BIBLE (in Greek βίβλος, or ó βίβλος, the boolι), a name applied by Christians, by way of eminence, to the collection of books contained in the Old and New Testaments, known also by various other appellations, as the Sacred Books, Holy Writ, Inspired Writings, Scriptures, &c. The Jews styled their Bible, that is, the Old Testament, mihra, which signifies lesson, lecture, or reading. The same title (ή waγιws∣ς, the reading), is repeatedly applied by St Paul to the Old Testament, as 2 Cor. iii. 14. 1 Tim. iv. 13, but more generally he prefers the more common designation, ⅞ lhe writing.

The Jews acknowledged only the Scripture» of the Old Testament, the collecting and publishing of which is unanimously ascribed, both by Jews and Christians, to Ezra. Some or the ancient fathers, on no other foundation than that of the fabulous and apocryphal book of Esdras, pretend that the Scriptures were entirely lost and destroyed at the Babylonish captivity, and that Ezra restored them all by divine revelation. What is certain is, that in the reign of Josiah there was no book of the law extant excepting that found in the temple by Hilkiah, from which original, by order of that pious king, copies were immediately written out, and search made for all the other parts of the Scriptures; by which means copies of the whole became multiplied among the people, and were carried with them into their captivity. After the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, Ezra got together as many copies as he could of the sacred writings, and out of them all prepared a correct edition, disposing the several books in their proper order, and settling the canon of Scripture for his time. These books he is said to have divided into three parts. 1. The Law; 2. The Prophets; 3. The Chetu-bim or Hagiographa, that is, The Holy Writings.

I. The Law contains, 1. Genesis; 2. Exodus; 3. Leviticus; 4. Numbers; 5. Deuteronomy.

II. The writings of the prophets are, 1. The former prophets, including Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. 2. The latter prophets, viz. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the twelve minor prophets.

III. The Hagiographa consist of the Psalms, the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon, Job, Ruth, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah.

The five books of the law are divided into fifty-four sections. This division many of the Jews hold to have been appointed by Moses himself; but others, with more probability, ascribe it to Ezra. The design of this division was, that one of these sections might be read in their synagogues every Sabbath-day. The number was fifty-four, because in their intercalated years a month being then added, there were fifty-four sabbaths. In other years they reduced them to fifty-two, by twice joining together two short sections. Till the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes they read only the law; but the reading of it being then prohibited, they substituted fifty-four sections out of the prophets; and when the reading of the law was restored by the Maccabees, the section which was read every sabbath out of the law served for their first lesson, and the section out of the prophets for their second. These sections were divided into verses, which division, if Ezra was not the author of it, was introduced not long after him, and seems to have been designed for the use of the Targumists or Chaldee interpreters; for after the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, when the Hebrew language ceased to be their vernacular tongue, and the Chaldee came into use instead of it, the custom was that the law should be first read in the original Hebrew, and then interpreted to the people in the Chaldee dialect; for which purpose these shorter sections or periods were very convenient.

The division of the Scriptures into chapters, as we at present have them, is of much later date. Some attribute it to Stephen Langton, archbishop of Canterbury, in the reigns of John and Henry III.; others to Hugo de Sancto Caro, commonly called Hugo Cardinalis, who flourished about the year 1240, and who projected the first concordance, which is that of the vulgar Latin Bible. The aim of this work being to facilitate the finding of any word or passage in the Scriptures, it became necessary to divide the book into sections, and the sections into subsections; for till that time it is generally supposed, though not correctly, that the vulgar Latin Bibles were without any division at all. These sections are the chapters into which the Bible has ever since been divided. But the subdivision of the chapters was not then into verses, as it is now. Hugo’s method of subdividing thein was by the letters A, B, C, D, E, F, G, placed in the margin, at an equal distance from each other, according to the length of the chapters. The subdivision of the chapters into verses, as they now stand in our Bibles, is said to have been originated by a famous Jewish rabbi, named Mordecai Nathan, about the year 1445. This rabbi, in imitation of Hugo Cardinalis, drew up a concordance to thθ Hebrew Bible for the use of the Jews. But although he followed Hugo in his division of the books into chapters; he refined upon his invention as to the subdivision, ant contrived the one by verses, a much more convenient method, which has been followed ever since. And thus, as the Jews borrowed the division of the books of the Holy [7:4:613]Scriptures into chapters from the Christians, the Christians in like manner borrowed that of the chapters into verses from the Jews.

The following is the order and division of the books of, the Bible, as well of the Old as of the New Testament, according to the disposition made by the council of Trent by decree i. session iv.; and the reader will observe, that those books to which the asterisms arc prefixed have been rejected by the Protestants as apocryphal.

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges and Ruth, 1 Samuel or 1 Kings, 2 Samuel or 2 Kings, 1 Kings, otherwise called 3 Kings, 2 Kings, otherwise called 4 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles,

1 Esdras (as the LXX. and Vulgate call it) or the book of Ezra, 2 Esdras or (as we have it) the book of Nehemiah, * Tobit, * Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, * The book of Wisdom, * Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah and * Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Ha-bakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, * 1 Maccabees, * 2 Maccabees. The books of the New Testament are, The Gospel of St Matthew, of St Mark, of St Luke, and of St John; The Acts of the Apostles; The Epistles of St Paul to the Romans, to the Corinthians L, to the Corinthians IL, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians I., to the Thessalonians II., to Timothy I., to Timothy IL, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; The general Epistles of St James, of St Peter L, of St Peter IL, of St John I., of St John IL, of St John III., of St Jude; The Revelation of St John.

