SCRIPTURE, HOLY.

Under this title are commonly designated the sacred books of the Jews and the Christians, in which are contained the revelation of God’s will to mankind, and the principles of that religion which he has inculcated upon us. In other parts of this work the reader will find articles elucidatory of the claims preferred and of the doctrines taught in these books (see especially Inspiration, Miracle, Prophecy, and Theology). In the present article it is proposed to furnish an outline of what may be denominated the historicocritical knowledge of these books. In treating of this we have to do with the composition, the history, the reputation, and the literary characteristics of the sacred writings viewed simply as remains of ancient literature.

This department of investigation is comparatively of recent date. In the earlier ages of the church the same necessity for such inquiries did not exist as now, in consequence especially of the efforts which have been made in more recent times to impugn the authenticity of the sacred documents; nor is it probable that the early fathers, from the views which they entertained of the sole agency of the Holy Spirit in the composition of these, would have deemed any inquiry into their peculiarities, as the products at the same time of human agency, other than impious and absurd (1). Since the time, however, when Spinoza issued his attack upon the authenticity of the Pentateuch and the general inspiration of the Scriptures (1670), and Richard Simon, a presbyter and fellow of the oratory at Paris, followed with his acute, learned, and liberal investigations into the critical history of the Old Testament (1678), this subject has occupied the attentive study of critics and theologians of all confessions, and may now be said to have reached the dignity of a science (2).

1. The prevailing notion among the Jews and the early Christians respecting Inspiration was, that the faculties of the person inspired were completely suspended and superseded during the afflatus, so that the only parts of him actively engaged in the work of composition were his hands and his eyes. Philo speaks of God as “using the organs of the prophets for the manifestation of his will” (Θιβν κατα,χouμΛiey rots ixtivui oςγαvo∣t vçeg 2t)λwm> ωt Wcληtrr∣, De Monarch. lib.i.ed. Mangey, t. ii. p. 222); Justin Martyr compares them to the strings of a lyre, which produce sounds just as they are touched by the hand of the player (Cohort, ad Graces, c. 8); and Augustin frequently speaks of the Scriptures as the “Chirograph of Deity,” and of their writers as “the stylus or pen of the Holy Spirit.” The influence of such exclusive views in discouraging any inquiries of a historicocritical nature is seen in the following sentence of Gregory the Great: “Quis librum Job scripserit, valde superflue quaeritur, cum tamen auctor libri Spiritus Sanctus fidelitercredatur. Ipse scripsit, qui et in ejus opera inspirator extitit et per scribentis vocem imitandam ad nos facta transmisit.” (Moral, in Job. t. i. p. 7.) Ideas of a similar kind are found in the writings of several of the older divines subsequent to the Reformation. For the opinions most generally received among Protestant divines in the present day, see Henderson’s Lectures on Inspiration, London, 1836, the latest and best book upon this subject

2. Spinoza’s work is entitled “Tractatus historicopoliticus, continens dissertationes aliquot, quibus ostenditur, libertatem philosophandi non solum salva pietate et reipublicae pace posse concedi; sed∙candem nisi cum pace reipublicae ipsaque pietate tolli non posse,” Hamburgi, 1670, 4to. Simon’s “Histoire critique du Vieux Testament” appeared in one vol. 4to, in 1678 at Paris; but a fuller and more correct edition was published at Rotterdam in 1685, superintended, in all probability, by the author. It produced numerous replies and strictures, from the pens both of Catholic and Protestant divines, of which the most important were those of Spanheim (Lettre sur l'Hist. Crit, du V. T. du R. Simon'); Du Pin (Dissert. prelim, ou Prolégomènes sur la Bible); and Le Clerc (Sentimens de quelques Théologiens d'Holland sur l'Hist. Crit. du V. T. composée par le D. R. Simon). Both Du Pin and Le Clerc, but especially the latter, whilst reproving Simon, indulged certain speculations of their own, which were considerably too free for the age in which they lived, and which drew down upon them, along with the object of their strictures, the censures of the acute and ingenious Bossuet (Dicers Traités contre Mr B. Simon, Du Pin, et autres. OEuvres Posthumes, t. ii. 1753). In more recent times the scholars of Germany have chiefly distinguished themselves in this department of inquiry. Their most valuable works are those of Carpzov (Introductio ad libros canonico V. T. omnes, 4 to, Lips. 1721): Eichhorn (Eir.- [7:19:781] leitung in das A. T. 4te aufl. 5 bile. 8vo, Gött. 1820-24; In die Apocrypkischen Schriften des A. T. 8vo, Leipz. 1795; In das N. T. 5 bde. 8vo, Leipz. 1804—1827); Michaelis (Einl. indie Götti. Schriften des A. Bundes, 4to, Hamburg, 1784; In die Götti. Schriften des N. B. 2 bde. 4to, Gottingen, 4te aufl. 1788 [translated by Bishop Marsh, in six vols. 8vo, with considerable additions, third ed. Camb. 1818]); Ber-tholdt (Histor. Kritische Einl. in sämmtliche Kanonische und Apocry-phische Schriften des A. und N. T., 6 bde. 8vo, Erlangen, 1812—19); Jahn (Einl. in die Götti. Bücher des A. Bundes, 3 bde. 8vo, 2te aufl. Wien. 1802-3; Introductio in Bibl. Sacr. V. Τ', in epitomen redacta, ed. 2da, Vien. 1814, 8vo): Haenlein (Handbuch der Einleit, in d. Schriften des N. T. 3 theile 2te aufl. Erlangen, 1801); Hug (Einl. in die Schriften des N. T., 2 thle. 3te aufl. Stuttgart und Tübingen, 1827 [translated by the Rev. D. G. Wait, LL. D. 2 vols. 8vo, 1827, and with much greater accuracy by D. Fosdich junior, Andover, U. S. 1837]); and Schott (Isagoge Hist. Critica in libros N. T. sacros, Jenae, 1830, 8vo). The most valuable works by English scholars are Walton’s Prolegomena in Biblia Polyglotta, Lond. 1657, of which a separate edition was published, with a preface by J. A. Dathe, at Leipzig, in one vol. 8vo, 1777, and republished with many improvements and additions by Archdeacon Wrangham, in two vola. 8vo, Cambr. 1828; Mill’s Prolegomena in Novum Testamentum, Oxon. 1707, folio; Harwood’s Introduction to the Study and Knowledge of the New Testament, 2 vols. 8vo, London, 1767-1771; Gray’s Key to the Old Testament, 8vo, new edit. 1829; Percy’s Key to the New Testament, 12mo, 3d edit. London, 1779; and, aboyé all, Horne’s Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, 4 vols. 8vo, 8th edit. Lond. 1839. Many valuable treatises upon separate portions of the general subject are extant in different languages, but these it would be out of place to attempt to enumerate here. See the Bibliographical Appendix to Horne’s Introduction; Orme's Bibliotheca Biblica; and Winer’s Handbuch der Theologischen Litteratur.

This subject divides itself into two parts, a general and a special; the former having reference to the sacred volume as a whole, the latter to the separate books of which it is comprised. In the present article we shall confine ourselves to the former of these, and offer a few general observations on the collected scriptures, as such.

Sect. I The Name.

Various designations have been affixed to the sacred volume. The Jews called their part of it by such terms as rrpa-∣M∙ι □'ic ’ 7, i.e. Four-and-twenty, with reference to the number of separate books; □n□ or a∏□n, i. e. Writing, a term borrowed from Exod. xxxii. 16; sπprτ 'ΙSD, i. e. Boohs of Holiness; β'3intn aueaa ∏ru‰ i∙ e. Law, Prophets, and Hagiographa. In the Apocrypha they are styled 6 r∙μ∙os, xα∕ cl πgo<pητaι, και τα άλλα πάτριά. βιβλία, Jesus Sirae. Proleg. sub init. So also in the New Testament, νομοί και vξoφr∣raι, Matt. v. 17; νομοί, rectr,τrj,ι, κaι ∙ψαλ f aw, Luke xxiv. 44; frequently ⅞ γι≈,φη and ai γφcφa∣; τα iιga γgaμ-μara, 2 Tim. iii. 15. At an early period of the Christian era, the term Sιair∣xn began to be affixed to the Scriptures as the documents unfolding God’s covenant; and their two great divisions to be designated as ή πaλaιa ι>ιaβηxn and ⅛ xawn διaHr∣xn respectively. This usage seems to have been drawn from the language of Paul, 2 Cor. iii. 6 and 14, though it is only in the writings of Origen that it makes its appearance for the first time. The Latins rendered the word hιa6r∣κr∣ by Testamentum, according to its primary meaning, though not that in which it is employed by Paul, who uses it evidently in the sense of Foedus; and from this we have the appellation employed by almost all the versions of modern Europe.

Home’s Introduction, vol. i. p. 30; Michaelis, Einleit., bd. i. s. 1; and in Marsh’s Translation, vol. i. p. 1; Augusti, Grundriss einer Hister. Kritischen Einleitung ins Alte Testament, s. 16, 2te. aufl.

Sect. II.— Languages of the Scriptures.

