authoritative direction to the people concerning what or whom they should pray for, such directions being not uncommon in England in the sixteenth century. Still later "bidding" was taken as an adjective and the phrase "bidding prayer" came to mean the prayer before the sermon, which the preacher introduced by directing the congregation to pray for the Church catholic, the sovereign and the royal family, different estates of men, etc. (*Constitution and Canons of the Church of England, * § 55). A collect is now usually substituted for it, as the sermon, except on rare occasions, is preceded by the common prayers, which include the petitions prescribed by the canon. When, however, these prayers are not said before the sermon (as at university sermons), and on occasions of more than usual solemnity, the "bidding prayer" is used. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Forms of the Bidding Prayer are to be found in *Manuale et Processionale . . . ecclesiæ Eboracensis, *ed. W. G. Henderson in Surtees Society Publications, no. 63, Durham, 1875, and in F. Procter, *Hist. of Book of Common Prayer . . . revised by W. H. Frere, * p. 394, London, 1905. Consult C. Wheatley, *Bidding of Prayers before Sermons, *London, 1845; D. Rock, *Church of our Fathers, *3 vols., ib. 1849-53.

**BIDDLE, JOHN: **A founder of modern English Unitarianism; b. at Wotton-under-Edge (15 m. s. of Gloucester), where he was baptized Jan. 14, 1615; d. in a London jail Sept. 22, 1662. He was educated at Oxford, and appointed head master of the free school in the parish of St. Mary le Crypt, Gloucester, 1641. Study of the Scriptures led him to disbelieve the doctrine of the Trinity, and, his unsoundness being reported to the city magistrates, he was summoned before them. Fearing imprisonment, he made a confession of faith (May 2, 1644) which was not satisfactory, and so he made a second in which he used more conventional language and was allowed to go free. He then committed to paper *Twelve Arguments Drawn out of Scripture: wherein the commonly received opinion touching the Deity of the Holy Spirit is clearly and fully refuted, *and to these views he was faithful the rest of his life. A friend informed the magistrates of the existence of this paper and so he was cited before the committee of Parliament then at Gloucester, and put in the common jail Dec. 2, 1645. Happily a prominent citizen bailed him out. In 1646 he was summoned to appear before Parliament at Westminster to explain his position, and boldly avowed his belief. He was committed to the custody of one of the officers of the House of Commons and so continued for five years. Meanwhile a committee of the Assembly of Divines sitting at Westminster considered his case and to them he gave a copy of his *Twelve Arguments. * They made answer to it, but did not move him. So in 1647 he published his paper, which makes a tract of thirty-eight small pages. It stirred up great indignation and was suppressed and burned by the common hangman. Next he published *A Confession of Faith Touching the Holy Trinity, according to the Scripture *(1648), a tract of seventy-five small pages, in which in six articles, accompanied by expositions, he plainly states his views, making God the Father the first person of the Holy Trinity; one chief Son of the most high God, with only a human nature, though our God by reason of his divine sovereignty over us, yet subordinate to the most high God, the second person; and one principal minister of God and Christ the third. Next came another tract (eighty-six pages) containing alleged testimonies in favor of his views from the Fathers. In 1648 Parliament, at the instigation of the Westminster divines, made denial of the Trinity a capital offense, yet Biddle was not only not put to death, but in 1649 was released on bail. He became a chaplain and preacher in Staffordshire, but was shortly recalled and remained in prison till Feb., 1651. On his release he publicly advocated his views and continued his publications with *A Two-fold Catechism; the one simply called a Scripture Catechism; the other a brief Scripture Catechism for Children *(1654, the first of 141 small pages, the second of thirty-four, both with a preface). The answers, being entirely in quoted Scripture, could not be gainsaid, but the questions were open to serious criticism. Consequently he was examined by the House of Commons and committed to prison on Dec. 3, 1654, and was not released till May 28, 1655. The *Catechism *was burned by the common hangman Dec. 14, 1654. Again publicly advocating his beliefs on July 3, 1655, he was thrown into prison and a little later was tried for his life on the ordinance above mentioned. Cromwell, unwilling to put him to death, banished him to the Scilly Islands (Oct. 5, 1655), and allowed him 100 crowns a year for maintenance. In 1658 he was released, and resumed preaching. In the latter part of Aug., 1662, he was again imprisoned and after five weeks died. BIBLIOGRAPHY: The principal source of information respecting Biddle is the *Life *by Joshua Toulmin, London, 1789, which analyzes all his writings, including several translations, not mentioned above. There are earlier accounts, such as *J. Bidelli Vita, *by J. Farrington, ib. 1682, and *A Short Account of the Life of John Biddle, *ib. 1691. Consult also A. à Wood, *Athenæ Oxonienses, *ed. P. P. Bliss, iii, 593-603, 4 vols., ib. 1813-20; J. H. Allen, *Historical Sketch of the Unitarian Movement, *pp. 131-135, New York, 1894; *DNB, *v, 13-16. Some additional information is in Walter Lloyd's *Bicentenary of Barton Street Dissenting Meeting House, Gloucester, *pp. 40-50, Gloucester, 1899.