The apocryphal books of the Old Testament, according to the Romanists, are, the book of Enoch (see Jude 14), the third and fourth books of Esdras, the third and fourth books of Maccabees, the Prayer of Manassch, the Testament of the twelve Patriarchs, the Psalter of Solomon, and some other pieces of this nature. The apocryphal books of the New Testament are, the Epistle of St Barnabas, the pretended Epistle of St Paul to the Laodiceans, several spurious gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and Revelations; the book of Hermas, entitled, The Shepherd, Jcsus Christ’s Letter to Abgarus, the Epistles of St Paul to Seneca, and several other pieces of the like nature, as may be seen in the collection of the apocryphal writings of the New Testament made by Fabricius.

The books which are cited in the Old Testament, but now lost, are these: The book of the Righteous, or of Jasher, as our version of the Bible has it (Josh. x. 13, and

2 Sain. i. 18); the book of the Wars of the Lord (Numb, xxi. 14); and the Annals of the Kings of Israel, so often citedin the books of the Kings and Chronicles. The authors of these Annals were the prophets who lived in the kingdoms of Judah and Israel. We have likewise but a part of Solomon’s 3000 proverbs and his 1005 songs (1 Kings lv ∙ 32); and we have entirely lost what he wrote upon plants, animals, birds, fishes, and reptiles.

In the opinion of most learned men, Ezra published the Scriptures in the Chaldee character; for that language having come into general use among the Jews, he thought proper to exchange the old Hebrew character for the Chaldaic, which since that time has been retained only by the Samaritans. Prideaux is of opinion that Ezra macle additions m several parts of the Bible, where any thing appeared necessary for illustrating, connecting, or completing the work; in which he may have been assisted by the same inspiration by which they were first written. Among such additions are to be reckoned the last chapter of Deuteronomy, in which Moses seems to give an account of his own death and burial, and the succession of Joshua after him. Io the same cause our learned author thinks are to be attributed many other interpolations in the Bible, which created difficulties and objections to the authenticity of the sacred text, nowise to be solved without allowing them. Ezra changed the names of several places which were grown obsolete, and instead of them inserted the new names by which they were then called in the text. Thus it is that Abraham is said to have pursued the kings who carried Lot away captive, as far as Dan; whereas that place in Moses’s time was called Laish, the name Dan being unknown till the Danites, long after the death of Moses, possessed themselves of it.

The Jewish canon of Scripture was then settled by Ezra, yet not so but that several variations have been made in it. Malachi, for instance, could not be put in the Bible by him, since that prophet is allowed to have lived after Ezra; nor could Nehemiah be there, since mention is made, in that book, of Jaddus as high-priest, and of Darius Codomannus as king of Persia, who were at least a century later than Ezra. It may also be added, that in the first book of Chronicles, the genealogy of the sons of Zerubbabel is carried down for as many generations as to bring it down to the time of Alexander; and consequently this book could not be included in the canon in Ezra’s days. It is probable that the two books of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and Malachi, were admitted into the Bible in the time of Simon the Just, the last of the men of the great synagogue.

The Jews, at first, were very reserved in communicating their Scripture to strangers. Despising and shunning the Gentiles, they would not disclose to them any of the treasures concealed in the sacred books. We may add, that the people bordering on Judaea, as the Egyptians, Phoenicians, Arabs, and others, were not very curious to know the laws or history of a people whom in their turn they hated or despised. Their first acquaintance with these books was not till after the several captivities of the Jews, when the singularity of the Hebrew laws and ceremonies induced several to desire a more particular knowledge of them. Josephus seems surprised to find such slight traces of the Scripture history interspersed in the Egyptian, Chaldaean, Phoenician, and Grecian history; and he accounts for it from the circumstance of the sacred books not having as yet been translated into Greek or other languages, and consequently not being known to the writers of those nations.

The first Greek version of the Bible was that of the Septuagint, in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus; though some maintain that the whole was not then translated, but only the Pentateuch, between which and the other books in the version called that of the Seventy, critics profess to find a great diversity in point of style and expression, as well as of accuracy.

Hebrew Bibles arc either manuscript or printed. The best manuscript Bibles, in the estimation of the Jews, are the Spanish. The German manuscripts are less esteemed by the Jews, but far more valued by biblical critics. The two kinds are easily distinguished from each other; the former being in beautiful characters, like the Hebrew Bibles of Bomberg, Stephens, and Plantin, and the latter in characters like those of Munster and Gryphius.

Dr Kennicot, in his Dissertatio Generalis prefixed to his Hebrew Bible, observes, that the most ancient manuscripts were written between the years 900 and 1100; but that although those which are the most ancient are not more than 800 or 900 years old, they were transcribed from others of a still more ancient date. One manuscript preserved in the Bodleian library is not less than 800 years old. Another manuscript, equally ancient, is preserved in the imperial library at Vienna.

The most ancient printed Hebrew Bibles are those published[7:4:614] by the Jews of Italy. The Jews of Portugal also printed some parts of the Bible at Lisbon, before their expulsion. And in general it maybe observed, that the best Hebrew Bibles are those printed under the inspection of the Jews; there being so many minutiae to be observed, that it is scarcely possible for others to succeed in it.

In the beginning of the sixteenth century Daniel Bomberg printed several Hebrew Bibles in folio and quarto at Venice, most of which are esteemed both by the Jews and Christians. The first, which was printed in 1518, is the least exact, and generally goes by the name of Felix Pratensis, the person who revised it. This edition contains the Hebrew text, the targum, and the commentaries of several rabbin. In 1526 the same Bomberg printed the folio Bible of Rabbi Benchajim, with his preface, the masoretical divisions, a preface of Aben Ezra, a double masora, and several various readings. The third edition was printed in 1549; it is the same with the second, but much more correct. From these editions it was that Buxtorf, the father, printed his rabbinical Hebrew Bible at Basel in 1618; which, although there are many faults in it, is more correct than any of the former. In 1623 appeared at Venice a new edition of the rabbinical Bible by Leo of Modena, a rabbin of that city, who pretended to have corrected a great number of faults in the former edition; but, besides that it is much inferior to the other Hebrew Bibles of Venice, in regard to paper and print, it has passed through the hands of the inquisitors, who have altered many passages in the commentaries of the rabbin.