The greater part of the Old Testament Scriptures is composed in pure Hebrew, the most ancient language of which we have any specimen extant. This language belongs to a class of tongues formerly called, by way of eminence, the Oriental, but now more appropriately discrimi nated by the term Semitic or Shemitic, from Shem, the great progenitor of the races by which they are spoken (1). This class embraces three leading tongues, corresponding in general character and relation to the geographical situations of the respective nations by which they were used; the Aramaic abounding in combinations of consonants, and consequently marked by considerable harshness of pronunciation, employed by the nations of the northern and more mountainous districts of Syria, Mesopotamia, and Babylonia; the Arabic, remarkable for richness, melifluousness, and the preponderance of vowels, spoken by the inhabitants of the warm and open plains of Arabia and Ethiopia; and the Hebrew, the language of the middle district, possessing an intermediate character between the other two, richer than the Aramaic, poorer and harsher than the Arabic (2). The opinion that Hebrew was the original language of the world, and the mother of all the other Semitic tongues, is now generally relinquished by scholars, who content themselves with the more moderate hypothesis, that it is the oldest daughter of the primeval tongue, and that which retains the most striking resemblances to the mother speech of the antediluvian period (3). In the earliest books of the Bible, those of Moses, this language appears in its greatest purity; nor did it sustain any decided deterioration till after the Babylonian captivity. The attempts of some Hebraists to divide its history into a golden, a silver, a brazen, and an iron age, are by the most accurate scholars rejected, as much more fanciful than sound (4). The Hebrew of the Scriptures is the pure classical Jerusalem Hebrew, the language of the temple and of the court. That there were dialects more or less corrupt in the provinces, is attested by the sacred writers themselves. Thus they tell us that the Ephraimites could not distinguish between the w and the P in pronunciation (Judges, xii. 6); Nehemiah was indignant that part of the people should speak “in the speech (dialect) of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab” (Nehem, xiii. 23-25); and the dialect of Galilee is mentioned in the New Testament (Matt, xxvi. 73) (5).

1. The first to use this term seems to have been Nicoas Fuller, in his Miscellanea Sacra. He was followed by Eichhorn, and ultimately by nearly all the orientalists of Germany.

2. Ewald’s Hebrew Grammar, translated by Nico son, p. 1; Gesenius, Grammatik, § 1.

3. Morinus De Lingua Primoeva. Jahn, Einleitung, i. th. s. 244.

4. “As the language appears to us at present in the Scriptures of the Old Testament, there are only two distinct periods characteristically discriminated, the one comprehending the books written before, and the other those written during and subsequent to the exile.” Gesenius, Geschichte der Hebr. Sprache und Schrift. s. 21.

5. Compare Horne’s Introd. vol. ii. p. 2-13, and the works referred to by him.

The portions of the Old Testament not in pure Hebrew are Ezra, iv. 8,—vi. 18, and vii. 12-26; Jer. x. 11; and Daniel, ii. 4,—vii. 28. These are in Chaldaic or Eastern Aramaic, and have reference chiefly to the history of the captivity, and the events following its close.

On the Biblical Chaldaic, see Walton’s Prolegomena, chap. xii. § 2, 3; L. Hirzel, De Chaldaismi biblici origine et auctoritate Comment. crit. Lips. 1830; F. Dietrich De Sermonis Chaldaici proprietate. Lips. 1839; Rigge’s Manual of the Chaldee Language, Boston, Mass. 1832.

The language of the New Testament is the xewn iιaλtκ-rt>ς of the classical Greek, with many Aramaic words and idioms interspersed, and a few Latinisms.

Home’s Introd. vol. ii. p. 13-30; Schott, Isagoge Hist. Crit. p. 495— 517; Stuart’s Grammar of the New Testament Language; Winer’s Gramatik des N. Testamentlichen Sprachidioms; Michaelis, Introd, vol. 1. p. 97 (Eng. Tr.), &c.

Sect. III.— Genuineness and Authenticity of the Sacred Volume.

As ancient literary documents, the Scriptures lay claim to be regarded as both genuine or authentic, and credible. [7:19:782] A book is genuine when it really is what it professes to be, as the composition of a particular individual, or as produced under particular circumstances, and at a certain place and time; as opposed to a book which appears under a forged title. A book is credible when the statements it contains are physically true; as opposed to a book the contents of which are false or fictitious. Both these qualitics may meet in the same work, or they may exist separately in separate works. Thus the book of Genesis may be the composition of Moses, and yet be fabulous; or it may be true in all its statements, and yet not be the work of Moses; or it may be, as it is generally believed to be, both the production of Moses and true, both genuine and credible.

The genuineness and credibility of the sacred books form matter of separate investigation and proof. At the same time, they are so connected, that the proof of the one paves the way for the proof of the other; for, in the case of such works, it is highly improbable that truth would be issued under a forged name, or that such men as Moses, Samuel, or the Evangelists, would or could issue fictitious narratives as true. It is not, however, matter of indifference which of them we establish first. Before we can set ourselves to prove their credibility, we must be in circumstances to show their genuineness; for unless we can do this, a preliminary difficulty will lie in the way of the former, from the suspicion that these books appear with a falsehood, or at least what has not been shown to be a truth, upon their front; a work of supposititious authorship being always prima facie less credible than one which is the genuine production of the writer to whom it is ascribed.

The proof of the genuineness of the Sacred Scriptures rests upon the following considerations:

1. There is no antecedent impossibility that they should be genuine. It cannot be showm that it was impossible for Moses to have written the Pentateuch, Isaiah and the other prophets their prophecies, the Evangelists their gospels, the Apostles their epistles, or for the books which are anonymous to have been composed under the circumstances which they profess; nor that, being composed, it was impossible for them to have been preserved and handed down from generation to generation.

2. Circumstances were favourable to the preservation of these books, supposing them written. The Old Testament books professedly form the national literature, as well as the sacred documents of the Jews, and would naturally be carefully preserved by them. The New Testament books constitute the religious archives and statute-books of the Christian church, and would from their first publication be sacredly conserved by those for whom they were so deeply interesting.

3. It is matter of undeniable history, that both Jews and Christians did possess certain sacred books, which they regarded with the utmost reverence, and preserved with the greatest care. The only question, then, is, Are the books which we possess the same as those thus reverenced and preserved? And, first, with respect to those of the Old Testament.

i. These are the books which were recognised in the early church as the sacred books of the Jews. This is placed beyond doubt by the early versions of Scripture, and. by the catalogues of Athanasius, Epiphanius, Jerome, Origen, and Melito bishop of Sardis. Lardner, Works, vol. iv. p. 290, 8vo ed.

ii. The books of the Old Testament which we possess must have been extant at the commencement of the Christian era. This is evident from the allusions to them, and the quotations from them, in the New Testament, but especially from the testimony of Philo, an Egyptian Jew, who at the latest was contemporary with the apostles, and also of Josephus, himself a priest of the Jews, and consequently accurately informed, on all matters relating to their sacred books, and who lived in the latter part of the first century of the Christian era. Philo gives no formal catalogue, but quotes from or refers to nearly all the books of the Old Testament, while no other is mentioned by him as of accredited authority. Josephus, besides frequent quotations and allusions, gives (C ont. Apion, lib. i. c. 8) a catalogue of the sacred books of his nation, assigning five to Moses, thirteen to the prophets, and four to the writers of hymns and moral maxims. This, if we regard Judges and Ruth as one book, and add the Lamentations to the Prophecies of Jeremiah, which there is good reason to believe was the case in the days of Josephus, gives exactly the number of the books now extant.

Scbmidtii Historia Antiqua et Vindicatio Canonis Sacri Veteris et Novi Testamenti, pp, 129—189, Lips. 1775; Ejusdem Ennarratio sententia Flav. Josepki de libris Vet. Test. Wittenberg, 1787; Hornemannï, Obss. ad illustrationem Doctrina de Canone Vet. Test, ex Philone, Hauniae, 1778; Henderson’s Lectures on Inspiration, p. 468, Lond. 1836.

iii. These books must have been written long before the Christian era. This is plain from the fact of targums or explanations of them into the Syro-Chaldaic dialect, which was the language of the people, having been made for a long course of years antecedent to the times of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel, by whom they were collected in the form now extant, and who lived probably near the days of our Lord; from the allusions to the sacred books of his nation already quoted from the prologue to the work of Jesus the son of Sirach, which was composed about 230 years b. c.; and from the existence of the Septuagint version, which was at least commenced 280 years b. c.

iv. Under such circumstances, the forgery of these books was morally impossible. If such a thing took place, it must have been during the 140 years which elapsed between the death of Malachi, the last of the prophets, and the execution of the Septuagint version. But, first, it is inconceivable that, in so short a period, and in an age when literature was not a trade, a set of men (for the agency of only one man is out of the question) should have appeared in the land of Judaea, all endowed with genius sufficient to share in the composition of such works, and all infected with the spirit of literary dishonesty, so as to act the part of forgers. Secondly, even supposing such a piece of deception attempted, it is inconceivable how it should have succeeded, as, by the holders of this hypothesis, it must be allowed to have done. As the whole nation of the Jews acknowledged these books, we must suppose, either that they were all imposed upon in the matter, or that they all agreed to impose upon the rest of the world. But no ingenuity can suffice to persuade a nation that they have for ages possessed sacred books, when they know they have not; and a national agreement to sanction a forgery and tell the world a lie, is a hypothesis too extravagant to be for a moment entertained. Thirdly, the opinions expressed in these books, the doctrines taught, and the duties enjoined, are so averse from those most cherished by the Jews at the time the supposed forgery must have taken place, and the facts recorded are so little flattering, upon the whole, to the pride of the nation, that it is quite incredible, either that any should have been found to write them, or that, being written, they should have been received by the people with any other feelings than those of execration and abhorrence. The respect in which they were held can be accounted for only on the principle, that it was rendered to the venerable antiquity and indisputable authority with which they were invested.

v. The force of this conclusion is heightened by the circumstance, that while all testimony is in favour of the genuineness of these books, not one witness can be produced whose evidence is incompatible with this.

vi. When we apply to the contents of these books such[7:19:783] tests as are best fitted to try their genuineness, the result is such as to confirm our previous conclusion. 1. They display just such a diversity of talent, style, and character, as we should expect in works composed by different authors at different times. 2. They are written, with a few slight exceptions, in pure Hebrew, a language which we know to have been that of the Jews before the captivity, but the knowledge of which as a vernacular tongue was entirely lost very shortly afterwards. 3. Whilst they use the same language, there are certain grammatical and linguistic differences between the early and the later writers, indicative of such changes as all languages experience in the lapse of time, but less extensive than those found in others of the ancient tongues; which is exactly what might have been expected in the case of persons using, through a long interval, a language which, though exposed to causes of change, was, from the fixed and exclusive habits of those speaking it, less liable to be affected in this way than the languages of more versatile and cosmopolitan nations. 4. The narratives occurring in these books are marked by that minute accuracy and circumstantiality of detail which a forger generally endeavours to avoid, but into which a true witness naturally falls, from having all these details present to his mind as integral parts of the occurrence which he attests, as it presented itself to his senses. 5. There is, amidst the greatest elevation of thought and sublimity of conception, a chastened simplicity of language, and, amidst the utmost variety of manner, style, and illustration, an essential unity of doctrine, which comports well with the claims of these books to be regarded as the sacred books of the Jews, and seems strongly incompatible with the supposition that they are forgeries.