**BIEDERMANN, **bî'der-mān, **ALOIS EMANUEL:** Swiss Protestant; b. near Bendlikon, on the west shore of the Lake of Zurich (4 m. from the city), Mar. 2, 1819; d. at Zurich Jan. 25, 1885. He studied at Basel 1837-39, and then at Berlin; became pastor at Mönchenstein (3 m. s. of Basel) 1843; professor extraordinary at Zurich 1850, ordinary 1860, where he lectured at first upon theological encyclopedia and New Testament introduction, later chiefly upon dogmatic theology. He was the leading theologian of the neo-Hegelians, and was deeply influenced by the Tübingen school, especially by Strauss. He was a prolific writer for the religious press, but obtained his greatest repute by his *Christliche Dogmatik *(Zurich, 1869; 2d ed., Berlin, 1884-85, vol. ii edited by Rehmke), in which he denies the historicity of the Gospels, yet holds to the eternal ideas which the supposed facts of the Gospels embody; denies Christian doctrine, but advocates Christian practise; denies personality to God and personal immortality to man, yet holds that love to God and man constitutes the essence of religion. He took a deep interest in education and public affairs, preached often and by preference to small and weak congregations, and was tactful and courteous in his associations with men of all classes; he was a lover of athletics and a robust mountain-climber. Many of his briefer publications were collected under the title *Ausgewählte Vorträge und Aufsätze, *with a biographical introduction by J. Kradolfer (Berlin, 1885). BIBLIOGRAPHY: For further notes on Biedermann's life consult J. J. Oeri, *Persönliche Erinnerungen an Biedermann, *in *Kirchenblatt für die reformierte Schweiz, *1886, nos. 7-18. On his theology and philosophy consult O. Pfleiderer, *Religionsphilosophie, *i, 594, Berlin, 1893; idem, in *Preussische Jahrbücher, *Jan., 1886, pp. 53-76; T. Moosherr, *A. E. Biedermann nach seiner allgemeinen philosophischen Stellung, *Jena, 1893.

**BIEL,** bîl, **GABRIEL:** One of the most remarkable theologians of the late Middle Ages; b. at Speyer; d. at Tübingen 1495. He studied at Heidelberg, became preacher at St. Martin's Church at Mainz, provost of Urach in Württemberg, and after 1484 professor of theology and philosophy in the newly founded University of Tübingen. In his old age he joined the Brethren of the Common Life (see COMMON LIFE, BRETHREN OF THE). In theology Biel followed the nominalism of Occam, whose system he reproduced in his *Epitome et collectorium ex Occamo super quattuor libros sententiarum *(Tübingen, 1495). In anthropology and soteriology he was a Semi-Pelagian, teaching that "merit depends on man's free will and God's grace" (*sermo *xiv, 7); the sacraments operate not only *ex opere operantis, *but also *ex opere operato" *(*Sent., *IV, i, 3). The Church, therefore, was for him a mechanically operating sacramental institution; in its priests he glorifies a "mighty dignity." In questions affecting the constitution of the Church, Biel took the position assumed by the councils of Constance and Basel. As a preacher he surpassed his predecessors in the practicality of his views; his knowledge of political economy also deserves recognition. Besides the work already noticed, he wrote *Lectura super canonem missæ * (Reutlingen, 1488); *Expositio canonis missæ *(Tübingen, 1499); *Sermones *(1499); and other works. PAUL TSCHACKERT. BIBLIOGRAPHY: F. X. Linsenmann, *Gabriel Biel der letzte Scholastiker und der Nominalismus, *in *Tübinger theologische Quartalschrift, *1865, pp. 449 sqq.; idem, in *KL, *ii, 804-808; A. Ritschl, *Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und Versöhnung, *i, 102 sqq., Bonn, 1889; H. Plitt, *Gabriel Biel als Prediger, *Erlangen, 1879; Schultz, *Der sittliche Begriff des Verdienstes, *in *TSK, *1894, pp. 304 sqq.