As to Hebrew Bibles, that of R. Stephens is esteemed for the beauty of the characters; but it is very incorrect. Plantin also printed several beautiful Hebrew Bibles at Antwerp; particularly one in eight columns, with a preface by Arias Montanus, in 1572, which far exceeds the Complutensian Bible, in paper and print, and contents, and is called the Royal Bible, because it was printed at the expense of Philip II. of Spain; and another at Geneva in 1619; besides many more of different sizes, with and without points. Manassch Ben Israel, a learned Portuguese Jew, published two editions of the Hebrew Bible at Amsterdam, the one in quarto in 1635, the other in octavo, in 1639; the first has two columns, and for that reason is commodious for the reader. In 1639 R. Jac. Lombroso published a new edition in quarto at Venice, with small literal notes at the bottom of each page, where he explains the Hebrew words by Spanish ones. This Bible was much esteemed by the Jews at Constantinople: in the text they have distinguished between words where the point hamets is to be read with a hame ts-hatuph, that is, by o, instead of a.

Of all the editions of the Hebrew Bible in octavo, among the most beautiful are the two of Jo∙ Athias, a Jew of Amsterdam. The first, of 1661, is on the best paper, but that of 1667 is the more exact: that, however, published since at Amsterdam by Van der Hooght in 1705 is preferable to either of them.

After Athias, three Hebraizing Protestants engaged in revising and publishing the Hebrew Bible, namely, Clodius, Jablonski, and Opitius. Clodius’s edition was published at Frankfort in 1677, in 4to. At the bottom of the page it has the various readings of the former editions; but the author does not appear sufficiently versed in the accenting, especially in the poetical books; besides, as it was not published under his eye, many errors have crept into it. That of Jablonski, in 1699, in 4to, at Berlin, is very beautiful in letter and in print; but although the editor pretends to have made use of the editions of Athias and Clodius, some critics find it scarcely in any respect different from the quarto edition of Bomberg. That of Opitius is also in quarto, at Keil in 1709. The character is large and good, but the paper is bad. It was executed with a great deal of care; but the editor made use of no manuscripts excepting those of the German libraries, neglecting the French ones; which indeed is an omission common to all the three. They have this advantage, however that besides the divisions used by the Jews, both general and particular, into parashes and pesuhim, they have also those of the Christians, or of the Latin Bibles, into chapters and verses, the heri and hetib∙, or various readings, Latin summaries, &c., which render them of considerable use with reference to the Latin edition and the concordances.

The little Bible of R. Stephens, in sexto-decimo, is very much prized for the beauty of the character. Care, however, must be taken to distinguish it, as there is another edition of Geneva exceedingly like it, excepting that the print is worse, and the text less correct. To these may be added some other Hebrew Bibles without points, in octavo and vigesimo-quarto, which are much coveted by the Jews, not that they are more exact, but more portable than the rest, and are used in their synagogues and schools: of these there are two beautiful editions, the one of Plantin, in octavo, with two columns, and the other in twenty-fours, reprinted by Raphelengius at Leyden in 1610. There is also an edition of them by Laurence at Amsterdam in 1631, in a large character; and another in duodecimo, at Frankfort, in 1694, full of errors, with a preface of Μ. Leusden at the head of it.

Houbigant published an elegant edition of the Hebrew Bible at Paris in 1753, contained in four vols. folio. The text is that of Van der Hooght, without points, to which he has added marginal notes, supplying the variations of the Samaritan copy. Dr Kennicot, after almost twenty years’ laborious collation of nearly 700 copies, manuscript and printed, either of the whole or of particular parts of the Bible, published, in 1776, the first volume of the Hebrew Bible in folio. The text is that of Van der Hooght, already mentioned, differing from it only in the disposition of the poetical parts, which Dr Kennicot has printed in hemistichs, into which they naturally divide themselves; however, the words follow one another in the same order as they do in the edition of Van der Hooght. This edition is printed on an excellent type; and the Samaritan text, according to the copy in the London Polyglot, is exhibited in a column parallel with the Hebrew text, those parts of it only being introduced in which it differs from the Hebrew. The numerous variations, both of the Samaritan manuscripts from the printed copy of the Samaritan text, and of the Hebrew manuscripts from the printed text of Van der Hooght, are placed separately at the bottom of the page, and marked with numbers referring to the copies from which they are taken. The second volume was published in 1780, with a Dissertatio Generalis annexed, containing an account of manuscripts collated for this edition.

Grech Bibles. There is a great number of editions of the Bible in Greek; but they may be all reduced to three or four principal ones, viz. that of Complutum or Alcala, that of Venice, that of Rome, and that of Oxford. 1he first was published in 1515, by Cardinal Ximenes, and inserted in the Polyglot Bible, usually called the Cornplu-tensian Bible; but this edition is not correct, the Greek of the Seventy being altered in many places according to the Hebrew text. It has, howqyer, been reprinted in the Polyglot Bible of Antwerp, in that of Paris, and in the quarto Bible commonly called Vatabluss Bible.

The second Greek Bible is that of Venice, printed by Aldus in 1518. Here the Greek text-of the Septuagint is reprinted just as it stood in the manuscript, full of thθ errors of the copyists, but capable of being easily amended. This edition was reprinted at Strasburg in 1526, at B as θ in 1545, at Frankfort in 1597, and at other places, wit [7:4:615]some alterations to bring it nearer the Hebrew. The most commodious is that of Frankfort, there being added to this, little scholia, which show the different interpretations of the old Greek translators. The author of this collection has not added his name, but it is commonly ascribed to Junius.

