Shelf.. PRINCETON, N. J. ^> Division vD. !5. . Srw5 to '^'•■ •^e^twn r...r^..vV.'S:.(o Mumh«r u .i.,X-M... HISTORY OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT EDUARD (WILHELM EU GEN) REUS S PROFESSOR ORDINARIUS IN THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL FACULTY OF THE EMPEROR WILLIAM'S UNIVERSITY IN STRASSBURG, GERMANY TRANSLATED FROM THE FIFTH REVISED AND ENLARGED GERMAN EDITION, WITH NUMEROUS BIBLIO- GRAPHICAL ADDITIONS EDWARD L. HOUGHTON, A. M. IN TWO VOLUMES VOL. II. BOSTON HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN AND COMPANY New York: 11 East Seventeenth Street 1884 Copyright, 1884, By EDWARD L. UOUGIITON. All rights reserved. The Riverside Press, Cambridge : Electrotyped and Printed by H. 0. Houghton & Co. BOOK SECOND. HISTORY OF THE COLLECTION OF THE SACRED SCRIP- TURES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. HISTORY OF THE CANON. 281. The Apostles and the first Christians in general con- tinued to use the books of the Old Testament for the purpose of religious instruction. They did this not merely from cus- tom, and so long as they had not formally separated themselves from the synagogue, but also because they found in these books the authentic confirmation of the faith which the dis- courses, miracles, and resurrection of Jesus had awakened and nourished in them. For precisely the same reason they came to be known and used from the very first among the Gentile Christians, since the preaching of the Apostles was based chiefly upon the predictions of the prophets, and upon the close and higher connection between the earlier revelations and the things which had come to pass in these last days. On this whole book cf. my more detailed treatise : Histoire du Canon des S. Ecritures dans VEglise chrc'tienne (Nouvelle Revue, Vols. VI., IX., X., 18G0 fe.), also separately, Str. (1863), 2d ed. 1864. With the above cf. § 30. Examples iu proof from the Acts, all the Gos- pels, the Epistles of James, Peter, to the Hebrews, Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, and the Apocalypse ; also from Clement, Barnabas, and later writers. No difference of method of preaching in this respect can be shown, corresponding either with the different theological tendencies in the Apostolic Chnrch or with the different elements of the chnrches. Even the Pauline school, notwithstanding its other declarations respecting the validity of the Law, was obliged to rest upon the Old Testament, see especially Gal. iii. 19 ff. ; this it could do entirely without danger to its fundamental prin- ciples, see § 505. Cf . also the expositors on 2 Tim. iii. 16. Catalogues of the quotations from the Old Testament in the New (triva^ fiapTvpiwv), sometimes also of the mere allusions, are found in many of the older editions of the text (e. ^r. iu the larger editions of Stephens and most of the Elzevirs, § 404 f.) and versions, and still in the N. 7'. of Knapp and others ; also, separately, complete, in E. Leigh, Critica s. N. T., Index III.; L. D. Cramer, Bibliologia N. T. (L. 1819 ff.,4°), Pts. II.-IV. ; Bialloblotzky, De legis mosaicce abrogatione (Gott. 1824, 4°), p. 162 ff. ; Doepke, Hermeneu- tik der neutest. Schriftsteller (L. 1829, 8°), pp. 189-288 ; R. Stier's Bibl. Theo- logie, p. 452 ff. ; E. Haupt, Die Citate in den Evv., Colb. 1871. [Tables of these quotations, arranged in the order of the N. T. passages, in the Intro- troductions of Home and Davidson. A fuller table, embracing even verbal 288 HISTORY OF THE CANON. allusions, arranged in the contrary order, but with reverse index, published separately, by Gough, 1855, C. H. Toy, Quotations in the N. T., N. Y. 1884.] That Jesus and the Apostles had, complete, the same collection of canon- ical writings of the Old Testament which we to-day possess as such, is pos- sible and probable, but in our complete ignorance of the history of the Old Testament Canon cannot be made an absolute certainty (not even on the ground of Mt. xxiii. 35 ; Lk. xxiv. 44; cf. C. Iken, jDe lege, prophelis, et psalmis, Diss., I. 419 ; R. Teller, Cation V. T. divinus et perfectus ex Luc. xxiv. ^, 1747), and is rather a postulate of the theological system ; see De Gasparin, Les ecoles du doute (§ 348), p. 256 ff. At all events, no theory of the Old Testament Canon is to be looked for in the Apostles according to which everything (now) found in the collection was theologically useful for the Gospel, and everythmg not found therein useless for the Church. Cf . on the former Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon, etc., on the latter, §§ 169, 283, 293. But this very hesitation in the selection of material is to a certain ex- tent in conflict with the conception of inspiration already current at that time, which alone gives the key to the otherwise inexplicable apostolic ex- egesis (§ 503 f.), and which properly should have led to the strictest separa- tion of the canonical from the uncanonical. This contradiction has never been fully overcome by the Church and its theology. 282. Among the Jewish people acquaintance with the sa- cred writings was extended and kept up by means of regular public readings in the synagogues. It is highly probable that the Christians also maintained this custom in their assemblies, and doubtless in the established way. Yet we no longer know this certainly. In view of the scanty development of the forms of church life in the apostolic period, and the mostly practical, edificatory character of the writings which are the only sources for this division of the history, the lack of more definite knowledge need not surprise us. Synagogue readings in the time of Jesus and the Apostles ; from the Law, Acts XV. 21, 2 Cor. iii. 15 ; from the prophets, Lk. iv. 16, Acts xiii. 27 ; from both divisions one after the other. Acts xiii. 15 ; see the expositors on these passages. The relation of these readings to the present division of the Old Testament into Parasha and Haphtara is unknown. Perhaps also the standing expression 6 v6ixos koi ol TrpocpyjTat, Mt. v. 17, and frequently, bears witness to this custom, which certainly agrees with the known division of the Hebrew books. For the details of the earlier history of these readings see Zunz, Gottesdienstl. Voi-trdge der Juden (B. 1832), Introduction. Jewish tradition (cf. Joseph., Cont. Apian., ii. 17) and uncritical Christendom refer them to Moses (Dent, xxxi.), but they are of post-exilic origin, like the syn- agogue itself, and have nothing to do even with the event related in 2 K. xxii. Cf . Nell. viii. and my Hist, de la Theol. Chre't., I. chs. ii., iii. Proper public readings in Christian Churches are only mentioned in 1 Tim. iv. 13. Yet, in view of the probably very limited private reading, the frequent quotations (§ 281) presuppose acquaintance with the Scriptures by means of public reading (cf. Acts viii. 28 ; XAoi. 11 ; Gal. iv. 21, etc.). It is idle, however, to look for proof of this in Acts ii. 47, Eph. v. 19, Col. iii. 16. The Trpo(p^Tdi of the Apostolic Church were certainly not expounders of the Scriptures in the proper sense (Schmidt, Einl., p. 4). With some certainty, however, the earlier custom may be inferred from the later (Justin, Apol. I., 67, and later Church Fathers, also many lectionaries, § 384). Cf. Rhein- wald, ArchcioL, p. 274 and supplement ; Augusti, Handb. der chr. Archdol., PUBLIC READINGS IN THE SYNAGOGUE. 289 II. 185 £f. ; Rettig, De prcelectionibus in eccl. chr., in the Ephemer. Giss., III. 31 ; Aloys Sandbiichler, Lasen die ersten Chr. die h. Schr. ? Salzb. 1784. 283. With respect to the language, also, in which these readings from the Old Testament must have been, there was probably no difference between Christians and Jews in partic- ular localities. To most the sacred writings were accessible and intelligible only in the Greek translation. Through this they gradually became acquainted with a greater number of books than Palestinian custom had fixed upon for church use. But how early or late these other books began to be used for edification in Christian churches cannot be ascertained, — all the less since we have no sufficient knowledge even of their authority among the Hellenistic Jews. It is only certain that the Apostles and their immediate followers, wherever it was necessary to adduce a scriptural proof, confined themselves en- tirely to the Hebrew canon. With respect to the number of books belonging to the sacred collection, it appears certain that there was no special (more extensive) Alexandrian Canon (see Oehler, in Herzog's Eiicykl., VII. 255) ; but there doubtless was a difference with respect to arrangement and the integrity of certain books (Daniel, Ezra, Esther, Jeremiah). Precisely in respect to these latter all certain knowledge is lacking for the earlier period. Uncertam traces of acquauitance with the Apocrypha on the part of the Apostles : Olearius, In Matth., p. 68 ff. ; C. Sonntag, De allegatis apocr. in evv., Altd. 1716 ; Eichhorn, Einl. in die Apocryphen (1795), passim ; Mou- linie, Notice sur les livres apocr. du V. T. (Gen. 1828), passim; E. Reuss, De II. V. T. apocryphis perperam plebi negatis (Arg. 1829), p. 13 ; Dopke, I. c, p. 206 ; Cramer, I. c, II. 18 ; III. 5 ; cf. R. Stier, Bibl. Dogmatik, p. 519 ; idem, Ueher das Verhdltniss der Apocryphen zur h. S. (Evang. Kirchen- zeitung, 1828, No. 60) ; but especially in the work cited under § 349 ; Bleek, in the Studien, 1853, II. 335 ff. ; Storr, In ep. Jacohi (1783), passim. There is in the New Testament absolutely no proper quotation from them. And resemblances (e. g., between the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Wisdom of Solomon) can be easily explained from the wide prevalence of the ideas. But in Clement, 1 Cor. Iv., there is an express appeal to Judith (ch. xxvii. Wisdom of Solomon?). A use of the history is obvious from Hebr. xi. 34 ff. For the later history of the Greek Canon of the Old Testament see §§317, 319, 324. Did the Apostles generally quote from the Hebrew text or from the Septuagint ? The question is differently answered and in almost all mod- ern commentaries, under the particular passages. Most thoroughly dis- cussed by Credner, Beitrdge, Pt. II. ; Bleek, Brief an die Hehrder, I. 338- 375 ; cf. Dopke, I. c, p. 208 ff. ; J. Wiggers, De interpretationis genere quo N. T. scriptores usi sunt (Rost. 1837), p. 18 ff.; Eichhorn, Bibl., II. 948 ff. ; R. Anger, Ratio qua loci V. T. in evang. Matth. laudantur, etc., L. 1861, p. I.- III. ; A. F. Kautzsch, De V. T. locis a Paulo ap. allegatis, L. 1869. Among older writers we mention here H. Hody, De bibl. textibus orig. et verss., Oxf. 1705, fol. p. 243 ff. More than one peculiar Scripture quotation in the New Testament, differing equallj'^ from the original text and from the Septua- gint, suggests the idea of independent work in the early Church, but in the majority of cases the dependence on the LXX. is undeniable. Moreover it would have been difficult, outside of Palestine, to find many Christians 290 HISTORY OF THE CANON. who would have been able to make a translation upon the spot for the benefit of the assembled chiu-ch. [Cf. on this subject, Dav. M. Turpie, The 0. T. in the New, Lond. 1868 ; E. Bcihl, Die A. T. Citate im N. T., Vienna, 1878, and his Forschungen nach einer Volkshihel zur Zeit Jesu und deren Zusammenhang mit der Septuafjinta-Uehersetzung, Vienna, 1873; Jas. Scott, Principles of N. T. Quotation, Edinb. 1875 ; Scihaff, Companion to the Greek Testament, N. Y. 1883, p. 23 f.] The history of the ecclesiastical acceptance of the LXX. so far as it con- cerns the synagogue, is extremely obscure ; see Zunz, Gottesdienstl. Vortrage der Juden, p. 10 ; yet in all probability the conception of the inspiration of the LXX. springs from Judaism. 284. So long as Christian instruction was imparted essen- tially by means of oral tradition, — that is to say, until the middle of the second century, — there were no regular read- ings in the churches except perhaps those from the Old Tes- tament. The epistles which individual churches liad received from Apostles, since chiefly designed for the needs of the moment, after the public reading upon their reception, appear not to have been taken up again at definite intervals. The other apostolic writings, more general in their purpose, were circulated in the usual manner of that time, on account of their intrinsic value, and without doubt served in many places for private edification and instruction, but without being specially commended to the churches by public attestation. The knowl- edge of the connection of the presiding officers of the churches with the Apostles, by original appointment and regular succes- sion, was as yet the simplest and the sufficient guaranty of doc- trine. Usage of the apostolic (pastoral) epistles : directed in the first instance to the presiding officer of the church, perhaps, also, delivered to particular es- pecially intimate friends (hence the greetings with the formula aa-rrdaaade, the commissions, and passages like 1 Thess. v. 27 ; Col. iv. 16), and by these immediately imparted to the assembled church, and then put by for safe- keeping. Clement (^Ad Corr. I., xlvii., avaxd^ere tV iina-ToX-nv. . . ) and Poly- carp (Ad Phil., iii., els &$ iav [not 'drav ] iyKinrrrire Swrje-fia-eaOe olKodofieiffdai) do not take a public reading of their epistles for granted, but desire it. Cf. in general Gieseler, Entstehung der Evv., p. 156 ff. As to the remaming writings, not only is all proof from the period under consideration of their use for regular public reading lacking, but almost all evidence of their existence. Cf. § 287. Even in Pliny's letter to Trajan (X. 97) there is nothing said of public readings. It is also natural that some writings should have come into circulation more slowly than others ; this appears to have been the case with the books of Luke as compared with those of Matthew and Mark ; certainly with the Epistle of James and the first of Peter, not to mention here others (of doubtful origin). The authority of the bishops (or elders) already commended by the Apos- tles : 1 Cor. xvi. 15 f. ; Phil. ii. 29 ; Col. i. 7 ; 3 Thess. v. 12 ; Clem. I., xlii. ; Ignat., Philad., vii. ; Magn., viii., xiii. P. C. Diirr, De antiq. Jidei et morum regula, Gott. 1781 ; D. Schenkel, Ueber das urspr. Verh. d. Kirche z. Kanon, 1838 ; C. R. Kostlin, Das Verh. zwischen apost. Tradition und Schrift in den ersten Jahrh. (Tub. Jahrb., 1850, I.). APOSTOLIC WRITINGS — INSPIRATION. 291 285. The first Christians were in a measure prevented by their peculiar religious conceptions from according to any new books equal honor with those which had been handed down from father to son, and whose great age had won for them an inalienable right of precedence. The Holy Spirit, which once had rested only on a few prophets, had been imparted to all the chosen of Christ, and no one could or desired to claim for himself or any other disciple an exclusive inspiration. And that one among the Christian schools which by its doctrine of the Law seemed to derogate most from the ancient authoi'ity of the sacred writings of the people of God really established it, as the earlier form of revelation, in order to set over against it a new one, and so, free from the bonds of the letter, to rec- ognize only a faith in, and service of, the spirit. The Apostles themselves do uot appeal to their own writings as authority (although they refer to them incidentally, 1 Cor. v. 9 ; 2 Cor. vii. 8, etc.), but to tradition and the Old Testament, even for the gospel history : 1 Cor. xi. 23 ; XV. 3-7 ; for the rest to their oral instruction. (Correct interpreta- tion of ivajye\i6v jxov, Rom. ii. 16 ; xvi. 25 ; 2 Tim. ii. 8.) Reference to aii apostolic writing as ypaipi) first occurs (not in 1 Tim. v. 18, over which there is controversy, § 92) in Barnabas, ch. iv., of a Gospel, in 2 Pet. iii. 16, of the Pauline writings, in both passages (quite isolated, moreover) either an evi- dence against the alleged author or of an extra-canonical quotation, (Weiz- sacker, Kritik des Barnabas-Brief, p. 34.) See also Clem., Ep. II. ad Corr., passim • Polycarp, Ad Phil., xii., in the Latin text. All Christians have the Holy Spirit, i. e., are inspired, from the same source and for the same purpose, and this constitutes the essence of Christi- anity : Jn. xiv. 16 ; xv. 26 ; xvi. 7-15 ; Acts ii. 14-21 ; iv. 31 ; viii. 15-17 ; x. 44 ; xi. 15-17 ; xv. 8, 28, etc. Rom. viii. 9, 14 ; 1 Cor. iii. 16 ; vi. 19 ; vii. 40 (K&.y^) ; xii. 3 ff. ; 2 Cor. i. 22 ; iii. 17, 18 ; Eph. iv. 30 ; 1 Tliess. v. 19, 20 ; 1 Ju. iv. 2, etc. Clem., Ad Cor. I., ii. 46 ; Barn., chs. ix., xvi., xix. ; Ignat., Ad Philad., vii. ; Polyc, ix. ; Hermas, Shepherd, II., Aland. 3. Cf. Credner, Beilrage, I. 1-91. The fact that these gifts of the Spirit were sometimes designed rather for the sanctification of the life and will, or to strengthen for action, and not always cliiefly for the enlightenment of the miderstanding, does not alter the matter. The criterion of inspiration is not apostolic writing, but the gift of the "proving of spirits " (naturally developed and guided by oral instruction). 1 Cor. xii. 10 ; 1 Tliess. v. 21 ; 1 Jn. iv. 1. In the enumeration of charisms (Rom. xii. ; 1 Cor. xii.) there is no special gift of authorship. For the Pauline theory cf. 2 Cor. iii. ; Rom. vii. 6, etc., and in general Nosselt, Exercitt., p. 47 ff. ; Paulus, in Pott's Si/lloge, III. 298 ff. ; A. Jahn, Ad quosnam pertineat promissio Sp. S. sec. N. T., Bas. 1841 ; G. L. Leblois, Sur Vinspiration des premiers Chretiens, Str. 1850; Witsius, MiscelL, p. 294 ff. 286. But aside from this dogmatic point of view, the churches must have received letters from the Apostles with the greatest interest and preserved them carefully, as precious memorials of former relations, the remembrance of which was ever dear to them. The Apostles themselves often gave their letters an encyclical character, which certainly would lead to the immediate multiplication of the copies ; neighboring churches 292 HISTORY OF THE CANON. communicated to one another what they possessed ; the fre- quent tours of the missionaries facilitated this exchange, and even private persons, with little pains and small cost, might have copies taken of books which came in their way. On the possible methods of multiplication of encyclical letters see espe- cially the modem introductions to the Epistle to the Ephesians. Cf. also Col. iv. 16 ; 2 Cor. i. 1 ; Gal. i. 2 (1 Pet. i. 1) ; Rev. i. 4. What has been said of the missionaries is not to be understood as if they were agents of a modern Bible or Tract Society. Cf. Polyc, Ad Ph'dipp., xiii. ; Euseb., H. E., iii. 36, 37 ; v. 25, where examples of exchange of epis- tles between churches occur, and in the passage cited from Polycarp of such a sort that it must be inferred either that the churches did not yet possess all the apostolic epistles complete or that they used non-apostolic ones also for public reading. J. E,. liiesling, De stabili primit. eccl. ope epp. communi- catoriarum connubio, L. 1744. See Griesbach, Hist, textus epp. paul., in his 0pp., II. 82. 287. Nevertheless the circulation of the apostolic writings progressed but slowly, and all through the first half of the sec- ond century, according to the extant evidence, the use made of them apjaears to have been still very limited. For doctrine as well as for the history tradition sufficed, and even where knowledge of the latter perhaps depended upon books tliese could not be directly appealed to as indisputable evidence. The epistles were regarded as the private property of those to whom they wei'e written, or at least as of interest chiefly to them ; for the rest they were used occasionally for rhetorical or homiletical purposes. Most of the quotations from them, in this period, are quotations of single sentences, without name, and a full century passed before any one thought of an argu- mentative appeal to them as authorities. Early traces of the use of apostolic writings in our Canon (not in the Epistle of James, § 145, but doubtless) in the First Epistle of Peter, § 148 ; perhaps in the Epistle of Barnabas, § 234. Papias (in Euseb., H. E., iii. 39) : ov yap ra e'/c rwv jSi/SAftor too-ovtSv ne oj^e- Aetf iiizeKdfjL^avov '6(tov to, irapa ^wayjs (paivris Ka\ fxeuovaris. Beside this, mention by name of only two Gospels (§§ 186, 187), and use (by name ?) of 1 Peter and 1 John. A reference to the beginning of the Gospel of Luke is also to be found in the extant fragments. His historical notices sometimes contra- dict the canonical accounts (e. g., the death of Judas). To him are also re- ferred several testimonies of older Christians (irpea^vTepoi, veteres, seniores^ found in Irenseus, some of which agree with our texts, others vary there- from. See Otto, in the Zeitschr. fur hist. Tlieol., 1844, III. ; ef. in general Rettberg, in the Hall. EiicykL, III. 11. It is at all events of importance for the history that no use of Pauline writings was to be discovered in him (the Chiliast). Clem., Ad Cor. I., xlvil.: vixlv eypa^pfv. Also reminiscences from the Epis- tles to the Romans, Corinthians, Hebrews (chs. xxiv., xxxii.-xxxvi., etc.). Ignat., Ad Eph., xii. : /xj/Tj/^ovevei vixUv. Also, without names or formulas of quotation, passages from the Epistles to the Corinthians and Galatians and the Gospel of John (Magn., x.; Eph.,x\m.; Rom.,in., vii. ; Philad., i.; Srm/rn., vi., etc.). Polycarp, Ad Phil., iii., eypa\l/fi/ vfuv ; and silent use of Acts, Ro- EAKLY USE OF APOSTOLIC WRITINGS. 293 mans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, 1 Timothy, 1 John, 1 Peter. (Quite differently 2 Pet. iii. 15, where the sypaxj/ey v/x'lu necessarily refers to all Christians.) If isolated expressions could prove anything these remmiscences would certainly be more frequent, yet not always necessarily referring to our canonical text ; see Hilgenfeld, Apost. Vdter, p. 47, 103 ; Lubkert, in Nied- ner's Zeitsclir., 1854, p. 610 ft'. With respect to the preliminary critical ques- tions regardmg these latter writings we refer to the more general works on the Apostolic Fathers, and for the sake of brevity, to Herzog's Encijklo- Extensive biit uncritical collection of such passages in J. Usserius, Hint, docj- matica controversice de scripturls et sacris vernaculis, Lond. 1G90 ; J. H. Barth, De studio et amore vett. Chr. in S. S., Arg. 1713 ; G. G. Zeltner, De more in- ter condonandum hibUa s. evolvendi, Altd. 1728 ; F. Woken, Historie des Bi- helfleisses der alien Christen, L. 1726 ; A. J. Onymus, Geschichte des Bibel- lesens, 1786 ; M. A. Paira, Utilite de la lecture des SS. ecritures, Str. 1828 ; A. Sandbiichler, Lasen die ersten Christen die h. S. f 1784; N. Lardner, Cred- ibility of the Gospel History, ( Works, I.- VI. ed. Kippis, 1788) ; P. Bonneton, La Bible avec Vcglise, Gen. 1849 ; D. Erdmann, Das Bibellesen in der alien Kirche, B. 1855 ft., 3 Pts. ; fi. v. Muralt, Ein Gang durchs N. T. an der Hand der dlteslen Kirchenlehrer, Bern, 1867 ; on the contrary, especially Gie- seler, Entstehung der Ecv., p. 149 ft. ; Angusti, Handbuch der christl. Archd- ologie, II. 166 ff. ; see also Bmgham, Antiqq. eccl., Bk. XIV. ch. 3 ; C. J. Estlander, De usu S. S. in eccl. cath. duobus primis secc, Hels. 1829. Nor are references to gospel events and particular utterances of Jesus lacking in the Fathers mentioned, but they in part do not presuppose a writ- ten source and in part rather one no longer accessible to us. Cf. Barnabas, chs. iv., vii., xv. (§ 234) ; Clement, Ad Cor. I., xiii., xlvi. ; Ignat., Ad Eph., xiv., xix. ; Ad Smyrn., i., iii. ; Ad Polyc, ii. ; Polyc, Ad Phil., ii., etc. Cf. also C. C. J. Bunsen, Ignatius u. seine Zeit, 1847, p. 157 ft. In general, J. H. Scholten, Die dltesten Zeugnisse betreffend die Scliriften des N. T. hist, un- tersucht, from the Dutch by C. Manchot, Brem. 1867. 288. The divisions between Jewish and Gentile Christians and their jealousy for their respective heads were also a hin- drance, not to be overlooked, to the formation of a collection such as our present one. The parties, which had needed some time to come to full consciousness of the principles -which separated them, were in the j)ost-apostolic age in some respects still less inclined to be friendly than when the first preachers of the Gospel, now at rest, had attempted in vain to twine the bonds of one faith about the scattered members of the Church. Moreover the writings of these men were involved in many ways in the polemics of the day, to the one party as a stumbling- block, to the other as a refreshment of its convictions, and a long time must have passed before the voice of peace found a formula by which, upon middle ground, and by means of mutual concessions, an actually common. Catholic Church could be formed, giving up the more extreme views on both sides and gathering together for the common advantage what each party had inherited of apostolic literary treasure. This is confirmed by the simple fact that, even in the limited older New Testament collection, writings of more Jewish-Christian tendency stand side 294 HISTORY OF THE CANON. by side with Pauline and Johannean, and, what is no less significant, with those obviously of middle tendency. In the apostolic age there miglit be mediatory personalities, but not a party of that type. Cf. § 137 and espe- cially Ritschl, Die Entstehung der altkathol. Kirche (1850), 2d ed. 1857 ; Lipsius, Die Zeit des Irenceus und die Entstehung der altkath. Kirche {^Hist. Zeitschr., Pt. XXVIII., p. 241 ff.)- For the earlier period, however, there is unexceptionable evidence that the churches which stood by Jewish Christianity contented themselves with a single Gospel (a Greek or Hebrew Matthew ; § 186) and would have nothing to do with Pauline preaching (Iren., i. 26 ; Euseb., H. E., iii. 27) ; which, however, cannot be understood as meaning that they had gone out from a Church which already possessed and daily used all this and much more as a common treasure. 289. For all these reasons we cannot speak of any real necessity for a more or less complete collection of apostolic writings before the middle of the second century. Nor is there the slightest trace of any measures being taken by the Apostles or their immediate successors to provide all the churches with authentic copies of them. After the destruction of Jerusalem the Church had no longer a centre, and the task of preparing such collections was necessarily left to individual persons or places. It therefore required the coincidence of several power- ful causes to bring about the first attempts of any importance. Older treatises on the history of our Canon : J. Ens, Bibliotheca s., Amst. 1710 ; J. Frick, De cura ecdesice veteris circa canonein S. S., Ulm, 1728 ; C. E. Weissmaun, Justce ac pice rationes collect, canon. S. S., Tiib. 1737 ; J. P. Lufft, De canone S. S., Arg. 1743 ; E. H. D. Stosch, De cura vet. eccl. circa II. ss. N. T., Frankf. a. V. 1749 ; repeated in his Comm. hist, critica de II. N. T. canone, Fraidif. a. V. 1755 ; D. Hering, Abhh., p. 115 if.; C. F. Sehmid, Hist, antiqua et vindicatio canonis, L. 1775 ; cf. his Krit. Unterss. iiber die Offenb. Joh., pp. 64-150 ; C. W. F. Walch, Kritische Untersuchung vom Ge- hrauch der h. S. unter den alten Christen in den ersten If, Jahrh., L. 1779 ; also J. Usserius, Hist, controversire de scripturis vernaculis, Lond. 1690 ; T. G. Hegelmaier, Gesch. des Bibelverbots, Ulm, 1783 ; J. M. Lobstein, De vet. eccl. II. ss. amore, Giss. 1775. None of them sufficiently critical respecting the period now under consideration. Since the time of Semler (§ 342): C. F. Weber, Beitrdge zur Geschichte des neutest. Kanons, Tiib. 1791; H. Corrodi, Versuch einer Beleuchtung der Ge- schichte des jiidischen und christlichen Bibelkanons, Halle, 1792, 2 Pts. Cf. also Mosheim, Vindic. adv. Toland., p. 342 S.; Mill, Proleg. ad N. T.; Schrockh, Kirchengesch., IX. and passim; Miinseher, Dogmengeschichte, I. 256 ff. ; Augusti, Dogm. Einl., p. 178 ff. ; Jachmann, in Illgen's Zeitschr., 1842, II. ; Oehler and Landerer, Art. Kanon in Herzog's Encykl. ; Credner, Beitrcige, I. 1-91 (§ 285) ; idem, Geschichte des neutest. Kanons, edited by G. Volkmar, B. I860 ; A. Hilgenfeld, Der Kanon und die Kritik des N. T. in ihrer gesch. Ausbildung, H. 1863. [Gaussen, Le Canon des Saintes Ecritures, Laus. 1860, 2 vols. ; tr. and abr. by Dr. E. N. Kirk, The Canon of the Holy Scriptures Examined in the Light of History, Boston, 1862 ; Bleek, Einl. in d. N. T., B. 1862, pp. 631-678 (E. tr. T. & T. Clark, 1870, 2 vols.) ; Westcott, History of the Canon of the N. T., Cambr. 1855, 2d ed. enlarged and revised, Lond. 1866 ; " the best treatise on the subject in English." (Prof. Ezra Abbot.)] — The literature belonging under this head is also catalogued by Bertholdt, Einl., I. 64 if., and the older especially by Fabricius, Syllab. apolog., p. 513. EEASONS FOR THE FORMATION OF A CANON. 295 Fable of a collection of apostolic writings prepared by John (Photius, Cod., 254 ; from a niisuuderstanding of which came what Euseb., H. E., iiL 24, Jerome, Catal., ix., says with reference to the snpposed supplementary purpose of his Gospel), still defended, after the example of older writers, by Augusti, Dogm. Einl. in d. h. S., p. 205 flf. Supposed traces of an already existing collection, in Ignat., Ad Pkilad., v., irpoa(pvywv T(fi tvayye^Kp ws trop/cJ 'irjcov Kod toIs h.Trov Aey6vToiv on, iav jxt) iv rots apx^lois (apxalois ?) evpu, eV to? evayyexiw ov iriaTtvai, which is not to be under- stood of archives containing apostolic writings, but of appeal to Old Testa- ment prophecies, over against which the author sets his unconditional faith in Christ and the facts of the gospel as a firmer foundation. See Lessing, Theol. Nachlass., pp. 73, 113, 185 ; D. Hering, on the passage, 1778 ; J. E. C. Schmidt, in his Blblioth., III. 299 ; Gieseler, I. c, p. IGO f . ; Rettig, in Ephem. Giss., III. 72 ; Schulthess, Theol. Nachr., Jan. 1829 ; H. A. Niemeyer, in the Oppos. Schrift, New Series, I. 2 ; Nolte, in the Tub. Quartalschr., 1857, IV. — J. Delitzsch, De inspir. S. S. quid statuerint patres apostolici et apologetce Scec. J I., L. 1872, p. 56 ff., asserts, if not a proper canonical collection, at least the equal canonical authority of the apostolic writings (homologoumena) and the Old Testament from the time of Barnabas, Ignatius, and Justin. The later doubts concerning the genuineness of many writings (as well as the possibility of the circulation of several spurious ones) are not only inex- plicable upon the assumption of an early fixing of the Canon, traced back even to apostolic authority, but absolutely fatal to it. The older science even ventured to fix the year when the Canon was com- pleted (Gospels, 99 ; Epistles, 110, Mill, Proleg. ad N. T., § 193 flf. ; before 107, O. Bouchet, Epoque de la reunion des homologoumenes, Mont. 1863). The history of the Canon is treated rather from a theological than a lit- erary-historical point of view by G. J. Planck, Einl. in die theol. Wiss., I. 413 ff.; Grimm, in the Hall. EncykL, II. 19, p. 70 ff.; Tholuck, in the Berl. Zeitschr., 1850, No. 16 ff.; A. Daniel, Theol. Controversen, 1843. 290. Sucli causes, which gradually led the Church back to the authentic documents of the apostolic doctrine, were, first, the threatening spread of Gnosticism, next, tlie increasing flood of apocryphal writings, lastly, the instinctive perception of the insufficiency and weakness of every other foundation for instruction. But a long time passed before these causes could bring about their result, and as long as dogmatic tradi- tion still had life enough to resist corruption, almost inevi- table in this century of the most manifold commotions, it was not the books that formed the rule of faith but rather the books themselves were judged by the traditional rule. These phenomena are not strange and abnormal, but the natural conse- quence of the course which the spread of the Gospel had taken. In many cases no other criterion of genuinesss was known or desired. Examples are furnished, for this period, by the history of Jewish Cliristianity and Chiliasm in particular. On the authority of the Holy Scriptures and their relation to the rule of faith in the Protestant and in the ancient Church : Three letters by C. H. Sack, C. I. Nitzsch, and F. Liieke, Bonn, 1827 ; J. L. Jacobi, Die Hrchlichs Lehre von der Tradition und heil, Schr. in ihrer Entwicklung, B. 1847, Pt. I.; 296 HISTORY OF THE CANON. see also § 284. — For the Catholic view of. especially J. H. Friedlieb, Schrift, Tradition, und kirchliche Schriftauslegung, . . . 7iach den Zeugnissen der filnf ersten Jahrh., Br. 1854. — The utterances of the Ante-Nieeue Church Fathers (the Apostles included) upon the authority of Scripture are collected by ilouth, iu the Relig. ss., ed. 2, V. 335 if. 291. It also followed from this that the choice of the apos- tolic writings Avhich each individual teacher placed in the hands of his pupils was entirely free, inasmuch as neither cus- tom nor any ecclesiastical authority had prescribed it. Thus Marcion had gathered a collection which has been erroneously regarded as the first attempt at a New Testament Canon. This heretic certainly proceeded upon no literary-historical princi- ple in his task, but upon a purely subjective and dogmatic one. He allowed to the books themselves no divine authority at all, and consequently might permit himself to treat the text according to his pleasure. The collection therefore consisted by no means of all books which were accessible to him and known as apostolic, but simply of the single Gospel, and ten epistles of the single Apostle whom he accepted. For proof as to the Catholic party, see § 294. For the literature on Marcion, § 246. A. Hahn, De canone Mnrcionis antinomi, Reg. 18"J4, Pts. I., II. ; cf . Matter, Hist, du Gnost., II. 224, ed. 2 ; Kii-chhofer, Quellens., p. 357 ff. (§ 307). Order of the books in his collection : Gospel of Christ, Epistles to the Galatians, Corinthians, Romans, Thessalonians, Laodiceans, Colossians, Phi- lemon, Philippians (r'b evayjiXiov, 6 a.ir6a-To\os). This order, compared with that which afterward became usual, bears clear witness either to the critical aeuteness of Marcion or to the correctness of a soon fori^otten tradition, in any case to the fact that no other as yet had general currency. Tlie opinions of the Church Fathers respecting this collection are made up in accordance with later conceptions of the Canon ; the views of those moderns who regard it as the first attempt at a Canon are at variance vnth the ideas of that age and school respecting the value of apostolic writings. But we may certainly infer from this oldest collection of which we have definite knowledge the gradually spreading custom of making use of apos- tolic writings. 292. It was in general the heretics of the second century who first felt the need of arranging their thenlDgieal an J phi- losophical ideas into systems and of supporting them by actual or alleged apostolic books. Since their speculations had not grown up upon ecclesiastical ground, and since the most noted among them had moreover an outspoken antipathy to the Old Testament revelations, which were made fundamental by their opponents, they turned by preference, in order to establish their views, to apostolic authorities, sometimes drawing over to their side, by means of partial use of their extant writings and more or less arbitrary exposition of the text, the nutliority of their honored names, but sometimes even niiRnsing these names for the defense and commendation of their doctrines in HERETICAL COLLECTIONS. 297 forged writings. Yet this very circumstance and the continual increase of the Apocrypha shows that the Church had not yet formed its Canon, to say nothing of having closed it. Basil- ides, Carpocrates, Valentinus, Heracleon, Tatian, and still others, knew, quoted, and even commented upon the writings of the Apostles before the Catholics thought of preparing an attested collection of them. The relation of the Gnostic sects to the Old Testament may here, where the question is chiefly concerning the development of the Christian Canon, be fitly passed over. (Cf. L. D. Cramer, Hisloria sententiarum de sacra II. V. T. auclorilate ad Christianos spectante, L. 1819, 2 Pts., 4°, p. 13 ff.) But it is just this relation which explains how they were led to the apostolic writ- ings. On the Gospels of these heretics see § 245. Owing to the absence of gen- erally attested wi'itings and the luxuriant growth of unwatched tradition they were as arbitrary as they were adapted to their purpose. The Epistles were rendered harmless by selection and exegesis ; likewise John. The expression of Irenseus respecting the Gnostics (^Adv. Hcer., III. 12, p. 198, scripturas quidem conjitentur interpretationes vero convertunt) or even that of Tertidlian respecting Valentinus {Pra;scr., ch. 38 : integro instrumento uti videtur ; ibid., ch. 17: ista hceresis non recipit quasdam scripturas et si quas re- cipit . . , ad dispositionem sui instituti intervertit, et . . . non recipit integras), or that of Hippolytus respecting Apelles (Philos., p. 259 : tq>v fiiayyeAlcDv ^ rod o.iTO(n6\ov to, apiaKovra avrcf alpe'iTat) presupposes m an uncritical way a Church Canon, if not closed yet m process of foi-mation, even in earlier times, and is contradicted by the fact that the Church Fathers themselves men- tion it as something noteworthy that this or that Gnostic used an apostolic book. Moreover, later witnesses were doubtless often inclined to trace back the doctrines and customs of still existing schools to their founders. So Epiphanius (Hmr., Ivi.), of Bardesanes: XP^''"'" TaAaifi re /cal Kaivy SiadriKr) Koi Basilides (Jerome, Prooem. in Tit.) rejected the Pastoral Epistles of Paul. On his other quotations see P. Hofstede de Groot, Basilides am Ausgang d. ap. Zeitalters ah erster Zeuge f. Alter u. Autoritdt JV. T. Schriften bes. des Evang. Joh. (from the Dutch), L. 1868 ; and upon it, C. E. Scharling, Un- ters. ilber die gnostischen Citationen in den Philos. (Danish), Copenh. 1868. His adherents (Clem., Strom., I. 340) kept the festival of the baptism of Chx'ist TTpoSiavvKTepevouTes avayvdaeffi. Carpocrates (Iren., Adv. Hcer., I. 25, p. 104) is said to liave used Matthew and Luke (?). Valentinus (Iren., III. 11, 14, pp. 190, 202, etc.) had besides John, who in his school also was commented upon together with the other Gos])els. His Evangelium veritatis shows by its name and the contrast suggested thereby what authority was accorded by him to the others. Also references to sev- eral Paidine epistles. Cf. § 245. G. Heinrici, Die valent. Gnosis und d. h. Schriften, B. 1871, p. 40 ff., 182 ff. The material belonging here has been very much increased by the dis- covery of the so-called Philosophotimena (E. Miller, 1851) or Hippolytus' Refutationes omnium kceresium (ed. L. Duncker, Gott. 1859), and the result has been to make the case for the age and early authority of the Gospels (even John) and the Pauline Epistles more favorable. Yet criticism re- gards it as a question yet open whether all the quotations found in this work really cr.me directly from the oldest Gnostic writings. See on the Ophites, Bk. V. 7 ff. ; on the school of Valentinus, Bk. VI. ; on Basilides, Bk. VII. 25 ff. 298 HISTORY OF THE CANON. Tatian (§ 199), Orat. ad Grcecos, ed. C. Otto, Jena, 1851, has no express quotations, but here and there Johaimean (ch. xiii., xix.) and Paulina (chs. xi., xvi.) phrases ; also references to words of Jesus (from Matthew ?). Similar things are mentioned in the ancient writers from his lost work, riepl Tov Kara rhy crocTrjpa KarapTKr/xov (On Cliristiau perfection in the meaning of the Saviour), which in part even by its bad exegesis shows that the apostolic writings were already authorities. He rejected several Pauline Epistles but exjH'essly not all (Jerome, Prooem. in Tit., cf. Clem., Strom., III. 460). His immediate followers, the Severians (Euseb., H. E., IV. 29) accepted the Prophets and Gospels, but rejected Paul and the Acts of the Apostles. From all this confusion in the theological use of the apostolic books it is obvious that no definite ecclesiastical custom or ride was yet in existence. Cf. also Augusti, Handhuch der christl. ArchdoL, II. 169 ff. ; Credner, Bd' trage, I. 36 if., and below, § 508 ; also § 245. But on the other hand the circumstance that the Clementines, for exam- ple, in theLr polemic against Paul, do not mention him by name, shows how great his authority must already have been, even in the sphere where they could have influence. 293. Furthermore, in order to put aside, in the history of the collection of the Christian Scriptures, all current preju- dices, it is fitting to make special mention of the extensive, un- disturbed, and innocent use which the members of the Church in the second century might make of such books as afterward, upon the rise of more definite opinions of the exclusive value of the apostolic writings, were partly quietly laid aside, partly rejected with emphasis. It is sufficiently evident from this fact not only that no authoritative arrangement or selection had been yet made, but also that mere literary taste was as poor a judge of the true sources of knowledge as theological opinion. At the head of the examples to be adduced here should certainly be placed (Paul, 2 Tim. iii. 8 ?) the Epistle of Jude, which uses apocryphal writings (vss. 9, 14) and even quotes them. Jn. vii. 38, 1 Cor. ii. 9, Ja. iv. 6, Lk. xi. 49 have also been cited (Bleek, in the Studien, 1853, II. 326 ff.), but with very doubtful projiriety. More certainly, quotations occur from prophets unknown to us in Barnabas xii., xvi., Clem., I Cor. xxiii., from 4 Ezra (?) in Clem., I Cor. 1. The so-called 2d epistle of the same author appeals (ch. xii.) to a passage from the Gospel of the Egyptians. Justin (§ 294) quotes (Cohort., xvi., xxxvii., xxxviii. ; Apol. L, xx., xliv.) the Sibyl and Hystaspes. Irenjeus (IV. 20, p. 253 ; cf. Euseb., H. E., V. 8) com- mends the Shepherd of Hermas as ypa(t>ri. All the Apocrypha mentioned and still others (Sermon and Apocalyjjse of Peter, Traditions of Matthias, Gospel of the Hebrews), together with Barnabas and Clement of Rome, are quoted by Clement of Alexandria (Strom., I. 356 ; II. 375, 380, 410; III. 452 f., 465 ; V. 575 ; VI. 635 f., 678, etc.) as apostolic witnesses. Cf. the indices to his works, and Euseb., VI. 14. Tertullian, De habitu mul., ch. iii., makes a long apology for the Book of Enoch. The Sibyls in particular (§ 274) were long regarded as inspired prophetesses. G. Besan^on, De Vusage que les Peres font des oracles sib., Mont. 1851. 294. Possibly the exegetical abuses of the Gnostics in part only confirmed the Catholic teachers still more in their exclu- sive dependence upon the dogmatic tradition of their Church, EARLY APPEAL TO APOSTOLIC WRITINGS. 299 and upon argument from the Old Testament, Yet they might also have the opposite effect, and lead them to busy them- selves more earnestly with the writings of the Apostles. How- ever that may have been, it is not until after the middle of the second century that direct appeals to them become more fre- quent, then chiefly to Gospels, but at first still with complete freedom in the choice of them. No witness of this period knows any collection of New Testament writings, even a pro- visional and incomplete one. Yet the regular public reading of certain books, especially Gospels, had doubtless begun at that time, as well as those Epistles which had been originally received by individual churches. The first statement is confirmed, for example, by the method of Tertul- lian, cf. his utterances, Prcescr. hcer., ch. xiv. (§ 515). Justin Martyr (f 167) quotes by name (beside some Apocrypha, § 293) only the Apocalypse of John (Trap' tjimv avrjp rts ^ uvo/j-a 'luidvvrjs eh twv anoa- t6\uv tov Xpiarov, Dial. c. Tryph., ch. 81) and the Gospel of Peter (?). On the character of his gospel quotations see under § 199. So far as we are able to compare them with our texts, most of them point to Matthew; but he also expressly quotes some passages which are only found in Mark and Luke, Dial. c. Tryph., 103, 106, — the latter as from a pupil of the Apostles. He is silent as to Paid and the Gospel of John, save some very isolated allu- sions to them, or rather echoes of their diction. With respect to these, how- ever (especially with respect to their theological contents), it might still be disputed whether they came from reading, or whether, if so, they would not prove that the author ascribed no very high authority to them. (Kirchhofer, I. c, pp. 146, 184 ; Otto, in Illgen's Zeiischr., 1841, ll. ; 1842, II. ; 1843, I.; D. F. Zastrau, De Jui^tini M. biblicis studiis, Br. 1831; Volkmar, Justin u. d. Evv., p. 12 ff. ; H. D. Tjeenk Willink, Justinus M. in zij'ne verhouding tot Paulus, ZwoU. 1867.) His theory of inspiration extends only to the Old Testament and the Apocalyjjses, and his theological reasoning is founded upon the proof that the gospel facts attested by the " Memorabilia of the Apostles " are in perfect agreement with the Old Testament prophecies. (Apol. I., 30, 53; Tryph., 32.) An anti-Pauline tendency (e. g., Tryph., 35) and a holding fast to the number twelve for the Apostles (ibid., 42). First mention of the public reading of the Gospels in Sunday assemblies (Apol. I., 67) : TO a,TroiJ,vr]fA.ovei/j,aTa twv aTro(TT6\(tiv f) ra avyypdfxjxara twv irpo^rjrwv avayi- v6povs tvl iri/ev/xaTi dead AeAoAr/KeVaj, in reality a narrowing of the New Testament principle, § 285 ; cf. also ii. 9, 33, 35. Quotations from Paul with the formula 6 OeTos Aoyos and the like (iii. 14). First express appeal by a Catholic writer to the Gos- pel of John (ii. 22 : trdfres oi ■irvivfxaT6i>opoi e| S>v '\wdvv7)s\ beside Matthew and single Pauline Epistles ; according to Eusebius {H. E., iv. 24) also the Apoc- alypse. Cf. C. Otto, Gebrauch 7ieutest. Schriften bei Tlieoph. v. Ant., in the Zeitschr. fur hist. TheoL, 1859, IV. IrenfEus, Bishop of Lyons (f 202), Adv. Hcer. (§ 514), III. 1 : evangelium quod tunc pneconaverunt postea per Dei voluntatem in scripturis nolis tradide- runt fundamentum et columnam Jidei nostrce futurum. Ibid., ch. 21, p. 216 : Unua et idem Spiritus in prophetls prceconavit adventum Domini, in seniorihus (LXX.) bene interpretatus est et in apostolis annunciavit plenitudinem temporum venisse, which, to be sure, in an earlier writer, and in the lack of clear paral- lel passages, would not necessarily be referred to the apostolic writings. Gospel (N. T.) and Prophets (O. T.), are universce scripturce, II. 27. Truth (I. 8, p. 35) is %v -Kpo^riTaL iK7}pv^ai', 6 Kvpios eSiSa^ey, ol air6(Tro\oi irapeSaiKav. — For his conception of the rights of tradition, see, among other passages, III. 4, 1, 2 ; 24, 1 ; IV. 26, 5; 32, 1. Cf. in general, A. Kayser, Uopinion d'Iren. sur le siecle apostolique, in the Strassb. Revue, VI. 321 ; C. Graul, Die chr. Kirche an der Sckwelle des irenceischen Zeitalters, 1860, p. 119 ff. ; Lip- sius (§ 288). Tertullian, presbyter at Carthage (f c. 223), Old and New Testaments EARLIEST COLLECTIONS. 