For these reasons, it is affirmed that, the books which we now possess are the same as those which were always possessed and held genuine by the Jews. We turn, secondly, to the New Testament, and inquire whether the same evidence of its genuineness can be furnished.

i. No person doubts the existence of the New Testament books from the close of the fourth century of the Christian era downwards, because the fact is so notorious, that to deny it would be to discredit all historical testimony.

ii. As little can it be doubted that they were extant from the commencement of that century. Not only are they frequently quoted by writers who lived during that period, but we possess ten distinct catalogues of the New Testament books, issued during this century, of which six are identical with our present canon (1), three omit only the book of Revelation (2), and one omits this book and the Epistle to the Hebrews (3), though both are mentioned in other parts of the author’s writings.

1. Those of the forty-four bishops at the Council of Carthage (a.d . 897), of Augustin (a.d . 394), of Jerome (a. d. 392), of Rufinus (a. u. 390), of Epiphanius (a.d. 370), and of Athanasius (a. d. 315).

2. Those of Gregory of Nazienzum (a. d . 375), of the bishops at the Council of Laodicea (a. d . 364), and of Cyrill of Jerusalem (a. d . 340).

3. That of Philaster or Philastrius, bishop of Brixia or Brescia (a. d.

380).

Lardner, Works, vol. iv. pp. 280-501, and vol. v. pp. 1-123.

iii. Their existence in the third century is placed equally beyond doubt, from the careful and explicit testimony of Eusebius, who wrote a. D. 315; from the references to them in the writings of the apologists Arnobius Afer and Lactantius (cir. a. D. 300); from the testimonies contained in fragments preserved from numerous writers in that century, especially Victorinus bishop of Pettau, in Germany, who refers to nearly every book in the New Testament; from the commentaries upon them and quotations from them of Origen (a. D. 253); from the quotations of Cyprian (a. D. 258); and from references to them in the re mains of a number of writers who lived during the first thirty years of the third century.

Lardner, Works, vol. ii. pp. 397—430.

iv. For their existence in the second century, we have abundant evidence, in the quotations from them and allusions to them in the writings of Tertullian (a. D. 200), Clement of Alexandria, Athenagoras (a. D. 180), Irenaeus (a. D. 170), Justin Martyr (a. D. 150), and Papias (a. D. 113), and in the Harmony of the Gospels by Tatian (a. D. 170).

v. Collateral with these testimonies of the orthodox fathers are those of the early heretics, Cerinthus, the Ebionites, the Basilidians, Marcion, and others, who, by denouncing the writings of the apostles, as containing error, thereby attest the existence and genuineness of these writings; and of the early opponents of Christianity, Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian, who, by the notice they take of these books, show how much in their day their genuineness was matter of public notoriety.

vi. We have thus traced up the existence of these books to the close of the first century. To say nothing of the testimony in their favour of the apostolic fathers, Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Hennas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, who flourished during that century, and reached up to the days of the apostles, the supposition of a forgery at that time is clearly absurd. Whilst men were still alive whose fathers were the contemporaries of the evangelists and apostles, how could any one impose upon the community as the production of the latter what was only forged in their name? or whilst the churches at Rome, Colossae, Corinth, and other places, were still existing, who could have persuaded them to receive as Paul’s letters to them what they knew Paul had never sent to them? or how can we conceive that an attempt so audacious would have been allowed to pass, without a single voice being raised in any quarter to denounce the imposture?

vii. The conclusion thus gained by the consideration of external testimony is forcibly confirmed by the contents of the books themselves. The language in which they are written is exactly such as a Jew of the first century would naturally fall into in attempting to write Greek, and such as could hardly have been thought of or imitated by a later writer. The style of composition is such as a forger could not possibly have hit upon; it has so much of a prevailing simplicity and earnestness, and at the same time is so suitably diversified in the different books, that it bears every indication of having flowed from the pens of the simple-minded, unambitious, uneducated, and honest men to whom it is ascribed. The sentiments are such as we cannot suppose men of sufficiently depraved moral habits to act the part of forgers, to have conceived or inculcated. And above all, the minute circumstantiality of the narrative is such as, on the one hand, strikingly indicates the agency of an eye and ear witness in the composition of it, and on the other, affords too many tests of the author’s personal familiarity with what he narrates, to have been ventured on by a forger. The striking coincidence of one part of the volume with another may also be mentioned as a further evidence of its genuineness.

For these reasons it is concluded, that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the genuine productions of those to whom they are ascribed. They are reasons which must satisfy every person familiar with such inquiries, that we possess in favour of the genuineness of these books a far larger and more unquestionable body of proof, than we have in favour of the genuineness of any of the ancient classics, and indeed of much even of comparatively modern literature.

See on the whole of this section, Horne’s Introduction, vol. i. pp. 35-99; Lardner's Credibility, Works, vols, i—v. 8vo, i. and ii. 4to; Faley’s Evidence of Christianity, and Horoe Paulinoe; Michaelis’s[7:19:784] Introduction by Marsh, vol. i. p. 4-54; Cook's Enquiry into the Books of the New Testament; Taylor’s Essay on the Transmission of ancient books to modern times; Schott, Isagoge, p. 518- 542.

Sect. IV.— Integrity of the Sacred Books.

Closely connected with the question of the genuineness of the Scriptures is the question of their integrity, or uncor-rupted preservation. Infidels have often asserted, that extensive and important changes have been made upon the original documents, especially upon those of the Old Testament. But,

1. Of this there is no proof. It is a mere unsupported assertion on their part, resting upon nothing but certain a priori conclusions to which they profess to have come, as to the probability of such a thing. To prove it, we should require some competent historical testimony to the fact, or an articulate comparison of the alleged interpolations with the original text.

2. Such interpolations could have been perpetrated only by universal consent on the part of all possessing these documents. Had one man altered his own copy, and published his alterations, the only result would have been certain discrepancies between the readings of that family of manuscripts of which his copy was the parent, and those of other families, unless he could have persuaded the whole nation of the Jews, or the entire body of the Christians, as the case might be, to adopt his innovations,—a supposition plainly impossible.

3. Had extensive alterations taken place, the harmony of Scripture would have been destroyed. A number of separate books are written by different persons, for the purpose of unfolding under different aspects and modifications one harmonious system of truth. The result is a harmonious work. But some person, for purposes of his own, sets about interpolating these books. Is it conceivable that this should have been accomplished with such exquisite skill and adroitness, that the original harmony of the work should have been preserved, and all vestiges of a spurious intermixture concealed?

4. It is morally certain, that previous to the Christian era, the Jews did not alter their sacred books. For this we have sufficient security in the habits and circumstances of the people. The Bible was their national statute-book; on it the whole of their civil economy, and all their political and judicial procedure, rested. They were in the habit of giving the utmost publicity to its contents; kings were required to study it continually, priests were appointed to teach it to the people, and fathers were enjoined to inculcate it upon their children, so that the idea of connivance among the members of any class in the community for the purpose of falsifying it is entirely precluded. Their law contains a solemn prohibitory statute against any, the slightest, alterations of these books, Deut. v. 2, xii. 32. The rival sects which arose among them after their return from Babylon served the same purpose, by acting as mutual checks upon each other. And, finally, in the absence of any censure by our Lord upon the Jews, whose crimes he faithfully exposed, for their treatment of the sacred text, and in his continual references to the Old Testament in the state in which it was then extant, as containing an accurate record of God’s will, we have the best assurance that no liberty affecting its perfect integrity had been taken with it previous to his advent.

5. Since the commencement of the Christian era, it is equally certain that no intentional corruption of the Old Testament Scriptures can have taken place. The Jews have not corrupted them, for they have ever shown too deep a reverence for every word and letter of these books to have done so; they have been too much scattered and disunited to have agreed upon any such attempt; they would not have left so many statements condemnatory of themselves and favourable to Christianity had they set about altering their own Scriptures; and they have since that time been so much under the eye of Christians, that any such attempt on their part would immediately have been detected and denounced by the latter. Christians have not done it; for, to say nothing of the fact, that hardly any Christian has been sufficiently master of the Hebrew language to execute skilfully any such alterations, the attempt on their part to do such a thing would have been immediately discovered and exposed by the Jews.

6. As impossible is it that any corruption has taken place in the Christian Scriptures. It is plain that this could not have occurred during the lives of their authors, nor whilst the autographs of their works were extant. But in some cases before, and in others immediately after, the death of the inspired writers, copies of their writings were multiplied to a great extent, and disseminated over the whole Christian world. It could only therefore have been by the general consent of all Christians, that any material alterations could have been made on these writings; for if one sect or party had interpolated their copies, this could not have affected the copies of others, and would have been detected and denounced by them. But the idea of a general consent of Christians in all parts of the world to falsify their own documents, is one too extravagant to be admitted.