The third Greek Bible is that of Rome, or the Vatican, in 1587, with Greek scholia collected from the manuscripts in the Roman libraries by Pet. Morin. It was first set on foot by Cardinal Montalbo, afterwards Pope Sixtus V. This fine edition was reprinted at Paris in 1628 by J. Morin, priest of the oratory, who added the Latin translation, which in the Roman edition had been printed separately, with scholia. The Greek edition of Rome has been printed in the Polyglot Bible of London; to which are added, at the bottom of each page, the various readings of the Alexandrian manuscript, which has also been reprinted in England in quarto and duodecimo, with some alterations. It was again published at Franeker in 1709 by Bos, who added all the various readings he could find.

The fourth Greek Bible is that printed from the Alexandrian manuscript, and begun at Oxford by Dr Grabe in 1707. In this the Alexandrian manuscript is not printed such as it is, but such as it was thought it should be; that is, it is altered wherever there appeared any fault of the copyists, or any word inserted from any particular dialect. This some think an excellence, but others a fault, urging, that the manuscript should have been given absolutely and entirely of itself, and that all conjectures as to the readings should have been thrown into the notes.

Latin Bibles, how numerous soever, may be all reduced to three classes; the ancient Vulgate, called also Italica, translated from the Greek Septuagint; the modern Vulgate, the greater part of which is done from the Hebrew text; and the new Latin translations, also executed from the Hebrew text, in the sixteenth century. We have nothingremaining of the ancient Vulgate usedin the primitive times in the western churches, except the Psalms, Wisdom, and Ecclesiastes. Nobilius has endeavoured to retrieve it from the works of the ancient Latin fathers; but it was impossible to do so exactly, because most of the fathers did not keep close to it in their citations.

As to the modern Vulgate, there is a vast number of editions very different from one another. Cardinal Ximenes has inserted one in the Bible of Complutum, corrected and altered in many places. R∙ Stephens and the doctors of Louvain have taken great pains in correcting the modern Vulgate.

The best edition of Stephens’s Latin Bible is that of 1540, reprinted in 1545, in which are added on the margin the various readings of several Latin manuscripts which he had consulted. The doctors.of Louvain revised the modern Vulgate after R. Stephens, and added the various readings of several Latin manuscripts. The best of the Louvain editions are those at the end of which are added the critical notes of Francis Lucas of Bruges, and which have the dates 1573 and 1586.

All these reformations of the Latin Bible were made before the time of Pope Sixtus V. and Clement VIII. since which people have not dared to make any alterations, excepting in comments and separate notes. The correction of Clement VIII. in 1592, is now the standard throughout an the Romish churches: that pontiff made two reformations, but it is the first of them only that is followed, from this the Bibles of Plantin were printed, and from these of Plantin all the rest; so that the common Bibles have none of the after-corrections of Clement.

There are a great number of Latin Bibles of the third dass, comprehending the versions from the originals of the sacred books made within the last two centuries. The first is that of Santes Pagninus, a Dominican under the patronage of Pope Leo X. printed at Lyons, in 4to, in 1528, and much esteemed by the Jews. This the author improved in a second edition. In 1542 there was a beautiful edition of the same at Lyons, in folio, with scholia, published under the name of Michael Villanovanus, or Michael Servetus, author of the scholia. Those of Zurich have likewise published an edition of Pagninus’s Bible in quarto; and R. Stephens reprinted it in folio, with the Vulgate, in 1557, pretending to give it more correctly than in the former editions. There is also another edition of 1568, in four columns, under the name of Vatablus; and we find it again in the Hamburg edition of the Bible in four languages.

In the number of Latin Bibles is also usually ranked the version of the same Pagninus, corrected, or rather rendered literal, by Arias Montanus; which correction having been approved of by the doctors of Louvain, was inserted in the Polyglot Bible of Philip II. and since in that of London. There have been various editions of this in folio, quarto, and octavo, to which have been added the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, and the Greek of the New. The best of them all is the first, which is in folio, 1571.

Since the Reformation there have been several Latin versions of the Bible from the originals by Protestants. The most esteemed are those of Munster, Leo Juda, Castalio, Junius, Tremellius, Schmidt, Dathe, Schott, and Winzer. Munster published his version at Basel in 1534, which he afterwards revised; he also published a correct edition in 1546. Castalio’s fine Latin pleases most people, but some think it too affected; the best edition is that in 1573. Leo Juda’s version, altered a little by the divines of Salamanca, was added to the ancient Latin edition, as published by R. Stephens, with notes, under the name of Vatabluss Bible, in 1545. It was condemned by the Parisian divines, but printed with some alterations by the Spanish divines of Salamanca. That of Junius and Tremellius is preferred, especially by the Calvinists, and has undergone a great number of editions. Schmidt’s version is very literal, and Dathe’s is considered both faithful and elegant.

We may add a fourth class of Latin Bibles, comprehending the Vulgate edition corrected from the originals. The Bible of Isidorus Clarus is of this number. That author, not being contented with restoring the ancient Latin copy, has corrected the translation in a great number of places which he thought ill rendered. Some Protestants have followed the same method; and among others, Andrew and Luke Osiander, who have each published a new edition of the Vulgate, corrected from the originals.

Oriental Bibles. At the head of the oriental versions of the Bible must be placed the Samaritan, as being the most ancient of all, though neither its age nor author has been yet ascertained, and admitting no more as Holy Scripture than the Pentateuch or five books of Moses. This translation is made from the Samaritan Hebrew text, which is a little different from the Hebrew text of the Jews. It has never been printed alone, nor anywhere excepting in the Polyglots of London and Paris.

Chaldee Bibles are only the glosses or expositions made by the Jews in the time when they spake the Chaldee tongue. These they call by the name of targumim or paraphrases, as not being strict versions of the Scripture. They have been inserted entire in the large Hebrew Bibles of Venice and Basel, but are read more commodiously in the Polyglots, being there attended with a Latin translation.