**BIERLING,** bî'ar-ling, **ERNST RUDOLF:** German Protestant jurist; b. at Zittau (49 m. s.e. of Dresden) Jan. 7, 1841. He was educated at the universities of Leipsic (1859-63) and Göttingen (1864-65), and after being a lawyer in his native city in 1868-71 was privat-docent at Göttingen for two years. Since 1873 he has been professor of canon and criminal law at Greifswald. In addition to being a member of the Pomeranian provincial synod in 1878-99 and of the general synod in 1875 and 1884-1902, he was a member of the House of Deputies in 1881-85 and of the Upper House after 1889. His publications include *Gesetzgebungsrecht evangelischer Kirchen im Gebiete der Kirchenlehre * (Leipsic, 1869); *Zur Kritik der juristischen Grundbegriffe * (2 vols., Gotha, 1877-82); *Die konfessionelle Schule in Preussen und ihr Recht * (1885); and *Juristische Prinzipienlehre *(3 vols., Tübingen, 1894-1905).

**BIGELMAIER,** bî"gel-mai'er, **ANDREAS:** German Roman Catholic; b. at Oberhausen (a suburb of Augsburg) Oct. 21, 1873. He was educated at the University of Munich (Th.D., 1899) and was ordained to the priesthood in 1897. From October to November, 1897, he was chaplain at Hörzhausen, in 1904 became privat-docent for church history at the University of Munich; in 1906 professor of church history in the Royal Lyceum of Dillingen. Besides numerous contributions to literary and theological periodicals, he has written *Die Beteiligungen der Christen am öffentlichen Leben in vorkonstantinischer Zeit *(Munich, 1902) and *Zeno von Verona *(1904).

**BIGG, CHARLES:** Church of England; b. at Manchester Sept. 12, 1840; d. Oxford July 15, 1908. He studied at Christ Church, Oxford (B.A., 1862), where he became tutor. He was master in Cheltenham College (1866-71), head master of Brighton College (1871-81), and rector of Fenny Compton, Leamington, 1887-1901, and honorary canon of Worcester from 1889 to 1901, when he was appointed regius professor of ecclesiastical history in Oxford University. He was examining chaplain to the bishops of Worcester (1889-91), Peterborough (1891-96), London (1897-1901), and Man (1903), Bampton lecturer in 1886, and has been canon of Christ Church, Oxford, since 1901. He has edited a number of Greek classics and the "Confessions" of St. Augustine (London, 1896); the *Didache *(1898); the *De Imitatione Christi *of Thomas à Kempis (1898); and Law's *Serious Call *(1899); and has written *The Christian Platonists of Alexandria *(London, 1886); *Neoplatonism *(1895); *Unity in Diversity * (1899); *Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude *(Edinburgh, 1901); and *The Church's Task under the Roman Empire *(London, 1905).