7. The agreement of versions and of manuscripts, both of the Old Testament Scriptures and of the New, is a corroborative evidence of their integrity. The number of early versions is considerable, and among them so great a harmony prevails, that it is undeniable they must have been made from a common original, and that that original must have been the same as we now possess. The same conclusion is attested by the agreement of the manuscripts. Of these nearly 1150 containing the whole or parts of the Old Testament, and about 700 containing the whole or parts of the New Testament, have been collated, without any material discrepancy having been elicited (1); a fact which is utterly irreconcileable with the supposition of any designed interpolations having been so much as attempted by any class or party, either of Jews or of Christians (2).

1 Rosenmüller observes respecting the codices of the Old Testament, “Ii qui hodie exstant codices omnes ita inter se conspirant, ut ex aliquot centenis variis lectionibus vix una deprehendatur quoe sensum mutet. Circa unam duntaxat vel alteram litteram, Vocalem vel Accentum versantur. Quod quidem argumento est, Veteris Testamenti libros, prouti eos nunc legimus, ex unius, quam dicunt, recensionis codicibus ad nos transmissos esse, atque omnes codices, antiquiores aeque qui perierunt, ac recentiores quos habemus tanquam a communi fonte fluxisse.” (Proef. ad Edit. Stereotypam Hahnii Bib. Heb. p. iv.) Language no less strong may be justly held regarding the New Testament.

2 See Horne’s Introduction, vol. i. pp. 100—108; Michaelis's Introduction, vol. i.; Walton, Prolegom. vii.; Nolan’s Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, London, 1815; [Bentley’s] Remarks on Freethinking by Philoleutherus Lipsiensis, No. xxxi.-xxxiii; Dr. J. Pye Smith’s Answer to the Manifesto of the Christian Evidence Society, 4th ed., and Rejoinder to Taylor, 2d ed. London, 1830; Ernesti’s Principles of Biblical Interpretation, translated by Charles H. Terrot, vol. ii. pp. 1-24, Edin. 1833.

Sect. V.—Credibility of the Sacred Scriptures.

That these books, in their narrative parts, contain statements of actual facts, is sufficiently established by various considerations.

1. The things narrated are such as their writers were fully competent to attest. For the most part they were eye and ear witnesses of what they record; and where this was not the case, they were placed in circumstances the most favourable for gaining information from first sources as to the facts they narrate. They are, in fact, with one or two partial exceptions, what very few of the ancient historians are, annalists of their own times.[7:19:785] 2. The matters which they record were such as they could not possibly be deceived about. They are such as any man with the use of his senses, and an ordinary portion of discrimination, was as fully competent to judge of as the most profound philosopher. The passage of the Red Sea, for instance, or the re-appearance of our Lord after his death, was a fact respecting which no man in his senses could be deceived. Unless the sacred writers were the wildest enthusiasts (of which, however, no trace is discoverable in any other part of their conduct, but the contrary), they could not have been misled into the belief that they had seen such things, if they had not seen them.

3. The blameless character and disinterested fidelity of these witnesses show that they were not themselves deceivers. The mind of man is subject to certain laws, upon which we may calculate with the same security as upon the laws of matter; and one of these is, that no man of generally irreproachable character will deliberately and pertinaciously propagate a falsehood, save under the influence of very strong temptation. Now the sacred writers were men of blameless character, so that if their narrative be false, it can only have been under the stress of very urgent necessity or sinister inducement that they can he supposed to have promulgated it. But where was this stress in their case? What evil had they to shun, what prodigious advantage to gain, by falsehood? On the contrary, did not their adherence to their story expose many of them to the severest privations and the cruelest sufferings, even to death itself? Do men, then, ever so fall in love with falsehood as to consecrate their lives to its propagation, and willingly to endure every species of contumely, persecution, and oppression, rather than relinquish it? Would not such a thing be a moral miracle, infinitely more incredible than any of those which the sacred writers narrate, because, unlike theirs, performed not only without the affirmation of divine agency, but in direct opposition to the law of the God of truth?

4. Their narratives were published at a time when the events they record were so recent that it outrages all probability to suppose, either that they would have had the audacity to publish what was false, or that their falsehoods would have been allowed to descend to posterity uncontradicted. Who can for a moment imagine, that had the Israelites not crossed the Red Sea in the manner described by Moses, he could have persuaded them to believe that they had? or that the facts of our Lord’s history could have been palmed upon the world when there were so many still alive both interested in and competent for their refutation, had they not really occurred?

5. These histories account satisfactorily for numerous undeniable facts that are otherwise unaccountable, such as the existence and present state of the Jews, the existence and propagation of Christianity, and the prevalence of certain rites and ceremonies among Jews and Christians, such as circumcision in its religious aspect, the weekly Sabbath, the Lord’s Supper, &c. They further tally with the testimony of profane history, in as far as the field is common to both. They “interweave themselves,” as Dr Channing has well observed, “with real history so naturally and intimately, as to furnish no clue for detection, as to exclude the appearance of incongruity and discordance, and as to give an adequate explanation, and the only explanation, of acknowledged events of the most important revolutions in society.” That such narratives should be fictitious, the same writer justly concludes, “is a supposition from which an intelligent man at once revolts, and which, if admitted, would shake a principal foundation of history.” Discourse on the Evidences of Revealed Religion, p. 34, 4th (English) edition, Liverpool, 1831.

6. The credibility of the sacred historians is strikingly confirmed by the traditions and histories of all the ancient nations, by many facts of natural history, and by numerous monuments of human art which are still existing, such as coins, medals, and inscriptions.

See Faber’s Horae Mosaicae, vol. i.; Bryant’s Antient Mythology, three vols. 4to, 1774; Edwards on the Truth and Authority of Scripture, vol. i.; Gray’s Connection of Sacred and Profane Literature; Lardner’s Credibility, and Jewish and Heathen Testimonies, &c. Works, vol. i.-viii.; Redford’s Lectures on the Divine Authority of the Bible, as confirmed by Science, History, and Human Consciousness, 1837; Horne’s Introduction, vol. i. 116-20.

Sect. VI.— Canon of the Sacred Scriptures.

The Greek word χαvωv signifies originally a straight line or rod; hence tropically a rule, and hence a list or catalogue, as that which contains the rule or order of the things contained in it.

In this last sense it is applied to the Scriptures, but with a different reference, according as it is used in inquiries of a dogmatical or in inquiries of a historicocritical nature. In the former, it means the list of books deemed inspired; in the latter, the list of books recognised as genuine by Jews and Christians. In either case, such books are opposed to those that are apocryphal (ἀποχϑυφα, “ea scripta quibus publice ecclesia non utebatur, sed privatim habebat legebatque qui vellet.” Ludovicus Vives ad Augustin, de civ. Dei, l. XV. c. 23.).

In regard to the sacred writings, both these lists are so far identical, that all the books which are found in the former are found also in the latter.

An ancient and not improbable tradition represents Ezra as the person who formed the Jewish canon in its present state; but this can only mean that he made it up as far as the books composing it were written in his day. It is generally supposed that Nehemiah, who is said to have collected a βιζλιοθηχη of the sacred books (2d Macc. ii. 13), and Malachi, the last of the prophets, closed the canon by adding to it their own writings; though some affirm that the list was not finally made up until about the time of the Syrian invasion under Antiochus Epiphanes, in the third century b.c . Certain it is that by that time all the books now extant had been composed and arranged in their present order, as they not only were then translated into Greek, but are spoken of by Jesus Siracides, who lived about two hundred years b. c., as divided into three classes, and as of considerable antiquity.

At what time the canon of the New Testament was made up we have not the means of accurately determining. We arc sure, however, that from a very early age these writings were collected, and were referred to in their collected character, as the received documents of the Christian community. Tertullian does so repeatedly in his writings, denominating them sometimes “the New Testament,” and sometimes “the Divine Instrument,” in the singular number. The collection was doubtless made gradually; and from what we learn from Eusebius respecting a distinction between books ὁμολογουμεvα and books ἀ ντιλεγομεvα (Hist. Ecclesias, lib. iii. c.25, ed. Heinichen, vol. i. p. 244), it would appear that the claims of every book were carefully weighed before its canonicity was admitted.

See Cosin's Scholastical History of the Canon of the Holy Scripture, London, 1672; Jones’s New and Full Method of Settling the Canonical Authority of the New Testament, Oxford, 1798; Alexander’ Canon of the Old and New Testaments Ascertained, London, 1828; Ch. F. Schmidtii Historia Antiqua et Vindicatiο Canonis Veteris et Nονί Testamenti, Lipsiae, 1775; Haenlein’s Einleitung in die Schriften d. X. T., bde. i. s. 341, Erlangen, 1801; Henderson’s Lectures on Inspiration, lect ix.

The apocryphal books of Scripture may be divided into two classes, the one containing those that are simply dogmatically, the other those that are both dogmatically and historicocritically apocryphal. To the former belong the books of Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and perhaps[7:19:786] those of Tobit and of Judith, which are genuine, though not inspired; to the latter all the rest of the apocryphal books, both of the Old Testament and the New, none of which are inspired, or can be shown to be genuine.

Horne's Introduction, vol. i., Appendix, p. 457; Rainold, Censura Lihrorum Veteris Testamenti Apocryphorum, 1611; Bretschneider, De Libri Sapientia, &c. 1804; Josephus, Cont. Apionem, i. 8; Hieronymi, Praefat. in libb. Salomonis, et in Judith et Tobiam Sect. VII.— History of the Original Text of the Old Testament Scriptures.