Syriac Bibles. There are extant two versions of the Old Testament in the Syriac language; the least ancient [7:4:616]from the Septuagint, which was made probably in the sixth century; the other, called antiqua et simplex, from the Hebrew, and made, as some suppose, about the time of the apostles. This version is printed in the Polyglots of London and Paris.

In the year 1555, Widmanstadius printed the whole New Testament in Syriac, at Vienna, in a beautiful character. After this there were several other editions, and it was inserted in the Bible of Philip II. with a Latin translation. Gabriel Sionita also published a beautiful Syriac edition of the Psalms, at Paris, in 1525, with a Latin interpretation.

Arabic Bibles. In the year 1516 Aug. Justinian, bishop of Nebio, printed at Genoa an Arabic version of the Psalter, with the Hebrew text and Chaldee paraphrase, adding Latin interpretations. There are also Arabic versions of the whole Scriptures in the Polyglots of London and Paris; and we have an edition of the Old Testament entire, printed at Rome in 1671, by order of the congregation de propaganda fide; but it is in little estimation, from having been altered agreeably to the vulgate edition. The Arabic Bibles among us are not the same with those used by the Christians of the East. Some learned men take the Arabic version of the Old Testament printed in the Polyglots to be that of Saadias, who lived about the year 900, or at least principally so. Their reason is, that Aben Ezra, a great antagonist of Saadias, quotes some passages of his version, which are the same with those in the Arabic version of the Polyglots; but others are of opinion that Saadias’s version is not extant. In 1622, Erpenius printed an Arabic Pentateuch, called also the Pentateuch of Mauritania, from having been made by the Jews of Barbary, for their own use. This version is quite literal, and esteemed very exact. The four Evangelists were also published in Arabic, with a Latin version, at Rome, in the year 1591, folio. These have since been reprinted in the Polyglots of London and Paris, with some small alterations of Gabriel Sionita. Erpenius published an Arabic New Testament entire, as he found it in his manuscript copy, at Leyden, in 1616. .

There are some other Arabic versions of recent date mentioned by Walton in his Prolegomena; particularly a version of the Psalms preserved in Sion College, London, and another of the Prophets at Oxford; neither of which has been published.

Coptic Bibles. There are several manuscript copies of the Coptic Bible in some of the great libraries, especially in that of the French king. Dr Wilkins published the Coptic New Testament in quarto in the year 1716, and the Pentateuch, also in quarto, in 1731, with Latin translations. He is of opinion that these versions were made in the end of the second, or the beginning of the third century.

Ethiopic Bibles. The Ethiopians have also translated the Bible into their language. There have been printed separately, the Psalms, Canticles, some chapters of Genesis, Ruth, Joel, Jonah, Zephaniah, Malachi, and the New Testament; all which have been since reprinted in the Polyglot of London. As to the Ethiopic New Testament, which was first printed at Rome in 1548, it is a very inaccurate work, and is reprinted in the English Polyglot with all its faults.

Armenian Bibles. There is a very ancient Armenian version of the whole Bible, done from the Greek of the Seventy, by some Armenian doctors, about the time of Chrysostom. This was first printed entire in 1666, by one of their bishops, at Amsterdam, in quarto; with the New Testament in octavo.

Persian Bibles. Some of the fathers seem to say that all the Scripture was formerly translated into the language of the Persians; but we have nothing now remaining of the ancient version, which was certainly made from the ' Septuagint. The Persian Pentateuch printed in the London Polyglot is without doubt the work of Rabbi Jacob, a Persian Jew. It was published by the Jews at Constantinople in the year 1551. In the same Polyglot we have likewise the four Evangelists in Persian, with a Latin translation; but this appears very modern, incorrect, and of little use. Walton says this version was written above four hundred years ago. Another version of the Gospels was published at Cambridge by Wheloc in the year 1657; and there are also two Persian versions of the Psalms made in the seventeenth century from the Latin of the Vulgate.

Gothic Bibles. It is generally said that Ulphilas, a Gothic bishop, who lived in the fourth century, made, for the use of his countrymen, a version of the whole Bible excepting the book of Kings, which he omitted because of the frequent mention therein of wars, being averse to inspire too much of the military genius into that people. We have nothing remaining of this version but the four Evangelists, printed in· quarto at Dort in 1665, and far more accurately at Weissenfels in 1805.

Whilst the Roman empire subsisted in Europe, the reading of the Scriptures in the Latin tongue, which was the universal language of that empire, prevailed everywhere. But since the face of affairs in Europe was changed, and so many different monarchies were erected upon the ruins of the Roman empire, the Latin tongue has gradually fallen into disuse; a necessity of translating the Bible into the respective languages of each people has consequently arisen; and this has produced as many versions of the Scriptures in the modern languages, as there are nations professing the Christian religion. Hence we meet with French, Italian, Spanish, German, Flemish, Danish, Sclavonian, Polish, Bohemian, and Russian or Muscovite Bibles; besides the Anglo-Saxon, and modern English and Irish Bibles.