**BIGNE,** bîñ, **MARGUERIN,** mar"ge"ran, **DE LA:** French theologian; b. at Bernières-le-Patry, in Normandy, 1546 or 1547; d. at Paris 1589. He came of noble Norman parentage; studied at Caen and became rector of the university there; went to Paris, where he studied theology at the Sorbonne and received the doctorate. To refute the authors of the Magdeburg Centuries in June, 1576, he undertook to give a fuller edition of the writings of the Fathers of the Church than had been yet made. For this work he was appointed canon of the church of Bayeux, and some time after professor of the chapter-school; resigned to succeed his uncle, François du Parc, who had died, as dean of the church of Mans. In 1576 he was sent as deputy from the clergy of Normandy to the States General of Blois. In 1581 he went as canon of Bayeux to the provincial council there, and defended vigorously his chapter against the usurpation of Bernardin de St. François, bishop of Bayeux. The death of the bishop (July 14, 1582) appeared to end the conflict; but the bishop's successor, Mathurin de Savonnières, eventually forced Bigne to resign. He returned to Paris, where he died the same year. He was a great patristic scholar and an eloquent preacher. G. BONET-MAURY. BIBLIOGRAPHY: His works were: *Veterum patrum et antiquorum scriptorum ecclesiasticorum collectio *(Paris, 1575-79); *Statuta synodalia Parisiensium episcoporum, Galonis cardinalis, Odonis et Wilhelmi; item Petri et Galteri Senonensium archiepiscoporum decreta primum edita *(1578); *S. Isidori Hispalensis Opera *(1580). Consult: J. Hermant, *L'Histoire du diocèse de Bayeux, *Caen, 1705; P. D. Huet, *Les Origines de la ville de Caen, *Rouen, 1706; *Nicéron, Mémoires, *xxx, 279; J. G. de Chauffepié, *Nouveau dictionnaire historique et critique, *vol. i, Amsterdam, 1750.

**BILLICAN, THEOBALD (Diepold Gernolt or Gerlacher):** German theologian; b. at Billigheim (4 m. s.s.w. of Landau), Bavaria, toward the end of the fifteenth century; d. at Marburg Aug. 8, 1554. He took his surname from his birthplace; studied at Heidelberg, where Melanchthon was his fellow student; lectured at Heidelberg; became provost of the college of arts (1520) and had among others Johann Brenz as his pupil. When, in 1518, Luther came to Heidelberg, Billican, Brenz, Schnepff, and Martin Butzer were among his admirers. Billican left Heidelberg in 1522 and went to Weil as preacher. But his sermons against the mediatorship of the Virgin Mary and against purgatory brought about his deposition and he went to Nördlingen (1523), where he remained till 1535. Billican opened there a way for the Reformation and published *Von der Mess Gemein Schlussred *(1524), in which he sharply rebuked the "fraud" of the mass as a sacrifice for the living and the dead. Billican, who corresponded with Luther, Melanchthon, Rhegius, Brenz, Œcolampadius, and Zwingli, was regarded as a leader of the Evangelical cause in South Germany. But future events showed the instability of his character. In his controversy with Carlstadt, who had come to Nördlingen, he sided with Luther against Carlstadt in the doctrine of the Lord's Supper and stated in his *Renovatio ecclesiæ *(1525) that "in the Lord's Supper the flesh and blood of the Lord are present." Induced by Urbanus Rhegius openly to defend the Lutheran doctrine, Billican sent a statement to Rhegius, which the latter published (in mutilated form, as Billican complained) together with his answer Dec. 18, 1525, under the title *De verbis cænæ dominicæ et opinionum varietate Theobaldi Billicani ad Urbanum Regium * (1526). But while they of Wittenberg were rejoicing over this new ally, Billican changed his views in a letter addressed to Œcolampadius Jan. 16, 1526; and two months later, in letters addressed to Schleupner at Nuremberg and to Pirkheimer, he expressed still other views. While Billican did not fully agree with Zwingli, he stated that he learned more from the Zwinglians than from the Lutherans, and, adopting in part the views of Carlstadt and Œcolampadius, he pretended to teach the only correct doctrine because he stood between the two parties. His vacillating position is best illustrated in a booklet entitled *Epistola Theobaldi Billicani ad Joannem Hubelium qua illo de eucharistia cogitandi materiam conscripsit * (1528) which remained unnoticed. Billican, of whom so much had been expected, was now avoided by both parties. In 1529 he applied to Heidelberg University for the doctorate, presenting at the same time a confession in which he acrimoniously rejected Lutheran, Zwinglian, and Anabaptist doctrine, and expressed his firm belief in the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Being refused by the faculty, he married a woman of wealth, and, regardless of what had taken place, he had the boldness to ask Melanchthon to procure him the doctorate at Wittenberg. The latter replied, "[The authorities] advance no one before he has set forth his doctrinal views" (*CR, *i, 1112). Since he was repelled by the Reformers and not fully trusted by the Roman Catholics, Billican's position became untenable, and so in 1535 he left Nördlingen and went to Heidelberg, where he commenced the study of jurisprudence. He was made licentiate in jurisprudence and for a time took the place of a professor who was disabled on account of sickness. When in 1543 that professor died and Billican sought the position, the entire faculty opposed his nomination, but through the influence of Margaret von der Layen, whose "chancellor" he was considered, he was permitted to give independent lectures on law. On account of his relations with Margaret, the elector Frederick II deposed Billican from his office July 26, 1544, and ordered him to leave Heidelberg. He went to Marburg and was made professor of rhetoric, a position which he held till his death. (T. KOLDE.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: G. Veesenmeyer, *Kleine Beyträge zur Geschichte des Reichstags zu Augsburg, 1530, * pp. 59 sqq., Nuremberg, 1830; A. Steichele, *Das Bistum Augsburg, * iii, 947 sqq., Augsburg, 1872; T. Keim, *Die Stellung der schwäbischen Kirchen zur zwinglisch-lutherischen Spaltung, *in *TJB, * xiv, 1894; C. Geyer, *Die Nördlinger evangelischen Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrhunderts, *Munich, 1896.