The history of the Hebrew text may be divided into three great epochs. The first of these reaches from the completion of the Alexandrian Greek version to the times of Origen, Jerome, and the Talmud, b. c. 300— a. d . 500. During this period the use of the Greek version had very much superseded, even in Palestine, the original Hebrew; but ample compensation for this has been rendered by the aid which the existence of this and of other versions has afforded the critic in settling the Hebrew text. Important service was rendered by Origen’s critical revision of the Greek, and Jerome’s revision of the Latin versions. Nor were the Jews behind the Christians in this respect, for we find from the Talmud evidence that already had various readings begun to be collected by them.

In the Talmud, Hierosol. Tract. Thaanit. fob lxviii., it is said of certain various readings, that “they have come down from the times when the temple was yet standing.” Capeili Critica Sacra, tom. i. p. 444-458; Waltoni Prolegom. viii. § 20-28; Kennicot, Dissert. Generalis, p. 275; Horne’s Introduction, vol. ii. p. 35, 36.

The second epoch reaches from the times of Jerome and the Talmud to that of Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphthali, that is, from the sixth to the eleventh century. About the commencement of this period the Masorah, or collection of traditionary observations, orthographical, critical, grammatical, and exegetical, which had been accumulating for upwards of three centuries among the Jewish rabbin, was made by a college of leaτned Jews at Tiberias in Palestine. To this mass of scholia additions were continually made, as well as corrections proposed on it, by the Lords of the Masorah (בעלי חמםורח), as they were called, until the time of Jacob Ben Ha-yim, by whom the whole was completed and printed along with the Hebrew text in the year 1526. The commencement of the eleventh century is memorable in the history of the Hebrew text, from the circumstance of two recensions having been issued by the heads of two celebrated Jewish academies; by Aaron Ben Asher, principal of the academy of Tiberias, and Jacob Ben Naphthali, principal of the academy of Babylon. These have given rise to the various readings denominated the occidental and the oriental respectively. By them also the last hand was put to the pointing of the Hebrew text.

Capelli Crit . Sacra, t. i. p. 439-443; Simon, Histoire Critique, ch. i.

p. 24—26; Kennicot, ii. p. 279; Buxtorf, Tiberias, 1610;

Marsh’s Lectures, lect viii. cd. 1828; Walton, Prolegom. viii.; Horne, vol. ii. p. 39, 40.

The third epoch reaches from the beginning of the eleventh century to the middle of the eighteenth. About the year 1040 many learned Jews, banished from the cast, took refuge in Europe, and brought with them their Scriptures and their critical learning. Maimonides, Jarchi, Ebenezra, Kimchi, and others, rendered additional service as to the interpretation, so also to the criticism, of the sacred text. In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries Todrosius, Me-nachem, and Sal. Norzi, collected various readings. In 1477 the first scriptural book in Hebrew, in 1488 the entire Hebrew Bible for the first time, was printed; the latter at Soncino, the former at some place unknown. Of great importance is the so-called Rabbinical Bible, printed at •Venice in 1526, and edited by Ben Ha-yim. Among Chris tian editors, Sebastian Münster was the first who issued an edition of the Hebrew Bible, with various readings, Basil., 1535. The editions of Jablonski, Berlin, 1699, and of Van der Hooght, Amsterdam, 1705, are worthy of notice as critical editions. John Henry Michaelis published his edition at Halle in 1720, for which he collated five manuscripts and nineteen editions. In 1753, at Paris, appeared the edition of Charles Francis Houbigant, for which twelve manuscripts were collated, but the value of which is greatly impaired by the editor’s propensity to conjectural emendation, and by his attaching such undue importance to the readings of the Septuagint. The splendid work of Kennicot (Oxford, t. i. 1776, ii. 1780) presents the largest mass of various readings yet collected; but the want of scientific discrimination as to their relative value has impaired the usefulness of the collection. The same may be said of the various readings collected by De Rossi, Parma, 1784-1788.

Marsh’s Lectures, lect. ix.; ∏orne, ii. p. 41, 42; Augusti, Einleitung, s. 85—92.

Sect. VIII.— History of the Original Text of the New Testament Scriptures.

In regard to the Greek text of the New Testament, the first thing to be considered is the variety of opinion among critics respecting the different recensions, as they have been termed, or classes of documents containing the original text. Of these documents, some more, and others less, closely resemble each other as respects the nature and selection of their readings, and not unfrequently traces of a common origin in the older codices and versions arc apparent. This has led to the idea of arranging these into classes, or families, or recensions, an idea first started by Bengel and Semler ( I ), and which has been carried out by several more recent inquirers. Bengel concluded that there are two families of manuscripts, the African and Asiatic, of the former of which the Alexandrian manuscript is the sole representative (with which agree the Ethiopic, the Coptic, and the ancient Latin versions), whereas the latter is very numerous. After Bengel came Griesbach (2), who contended for a threefold recension, the Western, the Alexandrian or Eastern, and the Constantinopolitan or Byzantine. Of these, the two former are the oldest, and are by him attributed to the same age. They differ, in that the Western text is more replete with Hebraisms, with explanatory additions, and with occasional substitutions of a perspicuous formula for one more difficult; whilst the Eastern prefers those readings that are accommodated to the classic Greek, corrects phrases that are less pure, and is less deformed by errors of the transcriber, though particles and synonyms are occasionally omitted through haste. The Constantinopolitan has arisen from the mingling of the readings of the other two. It properly consists of two recensions; a senior (fourth century), even more fond of pure Greek forms, and richer in glosses, than the Alexandrian itself; and a junior (fifth or sixth century), which appears to have been formed after a new collation of the senior with the Eastern and Alexandrian recensions, by the labours of some learned men of the Syrian Church. Griesbach defends his system with great learning and ingenuity; but it is open, as Schott observes, to the following objections: 1 st, His positions respecting the origin assigned to both recensions are destitute of a solid basis; idly, Many reasons concur to prevent our admitting that any state of the text of the New Testament peculiar to the Western Church, such as could from its singular character be entitled to the name of a recension, existed (3); 3dly, The features of the text followed by the very ancient Peschito version cannot well be accounted for on the principles of Griesbach; and, in fine, all who seek accurately to arrange codices, versions, and extracts found in the fathers, according to different recensions, labour under this difficulty, that none of those do-[7:19:787] cuments of the New Testament which are of great age exhibits any such pure and perfect recension (4).

1. Bengel, Apparatus Criticus ad Novum Test. p. 425, Tubingae 1763; Ejusdem Introductio in Crisin N. T. § 26, &c., p. 385, Tubingae, 1734; Semler, Vorbereitungen zur Hermeneutik, Halle, 1760— 1769.

2. Griesbach, Opuscula Academica, ed. Gabler, vol. i.

3. From the writings of the fathers of the second century, we learn that those various readings which are said to be peculiar to the west-era and to the eastern texts respectively, do not, as respects their origin, belong to different recensions. (See Eichhorn, Einl. bde. iv. p. 265 and 269, &c.) Nor is it probable that the doctors of the Western Church, who were but little skilled in Greek, should have thought of preparing a recension of the New Testament.

4. Schott, Isagoge, p. 562—565.

A different theory of recensions has been adopted by Hug. He thinks that the text which we find in those early codices which Griesbach referred to the Western recension, in the oldest Latin versions, in the SahidicoCoptic version, in the quotations of the fathers till the time of Origen, and in Origen himself, was the χοιvὴ ἔχδοσις , or common edition, conformed to no recension in particular, and containing various readings of different sorts and of different origins mingled together, especially such as serve to explain the text. At the same time those codices which were written in Syria and other parts of the east (the inhabitants of which understood better than most others the Hebraeo-Greek dialect of the New Testament) preserved the primitive text more correctly; and hence it happened that the oldest Syriac version, though upon the whole belonging to this common edition, not unfrequently dissents from the readings of the other documents of the same edition. About the middle of the third century, Hesychius, an Egyptian bishop, first set about correcting the errors of the recension of the common edition used in Egypt, purging out all interpolations and glosses, restoring words that had been omitted, but aiming too much at producing a text that should be remarkable for its Greek purity and elegance. Almost at the same time, Lucian, a presbyter of Antioch, in Syria, revised the common edition as it appeared in the Peschito version, following chiefly the authority of this version. but at the same time comparing other codices found in Syria, and produced a text differing from that of Hesychius in this, that it showed less desire to amend the Greek of the New Testament. Besides these, a third recension was undertaken by Origen in Palestine, based upon the common edition used by the Christians there, which conformed in some respects to that of Hesychius, in others to that of Lucian, whilst frequently it differed from both, and which subsequently became the one commonly used in Palestine and the adjoining districts. Of these recensions none is preserved in any of those documents which we now possess, as the transcribers frequently compared their recension with the common edition and with other recensions. Hug’s theory rests so far on an historical basis, that it appears certain that Hesychius and Lucian did undertake some such labour as he ascribes to them; but that codices of their recensions were either very numerous or very widely disseminated, cannot be shown. The labour attributed to Origen is more than doubtful.

Hug, Einleitung, bιl. i. s. 126 (Eng. Trans, vol. i. p. 134, &c.); Schott, Isagoge, p. 566; Horne, ii. p. 56

Matthaei thinks that no recensions of the text of the New Testament were anciently made, and he prefers dividing the documents from which the text is to be determined, into, 1 st, Codices textus perpetui, in which there are neither scholia nor commentaries, and which excel all the others in the purity of the text they exhibit; 2 d , Lectionaria, which contain the lessons read in churches, and exhibit a text loss free from scholiary interpolation than the preceding; 3 d , Codices mixti, which contain scholia and interpretations partly on the margin, but chiefly interpolated. Matthaei thought the Moscow manuscripts, which he had himself diligently collated, the best; and this perhaps led him to a very unjust estimate of the worth and authority of many other documents of the text of the New Testament.

Schott, Isagoge, p. 570; Horne, ii. p. 50.