French Bibles. The oldest French Bible we are acquainted with is the version of Peter de Vaux, chief of the Waldenses, who lived about the year 1160. Raoul de Presle also translated the Bible into French in the reign of Charles V. king of France, about the year 1380. And, besides these, there are several old French translations of particular parts of the Scripture. The doctors of Louvain published the Bible in French at Louvain by order of the emperor Charles V. in 1550. There is also a version by Isaac le Maitre de Sacy, published in 1692, with explanations of the literal and sp⅛itual meaning of the text, which was received with wonderful applause, and has often been reprinted. As to the New Testaments in French which have been printed separately, one of the most remarkable is that c∙f F. Amelotte of the oratory, executed by the direction of some French prelates, and printed with annotations in the years 1666,1667, and 1670. The author pretends he had been at the pains to search all the libraries in Europe, and collate the oldest manuscripts; but, on examining his work, it appears that he has produced very few various readings which had not been previously taken notice of either in the London Polyglot or elsewhere. The New Testament of Mons, printed in the year 1665, with the archbishop of Cambray’s permission, and the king of Spain’s license, made a great noise in the world. It was condemned by Pope Clement IX. in 16θo, and by Pope Innocent XI. in 1679, and in several bishop· rics of France at different times. The New Testament published at Trévoux, in 1702, by Μ. Simon, with literal and critical annotations upon difficult passages, was condemned by the bishops of Paris and Méaux in1'Y ’ Bouhours, a Jesuit, with the assistance of Michael Tellaer and Peter Bernier, who were likewise Jesuits, ρubhsne [7:4:617]a translation of the New Testament in 1697; but this translation is for the most part harsh and obscure, owing to the author’s keeping too strictly to the Latin text from which he translated. The most approved translations are those of Descarrières and De Vence.

There are likewise French translations published by Protestant authors; particularly one by Robert Peter Olivetan, printed at Neufchâtel in 1535, and since often reprinted with the corrections of John Calvin and others; and another by Sebastian Castalio, remarkable for particular modes of expression never used by good judges of the language. John Diodati likewise published a French Bible at Geneva in 1644; but some find fault with his method, in that he rather paraphrases the text than translates it. J. Faber Stapulensis translated the New Testament into French, which was revised and accommodated to the use of the reformed churches in Piedmont, and printed in 1534. Lastly, Μ. le Clerc published a New Testament in French at Amsterdam in 1703, with annotations taken chiefly from Grotius and Hammond; but the use of this version was prohibited in Holland by order of the States-General, as tending to revive the errors of Sabellius and Socinus.

Italian Bibles. The first Italian Bible published by the Catholics is that of Nicholas Malermi, a Benedictine monk, printed at Venice in 1471. It was translated from the Vulgate. The version of Anthony Bruccioli, published at Venice in 1532, was prohibited by the Council of Trent. Martini’s translation is now commonly used in Italy. The Calvinists likewise have their Italian Bibles. There is one of Maximus Theophilus in 1551, dedicated to Francis de’ Medici, duke of Tuscany, and another of John Diodati in 1607 and 1641. The .Jews of Italy have no entire version of the Bible in Italian, the inquisition constantly refusing to allow them the liberty of printing one.

Spanish Bibles. The earliest Spanish Bible of which we have any account is one printed at Valencia in 1478. The Epistles and Gospels were published in that language by Ambrose de Montesin in 1512; the whole Bible by Cassiodore de Reyna, a Calvinist, in 1569; and the New Testament, dedicated to the emperor Charles V. by Francis Enzinas, otherwise called Driander, in 1543. The first Bible which was published in Spanish for the use of the Jews was that printed at Ferrara in 1553, in Gothic characters, and dedicated to Hercules d’Este, duke of Ferrara. This version is very ancient, and was probably in use among the Jews of Spain before Ferdinand and Isabella expelled the unfortunate Israelites in 1492.

German Bibles. The first and most ancient translation of the Bible in the German language is that of Ulphilas, bishop of the Goths, about the year 360. This bishop left out the book of Kings, which treats chiefly of war, lest it should too much encourage the martial humour of the Goths. An imperfect manuscript of this version was found in the abbey of Verden, near Cologne, written in letters of silver, for which reason it is called Codex Argenteus; and it was published by Francis Junius in 1665. The oldest German printed Bible extant is that of Nuremberg, 1466, translated from the Vulgate by an unknown author. Emzer, chaplain to George duke of Saxony, published a version of the New Testament in opposition to Luther. There is a German Bible of John Eckius in 1537, with Emzer’s New Testament added to it; and one by Ulembergius of Westphalia, procured by Ferdinand duke of Bavaria, and printed in 1630. Martin Luther having employed eleven years in translating the Old and New Testament, published the Pentateuch in 1523, the historical books and the Psalms in 1524, the books of Solomon in 1527, Isaiah in 1529, the Prophets in 1531, and the other books in 1530: he had published the New Testament in 1522. The learned agree that his language is pure, and the version clear and free from intricacies: it was revised by several persons of judgment and learning, complete proficients in the German language. The German Bibles which have been printed in Saxony, Switzerland, and elsewhere, are for the most part the same as that of Luther, with very little variation. In 1604 John Piscator published a version of the Bible in German, taken from that of Junius and Tremellius; but his turn of expression is purely Latin, and not at all agreeable to the genius of the German language. The Anabaptists have a German Bible printed at Worms in 1529. John Crellius published his version of the New Testament at Racovia in 1630; and Felbinger his at Amsterdam in 1660.

Belgian or Flemish Bibles. The Flemish Bibles of the Catholics are very numerous, and for the most part have no author’s name prefixed to them, till that of Nicoas Vinck, which was printed at Louvain in 1548. The Flemish versions made use of by the Calvinists till the year 1637 were copied principally from that of Luther. But the synod of Dort having in 1618 appointed a new translation of the Bible into Flemish, deputies were named for the work, which was not finished till the year 1637.

Danish Bibles. The first Danish Bible was published by Peter Palladius, Olaus Chrysostom, John Syningius, and John Maccabaeus, in 1550. In this they followed Luther’s first German version. There are two other versions, the one by John Paul Resenius, bishop of Zealand, in 1605; the other, being the New Testament only, by John Michel, in 1524.

Swedish Bible. In 1534 Olaus and Laurence published a Swedish Bible from the German version of Martin Luther. It was revised in 1617, by order of King Gustavus Adolphus, and was afterwards almost universally adopted.