303 ( = Scriptura simply) furnish proof passages indiscriminately. Connection of Scripture with tradition ; Adv. Marcionem, IV. 5 ; Si constat id verius quod prius, id prius quod ab initio, id ab initio quod ab apostolis, pariter utique con- stabit id esse ab apostolis traditum quod apud ecclesius apostolorum fuerit sacro- sanctum. Videamus quod lac a Paulo Corinthii hauserint, ad quain regulam Galatce sint recorrecti, quid legant Philippenses, etc. De Prcescr., ch. 36 : percurre ecclesias apost. apud quas ipsce adhuc cathedrce apostolorum suis locis prcesidentur, apud quas authenticce literce eoruni recitantur, etc., cf . ch. 20 ff ., ch. 37 f . These passages, the latter of which appears to know as yet no gene- ral public use of the Epistles, state the only valid ground of recognition for doctrine and Scripture alike. Cf. § 290. The fact that elsewhere in his writings Montanistic ideas break over the limits of a dogmatic conception of inspiration which confines it to the Apostles alone does not signify here, — the less since the latter is sufficiently attested and the former were already regarded as heretical. From the time of TertuUiau even the idea of canou- icity is attached more strictly to the names of the Apostles. Hence the Gospels of Luke and Mark are expressly referred to Peter and Paul. Adv. Marcionem, IV. 2, 5. Clement of Alexandria (f 217), Strom., III., p. 455 (ed. Sylburg, Cologne, 1688, fol.) : vo/xos T€ 'd/xou Kal Trpo4>TJrai avv t^ evayyfKicji if 6i'6fxaTi Xpicrrov eis (jdav (Tvvdyoi'Tai yvwffiv. V. 561 : rh evayyeAtov Ka\ ol airScTToKoi bj-ioiocs rais ■7rpo(p7}rais iracn. Cf. VI. 659, 676 ; VII. 757. All three sources together, ot ypa.i>a.(, IV. 475. And in view of the many quotations from the Ejnstles it is not to be doubted that by the /xaKupiov evayye\iou are to be understood the apostolic writings in general. The fact that Clement was more of a philos- opher than a churchman does not prevent him from connecting Scripture and tradition (Strom., VII. 762 f.), and making the latter the basis of his exegesis. Important contemporaneous phenomenon of an increasing accuracy in quoting. Mention of regular public readings, probably also of the New Testament : Tertull., ApoL, ch. xxxix.: cogimur ad literarum divinarum com- memoratio7iem si quid prcesentium tcmporum qualitas aut prcemonere cogit aut recognoscere. De anima, ch. ix, : scriptures leguntur, psalmi canuntur, adlocu- tiones proferuntur. Ad uxor., ii. 6. In the same author, De prmscr. hceret., ch. xli., also the office of reader {lector), together with the older church offices. The separate quotations are introduced as utterances of the Holy Spirit. It must be expressly borne in mind in this connection that there is nowhere anything said of an abandonment of the LXX. in favor of the original He- brew text. On the contrary the higher inspiration is claimed for the latter likewise. See above, Irenseus, and § 299. 298. Such a dogmatic revolution, however gradually and imperceptibly it may have come about, must have had im- portant results for the literature itself, and must have caused a more active scrutiny and sifting of the collection of apostolic writings. Upon the latter point the decision was made, next to the doctrinal contents, upon the basis of the testimony of the oldest churches. Asia Minor was probably the cradle of the New Testament collection, unless one prefers to assume that it may have been attempted, as a necessity of the time, at different places at once. However that may be, at the end of the second century the churches of Asia Minor, Alexandria, and West Africa, of which the three famous writers last men- tioned may be regarded as the spokesmen, appeared to be 304 HISTORY OF THE CANON. agreed in the acceptance of our four Gospels, the Acts of tlie Apostles, thirteen epistles of Paul, one of Peter, one of John, and the Revelation. The reasons for a priority on the part of Asia Minor would be not so much the example of Marciou as the greater need on account of the greater power of opposing tendencies ; but especially the fact that most of the apos- tolic writings were written in or chiefly for Asia Minor. Irenjeus in a certain sense bears witness also for Western Europe, since although by birth an Asiatic, by official position he belongs to the Gallic Church. For Greece witnesses of this period are wanting. Palestine has already receded quite into the background, and probably had little or no part in the development of the Catholic Church and its canon of the Scrip- tures. With respect to Rome see § 310. But how long before the end of the second century an actual collection, t. e., a writing together of all these books, was undertaken and brought to completion must remain undecided. The fact is to be especially emphasized that our four Gospels at this time already appear as a closed collection, clearly excluding all increase or diminu- tion (Iren., HI. 11, 8, rh reTpdfjLopov eiiayyeMov, with a purely scholastic justi- fication or establishment of the number. Clement of Alex., Strom., III. 465 ; TertulL, Adv. Marc, IV. 2 fe.; Origen, in Eusebius, H. E., VI. 14, and Horn. 1 in Luc, 0pp., V. 87, L.; Jerome, Prcef. ad Damas., etc.). 299. But this noteworthy agreement of several important and widely separated churches as to the origin and authority of a certain number of writings had no legal character whatever, and did not rest upon the decision of a council or other ecclesi- astical power. There is not even a catalogue of the books re- garded as divine to be found anywhere in these writers ; on the contrary the judgment and choice were so entirely free that individual taste frequently even mistook the fundamental principle, — that of regarding the writings of the immediate disciples of tlie Lord alone as inspired. When no indubitable tradition existed one might reject with disgust wdiat another admired and praised, without the violation of any ecclesiastical ordinance on either side. In Irenseus, beside the above-mentioned writings, quotations are found from the Second Epistle of John, which, however, appears as an integral part of the First, III. 16, 5. Cf. I. 16, 3 (also from the Shepherd, § 293). He is said also to have used the Epistle to the Hebrews, but not as a Pau- line writing. (Stephanus Gobarus, in Photius, Bibl. cod., 232). The First Epistle of Peter is little mentioned. Cf. in general on bis canon the (incom- plete) information in Eusebius, H. E., V. 8, 26 ; Deyling, Ohss. misc., p. 10 ; Siisskind, in Flatt's Magazin, VI. 95 ff. ; Otto, in lUgen's Zeitschr., 1844, III. ; A. Kayser (§ 297). Tertullian's principle is to recognize only proper apostolic writings. But especially important is his method, in the treatment of particular dogmatic propositions, of going through the apostolic writings in their order, by which his silence respecting particular books becomes much more significant. Thus, De resurr. carnis, ch. xxxiii. ff., only the Gospels, Apocaly2:)se, Acts, and Pau- line Epistles are mentioned ; likewise De pudicit., ch. vi. fP., where the Mrrit- iugs of John stand at the end (Apocalypse and First Epistle), and over and EARLIEST COLLECTIONS — DIVISIONS. 305 above (ex redundantia) Barnabas is also introduced, i. e., our Epistle to the Hebrews, vvliom he does not adduce as authority, as he says, but still opposes to the apocrijphus pastor moschorum (ch. xx.). Cf. also the enumeration, De fuga in pers., ch. vi. ft'. Beside these he knows the Epistle of Jude (but prob- ably not yet in the collection), De habitu mid., ch. iii. The First Epistle of Peter only occurs in the suspicious Scorpiax adv. Gnost., ch. xii. ft. Clement (on his quotations see Euseb., H. E., VI. 13, II) knows likewise the Epistle of Jude and the Second of John, also that of Paul to the He- brews, which Luke is said to have translated into the Greek. That he also treated as apostolic books James, 2 Peter, and 3 John, of which neither in him nor in the other two are any traces now to be found, may certainly be inferred from the account of Eusebius, here very superfi- cial. These theologians also quote the Apocrypha of the Old Testament as sacred, inspired books, both the separate writings, as the Wisdom of Solo- mon and Sirach (Clem. IV. 515 ; V. 683 ; Tertull., Adv. ValenL, ii. ; Ex- hort, castit. ii.), and the additions of the Greek recension to Daniel and Jere- miah (Iren., IV. 5, p. 232 ; V. 35, p. 335 ; Clem., P(ed., II. IGl). 300. This original collection, though it had no very fixed and definite bounds, was usually divided into two pai'ts. The first, already closed, and regarded as in a certain sense su- perior, comprised the four Gospels, and was called simply the Gospel. The second, not yet closed, and more subordinate, contained the Acts and Epistles, and was called the Apostle. The division and names appear first in the writings of these three much mentioned authors and disappear perhaps a cen- tury later. Everything seems to indicate that the two divis- ions originally formed separate collections and arose indepen- dently of each other, as was the case also with the sacred books of the synagogue. ToL eiiayyeMK^ Kol ra airocrToXiKoi, Iren., Adv. hcer., I. 3, p. 17 ; rh tvayyeXiov^ 6 airSa-ToAos, Clem., Strom., VII. 706 ; instrumentum, evangelicum, apostoUcum, Tertull., Adv. Marc, IV. 2 ; idem, De pudic, ch. xii.; evangelium,apostolus, idem, De bapt., ch. xv. ; evangelicce, apostolicce literce, idem, De prcescr., ch. xxxvi. ; instrumentum Moysi, propheticum {Adv. Hermog., xix. ; De resurr. carnis, xxxiii.) ; instrumentum loannis, Pauli (De resurr. carnis, xxxviii., xxxix.) ; instrumentum actorum (Adv. Marc., V. 2). The latter designations are especially fitted to show the late union of the separate elements. Cf. also Griesbach, Hist, textus epp. paulin. (0pp., II. 88). Whether the division and names were borrowed from Marcion (Bertholdt, I. 105 ; Eichhorn, IV. 25 ; Schott, p. 552) may be very much doubted. On the contrary, the simplest designation points to a time when the second col- lection consisted of nothing but Pauline epistles. Hence <5 airoaToKos, in the singular. Pseudo-Origen, De recta in deum fide ( 0pp., xvi. 309, Lomm.) : Tjixels trXiov tov €vayye\lou Kal tov airoaroKov oil SeX'^M*^"- ^^ ^^^ expression in- strumentum, cf . § 303. That the first division was regarded as the more important is shown (1.) from the fact that it was earlier completed in the consciousness of the Church ; (2.) from the fact that the Gospels were earlier used for public readings, cf . Justin's evidence, § 294, and the oldest Lectionarium Romanum ; (3.) from the fact that ehayyeKiov was the earliest name for the complete writ- ings of the New Testament. § 297. 306 HISTORY OF THE CANON. 301. In the second part of the collection, the Epistles of Paul were easily distinguished from those of the other Apos- tles, which, originally, had a less restricted destination and were therefore commonly called Catholic, i. e. general, epistles. This name might also be applied to some other epistles which came into the collection later, but it finally designated simply all that were not Pauline, without regard to the original sense of the word, and even in direct contradiction to it. This usage, as finally established wholly unscientific and false, is explained therefore from the simple fact that the increasing number of epistles admitted into the collection made necessary a division of them into two books. The name KadoXiKol eVio-ToAa/ has been diiferently explained. See in gen- eral, Schott, Jsag., p. 371 ff.; Suicer, Thes. eccles., sub voce ; W. C. L. Ziegler, De sensu nominis epp. cath. earumque numero in vet. eccl., Rost. 1807 ; Mayer- hoif, Einl. in die petrinischen Schriften, p. 31 ; Liicke, in the Studien, 1836, III. According to the oldest usage, the greater extension of the original circle of readers — destination to the Church in general — is always meant by the term. Thus the First Epistle of John is called the catholic epistle, to dis- tinguish it from the other two (Dion. Alex., in Euseb., H. E., VII. 25 ; Origen, passim) ; so the epistle of the convention of the Apostles in Acts xv. (Clement, Strom., IV. 512) ; that of Barnabas (Origen, Con. Cels., I. 63). In any case this designation arose at a time when the consciousness of the local destination of the other epistles was still lively. Cf . § 287. It does not occur in the Muratorian Canon (§ 310), where the remark is made that althougli it is true that Paid wrote especially to seven churches, ima tamen per omnem terrce orhem ecdesia diffusa esse denoscitur, and his epistles are therefore for all Christians, et Joha7ines in Apocalypsi licet septem ecclesiis scribal tamen omnibus dicit. No further class of Catholic Epistles is here made. In the widest sense the term occurs for the first time in Euseb., H. E., II. 23 ; VI. 14. The two minor epistles of John, when they were attached as an appendix to the greater one, had no influence upon the designation of the collection. The Epistle to the Hebrews, in and of itself a catholic epistle, is never numbered with them, because it only came into the collection as Pauline. Leontius, De sectis, ch. ii. (6th cent.), still knows the original meaning : KaOoAtKol €K\r)6riaai' iireiSav ov irphs ev idvos eypd7](rav, ws al rod Ila6\oVy aWa, Kad6\ov wphs iravTa. And this is repeated by (Ecumenius (10th cent.) Prol. in ep. Jac. A scholiast on the Epistle of James, in Coutelier, Prcef. in Barnab., declares that this Epistle stands at the head of the collection, Sri ttjs Tlerpov KadoMnwrepa ecrrt, to judge from the subscription of the two. The Catholic Epistles are not so-called because they were intended to be received by both Jewish and GentUe Chi-istians (Augusti, Handh., II. 178) ; nor because it was desired to designate them as apostolic in distinction from the disputed ones (Eichhorn, Einl., III. 559). In favor of the latter view could be adduced only the much later Latin usage according to which they are called Epistolce canonicce, first found (Pseudo-Jerome, Prolog, in epp. can.) in Cassiodorus, Divin. lect., ch. viii. The use of KaGoXiKhs in the sense of orthodox is older, but is never applied specially to the Epistles here meant, but to the apostolic literature in general ; cf. Eusebius, H. E., III. 3 ; and even to the non-apostolic, IV. 23.. That Eusebius cannot have connected with this word the idea of general recognition (canonicity) is shown incon- EARLY COLLECTIONS — ORDER OF BOOKS. 307 testably by II. 23, where several epistles are enumerated as Catholic but dis- puted. 302. The order of the Apostolic books, in a lai'ger or pro- fessedly complete collection of them, was variously and very arbitrarily hxed. It depended in part upon chronological presuppositions, as in the case of the usual order of the four Gospels, in part was connected with the rank assigned to the authors, as is probably the case with the Gospels in the ancient Oriental manuscripts. Among the Epistles the Catholic stood first as the more general, and the Pauline were arranged ac- cording to the assumed rank of the churches and persons to whom they were directed. But much of this was quite un- settled and changeable until late in the Middle Ages. For the sake of brevity many phenomena may be brouglit together here which belong in part to a much later time. In the Latin Church (Codices and Versions, §§ 392, 453 ; of. also Tertull., Adv. Marc, IV. 2), John stands directly after Matthew, Mark last. An- cient Greek codices in like manner place Luke at the end. The order in Marcion's collection was doubtless based upon chronological presuppositions, § 291. Moderns conjecture a theological purpose iu it, but probably incorrectly. As to the arrangement according to the dignity of the author, the circum- stance that James stands before Peter is probably to be explained rather from a mistake respecting the person of the author (§ 146), than from Jew- ish-Christian prejudice in favor of the famous president of the church at Jerusalem. Yet this order is not constant, either in manuscripts or editions. In the West Peter stands first. The Epistle to the Hebrews strays like an interloper from one place to another. As a disputed addition it stands last in most manuscripts and edi- tions ; on the principle of the priority of churches over individuals, it is found between Thessalonians and Timothy in the oldest codices (e. g., A, B, C, and others, according to Athanasius, Ep.fest., Epiphanius, Hcer., xlii.), also in Lachmaun and Muralt ; also between Galatians and Ephesians according to a numbering of chapters in Cod. B ; between Colossians and Thessalo- nians in Cassiod., Div. led., ch. xiv., etc. One might be tempted to explain the order of the Pauline Epistles on the prmciple that they were arranged according to their proportionate length. (Laurent, in the Studien, 1864, III. 492.) The Epistles to the Thessalo- nians vary their position most. — The Catholic Epistles in the older oriental manuscripts are placed next the Acts. In the second century they did not yet form a closed collection at all. The order in the Muratorian Canon (§ 310) appears to be wholly arbitrary : Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Galatians, Thessalonians, Romans, Philemon, Titus, Timothy. — The Epistle to the Colossians stands before that to the Philippians in the Codex Claromontanus ; after the Thes- salonians in the Lyons Codex of the Catharic Version, etc. How unsettled the order was in ancient times appears from the catalogues to be given below (§ 320 ff.) ; mostly, doubtless, for the reason that com- plete copies were rarities and a whole Bible consisted of many volumes, not numbered. It is therefore unnecessary to mention all that might be sjjoken of here. For interesting comparative tables see Volkmar, in the Appendix to Credner, Geschichte des Kanons, p. 390 ff . ; cf. also Tischendorf 's Prole- 308 HISTOEY OF THE CANON. gomena to the seventh edition of his New Testament, p. 71 &. [Prolegg. to 8th ed. by Gregory and Abbot, 1883.] Tlie order in our modern versions is connected with the criticism of the Canon practiced by tlie Reformers (§ 334). The pre-Lutlieran versions nat- ui'ally retained tlie order of the Vulgate, the manuscripts of which, however, vary, placing the Pauline Epistles sometimes immediately after the Gos- pels and sometimes not until after the Catholic. Modern editions of the Greek N. T. have in part held more strictly to the manuscripts and dejiarted from the customary order. For details see the history of the jjrinted text. The order in the O. T. must likewise have been very indefinite in an- cient times, since even later different catalogues vary from one another, and at the same time from our present edition of the original text and the LXX. (Mt. xxiii. 35 =^ Lk. xxiv. 44 appears to agree with the first.) So also He- brew and Greek codices. 303. The coordimition of the apostolic writings witli the sacred books of the Hebrews led to the necessity of distin- guishing the two by suitable names. The choice of these could not be difficult, for the writings themselves furnished them. They were forthwith distinguished as books of the Old and New Covenants, and were thereby at the same time brought into closer mutual relations. Soon, this name of covenant, or that of testament, which in reality arose from a false transla- tion, became familiar through the ecclesiastical Latin, and from it was handed down to us, was transferred to the books them- selves, by an easily intelligible abbreviation of the phrase. At the same time the applicability of the distinctive, sacred name of the Scriptures to both parts of the collection was prac- tically declared. At first people were satisfied with the natural distinctions of Law and Gospel, Prophets and Apostles (TertulL, Adv. Marc, III. 14 ; Adv. Hermog., 45). The expressions thus often become so mixed that there arises appar- ently a threefold division ; see the passages in Clement, § 297. The idea of the covenant is expressed and carried out in many ways in the O. T., in the Law as well as in the Prophets, also with prophetic hints of a new covenant, Jer. xxxi. 32. Expressly taken up again by Christ (Mt. xxvi. 28, where the Vulgate translates Siad-fiKri by testamentmn'), and frequently- used by the Apostles for illustration : 2 Cor. iii. 6 ff . ; Gal. iv. 24 ; Hebr. viii. 8 ; ix. 15, etc. Hence to. ^i^Xia ttjs TraAaiSs, ttjs nawris SiaflT^KTjs, libri veteris, novi testamenti (foederis) ; the first to a certain degree even in 2 Cor. iii. 14. The abbreviated name (novum testamentum) first in Tertullian, Adv. Prax., ch. XV. ; in full, totum instrumentum utriusque testamenti, ch. xx. ; instrumentum, vel quod magis usui est dicere, testamentum, idem. Adv. Marc, IV. 1 ; cf. De pudic, ch. i. It is evident that no fixed usage had yet been formed. The ex- pression instrumentum, as a juridical term, includes the idea of legal valid- ity. 'H Kaiv)], T) iraKaia hiaQ-i)K7) simply, in Origen, Ilepi apx'"", IV. 1 (I. 156), which words, however, are wanting in Rufinus' translation. Lactant., Instit., IV. 20 ; Scriptura omnis in duo testamenta divisa est .... Sed tamen diversa non sunt quia novum veteris adimpletio est et in utroque idem testator est Christus. Vpaiiii, ypaal, scriptura, scripturce, applied to the New Testament, do not occur before TheophHus (§ 297). Cf. % 285. AUTHORITY OF EARLY COLLECTIONS. 309 304. The more tlie authority of the apostolic writings grew within the Catholic Church and became at the same time a means of establishing it more firmly, the less could dissenting parties escape the necessity of declaring themselves in some way respecting their relation to these writings and their col- lection. It is self-evident that the farther they departed from the centre of the general church faith the more divergent must also have become their judgment respecting the whole or particular portions of the sacred literature. While one party might be satisfied with gaining over to their side the text accepted by others by means of special interpretation, without altering its substance in any way, others were obliged to deny the genuineness or validity of the books which stood in their way. But many, recognizing in the appeal to apostolic wit- nesses only a theological method, and not the true and proper basis of Christian faith, cari-ied on with increasing arbitrariness the business of fabricating spurious apostolic books. Neverthe- less, inasmuch as at no time during the third century did the Catholic Church possess a fixed, definitely limited, and publicly and generally recognized catalogue of its collection of sacred writings, it is not probable that any heretical church had such a thing. The idea of the later so-called Canon was not yet clearly recognized, and in one party as well as another the opinions of the leaders might be derived partly from custom, and partly be still free. For proofs, see §§ 244 &., 291 f., 327, 508. 305. Both the above-mentioned facts are of great importance for our history, and explain many phenomena in the history of the Church. On the one hand the ever-increasing use of these designations of the apostolic books, unknown to the earlier writers, serves to show that a change in the customs and views of the Church respecting them had pi-eceded, which in the nature of the case could not stop half-way, and could only find its conclusion in a full and dogmatically complete definition and selection. On the other hand, it is just as certain that up to this time there must have been a continual hesitation of judgment in details, which arose from the disagreements of tradition with the theory, and which, by its very inconven- ience, must have at the same time rendered the more settled state desirable and finally brought it about. Now this hesi- tation, for obvious reasons, could result only in a gradual enrichment of the collection. In particular, the fact must be taken into account that the practical needs of the churches began to exert their influence upon the collection before dog- matic ideas, and that consequently the school was no longer able to be absolute master of this field. 310 HISTORY OF THE CANON. Not only the names Scripture, Covenant, and Testament (§ 303), but even the designation of the books by the titles, Gospel, Apostle (§ 300), uimiistak- ably presuppose dogmatic theories and views whose non-existence before follows from the non-occurrence of those terms. 306. For if we look about for the causes which chiefly and directly determined public judgment in this matter, we no- where find, so far as historical evidence goes, any scholarly investigation, any sifting of the extant mass of writings, under- taken under ecclesiastical authority, or making any claim thereto. On the other hand, the greatest and most lasting influence upon the final formation of the Canon was exerted by custom, in the form in which it happened to have been devel- oped by circumstances in the more important churches. The example of metropolitan churches, from which the copies must have been obtained in any case, was decisive within the whole range of its influence, and it was natural that between several central points of this kind there should be a mutual inter- change for the supplementing of what was locally current, in so far, at least, as they were in friendly relations with one another, or were bound together by external bonds, as even by that of language. We ascribe much less importance to the influence of the private opinions of distinguished teachers, although our sources of knowledge of the latter are much richer than of the former. The latter circumstance has usually not only and necessarily caused a greater space to be given to the enumeration of such private opinions, but also, involuntarily, a practical importance to be assigned to them which they never had. They are only evidences of the state of opinion in a limited sphere. The circumstance may also be noted that in non-Greek countries, where the apostolic writings coidd only be known in translations, the idea of a closed collection found easier entrance, developed at once more firmly, and became in a certain measure official, because these writings came there already in this form and not singly. Hence the oldest catalogue of the canonical col- lection which we possess is a Latin one (§310). So also with Syria, § 308. 307. We collect in the following the knowledge which may be derived from the testimony of antiquity respecting the gradual fixing of the Christian Canon of Scripture, after a first move toward it had been made in the principal churches. It will appear that no history can be made out, but only a frag- ment of one. But the very fragmentariness of tlie information at our command will help to confirm the conviction that the final result was neither consciously aimed at from the begin- ning nor guided in its development by principles ; that, on the contrary, circumstances, accidents, even taste, and above all custom, little concealed in its origin, brought about the choice. All the more is the fact to be recognized witli thankfulness and wonder that the result as a whole holds its ground iigainst EAELY COLLECTIONS — SYKIA — ROME. 311 a sti'icter criticism, and there is nothing to be said against it if this feeling regards the result as another proof of a higher leading of the Church. Only it should not be forgotten that antiquity itself never made the formation of the Canon, in any conception of it at variance with history, the subject of a dogma. There is even yet great confusion in the collections of such testimonies, partly from giving attention only to what is positively named, and not to traces of ignorance, partly from making no distinction between homiletic and dogmatic use. Gerhard v. Maestricht (§ 407), Canon S. S. secundum seriem sceculorum, in the Bihlioth. Brem., VII. 1-56, very superficial. Quellensammlung zur Geschichte des neutest. Kanons bis auf Hieronymus, ed. J. Kirchhofer, Ziir. 1842, uncrit- ical in plan, and in apologetic interest. Cf. also Lardner, Credibility of the Gospel History, I.-IV.; Corrodi, Beitrdge, XVII., 13 if.; J. C. Oi"elli, Selecta PP. capita ad eWriynTiK^tv pertin., Tur. 1820 ff ., Pts. I.-IV., uncompleted. 308. The earliest extension of that which we believe may be called, however improperly, the original collection, appears to have been made in Syria. At least the ancient translation which was probably prepared in the beginning of the third century for the national church of that country already con- tained the two Epistles of James and to the Hebrews. The acceptance of these is based expressly upon a favorable judg- ment respecting the apostolic dignity of their authors. The authority which this translation soon obtained gives to the collection contained in it a semi-official character. Besides, we may without hesitation assume that the Greek Christians of that region had preceded their Syrian brethren in the ac- ceptance of the writings mentioned. On the Syriae version, the Peshito, see §§ 326, 426 f. Its canon is made known both by the manuscripts and by patristic evidence (Cosmas, De mundo, Bk. VI., in Galland., XI. 535), and the knowledge of its extent was retained among Syrian scholars into the Middle Ages. The conjecture of Hug (^Einl., I. 356), that the Epistles still wanting (2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude) and the Apocalypse were originally present and were omitted after the fourth century, is a rash venture of mistaken apolo- getics, and stands all history on its head, since at that time these books had come to canonical authority in all Christendom, and the Church never re- jected again what she had once sanctified in this way. Cf. also Giiricke's Beitrdge, p. 1. The acceptance of the Epistle to the Hebrews, here and wherever it oc- curs in the following, presupposes its composition by Paul. The acceptance of the Epistle of James appears, according to a title-page note exhibited by the manuscripts and printed in the earlier editions, to de- pend upon a misunderstandmg, inasmuch as the three Catholic Epistles are ascribed to the three witnesses of Christ's transfiguration. In the O. T. the Apocrypha do not belong to the original canon of the Peshito, but came into it later. 309. Unfortunately we possess no knowledge, to say noth- ing of an authentic record, of the collection which may have 312 HISTORY OF THE CANON. been accepted at the same time in the Roman Church, which just then was beginning to attain predominant influence and authority in the West. The history of the circulation of the sacred writings will teach us, it is true, that there was already in existence at the close of the second century a Latin version of them, perhaps even several, but since not a single complete copy of it has been preserved and no information as to its ex- tent is to be discovered, nothing remains for us but to collect, from the scanty quotations of some few Latin writers of the third century, proofs for the apostolic authority of particular books, without being justified by their silence as to others in forming an opposite opinion respecting them. Cf. §§ 313, 448 e. 310. This unfortunate lack may be partly supplied, with reference to the history of the Roman Canon, although it be- longs perhaps rather to Africa than to Rome, by the famous fragment discovered and published by Muratori, and much discussed in modern times. This fragment of a list of sacred books certainly reaches back into the second century, since it betrays by many striking peculiarities in its opinions a time of greater independence ; but the text of the copy which has come down to us is much corrupted and very defective, so that even to understand it at all many critical conjectures have ap- peared necessary. Moreover the attempts at restoration have sufficiently shown that in the interest of preconceived opinions it is easy, by the help of correction, to find in it what one de- sires. But with a more correct estimation of the language, and a more careful consideration of otherwise known facts of this history, the difficulties of the text ai'e not insuperable, and the result rewards investigation by its peculiarity. Muratori, Antiqq. Italice medii (evi, III. 854 ; reprinted in Stoscli, De canone N. T., p. 181; Eichhoi-n, EinL, IV. 35; Guericke, EhiL, p. 4G; Kirch- hofer, Quellensamml., p. 1, and others ; but especially in Credner, Zur Gesch. des Kanons, 1847, p. 71 ft".; J. v. Gilse, De antiq. II. ss. catalogo, etc., Amst. 1852 ; and Hilgenfeld, Gesch. d. Kanons, p. 40 ; the latter according to new collations. Cf. in general C. Wieseler, in the Studien, 1847, IV. ; 1856, I. ; F. T. Zimmermann (resp. C. L. G. Grossmann), De canone II. ss. a Mura- torio rep., Jena, 1805; Olshausen, Echtheit der Evang., p. 281 ff.; P. Bot- ticher, Versuch e. Wiederherstellung des Can. Mur., in the Zeitschr. fur luth. TheoL, 1854, I. ; S. P. Tregelles, The earliest Catalogue of the Books of the N. T., 1857 (with facsimile) ; Nolte, Ueber das Mur. Fragment, in the Quar- talschr., 1860, II.; J. C. M. Laurent, in his Neatest. Studien, p. 197 ff. ; C. E. Scharling, Muraiori's Kanon, Copenh. 1865 (Danish); A. D. Loman, in the Theol. Tijdschrift, Leyd. 1868, p. 471 (Dutch). In the portion preserved are enumerated the Gospels of Luke and John, the Acts, thirteen Epistles of Paul, an Epistle of Jude and two of John, the Apocalypses of John and Peter, the latter, however, with mention of a dis- pute. There is wanting at the beginning at least Matthew and Mark, since MURATORIAN CANON. 313 Luke is introduced as the third evangelist. The Epistles of James and Peter, as well as that to the Hebrews, are omitted. From the fact that the fragment, referring to Mark, begins with the words . . . quibus inLerfuit, the idea of a participation of Peter in the second Gospel has been conjectured here ; but it is certainly hasty to infer further that the First Epistle of Peter may also have preceded. The Shepherd of Hernias is said to be read for private edification only, not publicly. The Epistles of Paul to the Laodi- ceans and Alexandrians are exj^ressly rejected as heretical. As a specimen we select only some lines which have a special interest for our history. On the Epistles of Paul, see §§ 301, 302. . . . Acta autem omnium apostolorum sub uno libra scribta sunt lucas obtime theojile conprindit quia sub prcesentia ejus singula gerebantur sicut et semote passionem petri evidenter declarat sed profeclionem pauli ab urbe ad spaniam prqficescentis . . . fertur etiam ad laudecenses alia ad alexandrinos pauli nom- ine Jincte ad heresem marcionis et alia plura quce in catholicam edesiam recepi non potest fel enim cum melle misceri non concruit epistola sane iude et super- scrictio ioannis duas in catholica habentur et sapientia ab aniicis salomonis in honorem ipsius scripta apocalypse etiam iohanis et petri tantum recipimus quam quidam ex nostris legi in eclesia nolunt. , . . In what is here said of the Acts, therefore, the meaning is that the death of Peter is related elsewhere (by Luke ?), but (Credner reads et and refers to Rom. XV. 24) the journey of Paul to Spain is either omitted or something else. The former (by the conjecture : semota declarant, i. e., other passages declare ? ?) would then refer to Jn. xxi. 18. Cf. E. Reuss, in the Revue de TheoL, 11. 165. Von Gilse proposes sicut semotam passionem . . . et pro- feclionem • which is said to signify : Luke declares that he has omitted both because he was not present. Bdtticher : the omission (semovere) of the two events proves that Luke only narrated what he himself saw. Hilgenfeld reads sed et profectionem and finds the death of Peter and the journey of Paul semote {TT6ppoiQiv') hinted at in the abrupt close of the Acts. It is the opinion of some scholars that the Epistle to the Hebrews is to be looked for in one of the two rejected ones. (On the Laodiceans see above, § 152 ; on the Alexandrians, Hug, I. 123; Miinter, Dogmengesch., I. 255; Wieseler, Kostlin, in the Tiib. Jahrb., 1854, p. 416; Guericke, p. 50, and many others.) But the latter supplies, contrary to the spirit of the text, after ad heresem . . . refutandam. Others have thought of the extant apoc- ryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans, which, however, is hardly so old, or of the Epistle to the Ephesians, by a misunderstanding (Anger, Laod., p. 26). Upon any of these suppositions the author woidd betray an indescribable superficiality or ignorance. More simply, V. Gilse reads : Ad, as the begin- ning of a new sentence : the Marcionites have still other Apocrypha (?). See in general Bleek, Hebr., I. 43 ff., 122. — The fact is not to be overlooked that the Epistle to the Hebrews is also excluded, and that for the first time, by the statement : Paulus, sequens prcedecessoris sui lohannis ordinem nonnisi nominatim septem ecclesiis scribal (referring to the seven letters in the Apocalypse, in connection with which it is to be noticed that the author is already far enough removed from the apostolic age to represent John as preceding Paul with his example !). Bunsen (Hippolyt., I. 363) brings the Epistle, together with James, 1 Peter, and 1 John, into an assumed gap ; just like the Wisdom of Solomon («. e., our Proverbs) it was written in hono- rem Pauli ab amicis. The two Epistles of John are said by Credner to be the second and third, and superscriplce (sic), simply bearing the name, though incorrectly. The first was earlier mentioned, in a quotation, in connection with the Gospel. This explanation is insufficient because the latter is not expressly true and did not render the special enumeration unnecessary, and because super- scriplce would thus be in contradiction with the rest of the text. Either the 314 HISTORY OF THE CANON. author actually knew ouly one of the two minor Epistles or knew one of them only as an integral part of the larger. The Wisdom of Solomon, ac- cording to Credner to be connected with ut, is said to be a further example of canonized Pseudepigrapha (?). May the author, perhaps, have regarded it as a Christian book ? Or is he speaking of the Proverbs (xxv. 1) ? Or did the text originally contain also the Canon of the O. T., since in connec- tion with Hernias the completus numerus prophetarum is mentioned ? Bdt- ticher assumes a large gap before et Sapientia. Wieseler connects it with the following : Ut Sapientia, thus making even the Apocalypse not by John himself, and yet received. The Apocalypse of Peter, which is also mentioned as an Antilegomenon, Hug, EinL, I., transforms by means of ingenious manipulation of the text into the First Epistle of Peter, and finds added to it anention of doubt of the second. Guericke makes it apply to the first and refers the doubt to it. Both uimecessary and incorrect. Even Wieseler explains Et Petri tantum, and just as many (as of John, that is to say, two epistles and an Apocalypse) we accept of Peter ! The expression is also important : " To Timothy, Titus, and Philemon Paul wrote pro affectu et dilectione, in honore tamen eel. cath. in ordinatione eclesiastice descepline sanctijicate sunt" where the last word must be under- stood not so much of a sort of official canonization as of the fact that these Epistles, though written to private persons, had obtained, by the foundations which they lay for church government, an importance for the whole church. With respect to the remaining Pauline Ejjistles also (which are enumerated in a very peculiar order, § 302, and with numbers), the author expressly re- marks that notwithstanding their local addresses, they were written for the whole church. Cf. § 301. Too much stress is certainly laid by Credner {Tiib. Jahrb., 1857, III. p. 303) upon the circumstance that John ex discipulis is said to have written his Gospel according to a revelation made to Andrew ex apostolis, when he in- fers therefrom that John is said not to have been the Apostle. The date of this fragment is shown by what is said of Hernias : Nuperrime temporibus nostris in urbe Roma herma conscripsit sedente cathetra urbis Romce ceclesire Pio eps. fratre ejus, which would be c. 156 A. D. and nuperrime would lead us at the latest to 180. The character of the selection of books is not opposed, and Muratori is certainly in error when he conjectures as the author the presbyter Cains (§ 313), who is said to have been an opponent of the Apocalypse and who probably had a better style. The assumption of moderns that it was translated from the Greek (Hug, EinL, P. Botticher, Nolte, Hilgenfeld, I. c.) is a make-shift to justify violent alterations of the text, and little fits the play upon words /e/-meZ. Nor does it at all explain the problem of the unexampled corruption of the Latin text, even if a natural Greek original could be restored from it, which is not the case. 311. All the facts hitherto adduced for the history of our collection presuppose as yet no critical investigation, scarcely even a scientific view of the relative value of all the constit- uents. Origen was probably the first to adopt such a point of view, without being able to obtain definite and certain results. It has been assumed from an incidental statement that he distinguished three classes of books : genuine, whose apostolic origin appeai-ed to him sufficiently proved ; spurious, i. e. distinctly not apostolic, not necessarily, however, devoid of all value for the Church ; and finally a middle class of such ORIGEN. 315 as enjoyed no general recognition, or respecting whicli his own judgment had not yet been fully made up. But the distinc- tion is more correctly referred to the value and ecclesiastical authority of the contents, so that a mixture of elements, or even a less degree of inspiration, would be presupposed in the third class. Yet in his practical application of Scripture he appears to have made little of this distinction, and his theology rose above all scrupulously accurate classification. With re- spect to the Old Testament he follows the Hebrew custom. Sources : partly liis own works, which however have only come clown to us incomplete, or in untrustworthy Latin revision (ed. De la Rue, Par. 1733 &., 4 vols. fol. ; ed. Lomniatzsch, L. 1831 ft'., 25 vols. 8° ; the Greek ex- egetical writings alone, ed. Huet, Par. 1679 ; Col. 1085, 2 vols, i'ol.), and partly Eusebius, H. E., VI. 25. For literature on Origen see § 511. Comm. in Joh., Vol. XIV., on iv. 22 : i^iTa^ovTes irepi tov fii^xlov (the Sermon of Peter) Tr6rep6v ttotc yviiaL6v icrriv rj v60ov rj iJ.iKr6v. As yvr^a-ia. he reckons also the Apocalypse (pui-ilied of its offensive ChiU- asm by his exegesis, § 511 S.) and the Ejjistle to the Hebrews, in so far as it contains Pauline thought, since every judge must admit that the style betrays another author than Paul ; rls Se 6 ypdipa? tV fTn(TTo\7]v 6 6ehs oldev. In the Ep. ad Afric, eh. ix., he distinguishes it from the (pauepa &i^\ia, but otherwise holds it in very liigh esteem and quotes it often, without the name of Paul. Among the v6Qoi doubtless belongs, among others, the Shepherd, a Scrip- tura divinitus inspirata (In Ep. ad Rom., Bk. X. 31), (pepofx^yri fxhv evrfi e/cKA^trdy ypacpTj oil irapa. iraai Se o/xoKoyov/jiepr) eJvai 6ela (In Matth., Vol. XIV. 21 ; cf. De Princ, II. 1), unless it should be placed in the following class. Among the fxiKJol, according to Eusebius, H. E., VI. 25, 2 Peter (Uerpos fiiav iTTiv aWa tt) (pvcrei toSv ■Kpay/xaroov Kal rrj yvdfxri. Nepos, Bishop of Arsinoe in Egypt (e. 240), wrote an ^Myxos aWriyopiffroSv to establish the literal chiliastic mterpretation of the Apocalypse (Euseb., VII. 24). Against him: — Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, a pupil of Origen, is the author of a work Uepl iirayyi\iwv, of which a highly interesting portion is completely pre- served (Euseb., VII. 25), and is noteworthy as the oldest extended atteinpt to form a judgment of an apostolic book upon intei'nal evidence, part of which is valid. He conjectures another John than the evangelist as the author, namely, the Ephesian presbyter. A single epistle only (t) ivio-ToXr}) is everywhere spoken of in the reasoning ; the second and third {y later Origenists (Andreas, Proleg. in Apoc). Cf. C. W. Haenell, De Hippolyto ep., Gott. 1838 ; Seineke, in Ill- gen's Zeitschr., 1842, III. — Modern criticism ascribes to him tlie lately dis- covered polemic work, on which see § 292. Bunseu (Hippolytus, I. 364 f.) thinks he has discovered m it a complete canon with the exception of 2 Pe- ter. It would be more correct to say that not a smgle Antilegomenon is quoted and by no means all the Homologoumena. The Novatian party in Italy and Africa (c. 250) refused readmission to lapsed members, and were able to support themselves in the practice by Heb. vi. 4, x. 26; cf. Ambrose, De pcenit., II. 3 ; those of Arian views by Heb. iii. 2. Hence in these regions there was aversion to the Epistle (Quia fac- tum ChriMum dicit, non legitur. De poenitentia propter Novatianos ceque : Phil- astr., Hceres., 89), which, however, cannot have been previously attested there as Pauline. This the less since Novatian himself, in his extant writings (in Gallandi, B. PP., III.), makes no use whatever of it. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (f 258), nowhere quotes any of the disputed epistles. On the chief constituents of the Canon he indulges in numeral mysticism : the four Gospels ^the four rivers of Paradise (Ep. 73) ; Paul and John (Apocalypse called Scriptura sacra, Ep. 63) write to seven churches ; Sterilis septem peperit (1 Sam. ii. 5) ; septem filii, ecclesice sunt sep- tem. Unde P. septem dona spiritus scripsit (ad septem ecclesias : De exhort, mart., ch. ii.) et Apoc. ecclesias septem ponit ut servetur septenarius nmnerus. (Adv. Jud., 1. 20). Beside these only 1 Peter and 1 John are quoted (Ep. 818 HISTORY OF THE CANON. 28 anrl frequently ; Joannes in Epistola sua). Tobit, Baruch, Maccabees, and Wisdom he also regards as inspired or at least quotes. Vietorinus, Bishop at Petavium in Pannonia (c. 300), enumerates over twenty passages of Scripture for the sacredness of the number seven, and among them the seven churches of Paul (Fragm. defabrica mundi, in Cave, Hist, lit., 1720, p. 95), after wlaich singularibus personis scripsit ne excederet niodum septem ecclesiarum. (Idem, In Apoc, p. 570, ed. Paris, 1654.) The latter writing, as now extant, gives no evidence of the Chiliasm with which Jerome charges him (De vir. ill., 18). Lactantius, tutor of the princes at the court of Constantine, belongs as a Chiliast among the favorers of the Apocalypse. He nowhere mentions the Epistle to the Hebrews. Eusebius, H. E., III. 3 : "It would be wrong to conceal the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, Trphs rr/s pwixaiaiv eKK\7)aias ws fx^ UavAov oZaav avr^p avTiXeyecrdai v ofxoXoyovn^vaiv, Ephem. Gi>fs., III.) ; • • • TaKTfou ev irpwTois Tiiv ayicxv rdiv evayyeAloiv TerpaKTiiV oTs eirerai r] tuv npa^ewv Tuv air. ypa(i>T)' fiera 5e ravTi)v ras TlavAou KaraKiKTiov eirtaroAas [SeKUTfaaapus, ch. CANONICAL AND UNCANONICAL — DISTINCTION. 