Scholz, the most recent editor of the Greek New Testament, adopts neither the opinion of Griesbach nor that of Hug. He concludes that there are two classes of critical witnesses for the text of the New Testament, the Alexandrian and the Constantinopolitan; to the former of which belong all the codices executed in Egypt and western Europe, the most of the Coptic and Latin versions, the Ethiopic version, and the quotations by ecclesiastical writers of these districts; and to the latter all the codices written in Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, and eastern Europe, the Phi-Ioxenian Syriac version, the Gothic, the Georgian, the Sclavonian, the quotations by the fathers living in these regions, and all printed editions. To manuscripts of the latter class he attributes superior value, because of their greater harmony, and of their having been more faithfully copied from original documents than those of the former, which often exhibit a text altered at the will of grammarians. A twofold difficulty presses upon this theory of Scholz; for, first, the Western text of the New Testament has a character considerably different from that of the Alexandrian; and, secondly, the text divulged at Constantinople by order of Constantine and Constans was, as Scholz himself admits, collated with the Alexandrian text, so that the readings of both recensions were intermixed. It is, moreover, rather assumed than proved that that form of the text which, during the first three centuries, prevailed in Asia Minor and Greece, was the same which was afterwards divulged principally in the Constantinopolitan codices; nor is it sufficiently clear that Alexandria was the primary seat of the arbitrary corruption of the New Testament text.

Scholz, Pro ’ eg. ad editionem N . T. vol. i.; Schott, Isagoge, p. 570; Horne, ii. 58-66.

The theory of Eichhorn is that which perhaps approaches nearest the truth; He grants, that from a very early age, different readings, derived from various sources, existed, and were vastly augmented in the third century by various efforts of an exegetical nature, so that as early as the second century there were two species of texts, the Asiatic and the African, but neither of them was determined by any very certain critical laws. He denies that Origen was the author of a peculiar recension, but admits the services of Hesychius and Lucian in this respect, although he questions the possibility of ascertaining accurately the primitive character of either recension from ancient documents. There thus arose a threefold text of the New Testament, the African (Alexandrian), the Asiatic (Constantinopolitan), and a Mixed, which had its source from this, that many, notwithstanding the authority acquired by the recensions of Hesychius and Lucian in the churches of Africa and Asia, preferred following the authority of older codices. No change of a critical kind took place upon the text thus formed until editions of the New-Testament began to be printed. No opinion so fully accords with what may be regarded as best ascertained as this of Eichhorn, though it is still doubtful whether the efforts of Hesychius and Lucian exerted a very wide or lasting influence upon the form of the text of the New Testament.

Eichhorn, Einleitung in das Ν. T. bd. iv. s. 183, &c.; Schott, Isagoge, p. 572, from which work the above account has been principally taken; Horne, ii. p. 57.

With the exception of some detached portions, the first printed editions of the New Testament were those of the Complutensian Polyglott, 1514, and of Erasmus, Basil.,[7:19:788] 1516. The next possessing any critical value were those of Robert Stephen,^[1. This is commonly written Stephens, but the correctness of this may be questioned. The French Etienne, which was the vernacular name of this illustrious family, is equivalent to our Stephen, and the proper Latin form of Stephens would he Stephanius, and not Stephanus. ] viz. that of 1546, 12mo, commonly called, from the first words of the preface, the “O Mirificam” edition, that of 1549, 12mo, and that of 1550, folio. Beza was the first to issue an edition of the New Testament with a copious critical apparatus; and his edition many of the minor editions for several years followed. The beautiful editions of the Elzevirs, which conform partly to the text of Stephen, partly to that of Beza, became so famous that they formed what has been called the textus receptus. In 1707 the edition of Mill was published at Oxford, in which not only is there a larger collection of various readings furnished, but also a more scientific discrimination of these aimed at, than in any preceding edition. His example was followed by Bengel in Germany and Wetstein in Holland, both of whom have rendered important service to the text of the New Testament. All these, however, have been outstripped in diligence, learning, and acuteness, by Griesbach, who issued his first edition, which embraced only the historical books of the New Testament, at Halle, 1774—75. In the mean time, the researches of Matthaei, Alter, Birch, and others, had greatly enlarged the mass of materials for a critical revision of the New Testament, and of these Griesbach eagerly and ably availed himself in preparing a critical edition of the whole New Testament. This he published in two volumes large octavo, the former in 1799, and the latter in 1806, at Halle. Subsequent editors have chiefly followed the scheme of this recension, at the same time exercising their own judgment upon the readings it supplies; but recently Professor Scholz of Bonn has issued a new recension, for which he has subjected most of the manuscripts already used to a new collation, and collated some not hitherto examined. It appeared in two vols. 4to, in 1830-36, at Leipzig. A beautiful and exceedingly useful edition of the New Testament has been recently issued in this country by Dr S. T. Bloomfield, formed upon a careful collation of all previous critical recensions; the third edition, two vols. 8vo, appeared at London in 1839.

Marsh’s Lectures, lect. iii.-vii.; Schott, Isagoge, pp. 631—642; Horne’s Introduction, vol. ii. part ii. pp. 11—35; Michaelis, Introduction, by Marsh, vol. ii. p. 159 and 429; Ernesti's Principles of Interpretation, vol. ii. p. 47.

Sect. IX.— Manuscripts of the Sacred Text.

Hebrew manuscripts are of two classes, the rolled and the square; the former prepared for the use of the synagogues, and written only on parchment; the latter for private use, and written sometimes on parchment and sometimes on paper. In all the ancient manuscripts the words are written continuously without any division, and in the square Chaldaic character. They are divided by De Rossi into three classes, viz. 1. The more ancient, or those written before the twelfth century; 2. The ancient, or those of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries; 3. The more recent, or those written at the end of the fourteenth or beginning of the fifteenth century. The number of manuscripts collated by Dr Kennicot was about 630, and by De Rossi 479.

Kennicot, Dissert. Generalis; Tychsen, Tentamen de variis Codd. IIeb. ΜSS. 1772; Home, vol. ii. p. 76-90.

Manuscripts of the Greek New Testament were written first on Egyptian papyrus, and then, as this was found too subject to decay, on skins. Subsequent to the twelfth century, silk paper was used for this purpose, until the thirteenth century, when common (linen) paper came into use (1). For the first eight centuries the manuscripts were written in uncial letters, large, erect, and not united either by strokes or hooks. From the beginning of the ninth century the cursive letters were employed, which are smaller, more inclined, and united with strokes; they have, moreover, the iota subscribed (2). At first all the words were written without any diacritical marks or separations; but as this was found inconvenient, and productive of mistakes, especially in the public reading of the New Testament, a plan was introduced to remedy it by Euthalius, then a deacon at Alexandria, in the fifth century, which consisted in so arranging those words that make one sense, as that they should compose one stich (στιχοv ) or line (3). To save room, subsequent transcribers, instead of arranging these in distinct lines, marked the conclusion of each by a colon or point; and thus by degrees arose a complete grammatical punctuation, which is presented in manuscripts from the tenth century downwards, though it was not till the sixteenth century that it was subjected to fixed rules in the editions then printed. From a very early period the custom prevailed of dividing the text into sections (χεφαλαια ) , but until the time of Euthalius no uniform order was observed in this respect. About the middle of the third century, Ammonius of Alexandria, in preparing a Diatesseron or Harmony of the Evangelists, divided the text into a number of very short sections; and these having been adopted with slight variations by Eusebius (4) (whence they are frequently denominated χεφαλαια Ammoniano-Eusebiana), they were in many manuscripts conjoined with the Euthalian divisions. In the sixth century, some finding use for a division of the text into larger portions, introduced the arrangement by τιτλοι or breves; but in the course of time these two modes led to so much confusion, that in the thirteenth century Hugo de Santo Caro, a Spanish cardinal, introduced as a remedy the division into chapters and verses, which was afterwards perfected by Robert Stephen into that now in use. Besides these divisions, there was another for church purposes into τεϑιχοπαι , ἀvαγvωσεις , or containing the sections of the New Testament appointed for lessons in the public service of the church on Sundays and festivals. The commencement of each of these was marked with an α (ἀϑχη ), and the close with a (τελος ) (5).

1. Montfaucon, Palaeographia Graca, p. 15.

2. Ibid. pp. 151-177, 269, 33, 134.

3. Zacagni Collectuneu Monument. Vet. Eccl. Graecae, 1698, tom. i. p. 403, &c.; Eichhorn, Einleit., bd iv. p. 164; Marsh’s Notes to Michaelis, vol. i.

4. See Mill’s New Testament, p. 181.

5. Marsh’s Michaelis, vol. ii. p. 889 et seq.; Horne's Introduction, vol. ii. p. 71; Schott, Isagoge, p. 577-584.

These historical facts are of service in determining the age of the New Testament codices. These are very numerous, but the most famous of them alone required to be enumerated. Very few of them contain the whole of the New Testament. They are arranged as follows.

1. Manuscripts executed before the stichometric mode of writing was prevalent, viz. the Cod. Alexandrinus (A^[2. These letters refer to the nomenclature of the manuscripts adopted by Griesbach and Wetstein. ]), Vaticanus (B), Ephraemi (vel Cod. Regius 9, G), Dublinensis rescriptus (Z).

2. Stichometric Manuscripts, viz. Cod. Cantabrigiensis (vel Cod. Bezae, D), Laudianus III. (E), Claromontanus (D, inter Cod. Paulinos), Boernerianus (G, inter Cod. Paulinos), Augiensis (F, inter Cod. Paulinos), Coislininus (H).

3. Manuscripts written after the disuse of the stichometric method. These are very numerous. The most valuable[7:19:789] are the following, viz. Cod. Cyprius (olim Colbertinus, K); Basiliensis, b. vi. 21 (E); Basiliensis, b. vi. 27 (vel Reuch-linianus); Stephani Octavus (L); Winchilscanus (106); Regius (M); Mosquenses Bibliothecae S. Synodi, iv. v. xliii. xcviii.