Bohemian, Polish, Russian, and Sclavonian Bibles. The Bohemians had a Bible printed at Prague in 1488, and another translated by eight of their doctors, whom they had sent to the schools of Wirtemburg and Basel, on purpose to study the original languages. It was printed in Moravia in the year 1539. The first Polish version of the Bible, it is said, was that composed by Hadewich, wife of Jagellon, duke of Lithuania, who embraced Christianity in the year 1390. In 1561 a Polish translation of the Bible was published at Cracow. It was the work of several Catholic divines, and James Wieck, a Jesuit, had a principal share in it. The Protestants, in 1596, published a Polish Bible from Luther’s German version, and dedicated it to Uladislaus IV. king of Poland. The Russians published the Bible in their own language in 1581. It was translated from the Greek by St Cyril, the apostle of the Sclavonians; but this old version being too obscure, Ernest Glück, who had been carried prisoner to Moscow after the taking of Narva, undertook a new translation of the Bible into modern Russian, which was printed at Amsterdam in 1698.

English-Saxon Bibles. If we inquire into the versions of the Bible of our own country, we shall find that Adelm, bishop of Sherbourn, who lived in 709, made an English-Saxon version of the Psalms; and that Eadfrid or Egbert, bishop of Lindisferne, who lived about the year 720, translated several of the books of Scripture into the same language. It is said, likewise, that Venerable Bede, who died in 785, translated the whole Bible into Saxon; but Cuthbert, Bede’s disciple, in the enumeration of his master’s works, speaks only of his translation of the Gospels, and says nothing of the rest of the Bible. Some pretend that King Alfred, who died in 901, translated a great part of the Scriptures. We find an old version in the Anglo-Saxon, [7:4:618]of several books of the Bible, made by Elfric, abbot of Malmesbury; it was published at Oxford in the year 1699. There is also an old Anglo-Saxon version of the four Gospels, published by Matthew Parker, archbishop of Canterbury, in 1571, but the author of it is unknown. Dr Mill observes that this version was made from a Latin copy of the old Vulgate.

Indian Bibles. A translation of the New Testament into the North American Indian language by Elliot was published in quarto at Cambridge, New England, in 1661, and one of the whole Bible in 1685. Since that period portions of Scripture, particularly of the New Testament, have been translated into the dialects of several of the Indian tribes; but as the latter are fast disappearing before the advancing tide of colonization, these labours have recently been in a great measure discontinued.

English Bibles. The first English Bible we read of is that mentioned by Usher as having been translated in 1290. The next is that which was translated by J. Wickliffe about the year 1360, the original manuscript of which is still extant. J. de Trevisa, who died about the year 1398, is also said to have translated the whole Bible.

Tindal’s Bible. The first printed Bible in our language was that translated by Will. Tindal, assisted by Miles Coverdale: it was printed abroad in 1526; but most of the copies were bought up and burnt by Bishop Tunstal and Sir Thomas More. It contained only the New Testament, and was revised and republished by the same person in 1530. The prologues and prefaces added to it reflect on the bishops and clergy; but this edition was also suppressed, and the copies burnt. In 1532 Tindal and his associates finished the whole Bible except the Apocrypha, and printed it abroad; but afterwards, whilst he was preparing for a second edition, he was taken up and burnt for heresy in Flanders.

Matthews's Bible. On Tindal’s death, his work was carried on by Coverdale, and John Rogers, superintendent of an English church in Germany, and the first martyr in the reign of Queen Mary, who translated the Apocrypha, and revised Tindal’s translation, comparing it with the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and German, and adding prefaces and notes from Luther’s Bible. He dedicated the whole to Henry VIII., in 1537, under the borrowed name of Thomas Matthews; whence this has usually been called Matthews s Bible. It was printed at Hamburg, and license obtained for publishing it in England by the favour of Archbishop Cranmer, and the bishops Latimer and Shax-tθn.

Cranmer s Bible. The first Bible printed by authority in England, and publicly set up in churches, was the same Tindal’s version, revised, compared with the Hebrew, and in many places amended, by Miles Coverdale, afterwards bishop of Exeter. It was subsequently examined by Archbishop Cranmer, who added a preface to it; and hence it has been called Cranmer s Bible. It was printed by Grafton, of the largest size, and published in 1539; and, by a royal proclamation, every parish was obliged to set one of the copies in their church, under the penalty of 40s. a month; yet, two years after, the Popish bishops obtained its suppression by authority of the king. It was restored under Edward VI. suppressed again under Queen Mary, and restored again in the first year pf Queen Elizabeth, and a new edition of it issued in 1562.

Geneva Bible. Sonic English exiles at Geneva in Queen Mary’s reign—Coverdale, Goodman, Gilbie, Sampson 5 Cole, Whittingham, and Knox—made a new transla-tion, printed there in 1560, the New Testament having been printed in 1557, and hence called the Geneva Bible; containing the variations of readings, marginal annotations, &c., on account of which it was much valued by the puritan party in that and the following reigns. In the reign of Queen Elizabeth and her successor James, it was re- ' printed in England more than fifty times; and there were also numerous impressions in Holland, Scotland, and elsewhere.

Bishops' Bible. Archbishop Parker resolved on a new translation for the public usc of the church, and engaged the bishops and other learned men to take each a share or portion. These being afterwards joined together, and printed with short annotations in 1568, in a large folio, composed what was afterwards called the Bishops Bible. The following year it was also published in octavo, in a small but fine black letter; and here the chapters were divided into verses, but without any breaks for them, in which the method of the Geneva Bible was followed, which was the first English Bible where any distinction of verses was made. It was afterwards printed in large folio, with corrections and several prolegomena, in 1572. This was called Matthew Parker s Bible. The initial letters of each translator’s name were put at the end of his part; as, for example, at the end of the Pentateuch, W. E. for William Exon, or William bishop of Exeter, whose allotment ended there; at the end of Samuel, R. Μ. for Richard Menevensis, or bishop of St David’s, to whom the second allotment fell; and so of the rest. The archbishop superintended, directed, examined, and completed the whole. This translation was used in the churches for forty years, though the Geneva Bible was more read in private houses, having been printed above thirty times in as many years. King James bore it an inveterate hatred on account of the notes, which at the Hampton Court conference he charged as partial, untrue, seditious, and so forth. The Bishops’ Bible too had its faults. The king frankly owned he had yet seen no good translation of the Bible in English; but he thought that of Geneva the worst of all.