319 ill. : 'dri ye ix7]V tiv\s ^jdeTrjKacn t^v irphs 'EBpalovs . . . ov S'lKaioy ayvoelv. VI. 14, a.vTi\eyoti4vri] ah e^fjs rV (pfpo/j.fvrii' 'laidvpou irporepav koX ofxoiuis ti)v TleTpoy Kvpai- Tiov e7ri(7ToA7)f [ch. xiii. : Uhpov )xia ixovt) yvncria. . . 7) KeyofxevT] irporipa av- o>iioX6yriTai\- eVl tovtois raKriov, d ye (pave'ni, rhv airoKa\vil/iv 'luidwov-^ 2. Bi^Xia avTiAeyofieva, yvwptfxa Se toTs ttoAAoTj (ch. xxxi.: eV TrAeJCTTais e'/c/cArj- aiais deSri/jLoa-ievixfua, used for public reading) also voBa • — a. 'H Aeyo/xh-n 'laKw^ov [II. 23 : vodevfTai] Kol r) 'lovda [VI. 14] ")T€ Uerpov Sev- repa [III. 3 : ovk ifSiddrjKos, oficos Be TroAAoTs xpV'MO* avdcTa.] Kal 7] ouofxa^Ofievr) hevrepa Kal Tpir-q 'laidwov, elfre toC evayyeKia-TOv rvyxdvovaai etre Kal erepov ofica- vvfxov eKeivcfi. ^ ^ b. 'Eu TOis vodois KaTareraxOo) Kal twv XlaiXov irpd^eoiv t) ypa(p^ '6, re Xeyo^evos ■Koifxrii' [ch. iii., Loth spoken of as Antilegomena ; the latter expressly in some churches used as an indispensable catechism, avayKai6TaTov oh Se? (TToix^twaews elaayooyiKTJs. . . SeSvf^o(Tievfj.euov], Kal r) aTroKd\v^\iLS Xlerpov Kal tj (pepofxevr) Bapvd^a ewi(TTo\-n [both as Antilegomena, VI. 14], /cal rcii^ aTroo-r.^ai Ae7<{,a6j'ai 5i8axai eri re, tLs e(pr]v, f) 'icodvvou airoKdAv^iS, el (pai-eir], tj" 'T"'" adeTovaii', erepot 8e eyKpivova-i Tois bixoXoyovixevois. ■^Stj 5' ev tovtois ("?) Ttres Th Kaff 'E^paious evayy. KareAe^av . . . ravra /xei/ irdvTa twv avriKeyofxevdou hv etr]. (Also, IV. 13, the Lpistle of Clement, which, however, is called d/xoXoyovixevT] in III. 16, 38, the latter on account of its origin, the former on account of its authority ; so also the Epistle to the Hebrews, which he personally (III. 38) regards as a translation made by Clement.) 3. Bi0\ia ovSfxaTi twv aTrocTTSXwv irphs twv alpeTiKwv irpoaepepSfxeva. . ■ . whose contents -wMlaTov oaov ttjs a\ridovs op0o5o|ias airdSova-a . . . bdev ovS' ev v6dois avTa KaTaKTeov, aW' ens dTOtra TvdvTri Kal Suffcrejiri TrapatT7]Teov [III. 31 : n-ai'TeAcDs v6ea Kal rrjs a-noaToXiKris opOoSo^ias a.\\6Tpi.a]. Beside, the Gospels of Peter, Thomas, Matthias, Acts of Andrew, John [III. 3 simply : the Gospel, Acts, Apocalypse, and Prsedicatio Petri ovk ev KadoMKoTs]. From this it is evident (1.) that in the view of Eusebius there was no dif- ference, or a very slight one, between 2 a and 2 b, so far as their ecclesiastical use was concerned, Avith which alone he concerns himself ; (2.) that Antile- gomena and Notha are synonymous terms with him, inasmuch as he means to express by them at the most a literary-historical, not a dogmatic judgment. Scholars who have been unable to find themselves amid tliis Avavering phra- seology, and Avho doubtless have also caught the indecision of Eusebius (He- brews, Apocalypse), have very diverse opinions of his so-called Canon. Cf. J. E. C. Schmidt, in Henke's Mag., V. 451 ff.; C. C. Flatt, in Flatt's Mag., VIII. 227 ; VIII. 75 ; P. J. S. Vogel, De canone eusebiano, Erl. 1809 &., 3 Pts. ; F. Liicke, Ueher den Kanon des Eusebius, B. 1816 : Miinscher, Dog- mengescJi., I. 321 ff. ; in general Dahne, in the Hall. Encykl., I. 39 ; Fabri- cius, BiU. Gr., VI. 30. When Eusebius received from Constantine the commission to prepare for the churches of Constantinople fifty copies of the sacred writings ( Vita Const., IV. 36), the selection of the books to be copied was expressly left to him {wp fxdXiCTTa T^v t' ertLffKev^v Kal ttju xP'?"'"' ^V '''V^ e/c/cATjcr/as \6yw [false reading KaTa\6yw] dvayKaiav elvai yivwffKeis), and therefore had not yet been officially fixed. On the value of Eusebius as a historian see the monographs of C. A. Kestner, Gott. 1816 ; J. T. L. Danz, J. 1815 ; J. Moller, in Stiiudlin's Ar- chiv. III. ; C. R. Jachmann, in Illgen's Zeitschr., IX. 2 ; Stiiudlin, Gesch. d. Kirchengesch., p. 12 ff. ; Baur, Gesch. der Kirchengesch., p. 9 if. 315. Meanwhile the Church, as well as her most eminent leaders, came to see more and more clearly that she could not distinguish too carefully from all others writings upon which she placed so high a dogmatic value. This conviction, contin- ually growing clearer and clearer, brought about a new designa- 320 HISTORY OF THE CANON. tion of the different classes of books in question, and so a new advance in the history of the collection, which was completed soon after the middle of the fourth century ; furthermore the separation of a special class of writings to which was assigned an inferior value, and which thus held an intermediate position between those which were wholly rejected and those which were authoritative in matters of faith. This conviction was also a principal reason, although gradual in its operation, why the hesitation of public opinion respecting particular books could not always be tolerated. It cannot be emphasized too much that this theological conception of can- onicity is later than the practical distinction, for church use, of genuine and better doctrinal and edificatory books. The expressions for the different classes of writings here considered, mentioned in the foregoing sections, refer to literary-historical and practical points of view ; those now to be named belong to the school, not to the church, and soon lost their importance after the disai)pearance of the schools. The living understanding of their mean- ing was lost in the following centuries down to the time of the Reformation ; the Middle Age speaks of the Canon from hearsay, and has more apocryphal matter, if not always in its Bible, at least in its instruction, than the earlier ages ever had. It should also be remembered that in relation to the O. T. the state of the case in the synagogue was after all the same, inasnmch as the specific dogmatieo-polemic interest was rather subordinate. 316. Thus it became customary to call those books which were regarded as the purest sources of the knowledge of Chris- tian truth canonical, meaning those that served as the rule of faith. The word canon, which properly and originally signi- fied this rule itself, was afterward used for the collection or catalogue of books regarded as apostolic and inspired. A wri- ting was therefore canonical when sufficiently authenticated tradition placed it in the number of those which were written by inspired Apostles and hence had decisive authority in mat- ters of faith. Such a conception and definition, one would think, should have led very soon to the necessity of preparing a publicly authenticated catalogue of such writings, which should serve as a standard for theology. That this was never- theless not done was due to the fact that in scientific and eccle- siastical practice the power of dogmatic tradition was greater than that of the written letter. In the classic authors (Stephanus, Thes. ling, grcec, ed. Paris) Kavlhv ap- pears originally to have been a measuring rod, figuratively any norm or rule, e. g., in the sciences of mathematics and language, and even in ethics. Fi- nally also, among the Alexandrian litterateurs, the whole number or body (not the catalogue) of authors regarded as models (classic). In the N. T., Gal. vi. 16, rule, principle. Cf. Phil, iii, 16, where the read- ing is uncertain. — 2 Cor. x. 13 ff., standard, line of limitation, sphere of ac- tivity. Both significations in Clement, Ad Cor. I., xli. Ecclesiastical idea: (1.) Rule, standard, what ovre Trpoadfatv, ovre iKpaipeaiu 5ex€Tot, Chrysost., Ad Phil., 1. 1. Such a rule is found in tradition and in DEUTERO-CANONICAL BOOKS — APOCRYPHA. 321 Scripture, considered both in detail (Iren., III. 11, p. 188, regula veritatis, of the prologue of the Gospel of John) and as a whole: Clem., Strom., VI. 676 : Kavibv iKK\7]aiacrrtKhs r) irwaiSia Kal ij crv/j.v TJ? Kara T^v Tov Kvplov irapovaiav irapaBidofxei^r) SiadTjKT). Origeu, De princ, IV. 9 : the exposition of the inspired Scriptures is to be carried on in accordance with the Kaviii' TTJs I. Xp. Kara SiaSoxV 'J''^'' a.ixo ixeTecppdaOrjaav eKXeyevra ra aXTjOicTepa Kol dedirvevcTTa. ) (4.) Homilies of eminent Fathers (Jerome, Catal., 115), epistles of other churches and bishops (KoivaiuiKo, ypd/j-ixara, epistoke communicatorice. ; cf . § 286 ; Eusebius, VII. 30), and histories of martyrs (Legendce ; cf. Euseb., IV. 15 ; V. 4 ; Concil. Carth. III., ch. xlvii. : Liceat legi passiones martyrum quum anni- versarii eorum, dies celebrantur), mentioned especially frequently in Augustine. Cf. in general Bingham, Origg. eccL, VI., p. 86 fiP. In general the Church was obliged to take under its protection every good, edificatory book, so long as it laid down the principle : oVo fiev eV eKKAriaia fii) avayivwcTKerai ravra jUTjSe Kara aavrhv dpaylvwcKe, Cyril of Jerus., I. C.j cf . Isidor. Pelus., I., ep. 369. 318. A third and last class consisted of books wbicb bad fonnd favor bere and there among the churches or with indi- vidual Christians, but to which the judgment of the more sober and discerning church teachers denied not only all authority in matters of faith, but also all fitness for use in the churches. These were called apocryphal. This name has not only been explained in various ways, but it also actually had different significations in ancient times, which can be pointed out, but not brought into chronological order. According to the most common and best known usage, it means forged writings, those bearing false names, then also those of doubtful or heretical contents ; in many cases, however, both characteristics were found combined. 'AirSKpvcpos' (TvyKiKaXvunevos, KpvirrSs. Lk. xii. 2 ; cf. viii. 17 ; Mk. iv. 22 ; Col. ii. 3. DISAPPEARANCE OF MIDDLE CLASS. Apocryphal books are (1.) those of which tradition had no certain knowledge, quorum origo non claruit pairibus, Augustme, De civit. dei, XV. 23. — Gloss on Deer. Grat. dist. 16: sine certo autore. (2.) Such as contain mysteries. Clem., Strom., I. 304, of writings of ancient sages or Gnostics. Gregory of Nyssa, Orat. de ordin., II. 44 : John eV a-n-o- KpiKpois 5i' alviyiMCLTos A^yet, of the Apocalypse. Just so Epi2)h., Hcer., 51, p. 184, of the same; Sia ra fiadeocs koI crKonLvus elprifieva. (3.) Such as contain things which are not tit for every one's ears, as the History of Susanna (Orig., Ad Afrlc, ch. ix.), perhaps also Tobit and Judith (ibid., ch. xiii.), or are pernicious, quos in ecclesia legi noluerunt, Rutin., In Sytnb., I. c, therefore opposed to the Se5rifiocnfviJ.evaL (j)i'Micati). Tlie latter is the sense where Apocrypha and public reading-books outside the canon are to be distinguished. In Iren., I. 20, p. 91, anSKpvcpa koI v6da are heretical writings. Athanasius, Ep. /est., aiter enumerating the reading-books and the canonical: koI 'S/xais KaK^lvoov Kavovi^^Ojj.ii'oov Kal tovtcov avayivoiaKOjJievwv ovSaixov tojv aTroKpvcpctiv fivrjixT], aWa alpeTiKoiv eartv imvoia .... Synops. SS., 0pp. Athan., II. 55 : the Apoc- rypha are enumerated, although v6da kolI airSlSXrjTa, in order that one may know them (irphs eidricriv^, and that they are airoKpvcpris /j.aWou ^ avayvdaeais i|ia. Const, apost., VI. 16, a.v6Kpv(pos Is explained by (pOoponotSs ,- in Cyril, Catech., IV. 30, it is synonymous with both \l/evSfmypa4>os and $\a^ep6s. Origan, Prol. in Cant. : Scripturce appellantur apocryphce pro eo quod multa in iis corrupta et contra fidem veram inveniuntur a majoribus tradita .... Illud tamen palam est multa ab app. vel ab evangg. exempla esse prolata et N. T. inserta quce in his scripturis quas canonicas habemus nunquam legimus, in apocryphis tamen inveniuntur et evidenter ex ipsis ostenduntur assumpta. Also as an interpretation in commenting on Mt. xxvii. 9 : Suspicor errorem . . . aut esse aliquam secretam Jeremice scripturam . . . sicut et Apostolus scripturas quasdam secretorum profert dicens (1 Cor. ii. 9); in nulla enim regulari libro hoc positum invenitur nisi in secretis Elite prophetoi ; item, quod ait (2 Tim. Hi. 8) non invenitur in publicis SS. sed in libro secreto. On the first passage he adds that in such bad apocryphal writings there was something true, which the apostles were enabled by the Holy Spirit to select. 319. The higher became the authority of the proper canon- ical books the more they were separated from all other literary productions and regarded as the abiding record of the most immediate revelation, the less could this middle class maintain itself as such in value and purpose. In particular those books which either by the custom of the churches or by the names which they bore were preserved from complete and strict re- jection gradually passed into the highest class. Those, on the other hand, which lacked such protection or were acknowledg- edly of post-apostolic origin were obliged to fall back into the rank of ordinary Christian writings and dared no longer lay claim to any ecclesiastical prerogative. The middle class en- tirely disappeared, and thenceforth everything was apocryphal which could not gain full entrance into the canon. The Epistles of James and Jude won their places because proper brothers of Jesus were no longer acknowledged, whence both the authors were admitted into the list of the Apostles. The Apocrypha of the O. T. (Tobit, Wisdom, Sirach) had commended themselves as ethical treatises, and on that account could not (in the West} 324 HISTOEY OF THE CANON. be allowed to drop out again. J. Dombre, Hist, de la canonicite des livres ajwcr. del' A. T., Gen. 1830 ; Schulthess, in Theol. Annul., Aug. 1829. On the canonicity of the book of Esther in the ancient church, see especially Serpilius, Bill. Scrihenten, V. 2, p. 166 If. Change of usage : Jerome, Catal., 6 ; Barnabas composuit ep. ad cedifican- dam ecclesiam quce inter apocryphas legitur. — Pliilastr., De Hceres., ch. 88 : Scripturce absconditce, i. e. apocryphcB, etsi legi debent morum causa a perfectis, non ab omnibus legi debent. — Jerome, Prol. in lieges, after enumerating tlie Hebrew books : Quicquid extra has est inter apocrypha ponendum. Ep. VII, ad Lcetam: Caveat omnia apocrypha, et si quando ea non ad dogmatum veritatem sed ad signorum revereniiam legere voluerit, sciat non eorum esse quorum titulis prcenotantur multaque his admixta vitiosa et grandis esse prudetitice aurum qucerere in luto. He evidently means not heretical, but uninspired, pseudepi- graphic writings, essentially doubtless the so-called Apocrypha of the O. T. The confusion that arose from this change of usage is exhibited in char- acteristic fashion in Isidor. Hispal., Etym., VI. 2 : Apocrypha dicta i. e. secreta quia in dubium veniunt. Est enim occulta origo nee patet patribus ex quibus usque ad nos auctoritas veracium scripturarum certissima successione pervenit. In lis apocryphis etsi invenitur aliqua Veritas, tamen propter multa falsa nulla est in iis canonica auctoritas, quce recte a prudentibus judicantur non esse eorum credenda quibus adscribuntur. Nam multa sub nominibus proj)hetarum et apos- tolorum ab hcereticis proferuntur. In the stichometry of Nicephorus (§ 328, cf . Coutelier, Patres apost., II. 2, p. 289) the Epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp, together with the Acts of Peter, Thomas, John, Hernias, etc., appear as Apocrypha, certainly with no regard to their doctrinal contents. Cf. in general J. Trigland, De appellatione libr. apocryphorum (in his Diss., p. 1 if.) ; Gieseler, in the Studien, 1829, I. 141 ; UUmann, Kanonisch und Apokryphisch, in his Sammlung von Streitschriften gegen Strauss, 1838, p. 181. 320. A direct result of this more accurate distinction are the catalogues of books which become more and more frequent in the theological writers of the Greek Church after the middle of the fourth century, and also more and more accordant in contents. All seven of the Catholic Epistles, having gradu- ally become indispensable through the custom of public read- ing, finally found acceptance everywhere in the canon, and the individual voices which were still raised against tlie Second Epistle of Peter were overborne. The opposition to the Apoc- alypse was stronger and more frequent. With respect to the Old Testament this Church held to the Palestinian canon, accepting tlie Hebrew books in the Greek recension, of course, but using the rest only for reading. The rejection by some of the book of Esther was not because of the suspicious state of its text, but because of its offensive contents. Athanasius Alex, (f 372), Ep. Festal., 0pp., II. 38 f.: In the O. T. twenty- two books, according to the number of the Hebrew letters, but with a dif- ferent order and combination than in Origen ; without mention of the Apoc- rypha (yet expressly 'Upe/xlas koI ahv avru Bapohx, Oprjvoi, koI dwiaroXT)^, and without Esther ; in the N. T. all twenty-seven books without comment. The circumstance that the author introduces his arrangement with an apol- ogy, as a venture {To\fj.7)), shows in itself only that no ecclesiastical ordinance had previously decided the matter, and that it had its difficulties. — The Synopsis SS., falsely ascribed to him, has essentially the same, but by way of EARLY CATALOGUES. 825 supplement Esther is said to be canonical according to ancient tradition. The view of Credner (^Zur Gesch. des Kanons, p. 127 &.), that this synopsis is a recension, made in the tenth century, of a copy, defective at that, of the stichometry of Nicephorus, I can by no means adopt ; on the contrary it ap- pears to me clear from the order of the definitions, the uniform position of Esther, and the omission of Maccabees, that it is a recension of the canon in the Ep. Festalis. Its age therefore signifies little ; only the attempted rescue of Esther and the sharper emphasis of the canonicity of the Apoc- alypse (Sex^s'^o"" Kal 4yKpi6e7(Ta inrh irdXai ayiccv koI Trvev/xaToipSpoov ■jrorepaij/) show a somewhat later date. Only after tlie point at which the Ep. Festalis breaks off, at the enumeration of still other (alv eKflyois} autilegomena and apoc- rypha, does its relationship with Nicephorus appear ; nothing can be in- ferred from it as to priority. This appendix, moreover, betrays both in its classification and in its formulas a very obscure conception of canonicity, and probably gives only extracts from various sources, uncritically combined. Gregory, Bishop of Nazianzus (f 390), brought the canon into a poem (Cai'm., 33): O.T., twelve historical, live poetical and five prophetical books; the Apocrypha and Esther are not reckoned. In the N. T., Gospels, Acts, fourteen Epistles of Paul, and seven Catholic ; irdaas ex^is, et ti Se tovtwv (Krhs ovK iv yvT]aioi<;. Yet he quotes the Apocalypse, 0pp., I. 516. Amphilochius of Iconium (c. 380), Iambi ad Seleucum {0pp. Gregor. Naz., II. 194), in which is a long catalogue in verse. At the close of the O. T. (without the Apocrypha), tovtois -KpocreyKplvovcn tV 'Ecre^p rivh. From the N. T. we select the following : — Tivks 5e (pacTi Trjv vphs 'ElBpalovs v60ov OVK eS KeyovTii, yvrjaia yap 7] X"P'S. KOLdoKlKWV ewiffTo\£v Tivei fi\v ewTa (paalu, ol Se Tpels fiovas Xprjvat Sexscr6at . T7V 5' aTTO/caAiiif It" t^V 'icodpvou traAiu Tives fitv iyKplvovaiv, ot irAilovs St ye v6d7]v Keyovcriv Cyril of Jerusalem (f 386), Catech., IV. p. 67, likewise finds only twenty- two books in the O. T. (expressly with Baruch), and in the N. T. omits the Apocalypse ; also, Catech., XV., treats the doctrme of Antichrist ovk e| airoKpvcpwv aW' e'k tuv Aavir)\. Epiphanius (f 403), Hceres., 76 (I. 941), cf. De ponder, et mensur., ch. 23 (II. 180), finds in the O. T. twenty-seven books, which are also counted twenty-two by a strange numerical symbolism and in still stranger order : Pentateuch, Joshua, Job, Judges, Ruth, Psalms, Chronicles, Kings, Proverbs, the Prophets, Ezra I. and II., Esther. — The Lamentations form an appen- dix. At the close (of the twenty-seven books) of the O. T., Wisdom and Si- rach also appear as Ouai. ypa a\\' ovk aS6Kifxoi. Beside the unfavorable opinions just adduced with respect to the Apoca- lypse (Gregory, Cyril ; cf. Chrysostom in the last note) and Esther (Athan- asius, Gregory), there is still to be mentioned that of Didymus Alex, (t 392) against 2 Peter, Enarr. in epp. cath. : Non est ignorandum prcesentem epistolam essefalsatam quce licet puhlicetur non tamen in canone est, where falsata, from its connection, signifies an antilegomenon (vodevirai) rather than a pseud- epigraphon. Cf. Liicke, Qucest. Didym., I. 13. The school of Antioch (§ 518), with Theodore of Mopsuestia (f 428) at its head, had very free views of the canon, and appears to have estimated the value of the particular books mostly according to their usefulness for the Church. Hence heterodox opinions on Chronicles, Ezra, and Canticles. Theodore is said to have rejected Job also, though probably only as a his- 326 HISTORY OF THE CANON. tory ; so also all (?) the Catholic Epistles; see Leontius of Byzantium, Cont. Nestor, et Eutych., III., in Canis., Led. antiq., I. 577, and below, § 3-!8, Cosmas and Juuilius. This school very likely also did not think much of the Apoca- lypse ; see Lucke, Ojfenh. Joh., 337, 347 (2d ed. II. 642 If.). Chrysostoin (f 407) nowhere in his numerous homilies quotes the Apoca- lypse, and only three Catholic Ej^istles. So also in the Synopsis SS., as- cribed to him {Opp., VI. 308 ff. Montf.), in which, in the O. T. the Apocry- pha, but not the Apocalypse in the N. T., and expressly rwv KaOoAiKoov ima- ToXSiv rpets. This is identical with the ancient Syi-ian canon (§ 308). Cf. Opp., VI. 430, in an anonymous homily, ttjj/ Sevrtpav kuI Tpirriv ['Iwdwov] ol TraTepes airoKavovl^ovaiv. The so-called Apocrypha of the O. T. were properly only five (or six) ; Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, and Maccabees. The rest belonged to the Greek (canonical) texts of Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah ; so especially al- ways Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah. Quotations of the Fathers from these books are collected by Jahn, EM., IV. 9G8 ff. Tlie circumstance is also noteworthy that it is only for the O. T., not also for the New, that a total number is given and assigned a mystic significance. From the time of Chrysostom the canonical collection is called simply TO. fiifiXla : Homil. IX. in Coloss. : 'AKOvaare, irapaKaXS), koX KraaOe I3il3\la, /jp., IX. 823.) And since 1588 : Ce ne sont pas livres divinement inspires comme le reste des s. Es- critures, mais qu^estans de particuliere declaration iis ne doivent point estre receus ou produits publiquement en VEglise comme pour servir de reigle aux articles de nostrefoy. Toutefais on pent s'en servir en particulier pour en tirer instruction, etc. The progressive development of Protestant science in the direction of a strict orthodoxy naturally and necessarily widened the breach between these Apocrypha and the Bible. Voices were early raised against their acceptance, even with the above qualifications, especially in the Reformed Church ; yet the power of custom still conquered, even at Dordrecht, in 1G18. ISee Schweizer, in Niedner's Zeitschr., 1854, p. 645, and the last note under § 340. Their retention in the collection was certainly an inconsistency, but their exclusion also was evidently not accomplished upon the basis of the testimony of the Spirit, but in accordance with purely historical facts and reasons. The Apocrypha are not the same in all editions, especially as respects Esdras and Maccabees ; the folio editions, particularly in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (especially the Berleburger Bibel) are the richest. Controversy upon the subject with the Catholic Church : Chemnitz, £"0:- amen cone, trid., I. 66 £E. (ed. 1707) ; J. Rauiold, Censura II. apocr. V. T., CANON OF THE REFOEMERS — NE W TESTAMENT. 345 Oppenh. 1611 ; A. Huniiiiis, Dica pontificiis scripta oh falsi crimen in SS., Vit. 1622 ; C. Kortholt, De libris apocr. V. T., Rost. 1664 ; Tractatus de canone S. S., Kil. 1669 ; G. Wernsclorf, Quod. I. Sap. et Eccl. pro canonicis non sint hahendi, Vit. 1728 ; H. Beuzel, De II. V. T. apocryphis, Lund. 1733 ; cf. Baumgarten, Polemik, III. 65 if. ; Augusti, Ueher die Verschiedenheit der hirchUchen Grundsdtze in Ahsicht auf Werth und Gehrauch der Apokryphen, Bresl. 1816. Catholic defenses, § 337. [On the relation of the apocryphal books to the Canon, and their right to a secondary place in the Bible, see, on the purist side, Keerl, Die Apokry- phen des A. T., 1852, a prize essay ; also Die Apokryphenfrage aufs Neue heleuchtet, 1855 ; C. E. Stowe, The Apocryphal Books of the 0. T., and the Reasons for their Exclusion from the Canon, in the Bib. Sac, Apr. 1854 ; Home's Introduction, I. On the other side, Stier, Die Apokryphen, 1853 ; Letztes Wort ilber die Apokryphen, 1855 ; especially Bleek, Ueher die Stellung der Apok. des A. T. im christl. Kanon, in the Theol. Studien u. Kritiken, 1853, pp. 267-354.] The O. T. in general (vetus contrarium novo non est, Conf. Angl., 7. Cf. § 547) has no subordinate rank in the Protestant Church. (Only the Sociu- ians depart essentially from this principle : Utilis lectio V. T. non necessaria, Socinus, De autor. S. S., ch. 1.) For it is retained not on account of its his- torico-ecclesiastical and ethical contents, but on account of its theological, prophetic connection with the New Testament, and from this point of view forms an integral part of permanently valid revelation. Yet Luther devel- ops the thought of Jn. i. 17 greatly to the disparagement of Moses (^Deutsche Werke, Erlangen, XLVII. 357). 334. With respect to the canon of the New Testament, the Reformers could exercise still greater liberty of judgment, since here there was no sacred biblical authority to settle the question outright. But while Luther himself, in bold reliance upon the inner power of the Gospel, ruled the letter in accord- ance with it, his pupils did not venture to follow him fully. The investigation of the canon as a wholly open question did not lie within the range of their scientific powers or of their theological interest or field of view ; that which was current passed as such with them also, and it is really to be wondered at that, as a whole, they went back of decisive tradition to that which admitted its own defectiveness, that is to say, to the Homologoumena of the fourth century. In this way, at first giving to the historical facts their due weight without reserve, soon however with less and less controversial energy, they came again, after a few decades, to precisely the position which their master, who dissented just at this point, had once aban- doned as untenable. Luther placed the Epistles to the Hebrews, of James and Jude, and the Revelation at the end of the N. T. (Preface : Bisher haben imr die rechten gewissen Haupthilcher des N. T. gehaht, diese vier nachf. aber haben vor Zeyt- ten ein ander Ansehn gehaht), and distinguished them in the index of his edi- tions by the type from the other twenty-three, which alone were figured there. He urged against the four last in part internal critical considerations and the weight of ancient opposition, but in part also dogmatic prejudices. 346 HISTORY OF THE CANON. (Preface to Hebrews : Sy hat einen harten knoten dass sie C. vi. und x. den sundern die buss versagt nach der Taufe ; James : Aujfs erst sy stracks wider St. Paulon und cdle ander geschrifft den loerken die gerechtigkeit gibt. . . auffs ander dass sy toill Christenleut lehren und nicht einmal des leydens (etc.) Christi gedenkt. Dieser lacobus thut nicht mchr denn treibet zu dem Gesetz. . . . Jude : Eine unnothige Ep. unter die Haupibiicher zu rechnen die d. Glau- bens Grand legen sollen. Revelation : Mein Geist kann sich in das Buch nicht schicken und ist mir die Ursach genug das ich sein nicht hoch achte dass Chris- tus drinnen weder geleret noch erkannt wird. . . .) The preface to the Reve- lation is much modified in later editions, because meanwhile the Lutheran party had found in the book a useful weapon for controversial use. Cf. Corrodi, Beitrdge, 17, 37. Luther's opinions are collected and commented on at length, but one-sidedly, in Krause's 0pp., p. 199 ff. (§ 580). Luther's prefaces should be sought for, by those who cannot gain access to a genuine ancient Bible, in Walch, Vol. XIV., ov Deutsche WW., Erlangen, LXIII., not in the superficial special editions mutilated by pious societies (e. g. Stuttg. 1841). Luther was perfectly conscious of the subjective character of his judgments and " vAll niemanden loehren davon zu halten was ihm sein Geist gibt." Moreover he is always careful to lay stress upon whatever can be said in commendation (especially in respect to the Ejjistie to the Hebrews). Also similar objections to certain things in the O. T., especially in the Table Talks {Deutsche WW., Erlangen, LXII. 128 fP. ; also LXIII. 35 ff.). That Luther in his later years became more conservative in many things is well known ; but on this point he made no real step backward. (M. Schwalb, Luther, ses opinions religieuses pendant la premiere ptriode de la reformation, Str. 18GG.) Luther's critical views have since been abandoned (see especially § 339 f.), but all the editions of the German Bible are still based upon them and the Halle Orphanage (§ 406) has even remodeled the Greek canon in accord- ance with them. With sinailar views followed Melanchthon (in various passages of his apol- ogetic works, but in a much milder and more caiitious tone), Brentz {Apol. confess. Wirtemb., p. 824, seven antilegomena), the Centuries (I. 452, seven antilegomena, of which Hebi-ews, James, and Jude are rejected) ; Flacins, Clav. S. S., II. 1. p. 46 (has seven lihri dubii in the N. T.) ; U. Regius, Int. locc. comm., p. 42 (agrees with Luther). A. Bodenstein, of Carlstadt, De canon, scripturis, Vit. 1520, 4° (printed in Credner, Zur Gesch. des Kanons, pp. 291^12 ; also in a German abridgment, Welche Bucher Biblisch seint, Witt. 1520), follows a path altogether his own. His work was not only the first complete exposition of the Protestant prin- ciple of the Scriptures in opposition to the Catholic doctrine of tradition, but at the same time the first and almost the only attempt to determine the canonicity of the sacred books individually. Building upon Augustine and Jerome and a comparison of the two, but at the same time criticising Luther severely on account of his purely subjective judgment (Si fas est vel parvum vel magnum facere quod placet, futurum erit auctoritates librorum e nostra pen- dere facultate, p. 390, Credner), he divides the sacred writings into three orders : (1) libri summce dignitatis : Pentateuch (though not written by Moses himself), and Gospels ; (2) libri secundce dignitatis : the Prophets so called by the Jews and the fifteen acknowledged epistles ; (3) libri tertice et infimcB auctoritatis et celebritatis : the Jewish Hagiographa and seven anti- legomena of the N. T. — Also, two classes among the O. T. Apocryplia : Extra canonem, tamen agiographi : Wisdom, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, Macca- bees ; to be altogether rejected : 3 and 4 Esdras, Barucli, Manasseh, Dan- iel. — E. Nied, Essai sur la vie de C, Str. 1854. 335. In the schools which were under the mfliience of Cal- CANON OF THE KEFORMERS — NEW TESTAMENT. 347 vin the testimony of ancient history likewise had weight for a time and to a certain degree, though less lasting and less in- sisted upon. At the same time the conception of canonicity, especially with reference to the apostolic dignity of the writers, was considerably broadened, so that results of criticism, even when negative, were of less importance, and the comparison of the contents of Scripture with the princijjle of faith was car- ried through with a more discreet exercise of acumen. Yet the confessions of the English, French, and Dutch Protestants expressly accepted, in the New Testament, the complete canon of the Catholic Church, doubtless in order to avoid the ajipear- ance of desiring arbitrarily to narrow the ground upon which the structure of their own church was to be erected ; while all the symbols of the Lutherans, as well as those of the Re- formed in other countries, left the question of the canonicity of the individual writings undecided. Even earlier, (Ecolampadius, I. c. (§ 333) : In N. T. IV. evv. cum Actis app. et XIV. epp. P. et VII. cathol. una cum apocaUjpsi recipimus, tametsi apocalypsin cum ep. Jac. et Jud. et ultima Petri et duahus posterioribus Joannis non cum cceteris conferamus. Similarly Bucer, Enarr. in evv., fol. 20. Zwiugli, De clar. verhi dei, p. 310 : Apocal. liber prorsus non sapit os el ingenium Joannis. Possum ergo testimonia citata si velim rejicere. The same author declares ( We7'ke, II. 1, p. 1C9) : Us Apocalypsi nemend wir kein Kundschafft an, denn es nit ein bibl. Buck ist. Calvin (in his Commentary) finds no fault with James and Jude ; of Hebrews he says : Ego ut Paulum auctorsm agnoscam adduci nequeo; of 2 Peter : Sunt aliquot probabiles conjecturce ex quibus colUgere licet alterius esse potius quam Petri, yet guards himself here and there against any inference unfavorable to the Epistle ; he passes over 2 and 3 Jolm and the Apocalypse in complete silence, tliough he often quotes the last in his Dogmatics as a canonical writing. He ascribes the Second Epistle of Peter to a pupil of the Apostle, and the order of the Catholic Epistles in his commentary is as follows : 1 Peter, 1 John, James, 2 Peter, Jude. He makes great use of the Epistle to the Hebrews, but carefully distinguishes it from the Pauline Epistles (OjO/9., II. 374, 866, 960, etc.). Only in his very earliest writings does he follow tradition (0pp., I. 57 ; V. 180, 201). W. Musculus (Loci comm., p. 221) : il/ete modestim non est ut de illis pro- nunciem, sintne eorum sub quorum nominibus extant, vel secus. Indicia tamen veterum. hoc efficiunt ut minus sim illis quam cceteris scripturis astrictus, licet haud facile qucBvis damnanda censeam qua, in illis leguntur. Conf. Belg. art. 4 has a complete catalogue of the books of the Old and New Testaments (containing fourteen epistles of Paul). Conf. Gall. art. 3 likewise, but the Epistle to the Hebrews separated from the Pauline Epistles and without the name of the author. Conf. Angl. art. 6 gives a list of the O. T. alone, and says N. T. libros omnes ut vulgo recepti sunt recipimus. All this simply shows that they did not find the fundamental principle of the Protestant faith anywhere endangered or encroached upon in these writings, as Luther thought. Conf. Helv. II., ch. xi. : Damnamus judaica somnia quod ante judicii diem aureum in terris sit futurum seculum et pii regna mundi occupaturi oppressis suis hostibus impiis. How the canonicity of the Apocalypse consists with this is not explained, although it is elsewhere quoted. Exegesis helped over the difficulties. 348 HISTORY OF THE CANON. In the Lutheran symbols the Revelation of John is quoted but once, not doctriually, the Epistle of James sometimes by way of explanation, that to the Hebrews never as Pauline. The suigle Confessio Wirtembergica says, p. 540 : Sacram scripturam vocamus eos canonicos libros V. et N. T. de quorum autoritate in eccl. nunquam dubitatum est ; but even this excludes the Antile- gomena, as is evident from the authentic declaration of Brentz (§ 334). 336. Perhaps the freer procedure of the Protestants in these investio-ations might have led Catholic theologians to imitate them, especially since they were really the first to set the ex- ample, and were apparently not so much hampered by the fundamental principle of their Church, had not the Council of Trent put an end to all discussion of the canon. This assem- bly, exactly after the manner of the Synod of Carthage, made church use the ground of decision as to canonicity, and anath- ematized those who would not accept as sacred all the books contained in the common Latin version, and in the same foim and extent. The interest which they had in securing for this version equal rank with the original text may have been an additional motive for this decree, which moreover did not pass without opposition. Concil. Trident, Session IV. (Apr. 8th, 1546) : SS. synodus . . . omnes libros tarn V. quam N. T. . . . nee nan traditiones ipsas turn ad Jidem turn ad mares pertinentes . . . vel a Christo vel a Sp. S. dictatas et continua successione in ecclesia cath. conservatas pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia suscipit et veneratur. Then follows the catalogue of the books as they stand in the ordinary editions of the Vulgate (Ezra but once, Tobit and Judith before Esther, Wisdom and Sirach after Canticles, Baruch with Jeremiah ; at the end of the O. T. only two books of Maccabees ; in the N. T. fourteen epistles of Paul, Hebrews last ; then the Catholic Epistles, among which Peter has the first place, James the third) : Si quis autem libros ipsos integros cum omnibus suis partibus, prout in eccl. cath. legi consueverunt et in veteri vulgata latina editione habentur pro sacris et canonicis non susceperit . . . anathema sit. On the authority here accorded to the Vulgate in comparison with the original text, see § 481. Even at the council opinions were divided in the deliberation on the ques- tion ; see Sarpi, Hist, du Concil. de Trente (Basle edition, 1738), I., 271 fP. Some desired a separation of the Homologoumena and Antilegomena ; others would place beside them a third class, consisting of the Apocrypha of the O. T. Still others wished simply a catalogue of all current books without dogmatic declaration. Sarpi himself blames the council for its decree. Cf. also Pallavicini, Istoria del Cone. d. Trento, Bk. VI., ch. 2. 337. Thus the decrees of Trent, for the Romish Church, with respect to the stability of the canon, put fetters upon science which it was never after able to throw off, scarcely to loosen. Moreovei-, in view of the peculiar method of estab- lishing religious instruction in this Church, it is a question whether a change of views, if it had taken place, would ever have been able to extend itself outside the narrow field of learned research into the broader one of theological use. This COUNCIL OF TRENT. 849 state of things has continued down to the present day. The history of the canon for this Church was closed at this time, unless perhaps one may wish to mention some isolated and as it were clandestine attempts, whose object was to restore, for the benefit of the Old Testament Apocrypha, the ancient class of deutero-canonical writings. Freer views, or funda- mental doubts respecting other parts of the canon are from this time on properly heresies, and have probably only occurred where the strict conception of Catholicism had itself suffered from the influence of the spirit of the age. Sixtus Seuensis, Biblioth. sancta, 1566, Bk. I., p. 1, distinguishes the Scriptures into libri canonici primi et secundi ordinis • the latter, ecclesiastici, deuterocanonici, de quibus aliquando fuit inter cathoUcos sentenlla anceps, namely, Esther, the usual O. T. Apocrypha, Mk. xvi. 9-20, Lk. xxii. 43, 44, Jn. viii. l-ll, and the seven Antilegomena of the N. T. ; aliique ejusdem generis libri quos jyrisci patres tanquam apocryphos habuerunt . . . delude apud omnes Jideles reciiari concesserunt ad populi instructionem . . . demum inter SS. irrefragabilis auctoritatis assumi voluerunt. They are afterward described and defended individually, but separately fx-om the first class. In a third uneanonical class he places Manasseh, passages in Esther, 3 and 4 Esdras, 3 and 4 Mac- cabees, Psalm cli. — (Books VII. and VIII. of the work enumerate the errors of otliers respecting the Scriptures.) The same is repeated by Bellarinuie, De verbo Dei, Bk. I. ; Antonius a Matre Dei, Prceludla ad S. S. intell., 1670, p. 85 ; the Oratorian B. Lamy, Appar. bibl., 1696, p. 334. The latter, hcv/ever, clearly has a low opinion of the libri deuterocanonici ; the Tridentine decree did not make the separation quod aliunde notum esse poterat viris doctis. Jahn also {Einl. ins A. T., 1802, I. 140 f., Introd. in II. V. F., p. 45) finds discrbnen librorum nequaquam esse sublatum by the decrees of councils. J. B. Glaire (Introd. aux II. de VA. et du N. T., Paris, 1843, I. p. 79 fE.), repeats the division of Sixtus Seuensis entire, with all its dogmatic conse- quences. See also Scholz, Einl., 1845, I. 263. According to L. E. Du Pin (Dissert, pre'iim., 1701, I. 1, § 6), no doubt can be longer maintained after the action at Trent, yet he himself emphasizes very strongly the conceivable doubts, and has no better answer to give to them than this : Quoiqu' il ne se fasse plus de nouvelles re'velations a VjSglise, elle pent apres bien du temps etre plus assure'e de la vt'rite d'un ouvrage qu'elle ne Ve'tait auparavant. — From that time on both the Protestant Church (§ 340) and the Catholic held pretty closely to the conclusion deuterocanonicos fuisse donee ecclesice judicio dubla sublata sint. Cf. also M. Gerbert, Princ. theol. exeg., p. 101. It is not to be overlooked that neither to the patristic scholarship of the Benedictines nor to the critical acumen of R. Simon is th j history of the canon a scientific or an attractive problem. This is only intelligible when it is re- membered that the historic facts, which ought to have been tested by evi- dence and records, had already become an article of faith and been placed under the sanction of anathemas. Only very indirectly, by the investigation of the text, and especially by his methods, tolerably independent of theo- logical theories, the latter prepared the way for later investigations of the history of the canon. But that the fathers at Trent did not intend to countenance either the one or the other of those views which endangered the complete equality of all the books has been conclusively shown by B. Welte, Ueber das hirchliche Anselin der deuterokanonischen Bucher, in the Tub. Quartalschr., 1839, II. 224 S. Cf . 350 HISTORY OF THE CANON. (Jos. Barre), Vindicke II. deuterocanon. V. T., Paris, 1730 ; A. Vincenzi, Sessio IV. concil. trident, vindicata, Rome, 1842, 3 vols. ; cf. also Bellarmiu, De verbo Dei, Bk. I. Ventures like the giving up of the Pauline authorsliip of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Feilmoser, EinL, p. 241 ; 2d eel. p. 359 ; Lutterbeuk, Neutest. Lehrb., II. 245, the latter of whom introduces the contents of the book without further remark as the teaching of Apollos) are among the greatest rarities in the Catholic Church. The last mentioned author, in particular, purposely enters upon this field from the point of view of Protestant inves- tigation ; but in general the studies of Catholic critics, however solid and independent they may be (§§ 21, 595), never attack the permanence of the canon. The so-called Old Catholic movement, however, appears to be at- tempting a revolution on this point (Sepp, Kirchl. Reformentwiirfe beffin- nend niit der Revision des Bibelkanons, Munich, 1870, in which even Jonah and Esther are questioned). 338. On the other hand the Tridentine decrees have pre- vailed even in the Orient. The Greek Church, though for centuries it had been languishing in deep spiritual poverty, still possessed, without knowing the value of the possession, the ancient canon, without the Apocrypha in the Old Testa- ment. It was not until more enlightened priests, who had fallen under suspicion of heretical leanings toward Protestant- ism because of other teachings, had expressly emphasized this distinction that the defenders of the stricter faith found it con- venient, in confessions of faith and decrees of synods, to place these books on a level wdtli the rest, as if the danger could thus be more completed avoided. One after another, all the churches of the Greek ritual accepted these decrees. The people knew no more of the Bible in consequence ; afterward, as before, it was an unknown book to them. In the first half of the seventeenth century Metrophanes Kritopulos, after- ward Patriarch of Alexandria (1625), and Kyrillos Lukaris (1G29 ; died as Patriarch of Constantinople, 1G38) published confessions of faith in wliich the ancient Laodicean canon was retamed (though with the addition of the Aj^ocalypse). See Conf. Cyrilli, ed. Kimniel, I. 40, Qu. 1. Metrojihanes, II. 104, makes out, by peculiar reckoning, thirty-three sacred books, corre- sponding to the number of the years of Christ, and adds, after Gregory, John of Damascus, and other fathers, the other books which some receive beside ; a-rro^KriTovs fJ-ev oiix ^}yov/J.f^a . . . ais KavoviKas Se Kol avdevriKas ovSiTTor' aireSe'laro rj rod X.picTTOv 4KK\r]ffia. After Lukaris had been condemned at Jassy, in 1G42, under the Patriarch Parthenios, a confession was drawn up by a synod convened at Jerusalem under Dositheos, in 1672, in which Qu. 3 (Kimmel, I. 465) adds to the an- cient canon : koI -n-phs tovtois awep affweroos Kol a^oSois etr' oZv f6(\oKaKoipya>s a,Tr6Kpvcpa KaTcovS/xaaeu (6 KvpiWos) . . . Kal ravra yviiaia ttjs ypatpris p-^pv Kpiuofieu i. e. Wisdom, Judith, Tobit, Bel and the Dragon, Susanna, Maccabees, Si- rach. The official Moscow edition of the eda. ypacpi] (1821, 4°) has all the Apoc- rypha, Ezra in two recensions, together with Nehemiah and four books of Maccabees at the close of the historical books, the Minor and Major Prophets befoi-e the seven poetical books, or books of wisdom. With respect to the Antilegomena of the N. T. there was no further dis- TRANSITION. 351 cussion after their use in Church for a thousand years. Leo AUatius (f 1669), De II. eccl. gr., p. 36 (in Fabricius, Bibl. Gr., V.) : Alio tempore de scripturis hisce disceptatum est, in eamque itum sententiam a plerisque, non esse eoruni auc- torum quos prceferunt . . . attamen hisce temporibus, tanta est vis veritatis, fixum in grcecorum animis mansit . . . epp. catholicas et Apocaltjpsin ipsam veram et genuinam esse Scr. et uti talem publice in officiis per totam Grceciam quemad- modum et alias div. Scr. legunt. 