**BILNEY (BYLNEY), THOMAS: **Early English Protestant; b. of a Norfolk family about 1495; burned at the stake at Norwich Aug. 19, 1531. He studied at Trinity Hall, Cambridge, and gave up law for theology and was ordained priest in 1519. He adopted the belief in justification by faith alone and was a leader in a company of Cambridge men who were inclined to the views of the Reformation; Hugh Latimer was added to the number by Bilney's influence and became his lifelong friend. Concerning the mass, transubstantiation, and the powers of the pope and the Church, Bilney remained orthodox; but he preached unremittingly in Cambridge, London, and neighboring counties, denouncing the invocation of saints and relic-worship, pilgrimages and fastings, at the same time leading a most austere life and devoted to deeds of charity. He was arrested and confined in the Tower Nov. 25, 1527; brought to trial, he denied having wittingly taught the doctrines of Luther, but was finally persuaded to abjure his alleged heresies and as penance was kept imprisoned for more than a year. Released in 1529, he went back to Cambridge, suffered much from remorse for his abjuration, and in 1531 resumed preaching, but was immediately arrested, and was executed as a relapsed heretic. BIBLIOGRAPHY: The sources for a life are in *Letters and Papers . . . of the Reign of Henry VIII., *vol. v, ed. James Gairdner, in *Record Publications, *London, 1863-80. Consult also C. H. Cooper, *Athenæ Cantabrigienses, * i, 42, ib. 1858; *DNB, *v, 40-43.

**BILSON, THOMAS: **Bishop of Winchester; b. at Winchester 1546 or 1547; d. there June 18, 1616. He studied at New College, Oxford (B.A., 1566; M.A., 1570; B.D., 1579; D.D., 1581); was made prebend of Winchester 1576, and became warden of the college there; was consecrated bishop of Worcester 1596, translated to Winchester 1597. He was a noted preacher, a man of much learning, and defended the Church of England against both Roman Catholics and Puritans. At the command of Queen Elizabeth he wrote *The True Difference between Christian Subjection and Unchristian Rebellion * (Oxford, 1585), in answer to Cardinal William Allen's *Defence of the English Catholics *(Ingolstadt, 1584), and *The Survey of Christ's Sufferings for Man's Redemption and of his Descent to Hades or Hell for our Deliverance *(London, 1604), a reply to the Brownist Henry Jacob; in *The Perpetual Government of Christ's Church *(1593; new ed., with memoir, Oxford, 1842) he defended episcopacy. With Dr. Miles Smith he revised the King James translation of the Bible before its publication, and he added the summaries of contents at the head of each chapter. BIBLIOGRAPHY: A. à Wood, *Athenæ Oxonienses, *ed. P. Bliss, ii, 169-171, 4 vols., London, 1813-20; *DNB, *v, 43-44.

**BINDING AND LOOSING, POWER OF. **See KEYS, POWER OF THE.