Douay Bible. After the translation of the Bible by the bishops, two other private versions had been made of the New Testament; the first by Laur. Tomson, from Bcza’s Latin edition, together with the notes of Beza, published in 1582 in 4to, and afterwards in 1589, varying very little from the Geneva Bible; the second by the Catholics at Rheims in 1582, with notes, called the Rheimish Testament. These finding it impossible to keep the people from reading the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue, resolved to give a version of their own, and as favourable to their cause as circumstances would permit. It was printed on a large paper, with a fair letter and margin. One complaint against it was its retaining a multitude of Hebrew and Greek words untranslated, for want, as the editors express it, of proper and adequate terms in the English to render them by; as the words azymes, tunike, paraclete, holocaust, prepuce, pasche, and such like. However, many of the copies were seized by the queens searchers, and confiscated, and Thomas Cartwright was solicited by Secretary Walsingham to refute it; but, after some progress had been made in the work, Archbishop Whitgift prohibited his further proceeding, judging it improper that the doctrine of the Church of England should be committed to the defence of a puritan, and appointed Dr Fulke in his place, who refuted the Rheimists with great spirit and learning. Cartwright’s refutation was also afterwards published in 1618 under Archbishop Abbot. About thirty years after their New Testament, the Roman Catholics published a translation of the Old Testament at Douay, in 1609 and 1610, from the Vulgate, with annotations; so that the English Roman Catholics have now the whole Bible in their mother tongue. It is proper to mention here that the notes of the Rheimish and Douay translators have been generally discountenanced by the Roman Catholic clergy.
[7:4:619]

King James's Bible. The last English Bible was that which proceeded from the Hampton Court conference in 1603, where many exceptions being made to the Bishops’ Bible, King James gave orders for a new one; not, as the preface expresses it, for a translation altogether new, nor act to make a bad one good, but to make a good one better, or of many that were good, one best. Fifty-four learned persons were appointed for this office by the king, as appears by his letter to the archbishop, dated in 1604, three years before the translation was entered upon. It is probable, therefore, that seven of them had either died or declined the task, since Fuller’s list of the translators gives but forty-seven; who, being ranged under six divisions, commenced their task in 1607. Their translation was published in 1611, with a dedication to King James, and a learned preface, and is commonly called King James’s Bible. After this all the other versions dropped and fell into disuse; except the Epistles and Gospels in the Common Prayer Book, which were still continued according to the bishops’ translation till the alteration of the liturgy in 1661; and the Psalms and Hymns, which are to this day continued as in the old version.

Speaking of this translation in his Table Talk, Selden observes, “The English translation of the Bible is the best translation in the world, and renders the sense of the original best, taking in for the English translation the Bishops’ Bible, as well as King James’s. The translators in King James’s time took an excellent way. That part of the Bible was given to him who was most excellent in such a tongue (as the Apocrypha to Andrew Downs); and then they met together, and one read the translation, the rest holding in their hands some Bible either of the learned tongues, or French, Spanish, Italian, &c. If they found any fault, they spoke; if not, he read on.”

King James’s Bible is that now read in all the Protestant churches in Britain. One of its greatest faults is, that the translation of the same original word is often capriciously and improperly varied, at the expense of perspicuity; while, on the other hand, ambiguity is sometimes occasioned by the rendering of two original words in the same sentence by only one English word, which, however, is used in different meanings. An example of the one impropriety occurs, Acts xxiv. 14, “After the way which they call heresy." This would have been more intelligible if, in the fifth verse, the former words αιξίΰις των Naζω^a,∕ωv had been rendered heresy of the Nazarenes, instead of sect of the 1.azarenes. An example of the other fault occurs, John xvi, 23, where both tξωτrμκτi and αίτηση are translated ask, in senses really different, but not obviously so, nor indeed capable of being discovered to be different by an unlearned reader, who scarcely ever guesses that the first signifies to ask a question, and the second to ask a favour.

Welsh Bibles. There was a Welsh translation of the Bible made from the original in the time of Queen Elizabeth, in consequence of a bill brought into the house of commons for this purpose in 1563. It was printed in folio in 1588. Another version, which is the standard translation in that language, was printed in 1620. It is called Parry’s Bible. An impression of this was printed in 1690, called Bishop Lloyd’s Bible. These were in folio. The first octavo impression of the Welsh Bible was made in 1630.

Irish Bibles. Towards the middle of the seventeenth century, Bedell, bishop of Kilmore, set on foot a translation of the Old Testament into the Irish language; the ∖ew Testament and the liturgy having before been translated into that language. The bishop appointed one King to execute this work, who, not understanding the oriental languages, was 0 biig ec ι ţ 0 t ra ∏ s l a to it from the English, this work was revised by Bedell, who, after having compared the Irish translation with the English, compared the latter with the Hebrew, the LXX. and the Italian version of Diodati. When this work was finished, the bishop would have himself been at the charge of the impression, but his design was stopped upon advice given to the lord-lieutenant and the archbishop of Canterbury, that it would be a shameful thing for a nation to publish a Bible translated by such a despicable hand as King. However, the manuscript was not lost, for it went to press in the year 1685. An edition of it was printed in 1690, at the expense of the Honourable Robert Boyle, for the use of the Highlanders. This edition was superintended by the Rev. R. Kirk.

Gaelic Bible. There is also a version of the Bible in the Gaelic or Erse language, of which several large impressions have been published both in Edinburgh and London.