339. But in the Protestant Church also various circum- stances soon interfered with the development and progress of a criticism more instinctive than scientific. True, the criterion of canonicity established by the Reformers was not abandoned theoretically, but, no longer flowing from the fountains of a fresh and living experience, and not being in accord with the everywhere prevalent dialectics, it was more and more sup- ported by external evidence, and soon crowded entirely into the background. This external evidence, in the general weak- ness of historical study, naturally found its limit in the so- called testimonies of the ancient church; that is to say, in plain German [English] custom proved itself the stronger and won the day, as formerly at Hippo. The change came about more quickly in the Calvinistic theology, in the Lutheran more gradually, and by stages ; the final result was the same in. both. Note the increasing f ulhiess of the theoretical discussions of the Scriptures and the rajjidly advancing fixation of doctrinal statements respecting them (chiefly to be sure, with controversial aim) in most treatises on dogmatics (after the style of M. Chemnitz, Examen concil. tridentlni, hoc. /.), as well as in special works : Zanchi, De S. S. (0pp., Gen. 1619, VIII.); J. Cameron, Prcelectt. de verbo Dei {0pp., Gen. 1642) ; several essays by M. Amyraut, J. de la Place, and L. Cappelle, in the Thes. Salmur., I., etc. Cf. m general my Hist, du Canon, ch. xvii. We are chiefly interested in this connection by the distinction, which was becoming a stereotyped one, between ^c?es divina and Jides humana as applied to the Scriptures, the former being produced directly by the Holy Spirit, the latter being called forth by scientific evidence, internal and external ; the former of course the more important, certain, and decisive ; but in reality emphasized more for the sake of its dogmatic consequences than because of the natural pressure of direct faith, and hence mingled in many ways with dialectic subtleties (especially among the Reformed. Cf. C. E. Saigey, Le Pajonisme, in the Revue, XIV.) ; the latter treated by preference and with increasing fullness, until finally in Holland the Cartesian philosophy wholly crowded out the other element. Thus the former method came to be ap- plied for the most part only to the Bible as a whole, while the canonicity of particular books (often, moreover, confounded with their authenticity) was established in the second way alone. Hand in hand with this change in theological methods went the identifi- cation of the conceptions of Scripture and the Word of God, which was a complete departure from Luther. Originally distinct (ApoL, 267; Smalc, 331, 333 ; F. C, 670, 818), so much so, indeed, that while on the one hand everything in the Bible doubtless pertained to edification, but not everytliing to salvation, on the other genuine gospel preaching was also the word of God, the two gradually became synonymous (among the Reformed even iu 352 HISTORY OF THE CANON. the Conf. Helv. II., art. 1) ; and the mere existence of the printed copies came to be regarded as proof of canonicity (Du Moulin, Bouclier de la fed, p. 38, ed. 1846 : II suffit de prendre la bible en langues originaires et courir les litres des livres). Here belongs also the fact of the intensification of the conception of in- spiration, which became more and more a mechanical one ; the classicism of the Greek style (§ 47), the absolute mtegrity of the text {puritan fontium, § 406), the antiquity of the square character, and finally even the inspiration of the accents in the N. T., and in the O. T. that of the punctuation marks (Voetius, Pruhl. de S. S., in his Dispp. sel., Utr. 1669, Pt. V. p. 4) and vowel points, being made articles of faith : Formula consensus helv., 1675, Ch. i. : Deus verbum suum non tantum scripto manda^-i curavit sed etiam pro scripto paterne vigilavit ... so that ne apex quidem vel iota unicum ever was or will be lost. Ch. ii. : In specie hebraicus V. T. codex. . . turn quoad consonas turn quoad vocalia sive puncta. . . di6nvivcnos- Ch. iii. : eorum sententiam pro- hare neutiquam possumus qui lectionem ex verss. . . ex sola ralione. . . . ex collat'is inter se edd. . . emendare religioni non ducunt atque ita Jidei nostm principium. . , in discrimen adducunt. Among the Reformed historical criticism is only practiced sporadically and is of no particular interest. Beza (§ 404) dwells only upon Hebrews and the Apocalypse, whose inspiration and canonicity he maintains ; the latter possibly, judging from the style, written by Mark ; as to the former, sunt probabiles coniecturce ex quibus nee Pauli esse nee hebraice unquam fuisse scrip- tarn apparet ; but this note is wanting in the later editions. The course of things in the Lutheran Church is more interesting. Some few simply stand by Luther's views, especially on points which have nothing to do with scientific proof. So D. Wolder in his Polyglot, Hamb. 1596, in which, even in the N. T., libri canonici and non canonici are distinguished (the latter the Apocalypse, without name, Hebrews, incerti autoris, James and Jude, certorum autorum). — The Strassburger Kirchenagende of 1596, p. 6 : Dieiceil aber beydes von alters hero und auch heutigestages nit geringer streit ist welches die toahre echte und unzioeivelige Biicher seien. . . so erkldren wir WIS dahin dass wir desshalb gdnzlich der Meynung seien wie Dr. M. Luther leh- ret. . . im N. T. aber die Ep. an die Ebrder ivie auch Jacobi und Judd und die Off. Joh. nit so gewiss fiir Schriften d. App. konnen gehalten loerden oh es sonst wohl gute und niitzliche Biicher seynd welche loohl mbgen in der Kirche ge- lesen werden, aber allein zur Aufbawung der Gemeinde, und nit streitige Artikid damit zu bekrefftigen. — The edition of 1670 omitted this passage. J. M. hoventz, De Jictitia agendoruin eccl. argent, circa II. can. N. T. dissensione, Arg. 1751. The more learned theologians, however, went back to the ancient distinc- tion of (seven) Antilegomena. Chemnitz, Exam. cone, trid., Loc. I., Sect. 6, § 9 ff . : QucBStio est an ea scripta, de quibus in antiquissima ecclesia duhitatumfuit, ideo quod testificationes primitivce ecclesice de his non consentirent, prcesens eccle- sia possit facere canonica f Pontificii hanc auctoritatem usurpant, sed manifestis- simum est ecclesiam earn non habere ; eadem enim ratione posset etiam vel canonicos II. reiicere vel adulterinos canonisare. — Moreover the task of addu- cing the testimonium ecclesice primitive was rendered very easy by the help of Jn. xxi. 24 f. ; 2 Thess. iii. 17 ; 2 Pet. iii. 15. The Antilegomena meant precisely N. T. Apocrypha, and were regarded as invalid for the establishment of dogma : J. Schroeder, Aphorismi e comp. theoL, 1599, Disp. I., thes. 16; M. Hafenreffer, Loci theoL, 1603 : Hi apocryphi II. quanquam in diiudicatione dogmatum autoritatem non habent, quia tamen quce ad cedificationem et histitutionem faciunt plurima continent, cum utilitate etfructu privatim legi et publice recitari possunt. N. Selneccer, Exam, ordin., 1584 ; L, Osiander, Instit. th. chr., 1582, p. 37. The Wittenberg faculty, in their criticism of the Rakovian catechism (1619), charge the Socinians with having confused tliis distinction. SEVENTEENTH CENTURY— SKEPTICAL REACTION. 353 The next step in the adjustment was to place the Apocrypha of the N. T. far above those of the old. Hafenrelfer, I. c. : Si apocryphos II. inter se con- ferimus illi qui in novo quam qui in vetere test, comprehenduntur maiorem ha- bent autoritatem. C. Dietrich, Instit. catech., 1613, p. 19 : Duhitatum fuit de autore non de doctrina ; erratit autem pontijicii qui absolute parem autoritatem cum canonicis habere dictilant. B. Menzer, De S. S., Disp. I., th. 25 : Libri Apocryphi primi ordinis s. ecclesiastici N. T. in nostris ecclesiis fere eandem ob- tinent cum canonicis autoritatem. — See further § 340. 340. The seventeenth century therefore took a step back- ward, to a certain extent necessarily. The distinction of Aen- terocanonical books in the New Testament disappeared ahnost altogether. Doubt concerning them became the more suspicious because of its liaving found refuge among the decried sect of the Arminians ; and it finally became a natural duty to one's self to set himself to prove that no such doubt had ever really existed in the bosom of the evangelical church. Only with respect to the Apocrypha of the Old Testament did the Protestants never deny the principles of the Reformers ; or, more prop- erly, since these now formed the only subject of dispute be- tween them and the Catliolics in this special field, and conse- quently were most exposed to the fire of controversy, their boundless confusion of thought appeared most ghningly in the character of their judgments. With respect to the New Tes- tament, only the twelve, together with Paul, could properly enjoy the prerogative of a special lordship over doctrine in the Church. Within their number, therefore, must the authors of all the books be sought, and the two apostolic men who had written Gospels were degraded to the rank of amanuenses of their teachers, and all to that of unconscious, unthinking tools of the Holy Spirit. With respect to the Antilegomena, the simpler designation of libri canonici primi et secundi ordinis, proto- and deutero-canonici, was chiefly in favor ; Gerhard, I. c, I. 6 ; II. 186, and many after him ; and this distinction referred directly to purely external and accidental considerations : Calovius, Syst. locc. iheol., 1655, 1. 513 : Nonnulli ex orthodoxis ep. ad Hebroios, etc., deu- terocanonicos II. vacant, quod in ecclesia vis aliquando contradictum fuerit ; qui iamen agnoscunt eosdem pro OeoTrveva-rois habendos esse, etc. Quenstedt, Theol. did. pol., Ch. iv. p. 235 : Disceptatum fuit de his II. non ab omnibus sed a pau- cis, non semper sed aliquando, non de divina eorum autoritate sed de autoribus se- cundariis. Sunt cequalis autoritatis, non autem cequalis cognitionis apud homines. Finally it is questioned whether it is worth while or permissible to dwell upon these matters : A. Pfeiffer (f 1698), Critica s., p. 385 : Nonnulli ex or- thodoxis Ep. ad Hebr., 2 Petri, 2, 3 Joh., Jac, Jud., Apoc. deuterocanicos N. T. imo apocryphos vocarunt, non tamen eo animo ut illis canonicam in confirmandis fidei dogmatibus derogarent auctoritatem, sed ut aliqua ratione distinguerentur ab iis de quorum autore secundario et autoritate nunquam esset dubitatum, wide tamen ab aliis commodius canonici secundi ordinis, sc. non habito respectu ad cer- titudinem auctoritatis, appellantur, quanquam nuncfortasse consultius sit ab omni distinctione abstinere. So also, and very naively, J. A. Dietelmair, Theol. Beitr. (1769), I. 377 : Heutiges Tages konnten wir diesen Unterschied zur Noth 23 854 HISTORY OF THE CANON. enibehren. Weil er dber dock noch einigen Gebrauch hat una besorglicher Mas- sen bald nock einen mehrern bekommen mochte (!) so istjieissig zu erinnern dass die Zusutze proto-, deutero- nicht einen verscJiiedenen, Wei'th arizeigen sollen, sondern eine fruhere oder spalere Aufnahme. Cf. also Buddeus, Institt. dogm., p. 146 ; Pritiiis, Inlrod. in N. T., 1737, p. 37 ; Rumpaius, Comm. crit. ad 11. N. T., 1757, p. 188 ; C. F. Sclimid, Hist. ant. canonis, 1775, p. 50 : Impune et sine ulla impletatis nota licuit priscis ambigere vel etiam dubitare de II. N. T. (not of the Old) quorum divina origo istis temporibus non dum satis nota esset . . . quod nunc post perspecta clarissima argamenta divince eorum originis, tra- ditionem perpetuam eccl. constitutumque publicum eorum usum indulgeri nequit. The Reformed theologians either pass over the doubts respecting the N. T. Antilegomena in complete silence or touch upon them merely superficially, as a historical curiosity of no interest. Placteus, Comp. theol., 0pp., I. p. GOG : Dubltatum est quidem aliquando sed nulla justa causa fuit dubitandi. Cf. Hottinger, Qucest. th. centur., 1G59, p. 178 ; Camero, Prcelectt., I. c, p. 476 ; W. Whitaker, Dispp. de S. S., 1590, Coutrov. I., qu. I., ch. xvi. : Si Lutherus aut qui eum secuti sunt aliter senserint out scripserint de quibusdam libris N. T., -ii pro se respondeant. Nihil ista res ad nos pertinet qui hac in re Lutherum nee sequimur nee defendimus. For the freer judgments of the Arminians respecting particular books see especially H. Grotius, in the Annott. (§ 562), and the New Testament of J. J. Wetstein (§ 409). Here belong also (J. Le Clerc), Sentimens de quelques theol. de Hollande, etc., Amst. 1685, a controversial writing against R. Simou very noted in its time ; and (at least locally related) the critical results for the history of the canon in J. Basnage, Hist, de VSglise, 1699, over which a controversy arose. See Unschuldige Nachr., 1704, p. 665. With respect to the so-called Apocrypha of the O. T. the theologians de- vised all sorts of plirases to give scientific expression to the peculiar hesita- tion of the period of the Reformation. Hollaz : In codice sunt, non in canone; Gerhard: Absconditi, i. e. originis occultce, non abscondendi, i. e. quasinon legendi (also canonici kuto. ti, i. e. only relatively) ; Prideaux distinguishes a Canon Jidei and a Canon morum. Cf. Chemnitz, I. c, § 20 ; Quenstedt, Theol. did. poL, I. pp. 61, 235, etc. The grounds of rejection were linguistic (because not in Hebrew), historical (because not in the Synagogue) ; more and more, however, derived from the contents, and especially by the Reformed gathered with much bitterness and passionateness : Falsa, superstitiosa, suspecta, men- dacia, fabulosa, impia. Chamier, Panstrat. cath., Pt. I. Bk. V. ; Alting, Loci comm., 1646, p. 282 ; Du Moulin, I. c, p. 34 ; A. Regis, Exercc. de II. can. et apocr., 1715; Heidegger, Corpus theol., y>- 37, etc. Also among the Lutherans, though more temperate in expression, Gerhard, Loci, ed. Cotta, II. 134 ff. 341. In proportion to tlie rigidness with which the power of tradition held the scientific investigation of the canon bound was the completeness and permanence of the reaction which finally broke these bonds. The skeptical spirit of the eight- eenth century, after having first, on German soil also, passed through the phases of English superficiality and French frivol- ity, began here, partly as dogmatic rationalism, partly as his- toi'ical criticism, a hard and determined battle with the tradi- tional doctrines and opinions. This battle was a very unequal one, and ended in the complete overthrow of the old orthodoxy. For the theologians of the old school, in their loyal adherence to a system wliich they had not created, and the acquisition of which had been to them for the most part only a mechanical SEVENTEENTH CENTURY — SKEPTICAL REACTION. 355 task, without inner experience, came wholly unprepared into conflict with the resokite champions of a newly won faith, many of whom confronted them with a thorough knowledge of history, and the rest, conceahng the weakness of their historical knowledge behind the boldness of their assertions, confused, if they did not confute, their opponents. Spinoza's (§ 5G3) peculiar opinions as to the origin of the O. T., that it was not produced until the time of Ezra, and then according to a definite plan, had offended the ideas of the age in too many ways to make a lasting impression. But their refutation led to investigations which were useful in the first place to apologetics, but afterward to the opposition also. Toland (^Aniyntor, 1699) delared the whole N. T. spurious on the basis of precarious arguments derived from the state of the text, the loss of the originals, and the personality of the authors. W. Wliistou (Primitive New Testament, 1745, and other writings), on the other hand, maintained that all the Apostolic Fathers, Hernias and the Epis- tle to Diognetus included, also 3 Corinthians and the Epistle of the Corin- thians to Paul, the Apostolic Constitutions, and an alleged Homily of Timo- thy (Justin ?), were admitted into the canon. Diderot (Pense'es phil., 17-16, § 60) attacks the authority of a canon on ac- count of its inconstancy in ancient times, the imcertainty of the text, etc. Les premiers fondements de la foi sont done purement humains ; les choix entre les MSS., la restitution des passages, enfin la collection s'estfaite par des regies de critique ; etje ne refuse point a ajouter a la divinite des livres sacre's un de- gre de foi proportionne a la certitude de ces regies. De la Serre (Pseudo-Burnet), La vraie religion, 1767, p. 37 : Qui m'assure que les livres de VEcritureont etc dictes par le S. Esprit? Jesus ne nous les a pas laisses ; Mahomet au mains a fait V Alcoran. . . . Farce quHl sef era un renversement dans Vimagination de S. Paul, quHl s'avisera de se convertir et d'e'crire quatorze epitres a diverses peuples . . . on m^obligera de reconnaitre ces livres comme la parole de Dieu etje passerai pourfou sije n''en crois rien. . , , La division des II. de I'^criture en protocanoniques et deuterocanoniques ne fait-elle pas voir que c'est uniquement le caprice des hommes qui les a consacrc's a leur gre . . . 1 Dans Vespace de plusieurs siecles on n'aura regarde un livre que comme un ouvrage ordinaire et tout d'un coup, puree que ce livre contiendra un passage propre pour etre cite contre de nouveaux he'retiques, on le canonisera f As a rule, however, in Germany as well as elsewhere, the attack was made directly upon the contents of the Bible and not upon its external history, and it is mentioned simply as a symptom of the spirit of the age, and as at the same time a measure of the overstraining of the ancient principles which led to the reaction. Edelmann (Glaubensbek., 1746, p. 55): Wer kann sick einbilden, dass Gott, da er die Confusion der Abschrifftcnund die daraus entstehende Zdnkereyen vor- ausgesehn, nicht viel eher die Originalien kdtte erhalten als verbrennen lassen sol- len, wenn er hdtte haben tvollen dass todte Buchstaben die bestdndige Regel des Lebens aller Menschen sein sollen ? P. 99: Das toill die Sache gar nicht ausmachen dass die Parthey derjenigen die nur die bekannten vier Evv. canonisiret die an- dern alle iihern Hauffen verwirfft . . . denn das ki'mnen die andern Partheyen die ihre Evv. vor dcht halten mit unsern vieren aiich thun. — Cf . especially § 575. (G. L. Oeder) Freie Unterss. ilber einige Bilrher des A. T., 1756, with ad- ditions and notes by G. J. L. Vogel, H. 1771, 8° (against Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles, and Ezekiel xl.-xlviii.) ; idem, Christl. freie (Inters, iiber d. sog. Off'b. Joh., ed. Semler, H. 1769, 8°. Cf. Ernesti, Neueste theol. Bibl, I. 687, 11. 195 ; Michaelis, Or. bibl, II. 1; Walch, Neueste Rel.-Gesch., VII. 241 ; Schrockh, Neuere K.-Gesch., VIII. 383. 356 HISTORY OF THE CANON. G. E. Lessing (f 1781) not only exerted a general and indirect influence (§ 571), as a thinker and writer, upon the revolution of ideas (see especially Nathan and Die Entstehung des Menschengeschlechts), but he had also, through his proper theological writings, a direct influence upon the historical and the- ological conception of the canon. He naturally took delight in criticism considered sinijjly as a form of thought, and the practice of it was to him a higher thing than the obtaining of results. But although he was the embodi- ment of that Protestantism whose living principle is free investigation and which really first arose with him, yet he had no connection or symi^athy with the current tlieology, whose bustle and talk appeared to him miserable bog- gling in comparison with the orthodox system. Only the inconsistencies of the Orthodox aroused his wrath (especially J. M. Goze, § 581). — Publication of the Wolfenbiittel Fragments (§ 575) and the controversial writings called oiit thereby. (Religion and history two separate realms ; Christianity older than the Scriptures and independent of them ; hence the reinstatement of tradition ; distinction of letter and spirit ; of Bible and faith ; the internal truth, not the external attestation, decides the value of religious things, etc.) — Theol. Nachlass., B. 1784, for the most part only fragments ; p. 73 : theses from the history of the Church (a short theory of tlie history of the canon ; contents : the rule of faith existed before the Scriptures, and at the first the latter had no authority apart from the former) ; p. 107: the canon of all the N. T. writings took shape as it were at random, entirely without plan, through the zeal of individual members. Evil consequences : divided opinions respecting various epistles. The Revelation of John an evidence how aimlessly the canon was formed, etc. Cf. Danzel and Guhrauer, Lessing's Leben und Werke, 1850, 2 Pts. ; Eytel, Lessing als Theolog (Wilrtemb. Studien, 1848, 1.) ; C. Schwarz, Lessing als Theolog, H. 1854 ; F. Lichtenberger, La ihe'ologie de Lessing, Str. 1854 ; F. Smith, Lessing as a Theologian (Theol. Review, July, 1868). Cf. also the writings of Nitzsch and Lucke cited in § 290. From a wholly different standpoint, and in close connection with novel views of inspiration, Swedenborg and his followers declare only the Gospels and the Apocalypse to be inspired and canonical. See the Catechism of the New Church. 342. Johann Salomo Semler was the first to undertake to improve upon the common conceptions of the canon. He gave to his criticism an essentially historical basis by commending and practicing tlie study of the ancient ecclesiastical literature, thus leading to a recognition of the gradual and fluctuating formation of our present collection. He was the first also to bring the history of the New Testament literature into close connection with the development of doctrine. But here he too was affected by the spirit of the age; for he maintained that the usefulness of the individual books, a matter often one- sidedly judged of, should decide as to their canonicity, theoret- ically, therefore, preferring the ancient Latin principle of a church canon to the Greek principle of a canon of faith. His work has been of lasting influence on both sides, and in spite of violent opposition, both at the first and afterward, is even yet of perceptible importance. On Semler see above, § 18 ; but especially § 573, where also the literature respecting him is cited. SEMLER. 357 J. S. Semler, Alhandlung von freier Uniersuchung des Kanons, Halle, 1771-75 (Pt. I., 2d ed., 1776) 4 Pts. 8°, in connection with which especially his theological letters, III. 81 ff. Cf. Ernesti, Neueste theol. Bibl., II. 429 ; III. 451 ; Michaelis, Bibl, III. 2G ; Walch and Schrdckh, II. cc. The replies he himself considers in part in extended answers, Pts. II.-IV.; the most voluminous was the Gesch. des Kanons of C. F. Schmid, § 289. Cf. also J. B. Sohm, Lutheranormn novissima dissidia de canone, Const. 1780. The innovations of Semler concerned (1) the proof of numerous and important variations of the most ancient canon, or at least of individual wit- nesses, from the subsequent one ; on this point, however, he did not go beyond purely negative criticism ; (2) a peculiar definition of the idea of the canon, in which the dogmatic element, as regula Jidei, was lost ; (3) an attack upon the traditional idea of inspiration, likewise rather negatively sustained, and combined with a definite distinction between Scripture and the Word of God ; (4) a criticism of the practical usefulness of particular books, and the estimation, on this basis, of their theological value ; essentially negative, unfavorable to the Apocalypse, Canticles, and other books, especially of the O. T. ; (5) the higher estimation of internal evidence in the investigation of genuineness ; (6) the frequent application of the theory of accommodation in judging of dogmatic contents. In view of the ill-arranged and cumbrous character of Semler's work, its influence would be inexplicable if its principles had not become popular thi'ough an academic activity of forty years, while many older views had become untenable, and if, at the same time, the more elegant learning of a Michaelis and the fresh living spirit of a Herder had not helped on the revo- lution. Baur, in the T'dh. Jahrh., 1850, IV. 518 ff., gives a thorough characterization of Sender in this regard. The numerous apologetic writings were more particularly directed against the superficial deistic criticism, even after 1760 ; e. g., Lilienthal, Gute Sache d. Ojfenh., Pt. XV. ; W. Paley, Evidences of Christianity, I. The conserva- tively scientific work of J. F. Kleuker, on the contrary, is written in the spirit of modern investigation : Unters. der Griindefiir die Echtheit der Urk. des Chr., 1793 ff., 5 Pts. incomplete. 343. The friends of the older views found themselves com- pelled to enter the field against their opponents and to contend with them with weapons of their choosing. There at once arose discussions, carried on more and more systematically, calmly, learnedly, and circumspectly, mostly upon individual books, of the Old Testament now as well as the New, and incidentally on the idea of the canon itself. These discussions still continue, and have lost none of their importance or their interest. As the method became more and more complicated, and the estimation of arguments more and more dependent on the subjective views of the critics, the more impossible was agreement. The rampant undergrowth of unfruitful hypotheses overspread and concealed the solid ground of history, and must be laboriously cleared away again ; skepticism spread ; acute- ness and abuse of criticism bordered close on each other and caused the very principles of the latter to be suspected ; and it was often true on both sides in such investigations that it was not so much the historical questions themselves as the theo- logical ones lying behind them which assured to the contro- versy its importance and at the same time its endlessness. 358 HISTORY OF THE CANON. To relate in detail the course of these discussions does not lie within the plan of this history. Moreover they have been introduced, so far as they have interest, at the appropriate points in our First Book. We only observe here that beside the ancient Antilegoniena a great number of other books were now questioned ; the Pastoral Epistles, since 1807, by Schleiermacher and Eiclihorn ; 2 Thessalonians by J. E. C. Schmidt, since the same time ; the Gospel and Epistles of John since 1820 by Bretschneider, Matthew since 1824 by Schulz ; Ephesians and Acts by l)e Wette, 1826 ; Colossians by Mayerhoff, 1838 ; Mark in 1836 by Credner, etc. All these investigations, however, even when mistaken in their immediate results, led more and more generally to the purely historical method of treating the subject. In the O. T. should be first mentioned the investigations on the Pentateuch, which have changed the whole conception of the Hebrew literature, nay even of Israelitish history, especially since Vater ; on Isaiah, Zechariah, the Psalms, Solomon, and all the historical books. It may be remarked in gen- eral that in both Testaments the didactic writings (Prophets and Epistles) have been shown to be comparatively the most genuine kernel of the bibli- cal literature (in the purely literary-historical sense), i. e. the best attested and the earliest completed, and the historical books the later accession. Cf. § 171. [See the author's Gesch. des A. T., 1883.] 344. Special mention is due here only to the completely al- tered view of the early history of Christianity and its literature advocated and established by Ferdinand Christian Baur and his followers of the Tiibingen School. According to this view the peculiar doctrinal content of each writing gives the key to its origin ; so that the idea of the development of the apos- tolic doctrine appears essentially complete before the investiga- tion of the New Testament documents with respect to the time of their origin has properly begun. Now inasmuch as this system at the same time assumes a much more gradual prog- ress of this development, on the one side in the direction of higher speculation, on the other toward the fusion of Jewish Christian and Pauline elements, than is usually assumed, a later date results for the origin of most of the books found in ovir pi'esent canon, the majority of which consequently fall in the post-apostolic period, and even in the second century. Thus the idea of a canon, even in the loosest sense, is reduced to small dimensions, and in a certain view of the case it even becomes doubtful whether the original thought of the Gospel is still recorded in writing at all. The complete view of the Tiibingen School respecting the early history of Christianity (Jesus included), or of the early Christian literature in particu- lar, was for a long time nowhere consistently and pragmatically stated . The numerous writings of F. C. Baur and his pupils, E. Zeller, A. Schwegler, R. Kostlin, A. Hilgenfeld, and others, important for the elucidation of critical questions, some of them pioneer works, and all stimulating, have been cited and considered at the appropriate places in the First Book. Formerly the most comprehensive works were : Schwegler's NacJiap. Zeitalier, Tiib. 1846, 2 Pts. ; Kostlin, Lehrhegriff des Ev. J oh. (and of the N. T. writings in gen- eral), B. 1843 ; A. Ritschl (who has now, however, in essential points aban- doned the views of Baur), Entstehung der altkath. Kirchc (1st ed.}, Bonn, TUBINGEN SCHOOL. 359 1850 ; cf. in general the Tub. theoL Jalirh., 1S42-1S57, by Baur and Zeller ; Jenaer Zeitschr. fur wlssenscliaftl. TheoL, by Hilgeufeld, since 1858 ; Baur, Die Tuhinger Schule und Hire Stellung zur Gegenwart, Tub. 1859. AVe must now name as the principal work : Baur, Das Christenihum und die christUche Kirche der drei ersten Jalirb., Tiib. 1853 [E. tr. by A. Menzies, Lond. 1879, 2 vols.] ; more popular, G. Volkmar, Die Religion Jesu in ihrer ersten Ent- wicklung, L. 1857. A. Kayser, L'jScole de Baur (Revue de TheoL, II. 257 ff.) ; S. Berger, Les origines de I'ecole de Tub. et ses principes, Str. 18G7. In criticism : H. Bbttger, Baur's hist. Kritik in ihrer Consequenz, Brg. 1840, 3 vols. , W. O. Dietlein, Das Urchristenthum, Halle, 1845 ; Guerike, Das Urchristenthum u. s. Anschauung durch Baur (in the Zeitschr. fiir luth. TheoL, 1846, IV.) ; G. L. Hahn, Ueber den gegenwartigen Stand der neuteslL Kritll; Br. 1848 ; H. W. J. Tliiersch, Versuch zur Herstellung des hist. Standjmnktes fiir die Kritik der neutestL Schriften, Erl. 1845 ; the same, Einige Worte iiber die Echtheit der neutestL Schr., 1846 ; Frank, in the Wilrtemb. Studien, 1848, II. ; and numerous special essays, which see above in the proper place. G. Uhlhorn, Die alteste Kirchengeschichte in ihrer neuesten Darstellung, in the Stuttg. Jahrb., 1857, III. ; 1858, II., III. ; C. Schwarz, Zur Gesch. d. neuesten TheoL, 1856, p. 153 flP. The prevailingly negative results of the criticism of Baur and his school are in themselves no proof of error, as apologetics has only too often represented it ; but the system has its weak points, in which it must be essentially changed or fall. We have already pointed out in this connection the stu- diously obscure reserve of judgment respecting Jesus ; the breach between him and Paul ; the altogether too harsh intensification of the opposition be- tween the latter and the other Apostles ; the failure to recognize the germs of organization even in the earliest Jewish Christianity, and their i)ower ; the assumption, never yet justified, of so very late a date for most of the N. T. Avritings ; the rashness of judgment by which tlie genuineness of many of them is denied, — often sacrificed rather to the logic of the system than to sufficient proof ; tlie character of the process of development as it is rep- resented, which is throughout rather external and mechanical than internal and dynamic, etc. Not even in the light of the most recent discoveries, by whicli many things have been altered or modified, should we be able wholly to retract any of these criticisms. But the system will never be ef- fectively combated when it is rejected in a lump. 345. The gain which has come to science from all these dis- cussions ought not to be measured by the particular results which may have enjoyed a more general acceptance. These will be still less numerous in the future than now, and there is no prospect that the contest will ever wholly cease. But it must be taken into account that criticism has long since ceased to be the exclusive prerogative or weapon of a particular school, that many questions have become independent of dogmatics, and that the position of parties upon the ecclesiastical field does not always necessarily dictate in advance the decision in purely historical matters. This is a great step toward the dis- covery of the truth. The method is improved; tradition, which formerly, in spite of its uncertainty, exercised the office of judge without limitation, contents itself with the more modest role of a witness, and where once a blind instinct was the guide, science now gives her light. 360 HISTORY OF THE CANON. To enumerate points upon which controversy has been fought out and final results reached is not to our purpose, the less so since these would be pre- cisely the least important things, and historical criticism ought never to re- gard itself as complete. 346. But the most profound change has taken place in the theological conception of the canon itself. While the older Protestant system was chiefly emphasizing in the definition of it the supernatural inspiration of the books, their inner insep- arableness and direct relation to salvation, the modern histor- ico-rational dogmatics was beginning to regard tliem only as documents or records, either bf the Jewish and Christian relig- ions in their ideal conception, or even for the time of their origin only. The Old Testament, once forming a whole with the New, as propliecy and fulfillment, sank to the position of a useful source of aid in the understanding of the New. Vari- ous attempts have been made in our day to overcome this point of view, and to reestablish the theological method of treating the Scriptures as opposed to the purely historical. But many of them are timid or obscure, and much weakened, both by the fact that criticism has caused too many things to appear in a different light than formerly, and by the fact that theology itself, at least in Germany, has neither the ability nor the desire to restore the former idea of inspiration. Yet the desire will not always be lacking ; indeed, even now the neces- sity is felt, with reference to the completeness and purity of the whole collection, of holding fast fundamentally to the tra- ditional position, convinced that unless the vessel be kept in- violate the contents must be lost. For illustrations, see the last twenty sections of our Fifth Book, and the chapter on the Scriptures in any compendium of dogmatics since 1790. We give a few examples. Reinhard's Voriesungen uber die Dogmatik, 1799 : § 16 : Fons a quo manure debet omnis reUgionis doctrina est S. S. inprimis N. T. ; § 21 if., the authority of the O. T. depends for us on the testimony of Jesus and the Apostles ; Novi Test, origo divina nititur testimonio autorum ipsorum ; but the diiference of opinion respecting the canonicity of particular books is of no moment ; § 28 : Humana ratio examinare II. ss. argumentum et legitinice interpretationi prceesse debet, sed in iis rebus quce sunt a repugnantia liberoe et in II. ss. manifeste traditre, autoritati divince obtemperare debet. Doderlein, Instit. th. chr. (1779), ed. 6, 1797 ; § 26 : Only the New Testa- ment is fons primarius; the O. T., reason, and tradition, nrefontes secundarii, of decreasing value ; § 31 fE. : The canonical collection arose out of practical necessities ; the canon is a catalogue of church books, not everywhere the same, and nowhere officially fixed. But all the books authentic, none lost, their content not having, in all its elements, equal connection with the Christian religion. Eckermann, Compend. th. chr., 1792, p. 12 if. : ReUgionis revelatce historia et doctrina continetur II. ss. qui partim a prophetis Israelitarum scripti a Jndceis pro sinceris doctr. mos. fontibus habiti sunt, partim discipulns Christi vel horum amicos auctores habuerunt, . . quibus id egerunt Apostoli ut Christianis constan- (CHANGE IN THEOLOGICAL CONCEPTION OF CANON. 361 tiam pietatem et virtutem commendarent, singulis ea scribentes quce lecturis, illo tempore prcesertim, utilissima viderentur. Heuke, Tnstitt. Jidei chr., 1793, p. 8 ff. : Hauriendi est solidior et purior doctr. chr. scientia ex II. N. F., deinde, quia Jesus et App. librorum Judceis ss. com- mendarunt reverentiam. . . nee satis possunt priores illi intelligi nisi his probe simul tractatis, adJiibenda est collectio V. F. Both testaments have the same purpose, ut docunienta et prcesidia rectce Deum colendi et vitam instituendi ra- tionis adessent, non tarn omnis cevi quam sui temporis et loci hominibus proxime inservitura, but differ ui that in the one Moses is the princi^jal person, in the other Christ, etc. Canonicos vocarnus quos ecclesia publicce lectioni destinavit, nee semper nee ubivis eosdem. Weg-scheider, Institt. (1815), 8th ed. 1844, p. 162 : Ex historia canonis non interna sed externa singg. pai'tium auctoritas repeti et Jirmari potest. Nee tamen dubitari potest quin canone N. T. inprimis Us dictis quce a J. C. ipso recte repe- tuntur, relig. chr. veritatisque div. documenta antiquissima et fide dignissima con- tineantur. Page 147 : the O. T., secwidarius fans, m part contradictory of the New, in part expressly abrogated, yet serviceable capita (N. T.),fidei paucis tantum commemorata argumentis idoneis apte illustrare. Hase, Ev. Dogm. (18l>6), 5th ed. 1860, § 24 : The Sacred Scriptures of the N. T., as the only historically trustworthy record of its first appearance, are the sole source of original Christianity. The Old Testament serves only as a historical foundation and for explanation. . . . etc. (Possibility of error and contradiction in the history ; manifold development of the doctrine that that method is to be regarded as completely Christian which corresponds most perfectly to the religious idea.) § 28 : Everything Christian is not necessarily contained in the N. T., though everything is to be proved from the N. T. Schleiermacher, Christl. Glaube (1820), 2d ed. 1831, II. 352 fp. Faith in Clu'ist precedes faith in the Scriptures. The N. T. is the first member in the continuous series of all presentations of the Christian faith, and at the same time the standard for those that follow. The separate parts of the N. T. were given by the Holy Spirit, and the collection was formed under his guidance (these propositions, however, as well as that respecting authen- ticity, removed by development froni the spirit of the older system). The O. T. owes its position in the Bible only to the quotations in the N. T. and to the arrangement of divine service after the model of the synagogue. Twesten, Dogm., 2d ed. 1829, I. 445 ff., founds canonicity chiefly upon the direct evidence of the Holy Spirit, by wliich a writing proves itself inspired, though without making the historical evidence a merely incidental matter. Nitzsch, System der christlichen Lehre, 5th ed. 1844, § 42 : Faith in the Scriptures (not a faith in the letter, consequently not to be founded upon ecclesiastical tradition alone nor upon mechanical theories of inspiration) is the conviction that the Scriptures, by the same divine act and power to which we owe revelation and the preaching of the Apostles, have become an only, clear, and complete means of transmitting the word of God. It is based . . . upon the spiritual experience which we have both of the inner unity and of the distinction between the Scriptures and the word of God. The church distinguishes proto- and deutero-eanonical Scriptures, therefore different kinds and degrees of inspiration, and it is only to the whole as such that the properties of infallibility, sufficiency, and completeness belong. Grimm, Institt. th. ev. (1848), 1869, p. 98 : Ex historica notione S. S. est complexio II. qui primitives rel. et hist. hebr. et chr. fontes continent. E dogmat- ica notione antiquioribus probata verbum Dei immediato et miraculoso Sp. S. afflatu a prophetis et app. salutis humance causa Uteris consignatum. E dogmat- ica notione nostri cevi rationibus accommodata complexio II. divinam de salute per Chr. hominibus consequenda institutionem continentium. Cf. in general, in order to appreciate the revolution in the theological con- 362 HISTORY OF THE CANON. ception of the subject: Holtzmann, iTanon und Tradition (§ 332). — Re- cently, however, even on the strictly conservative side, not only has the ! necessity been recognized theoretically of respecting the rights of history in the decision of matters of an essentially historical character, but practical attempts have been made to give to the science of the Scriptures by this very means a fiimer foundation than had been done from the almost a priori standpoint of the older theology : J. C. C. Hofmann (§ 590) ; but especially Kahnis, Die lutherixche Doginatik, L. 1861, I. ; also his Zeugniss von den i Grundwalirheiten des Protestantismus gegen Hengstenberg, L. 1862. 347. These discussions have not everywhere found an eclio out- side of Germany, partly simply because of the opposition which they have encountered, often without being understood. Cal- vinism, with less disposition to mysticism, cherishes a greater respect for the written word. The English Church, scarcely able to protect itself from the multitude of bigoted and fanati- cal sects, guards with scrupulous strictness its ancient double inheritance of a dry orthodoxy and rich livings. In a country where scholastic controversial questions are among the qualifi- cations for power, and Protestant theologians fi-om their pro- fessorial chairs and in tracts carry on a Catholicizing propa- ganda, criticism of the Scriptures must be regarded as deism even if it is not actually so. The recent efforts at critical in- vestigation, much talked of even in foreign lands, like light- ning in a dark night, which rather startles than illuminates, have shown not so much the nearness of the dawn as the depth of the darkness around. In Holland, the ancient home of gen- uine and sober-minded science, the same diverse tendencies have in our day manifested themselves as everywhere where theology has kept pace with the spiritual life of the people, and she is emulating, with equal power, and in both directions, the endeavor and the production of neighboring countries. In particular, that criticism which is least dependent upon tradi- tion, and which gives the greatest space to doubt, has there found its able advocates. We hear less from the northern lands than formerly, but although there is a partial stand-still there, there are yet many appearances to make us regret that science no longer speaks a universal language. Young Amer- ica, finally, the precocious heiress of the Old World, is too deep in the rut of positive and material production and enterprise to care to speculate with the unfruitful capital of science. It is not merely the slight literary connection with those lands that pre- vents me from laying claim to greater completeness here ; the matter has not been worked up before by those perhaps more skillfid. Notices of Eng- lish theological literature in German periodicals are in general very scanty ; see Gabler's and Berthold's Journals ; more recent, in the Strassh. Revue, passim. The number of comprehensive and scholarly works on the biblical literature that have appeared in recent times in England is not small, though patristic learning and apologetic and practical aims prevail: T. H. Home, OTHER LANDS — ENGLAND — HOLLAND — FRANCE. 363 Introd. to the Critical Study of the Holy Scriptures, 9th ed. 1846, 4 vols. [14th ed. 1877] ; J. Townley, History of the Sacred Writings, 1821, 3 vols. ; R. Haldane, The Looks of the Old and New Testaments, 1838 ; J. M. Mc- Culloch, Literary Characteristics of the Holy Scriptures, 1847 ; G. Hamilton, Introd. to the Study of the Hehr. Scr., 1814 ; Horsley, Biblical Criticism on the O. T., 4 vols. 1820 ; J. Cooke, Inquiry into the Books of the N. T., 1821 ; S. Davidson, Introd. to the N. T., 1848. Cf. also the Journal of Sacred Litera- ture, by Kitto and Burgess, since 1848, which is by far the best index of the state of biblical science in England. Essays and Reviews, Lond. 18G1, 9th ed. Among them especially B. Jowett, On the Interpretation of Scripture. (Cf. Diestel, in the Stuttg. Jahrh., 1861, IV.) — A Collection of Theological Essays, from various authors, with an in- troduction by G. R. Noyes, Boston, 1856 ; Essays and Reviews, translated from the French by J. R. Beard, Lond. 1861 ; J. W. Colenso, The Pe7itateuch and Book of Joshua critically examined, Lond. 1862 &., 6 vols. 8° ; The Theological Review, a Journal of Religious Thought and Life, Loud, since 1864 (quarterly). On Holland see in general : H. J. Royaards, De commutationis quam theologia in Nederlandia suhiit Scec. XIX. via ac ratione, Traj. 1850; Gelzer's MonatsbL, June, 1861 ; Schenkel's Kirchl. Zeitschr., 1862, Heft 7 ; P. H. de Groot, Die Groninger Theologen (German), Goth. 1863 ; H. Scharling, Den nyere hollandske Theologie, Kjcib. 1865 ; J. H. Scholten (at Leyden), Herdenking mijner 25j. Amtshediening, 1865 ; his Hist. krit. Inleiding tot de Schr. des N. T., 2d ed., L. 1856 ; and many special writings cited above. A. Kuenen (also at Leyden), Hist. krit. Onderzoek naar het Ontstaan en de Verzameling v. d. BB. des 0. Verbonds, L. 1861 ff., 3 vols, (also French by A. Pierson, Par. 1866, Pt. I.). Cf. also : Tkeologisch Tijdschrift, Amst. and Leyd. since 1867. Both are so-called special introductions. Cf. Scholten's Leer der hervormde Kerk, 4tli ed., 1861, I. 76 ff. We obtain thence contmually, if not always, the prin- cipal works, written in Dutch, yet numerous excellent monographs in Latin to which due attention is always paid here. On Scandinavia, earlier, in particular the Theol. Annalen of Wachler, later the Studien, 1828, 1830, 1834, 1838, always at the close of the year ; Beck, in the Tiib. Jahrb., 1844, III. Since the Danish scholars have ceased to use the German language in their writings we hear little of them, and transla- tions become a necessity and a deserved tribute. Many Latin treatises still come to us, which exhibit a kindred spirit and show that they are abreast of the age there. Among the living biblical scholars of Denmaik the most dis- tinguished is C. E. Scharling, of Copeidiagen. The periodicals I do not know from my own observation. 