Schott, Isagoge, p. 591—599; Home, Introd. vol. ii. p. 111-196; Hug, Einleit. [Eng. trans, vol. i.].

Sect X.— Ancient Versions of the Sacred Scriptures.

These may be arranged either with respect to their history, as Immediate and Mediate, according as they have been made directly from the originals or from other translations; or with respect to the languages in which they exist, as Oriental and Occidental. We shall follow the latter arrangement, as the more convenient; at the same time intimating, when it is possible, what place each version has in the former.

1. ORIENTAL VERSIONS.—1. Chaldaic Targums. After the return of the Jews from Babylon they brought with them so much of the language of Chaldaea, that they were unable to understand their own Scriptures. Hence arose the necessity of accompanying the reading of these in the synagogues with an interpretation; a practice first introduced by Ezra (Nehem, viii. 8), and which continued to be followed as long as the Jewish service was maintained. These interpretations were at first merely oral, and confined to a literal version of the original into the popular dialect; but gradually they became more paraphrastic, and the idea naturally arose of committing the more valuable of them to writing. From this sprung the Chaldaic Targums, or paraphrastic versions of the Hebrew Scriptures. The oldest now extant is that of Onkelos on the Pentateuch, composed according to some in the first, and to others in the third century of the Christian era. It is the least paraphrastic, and the most correct, of any we possess. Next in point of age and value is that of Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Prophets. The Jews make him a disciple of Simeon, who took our Lord in his arms; but the probability is that he was later. His Targum is more diffuse and paraphrastic than that of Onkelos, but contains much that is valuable. Both of these are printed in Walton’s Polyglott. The remaining Targums, nine in number, are of comparatively recent date, and of little value. Their renderings are very harsh; and they are filled with idle and foolish fables.

Winer De Onkeloso ejusnue Paraphrasi Chaldaica, Lips. 1820; Jahn’s Einleitung, i. § 46, 47 -, Bauer, Chrestomathia e Paraphrasibus Chaldaicis et Talmude delecta, 1792; Home, vol. ii. p. 198.

2. Syriac Versions. Eight versions of the whole or parts of Scripture into the ancient Syriac tongue are known to critics, but of these only two deserve particular notice. These are, 1. The Peschito, that is, right or correct, not later than the third century, probably as early as the second. It contains the whole Bible, is pure in diction and faithful in version, and appears to have been made immediately from the original. 2. The Philoxenian, so called from Philoxenus, bishop of Hierapolis, under whose direction it was executed by Polycarp, rural bishop of the same district, a. D. 508. It contains only the New Testament, and is literal to servility; but its renderings are not good. Its chief value is to the critic, in helping him to judge of various readings.

Hirzel De Pentateuchi Pers. Syr. indole. Lips. 1825; Michaelis, Introd. vol. ii. p. 4-76; Horne, vol. ii. p. 220.

3. The Samaritan Pentateuch. This must not be confounded with “the Pentateuch of the Samaritans,” which is merely a copy of the original Hebrew in Samaritan characters; whereas the other is a translation of the Hebrew into the Samaritan dialect. This version bears a strong resemblance to the Targum of Onkelos, and even some have deemed it a translation of that. It is probably, how ever, from the original, but cannot be dated earlier than the second century.

Winer De Versionis Pent. Samarit. indole, Lips. 1817; Horne, ii. p. 42; Gesenius De Pent. Samarit. origine, indole, et auctoritate, Halae, 1815.

4. Other Oriental Versions. These are, 1. The Coptic, embracing the Memphitic, or that in the dialect of Lower Egypt, probably of the third century, published by Wilkins at Oxford in 1716; and the Sahidic, or that in the dialect of Upper Egypt, ascribed to the second century, and, with the exception of a part of the Gospel of John, still existing only in manuscript: 2. The Ethiopic, ascribed to the fourth century, and printed in Walton’s Polyglott, but with many inaccuracies: 3. The Armenian, made by Miesrob in the beginning of the fifth century, very faithful, but supposed to be in many places interpolated from the Vulgate:

4. The Arabic, comprising the Pentateuch, and Isaiah, translated by Rabbi Saadias Phijumensis, in the tenth century, the Pentateuch in Samaritan-Arabic by Abusaïd, the anonymous version of Joshua in the London Polyglott, and the Acts and Epistles published by Erpenius: 5. The Persic version of the Pentateuch, by Jacob Ben Joseph, surnamed Dawusi, a learned Jew of the ninth century. All these are mediate versions from the Septuagint or Syriac.

Horne, vol. ii. p. 226-234; Comp. Walton, Prolegom∙ ix.-xv.

II. Western VERSIONS.—1. Greek Versions of the Old Testament. The most important of these is the Septuagint, as it is commonly called, or more properly the Alexandrian. Respecting the origin and early history of this version much uncertainty prevails, of which advantage has been taken to clothe the whole in the mist of fable. The common story of Ptolemy Philadelphus having sent, at the instigation of his librarian Demetrius Phalereus, to Judaea for a correct copy of the Hebrew Scriptures, and for seventy-two men of learning (six out of each of the twelve tribes) to translate these into Greek, of his having shut them up in the Isle of Pharos, apart from each other, and of their having produced versions verbatim et literatim the same, is now rejected by all scholars. The opinion commonly held by such embraces the following points: 1st, That it is highly probable that the work was commenced during the period when Ptolemy Lagus and his son Philadelphus held the joint sovereignty; 2d, that the motive prompting to it was the multitude of Jews in Alexandria and throughout Egypt, who were ignorant of Hebrew, and needed the Scriptures in Greek; 3d, that it was undertaken under the auspices of the Alexandrian Sanhedrin or council of the Jews, who probably consulted their brethren in Judaea about it, and from whom, being seventy-two in number, in all likelihood the version took its name; 4 th , that the different books were executed at different times and by different persons, as is evident from the varieties in point of accuracy and purity which they present, the Pentateuch being that first executed; and, 5th, that the translators of the Pentateuch were evidently Egyptian Jews, from their introducing into their version many Coptic words, and rendering many Hebrew expressions, not into their Greek equivalents, but so as to give an Egyptian hue to the idea. The version thus executed soon acquired great vogue, not only in Egypt, but also in Palestine, where, in the days of our Lord and his apostles, it had mostly superseded the use of the original Hebrew. In the Christian church it acquired the same reputation. Few of the Fathers understood Hebrew, and consequently almost all their quotations from the Old Testament are made through the medium of the Septuagint. The best editions of this version are those of Grabe, Oxon. 1707, 1709, 1719, 1720, four vols. folio and eight vols. 8vo, reprinted with the addition of various readings from the Vatican manuscript by Breitinger, Tiguri Helvet., 1730-31-32, four vols. 4to; of Bos, Franequerae,[7:19:790] 1709, 4∙to; and of Holmes, vol. i. Oxon. 1798, vol. ii.-v. (edited after Holmes’s death by J. Parsons), Oxon. 1818— 1827, folio.

See Aristeae, Historia de Legis Div. ex Heb. Lingua in Gracam Translatione per LXX. Interpretes, Frankfort, 1610; Van Dale, Dissert. super Aristeam de LXX.. Amstelod. 1705; Josephus, Antig. t xii. c-2; Hody, De Bibliorum Textibus Original. Oxon. 1705; Walton, Prolegom. ix.; Toepler, De Pentateuchi Interpret. Alexandrina indole, Halae, 1830; Horne’s Introduction, vol. ii. p. 203.

Of the other Greek versions, eleven in number, we have only fragments or traditionary information. That of Aquila, a proselyte Jew of Sinope, a city of Pontus, was executed in the first century, for the purpose of discrediting the Septuagint, which the Christians were in the habit of quoting against the Jews; it is very literal and Hebraistic. That of Symmachus, an Ebionite, time uncertain, seems to have aimed chiefly at elegance and purity of style; it is very free. Between these stands that of Theodotion, also an Ebionite, and nearly contemporary with Aquila; more elegant and idiomatic than that of Aquila, more literal and correct than that of Symmachus. These, with three anonymous versions, enumerated as editio quinta, sexta, and septima respectively, were included by Origen in his splendid work the Hexapla, a sort of Polyglott, which that distinguished Biblical scholar drew up for the use of those who wished to understand accurately the Old Testament, and which contained in parallel columns the Hebrew in the original character, the same in Greek characters, and the Greek versions above enumerated, including the Septuagint. The versions designated as 6 iSçu.m;, i <r⅛βj, ri α ∕μαgi∣mι∣v, and i sλλιjwx⅛, are known to us only from being occasionally referred to on the margins of manuscripts. The extant fragments of these versions may be found in the sixth volume of the London Polyglott, under the title Flaminii Nobilii Notae, and in the edition of the Septuagint by Bos.

Dathe, Dies. Phil. Criι. in Aquila Reliquias, Opuscula, p. 1, &c. ed. Rosenmüller, 1796; Walton, Prolegom. ix.; Home, vol. ii. p. 216.