348. French Protestantism, once the valiant champion of spiritual liberty, now but just recovering from long and harsh bondage, as yet regards with fear and distrust everything that might shake the traditions which have helped it to bear its chains and so become the dearer. Altogether unproductive with respect to science, at once hampered and split into fac- tions by the arrangement of its church life, and still lacking courage and ability to regenerate itself from within, it hesitates between the influence of England and of Germany, the former of which works upon it with ecclesiastical and social activity, also with money and theories of freedom, the latter with ideas and books. Many find safety midway in adopting the ideas of the latter and the freedom of the former at the same time. 364 HISTORY OF THE CANON. Recently an extreme doctrine of the character and inspiration of the Scriptures has met clear and decided opposition, which, in its connection with a positive theological conviction, has excited general attention and called out much scientific dis- cussion. Ed. Reuss, Die wissenschaftliche Theologie unter den Protestanten in Frank- reich (in the Studien, 1844, I.) ; H. Kienlen, Die gegenwdrtige theol. Bewegung in der protest. Kirche franz. Zunge (in the Strassb. Beitr., VI.). Cf. C. Weizsacker, iu the Stuttg. Jahrb., 1861, I. ; C. de R^musat, in the Revue des Deux Mondes, Jan. 1862. Earlier, more apologetic treatises on the history of the canon, in the Geneva school : J. E. Cellerier, Essai d'une introduction critique au N. T. (after Hug), 1823. L. Gaussen (at Geneva, f 1863), Theopneustie ou pleine inspiration des SS. J^critures, P. 1840 ; a theory which was afterward modified by the author and those of his school, but which along with its harshness lost also its clearness. E. Scherer (of Geneva, now at Versailles), La critique et lafoi, Deux lettres, 1850, and various essays in the Revue de theologie et de philosophie chretienne, pulilished under the direction of T. Colaiii, Strassb., 1850-57, 15 vols.; Nouvelle Revue, 1858-62, 10 vols. ; 3d series, 1863-69, 7 vols. Controversial writings by J. J. Cheneviere, A. de Gasparin, L. Boimet, and others ; J. H. Merle d'Aubigne, U Autorite des Ecritures inspirees de DieUf Toul. 1850. The discussion on the conservative side almost exclusively dogmatic. The literary-historical apologetics (P. Jallaguier, Authenticite du N. T., Toulouse, 1851 ; cf. his Inspiration du N. 7\, P. 1851) has never felt able to defend the Antilogemena of the ancient church. The consciousness of this weakness has led to a theory of the canon (A. de Gasparin, Les ecoles du doute et Vecole de la foi, Gen. 1853 ; La Bible defendue, P. 1855), which, claiming to avoid the extreme of literalism, proceeding from an instinctive fear of the subjective element in religion and theology, lays down the principle of avithority as the palladium of Christianity. It finds this principle, however, not at all in the creeds of the Church, but in the canon, and identifies inspiration, — of the Scriptures, not of the writers, — with the idea of infallibility, without entering into any psychological or theological explanation of it. Canonicity and inspiration, however, are not to be estab- lished either by the internal or external evidences of ordinary apologetics, and least of all by patristic testimony, but, as respects the O. T., simply by the positive declaration of Jesus, and as respects the New, by logical inference from its equality of rank with the former. This solution has been received by the opposite side as a victory for themselves, by those belonging to the school of the author as a piece of rashness bringing a severe penalty after it. In reality there only remains between such a view and tlie theology of the mosque the distinction of consistency. A magnificent attempt to depart from this path and to make history^itself subservient to theory is now before us in L. Gaussen, Le canon des s. Ecritures au double point de vue de la science et de la foi, Laus. 1860, 2 vols. ; O. de Grenier-Fajal, Date hist, de la formation du canon du N. T., Toul. 1867. — A (very hesitating) middle position is essayed by (Astier) M. Scherer, ses disciples et ses adversaires par quelquhm qui ?i'est ni Vun ni Vautre, 1854 ; he has doubtless succeeded in founding a third party, but not in stating any positive doctrine. Here belong also the work of the same author, Les deux theologies, 1861, and an article by E. de Pressense on Inspiration in the Revue Chn'tienne, 1862. Of later date we may mention, on the conservative side, E. Arnaud, Le Pentateuque mosa'ique dcfendu contre les attaques de la critique negative, P. 1865, and F. Bouifas (at Montauban), OTHER LANDS — FRANCE. 365 Essai sur Vunite de Venseignement apostolique, P. 1866 ff. On the other side, in the spirit of free historical criticism : E. Haag, Theologie BibUque (literary and religious history), Par. 1870. How little the relation of the investigations of the canon to the objective contents of the Gospel is understood in the Catholic ranks is shown by an article (otherwise pertinent) by Edgar Quinet, in the Revue des Deux Mondes, Dec. 1838, on D. F. Strauss, translated into German by G. Kleine, 1839. Also, Expose des discussions survenues a Geneve entre les protestants sur Vauiorite de VEcr. S., by the Abbe de Baudry, 1852. The separation of Strassburg from France has for the moment, it is true, deprived Frencli Protestant science of a mighty power. But the impulse already given was powerful enough and its effects will contmue. Besides, the spiritual separation may be only a transient one. 349. The Church herself has kept altogether aloof from these discussions carried on between the learned ; though warnings have often been uttered in her name against the danger of them or protests made against their results. She would not have allowed herself to be driven to a change in the traditional canon even had the contention and investiga- tion led to generally admitted results, which was not the case. As matters now stand, the external form of Scripture, in Ger- many at least, is no longer looked upon as a thing of equal importance with its contents, and custom decides respecting it much more than theological tenets. Experience showed this when the English Bible Society, carrying out strictly the Prot- estant principle of the canon, banished the Old Testament Apocrypha from the Bibles which it distributed. The rule found acceptance on the continent only so far as Anglican zeal and party spirit had influence. But when in our own days the so-called Inner Mission sees in this exclusion an ap- propriate means for the promotion of church life or for the diminution of human suffering, this only shows in a new way the spiritual poverty of pious provincialism, which will not recognize the fact that the disease of Joseph does not cleave to a paper. British and Foreign Bible Society, 22d Report, 1826, p. xviii. ; SSd Report, 1827, p. xii. Societe BibUque de Paris, 9e Rapport, 1828, pp. 7, 31; Allg. Kirch- enzeitung, 1829, I. 216; Neueste Nachrichten aus dem Reiche Gottes, 1827, p. 353. Cf. the writings of Moulinie and E. Reuss cited in § 283; also S. Negre, Les apocryphes, faisaient-ils partie du canon, etc., Mont. 1834. Angli- can orthodoxy thus came into conflict with its own liturgy, which recognizes the Apocrypha, and introduces readings from it. The executive committee of the Inner Mission in Baden, in 1851, set a price of eighty ducats on the head of the Apocrypha, that is to say, offered that amount for the best writings against them (see against this measure Evang. Kirchenzeitung, Aug. 23d, 1851 ; T. Colani, in the Revue de Thiol., Nov. 1851, p. 316). The writings of P. F. Keerl and E. Kluge were crowned as the most meritorious "witnesses," in 1852. Cf. J. U. Oschwald, Die Apokryph.en in der Bibel, Z. 1853; Keerl, Das Wort Gottes und die Apokry- phen, 1853, and numerous tracts. — Against them, Stier, Die Apokryphen, 866 HISTORY OF THE CANON. 1853; Bleek, in the Studien, 1853, II. ; Evang. Kirclienzeitung, July, 1853, etc. 350. Thus the history of the collection of tlie sacred writ- ings of the Christians has witnessed the appearance and domi- nation of different principles in two main periods, after that, during a preparatory time, the original lack of such a collec- tion and the gradual rise of the need for it had come to be recognized. The first period shows, in the four stages of the origin, extension, closing, and preservation of the collection, the domination of the principle of tradition and custom in the practical connection of the facts, in connection with the sub- ordinate importance assigned to the accompanying theological idea of the canon, which latter finally became almost wholly obscured. The second period begins, in the time of the Re- formation, with an insistence upon this dogmatic conception, and at the same time an inclination to criticism in the ap- plication of it to particular books. After this principle had been carried to the extreme and its power exhausted, criticism became dominant and has finally been applied against the dogma itself, which is now again in controversy. Far from having finished her work, science seems scarcely to have done more than make a beginning. The importance of the collec- tion for the faith and life of the Church constitutes the inter- est of the History of the Text. BOOK THIRD. HISTORY OF THE PRESERVATION OF THE SACRED SCRIP- TURES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. HISTORY OF THE TEXT. 351. The original copies of the New Testament books, whether written by their authors with their own hands, or dictated to scribes, or, finally, copied by so-called calhgraphers before publication, do not appear to have remained in exist- ence long. On account of the poor quality of the paper, they must soon have become unfit for use and finally have been lost, even if they were not destroyed sooner by violence or neglect. It is certain that no ancient writer makes mention of them. Cf. on the contents of this whole book : A. Kuenen, Critices et hermeneutices II. N. F. Uneamenta, Leyd. 1858; Tischendorf, Article Bibeltext des N. T., in Herzog's Encykl. [Articles on Bible Text: Tischendorf and Von Gebhardt, in Herzog's Real-Encykl, new ed., II. 400 ff., trans, and rev. by Dr. Ezra Abbot, for Schaff's Relig. EnajcL, 1882, I. 268 ff.; Westcott, in Smith's Did. Bibl., III. 2112 ff., Am. ed. ; Fr. Gardiner, The Principles of Textual Criticism, in the Bib. Sac, Apr. 1875, reprinted, revised, as an App. to his Harmony of the Four Gospels, Andover, 187G and 1880 ; Ezra Abbot, in Anglo-American Bible Revision, Phila., 2d ed. 1879, p. 86 ff.; also in The New Revision and its Study, Phila. 1881, p. 5 ff. ; reprinted in part in Dr. B. H. Kennedy's Ely Lectures on the Revised Version of the N. T., Lond. 1882, p. 91 ff. — The Re- vised Version of 1881 has called forth a large number of essays on the sub- ject in English and American periodicals. Note especially the attacks of Dean Burgon in Lond. Quar. Review, Oct. 1881, Jan. and Apr. 1882; replies by W. Sanday, in Contemp. Rev., Dec. 1881; Farrar, Coritemp. Rev., Mar. 1882 ; by an anonymous writer, in the Church Quar. Rev., Jan. 1882 ; B. B. Warfielci, in the Presb. Quar. Rev., Apr. 1882 ; by two members of the Eng- lish N. T. Revision Company, in The Revisers and the Greek Text of the JV. T., Lond. 1882.] [Works on Textual Criticism : J. S. Porter, Principles of Textual Criticism, Lond. 1848; S. Davidson, A Treatise on Biblical Criticism, Edinb. and Lond. 1852, 2 vols. (2d vol. on the N. T.); S. P. Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek N. T., with Remarks on its Revision upon Critical Principles, Lond. 1854) ; by the same author, Introduction to the Textual Criti- cism of the N. T., Lond. 1860 (a separate reprint of the first part of Vol. IV. of Home's Introduction, 10th ed., Lond. 1856; with Additions and Postscript, in 11th ed. 1860, 14th ed. 1877) ; F. H. A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the N. T., 1861, 3d ed. 1882; cf. also his Six Lectures on the Text of the N. T., Lond. 1875; C. E. Hammond, Outlines of Textual Criticism Applied to the N. T., Oxf. 1872, 3d ed. 1880 ; Edw. C. Mitchell, Critical 368 HISTORY OF THE WRITTEN TEXT. Handbook to the N. T., Lond. and Andover, 1880 (the part on Textual Criti- cism, pp. 67-143, rev. by Ezra Abbot) ; G. E. Merrill, llie Story of the Manuscripts, 3d ed. Boston, 1881 (popular); Ph. Schaft', A Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version, N. Y. 1883, chs. ii., v., vi. ; and in general the Prolegomena to the critical editions.] The value of the Autographa, apxervwa., IhiSxeipa, for the first Christians, must not be measured by the standard of our critical needs or our careful- ness of records, least of all by our passion for bibliographical curiosities. In general, while there was such a wealth of the living word, men troubled themselves less about the written (§§ 30 if., 284 ff.). Decreasing legibility and the cu'culation of more complete copies may also have caused them to be forgotten. The greatest interest on this point is with reference to the Pauline Epistles ; cf . Griesbach, Hist, textus epp. paulin., 0pp., II. 58 ff. The assistance of scribes {notarii, amanuenses, Taxvypa4>oi), attested by the text itself (Rom. xvi. 22 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 21; Col. iv. 18; 2 Thess. iii. 17; in a different way Gal. vi. 11), has been denied from prejudice : F. Stosch, De epp. App. idiographis, Guelf. 1751, 8° ; J. H. Pries, De App. salva inspiratione amanuensium opera nsis, Rost. 1757; F. W. Roloff, De trihus (.') Pauli nomini- bus ad Rom. xvi. 22, Jen. 1731; N. T. Briegleb, Tertius scriha Pauli, Jen. 1754. If the epistles were not dictated they certainly were copied, before being sent, by other hands than the writer's. Cf. also § 76. KaWiypaTa avriypacpa, in Epiphan., Ancor., ch. xxxi., are therefore genuine copies. Yet this word Stopdovv had elsewhere another natural sense. § 365, cf. also § 362. Examples of grammatical corrections : Mk. ii. 15 : KaraKuaeai avrhv or Kara- KeifjLevuv avrcov instead of iv TqS /car. ; vii. 17 : rec. irepl ti)s 7rapa/3oAf;s for tiju 372 HISTORY OF THE WRITTEN TEXT. Trap. ; Mt. viii. 28 : iKQ6vTos avrov for iXdSfri ; v. 28 : rec. eTridvfXTidat avrrjs for aiiTT)"', XV. 32: rec. vfj-epas rpeTy for ijn^pai ; Lk. viii. 33 : rec. dariXQiv instead of the plural, cf. vs. 31 ; Rev. ii. 20 : rec. r7)v Keyovaav instead of the nominative ; Heb. iv. 15 : TreTreipa/xevov or iTenfipaa-fji.evoi' ; 1 Cor. X. 24 : sKaffTos added ; Rom. ii. 17, <5e for d Se . . . (yet see § 354). The frequent change of the Greek orthography is also to be remembered in this connection ; yet respecting this views prevail among the most recent critics (see Tischendorf, Prolegomena to edition VII. p. 43 ff.), which from lack of contemporaneous documents do not appear to be above all doubt ; at least it is more natural to suppose that later copyists followed local and tem- poral customs in this matter than that Luke and Paul used Egyptian provin- cial forms. Exegetical explanations : Lk. i. 64 : /col ri ■y\cSff(ra avrov, add ^i-qpdpwQr) or ixidt] ; Mt. xii. 30 : pijM" T^ov-qphv instead of a.py6p ; vii. 27 : Trpoa-fppTj^av or npoa- €Kpov'P's- • • • Historical criticism : Mt. xxvii. 9 : Zaxapiov ; vs. 44 wholly omitted ; Mk. ii. 26 : in] 'A(3iadap omitted or Abimelech ; Jn. viii. 57 : reacrapaKovra ; vii. 8 : ovTTco instead of ovk ; Mt. i. 11, completion of the series of names ; x. 2 : 6 iTTiKA-^dels ©aSSoios added ; cf. § 170 ; Acts xiii. 33 : Sevrepcp ; Lk. v. 7 : Ttapd Tt added ; Mk. i. 2 : eV rols ■n-po(priTa7s ; Mt. xxiv. 38 : nph added. Archseological learning : Mt. xxv. 1 : koI ttjs fi^^^rjs added. Alteration in accordance with ecclesiastical or biblical usage : Acts xx. 28 : eKKKrioia deov or Kvpiov ; xvi. 7 : 'Ii7(roC omitted ; Rom. i. 16 : Xpiarov added. Freaks of fancy : Mk. iii. 31 : v fj.-fiTr]p koI ol aS^Acpol instead of the reverse order ; Gal. ii. 9, rieVpos koI 'Ia/ca)/8os, the same. Perhaps, however, only blunders. Jn. vi. 11, introduction of the disciples. 358. Elsewhere, and especially in the historical books, the design was enrichment. On the one hand the greater richness of tradition invited to the supplementing of the gospel history as a whole, and on the other the comparison of written Gospels so similar to one another led to the attempt to bring them yet nearer together in expression as well as in the substance of the narrative itself. Related to these alterations are those whose design was to bring about a more accurate agreement between a passage and an Old Testament text quoted in it, when the latter was only incompletely or otherwise incorrectly recalled from memory. Cf. in general § 238 fP. To the examples there adduced of traditional enrichment may be added, among others, Mt. v. 10 : MaKopioi oi heStuy/ufvoi CLTrh TTJs SiKaiOffiivri? on avrol iaovrat Tf\etoi' fj-aKapioi ol SeSioi-y/xeVoi iv^K^p i/xov '6ti f^ova-i rSnop oirov ov Sioox6-ri(TovTai, which Clem. Alex., Strom., IV. 490, calls fxeraTtOepai rh ivayyeAiov ; Mt. X. 8 : yfKpovs iyelpere added ; cf. xi. 5 ; Jn. viii. 59 : SieXOuov 5ia /xeaov avrSiv k. t. X. added as a miracle (Lk. iv. 30). Examples of harmonistic conformation : Mt. xviii. 11 came from Lk. xix. 10 ; Mt. xxi. 44 from Lk. xx. 18 ; Lk. vii. 10 is in many witnesses repeated after Mt. viii. 13 ; Lk. iv. 8 adds i'7ra76 ^iricrw jxov aarava from Mt. iv. 10 ; after Luke xi. 15 in some codices stands Mk. iii. 23 ; after Lk. v. 14 Cod. DESIGNED ALTEEATIONS - GLOSSES. 373 D inserts Mk. i. 45 ; after Mt. xxvii. 49 not a few, even ancient, witnesses have the note from Jn. xix. 34. Lk. xi. 2 ff. is supplemented from Mt. vi. 9 ff. ; of. Mt. xix. 17 and parallels ; Mk. xiv. 22 ; 1 Cor. xi. 24 ; Lk. xvii. 36 ; xxii. 47 ; cf. Jerome, Prcef. in Evv. ad Damas. : Magnus in nostris codd. error inolevit dum, quod in eadem re alius evangelista plus dixit, in alio quia minus putaverint addiderunt • vel dum eundem sensum alius aliter expressit, ille qui unum e quatuor primum legerat ad ejus exemplar ceteros quoque existimaverit emendandos j wide accidit ut apud nos mixta sinl omnia et in Marco plura Lucie aique Mattkcei, rursus in Matthceo plura Joannis et Marci . . . inveniantur. Similar phenomena in the Acts : ch. viii. 37 is an addition ; ix. 5, 6 and xxii. 8 are supplemented from xxvi. 14. Examples of completed or corrected quotations are furnished both by edi- tions and manuscripts. Mt. xii. 20 ; xv. 8 ; Lk. iv. 18, 19 ; Kom. iv. 18 ; ix. 28 ; xiii. 9 ; Hebr. ii. 7 ; xii. 20. Mt. xxvii. 35 is wholly interpolated from Jn. xix. 24. 359. Many readers, though refraining from so bold altera- tions in the text itself, yet committed the results of their stud- ies, whether exegetical or critical, to the mai'gin of their copies. For the novelty and peculiarity of the religious language of the Apostles continually aroused the more classically educated reader to seek and to give elucidations, a proceeding which stood connected in many ways with the early beginning of ex- egetical tradition ; and the most incidental comparison of sev- eral manuscripts brought to his knowledge variations in the text which he might write down. But this only deferred its further alteration. For sooner or later, in a new copy, these marginal notes came into the text itself as glosses, either with or without the original reading. Mk. vii. 5 : aviirrois for koivuTs ; Rom. viii. 28 : (rwepye?, adds 6 BfSs ; 2 Cor. viii. 4 : addition at the end : Se|acr0a: v/xas; Mk. vii. 2 : ifiefxipai/To added ; Mt. x. 12 adds \eyovres- elpi]vrt k. t. A. ; Acts vii. 48 adds mols ; Gal. iii. 1 ; Rom. viii. 1 ; 1 Thess. v. 8, 24 ; 1 Cor. v. 1. Cf. above, § 357, the examples of exegetical explanation. Historical notes : Mk. vii. 8 ; Jn. vi. 22 : Acts i. 5 adds koI h fj-eWere Aufi^dv^tv tons TTjs irfPTTiKoa-Tris ; VS. 12 adds ; rocovTou vu rb ^idarqixa ocrov Svua- rhv 'louSa7ou irepnraTrjrTat iv aa^^drw ; numerous additions in the Acts are pre- served particularly in the Latin version ; also in Greek manuscripts and editions (e. g. viii. 37 ; x. 6 ; xvii. 21 ; xi. 21 ; xiv. 6, 10 ; xv. 29, 34 ; xxii. 12 ; xxiii. 25 ; xxiv. G, 18 ; xxviii. 29, etc.). — To Jn. vi. 56 Cod. D adds : KaGios iv ifxol 6 irar^p Kayib iv t$ irarpi. In the same manuscript a longer addition which appears as a gloss to vs. 53. In the interest of logical completeness or sharpness : Rom. xi. 6 : addi- tion : el 56 e'l epywv, ovKiTt iffrl x"P's K. r. A. ; Lk. ix. 55, the words of Jesus, at least the second half ; cf. § 357. Again, a genuine portion of the text might be inserted at the wrong place, having been accidentally forgotten in copying, and written afterward in the margin. So the probable transposition of the verses Phil. i. 16 and 17. After 1 Cor. x. 28, vs. 26 is repeated. In the received text of Mt. xxiii. 13, 14, conformation and transposition from the margin are combined. Early exegetical tradition : Iren. IV. 32 : Scripturas diligenter legere apud eos qui in ecclesia sunt preshyteri apud quos est apostolica doctrina. Cf. ch. xxvi. On glosses see Jerome, Ad Suniam et Fretelam, III. Francof. p. 58 : 374 HISTORY OF THE WRITTEN TEXT. Miror quomodo e latere annotationem nostram nescio quis temerarius scrihendam in corpore putaverit quam nos pro eruditione legends scripsimus. Page 59 : Si quid pro studio ex latere additum est, non debet poni in corpore. J. cle Hase, De glossematis N. T. (Bihl. Brem., I. 087 if.) ; Doderlein's Bibl, II. 781 ; Corrodi, Beltrdge, V. 1 ; C. C. Tittmanii, De glossis N. T. cestimandis et ju- dicandis, Witt. 1782 ; E. Wassenbergh, De glossis N. T. (in Valckeiiarius, Scholia, I) ; F. A. Bornemaim, De glossematis N. T. caute dijudicandis (in his Scholia ad Luc.) ; E. Reuss, Art. Glossen in Herzog's Encykl. ; L. Lcblois, Des additions leqendaires, dogmatiques, et liturgiques faites an texte primitif du N. T., Par. 1869. The Hebrew text of the O. T. in certain parts, but especially the Greek text of the LXX., is more distorted by glosses than that of the N. T. 360. A pax'ticular class of alterations by design would be those which might be undertaken to make the original text conform to a cm-rent version which had attained ecclesiasti- cal authority. The more not only the uneducated readers of the Bible, but also the more learned priests, became accustomed to this version, the more naturally must any variation discov- ered have worked to the disadvantage of the original text. If it be remembered, moreover, that original text and version were often written together in parallel columns or otherwise, it is evident how near might lie the temptation to such liberties. That single examples of such alterations can be pointed out in Western manuscripts cannot be denied, but for suspecting them as a whole, as was formerly done by many critics, there seems to be no ground. The Codices latinizantes were distinctly arraigned, after R. Simon, Hist, du texte, ch. 30 flf., by C. B. Michaelis, De variis lectt. N. T., § 80 if., and Wetstein. They were defended, in particular, by Mill, Semler, and Gries- bach, in various passages of their already cited works, and by Eichhorn, Einl., V. 235 fP. In the West and in the Latin Church, where this operation must have been undertaken, there can scarcely be assumed, at any time or in any place, sufficient linguistic knowledge, or even sufficient interest, to carry it through as a whole. (Moreover, the force of most of the examples adduced is taken away by the fact that the suspicious readings are likewise found in distant and ancient oriental witnesses.) Only at a very late period did both these things exist, and even then were only able to produce isolated pieces of audacity, among which the most famous is the well-known verse 1 Jn. v. 7, springing from the Vulgate (here itself interjjolated), over Avhich for cen- turies there has been so "much ado about nothing." (R. Simon, Texte, ch, 18 ; Liiderwald, Ueber 1 Jn. v. y, 1767 ; Semler, Dogmat. Beweisstellen, Pt. I.; F. A. Knittel, Neue Kritiken, 1785; Hezel's Schriftforscher, Pt. II.; Alter, in the Repert., V., VIII. ; H. Ware, Two Letters on the Genuineness, etc. Bost. 1820 ; C. E. Scharling, Copenh. 1861, and many earlier monographs. See in general Rosenmiiller, Handb. d. Lit., II. 246.) Perhaps also flpov, Mt. ii. 11, instead of elSov ; Rom. i. 32, after eTiyvovTes the addition ovk evo-qvav (non intellexerunt, Vulg.), or a similar word. It is something wholly different and altogether innocent when in Cod. D, Mt. iii. 16, Mk. i. 26, Trvevfia (spiritus) is treated as masculine, or elsewhere Latin forms appear, as in Mt. x. 5, ^afxapiTavciv, etc. In general, the reverse case, tlie conformation of the Latin to the Greek, is much more frequent. (§ 482). DESIGNED ALTERATIONS — DOGMATIC. 375 For noteworthy examples of how the long printed Greek text could still be altered to agree with Luther's version or the Vulgate, see below, §§ 404, 405. 361. Yet more dangerous to the text might have been the fact that in the earliest times it was not so much the Scripture as the apostolic tradition, which was more generally known and current, that usually decided in matters of faith. One might easily, in case of an actual or supposed contradiction be- tween the two authorities, hit upon the thought of removing it by altering the Scripture in accordance with the accepted rule of faith. In fact evidence is not lacking that such attempts were made. Yet the still extant examples are to be character- ized rather as exegetical guards erected by an anxious faith against heretical abuse of certain passages, than as proper dog- matic corruptions. Mt. i. 18, yevvy](ns or y4veffis ; ibid., irplu fj irvveXQeiv avrohs omitted ; vs. 25 trpccrSTOKov omitted ; Lk. ii. 33, 'lcoffi]

koI Mapla for ol yovus avrov ; vii. 31, the re- ceptus adds eJire 8e 6 Kvpios. Similarly, Jn. xiv. 1 ; Acts iii. 11: rov laBevros Xo\ov for avTov, etc. Numerous examples are collected by Mill, Prolegg., 1055. Of different kind : the doxology of the Lord's Prayer, Mt. vi. 13 : the completion of the sacramental words, 1 Cor. xi. 24 ; and especially the fre- quent 'AfjL^V. 364. Other corruptions, which are evidently accidental and not intentional, are to be attributed rather to the carelessness of the copyists than to their often so ill-applied learning. In this class belong various errors of the eye, ear, memory, and judgment. In reading, similar letters, syllables, or words were interchanged, lines with similar beginning or end were over- looked ; in dictation, things of similar sound were wrongly apprehended; in copying hastily, equivalent idioms and phrases were exchanged, or larger or smaller portions of sentences transposed, abbreviations wrongly resolved, and other similar, easily conceivable blunders made. This cause of the corrup- tion of the text, if it has not been the greatest, has at least been longest in OTifratinn. 878 HISTORY OF THE WRITTEN TEXT. Errors of the eye : Rom. xii. 13 : ixv^iais for xpf'^'S ; Mt. xix. 19 : is eaw- rhv for ois aeavrSv ; Lk. vii. 21 : txap'caTO ^Aeireti/ or ix- '''^ /SAeVeji/ ; ix. 49 : fK^dWovra 5ai.fJi.6via or eK/3. to, SaLix6i'ia ; Acts X. 3G : rhv Koyov aTreareiKe for t. \oy. hv airecTT. ; Mt. xi. 23 : KaTrepi/aoi/^ /xJ; for KaTr. rj ; 1 Tliess. ii. 7 : iyeviidrj- /jLev vrjiTiot for eyej/. ^Trtoi ; Heb. ii. 9 : X'^P^^ 'i"'^ x'^P'''"'- HonicEoteleutou : Mt. v. 19, the last clause ouiitted ; Lk. vi. 21, the same; Mt. V. 4, 5 transposed, probably on account of a previous overlooking of the first clause ; vss. 7, 8 the same ; 2 Cor. vi. 5, iv airoKaraa-Tafflais omitted ; Mt. x. 23, the first clause written double ; 1 Cor. xv. 2G and 27, first half omitted. Errors of the ear, especially on account of itacism : E,om. ii. 17 : tSe for 6t 5e ; Mt. xxvii. 60 : KfvaS for kuivw ; 1 Pet. ii. 3 : Xpio-rbs for XP'^""^"^ ! 1 Tim. V. 21 : np6(rKArjcriv for Trp6(TK\L ; 1 Cor. ii. 1 : jxapTvpiov or fjLva-r-fipiov ; according to some 1 Tim. iii. 16 : tis for 6e6s ; Jn. xix. 14 : e/crrj or rpiTij from numerous MSS. ; perhaps Mt. xiv. 7 : cH/j-oa-ev instead of wixo\6yr]a-ev ; Acts v. 34 : avdpdirovs instead of atroffrdAovs. Wrongly divided words : Phil. i. 1 : aweTriaKS-n-ois as one word; ii. 4 : fKacTTOis KOTTovvTfs ; Gal. 1. 9 '. TTpoeipTjKa fjLev separated. Orthographic confusion, especially in unusual proper names, e. g. in the genealogies ; Nazareth, Mt. iv. 13, written in four difi'erent ways, Gen- nesaret, xiv. 34, in nine. 1 Cor. vi. 20 : So^daare Sr/ t^;' dehv — instead of S^i, first &pa, then both to- gether, and then in their place, according to sound, apare, glorificate ergo et portate Deum (Vulg.). Displacements in the text have been explained by the loose connection of the separate leaves ; Griesbach, 0pp., II. 62, on Rom. xvi. 25-27 (§ 356). On the proportion of variants of this kind to those before specified, Wetstein gives his opinion as follows (Lihelll critici, p. 27) : Lectiones var. tantum non omnes studio et ingenio et conjecturce librariorum debentur; quce enim ex negligentia et incuria sunt ortce vix centesbnam earum partem constituunt. So also Griesbach, I. c, p. 105. But this seems a little exaggerated. 365. Inasmuch as these various causes worked on altogether unchecked, the dissimihirity of different copies must soon have increased so much that the greatest confusion arose, and no UNDESIGNED ALTERATIONS — LOCAL COLORING. 379 two entirely accorded. Yet along with all tliis diversity there must also have arisen a certain similarity between those manu- scripts which were connected by a sort of kinship, as compared with those which belonged to a circle altogether foreign. Sev- eral causes contributed to give the text, in regions where it was especially frequently copied, a local coloring, that is to say, a form peculiar to those regions. The method of the spread of Christianity, the dependence of many churches on one mother church, the reputation of a library, a copyist, or a manuscript, even the ruling taste, style, and usage, brought about, amid all the confusion, a greater homogeneity among the copies de- pendent upon one another. Ouly the more accidental variants repeat themselves wholly independently of one another. The intentional ones the less, as they are in higher degree a result of subjective (critical or uncritical) reflection. Their repetition is the surest internal indication of dependence or relationship. (External indi- cations, aiding one to orient himself more quickly, are the form of the characters, the color of the ornaments or initials, the subscriptions, etc.) A noteworthy example, among others, of such local differences of reading is 1 Cor. XV. 51, where the Constantinopolitan family has the text as now printed, the Alexandrian the reverse : Tlavres fiev Kotju.T]6ria6fxi6a, oh irdvres Se aK\ayr)(r6iJ.e6a; the Occidental: irduTfS fiev avaaTri<76fji.eda, ou TrdvTes Se aWayrjcrS/jieda. Newly-founded churches received the N. T. from the hands of their founders, consequently indirectly on the authority of the church wliich had sent them, and by which the whole province was cared for. To secure greater accuracy and critical mtegrity, the copies were often collated, after their completion, with specially valuable ancient MSS. (e'/c iraXaioiv avnypatpwif dfTt/3aAA6ii/), and this fact attested in a subscription. The collator intro- duced in the course of this process the necessary corrections (Siopddxreis, cf. § 357), and many of our extant MSS. have such coi-rectious by a second hand (§ 392). Here may also be mentioned what the ancient writers say of copies of Origen and Pierius, which were especially valued (Jerome, on Gal. iii. 1: in exemplariis quibusdam Adamantu the doubtful words are lacking ; on Mt. xxiv. 36 : in greeds maxime Ad. et Pi. exx., the addition oiiSe 6 vihs is wanting. Cf. Eichhorn, IV. 250 ff. ; Griesbach, De codd. evv. Origenianis, 0pp., I.). Ernesti and Hug would find in them a proper critical recension of the text (§ 367). Also certain accounts of the library at Csesarea, where the works of Origen were preserved, and copies by Pamphilus, qui multos codices prceparahat et cum necessitas poposcisset volentibus largiretur (Jerome, Adv. Rujin., II. 9 ; De scriptt. eccL, ch. 75 ; Euseb., H. E., VI. 32). Subscription to Cod. H, Paul. : a.ur^^\-i]Qy] irphs rh iv Kaiffapelq. avriypatpov ttjs ^i^\ioQi^Kr)s tov aylov IlafKplKov x^ 'P^ yeypajj.fj.evov aurov, and several others. Cf . the subscription to the book of Esther in Cod. Frid. August. (proT^erl j Sinaiiicus), in Tischen- dorf, Cod. N. T. Sin., 1863, Prolegg., p. 33. _ Influence of the Alexandrian passion for classicism, or of a provincial dialect (e. g., Alexandrian : ei-Kuv, eirea-av, iSlSoa-av, dxoffav, ^'ASare, (Tv\\-fiiJ.ipTi, etc.), upon the special form of the text, and the possibility of determining the origin of the extant MSS. thereby. The Occidental have more frequent scholia and glosses ; the Egyptian more grammatical corrections. 366. In general, however, the greater stability in the form of the text begins with the period when more numerous copies 380 HISTOKY OF THE WRITTEN TEXT. were made for the churches and for public use, in the prepara- tion of which the best helps were sought, and which in turn served as the foundation of many other copies. Unfortunately, however, many churches were prepossessed in favor of old, often faulty copies, which had come down to them by inher- itance, or of a yet more faulty version, and rejected with distrust all that did not agree with them ; whereby not only was the danger of further corruption avoided, but also the necessary correction was prevented. Most of the variations of text, in any way remarkable, which have come down to us, and many which have disappeared from all the manuscripts now extant, were already in existence in the fourth century. The ever closer union of the whole Catholic Church, as well as the increasing unalterableuess of exegesis, may also have contributed their share to the gradual fixing of the text. Cf . Griesbach, 0pp., II. 128 ff. The same author asserts, p. 101 ff., that after the middle of the fifth century no important variants (except accidental ones) came into the text. Story of the fifty church copies prepared by Eusebius for Constantine, Vita Const., iv. 36 ; E. A. Frommann, De codd. SS. Jussu Const. M. ah Euse- bio adornatis, 1759 (0pp., p. 303) ; Ernesti, Bibl., II. 384. Origen was afraid to undertake a critical work on the N. T. ; at least he says, in the ancient translation of the passage quoted in § 355 (but not in the original), after having spoken of his critical works on the O. T. : Li ex- emplarihus autem N. T. hoc ipsum me posse facere sine periculo non putavi. Jerome (Prcef. ad Evv.) knows beforehand that he will be decried as a falsarius and sacrilegus on account of his revision of the Latin version. In the decree of Gelasius (§ 324) the critical e£Eorts of Lucian and Hesychius are placed among the forged apocryphal works. Evv. qucefalsavit Lucianus apocrypha. Evv. quce falsavit Jsicius {al. al.) apocrypha. See § 367. Examjiles of readings which, formerly of more or less wide occurrence, have almost or quite disappeared from the MSS. : Mt. xxvii. 53 : /uero tV iyep(TLv avTuv, according to Glycas in all the MSS., now found almost alone in Oriental versions. — A scholium on Mk. xi. 11 mentions the addition, now altogether disappeared, oivai,iwv wtuv tui/ 'lovSaicov ; Jerome mentions a long addition to Mk. xvi. 14 in the Latin and especially the Greek MSS., evidently apocryphal, which is now no longer to be found. In Heb. ii. 9 the general reading is now x^P''^' ! ^"^ until into the fifth century the Fathers hesitated and some read x'^P'* > ^^^ Tischendorf, ad loc. In Eph. i. 2 down to the time of Basilius ev 'E^ea-qi was lacking in the text ; now only in Cod. B and Sin. ; in 1 Jn. iv. 3 the Latin witnesses and the Greek writers (Socrates, VII. 32) read 6 \vei 'l-ncrovv, wliich is not now found in any MS. 367. In spite of this distrust, some men ventured to purify the text of the New Testament writings, so far as possible, from the errors which had crept into it, and to undertake with it a work which had already been attempted, as an imperative necessity, with the Greek text of the Old Testament. Thus arose, toward the close of the third century, at nearly the same time, two critical recensions of the New Testament, the one by the Egyptian bishop Hesychius, the other by the Antiochian presbyter Lucian. Of their sources, character, and critical principles, however, in the complete lack of all definite infor- mation and documents, we are in absolute ignorance. RECENSIONS — MIXED TEXTS. 381 Jerome, Ad Damas., Prcef. in Evv. : Prcetermitto eos codices quos a Luciano et Hesychio nuncupatos paucorum hominum asserit perversa contentio, quibus nee in toto V. T. post LXX. interpretes emendare quid licuit nee in novo profuit emendasse, cum muUarum gentium Unguis scriptura antea translata doceat falsa esse quce addita sunt. From the tone of this one might get the idea that these men had simply undertaken to expunge (apocryphal ?) interpolations, or on the other hand to introduce them. In the latter sense, perhaps, is the decree of Gelasius to be understood (§ 366), though doubtless only from hearsay. Perhaps also Jerome, De viris ill., ch. Ixxvii. : Lucianus vir diser- tissimus tantmn in S. S, studio laboravit ut usque nunc quoidam exemplaria S. S. lucianea nuncupentur. Jerome, Prcef. ad Paralip. : Alexandria et JEgyptus in LXX. suis He- sychium laudat auctorem, Constantinopolis usque ad Antiochiam Luciani exem- plaria prohat, medice inter has provincice palcestinos codd. legunt quos ah Origene elaboratos Eusebius et Pamphilus vulgaverunt, totusque orbis trifarla hac inter se varietate compugnat ; ef. Ad Rujin., II. 26, p. 152, Frankf. In all this the reference is to the O. T. alone. Essay on these recensions (doubted by some, see Scholz, Prolegg., I. 23 ; De Wette, II. § 39 ; Griesbach, Meletem., II. 47 If.) in Semler, Ad Wetstenii libell. crit., p. 83 and passim; Hug, see below, § 412 ; Eichhorn, IV. 278— 304 ; cf . also J. P. Nickes, De V. T. codlcum grcecorum familiis, Monast. 1853. Mill, Prolegg., § 333, identifies this Luciau with Leucius, the fabri- cator of apocryphal writings (§ 261). Erroneous opinion that Origen also made a recension of his own of the text of the N. T. ; see Hug, /. c. ; Dathe, De Origine gramm. interpr. auc- tore, p. 19 f., and § 365. 368. The fate of these recensions, and how far, even in their own lands, they may have found favor, is wholly unknown to us. That their circulation, in any case, could only have been slow and difficult is self-evident. The most probable view is that they never, at any time or in any phice, enjoyed public favor, and that the learned, who probably were the only ones who adopted them, brought about their early disappearance along with their own. For since the unrevised text existed in many manuscripts along side of the revised, and doubtless most were unwilling to give it up, both on account of attachment to to the old and of the material value of the books, they pre- ferred to make more or less numerous corrections in them in ac- cordance with the new recension, each accepting whatever, ac- cording to his own judgment, seemed useful or necessary. Thus many manuscripts may have come to contain a third, mixed text, exhibiting only partially the peculiarities of the recension from which it proceeded, and the attempt at purification be- came a source of new confusion. The two recensions themselves may have become intermingled in the same way. Eichhorn, IV. 306-320, attempts to point out examples of such inter- mingling. But such textual reconstructions rest upon altogether insufficient grounds. 369. It is sufficiently evident from the foregoing that any strict separation of readings according to the locality of their origin and circulation, or according to the particular families to 382 HISTORY OF THE WRITTEN TEXT. which they tiuiy belong, is not only beset with the greatest difficulties, but is well-nigh impossible. In order to be able to do this we must first be able to arrange the existing critical witnesses themselves in like manner. True, it may be deter- mined in advance, by means of the Church Fathers and Ver- sions, in general, and in so far as accident does not lead astray, with what local text they must be classed. But as respects the former the fragmentary character of their quotations, and as respects the latter the indirectness of their evidence, in great part does away with this presumption. Besides, with the ex- ception of a single class, the manuscrijDts of any one region are not numerous enough to yield trustworthy results by com- parison. The oldest and most important are completely iso- lated as respects the place and time of their origin, and hence can only be classified with difficulty. Moreover, in view of the undeniable mixture of readings, no single witness can be regarded as a pure representative or type of any local text. Hence the conflicting divisions and designations of scholars ; see below, in the history of the modern editions. Even in the classification of witnesses they do not altogether agree, and the problem is still move complicated by the partial distinction (Hug, Eichhorn, and others) of an unrevised, revised, and mixed text. 370. Nothing remains for us, therefore, but to note the more frequent and at the same time peculiar and striking variations of text, and to pass over the great mass of the rest, which occur only here and there, or which, though occurring more frequently, are evidently purely accidental, — in a word, the less important ones. The comparison of the former ma.y then, to a certain extent, reveal the closer or more distant rela- tionship of the witnesses, and so give us an approximate, though never a perfect, insight into the quality of a particu- lar form of the text, whose geographical home may even then be conjectured more easily from the known origin of partic- ular manuscripts and the nativity of the Fathers and Versions agreeing with it. But a grouping in the large is all that will be possible ; attempts at accuracy lead on the one side to arbi- trariness, on the other to obscurity. We shall be obliged to content ourselves with the general distinction of Alexandrian, Constantinopolitan, and Occidental texts, and perhaps should regard even the use of these terms as in part only conven- tional. The expression Occidental text is an inappropriate one, inasmuch as the West did not trouble itself about the Greek original. We may designate thereby peculiar readings of the Latin Versions and Fathers which occur also in certain ancient manuscripts, e. g., D Gospels, D, E, F, G Paul. The sources of these readings, however, must have been closely related to those of the ancient Oriental text, since the Peshito, the Sahidic Version, Alex- andrian codices, Clement, and Origen frequently agree with them. THREE GENERAL FORMS OF THE TEXT. 883 A text which may be more definitely designated as Alexandi-ian is pre- sented in the noteworthy agreement in certain peculiar readings of Atha- nasiiis, Cyril, and other Egyptian Fathers with the Memphitic, Etliiopic, Ar- menian, and in part also the Philoxeuian Versions. To this belong B, C, L Gospels, E Acts, A, B, C, H Paul. The Constantinopolitan text is found, in ancient times, in the Gothic and Slavic Versions, in the Fathers of this region from the fourth to the sixth century, and in E, F, G, H, S, V Gospels ; in later times, in most of our cursive manuscripts. The circumstance that in the first quarter of the fourth century fifty Bibles came at once from Palestine to Constantinople at the imperial order (§ 3G6) would perhaps allow us to infer to a certain extent a dependence of the later Byzantine text on the Alexandrian. The following collection of the most important variants from 1 Cor. xv. may serve for illustration : — 1. ecTTTjKare Alex. Const., arr\K€Te Occ. 2. et /carexsTe Alex. Const., 6(pel\eTe KOLrix^^" Occ. 5. eira Const., eVeira Alex., /uerd raCra Occ; SwSeKa Const., 'ivhiKa Occ. and in part Alex. 6. irheiovs Const., Tr\iiov€s Alex. Occ; koI is wanting in Alex. Occ. 10. Instead of ov k€vt) Occ. witnesses read irruxh oh. 15. elVep &pa veKpot ovK eyelpovTai is wanting in many Occ. and Alex, witnesses. 19. Alex, and Occ. place eV XpLtrrw before i)\-iTtK6Tes, 20. Const, adds iyepero at the end. 23. Occ. adds ^AirlaavTes at the end. 24. irapaSo} Const., the others irapaSiSw . . . SiSuiat . . SlSo7. 29. Const, has virep rwv veKpcou twice, Alex. Occ. the second time uirep ahriuv. 31. v/xiTepav Const. Occ, v/xerfpay Alex.; after KavxTTyt" Alex, and Occ. in part insert aSfAcpol. 33. XP'V^' Const. ; everywhere else xp'?<'"^«- 36. 6.(ppccv Alex. Occ, li yiyovev. 'Er avr^, Chrysos- tom, ad loc. ; ovSe eV. 'O yeyovev, Clement and the Alexandrians ; also the Macedonians. — 2 Cor. iv. 4 : 6 dehs, rod aloSfos tovtov, Tertul., Adv. Marc, V. 11, Theodoret, arf Zoc, against Marcion and moderns. — Rom. viii. 20: iw' ihTrlSt with the foregoing, Theodoret, ad loc. — 1 Cor. iii. 18 : eV rqi alcSui with the foregoing by the same writer ; with the following by Clrrysostom ; so fxera xapas, Col. i. 11, by the same writers. — Eph. i. 5, in caritate with the foregoing by Jerome and many others. The same uncertainty and arbitrariness from this cause still continues in numerous passages in the edi- tions and in exegesis. By way of example we may refer to Jn. xiii. 30, where Sre e|^A9e is sometimes connected in the editions with the foregoing PUNCTUATION — STICHOMETRY. 387 and sometimes (with and without ovf) with the following ; 1 Cor. vii. 34, where the absence of an attested punctuation has introduced the greatest conceivable confusion into the text through transpositions and interpolated particles ; Gal. v. 1, where some of the editions begin the chajiter with 2T7J»c6Te oiu, connecting what precedes with the fourth ; 1 Tim. iii. 15, where the new sentence is begun sometimes with arvKos, sometimes not until koI ofxoXoy. ; Ja. V. 3, where the relation of ws irvp is doubtful. Cf . also in tlie editions and commentaries, Mk. ix. 23; Lk. xxi. 35; Rom. iii. 9; Heb. xii. 22 ; Ja. iv. 5, etc. Hence there was doubtless in ancient times a reluctance to introduce a jDunctuation which might easily become suspicious, and in various other pas- sages, where the interpretation had already been fixed by the Church, there was very early a traditional diaareWeij/ tV avayvucnv or virocni^^nv ; e. g., Jn. i. 3 in A, 1), according to the Alexandrian reading. The technical grammatical terms (e. g.,Te\ela (rriyjx^, Chrysostom, J.c? Joh. i. 3) existed independently of the corresponding usage in ^^Titing. For examples of variants caused by scriptio continua see § 3(34. — On the uncertainty springing from the absence of other marks cf., for example, Acts xxvii. 13, where the printed editions have taken "kaaoVj'^Aaaov, aaaov, S, Gospels, E Acts, I), E. F Paul. — Cod. r/neco-copt., T. — Coptic-Arabic MSS. and the like do not belong here. Cf. § 439. 382. Originally the text of each book went on without break from beginning to end and formed a whole, which might be broken up into its logical constituents by the miderstand- ing of course, but not by the eye. Attentive readers easily dis- covered the divisions furnished by the contents. This was es- pecially true of the Gospels. In quoting or otherwise using the apostolic writings main divisions or sections could be re- ferred to without need of any external designation of them. Meanwhile, however, church use, as well as the convenience of the reader, led gradually to actual divisions of various kinds, indicated in the manuscripts. In this way is to be explained the occurrence of the word TrepiKon^ in Clem. Alex. {Strom., VII. 750), K^tpaKaiov in Dionys. Alex. (Euseb., VII. 25), capitulum in Tertullian (De uxor., II. 2 ; De pudic, 16). The first and third speak also of the so easily separated divisions of the First Ej^istle to the Corinthians ; the other of the separate scenes of the Apocalypse. In Tertullian, De earn. Chr., 19, capitulum seems to mean a single sentence. Similar examples from later authors, collected by Croius, Obss. in N. T., p. 22 ff. ; Suicer, sub voce. irepiKOTrrj and audyuooais, avdyvaicrfxa. Quite similar phenomena in the history of classic literature, but especially in the O. T. Cf . the expositors on Acts xiii. 33 and Rom. xi. 2. — Acts viii. 32, nepioxv- It follows that the existing divisions have no value, either for criticism or for exegesis, but rather in the latter aspect must often be wholly set aside, or at least improved, as a residt of labor often uncalled for and essentially at variance with the spirit of the original. 383. One of these methods of division of the text, important also for the history of worship, is that into church readings. It is naturally later than the custom of public reading from the apostolic writings, although in its beginnings it reaches back beyond the epoch of the complete closing of the canon. The edition of Euthalius, mentioned above, seems to have been the first to divide the text of the Epistles for this purpose, on a very simple system, according to the number of Sabbaths and feast-days in a year. Possibly it had already been done for the Gospels, so that at this time the whole New Testament may have been read in the course of a year. Euthalius, I. c., p. 529 : r^v rSiv avayuuxrewv aKptiSecrTdrrtv rofxriv rifiels nx^oKo- ynaaures avaKecpaAataia-dfieda, in which he evidently ascribes the invention to himself only in a certain respect, perhaps not as a new arrangement in place of an earlier, but by the side of the earlier one (§ 294 ?) of the Gospels. But it should also be considered that the method of division here s2)oken of, which certainly presupposes the closing of the canon (perliaps with the exception of the Apocalypse), hardly represents the most ancient custom of church readings, partly because m ancient times writings not now in the canon were included (§ 317), respecting which there was local freedom, and partly because we definitely know that certain books, especially of the O. T., were CHURCH READINGS — LECTIONARIES. 391 publicly read at certain seasons of the year, in which cases, therefore, the relation of the contents of Scripture to church epochs was held in living rec- ollection, and correctly, or at least an ancient custom was maintained ; see quotations from Chrysostom for Constantinople, from Augustine for Africa, etc., in Bingham, XIV. 3, p. 63 ; Rheinwald, Archdol., § 98, As the oldest trace of selected pericopes is quoted (correctly ?) Chrysostom, Hojn. 58 in Joh., (0pp., VIII. 342) : "one who should read nothing at home, but should come to church, would in the course of a year hear much of the Scripture, ov yap vvv jxkv ravras avptov Se er^pas avayivwaKO/xev ypacpas aA\' ael ras avriis Kal SiaTruvT6s." Designations of the divisions : TveptKOTral, avayvdcrnaTa, avayvJicms, lectiones. Similarly the Parasha of the Law among the Jews. Euthalius had to provide for the fifty-three Sundaj's of the leap-year, Christmas, Ascension, and perhaps two feasts beside. Hence his division : Acts sixteen, James, 1 Peter and 1 John two each, the other four Catholic Epistles one each, Romans and 1 Corinthians five each, 2 Corinthians four, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians two each, 1 and 2 Thessalo- nians one each, Hebrews three, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus and Philemon one each ; altogether fifty-seven. Moreover the church custom was certainly different in the different patri- archates and dioceses. Traces are found of continuous readings, in early times for a few days of the week (Sundays, Sabbaths), later for the others also. The MSS. of the N. T., especially the proper lectionaries (§ 384), would doubtless still yield much spoil upon closer investigation, and at the same time, perhaps, make it possible to determine their own age more accurately in this way. But this matter belongs to ecclesiastical archaeology. 384. Since, however, the number of the Christian feasts in- creased in inverse proportion to the time devoted to the public reading of the Scriptures, they were soon obliged to content themselves with a selection of shorter readings, which were then written together in sepai'ate books, called lectionaries. The more a considerable part of the Bible was withdrawn from the people by this custom, the more important a matter became the choice of portions. Hence we find that nearly every na- tional church made its selection differently. The Latin Church was already using such lectionaries in the fifth century. The Greek Church did not obtain this gift until the eighth. Names : e/cAoyaSia, lectionaria, fvayyeXidpia, Trpa^aTr6ffTo\oi. This method of division has its analogue in the Haphtara or prophetic sections of the Jews. The oldest known collections are ascribed to the Gauls, Claudius Mamercus of Vienna and Musseus of Massilia (middle of the fifth century). Gennadius, De script. eccL, ch. Ixxix., says of the latter : Excerpsit de SS. lectiones totius annifestivis diebus aptas. Whether the lectionarium gallicanum discovered by Mabillon was connected with these works is uncertain. — Gregory the Great (end of sixth century) speaks of an order of public readings existing at Rome (JPrcef. in homil. inEvv.), which passed over into France through Charlemagne, afterward became general, and has been inherited in substance by the Lutheran Church. The collection ascribed to Jerome, known under the name of Comes, would be older than all, were its origin authenticated in any way (see Balu- zius, Capitul. regg.fr., II. 1309). A summary of them is given by Rheinwald, Archdol., p. 442. The Greek Church had its readings arranged in a peculiar way, yet so that the text seems to have been all read in the course of the year. The details 392 HISTORY OF the avritten text. are given, though rather confusedly, by Leo Allatius, De II. ecclesiasticis grceco- rum, printed in Fabricius, Bihl. gr., V., p. 23 if. In complete manuscripts (as often in our ordinary German Bibles), the pericopes are designated in the margin with a {apxh) and t (reKos), or even by more complete titles, together with a recapitulation (awai^apiov) at the be- ginning or end, and a list of feasts {tJ.-nvoK6yiou). Cf. the smaller edition of Matthaii, I. 723 ff.. III. 1 ff. ; Scholz, at the end of both volumes of his edition, and De menoloqiis duorum codd. paris., Bonn, 1823. Cf. in general Bingham, Orlgg., XIV. 3 ; Augiisti, Handh., II. 232 ff. ; J. A. Scluuid, De lectionariis occ. et or. eccL, Helmst. 1703 ; J. H. Thamer, De origine et dignitate perkoparum, Jena, 1716 ; J. B. Carpzov, Sched. hist, de pericopis, L. 1755 ; J. C. Harenberg, in Bihl. hag., TV. ; Bihl. brem. nov., II., III.; M. Rbdiger, Symholce ad evv. N. T., Hal. 1827 ; C. E. Caspari, Sur les pericopes, Str. 1833; C. C. L. Franke, in the Hall. Encyld., III. 17; E. Ranke, Das kirchl. Perikopensystem aus den dltesten Urkunden der rdm. Liturgie dar- gelegt, B. 1847 ; idem, Art. Perikopen, in Herzog's Encykl.; R. Bobertag, Ev. Kirchenjahr, 1853 ; H. C. Laatsman, De N. 7'. pericopis eccles. earumque origine, etc., Traj. 1858. In some of these writings the subject is brought down to our own times, which does not belong here, but in the history of worship. 385. Beside this ehurcli division a purely exou>T6.Toov tlu\ koI (ptAoxpiffrw naT^pwy rinuv irewovrjfxevri (in Zacagni, p. 528. Is Theodore of Mopsnestia meant ?) : Acts, 40 ; James, 6 ; 1 Peter, 8 ; 2 Peter, 4 ; 1 John, 7 ; 2 and 3 John, each 1; Jude, 4; Romans, 19; 1 Corinthians, 9; 2 Corinthians, 11; Galatians, 12; Ephesians, 10 ; Philippians, 7 ; Colossians, 10 ; 1 Thessalonians, 7 ; 2 Tl-.es- salonians, 6 ; Hebrews, 22 ; 1 Timothy, 18 ; 2 Timothy, 9; Titus, 6 ; Phile- mon, 2. Evidently not of equal length. The Apocalypse was divided by Andrew of Cesarea in Cappadoeia, in his Commentary, into 24 ^^701 and 72 KeaKe^lVSi 1 Cor.: airh ^tXiTTTTUv 5ia . . . Tifx-odeov ; (3) from later geographical designations : 1 Tim. ^pvyia iraKanavl] ; Tit. : Ni/c((7roA.ij Trjs MaKeSoi'las ; (4) from the disagreement of different MSS. ; e. ^r., Matthew : i^iUdr) Jy8pai"(rTi, ■^pjUTjceueTj 5e uttJ) 'Ia«:co;3ou ; others, iiwh 'ludvvov. John : iypdcpf) iv nar/xw; others, ore airh rrjs iv IT. i^oplas iTravrjAdev ; others, inl Aofieriauov ; others, iir\ Tpatavov, with which is connected in several codices, the very remarkable traditional note : /xerh A)3' xpofovs rrj^ rod Xptirrov ava- \r]\pfcos, which certainly cannot refer to Trajan, hardly to the Gospel, but may possibly to the Apocalypse, and so contain a trace of a correct explanation of the latter ; (5) from the addition of later ecclesiastical views : 2 Tim. and Tit. : . . . Trpairov iiriaKonov x^i-porovriQivra. Cf . J. C. Hertzog, De subscriptt. ep. pauL, L. 1703. Examples of expansion • Tlphs 'Paifxalovs, A, C, D, al. — Trphs 'P. eVf Afo-flrj, G. — 396 HISTORY OF THE WRITTEN TEXT. . . . iypd(pr] awh KopivBov B. — 18 adds Sta ^otfir]s- — 80 adds SiaKSuov. — rec. adds TTJs iv Kiyxp^ai^ €KK\r](rlas- Examples of exegetical conjectures : 2 Cor. : 5ia Tirov kuI Aovku from viii. 17 f. • 2 Tim. : ore iK Sevr^pou irapf(TT7\ YlavKos t<^ Kaiaapi Nepoofi from iv. IG; Heb.: airh 'IraA^as Sio Ti/iofle'oy from xiii. 23 f.; in the last case against the text. The richest source of such introductory notes, though not the oldest, is the Pseudo-Athanasian Synopsis SS. (§ 320). At the time of Eiithalius (Zacagni, p. 51G) these notes had become quite stereotyjied as respects the Paidine E2)istles, and are the same which have been preserved in our printed editions. They came into these through Erasmus (not through the Com- plutensian edition and its successors), have maintained themselves in science along witli the textus receptus, and have been partly bracketed and partly rejected by modern criticism. 390. This is the state in which the text of the New Testa- ment was when, in Germany and soon also in other Christian lands, books began to be printed. The circumstance that this art was discovered in the West, and for a long time only prac- ticed there, was not favorable to the New Testament. No one here had any great desire to read it in the original tongue, and consequently more than half a century passed away before any one thought of preparing a printed Greek edition. Yet this delay brought no disadvantage, because neither then nor for a long time afterward was the learned world able to obtain the requisite aids for a restoration of the text, or to make proper use of them. The very persons who most of all should have done so, tlie proper Humanists, appear to have troubled them- selves least of all about the Scriptures ; and among the theolo- gians at first scholastic customs, later practical necessities, were predominant. On the printing of the Bible in Latin and modern languages, which pre- ceded the original, see § 4G8 ff. As bibliographical curiosities may be mentioned an Aldine edition of the poems of Gregory Nazianzen, 1504, in which the first six chapters of the Gospel of John are inserted in a very peculiar way (Adler, in the Repertor., 18, p. 150) ; and earlier a Greek Psalter of 148G (perhaps earlier ?) m which, according to the custom of the Middle Ages, the Psalms of Zachariah and Mary (Lk. i., ii.) are found, among others. Otherwise no part of the N. T. was printed before 1514 (§ 399). 391. Antiquity had bequeathed to modern times three kinds of aids for the attainment of the end proposed, all of which, however, could not make up for the lack of the original docu- ments. These are the manuscripts, the versions, and the quotations in other authors. The sum-total of all these sources and of the readings derived from them for the establishment of the text constitutes the critical apparatus. This has gained vastly, since the first attempts of the sixteenth century, not only in external richness, but especially also in internal sifting, and has now attained, in both these respects, such a degree of com- CRITICAL APPARATUS — MANUSCRIPTS. 397 pleteness that, in view of the fact that there is no longer prospect of new discoveries of importance, possible future prog- ress of New Testament textual criticism is to be expected, not from the increase of this apparatus, but only from the following out of new principles in its use. Catalog-lies of the extant (already used or still to be used) Subsidia critica are to be found in all important critical editions ; the more recent more complete than the older ; see the appropriate sections below. See also Semler, Vorarbe'dung zur Hermeneutik, Fts. III., IV. ; Beck, Monogrammata herm., p. 42 ff . ; R. Simon, Diss, critique sur les principaux actes MSS.; in his Hist, des commentateurs ; also German, in the Halle Sammlung, I., II. ; Eich- horn, Einl, V. 168-247. 392. The most direct, most satisfactory, and altogether most complete sources of knowledge are the manuscripts. Their age, as well as their accuracy and the quality of the original from which they have been derived, determines their relative value. Yet even the agreement of all these qualities can never have absolutely decisive weight in favor of the correctness or ac- ceptance of a reading, since even the oldest of our manuscripts date from a time when the text had ah-eady suffered all the above mentioned kinds of corruption. Only a few manuscripts have been preserved from the middle centuries ; those older than the seventh are wholly isolated,^ and most of both classes only in fragments. The greater number of those extant belong to the time of the Crusades, or are even later. The age of the manuscript (to be determined on the basis of the charac- teristics mentioned in § 373 If.) does not decide the age of the text contained in it. Late manuscripts may have been taken from very old ones, older ones from those immediately preceding them. The age of a text is only determined, with great difficulty and little certainty, from the comparison of many manuscripts, especially with reference to the place of their origin (§ 370). Since Wetstein (§ 408) older methods have been given up and the extant codices have a uniform designation ; i. e. (1) those written with uncials by the capital letters of the Roman alphabet, and after these by the differently formed letters of the Greek ; (2) those written in cursive letters by Arabic numerals. In both, inconveniently, the series begins four times (according to § 379, note), so that a complete N. T. often has four different numbers, beside its library number ; e. g., Codex regius 47 (i e. in the National Library at Paris) is No. 18 in the Gospels, No. 113 in the Acts and Catholic Epistles, No. 132 in the Pauline Epistles, No. 51 in the Apocalypse. So also there are two series of Arabic numerals for the simple lectionaries with pericopes from the Gospels or Epistles. The original reading of a codex (*) is distinguished from an emendation introduced somewhat later, often by another hand (**) ; lectio a prima, a secunda mann (§ 365). The number of manuscripts now known, catalogued most completely by Scholz (Prolegg., I., ch. 6 ; XL, ch. 11) and Tischendorf (Prolegg. ad Ed. VII. [Now superseded by Ed. VIIL, 1864-72, 2 vols., with a volume of Prole- gomena by Gregory and Abbot, 1883]), amounts (exclusive of very small fragments) for the Gospels to 26 uncials, about 480 cursives, and about 180 398 HISTORY OF THE WRITTEN TEXT. lectionaries, for the Acts and Catholic Epistles 8 of the ftrst aucl about 190 of the second class, for Paul 9 of the first and about 250 of the second, for the Apocalypse 3 of the first and about 90 of the second ; beside about GO lec- tionaries with pericopes from the Epistles. Tliis whole mass of about 1,300 numbers really reduces, however, on account of dujdicate numbering, to pex'haps 950, aside from the fact that many, and nearly all the more important are more or less defective. [Westcott and Hort, Introduction and Appendix to their N. T. in Greek, forming Vol. II., Lond. 1881, N. Y. 1882 ; Schaff, Companion to the Gk. Test., p. 98 if. ; the whole number of distinct uncial MSS. now known (1883) is 83.] [I. Primary Uncials : — [S, Codex Sinaiticus : formerly in the Convent of INIount Sinai, now in the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg. A complete Greek Bible, with Barnabas and Hennas, the Acts after Paul, Hebrews before Timothy. Dates from the middle of the fourth century, written on fine parchment, in large uncials, 364^ leaves, 13^ inches wide by 14| inches high, four columns to the page, 48 lines to the column. Discovered by Tischendorf, in February, 1859. See, for the story of its discovery, Tischendorf 's Reise in den Orient, 1846 ; Aus dem Jieil. Lande, 1862, §§ 9, 10, 15, 25 ; Notitia Codicis Sinaitici, 1860, and the Prolegomena to his editions of the MS., 1862 and 1865 ; also his controversial pamphlets, Die Anfechtungen der Sinaihihel, 1863, and Wajfen der Finsterniss wider die Sinaihihel, 1863 ; most fully, in his Die Sinaihihel, ihre Entdeckimg, Herausgahe, und Erwerhung, Leipz. 1871. See in general, on the MS., Notitia ed. Codicis Sin., L. 1860, 4° ; Muralt, in the Studien, 1860, IV.; Wieseler,i6i(/em,1861,IV., 1864, III.; Buttmann, in Hilgenfeld's ZeitscJir., 1864, IV., 1866, II. ; Hilgenfeld, ibidem, 1864, I., II. ; Dr. Ezra Abbot, Comparative Antiquity of the Sinaitic and Vatican MSS., in the Journal of the Am. Oriental Soc, X., 1872, pp. 189 ff., 602. — Printed at Leipzig, and published at St. Petersburg, at the expense of Alexander II., from type specially cast for the purpose, in four folio volumes. Bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus. Auspiciis augustissimis Imperatoris Alexandri II. ex tenebris protraxit in Europam transtulit ad iuvandas atque illustrandas sacras litteras edidit Constantinus Tischendorf, Petropoli, 1862. Vol. I. contains the dedication to the Emperor, the Prolegomena, Notes on the corrections by later hands, and twenty-one fac-simile plates ; vols. II. and III. contain the LXX., and vol. IV. the N. T., the Epistle of Barnabas, and a part of the Shepherd of Hernias. — The N. T., together with Barnabas and the fragment of Hernias, was separately edited by Tischendorf in smaller type, L. 1863, 4°, in four columns ; also in ordinary type, continuous lines, L. 1865, 8°. — Tischendorf, Conlatio critica cod. Sin. c. textu Elzevir., 1869 ; Scrivener, Full Collation of the Sinaitic MS. with the Received Text of the Netv Testament, Canib. 1864, 2d ed., 1867. — See SchafP, Com.panion to the Greek Test., p. 103 fe. — A part of this MSS. (portions of the LXX.) had already been published as Codex Friderico-Augustanus, 1846, fol.] A. Alexandrinus, a Greek Bible with some gaps (especially in Matthew and 2 Corinthians), and two epistles of Clement (§ 235), presented by the Patriarch Cyril Lucar to Charles I. in 1628 ; in the British Museum at London ; without division of words or punctuation, with sections in the Gospels only, perhaps of the fifth century. The N. T., edited in fac-simile by C. G. Woide, 1786, fol. (Thence Woid'ii notitia cod. Alex, cum omnibus var. lectt. recudi cur. G. L. Spohn, L. 1788.) Improved edition with ordinary type (the gaps supplied without comment from the printed text of Stephens ! ), B. H. Cowper, Lond. 1860, 8°; Monographs by C. Oudin (in his Diss.), J. A. Dietelmair, Halle, 1739 ; J. A. Osiander, Tub. 1742 ; J. S. Senilcr, Tub. 1759 ; F. A. Stroth, Tiib. 1771. Cf. also Grabe and Breitinger in their Prolegg. to the LXX. ; Rosenmiiller, Handh., I. 362 ; II. 194 ; Miehaelis, N. Bibl, II. 1 ; Cramer, Beitriige, III. 101 ; Eichhorn, Bibl, V. 609. [A CEITICAL APPARATUS — MANUSCRIPTS — DESCRIPTION. 399 beautiful photograpliic fac-siniile editiou issued by the Trustees of the British Museum, Load. 1879.] B. Vaticanus (No. 1209), a whole Bible, lost from Heb. ix. 14, so that the Pastoral Epistles and the Apocalypse are wanting ; regarded as the oldest extant MS. of the N. T., placed by Tischendorf in the fourth century ; with- out division of words or punctuation, in tlu'ee columns ; accents by a second hand. From tliis MS. most of the editions of the LXX. A fac-siiiiile in Bianchini, I. 492, and by Tiscliendorf in the Studien, 1847, I., p. 129 ff. — Monographs by J. S. Hichtel, Jena, 1734 ; Osiander (above) ; A. F. Ruck- ersfelder (in Velthusen, Sylloge, III., IV.) ; J. L. Hug, Freib. 1810. Cf. Michaelis, Bibl, 23, 138 ; Eichhorn, Bibl, II. 373 ; III. 263 ; Gabler's Journal, 11. 414 ; P. Buttmanu, in the Studien, 1860, II. ; C. Vercellone, Rome, 1860. — Of the N. T. we possess even yet only collations in part not wholly trustworthy, in part incomplete (especially Birch, § 417, Bentley, in the Appendix to Woide's Alexandrinus). The edition of A. Mai, Rome, 1858, 5 vols., 4°, is nothing less than dijilomatically exact, but the different hands to be traced in the manuscript are not carefully distinguished, and all the gaps, even the very small ones, and those critically important, are supplied from other MSS. Thence the N. T. separately, Lond. and Leipz. 1859, 8° (Title-page edition, N. Y. 1860) ; also, with a thorougli criticism of the Roman edition, yet making much less claun to strict diplomatic accuracy, A. Kuenen and C. G. Cobet, Levd. 1860. Cf. A. Buttmann, in the Studien, 1862, 1., and in general Tischendorf, Ed. VII., 1. 136 ff. [VIII., I.] ; Bunsen's Bibelwerk, I. 381. Also an edition of the N. T. by Tischendorf, L. 1867, on which Taylor in the Theol. Kevieiu, 1867, p. 351. Tischendorf makes emendations in it even in the work of 1869 immediately to be mentioned. [A quasi fac-simile edition of the whole MS. by Vercellone (f 1869), J. Cozza, and Gaetano Sergio, Roiue, 1868-1881, in six vols. fol. The full title is as follows : Bibliorum Sacrorum Grcecus Codex Vaticanus auspice Pio IX. Poniifice Maximo collatis studiis Caroli Vercellone Sodalis Barnabitce et Josephi Cozza Monachi Basiliani editus, Romse, typis et impensis S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide. The first four vols, contain the LXX., the fifth the N. T., the sixth prolegomena and commentaries by Canon Fabiani and J. Cozza. See Schaif, Companion to the Gk. Test., p. Il3 ff.] C. Ephrcemi (Regius 9), about 200 leaves of a whole Bible, the writing of which has been erased and written over again with Greek works of Ephreni the Syrian. Edited by Tischendorf, L. 1843, 2 vols. 4°. There is much more of the N. T. remaining than of the Old, but nothmg complete. Of the fifth century, continuous lines, otherwise like A, and with later corrections. — Cf . Michaelis, Bibl, IX. 142 ; Fleck, in the Studien, 1841, I. 126. _ D. (Gospels, Acts.) Cantabrigiensis, presented by Beza to Cambridge in 1581. Gospels and Acts in Greek and Latin, wdth some gaps, partly sup- plied by a later hand, probably written in France. Of the sixth century. Fac-simile by T. Kipling, Cam. 1793, 2 vols. fol. ; Semler, Vindicice text., p. 15; D. Sclmlz, De codice cant., Bresl. 1827. Cf. Biancliini, I. 481; Michaelis, Bibl., III. 199 ; Eichhorn, Bibl., V. 704 ; Middleton in the appendix to his work On the Greek Article, Lond. 1808 ; Credner, Beitrdge, I. 452. [Edited, more accurately, by Dr. Scrivener, in common type, with Introduction and critical notes, Camb. 1864, 4°. See Schaff, Companion, p. 122 ff.] [II. Secondary Uncials : — B. Vaticanus (No. 2066), the Apocalypse alone, of the eighth century, printed in Tischendorf's Monumenta sacr. ined., L. 1846, 4°, and again, sepa- rately, in 1869. [A few unimportant corrections to this latest edition by Cozza, in Ad editioneni Apoc. S. Johan. juxta vetustissimum codicem Basil. Vat. 2066 Lips, anno 1869 evulgatam animadversiones, Rome, 1869.] D. (Paul.) Claromontanus (^Regius 107), formerly in the possession of Beza, who claimed to have obtained it from Clermont (Department Oise) ; 400 HISTORY OF THE WRITTEN TEXT. fourteen Pauline Epistles, yet see § 328 ; Greek and Latin, stichometric, with accents, without division of words, of the seventh century, with emenda- tions by a different hand. Fac-simile edition by Tischendorf, L. 1852, 4°. [Cf. Griesbach, Symb. Crit., II. 31 ff.] E. (Gosi)els.) Basiliensis, the Gospels, with some very smaE gaps in Luke ; of the eighth century. A fac-simile as a specimen in Hug, Einl., II. ; G. A. Schmelzer, De cod. basil., Gcitt. 1750. [Collated by Tischendorf and MuUer, 1843, and by TregeUes, 1846.] E. (Acts.) Laudianus ; presented by Archbishop Laud of Canterbury to the Bodleian Library at Oxford. Acts, Greek and Latin, of the sixth or seventh ceutury, edited by T. Hearne, 1715, 8°. [Published by Tischendorf, in his Monumcnta Sacra, IX. 1870.] E. (Paid.) Sangermanensis, formerly at Paris (St. Germain-des-Pres), now at St. Petersburg. A copy of the already corrected Claromontanus, perhaps not earUer than the eleventh century, and by an uuskillf ul hand. Cf . § 371. Michaelis, Bibl., IX. 147. [Ninth or tenth century, Tischendorf.] F. (Gospels.) Boreelianus, an outrageously neglected manuscrijjt of the Gospels, which has become yet more defective during the last century; since a short time at Utrecht ; ninth century ; J. Heriuga, De cod. horeeliano, Traj. 1843. F. (Paul.) Augiensis, formerly m the convent of Reichenau on the Bo- densee, now at Ca,mbridge. Thirteen Epistles of Paul, Greek and Latin, stichometric, at the earliest of the ninth ceutury, with some gaps. Cf. also § 328 and Tischendorf, Anecdota ss., 1855, p. 209. Edition by F. H. Scriv- ener, Cambr. 1859. [F". Passages of Gospels, Acts, and Pauline Epp. found copied on the margin of the Coislin Octateuch in Paris. Beginning of seventh century. Printed by Tischendorf, in Mon. sacr, ined., 184G.] G. (Gospels.) Harleianus, ninth or tenth century; many gai)s partly sup- plied by later hands ; now in the British Museum ; collated by Wetstein, Tischendorf, and Tregelles. [(?. (Acts.) Seventh century; contains ii. 45-iii. 8 ; now at St. Peters- burg, where it was taken by Tischendorf in 1850.] [6". (Acts.) Fragments of chs. xvi., xvii., xviii. ; ninth century or earlier ; now called Codex Vaticanus 9671, formerly Cryptoferratensis. Edited by Cozza, 1877.] G. (Paul.) Boernerianus, formerly in possession of C. F. Bonier at Leip- zig ; now at Dresden. Thirteen Pauline Epistles (and the superscription of a fourteenth irphs AavSaK-fja-as) with interlinear version and gaps, of the ninth century, probably from the same source as the Augiensis. Printed complete by C. F. Matthfei, 1791, 4°. [i/. (1.) For the Gospels, Codex Seidelii ; tenth century; beginning at Mt. XV. 30, and defective in all the Gospels ; now at Hamburg ; collated by Tregelles, 1850, and examined by Tischendorf, 1854.] \_H. (2.) Acts, Codex Mutinensis ; ninth century; lacks about seven chap- ters ; now at Modena ; carefully collated by Tischendorf, 1843, and Tre- gelles, 1845.] H. (Paul.) Coislinianus (No. 202), from the former owner ; now in the Parisian library, and some leaves of it (by theft ?) at St. Petersburg. Frag- ments of the Paidine Epistles, of the sixth century, according to Tischen- dorf ; cf. § 305. [Twelve leaves at Paris, two at St. Petersburg. These fourteen leaves edited by Montfaucon, 1715, in his Bibliotheca Coisliniana. (Fragments of 1 Cor., Gal., 1 Tim., Tit., Hebr.) Two more at Moscow (parts of Heb. x.) edited in fac-simile by Sabas, Specim. palceogr., Moscow, 1863. Four more, belonging to Abp. Porfiri and the Archimandrite Antony, cited by Tischendorf, Ed. VIII., on 2 Cor. iv. 4^6, Col. iii. 5-8, 1 Thess. ii. 9-13, iv. 6-10. More recently, nine new leaves discovered at Mt. Athos. CRITICAL APPARATUS — MANUSCRIPTS — DESCRIPTION. 401 Their text, containing parts of 2 Cor. and Gal., published by Duchesne, in the Archives des Missions scient. et lit., 3e serie, III. p. 420 if., P. 1876. Two more leaves, containing 1 Tim. vi. 9-13 and 2 Tim. ii. 1-9, have been found attached to a MS. hi the Nat. Library at Turin, 1881.] [/. (Gospels, Acts, Pauline Epp.) Cod. Tischendorjianus II., at St. Peters- burg. Twenty-eight palimpsest leaves, under Georgian writing, of seven different MSS. 1^, of Jn. xi., xii., xv., xvi., xix. I'^, 1 Cor. xv., xvi. ; Tit. i.; Acts xxviii. I^, Mt. xiv., icdv., xxv., xxvi. ; Mk. ix., xiv. I*, Mt. xvii.-xix. ; Lk. xviii. ; Jn. iv., v., xx. I^, Acts ii., xxvi. I^, Acts xiii. I'^, Lk. vii., xxiv. 1\ 2, 3 are of the fifth century ; I'', ^ of the sixth ; I^, 6 of the seventh. Pub- lished by Tischendorf, in his Monumenta sacr. ined., I. 1855. [i*. (Gospel of John), formerly N''. ; beginning of fifth century; four palimpsest leaves in the British Museum, containing fragments of seventeen verses of Jn. xiii. and xvi. Deciphered by Tischendorf and Tregelles, and published by the former in 3Ioti. sacr. ined., II. 1857.] K. (Gospels.) Cypriwi (Kegius 63), the Gospels with a pointing in imita- tion of stichometry, etc., of the ninth century. Scholz, De cod. Cyprio, Heidelb. 1820. [Collated by Tischendorf, 1842, and Tregelles, 184'J and 1850.] K. (Pauline and Catholic Epistles.) At Moscow; all the Epistles of the N. T. with slight gaps ; of the ninth century. [Collated by Matthaei.] L. (^Regius 62.) The Gospels with slight gaps ; an exceptionally well-pre- served manuscript, but written by an unskillful hand ; perhaps of the eighth century; pi-inted in full in Tischendorf 's Monumenta, 1846. Also a fac- simile in Hug, Einl. ; Michaelis, Or. Bibl., 9, 144. [Z. (2.) For the Acts, Pauline and Catholic Epistles, Codex Angelicus or Passionei (formerly G and J); ninth century; now in the Angelica Library at Rome ; contains Acts vii. 10 to Heb. xiii. 10. Collated by Tischendorf, 1843, and Tregelles, 1845.] M. (Regius, 48.) Codex Campianus, the Gospels complete ; perhaps of the ninth century. [Copied and used by Tischendorf, 1849.] M. (Paid.) Codex Ruber, fragments of the Epistles to the Corinthians [two leaves ; 1 Cor. xv. 52-2 Cor. i. 15; 2 Cor. x. 13-xii. 5] at Loiidon, and of the Epistle to the Hebrews [Heb. i. 1-iv. 3 ; xii. 20-xiii. 25] at Ham- burg, perhaps belonging together, of the ninth century. [Written in red.] Fac-simile in Tischendorf 's Anecdota ss., 1855, p. 175 ff. [Also, with a few corrections, 1861.] [iV. (1.) For the Gospels. Codex Purpureus, end of sixth century ; written on thin purple vellum, in silver letters ; four leaves m London, two in Vienna, six in the Vatican, and thirty-three in the monastery of St. John in Patmos. The readings from these thirty-three leaves, containing Mk. vi. 63-xv. 23, with some gaps, were used by Tischendorf, in the eighth edition of his N. T. Since published by Duchesne in the Archives des Missions sci- entijiques, 3e ser., 1876.] [iV. (2.) Two leaves ; ninth century ; contains Gal. v. 12-vi. 4 and Heb. V. 8-vi. 10. Brought by Tischendorf to St. Petersburg.] [O. John's Gospel, part of Jn. i. and xx. with scholia ; at Moscow ; eight leaves ; ninth century ; edited by Matthsei, 1785, and after him by Tre- gelles, Cod. Zacynlhius, 1861, Appendix.] [0. 2 Corinthians, 2 leaves, sixth century, containing 2 Cor. i. 20-ii. 12. Brought from the East to St. Petersburg by Tischendorf, in 1859.] 10", 0\ (1), 0% O"", 0% 0^. Psalters or other MSS. containing some or all of the hymns of Luke's Gospel. O* at Wolfenbiittel, edited by Tisch- endorf, Anecd. sacr. et prof., 1855. O'' at Oxford. 0° at Verona, Greek text in Roman letters, edited by Bianchini, 1740. O'^ at Ziirich, on purple veUum in silver letters, edited by Tischendorf, Mon. sacr. ined., IV. 0* 26 402 HISTORY OF THE WRITTEN TEXT. and O' at St. Gall and St. Petersburg, collated by Tischendorf. 0° sixth, century ; C seventh ; O", ^, % ', ninth.] [0*. {2.) Sixth century ; one leaf, containing, imperfectly, Ejjh. iv. 1-18 ; collated by Tischendorf at Moscow, 1868.] [P. (1.) for the Gospels, Codex Guelpherhytanus I., sixth century ; a pa- limpsest with works of Isidore Hispal. ; at Wolfenbiittel ; containing por- tions of all the Gospels (518 verses) ; edited by Tischendorf, Mun. sacr. ined., VI. 18G9.] [P. (2.) Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse, with some gaps, Codex Porfirianus, a palimpsest of the ninth century, in possession of Abp. Porfiri at St. Peters- burg (now at Kiev) ; text particulai'ly good in the Apocalypse ; edited by Tischendorf, 1865 and 1869. Generally confirms A and C, but often i>5 against all the rest.] [Q. (1.) For Luke and John, Codex Guelpherhytanus II. ; fifth century ; a palimpsest containing fragments (247 verses) of Luke and John ; at Wol- fenbiittel ; edited by Tischendorf, Mon- sacr. ined.. III. I860.] [Q. (2.), Porfirianus, fifth century ; papyrus fragments of 1 Cor. i. 17-20 ; vi. 13-18 ; vii."3, 4, 10-14. Collated by tischendorf.] \_R. (1.) Codex Nitriensis, sixth century ; fragmentary palimpsest of Luke from a Cojjtic monastery of the Nitrian Desert ; now in the British Museum. Collated by Tregelles, 1854, and edited by Tischendorf, Mon. sacr. ined., I. 1855.] \_R. (2.). A palimpsest leaf of the seventh century, containmg 2 Cor. xi. 1- 9 ; in the convent of Grotta Ferrata, near Rome ; published by Cozza, 1867.] S. A complete manuscript of the Gospels, in the Vatican (No. 354), with the date 949. [Collated by Tischendorf for the eighth edition of his N. T.'] T. Borgianus, in the library of the Propaganda at Rome ; fragments of Lk. xxii.. xxiii., and Jn. vi.— viii., with an Upper Egyptian version ; accord- ing to Tischendorf of the fifth century ; see Michaelis, Bibl., XVIII. 136 ; the fragments of John edited by A. A. Georgi, Rome, 1789, 4°. [Those of Luke first collated by B. H. Alford.] [T'""'. Fragments of Lk. xii. 15-xiii. 32, Jn. viii. 23-32, formerly owned by Woide ; published by Ford, in his App. Cod. Alex., 1799.] [ T''. Fragments of the first four chapters of John ; sixth century ; now at St. Petersburg.] [7"°. A fragment of Matthew (xiv. 19-xv. 8), resembling the above.] [T'''. Fragments of a Greek-Sahidic Evangelistary; seventh century; found by Tischendorf, 1866, in the Borgian Library at Rome. Contains Mt. xvi. 13-20 ; Mk. i. 3-8 ; xii. 35-37 ; Jn. xix. 23-27 ; xx. 30, 31.] [T\ A small fragment of an J^vangelistary, of about the sixth century, from Upper Egypt ; now in the University Library, Cambridge, England ; contains Mt. iii. 13-16. Readings given in the Postscript to Tregelles' N. T. p. 1070.] U. Nanianus ; at Venice, the Gospels, of the tenth century. [Collated by Tischendorf and Tregelles.] V. At Moscow, the Gospels, of the ninth century ; from Jn. vii. 39 by a later hand ; probably the oldest of the many MSS. used by Matthtei. § 413. [ PF". Two leaves, containing fragments of Lk. ix., x. in the National Li- brary at Paris ; probably of the eighth century ; edited by Tischendorf, in Mon. sacr. ined., 1846.] [ W^. A palimpsest of fourteen leaves, found by Tischendorf at Naples, deciphered by him in 1866.] [ W". tliree leaves, of the ninth century, containing Mk. ii. 8-16 ; Lk. i. 20-32, 64-79 ; now at St. Gall ; edited by tischendorf, Mon. sacr. ined., III. I860.] [ W"^. Fragments of Mk. vii., viii., ix., of the ninth century, found in the CRITICAL APPARATUS — MANUSCRIPTS - DESCRIPTION. 403 binding of a volume in the library of Trinity College, Cambridge. Readings remarkable.] [ W". A fragment containing Jn. iv. 9-14, discovered in 18G5 in the library of Christ Clnirch College at Oxford. Closely resembles O, and is perhaps a part of the same MS.] [ W'^. A palimpsest leaf of the ninth century, containing Mk. v. 16—40, dis- covered by Mr. Vansittart in Cod. 192 of the Acts.] [IF". Codex Sunderla?idianus, considerable palimpsest fragments of all four Gospels, perhaps of the ninth century, found in a Memeum belonging to the Sunderland Library ; now in the British Museum. Deciphered by T. K. Abbott and J. P. Mahaffy.] X. At Munich, fragments of the Gospels, with commentary, mostly from Chrysostom ; ninth or tenth century. [Collated by Tischendorf and Tre- gelles.] [F. Codex Barherini, fragments from Jn. xvi.-xix., of the eighth century, in the library of the Prince Barberini at Rome ; published by Tischendorf, in Mon. sacr. ined., 1846.] Z. At Dublin, fragments of Matthew from a very old (sixth century ?) palimpsest, not wholly deciphered. Edited in fac-simile by J. Barrett, 1801, 4° ; see Eichhorn's Bihl., II. 584 ; Paulus, Neues Repert., I. 192 ; sup- plement to Barrett's edition by S. P. Tregelles, Lond. 1863. [Re-edited with great care by T. K. Abbott, Lond. 1880. See notice by Dr. Gregory in Schiirer's T'heolog. Liter alurzeitung, Leipz. 1881, col. 228 f.] r. A manusci'ipt of the Gospels brought by Tischendorf from the Orient ; Matthew and John are very defective ; of the ninth century ; now in the Bodleian library at Oxford. A. At St. Gall ; the Gospels with a smgle small gap, with a Latin interlinear version, similar in style to G. Boernerianus ; ninth century. Published, in lithographed fac-simile, by H. C. M. Rettig, Ziir. 1836, 4° ; cf. Theol. Stun dien, 1829, III. ; 1836, II. [©". For Matthew. Codex Tischendorfianus I. ; seventh century ; now in the Leipzig University Library ; contains fragments of Mt. xiii., xiv., xv. Found by Tischendorf in the East m 1844 ; published in his Mon. sacr. ined., 1846.] [0*. Six leaves, of the sixth or seventh century ; fragments of Mt. xxii. xxiii., and Mk. iv., v. Brought by Tischendorf to St. Petersburg in 1859.] [0". Two folio leaves, of the sixth century, containing Mt. xxi. 19-24 and Jn. xviii. 29-35. The first brought by Tischendorf, the second by Abp. Porfiri, to St. Petersburg.] [0''. A fragment, of the eighth century, containing Lk. xi. 37-45. Brought to St. Petersburg by Tischendorf.] [0°. A fragment, of the sixth century, containing Mt. xxvi. 2-4, 7-9.] [0-^. Fragments, of the sixth century, of Mt. xxvi., xxvii., and Mk. i., ii.] [0". A fragment, of the sixth century, containing Jn. vi. 13, 14, 22-24. Resembles O (2).] [©''. Gr?eco-Arabic fragments, of the ninth century, of Mt. xiv. and xxv. ; together with @% ■'', " in the collection of Abp. Porfiri.] A. Codex Tischendorjianus III. ; ninth century ; brought by Tischendorf from the Orient ; now at Oxford ; contains Luke and John complete. [Col- lated by Tischendorf and Tregelles.] [E. Codex Zacynthius ; a palimpsest of the eighth century, containing, with some gaps, Lk. i. 1-xi. 33 ; formerly at the island of Zante ; presented in 1821 to the British and Foreign Bible Society at London ; deciphered and published by Tregelles, 1861. Text very valuable, and surrounded by a commentary.] [n. Codex Petropolitanus, of the ninth century, brought by Tischendorf from Smyrna ; containing the Gospels nearly complete, lacking but 77 verses. Collated by Tischendorf, 1864 and 1865.] 404 HISTORY OF THE WRITTEN TEXT. [2. Codex Roasanenxix, discovered by Gebhardt and Hariiack, in March, 1879, at Rossano, in Calabria. Beautifully written, in silver letters, on fine purple vellum, with the hrst three lines in both columns, at the beginning of each Gospel, in gold (very rare among Greek MSS.). Also ornamented with eighteen pictures in water colors, representing scenes in the gospel Listory. Consists of 188 leaves of two columns of twenty lines each, and contains the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, Luke and John having been lost. Assigned by Gebhardt and Harnack to the sixth century. See Eoangeliorum Codex argenteus purpureus Rossanensis, Uteris argenteis sexto ut videtur sceculo scriptus picturlsque ornatus, by O. von Gebhardt and Adolf Harnack, Leipz., 1880 ; contains fac-similes of portions of the text and outline sketches of the pictures.] [A full list of published Uncial MSS., by Prof. Isaac H. Hall, in Schaff, Companion, p. 139.] We cannot enumerate here the later MSS. and the numerous monographs relating to them ; for examples of the more important see § 417. It is to be expressly noted that the most of these ancient uncial MSS. have only been known, or at least used, since the seventeenth century, and many only very recently. [III. Cursive manuscripts : — [A few of the most valuable are : — [1, for the Gospels : Codex Basileensis ; tenth century ; at Basle ; known to Erasmus, but little used by him ; collated by Wetstein, C. L. Roth, and Tregelles.] [33, in the Gospels (13 in the Acts and Catholic Epistles, 17 in Paul), Codex Colbertinus J in the National Library at Paris ; eleventh century; called the " queen of the cursives ; " collated by Griesbach, and especially by Tregelles in 1850.] [61, Acts and Catholic Epistles, Codex TiscTiendorJianus ; in the British Museum ; dated April 20, 1044. Collated by Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Scrivener. According to Dr. Hort, Westcott and Hort's N. T. in Greek, II. 154, " contains a very ancient text, often Alexandrian, rarely Western, with a trifling Syrian element, probably of late introduction."] [69, Gospels (31 Acts, 37 Paul), Codex Leicestrensis ; eleventh century ; collated by Tregelles, 1852, and Scrivener, 1855.] [81, Gospels ; at St. Petersburg ; " the most valuable cursive for the preservation of Western readings in the Gospels." (Dr. Hort, in Westcott and Hort's N. T., II. 154.)] 393. In age, some of the versions surpass the still extant Greek manuscripts of the original text ; but they can of course give only indirect evidence, since in any case of doubt a retrans- lation into the Greek is necessary. This proceeding is of value chiefly in cases where the version strives after literalness, which is often done to the complete sacrifice of the laws of its own language, and with a slavish accommodation to the spirit and forms of Hellenism. On the other hand, however, not every variation is at once to be taken as evidence respecting the text, since not every translator always found in his own language the means of literal fidelity. In general, the testimony of a version can be of weight only so far as its peculiar readings are confirmed by Greek manuscripts, and in any case only after its own text has been established by previous criticism, and has been freed from the possible suspicion of subsequent alteration CRITICAL APPARATUS — VERSIONS— QUOTATIONS. 405 ill accordance with later copies of the original text. It need not be said tliat we speak here only of those versions which were made before the invention of printing. This aid to criticism, also, was only gradually taken advantage of, and for a long time with very doubtful results. Ou the versions in question them- selves, their date and extent, see our Fourth Book, and the literature there catalogued. Here only writings devoted exclusively to comparison of text. The most accessible are the Latin, both the older (Itala) and the later (Vulgate). The first is found in the Grteco-Latin codices mentioned in § 391', partly edited (D Cantab., D Clarom., E Laud., E Sangal., G Boer- ner.); also in Codd. Vercellensis, Veronensis, Brixianus (printed in Bianclilni, EvangeUarium quadruplex ladnce vers, antiquce, etc., Rome, 1749, 2 vols, fol.), and Palatinus, at Vienna (edited by Tischendorf, L. 1847, 4°), all of which contain simply the Gospels (with gaps), of the fourth to the sixth century. For other aids belonging under this head, see Sabatier and others (§ 450 ff.). A rich collection of variants is given by Mill, Prolegg., §§ 377-605. The Vulgate is not to be used from the printed manual editions, which do not give a critical text, but from MSS., the oldest of which (beside F and A, § 39"J) are Codex Amiatinus at Florence (edited by Tischendorf, 1854, 4° [also by Tregelles, in his edition of the Greek Test., with variations of the Clementine text. Dates from 541]), Fuldensis, 2'oletanus, S. Emmerami at Munich, of the sixth to the ninth century ; especially also Forujuliensis [sixth century], which is preserved in portions at Venice, Prague, and Friuli, and prmted complete in Bianchini, Evang. quadruplex, App. [See § 456.] C. A. Breyther, De vi quam verss. latincE, in crisin evv. habeant, Merseb. 1824. Among the Oriental versions, the two Syriac, the three Egyptian, the Ethiopic, and the Armenian are the most imjjortant, and they have in part been very accurately used. The Gothic also belongs in this category. A. P. de Lagarde, De N. T. ad verss. or.fidem emendando, B. 1857 ; J. W. Reusch, Syrus interpres cum fonte grceco N. T. collatus, L. 1741 ; G. B. Winer, De usu vers. si/r. N. T. critico caute instituendo, Erl. 1823 ; Storr, Ueber die philox. Uebeis., in the Repert., X.; Wichelhaus, Peschito, p. 236 ff. [See §§ 427 ff.] For the Coptic versions, see Michaelis, Bibl, X. 198, XVII. 136; Neue Bibl, VIII. 237 ; Wilkins, Prolegg. [§ 430]. — For the Ethiopic, Mill, Prolegg., 1188 ff. ; Bode's Latin edition of its Matthew, H. 1749 [§431]. — On the Armenian, Bredencamp, in Michaelis, Neue Bibl., Yll. 139 ; Alter, in Paulus, Memor., VIII. 186 [§ 432]. — On the Gothic, Kuit- tel, in Eichhorn's Bibl., VII. 783 [§ 444 f.]. Of less value for criticism, because proportionately later, or not derived directly from the Greek, interpolated, or of uncertain origin, are the Geor- gian (see Alter, Ueber georg. Literal., p. 26 [§ 433]), the Slavic (id., ib., p. 170, and in the appendix to his N. T. [§§ 446, 447]), the Anglo-Saxon [§ 462], the Arabic [§§ 437, 438] and the Persian [§ 441]. 394. The quotations of particular passages of the New Tes- tament in the works of the Church Fathers, which are to be adduced as a third source, are in some respects, it is true, to be placed above the versions, on account of their high antiquity and immediateness, and may also do good service in determin- ing the nativity of peculiar forms of the text ; but they have also their drawbacks and deficiencies. In the first place, they are mostly only small fragments taken out of the Scriptures and applied to various uses in the later theological works ; 406 HISTORY OF THE PRINTED TEXT. then these uses did not always require strict adherence to the original words, but permitted quotation from memory simply, wliich is the case the oftener, the farther back we go. Hence the greatest and surest advantage comes from the exegetical works, which explain whole books in a comprehensive wa}^ But in all cases it is necessaiy to take care to see whether the copyists or editors of patristic writings have not arbitrarily altered such quotations in order to make them correspond with the text familiar to them, or looked upon by them as authentic, so that they must be regarded no longer as fragments of very old manuscripts, now lost, but as copies of later worthless ones. The number of Church Fathers available and already used is very great, but the advantage derived from them has been of importance in case of but few. The oldest Greek writer who is here to be considered on account of the great number of his quotations (since Justin cannot be used for this pur- pose, § 199) is Clement of Alexandria ; the most important, from his date and as an exegete, Origen. (Griesbach, 0pp., I. 278; II. 37.) After him, as exegetes, come Chrysostom, Eplirem, Theodoret ; later, Euthymius, CE- cumenius, Theophylact ; on the Apocalypse in particular, Andreas and Are- tas ; see on these Matthaei, preface to the tenth volume of his N. T., and our Fifth Book [Rettig, Die Zeugnisse des Andreas u. Aretas, in the Stud. u. Krit- iken, 1831 ; Otto, Des Patriarchen Gennadios Confession, nehst einem Excurs uber Arethas' Zeitalter, Vienna, 1864; article Arethas, in Smith and Wace, Diet, of Chr. Biography, I. 154 f., and especially Harnack, Die Ueberliefer- ung der griech. Apologeten, etc., L. 1882, p. 36 ff.] ; among theologians, Athanasius, the two Cyrils, Epiphanius, and John of Damascus. More com- plete lists in the Prolegomena of the critical editions, especially Scholz and Tischendorf [Scrivener, p. 372 f. ; Mitchell, Handh., Tables XI. and XII.] ; also Eichhorn, Einl., V. 134. Cf. in general J. S. Vater, Obss. ad usum PP. groicorum in a-isi N. T., Reg. 1810, Pt. I., II. Special : F. W. Edel, Collatio critica locc. N. T. quce in Actis conciliorum gr. IV. prim. secc. laudantur, Arg. 1811 ; F. J. Arens (§ 247). [See on the value and use of patristic quotations Tregelles, in Home's Introduction, 14th ed. Lond. 1877, IV. p. 329 if. ; SchafP, Companion, 164 ff.] The possibility of getting any advantage from the critical studies of Mar- cion is, according to §§ 246, 362, problematical. Latin writers bear witness for the most part only to their Latin text; yet even this in the first centuries is a very important help, and must by all means be taken advantage of, since Irenseus and Jerome were familiar with Greek manuscripts. Only from writers before the time of the latter (Ter- tuUian, Cyprian, Ambrose, the two Hilaries, Augustine) has criticism any- thing to gain for the Greek text. C. I. Ansaldi, De authenticis ss. apud Patres lectionibus, Verona, 1747. 