2. Latin Versions. Translations of the Scriptures into the Latin tongue began to be executed at a very early period, for the benefit chiefly of the Christians in Africa, and those parts of Europe where that language was used. Some have supposed that, as early as the second century, there was a commonly received or authorized version in the Latin churches, but this opinion is hardly tenable. The name Itala, which has been supposed to designate this version, was more probably an appellation including collectively the whole. Towards the close of the fourth century, Jerome set himself to revise and correct these versions, and in pursuance of this design issued revised editions of the Psalter, the books of Chronicles, Job, and the writings of Solomon. Unfortunately, the manuscripts containing his revised copies of the other books were lost, either through negligence or fraud on the part of some one to whom he had intrusted them. Satisfied, however, that something more than a correction of existing versions was necessary, he undertook a new translation from the original; and this he executed at intervals, and in the order in which particular books were requested by his friends. At first his undertaking was viewed with no small jealousy, and even St Augustin sought to discourage it, from a fear that a new translation, especially one from the Hebrew, would shake the faith of the ignorant in the certainty of Scripture; nor was it till the sanction of Gregory the Great had been given to it that the version of Jerome was able entirely to supersede the old Itala (1). This version is that commonly denominated the Vulgate, of which the Council of Trent decreed an immaculate edition; a decree which gave rise to a Papal dissension, to which Christians have not been slow to point as fatal to the claims of the supreme pontiff to infallibility (2).

1. Augustin De Doctr, Christiana, lib. ii. c. 11, c. 15; Jerome, » Pra∙fat. in Iobuiti, §*c. ad Sophron. Opp. i. p. 833, ad Damasum, ii. 5C3; Hody, De Textibus, &c.; Walton, Prolegom. x.; Borne, ii. p. 234-240.

2. See James, Bellum Papale, sive Concordia Discors Sixti V. et Clementius VIII. circa edit. Hieronymianam., London, 1600, 4to, 1678, 8vo.

3. The Gothic Version. Of this, which was executed by Ulphilas, bishop of the Gothic tribes in Wallachia, about the middle of the fourth century, only the four gospels, part of the Epistle to the Romans, and fragments of the other Epistles, are extant; the first in the famous Codex Argenteus, a manuscript in silver letters of the fifth or sixth century; the second in a Codex Rescriptus belonging to the library of Wölfenbuttel; and the third in certain Codices Rescripti recently discovered by Maio in the Ambrosian Library at Milan. This version appears to have been made from the Greek, and particularly from the Constantinopolitan text, but to have been subsequently altered after the Vulgate. The best edition of the gospels is that of Lye, Oxon. 1750, 4to. The fragments were edited by Knittel, in 1762, 4to, and by Ihre, Upsal, 1763, 4to.

Horne's Introduction, vol. ii. p. 240; Hug's Introduction (Eng. Trans.), vol. i. p. 487; Schott, Isagoge, p. 613.

4. The Anglo-Saxon Versions. The history of these is by no means accurately known. It appears, that as early as the year 709, the Psalter was rendered into Saxon by Adelme, bishop of Sherborne. A few years later, Aldred, who styles himself “Presbyter indignus et miserrimus,” “overglossed in English” the Latin of a copy of the four gospels, which had been written by Eadfrith, bishop of the church of Lindisfern, “out-attired, and blazoned as well as he could,” by Ethilwold, bishop of the Land of Lindisfern, and “smoothed, ornamented, and overgilded,” by Billfrith the anchoret (1). Nearly about the same time Beda translated the whole Bible into∙Saxon-English. About two hundred years after this the Psalter was translated by King Alfred. A Saxon translation of the Pentateuch, Joshua, part of the books of Kings and Esther, is attributed to Ealfric, archbishop of Canterbury, in 995. The entire Anglo-Saxon Bible has never been published. Alfred’s Psalter was edited by Spelman in 1640; and a translation of the gospels made from the old Latin of the Itala has been thrice edited (2).

1. See Henshall's Disquisition prefixed to his edition of the Gothic Gospel of St Matthew, with the corresponding English or Saxon, &c. London, 1807, 8vo.

2. Newcome’s Historical View of the English Biblical Translations, p. 1, Dublin, 1792; Home’s Introd. vol. ii. p. 246.

5. The Sclavonic Version. The authors of this version were Cyrill of Thessalonica, and his brother Methodius, who in the ninth century introduced the gospel among the Sclavonians inhabiting Moravia. It seems to have been made from the Greek, and from manuscripts having the Constantinopolitan text. It embraces the whole Bible, and has been frequently printed.

Henderson’s Biblical Researches and Travels in Russia, p. 50—102, Lond, 1826; Horne’s lntrod. vol. ii. p. 245.

These ancient versions are useful, both to the critic and the exegete; to the former, as supplying not a few various readings which are wanting in all or in most of the codices containing the original text, as serving to determine more accurately the age and country of any particular form of the text, and as helping to confirm or refute particular readings occurring in the Greek codices; to the latter, inasmuch as every faithful version is not only a perpetual interpreter of the sentiments of the original into another tongue, but the authors of these ancient versions, from the time in which they lived, and the locality they inhabited, had peculiar advantages, both philological and historical, for the successful interpretation of the sacred books.

Ernesti’s Principles of Interpretation, by Terrot, vol. ii. p. 146,[7:19:791] Sect. XL— Quotations by the early Ecclesiastical Writers from the Sacred Scriptures.

Besides the object to which these have been already applied, as showing the authenticity of the sacred documents, they serve also a useful purpose to the critic, in furnishing him with numerous readings, in assisting to determine the age, origin, and country, of remarkable readings, and in illustrating the whole history of the Greek texts of Scripture. Care, however, must be taken to discriminate between passages quoted freely from memory, or adapted to the construction and sentiment of the writer himself who quotes, and those which are formally cited from the codex. We must also be sure that the work in which the quotation occurs is genuine, and that the common text of the places in which the citation occurs is correct.

Ernesti’s Principles of Interpretation, by Terrot, vol. ii. p. 90-113; Schott, Isagoge, p. 629.

Sect. XII.— Laws for the Determination of various Readings.

1. That reading is to be regarded as true, which is supported by far the greater number of copies and witnesses; but still readings supported by a few books are not entirely to be disregarded, especially when they harmonise with the usus loquendi of the author. 2. That reading which the better copies exhibit, unless special reasons prohibit it, is to be preferred to the one which the inferior copies exhibit, although most numerous. Neither the antiquity nor propriety of a reading, solely considered, always proves it to be a true one. 3. That reading which is more harsh, obscure, difficult, unusual, or delicately chosen, if supported by the authority of a proper witness, is preferable to one which is plain, easy, usual, and common. 4. That reading which approaches nearest to the popular and familiar method of speaking, if it be supported by external testimonies, is preferable to one which is more artificial and subtle. 5. The shorter reading, when supported by testimony of importance, and not incongruous with the style and design of the writer, is preferable to a more verbose one. Still there are cases where the more copious reading is to be preferred. 6. That reading which gives the best sense is peculiarly preferable. But to determine this, the nature of the whole passage, and the genius of the writer, not the mere opinions and sentiments of particular interpreters, are to be consulted. 7. The reading which produces an unworthy or incongruous sense is to be rejected. Good care, however, must be taken not to condemn a reading as unworthy or incongruous, which a more correct grammatical and historical investigation would prove to be a true reading, or at least a probable one. 8. A reading which agrees with the usus loquendi of the writer, is preferable to that which disagrees with it. It must be remembered in judging here, that the style of an author sometimes varies with increasing age. 9. A reading is to be rejected, in respect to which plain evidence is found that it has undergone a designed alteration. Such alteration may have taken place, first, from doctrinal reasons, Matthew, i. 18; Mark, viii. 31, xiιi. 32: second, from moral and practical reasons, Matthew, v. 22: third, from historical and geographical doubts, Matthew, viii. 28, comp. Mark, v. 1: fourth, from the desire of reconciling pas sages inconsistent with each other, Mark, viii. 31: fifth, from desire to make the discourse more intensive; hence many emphatic readings have originated: sixth, from the comparison of many manuscripts, the readings of which have been amalgamated: seventh, from a comparison of parallel passages. Corrections of the more celebrated manuscripts have been sometimes detected. 10. Various readings are to be rejected which spring from the mere negligence of copyists, and from those errors which are very common in all kinds of books. To these belong, first, the commutation of unusual forms for those of the common dialect; the Alexandrine or common form, however, has the preference over others in the New Testament; and this dialect itself also admitted some Attic forms: second, the commutation of single letters and syllables, by an error of either the eye or the ear; the former resulting from obscure and compendious methods of writing, or from the similarity of certain letters, such as A Δ A, Ο Θ, &c.; the latter, from copying after the reading of one who was misunderstood, or who read erroneously: third, the commutation of synonyms: fourth, from transferring into the text words written in the margin of copies, and thus uniting both readings, James, v. 2: fifth, from the omission or insertion of a word or a verse, by an error of the sight: sixth, from the transposition of words and passages, whence it may have happened that some error has crept into most of our books: seventh, from words which ended with the like sound, or appeared alike; and from proximate words, one ending and the other beginning with the same syllable: eighth, from incorrectly uniting or separating words, which naturally resulted, in some cases, from the ancient method of continuous writing; and, ninth, from an erroneous inter-punction and distinction of passages. 11. A reading is to be rejected which plainly betrays a gloss or interpretation. This may be a word or a whole passage. Sometimes these glosses are united to the true text, and sometimes they have thrust it out. All interpretations, however, are not spurious glosses; for authors themselves sometimes add them, in order to explain their own language. 12. Readings deduced merely from versions or the commentaries of interpreters are to be rejected.

The above are taken, with a few slight alterations, from Beckii Monogramιnata Hermenctιtices, Lib. Nov. Test. Lips. 1803, as translated by Mr Moses Stuart in his Elements of Biblical Criticism and Interpretation, London (reprinted with additional observations by E. Henderson, D. Ph.), 1827. See also Michaelis, Introd. vol. i. p. 246—339; Ernesti’s Principles of Interpretation, by Terrot, vol. ii. p. 114; Marsh’s Lectures, lect. iii.; Horne’s Introd. vol. ii. p. 251-260.

For remarks upon particular books of the Bible, see the articles in this work under the names of the different books, or their authors, as PeNTAteucH, Moses, Joshua, Paul, Peter, &c. (ν. ν. ν. ν.)