395. The completest possible solution of the problem of New Testament textual criticism depends partly upon the completeness of the apparatus and partly upon tlie right use of it. The history of the printed text, therefore, has to do equally with the attempts of scholars to obtain this apparatus, or the preliminary critical labors, and with the use of it, or the editions. Of the latter, as a critico-historical science, it has properly to notice only those which have given the text a new TEXTUAL CRITICISM. 407 form, in the consideration of which it directs its attention both to the aids and to the principles of the editors. The great mass of editions reprinted witliout change from others has for the most part only a bibliographical interest, yet taken as a whole presents a certain side of the development of the science itself, and is therefore not to be neglected in this connection. Bibliographical catalogues (general) : J. Le Long, Bihliotheca sacra, Par. 1709 ; ed. 2, 1723, 2 vols. fol. (on the present subject see I. 199 ff.) ; en- larged by C. F. Borner, L. 1709, 2 vols. 8°; best of all, Bihliotheca sacra . . . emendata, suppleta, continuata, by A. G. Masch, Hal. 1781-90, 5 vols. 4° (un- completed ; covers only the editions of the original text and the Oriental and Latin versions). Shorter catalogues : Cahnet, Dlctionnalre de la Bible, III. ; Walch, Biblioih. theol., IV.; Rosenmiiller, Handh., I. ; Meyer, Gesch. der Schrifterkldrung, in the separate volumes ; T. F. Dibdin, Introduction to the Knowledge of Rare and Valuable Editions, etc., ed. 3, Loud. 1808, 2 vols. ; of. also §§ 425, 460. For the N. T. in particular, and with critical reference : the Prolegg. of Mill, § 1089 ff.; Wetstein, ed. Semler, p. 309 ff. ; Baumgarten, Nachrichten von merkwilrdigen Biichern ; Hallische Bibliolhek (§ 460), passim ; Matthsei, N. T. ed. minor, I. 679 ff.; Griesbach, ed. 1796; his Historia edd. N. T., in the Mus. Hagan., II. 493 ff. ; Eichhorn, Einl, V. 248 flP. ; S. P. Tregelles, A Prospectus of a New Edition of the Greek N. T.,tvith an Historical Account of the Printed Text, 1848. — J. B. Reinhard, De N. T. primis editoribus, Vit. 1717 ; reaches to 1551. — E. Reuss, Bibliotheca N. T. grcEci, etc., Brunsw. 1872. [This work of Reuss supplemented and brought down to 1882 by Prof. Isaac H. Hall, and the list published in Schaff, Companion to the Gk. Test., p. 497 ff.] We distinguish (1.) Original editions, which are made from MSS. alone, edd. principcs. (2.) New recensions, transformations of the text in accord- ance with MSS. and upon critical principles, with or without reference to former editions. (3.) Recognitions, editions changed in accordance with new principles without reference to new MSS. (4.) Editions compiled from several earlier ones, without new aids. (5.) Reprints. (6.) Title-page edi- tions, both those repeated by the stereotype process and those which repeat- edly put upon the market the first (and only) impression, brought down to the time simply by a new title page and a changed date. 396. It cannot be denied that the earliest editors of the New Testament had at least a superficial knowledge, if not of the corruption of the text, yet of the diversity of the manuscripts, and in so far also an idea of the task of criticism. Yet this science was still in its infancy, and even the practice which might have been obtained in working upon the classics was calculated to lead theologians astray in this new business, since it had a wholly different basis and was to be carried on by means of different aids. The power of custom, which in theological and ecclesiastical matters so often restricts progress, here also came in to hinder in many ways, and to make the good will and industry of scholars unfruitful. It was fully two hundred years before, from uncertain groping about, thej'' arrived at a scientific method based upon definite principles, or at least ven- tured to SMy plainly what was clearly recognized. 408 HISTORY OF THE PRINTED TEXT. With respect to the classics, on account of the much smaller number of MSS., the histoi-y of the text, which is the most indispensable element of criticism in the N. T., is in most cases wanting ; not to speak of the two classes of helps which do not exist. The literature of Biblical Criticism is catalogued by Roseumiiller, in liis Handb., I. 439 If. II., 1 ff., [Schatf, Companion, p. 83 f.] More general text-books of the theory and aids of Biblical Criticism are : Glasius, Ph'dologia sacra, Bk. I., Jena, 1G23 and freq. ; last by G. L. Bauer, 1796 (the other portions of the work do not belong here) ; J. Clericus, Ars critica (on classical literature also), ed. G, Leyd. 1778, 3 vols. ; J. Heringa, Be- griff, Unentbehrlickkeit, und rechter Gebrauch der bibl. Kritik, from the Dutch by M. J. H. Beckhaus, Olfenb. 1804; Lbhnis, G'runc/su^e der bibl. Kritik {h\ his Hermeneutik, pp. 233-4'28) ; Kuenen. [See the works cited under § 351.] On the N. T. iu particular see the Prolegomena to the editions of Walton, Curcellpeus, Fell, Mill, Gerhard v. Maestricht, Bengel, Griesbach, Scholz, and others. See the appropriate sections below. Also, J. Saubert, Prolegg. ad Matth., pp. 1-62 ; C. M. Pfaff, De genuinis II. N. T. lectionibus indagandis, Amst. 1709; C. B. Michaelis, De variis lec- tionibus N. T. caute colligendis et diiudicandis, Hal. 1749 ; J. J. Wetstein, Anim. et cautiones ad examen var. lectt. N. T. necessarice, in his Libell. crit., ed. Semler, 176G. Also Semler's Spicilegium, p. 167 If . ; CD. Beck, Mono- grammata hermen., pp. 22-125 ; J. M. A. Scholz, De critica N. T. generatim, Heid. 1820 ; F. Schleiermacher, Hermeneutik und Kritik mit bes. Beziehung auf das N. T., B. 1838; C. Tischendorf, in the Stadien, 1842, II. ; W. F. Rink, ibid., 1846, II. 397. Among the obstacles which daring this long period op- posed the purification of the text, the small miniber of manu- scripts accessible or made use of, and their slight age, was not the greatest. Scholars were unable to make the best choice from among those at hand, or were not accurate enough in their comparison, or contented themselves with estimating the value of readings according to the number of sources in which they were found. In consequence of the astonishing number of copies which appeared at the very beginning, in a long series of manual editions, mostly from one and the same recension, the idea grew up spontaneously very early tliat in the manuscripts also the text was tolerably uniform, and that any thorough re- vision of it was unnecessary and impertinent. The oriental versions were closed to most ; the importance of the Church Fathers was scarcely suspected; but the greatest lack of all for the purification of the text was the indispensable knowl- edge of the process of its corruption. Moreover, a correct con- ception of the peculiar idiom in which the Apostles wrote could not arise in the midst of the humanistic tendency of the time, and the readings due to this cause were wrongly esti- mated in many ways. To these may still be added : the arbitrariness, in defiance of all criticism, used in minfrlinw the reading's of existing: editions : the negligence in describ- •1 OO _0 O .Till ing the MSS. used, and in stating the sources of variants adopted ; the lack of a fixed text according to which, to avoid confusion, all collations could be arranged ; finally, the impossibility of a full survey of the apparatus. COMPLUTENSIAN POLYGLOT. 409 398. The more these various causes operated, and as the de- ficiencies arising from them became more and more percepti- ble, the greater became the inclination to seek help over the difficulties of misunderstood passages, or through the chaos of variants, by conjectures, the acute application of which had already often been successful in the classics. Although this expedient is theoretically not to be condemned uncondition- ally, on account of the great gaps at the beginning of the series of critical witnesses, yet it was properly abandoned more and more as the supply of trustworthy aids increased, and its application was found to be as unnecessary in practical criti- cism as it was inadvisable for dogmatic reasons. L. C. Valckenaer, De s. N. F, critice a literatoribus non exercenda, Franeq. 1745 ; idem, De critica emendatrice in ss. N. F. II. non adhibenda, Fraiieq. 1745; M. Weber, De intempestiva lectionis emendandce cura, L. 1783; P. J. S. Vogel, De conjectarce usu in crisi N. T., Altd. 1795; cf. Michaelis, Or. Bibl., 21, 159; Augusti, Neue Blatter, III. 31G. Collections : Critical Conjectures and Observations on the N. T., collected from various authors, by W. Bowyer (1763), 4tli ed., Loud. 1812, 4°. That conjecture is a very ancient exegetical expedient is apparent from Tertullian (^Cont. Marc, V. 3), who strikes out the negative oii5e in Gal. ii. 5 : intendamus sensui ipsi et apparebit vitiatio scripturce. Yet he probably had the Latin text in his favor. Many proposed emendations of the text in locis dubiis et vexatis have proved wholly unnecessary with a more advanced exegesis : e. g., 1 Cor. i. 12 : Kpianov for XpiffToO (Bowyer); xi. 10: e|ioCy Bishop Paul of Tela, 617, after the recension of Origen (the Hexapla) ; it seems not only to be related to the Hai-cleaii version of the N. T. chronologically, but to be akin to it in other respects also ; nearly all the historical books are said to be lost (specimen from 2 Kings by J. G. Hasse, 1782 ; Judges and Ruth, ed. T. Roerdam, Havn. 1859) ; the other canoni- cal books have been partially edited : Jeremiah and Ezekiel by M. Norberg, 1787 ; Daniel and the Psalms by C. Bugati, 1788 and 1820 ; the rest by H. Middeldorpf, 1835. Cf. Eichhorn's Repert, III., VII.; C. a Lengerke, De stu- dio I'M. syr., p. 14 ff . (2.) The revision undertaken about 704 by Bishop Jacob of Edessa, very probably on the basis of the foregoing, of which the Pentateuch and Daniel, according to later information some other books also (Allgem. Lit. Zeitung, 1846, No. 204), have been preserved in MSS. Cf. Eichhorn's Bihl, II. 270 ; VIII. 571 ; Einl. ins A. T., II. 156. (3.) Several others, partly problematical, information respecting vi^hich is collected in Michaelis, I. 434; Eichhorn, Einl. ins A. T., II. 214 £P.; Zeitsclir. der deutschen Morgenl. Gesellsch., 1849, p. 397. On the fragments of the Sj^riac version of the Gos- pels discovered by Cureton, see above, § 426, and the Heidelb. Studien, 1858, p. 561. On the Syriac versions in general, see A. Midler, De syriads utriusque Test, verss., in his Symbh., p. 11 ff. ; G. Ridley, De syriacarum N. T. verss. indole et usu, printed in Wetstein, Libelli crit., pp. 247-339; G. C. Storr, Ohss. super N. T. versionihus syrr., Stuttg. 1772 ; J. G. C. Adler, N. T. versiones syriacce . . . denuo examinatcc, Hafn. 1789 ; with a supplement, 1790. [Tregelles, in Smith's Diet., IV. pp. 3383 fif. Am. ed. ; Davidson, Art. Syriac Versio?is, in Kitto's Cycl. ofBibl. Lit.'] 430. Not much later tlian Syria, Egypt also, that other cradle of ancient culture, obtained a translation of the Bible of her own. After the downfall of the Ptolemies, and still more after the beginning of the Byzantine empire, although not without traces of the long bondage, the ancient language of the people rose again, and with it soon, though gradually, Chris- tianity also rose to transient dominion. Retaining the Greek text, but at the same time providing for the instruction of the people, the Ciiurch read the sacred books to them in both lan- guages, and in different dialects in the different provinces. But of this less splendid period of its history also only incom- plete records have been preserved. On the so-called Coptic language and literature (the name, variously in- terpreted, is most probably etymologically connected with AXyv-KTos, and al- ways signifies Christian Egypt in distinction from Pharaonic (Chem), Old Testament (Mizram), Macedonian and classic in general (Alyvn-ros), and modern Arabic (Misr) ; see E. Quatremere, Recherches sur la langue et la litterature de VEgypte, P. 1808. As to tlie age and origin of the Coptic versions of the Bible nothing cer- tain has been ascertained. In the opinion of linguistic and historical schol- ars, two of them were, already in existence at the end of the third century. It is certain that in the following century the Greek language was almost unknown even among priests, still more among monks. And among the people, outside the cities, it probably never had been very well known. The custom of public reading in two languages is attested by still extant Gr?eco-Coptic MSS., beside other ways. For catalogue of MSS. see Engel- breth, in Haenlein's Journal, VI. 834 ; Zoega, in the Allg. Lit. Ztg., 1821, III. 561. EGYPTIAN — iETHIOPIC. 453 Tlie Upper Egyptian or Thebaic, called, from the Arabic name of the province, the Sahidic, i. e., Highland, is considered the oldest. It is trans- lated from the Greek in the O. T. as well as in the New. Only fragments of either part have been discovered ; of the N. T. very brief ones, from Matthew and John, by J. A. Mingarelli, Bol. 1785 ; from John, by A. A. Georgi, Rome, 1789 (§ 392) ; from the Epistles, by F. Miinter, etc. ; see his Comm. de indole N. T. versionis sahidicce, Hafn. 1789. — C. G. Woide, in the Appendi.x; to his edition of Cod. Alex. (Oxf. 1799, fol.), collects all that is extant, in some parts not inconsiderable. Better known is the Lower Egyptian or Memphitic, which is for this rea- son often called simply the Coptic. It is from the same sources, but is said to be somewhat later, which may at least be easily inferred from natural causes. Of the O. T. the Pentateuch (Wilkins, 1731; [A. Fallet, La Ver- sion Cophte du Pent., Par. 1854] ; P. de Lagarde, 1867) and the Psalms have been completely edited, the latter more frequently, best by L. Ideler, B, 1837 ; M. G. Schwarze, L. 1843 ; the Prophets, by H. Tattam, Oxf. 1836 (minor), 1852 (major) ; Job, by H. Tattam, Loud. 1846 ; the N. T. entire by D. Wilkins, Oxf. 1716, 4° [also by H. Tattam, publ. by the Soc. for Prom. Christ. Knowledge, 1847-52] ; the Gospels by M. G. Schwarze, L. 1846, 4°; Epistles and Acts by P. Bdtticher, Halle, 1852. — Cf . E. Quatremere, On the Coptic Prophets, in the Notices et Extraits, VIII. ; Baumgarteu, Nachr., VI. 1. Fragments are preserved of a third version, known by the name of the Bashmurie, whose home is disputed. Critics consider this designation, which points to the eastern mouths of the Nile, to be erroneous, and would assign it rather to the western oases. Fragments of the Pauline Epistles edited by W. F. Engelbreth, Hafn. 1811, 4°. An unimportant theological literature, chiefly legendary and ascetic, is connected with the Coptic Bible. Cf. in general La Croze, Thesaurus epis- tolicus, passim, see the Index ; Michaelis, Briefwechsel, III. 43 ff. ; C. G. Woide, in Cramer's Beitrdge, III. ; Georgi, preface to his edition of John, see above ; F. Miinter, in Eichhorn's Bibl., IV. ; J. L. Hug, in Ersch and Gruber's Encykl., II. 37; Masch, II. 1, p. 182 ; also A. Kircher, Prodromus coptus, Rome, 1636 ; J. E. Gerhardt, Eccl. coptica, Jena, 1666 ; C. H. Trom- ler, Ahhildung der koptischen Kirche, Jena, 1749 ; idem, Bihliotheca coptica, L. 1767. The Travels of Wansleb, Du Bernat, Pococke, Scholz, and others. Letronne, Mate'riaux pour Vhist. du Christianisme en Egypte, P. 1832. [Tre- gelles, in Smith's Diet., IV. p. 3375.] 431. Bold apostles had very early found their way beyond these two oriental mother-countries to more distant regions, where Hellenic culture had never penetrated. As early as the fourth century they carried the Gospel up the Nile to fabled Ethiopia, and soon gave to the newly founded Church all the sacred writings, which they perhaps did not adjust to the for- eign speech without the aid of Egyptian interpretation. Bnt, cut oil from living intercourse with the rest of the Christian world, the preaching of the Gospel nowhere bore poorer fruit ; and now, while new missionaries are going thither to do the work a second time, where in name it has been done for so long, the linguistic scholar is occupied in reading at home a mass of morbid excrescences of neglected Scripture brought thence. 454 HISTORY OF THE VERSIONS. The ancient Ethiopic language (Abyssinian, i. e., of the land of Habesh), called by the natives Gheez, is connected with the South Arabian (Himyari- tic), therefore in general with the Semitic family of languages ; but it long since passed away as a living language, and has become split up into a mul- titude of more or less corrupt dialects. Legends of the country refer the acquaintance of the people with revela- tion to the Queen of Sheba (1 K. x.) or to the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts viii.), more trustworthily to a missionary in the first half of the fourth century, Abba Salama, who is also said to have translated the Bible, and who is pos- sibly one and the same person with the Frumentius mentioned by the Church Fathers. Cf. in general H. Ludolf, Historia cethiopica, Frankf. 1G81, fob, III. 2 ; idem, Commentarius ad historiam cethiopicam, 1691, fol. ; M. Veys- siere de la Croze, Histoire du Christianisme d'Ethiopie et d'Armenie, La Haye, 1739 ; J. C. Dannhawer, De eccl. cethiopica, Arg. 1664 ; J. G. Oertel, The- ologia ^thiopum, Vit. 1746 ; Geseniiis, in Ersch and Gruber's Encykl., II. 116. Opinions are divided as to the age and sources of this version. With re- spect to source, the question is between the Greek and the Coptic, though doubtless the former has more in its favor ; and the date cannot be earlier than the mission of Frumentius, although it is conceivable that the Jews liv- ing there may have translated their sacred writings before that time. The now extant Etliiopic O. T. is of Christian origin. Cf. also B. Dorn, De psal- terio (Bthiopico, L. 1825, p. 2 ff. Of the O. T. the Psalms have been printed frequently : first at Rome, 1513 ; later by Ludolf, 1701, with and without Latin translation, also with the Canticles ; the latter also separately; Ruth and some of the Minor Proph- ets (Joel, Jonah, Zephaniah, Malachi) by J. G. Nissel, 1656 ff. ; the N. T., Rome, 1548, 2 vols. 4° (cf. Bibl. Sacyana, I. 720, p. 408), and in the London Polyglot (in which also the Psalms and Canticles), in both cases very de- fectively, but made more accessible by the more accurate Latin translation of C. A. Bode, Br. 1752 ff. 2 vols. — Better edition : London, 1827, 4° [by T. P. Piatt, for the British and For. Bib. Soc] ; also the Gospels separately, in 1827, and the Psalms in 1815. Earlier, several Epistles (James, John, Jude, also Arabic) by Nissel, 1654. Catalogues of editions in Le Long, I. 127; Masch, II. 1, p. 140; Baumgarten, Hall. Bibl., IV. 471; VIII. 473; Nachr., VI. 6 ; Rosenmiiller, Handh., III. 65, 142. The remaining por- tions of the O. T. are preserved in MS. in European libraries. — A beauti- ful edition of the O. T. was begun in 1854 by A. Dillmann, who also claims to be able to point out in the MSS. different recensions of the text, and even traces of new translations of certain portions. On the pseudepigraphic literature of the Ethiopian Church, see above, §326. Cf. in general Mill, Prolegg., 1188 ; Bode's preface to his Aithiopixche Fragmente des A. T., 1755; C. B. Michaelis, Preface to Bode's Maithceus ; Bruce's Travels, I. ; Isenberg's Ahyssinien, passim; the Travels of Combes, Gobat, Katte, and others ; Hottinger, Bibl. orient., p. 318 ff. [Potken, Pref- ace to the Ethiopic Psalter, Rome, 1513 ; T. P. Piatt, MS. Notes made in the Collation of Ethiopic MSS., and Private Letters sent to Tregelles ; L. A. Prevost, MS. Collation of the Text of Piatt with the Roman, and Translation of Variations, executed for Tregelles ; A. Dillmann, ^thiopische Bibeliihersetz- ung, in Herzog's Real-Encykl. ; Tregelles, in Smith's Diet., IV. p. 3371.] 432. Syria sent her missionaries into all the countries along the Euphrates and Tigris. At the sources of these rivers, in Armenia, first arose the need of a translation which could be understood by the people, and their spiritual guides spared AEMENIAN— GEORGIAN. 455 no pains to furnish thera with this treasure. Not contenting themselves with the Syriac text, they obtained a Greek Bible from the great church collection at Ephesus, young men were sent to Alexandria to acquire linguistic knowledge, and so finally, through several scholars, Mesrob at their head, who was obliged to invent the alphabet for it, and with the help of the Peshito, the Armenian Bible came into existence, in this case also the beginning of a native literature. The source of our knowledge of this history (which in the native form is very legendary and obscure ; see Petermann, in Herzog's Encykl., Art. Mesrob) is Moses Chorenensis, who was himself concerned in the work : Hist. arm. (ed. W. and J. Whiston, Lond. 1736). Cf. La Croze, in the pre- ceding section. J. E. Gerhard, De statu Armenice ecclesiastico, Jena, 1665. Several essays in the Tiih. Quartalschr., 1835, I. ; 1846, IV. ; Neumann, Geschichte der armen. Liter., p. 37 ff.; C. N. Pischon, in the Berl. Zeitschr., Dec. 1854. As Mesrob's (Miesrob's) coadjutors are also mentioned the Patriarch Isaac, Joseph (Palnensis), and Eznak (Jo. Ekelensis). The date is carried back by some to the beginning of the fifth century. The O. T. is from the LXX. Suspicion of alteration to accord with the Vulgate in the thirteenth century (on occasion of the union of the Armenian Church with the Latin), and in the first printed edition, prepared in Europe in 1666, proved by La Croze, Thesaur. epist., III. 3, 69 ; II. 290 ; denied by R. Simon, Hist, des versions, p. 196 f. ; Eichhorn, Einl., V. 76 if. — Cf. in general A. Acoluthus, Preface to his edition of the Armenian Obadiah, 1680 ; Bredencamp, in Eichhorn's Bibl, IV. 623. Catalogue of the earlier editions in Le Long, 1. 136 ; Baumgarten, Handb., III. 189, 377 ; Nachr., IX. 189 ; Masch, II. 1, p. 169 ; Rosenmuller, III. 78, 153. Modern editions frequently at Venice (San Lazaro) ; see Journal Asiat., III. 119 ; VII. 64 ; also St. Petersburg and Serampore, 1817. Cf. §§ 491, 495. [Best edition by Zohrab, N. T., 1789 ; whole Bible, 1805, and again 1816 ; now published by the British and Foreign Bible Society. See Chas. Rieu, MS. Collation of the Armenian Text of Zohrab, and Translation of the Various Readings, made for Tregelles ; Tx'cgelles, in Smith's Diet., IV., p. 3373.] 433. From Armenia Christianity pressed far up into the valleys of the Caucasus, and in the sixth century Georgia, the ancient Iberia, the chief province of that many-tongued land, received her own translation. Its earliest history has thus far remained unknown to European scholars, and its influence upon the mental development of this distant corner of the earth cannot as yet be estimated, since it is but very recently that war and tireless zeal in research have made this region again accessible. Of the Georgian language and literature one may learn a little from F. C. Alter, Ueber georg. Literatur, Vienna, 1798 ; more from Brosset's essays in the Journal Asiatique, X. 351; Nouveau Journal, I. 434 ; II. 42. The Georgian (in the vernacular, Grusinic) version of the Bible was printed at Moscow in 1743 ; rarely in Europe. It is acknowledged to have been altered or interpolated to accord with the Slavic. See Eichhorn, Bibl., 456 HISTORY OF THE VERSIONS. I. 153 ; idem, Asiatische Sprachkunde, p. 341. In our times it has been circulated by the press of the St. Petersburg Bible Society, in two characters, the ecclesiastical and tlie civil. 434. Whether still other eastern countries obtained in this period, together with the Gospel, the means of hearing it pub- licly read in their own tongues, is unknown. The rhetorical effusions of Greek pulpit discourses cannot be accepted as historical evidence. And even if, here and there, in a dialect confined within comparatively narrow limits, the germ of a national intellectual development had been implanted in a translation of the Bible, it must soon have been stifled by the world-threatening inroad of the Arabic nationality, with which came in an epoch of important change for the subject of our history. Clirysostom (c. 400), Horn. I. in Joann. : '2vpoi Kal Al-yvmioi koI "l^Soi kolL Hepffai Kal AldioTres Kal /xvpia erepa 'iQvrj (Is tyjv tavTtov /xera^aWovTes '/hwrrav . . . e/j-adoy. (Vol. VIII., p. 10, Moatf.) Similarly, Horn. 80 in Matlh. (Vol. VII,, 767), though here not necessarily of written translation. Much earlier still, Eusebius (in a fragment in Grabe, Spicil. PP., II. 252), 5to Trjs ToC fvayy^Kiov ypaKpTJs Travrola yAciTTT) iWr)VLKr} re Kal ^ap^ap'^ yara^KT)- Bela-fjs els i^aKovarov Tracri ro7s iBveai k. t. \. Idem, De laiidibus Constant., ch. xvii. 5 : ypatpas . . . Ka6' oAijs t^s oiKoufievris iravTula yKwaari fiap^apwv re koX kwi\vuiv pi.irafia.\KojXfvas. ■ . . Theocloret, De nat. horn. serm. 5, p. 555 . . . fxere^KTiBr) . . . els ird&as rcks yKdrras ah anauTa to edvr] /cexpTji/Tai. Idem, GrCBC. affect., p. 837 ff.: rj 'E^paicoi/ (pitiuh ov ix6vov els r^v 'EAA.tjj/ojj' fxere^A-qOr} aWa Kal els rr/v 'Paifxalcmv Kal AlyvTriuiv Kal nepawi^ Kal ^IvSwv Kal 'Ap/xei/icoy Kal 'SKu9!av Kal 'S.avpofxarQv Ka\ CvWrjIiSrjv elireiv eis iraaas ras yXwnaas als awavra ret edvTj KexpVf^^"^ StareXei. Anastasius Sinaita, Hodeg., ch. xxii. : eV rois ypafxixacri twv o^' ( 72, i. e., all) yXoiffauv Kal edvwv. Jerome, In Ps. 86. Other less definite assertions are quoted by Bianchini, Prolegg. ad evang. quadrupl., I. 78 ; Bingham, Origg. eccL, V. 91. Even the Syrian and African versions owe their preservation not so much to native care as to European thirst for knowledge. Altogether undeserving of mention (to despatch the whole matter in one word) are the strange conceits of later times, presented as history ; as for example an Armenian version by Chrysostom (Sixt. Senens., IV., p. 280), an Illyrian by Jerome (several writei"s, in Leusden, Phil. hehr. mixi., p. 71), finally even a German, for which the Scythians mentioned in Col. iii. 11 are made to furnish language and surety (Ott and Breitinger, in Simler's Samm- lung von Urkunden, I. 2, p. 385). Scarcely more worthy of notice is the reference of Epiphanius (Hcer., xxx. 3, I. 127) to a Hebrew version of John and Acts. 435. For soon after the first quarter of the seventli century occurred one of those revolutions not uncommon in the history of Asia, by which the aspect of a whole continent is changed. In this case, however, it was no ordinary national migration, no common expedition of conquest. A new faith was rising, with the rapidity of a hurricane, upon the ruins of a dead heathen- ism, and was overflowing also the distant Christian regions of the East, where, under the pressure of the most unholy political and theological confusion, all enthusiasm had become extinct. MOHAMMEDANISM — ARABIC VERSIONS. 457 and where the appropriate fruits of Christianity, civil order, intellectual and moral culture, and national wealth, had not yet been able to come to maturity. The Church fell once again under the domination of the enemies of the cross, and they, to her shame be it said, found themselves inwardly strong enough to tolerate her among them. That Christianity suffered a serious and lasting defeat from Islam, and that not merely through the propagation of the latter by force of arms, can- not be denied. It is attested by a theological and national hatred which has endured for a thousand years. But to any one not of the Byzantine faith it seems a natural and necessary event. More shameful still is the fact that the just as undeniable decline of Islam is not the effect of a linguistically related Christian influence, and that the utter impotence and deep spiritual impoverishment of the Oriental Church is to be chai'ged much more to the contemptible spirit of its former monastic scholasticism than to the scornful violence of the conquerors. 436. Many, beguiled or intimidated, turned to the new prophet ; but all, as far as the sword of the Arab prevailed, were obliged gradually to change their ancestral tongues for the speech of the conqueror. The policy of the rulers, the poverty of the old idioms, already long felt, the fresh power and beauty of the new, combined to make this the most widely current language ever used as a medium of intercourse among men. The Syrian and Egyptian Christians forgot their mother tongues, and they soon became known only to the learned, finally were to be read only in the Bible, and were regarded as sacred, the vanishing inheritance of the priests. Western Asia, as well as Europe, has seen its whole national civilization several times subjected to a complete revolution through foreign elements of superior power. But while much has been accomplished by science toward the clearer comprehension of the means and progress of the Hellen- ization of the Orient, much less has been done toward the knowledge of the gradual decline of Hellenism and the revival of oppressed nationalities on the Nile and Euphrates, and almost nothing at all toward the pragmatic history of the Arabicization of the Oriental peoples and Churches. Oriental historiography, and European so far as it depends upon it, is as yet scarcely anything more than an account of rulers and wars. Yet see J. v. Hammer, in the Fundgruhe des Orients, I. 360 ; C. E. Oelsner, Mohamed, 1810; J. J. J. Dollinger, Mukamed's Reliq'wn nach ihrem Einflusse auf das Leben der VolkeVf 1838 ; Schrockh, Kirchengesch., XIX. 327 ff. The existing special works on Oriental Church History are not so much narrative as statistical in character, and have reference rather to modern conditions. Yet cf. J. H. Hottinger, De statu christianorum et judceorum tem- pore orti Muhammedismi,\a. his Hist, or., p. 320 ff.; his Archdologie ; Bmgham, Antiqq., III. 408 ff. 437. Hence it became necessary that Arabic versions of the Scriptures should be made, if the public reading was not to be- come a mere show, and this means of edification to be wholly cut off from the unlearned. Down to the time of Mohammed no such version had existed. True, there were many Chris- 458 HISTORY OF THE VERSIONS. tians scattered here and there over the whole peninsula, and in the south they even had a kingdom of their own for a time, though founded by the aid of foreign arms ; but neither there nor anywhere else is the use of written records of Christianity mentioned ; the question is rather whether the art of writing was known among the people at all ; and as respects the Koran in particular, it betrays neither in thought nor expression any contact whatever with the New Testament, but in its biblical traditions only an acquaintance with later Jewish and Chris- tian j)0pular tradition and some altogether extra-ecclesiastical dogmatic misconceptions. All that is supposable would be that the Jews may have translated the 0. T. wholly or partially iuto Arabic before the time of Mohammed. But this cannot be proved from the Koran, and what we know of the writing of the Arabs at that period, together with the non-existence of Arabic syna- gogues, make it more than improbable. See in general S. H. Manger, De fatis rel. chr. apud Arahes (Sylloge Schultens, II.). On Mohammed's ac- quaintance with Christianity, the modern critical works on him, especially Weil, Lebeii Moh., 1843, and Gerock (§ 263). For pre-Mohammedan versions, in particular of the N. T. : Hug, I. 422 ; Schott, p. G08 ; hesitatingly also Michaelis, I. 442. Against, Bertholdt, 11. 649. Hammer {Gemdldesaal moslim. Herrscher, I. 57) takes it very ill in European scholars that they do not know that a cousin of Mohammed's first wife, Waraka ibn Naufal, a Christian and a priest, translated the Old and New Testaments from the Hebrew (!!), — a story which he himself, doubt- less, only learned from some modern Turkish wi-iter. Cf. Weil, Aloh., pp. 47, 408. Most fully Sprenger, Moh., I. 81 f., 124 ff., who is not averse from admitting earlier attempts at translation, which, however, were neither known to Mohammed nor used officially by any community of chiu-ches. Yet see Gildemeister, De evv. arah. (§ 438), p. 30 ; Noldeke, in the Zeitschr. d. Deutschen Morgenl. Gesellsch., 1858, p. 699. The tradition (Lagarde, Arab. Evv., p. xv.) that the Arabs themselves, in 640, invited the Patriach John of Seville to translate the Gospels (Assemani, Bibl. Orient., III. 2, p. 599), though unauthenticated, at least bears witness to the recollection that it had not been done before. Cf. also Gildemeister, 1. l, p. 44. Cf. in general De Wette, Art. Arab. Bibeluberss., in Ersch and Gruber's Ena/U., I. 5. Many points in this portion of the literary history are still obscure, or too hastily regarded as decided on the strength of single authori- ties. [See Juynboll's description of an Arabic MS. at Franeker, in Letter- kundige Bydragen, Leyd. 1838 ; Wiseman, On the Miracles of the N. T., in bis Essays, 1. p. 172 ff. ; Tregelles, in Smith's Diet., IV. p. 3372.] 438. The case was different after the conquest of those lands in which the two principal forms of monotheism thus far ex- tant had longest had a home and an organized establishment. Here Jews and Christians, overtaken by the same loss of na- tionality, had a like ecclesiastical need, and vied with each other in the work. There is nothing said of a national work, of an undertaking watched over by the Church or committed to it by the ruling powers. According to the place of tlieir origin the different attempts differed in extent, sources, and AEABIC. 459 aids. Few asked for the Greek text. The ancient version of the country was to most the immediate and most valued source, the true original. And since practical lite accustomed itself to the new order of things more quickly than the sluggish learn- ing, the old character must often be used for the new lan- guage. Of the N. T. there has been printed : — (1.) The Gospels, in various recensions (Rome, 1590, fol., in two editions, with and without Latin translation ; Bibl. Sacyana, I. 879, p. 410 ; in the N. T. Arab., ed. Erpenius, Leyd. 1616, 4°; in the Paris and London Poly- glots ; after a Vienna MS. by P. de Lagarde, L. 1864), from the original text. G. C. Storr, De evv. arabicis, Tub. 1775. From the same original some derive the version of the other books printed in the Polyglots. (Hug.) (2.) The other books, in Erpenius, from the Peshito so far as it extends. From the same source Eichhorn derives the text in the Polyglots. J. D. Michaelis, Arabica versio Actuum erpeniana filia syriacce (in the work cited in § 427); O. G. Tychsen, in the Repert.,^ X. 95. (3.) The Apocalypse in Erpenius is said to have come from the Coptic. For a specimen of an Arabic version of the Pauline Epistles, from the same source, see Hug, I. 418. For a fuller account of the editions see, in particular, Schnurrer, Biblio- fheca arabica, 1811, p. 339 ff. ; Masch, II. 1, p. 103 ; also Baumgarten, Nachr., III. 283 ; VI. 8 ; Handb., V. 283 ; II. 294. — The earliest printed portion of the Arabic Bible was the Epistle to the Galatiaus, ed. Rutger Spey, Heid. 1583, with wooden types. See Hirt, Orient. Bibl., I. 1; W. C. J. Chrysander, De prima scripto arab. in Germ, excuso, H. 1749. Other small specimens were : the Epistle of Jude, ed. Kirsten, Breslau, 1611 (Hirt, I. c, III. 40); Epistle to Titus, Leyd. 1612 ; Epistles of John, Ley den and Paris, 1630 ; Epistle of James, Vit. 1694 ; Epistle to the Romans, Leyd. 1615. Cf. also § 431. For later editions see § 491. There is still much in manuscript, and in part scarcely known or investi- gated, in various libraries, especially English, and the store has been con- siderably increased, particularly in recent times. There is much yet to be done in this field. J. Gildemeister, De evv. in arabicum e simplici syriaca translatis, Bonn, 1865. As respects the O. T., we have nothing to do here with the many Jewish (and Samaritan) versions, especially of the Pentateuch, most of which are unprinted. That there were also Christian versions appears certain. H. E. G. Paulus, Specimina VII. verss. Pent. arab. nondum editarum, Jena, 1789; cf. m general, Schnurrer, De pent. arab. polyglotto, Tiib. 1780 ; Michaelis, Or. Bibl, XVI., 62 ; O. G. Tychsen, in the Repert., XL ; F. T. Rink, in Eich- horn's Bibl., III. 665 ; J. A. Theiner, De Cod. pent., Vratisl. 1822, The Pentateuch edited by Erpenius, Leyd. 1622, 4°, is of Jewish origin. The other portions printed in the Polyglots are of Christian origin, and the translation goes back mostly to the Hexapla text, Job, Chronicles, and some of the historical books to the Syriac. Inasmuch as certain passages are said to be translated directly from the Hebrew, may we not perhaps think of a Christian revision of a Jewish translation ? See E. Rodiger, De orig. et in- dole arab. U. V. T. hist, inter pretationis, Halle (1824), 1829. Versions of the Psalms are especially numerous, several of which have been edited, e. g., Rome, 1614, 4°; sine loco, 1725, 8°; cf. § 439 ; Stark, Psalm,., I. 314 ; Do- derlein, in the Repert, II., IV. ; Hirt, Bibl., IV. 291; Alter, in the Memor., V. 197. Cf. also the Introduction to Bruchstiicke einer Uebers. des Hiob, by Wolf V. Baudissm, L. 1870. Most of the portions printed appear to belong to later centuries, as is 460 HISTORY OF THE VERSIONS. natural. There is much matter belonging under this head still lying in manuscript in libraries, and the investigation is by no means to be regarded as closed. Tradition of an Arabic version from the Latin by John of Seville in the eighth century; see Le Long, I. 112. 439. Under such circumstances, in order botli to satisfy cus- tom and to gain the purpose of the Church, the public reading very naturally came to be done in both languages, a custom probably reaching back into gray antiquity. For this purpose the two texts were written side by side, a practice which be- came a never failing source of emendations and interpolations, which made the extant copies much more unlike one another than they doubtless originally were. This usage appears most frequently in Egypt and among the Samaritans, the latter of whom, as Jews, do not belong in this history. Thus we recog- nize in this circumstance a new confirmation of the fact often exemplified in history, that there subsists between religion and language a bond hard to be loosed, and that even where the latter begins to give way, the former still stretches out her pro- tecting hand over a declining nationality. Oldest trace of double public reading, Neh. viii. 8. On the other hand 1 Cor. xiv. 27 can be brought into comparison only provided that by yKwaaats \aAe7v a speaking in foreign languages must be understood. Further, see R. Simon, Hist, des versions, p. 6 ; Niebuhr, Arabien, p. 86. Coptic-Arabic MSS. and even printed editions were still thought neces- sary in the eighteenth century (Psalter, Rome, 1744) ; but to-day the former language seems to have totally disappeared, even as a mere liturgical form. Yet the English Bible Society still prints editions in both languages. § 491. 440. On the other hand, it may be conjectured tliat the wide spread of the Arabic language bore the knowledge of the Chris- tian Bible far beyond its former limits. True, perhaps not so often directly, as if Christian missions were favoi-ed by the rise of the Arabic empire ; but rather by the Koran itself, which in many passages bears witness to the glory of Jesus, and carried the name of the Messiah into regions where it liad never yet been heard. By this means the theologians of Islam fii^st had their attention drawn to him, and, striving after thoroughness in their scholastic learning, took some pains to learn more of him. Popular legends attached themselves to him as to other biblical personages noticed by the Koran, and the Christian faith was not a thing so entirely foreign to the Mohammedan people, even where there had as yet been no close contact with any one who himself confessed it. On the utterances of the Koran and of the Mohammedan theology respect- ing biblical personages, see, beside the principal work of Gerock (§ 263), G. Weil, Bihlische Legenden der Muselmanner, 1845. Also Tiib. Quartalschr., 1830, I. ; Stiiudlin's Mag., I. 216 ; A. Geiger, Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthum ? Bonn, 1833 ; Cludius, Mohammed's Religion, p. 433 ff. and in general the works mentioned in § 263. PERSIAN— AMHARIC. 461 441. Much later, when there had long been nothing left of the Arabian power but the deep-rooted religious heritage and the wavering shadow of a fallen roj^al house, and the swelling streams of younger peoples had begun to name the histories of Western and Central Asia after themselves, the fortunes of the Bible were also interwoven with the great changes of the na- tions. At the very time when mental stupor seems to have weighed heaviest upon Europe, the Mohammedan East had risen to its highest point in science and civiliza;tion, and the Modern Persian nation, in youthful strength, had created a language of its own, and with it a flourishing literature. This movement was not without influence upon the Church of Christ. Believers in the western provinces of Persia had thus far been content with the Syriac Bible, and their youth were instructed in Christian dogmatics at Edessa. But now they obtained their religious books in the language of the country, translating partly from the text better known to them, partly from the original. Many portions of the 0. T. have also been translated into Modern Persian by the Jews ; see especially S. Munk, in Cahen's Hebrew-French Bible, IX. 134 if. ; E. F. C. Rosenmiiller, De vers. Pentateuchi persica, L. 1813 ; C. D. Hassler, Ueber eine pers. Uehers. der salom. Schriften (in the Studien, 1829, II., etc.). Some of tbeni are tolerably recent ; of the N. T. only the Gospels are printed, in two recensions or translations : (1) from the Syriac, in the Lon- don Polyglot, with critical notes by Th. Gravius ; Latin therefrom, with a literary-historical preface, by C. A. Bode, Helmst. 1751 ; (2) said to be from the original text, by A. Wheloek, Oxf. 1652 fol. ; but the text is changed from the former. Cf. also Mill, Prolegg., 1369. In the last century the celebrated Nadir Shah is said to have caused both the Jewish Law and the Clmstian Gospels to be translated into Persian (the latter by the Jesuits Duhan and Desvignes) ; see Abd-el-Kerim's Pilgrim- ages, French edition by Langlfes, p. 89; Doru, in the Halle Allg. Lit. Zei- tung, 1848, II. 464. 442. Out of all connection with these great revolutions stands that which Christianity and the Bible expei'ienced in the southernmost outpost of their extent in that d;iy, in Ethiopia, although the events of Asia may have repeated themselves there upon a smaller scale. Not far from the fourteenth cen- tury a single conquering tribe impressed its laws and language upon the country. And so grew up, under similar conditions, out of the old Ethiopic the new Amharic version. But scarcely more than the name is known in Europe, and in the country itself it was either of so little use or so soon lost that even the missionary zeal of modern times has not been able to support it. Fragment in the library at Giessen, see Schmidt, Bibl. fur Kritik und Exe- gese, I. 307. But whether it belonged to a complete N. T., and whether the translation was made by natives from the Ethiopic or by modern mis- 462 HISTORY OF THE VERSIONS. slonaries or their pupils, would be hard to say. On the linguistic conditions of the country, see Ludolf, Hist, ceth., I. 15 ; Wahl, Gesch. der morgenl. Spr., p. 501£P. Bruce {Travels) j^'ives a specimen of seven alleged Abyssinian transla- tions of the Bible (Cant. i. 1-6), among which are the Gheez (P^tliiopic usu- ally so-called) and Amharic, and asserts that he obtained the whole book of Canticles in this form from extant church versions made by native priests. This sounds more than fabulous, and has not been confirmed, so far as I know, by later travelers. 443. Turning from the East to the North, we enter a field upon which, inasmuch as its boundaries are not sharply marked off by nature, the Greek and Latin Churches have often con- tended, in a certain sense, even in the little sphere with which we are now engaged. Moreover, Christianity here came into contact with so much intellectual and physical barbarism that its spread was but slow, and the roving character of the masses, toward whom it directed itself, may have been another reason why it did not so often find occasion to express itself in the written word. Nor is it to be forgotten that at the time when the northern peoples were converted, from the Saxon ex- peditions of Charlemagne down to those of the German lords, the Bible had receded quite into the background in the Church, and in preaching to the heathen was generally subordinated to more effectual means. We find but three translations of the Bible for northern peoples in the whole period, and these sep- arated by long intervals. Of these three we leave one, the Anglo-Saxon, aside for the present, partly because it is indirect, being derived from the Latin, partly because it has more the character of the versions of the second period, and therefore must be placed in close connection with them. 444. First of all the German tribes, the Goths, after their armed migration, had entered the Roman Empire, and there won, beside the possession of lands and the prospect of the in- heritance of the Caesars, Christian blessings and hopes. They were settled upon the lower Danube when their bishop, Ul- filas (so at least the relators of his history express tlie foreign name), after the middle of the foui-th century, translated the Scriptures for them from the Greek, and invented the neces- sary alphabet. Whether he himself completed the work is un- known, — nay even, whether it ever was completed ; it is cer- tain that it afterward accompanied the people on their march to the westward, and there was unable to escape the influence of the Latin lectionaries. The Gothic nationality has per- ished, but its Bible, a precious discovery of modern times, has become the indispensable starting point for German science in the history of the German language. The meagre and contradictory information of ancient writers (Socrates, Sozomen, Philostorgius, Jornandes) respecting Ulfilas (also Vulfila, VVol- GOTHIC — ULFILAS. 463 fel ?) are collected and estimated in the critical editions (§ 445), and in part in the following monographs : G. F. Heupel, De Ulfila seu versione em. goth- ica, Vit. 1693 ; J. Esberg, Uljilas Gothorum episcopus, Holm. 1700 ; J. G. Wachter, De lingua cod. argentei, with notes by J. Ihre, all printed together in J. Ihre, Scripta versionem idfilanam et I. moesogothicam illustrantia, emen- data, aucta, ed. A. F. Biisching, B. 1773. J. H. Stuss, De versione evv. gothica, Gotha, 1733 ; C. Schottgen, De an- tiquissimis I. germanicce monumentis guthico-theotiscis, Stargard, 1733, together with Heupel's essay and the editor's comments thereon, printed in J. Oel- richs' Germania Literata, I., II. In particular : Ueher das Lehen und die Lehre des TJlfila ; Bruchstucke am dem vierten Jahrh., edited by G. Waitz, Hann. 1840. Cf. J. Massmann, in his edition of the Skeireins (Gothic Commentary on John, Munich, 1834), p. 91 ff. and in general the Prolegomena in the editions. S. Davidson, in the Theological Review, Apr. 1869. Cf. especially also A. Rassmann, Art. Gothische Literatur, in the Halle Encykl. The character has points of sim- ilarity and relationship on the one side with the Greek, on the other also with the Runic. [W. Bessel, Das Leben des Ulfilas, u. die Bekehrung der Gollien zum Christenthum, Giitt. 1860 ; W. Kraii't, Art. Ul/ila, in Herzog's Real-Encykl. ; cf. his Die Anf tinge d. christl. Kirche bei d. germ. Volkern, 1854, I. ; Tregelles, in Smith's Diet, IV. p. 3377 ; Edinb. Review, Oct. 1877.] Of the Acts, Epistle to the Hebrews, Catholic Epistles, and Apocalypse nothing has thus far been discovered, of the O. T. only a few leaves from Ezra and Nebemiah. The statement of ancient writers that Uliilas did not translate the books of the Kings because they have too much to say of wars sounds like a fable. Tra,ces of the Pentateuch and Psalms have been pointed out in the Skeireins. The Arianism of the Goths had no influence upon the version. G. L. I^afft, Defontibus Uljilce arianismi, Bonn, 1860. On the statement that the Gothic version was derived from the Greek text, but afterward changed in accordance with the Itala, see E. Bernhardt Krit. Unierss. iiber die goth. Bibeliibers., Meis. 1864, Elberf. 1868, 2 Pts. 445. After the memory of this work had been lost even to scholars for centuries, it suddenly appeared again at the end of the Thirty Years' Wai', and a considerable fragment of it fell by accident into the hands of the very people which claims a close historical relationship with these old Goths, just as many a valuable portion of the German territory itself came into the possession of the proper vindicators of its freedom. Even the subsequent history of the book is strange enough. The treas- ure has happily been increased in more recent times by further discoveries in Germany and Italy, and until the Spanish libra- ries are thoroughly searched the hope of further enrichment should not be given up, unless, perchance, the separation of the Western Goths from the Eastern was greater in ancient times than has hitherto been supposed. I. Codex argenteus (from the silver binding), carried away by the Swedes from Prague, brought (sic) from Stockholm by a Dutch scholar (Is. Voss), bought back, now at Upsala ; contains the four Gospels, with considerable gaps, increased in modern times (now 187 leaves of the original 330), on purple parchment, with silver letters. Editions by F. Junius, Dortr. 1665, 2 vols. 4° ; G. Stiernhjelm, Stockh. 1671, 4° ; E. Lye, Oxf . 1750, fol., all with philological apparatus. New edition by A. Upstroem, Ups. 1854, 4° ; Mat- 464 HISTOEY OF THE VERSIONS. thew only, by J. A. Schmeller, Stuttg. 1827. — Also J. Gordon, Anim, crit- icce in vers. goth. (in Biiscliing's Sammlung) ; Knittel, Krit. Bemerkk., in Eich- horu's Bihl., VII. 783 ; Schmidt's BibL, II. 378. The MS. probably orig- inated in Italy, in the fifth or sixth century. It has the Euthalian divisions. It must have come to Prague in the sixteenth century (and not in the Thirty Years' War) from the monastery Werden an der Ruhr, where several schol- ars saw it at that time and even took away specimens of it. Recently the Cod. argent, has been reproduced photographically. II. Fragments of the Epistle to the Romans, discovered by F. A. Knittel, in a palimpsest at Wolfenbiittel (Codex CaroUnus). Announcement in a programme (1758) ; edition (with other biblical fragments, § 392), Br. 1763, 4°, and with notes by J. Ihre, Ups. 17G3. — Complete edition of what was known at that time, with Introduction, Glossary, and Grammar, by F. C. Fulda and J. C. Zahn, Weissenf . 1805, 4°. III. Fragments of all the Pauline Epistles, indeed with comparatively slight gaps, some additions to the text of the Gospels, and a few fragments of Ezra and Nehemiah, discovered by A. Mai and C. O. Castiglione in the Bibliotheca amhrosiana at Milan, in palimpsests ; edited in separate parts, 1819, 1829, 1834, 1835, 1839. That first discovered also by J. C. Orelli, Ziirich, 1822. — Complete critical edition of all that is extant, by H. C. von der Gabelentz and J. Lobe, with philological a]iparatus, Altenb. 1830-46, 3 vols. 4° ; J. F. Massmann, Stuttg. 1857, 8° [E. Bernhardt, Halle, 1875, the Gothic accompanied by the Greek, with full critical notes]. Manual editions by I. Gaugengigl, Passau, 1848 and freq. F. L. Stamm, Paderb. 1858. [7tli ed. by M. Heyne, with grammar and lexicon, Paderb. 1878.] — Critical col- lection for the improvement of the text, in A. Upstrom's Fragmenla gothica, Ups. 1861. \_The GotJiic and Anglo-Saxon Gospels in Parallel Columns, vyith the Versions of Wycliffe and Tyndale, by J. Bosworth, assisted by Geo. Waring, 2d ed. Lond. 1874, with a fac-simile of the Codex Argenteus ; Ulfilas : Euangelium Marci grammatisch erldutert, by R. Midler and H. Hoppe, Berlin, 1881, not accurate ; W. W. Skeats, The Gospel of St. Mark m Gothic, with grammar, notes, and glossary, Oxf. 1882, excellent.] 446. Five hundred years after the time of Ulfilas, two Greek missionaries, Cyril and Methodius, came to Moravia, to the Slavs, and brought them together with the message of salvation a wi'itten alphabet and the Bible. Thus the ancient legends, witli various embellishments, and after them Western Euro- pean scholars, unskilled in the language. But there is much in the records that is obscure and contradictory, and we are not competent to judge in the matter. Modern Slavic schol- ars say that Cyril, previously called Constantine, began about 860 to convert the Bulgarians, and that he was soon called to Moravia for the same purpose. The language which he had learned to use would have been the Servo-Bulgarian dialect, and could have been related only in a general way to the West-Slavic. The character which he adapted to it is still known as the Cyrillic, but is no longer in common use. Yet even this is somewhat doubtful, inasmuch as two ancient alphabets among different Slavic tribes contend for the honor of having first served the Church, the Glagolitic, among the Slovens in Croatia and toward the SLAVIC — CYRIL. 465 coast regions, and the Cyrillic, among the Servians and Russians. Cf. Mik- losich, Art. Glagolitisch, in the Halle Encykl. J. P. Kohl, Inlrod. in hist, et rem lit. Slavorum, Alt. 1729 ; J. Dobrowsky, Slowanka. Zur Kenntniss der slaw. Literaiur, Prag, 1814 ; idem, Cyrill und Method, der Slaven Apostel, Prag, 1823. 447. How much he really translated is uncertain, since the extant manuscripts of the biblical work ascribed to him date centuries after his time. It may very probably have been at first the usual church readings, since it is added that he also translated the rest of the books necessary for divine service and instituted worsliip throughout in the language of the people. Yet other traditions speak of the complete Gospels, of the Epistles, the Psalter, and even of the whole Old Testament. The latter, however, can by no means be proved from the ex- tant documents, and of the New Testament the Apocalypse was certainly lacking. For the rest, this ancient, so-called ec- clesiastical Slavic version, whether prepared by one hand or several, in the course of a long period, is still the inheritance of several nationalities, in pai'ticular of the Russians, and al- though long since unintelligible to the people, is regarded as sacred from its very age, and is in a manner the symbol of the original national unity of the widely spread stock. Cf. especially Eichhorn, EinL, V. 104 ; Hug, I. 492 ; Dobrowsky, in Michaelis, Neue Bihl, VII. 155, and in Griesbach's N. T., I. 127 ; II. 32 ; La Croze, Epp., III. 200 ; Baumgarten, Nachr., I. 481 ; III. 477 ; Hender- son, Biblical Researches, p. G7 If., in which is an extensive catalogue of mod- ern editions ; Matthsei, JDe vers, slavica Apocalypseos, in his edition of the N. T., XII. 343. It was from the first and to an especial degree the lot of the Slavic Chris- tians and churches to be drawn hither and thither and divided by the rivalry of Roman and Greek influence. The former showed itself hostile to every- thing which could favor a national development (notoriously in the time of Huss). Pope John VIII. (Letter to Duke Swatopluk of Moravia ; Baronius, Ad ann 880) forbade the reading of the mass in Slavic and gave command that propter majorem honorijicentiam evangelium latine legatur, postmodum slav. I. translation annuncietur. In the tenth century the Slavic service seems to have ceased there. Gregory VII. {Epp., VII. 15, Ann. 1080) expressly for- bids the use of the non-Latin Bible. See Hegelmaier, Geschichte des Bibel- verbots, p. 101 ff. The Old Slavic version came to Russia, with Christianity, about the year 988 ; but it suffered many changes there both in language and text ; the printed editions generally give its latest form. It is disputed whether, upon the subsequent subjection of the West-Slavic Church to the Roman see, the translation was obliged also to become the victim of the Latin text. The oldest known MS. of tlie Slavic version is the so-called Ostromir Evangelistary, written about 1056 for the Knas Ostromir of Novgorod, in Cyrillic characters. Edited by AVostokoff, St. Pet. 1843. According to some, the famous MS. of the Gospels at Rlieims, which was used to admin- ister the oath at the coronation of the French kings (Texte du Sacre), the language of which was not known until modern times, is very nearly as old. Editions by Silvestre, P. 1843 ; by Hanka, Prag, 1846. First edition of the Gospels, 1512 ; of the Bible, Ostrog, 1581. — The N. 30 466 HISTORY OF THE VERSIONS. T. revised according to the Greek, Wilna, 1G23, and freq. — A new recen- sion, undertaken by order of Peter the Great, did not appear until 1751. — There are also later editions in which it is printed synoptically with the Modern Russian version. (§ 490.) 448. For the history of Christianity in general and in particu- lar for the history of the circulation of the Bible, what was done in the West is of by far the most importance, and to this we now turn our attention. Here the conditions were altogether peculiar. From the Adriatic to the ocean, and from Mt. Athis to the North Sea, at the time when the Gospel made its way thither, every one who wished to be or become anything spoke Latin. The ancient vernacular languages had disappeared al- together from the cities, all the more because these in many cases contained a ruling population composed of military colo- nies and other accessions from Italy. Even in the country they were obliged to retreat and took refuge in the mountains and in the most western and remote corners. To the learned, and to whole cities in southern Italy, the Greek was still fa- miliar. When, therefore, the writings of the Apostles began to be known in wider circles, many in this region still understood the original text, or there were men who were able to inter- pret it upon the spot. Cf. the notes on §§49 and 457. — The conceits of Catholic Apologists (Serariiis, Bianchini, Sabatier, and others), of a Latin version of the Bible by an Apostle, in particular by Paul, in the time of Nero, may fitly be passed over in silence ; yet they have been surpassed by Protestants, who could not conceive even the most ancient mission without the Bible at once made ac- cessible to the people. Cf. § 434. 449. But in Spain, Gaul, and Africa, where the knowledge of Greek was rare or wholly wanting, large churches probably did not arise very long before the middle of the second cen- tury ; there was therefore no necessity of having a translation for public reading in assemblies before that time ; aside from the fact that the practice of public reading is itself probably of later origin in the West. But at the end of this century there is certainly a current Latin version spoken of, though where it may have arisen is a question which can no longer be answered. The exceedingly bad language of all the portions extant points to remote provinces or a low grade of society. There is noth- ing impossible in the supposition, considering the lack of hie- rarchical unity at that time, that there were from the first sev- eral Latin versions ; though perhaps Africa has the best claim to the honor of the first work. In the lack of contemporary testimony there is much room here for con- jecture. The oldest ecclesiastical writer of the West, Tertullian, speaks of a current Latin version, which he contrasts with the Greek text (authenticus) ; De monogam., ch. xi. It is conceivable, though wholly improbable, that the Jews had already LATIN. 467 undertaken a translation (Is. Yoss, De oracc. SihijlL, cli. xili.) ; that here and there single books may have been translated, and in this way a complete work may have arisen gradually (Mill, Prolegg., § 511, and others). Our conception of the origin of the ancient versions ought not to be dominated by reference to the possible needs of private edification, which in non-Hel- lenic communities probably only came in as a consequence of a public and ecclesiastical custom. But to suppose public reading in Latin to have been introduced before 150 is inadmissible, since it had probably only just begun even in Greek at that time. That the Apostle Peter had the liturgy per- formed at Rome in Latin is doubtless an idea of Pope Innocent I. (Mansi, III. 1028), but it is not history. The Roman bishops of the earliest period have Greek names almost without exception. Cf. on the whole subject, beside the Introductions, P. Pithceus, De latinis hibliorum interpretibus, in the Critici ss., VI. ; J F Lebret, De usu vers. lat. in eccl. chr., Tiib. 178G ; Schrockh, Kirchengcsch., IX. 116 fP. ; G. Riegler, Krit. Geschichte der Vulgata, Sulzb. 1820 ; Leander van Ess, Pragmatische Geschichte der Vulgata, Tiib. 1824; O. F Fritzsche, Art. Vulgata, in Herzog's Encykl. ; F. Kaulen, Gesch. der Vulgata, Mayence, 1868. [H. Ronsch, Die lat. Bibelilhersetzungen im christl. Afrika zur Zeit des A ugustinus, in the Zeitschr. f. d. hist. TheoL, 1867, p. 606 ff. ; L. Diestel, Gesch. d. A. T. in der christl. Kirche, Jena, 1869, p. 94 ff. ; L. Ziegler, Die lat. Bibeliibersetzungen vor Hie- ronymus u. die Itala des Augustinus, Munich, 1879; Abbot, in Mitchell's Criti- cal Handbook, 1880, p. 133 ff . ; O. F Fritzsche, Art. Latein. Bibeliibersetz- ungen, in the new edition of Herzog's Encykl., VIII. 1881, p. 433 If. ; West- cott, Art. Vulgate, in Smith's Diet., IV p. 3451 ff. ; Westcvott and Hort, Gk. Test., II. p. 78 ff. ; Schaff, Companion to the Gk. Test., p. 144 ff.] 450. Yet this view of an original plurality of Latin versions cannot be firmly established historically, from lack of sufficient evidence from the following period. For the existing evidence, consisting properly only of occasional quotations of isolated passages of Scripture for theological purposes, and in compara- tively few authors, never rises to the value of literary-histori- cal information. It is only certain that in the second half of the fourth century there was general complaint of the great diversity of the copies, among which no one could any longer find his way, while at the same time the knowledge of Greek was becoming more and more rare. But as to the cause of this diversity opinions were divided. Some, holding to the appear- ance, referred it to an actual, original plurality of independent works ; others, noticing also the signs of relationship, explained it from later disfigurements. None thoroughly investigated the matter. Augustine, De doctr. chr., ii. 11 : Qui scripturas ex hebrcea lingua in grcecam verterunt, numerari possunt, latini autem interpretes nulla modo (tlierefore more than seventy, infers Michaelis, I. 471 !). Ut enim cuiquam priinis fidei tempori- bus in manus venit codex grcecus, et aliquantulum facultatis sibi utriusque Ungues habere videbatur, ausus est interpretari, etc. ; in the following pages repeat- edly : interpretum numerositas, injinita varietas, plures interpretes. Other pas- sages are collected by Van Ess, p. 10 ff. In and of themselves they might be understood to refer to arbitrary alterations made in an already existing Latin version to accord with the Greek, and would not necessarily refer to new and complete works ; and so they are conceived, e. g., by Reusch, Tiib, 468 HISTORY OF THE VERSIONS. Quartalschr., 1862, II., especially with reference to the passage Contra Faus- tum, xi. 2 : Si de fide exx. qucestlo verteretur, vel ex aliarum reglonum codicibus wide ipsa doctrina commeavit nostra dubitatio diiudicaretur, vel si ibi quoque co- dices variarent plures puucioribus aut vetustiores recentioribus pneferrentur, et si adhuc esset incerta varietas priecedens lingua, unde illud interpretatum est, con- suleretur, which, however, is by no means decisive, since here the texts are set over ao-ainst one another in threefold antithesis, with respect to language, with respect to age and number of witnesses, and with respect to country. Cf. § 452. On the contrary, Jerome, Prcef. in evv. ad Damasum : Si latinis exemplaribus fides est adhibenda, respondebunt .- quibus ? tot stmt enini exemplaria pcene quod codices. Si autern Veritas est qucerenda de pluribus, cur non ad groicam originem revertentes, ea quce vel a vitiosis interpretibus male reddita, vel a prcesumptoribus imperitis emendata perversius, vel a librariis dormitantibus aut addiia sunt aut mutata corrigamus ? Here exemplaria evidently means recensions, forms of the text, and Jerome cannot mean to say that there were as many different versions as MSS. Prcef. in.Tosuam: apud latinos tot exx. quot codices et unusquisque pro suo arbitrio vel addidit vel subtraxit quod ei visum est. Cf . several other passages (collected in Van Ess, I. c), in which this diversity is represented not as some- thing original, but as a vitiositas, vitium, corruptio, depravatio, etc., which is partly charged upon the copyists alone. Thus there is everywhere the same fundamental diversity of view , one speaks of a copia interpretum, another of a varietas exemplarium, which is often overlooked. If, in the lack of other witnesses, we were obliged to give one of these two the preference, the choice could not be a hard one. The same diversity of views still exists : Michaelis, Jahn, Riegler, Van Ess, De Wette, and many others, agree with Augustine ; the editors of the Itala, Semler, Wetstein, Eichhorn, etc., hold to Jerome. Yet the more coherent portions of Latin texts of ancient date come to light, the more the scale inclines in favor of the view of a plurality of independent works. 451. Notwithstanding all this uncertainty of judgment as to the facts of tlie case, it was customary, even in antiquity, to speak of one Latin version. This came about paitly uncon- sciously, in contrast with the original text, partly because of its being inferred respecting that which was used in public reading from the idea of tlie unity of the Church. Many also may have had in mind chiefly only that recension which they generally used. A critical comparison of many copies we onglit not to expect in the West at that time. Then it is more than prob- able that in process of time most of the new copies prei)ared were taken from such as had gained a certain authoi'ity by ecclesiastical use, so that here, as in the case of the original Greek text, a local coloring must have resulted. Nevertheless, all these phenomena do not suffice to decide the points in question. The expression communis, vulgata editio (Greek koiv^ iKSoa-is), which occurs frequently in Jerome, and even in later writers (Van Ess, p. 24 ff.), always denotes the LXX. in distinction from the Hebrew text, perhaps also from the Hexapla recension. Over against it, when speaking of any particular passage or reading, stood the formula latinus interpres, latini codices, still more frequently in latino, and the knowledge that there were several versions probably came to most only with the fame of the subsequent work of Jerome, PRE-JEROMIC VERSIONS — IT ALA. 469 wliich was a nova translatio by the side of the vetus, i. e., the pre-Jeromic, which, whatever may have been its origin, all the more certainly became, in the thought of theologians, a single one, when there came to be another whose origin the whole world knew, which could be distinguished from it by the most unlearned. 452. To this ancient confusion modern times have the merit of having added another element. There has been discovered, in that author who has so much to say of the alleged manifold Latin versions, a name for one of them, of very doubtful authority, which, if genuine and correct, allows the assumption of similar names for the others. For the name Versio Itala, if accepted, must evidently both decide in favor of the original plurality of versions, and fix the nativity of the one preferred by Augustine. It is noteworthy that even those scholars use this name who would designate by it the single translation whose existence they recognize. But on the other hand many defenders of the opposite opinion have used the same name for each and every remnant of the Old Latin Bible, which never- theless possibly, and according to them probably, are of differ- ent origin, and of which perhaps not a single one belonged to that Itala which the Bishop of Hippo had in mind ! Augustine, De doctr. chr., ii. 15 : In ipsis interpretatlonibus itala cceteris prceferatur, nam est verborum tenacior cum perspicuitate seyitentice. Itala is not a proper name, and can only be contrasted with an Africana, etc., and designate a version which arose in Italy, or was contained in the copies of Italian churches. It is certainly noteworthy (1) that neither Augustine nor any one else uses the name farther ; (2) that he has so unusual a form, instead of Italica, as, for example, even Bianchini thought it necessary to emend it ; (3) that any one in Augustine's time should still have been in doubt about the choice of an official text, and should have pre- ferred a foreign one to a domestic. Hence the conjecture that the text is corrupt, and that perhaps usitata (Potter) is to be read. (Bentley's con- jecture, ilia . . . qwe is inapt.) Nevertheless, upon Augustine's view of the plurality of versions, it is not remote to conceive a local distinction of copies. See Lachmann's Preface to the first part of liis larger edition of the N. T. The following period seems to have had an even less clear conception of the state of the case, since, for example, Isidorus Hispal., Etym., VI. 5, refers the above phrase of Augustine without further comment to the trans- lation of Jerome. Cf. § 455. I formerly expressed the conjecture (which even Fritzsche, I. c, p. 429, does not exactly reject) that Augustine may have meant by his Itala the Hexapla edition of Jerome (§ 454). Cf. Augustine, Ep. 28, II., p. 61, Bass. 453. In this state of the case a judgment respecting the character and value of the extant portions of the pre-Jeromic version is very precarious, and to a certain extent inadmissible. It will always be safest if every such judgment is limited to the particular fragment or manuscript in' hand, since the question whether several or all of them belong together will always be a doubtful one. Yet so much as this may be said in general, that in these ancient attempts at translation a degree of liter- 470 HISTORY OF THE VERSIONS. Illness prevails which violates in many ways the well-known genius of the Latin language, but which in its unclassic excres- cences and numerous solecisms perhaps indicates not so much an extra-Italian nativity as a sphere of origin removed from higher and metropolitan culture, and so indirectly a somewhat later date. Besides, they doubtless grew up in part from a badly confused text, and in part were further corrupted. Of the O. T. only a few books have been preserved complete (in particular the Psalms, Esther, and several Apocrypha), of others only fragments. Of the N. T., on the contrary, nearly all can be gathered together, partly from Latin, partly from Greeco-Latin (§ 392) codices. Of the latter the most celebrated are, for the Gospels, D ; for the Acts, D, E ; for the Pauline Epistles, D, E, G. Of the former, for the most part only MSS. of the Gospels are known or important : Codd. Vercellensis, Veronensis, Brixianus, BohUensis (from the monastery of Bobbio, now at Turin), Corbeiensis, Colbertinus, at Paris, Rhedlgerianus, at Breslau, and two at Vienna. See on these the mon- ographs of Martianay, Ruggieri, Garbelli, Bianchini, in the latter's edition of the Gospels, to be mentioned below. Cf. idem, Vmdicice can. ss., Rome, 1740, fol.; J. E. Scheibel, Codex Rhedigerianus, Br. 1763 ; D. Schulz, Be cod. rhedigeriano, Br. 1814; and the Prolegomena of the editions. Editions: (Masch, II. 3, p. 6 ft'.; Rosenmiiller,ifrt«c/^*., III. 173; Riegler, I. c, p. 41 f. ; Eichhorn, IV. 373) Bihliorum SS. laiince versiones antiquce .leu vetus Itala cett. qucecunque reperiri potuerunt, ed. ?. Sabatier, Rheims, 1743, 3 vols., fol., ed. 2, 1749 ; Evangeliarum quadruplex latince vers. ant. s. veteris italicce, ed. Jos. Bianchini, Rome, 1749, 2 vols., fol. (the text synoptic, from Vercell., Veron., Brix., Corb.) with many fae-similes of ancient MSS. ; Cod. Vercellensis sejiarately, by J. A. Iricus, Mail. 1748, 4°; Evangelium palatinum ineditum s. reliquke textus evv. lat. antehieron. versionis ex cod. palaiino (Vindobon.), ed. C. Tischendorf, 1847, 4°. Also the Gospel of Matthew (and Epistle of James), ed. Martianay, from the Cod. Corb., P. 1695, 12°; Mark and Luke from a Vienna MS. by Alter, in the N. Repert., III., and in the Memorab., VII. ; the Gospels from the Cod. Rhediger., by F. Haase, Bresl. 1805 f. ; the Acts from Cod. Laud., by Hwiid, in the work cited in § 417 ; Matthew and Mark from Cod. Bobb., by Fleck, in his Anecdota, together with fragments from the O. T. ; Leviticus and Nun)bers from a Cod. Ash- burnham., Lond. 1868, fol.; fragments from the Prophets by Miinter, from a Wiirzburg MS., Hafn. 1819; by E. Ranke, many fragments from the covers of ancient MSS. of Fulda, Darmst. and Stuttg. 1856, 1858 ; Curiensia fragmenta ev. Luc, Mb. 1872 ; others in Studien und Kritiken, 1872, III. ; especially his Wilrzburger Palimpseste, with fragments from the Pentateuch and Prophets, Vienna, 1871, 4° ; smaller fragments from Ezekiel and Proverbs, by A. Vogel, from Austrian MSS., 1868. [Matthsei, Codex Boer- neranius, Mis. 1791 ; Tischendorf, Codex Claromontanus, 1852 ; Scrivener, Codex Augiensis, Camb. 1859 ; Codex Bezce, Camb. 1864 ; Ziegler, Itala- fragmente, Marb. 1876 ; Belsheim, Codex Aureus (Gospels ; text mixed, largely Vulgate), Christiania, 1878; Die Apostelgesch. u. die Ojfenb. Johannis in einer alten lat. Uebersetzung aus dem Gigas Librorum, Christiania, 1879 ; Ulysse Robert, Codex Lugdunensis (Pentateuch), P 1881 ] Also : H. Ronsch, Das N. T Tertullians aus s. Schriften zusammengestellt, L. 1871. — In Semler's Paraphrasen also (§ 573) there is a specimen of pre- Jeromic versions. — For editions of the Psalms, see § 454. For other editions of particular MSS., § 392. Other fragments are mentioned by Fritzsche, I. c, p. 431 f.; Reusch, in the Tub. Quartahchr., 1872, III. The writings of the older Latin Church Fathers naturally constitute an almost inexhaustible mine of fragments of pre-Jeromic versions, from which JEROME — VULGATE. 471 the already rich collection of Sabatier might still be increased ; but in the use of his collection mistakes have been made in more than one respect, from the fact that even Jerome's own works have been used for it, and no attention whatever has been paid to the geographical relations of the wit- nesses. It cannot be proved from the bad Latin alone that the version must have had its origin outside of Italy; for in that case it would still be inconceivable that it should have been read there without revision and improvement. Moreover the MSS. named indicate plainly to the most recent critics different recensions, which they call the Italian and the African, beside which, how- ever, mixed texts are also assumed. Cf. also Semler, Obss. ad hist, latinarum recensionum N. T., in Wetsteiu's Prolegomena, p. 583 ff. Philological studies on the Old Latin version have been published by H. Ronsch, Das Sprachidiom der Itala und Vulgata, Marb. 1869 [2d ed., revised, 1875], and in several articles in the Zeitschr.fUr hist.TheoL, 18G9, III. ', 1870, L; 1871, IV. Cf. also Kaulen, p. 131 ff. 454. This corruption and uncertainty of the copies at last became so great that the Church was compelled to turn her attention to the matter seriously. And at just the right time the Roman Bishop Damasus turned with the important com- mission to the last Church teacher of the West who had lin- guistic knowledge, industry, and leisure enough not to be alto- gether unequal to it. Jerome undertook the task, as thankless as it was difficult, and devoted twenty yeai's to it. But often timidly expunging only the grossest errors, often hastily let- ting it stand when approximately correct, he brought the work to no thoroughly satisfactory result, and therefore soon deter- mined to make a translation of his own from the original text, of which, however, only the Old Testament was completed, and for which, although it was his best work, he received only abuse and persecution. Jerome began about 382 with the N. T. : Novum Testamentum grcecce fidei reddidi (Catal. Scr. eccL, 135), and describes the work as great and perilous. Prcef. in Evv. ad Damasum: Novum opus me facere cogis ex veteri ut post exx. SS. toto orbe dispersa quasi arbiter sedeam et, quia inter se variant, quce sint ilia quce cum grcxca consentiant veritate decernam. Pius labor sed periculosa prce- sumtio. . . . Quis enim doctus pariter et indoctus, cum in manus volumen assum- serit et a saliva quam semel imbibit viderit discrepare quod lectitat, non statim erumpat in vocem me falsarium, me clamitans esse sacrilegum qui audeam in vett. II. aliquid mutare, addere, corrigere . . . ? This prospect made him shrink ; he chose codices qui non ita multum a lectionis latince consuetudine discreparent ; and ita calamo temperavimus ut his tantum quce sensum videbantur mutare cor- rectis reliqua manere pateremur utfuerunt. Then he revised the Psalms, first after the common Alexandrian text (cur- sim — and so ne nimia novitate lectoris studium terreremus), afterward accord- ing to the Hexapla, with the critical marks of Origen (see Prol. 2 in Ps. ; Ep. ad Suniam et Fretelam de emend. Ps. ; Apol. adv. Rufin., ii. 24). Both recensions are still extant, the former known as the Psalterium Romanum and the latter as the Psalterium Gallicanum ; both frequently printed, e. g., Psalterium quincuplex dom. gall. hebr. (i. e., translated directly) vetus (i. e., ac- cording to the Itala) conciliatum, ed. J. Faber Stapulensis, P. 1513, fol. Cf. Stark, Davidis carmina, I. 254. 472 HISTORY OF THE VERSIONS. He went on A;\'ith the latter work ; but it is uncertain whether it was com- pleted (In Tit., ch. iii. : Nobis cures fuit omnes V. T. libros quos Adamantius (Origen) in Tiexapla digesserat ... ex ipsis authenticis emendare) or only ex- tended over Job, the books of Solomon, and Chronicles, of which he speaks, Apol. adv. Rufin., I. c, and to which special prefaces have been preserved. Yet this recension may have been lost, over which he seems to be mourning in Ep. OJ/, ad Augustin. : pleraque prions laboris fraude amisimus. Only Job has been printed. Strabo seems to know a translation of Jeremiah from the Greek (§ 455). For the rest, nothing is more certam than that Jerome in his Commentaries on the O. T. abandons the extant Latin text in number- less instances. Cf. Prol. ad Salom. Finally, he applied himself to a new translation from the origuial text (a gigantic undertaking for that time), with his own knowledge of Hebrew and Jewish aid, yet throughout more dependent on the LXX. than he is willing to acknowledge ; he complains very naively {Comm. III. in Gal.) : omnem sermonis latini elegantiam et venustatem stridor hebraicce lectionis sordidavit, etc. The N. T. was not translated at all, nor the Apocrypha. On the attacks which Jerome had to suifer because of his work see Rujini invectivce in Hieron. libri II. ; Hieronymi apologia adv. Rujiiium libri III. ; his correspondence with Augustine, extracts from which in Van Ess, p. 110 ff. Cf. also the letter Ad Pammachium. The genuine (?) work of Jerome in all its forms under the title : S. Hieronymi divina bibliotheca antehac inedita complectens translationes latinas V. et N. T. cum ex ebrceis turn e greeds fontibus derivata, etc., forms the first volume of the Benedictine edition of his Opera, ed. Martianay, P. 1693, 5 vols., fol. The very interesting Prologi to the separate books are found in all the older Latin editions of the Bible. Cf . in general : L. Engelstoft, Hieronymus Stridonensis inierpres criticus ex- egeta, etc., Hafn. 1797; D. v. Coelln, in Ersch and Gruber's Encykl., II. 8 ; Oudin, Scriptt. eccl., I. 789 fF. ; Schrockh, Kirchengesch., XL ; O. Zockler, Hieronymus, Gotha, 1865, p. 99 f., 179 f., 207 f., 342 f. ; A. J. Binterim, De curis philol. Hieron. in N. T., in his Propempticum de lingua N. T., 1822, p. 113 ; Petitdidier, Diss., p. 81; Morin, Exercitt. bibl., p. iSl ff. ; J. Hasfeus, Vindicice vulg. interpr. (in the Bibl. Brem., IV.) ; Semler, Preface to the Ger- man translation of R. Simon, III. ; Calmet, Bihl. Unterss., V. 240 ; Fleck, Disq. generalis de vers, vulg., before his edition of the Vulgate. — On the re- lation of Jerome's translation to the so-called Itala, cf. Bianchini, Vindicice canon. SS., Rome, 1740, and against him J. C. Mittenzwey, Diss, antiblanch- iniana, L. 1760. Cf. also §§ 323, 517. 455. Only gradually did the work of the learned and anx- iously orthodox monk of Bethlehem make its way against the jealously opposing spirit of the age. Rome could only foster and cherish it in silence, not yet authoritatively introduce it, and even Gregory the Great, to whom it owes its final adop- tion, only introduced it by strategy, and did not accomplish his object directly by means of a decretal. Notwithstanding the partially hostile relations of the old and new Bible, which continued for centuries, there could not fail to be a mingling of the two texts, since custom and personal inclination vied with clearer insight in inviting to arbitrary changes on both sides. When at hist the new edition became the common one, a prerogative which has clung to it as a proper name, it was no longer what it was at first. VULGATE. 473 Evidence for the gradual adoption of Jerome's version collected by Hody, III. 2 ; L. van Ess, p. 134 ft. ; Fritzsche, I. c, p. 435 ff. It shows that in quotations, commentaries, etc., sometimes it and sometimes the old version was used, probably as each writer was accustomed or had opportunity. Ex- plicit judgments are rare. Yet the few that occur are in favor of the emendatior translatio ex hehrceo ; the learning of Jerome inspired respect, and the farther down in time, the greater became the cloud about his head. But Gregory the Great (f 604) still Avrites, Prcef. in Job. : Novum translationem edissero sed ut comprobationis causa exigit nunc novam nunc veterem per testi- monia assumo ut quia sedes apostolica cui prcesideo utraque utitur. From Isidor. Pelus., Ojfic., I. 12 : Hieronymi editione generaliter omnes ecclesice utuntur, one might perhaps infer at least a general adoption in Spain. In other countries traces of the old version are still found late in the Middle Ages, especially among the Anglo-Saxons, among whom the new scarcely found entrance at all. Cf. § 462. It should not be considered strange that the different texts became min- gled ; many a one might honestly correct liis old Bible from the new, or in- troduce into his new one readmgs from the old famihar one (§ 368). Most were doubtless wholly ignorant of the fact that Jerome had edited two wholly different Bibles, and these two texts might likewise be mingled. Bede, De tempp. rat., ch. Ixvi., speaks already, beside these, of an ex utriusque codd. commixtum opus ; and Walafrid Strabo, Prcef. in Jerem., warns ne quis- quam alterum ex altera velii emendare. A classification of writers into those who use the Itala and those who use Jerome is attempted by Kaulen, p. 193 ff., but is very difficult from the state of their text. Even among exegetes the matter is not certain. The same author, p. 199, points out a peculiar combination of the two transla- tions in the liturgies. 456. Since neither industry nor intellectual power was able to protect the sacred books in the form once given them, and yet the Church had enjoined this precise form, it remained the endless task of the Middle Ages to keep in check by continual correction a confusion which no one could longer overcome. Temporal and ecclesiastical princes undertook it ; individual scholars applied their powers to it ; the work was handed down through whole societies. The multitude of helpers in- terfered with the result, party jealousy was involved, and unity and order reigned in the text, as in the Church, only in appear- ance and name. Cassiodorus, De instit. div. litt., in the preface, gives a full account of his labors on the text ; they really related, however, not so much to the restora- tion of authentic readings as to correct jjunctuation and orthography. It was not until the time of Charlemagne that a beginning was made with the criticism of the text, — at the command and with the cooperation of the emperor himself, in particular with the assistance of Alcuin. Preface to the Homiliarium P. Diaconi : Jampridem universes V. et N. T. libros librariorum imperitia depravatos examussim correximus. Capitul. regg. franc, VI. 227: PrcEcipimus ut in ecclesiis lihri canonici veraces habeantur. The correction of MSS. seems to have been a favorite occupation of the emperor in his old age, though it was not done (Theganus, AnnaL, in Duchesne, Script., II. 277) cum grcecis et syris, but simply by the aid of older MSS. Several other similar works were undertaken in the Middle Ages, indeed new ones were continually needed : in the eleventh century by Lanfranc, 474 HISTORY OF THE VERSIONS. Archbishop of Canterbury, in the twelfth by Stephen, Abbot of Citeaux, and the Roman Cardinal Nicolai. From the thirteenth century begin the Correctoria hiblica (biblke), i. e. col- lections of variants in the margui, or separately, emendations from MSS. or quotations also from the original text, elements of a Christian Masora, by the Dominicans (Hugo a S. Caro), by the Sorbonne at Paris, by Minorites (by Carthusians ?), who were m consequence decried and attacked by one another, and doubtless often did make bad work (Roger Bacon, Ep. ad Clement IV., in Van Ess, p. 151). There is printed of tliem only: Correc- torium biblicB cum quarundcm dijficilium locutionum luculenta inter pretatione, by the Dominican Magdalius Jacobus of Gouda, Col. 1508, the contents of which, however, are much more exegetical than critical. On the author see J. H. a Seelen, Meditt. exeg., I. 605. On the Correctoria in general, see Rosenmuller, Hist, interpr., V. 233 ; A. Dressel, in the Studien und Kritiken, 18G5, II. ; Kaulen, p. 244 fp. It would be well if some one would undertake the task of sifting the crit- ical apparatus for the Vulgate and classifying it by families ; thus far critics have only spoken at random of Alcuinic MSS., etc. The oldest and most important MSS. of Jerome's version are, for the N. T. : Cod. Amiatinus, at Florence, the whole N. T., edited by Tischendorf, 1854 [also by Tregelles, in his edition of the Gk. Test., with the variations of tlie Clementine text] ; the variants previously by Fleck, in his own edition of the Vulgate, 1840 ; Cod. Fuldensis and Cod. Toletanus, likewise the whole N. T. ; the former has the Gospels in the form of a harmony. (Ed. E. Ranke, Marb. 1868.) The Gospels alone. Cod. S. Emmerami, at Munich, Cod. Forojuliensis, partly at Venice and partly at Prague, printed in Bianchini (cf. § 351); and the Latin version in Cod. A (§ 392) at St. Gall. On particular important MSS. see Hug, in the Freib. Zeitschr., 1828, II. ; Harenberg, in the Bibl. Hag., I. 201; C. L. Bauer, in the Repert., XVII. ; Fleck, Reise, II. 1, p. 153 ; S. Seemiller, De cod. Ingolst., 1784 ; C. Sanftl, De cod. S. Emmerami, 1786 ; Kaulen, p. 216 If. 457. Yet the Vulgate remained the church version of the whole West. What had once been founded in poUtical condi- tions, ecclesiastical policy still retained, even when for a long time, outside the ecclesiastical realm, new nationalities were arising and gradually growing strong in each country, and forming for themselves new languages of their own, before which the Latin was soon forgotten. In the countries where the Celtic and Iberian stocks were in the majority, and conse- quently in Italy itself, they were properly only different dialects of the old Roman speech which were taking the place of the Latin, and this fact, together with others, may, at least to the view of scholars, have prevented the need of a new translation of the Bible from becoming a vital one so soon. In Africa, Roman and Christian culture were soon lost together. And the German nationality in the North, though thoroughly averse from the Roman genius, ripened to higher civilization but slowly. The farther we go back in time, the more closely connected is the history of language and civilization with that of the Bible. For precisely this rear son we must confine ourselves to more general hints. The utter impotence of the Celtic civilization against the Roman is clear from the unrestrained DARK AGES. 475 advance of the Latin language, even after the migration of the people. Its transformation took place very slowly, and would have hindered rather than helped great literary works, like a translation of the Bible, during the next succeeding centuries, even had the forms of worship, which were becoming more and more stereotyped, and the special tendencies of the religious spirit, made them a necessity. 458. At the close of this period, therefore, we find in exist- ence a not inconsiderable number of versions of the Bible in the princijjal languages of the Christian world. And yet it cannot be said that the Scriptures were very widely sjjread among the people. Not to speak of the fact that in many countries the language in which alone they were accessible was no longer understood, even where this hindrance did not exist, they served in but very slight degree, through their public read- ing, the purpose of a meagre religious instructi(jn. God's word had become dear. Yet we would not forget that, as modern civilization in general began with Christianity, so in the case of most of the peoples thus far mentioned their national literature began with these versions, which, indeed, were frequently obliged first to create the alphabet itself. We take our stand, for this retrospect, in the flourishmg period of the Carlovingians and Abbasides. In the West the Latin was just becoming, instead of a lingua rustica, a new vernacular, in its original form a language of scholars, the Latin Bible a closed book, and the German mind was pre- paring to open it again. In the East the world was divided between the conquering Arabic and the vanishing Greek tongues ; tlie Syriac and the Coptic soon became silent ; the Ethiopic and Armenian do not come into consideration because of their remoteness ; but here as well as in the West the advantage of possessing the Bible in the language of the people was lost through the wretched state of political and ecclesiastical affairs. 459. Nevertheless the barbarism which weighed upon all classes of society, and the apathy of those wlio should have kept it in check, could not prevent the need of better spiritual nourishment from being felt everywhere. While the East, groaning under the rod of foreign domination, or under the more miserable yoke of a timid and pitiful native rule, was seeing the seeds of its future choked by all kinds of despotism, the West was painfully passing through its period of transfor- mation. But at its close it found itself renewed and in pos- session of a vigor such as it never had had in the noblest days of antiquity. The history of the versions of the Bible is one of the measures of this happy change. J. W. Janus, Barharies medli CBvi in contemptu SS. conspicua, Vit. 1721. In the Protestant ideas of the suppression by the clergy of the reading of the Bible in the Middle Ages, which were used in and in part arose from controversy, there is much that is exaggerated. They doubtless studied the Scriptures themselves, in their way ; they withheld them from the people, partly because the means of circulating them were actually wantmg, partly because, according to the ideas of the time, they would certainly not have 476 HISTORY OF THE VERSIONS. been able to understand them. But the accompanying of this withholding by legal penalties for transgression, and the addition to the discouragement of formal prohibition, even the most skillful Catholic apologetics (R. Simon, N. T. verss., ch. i., ii. ; Nouv. rem., II. ch. xxii. ti'.; Biuterim, De lingua N. T., pp. 9-1-45 ; Freib. Zeitschr., 1842, VII. p. 3 ff. ; Welte, in the Tub. Quar- talschr., 1848, I., and others) will never be able to justify. Cf. in general T. G. Hegelmaier, De libero Scr. usu plebi chr. diu denegato, Tiib. 1783 ; his Gesch. des Bibelverbots, Ulm, 1783 ; Rivet, Isag., p. 183 ft". ; Ussher, § 4G0 ; Herzog, Art. Bibellesen, in his Theol. Encykl. ; D. Erdman, Bibelnolh und Bibeloerbot in der Kirche des Mittelalttrs, B. 1858. In this portion of the history, as in many other relations, the Middle Ages (sixth to fifteenth centuries) may be divided into two periods, the middle of the twelfth century forming the pohit of division betv/een them. From that point on the mental (ecclesiastical, religious, literary, political) movement of the Western European peoples and their striving after emancipation can be clearly recognized. 460. We enter here a new field, riclier than that just left in phenomena and events, and of more general interest. It was not the liturgical necessity which called forth these phenomena, but at first the dark longing of individuals for edilication, a thirst for the long-missed fountain ; afterward the mighty spirit of the century, which sought a weapon to dislodge the hierarchy from its stronghold ; finally the holy zeal of all Christendom, which, with the same weapon, but no longer violently, goes on its peace-bringing expedition of conquest around the world. Thus, in three periods, and in ever-widen- ing spheres, runs the history of the modern versions of the Bible, endlessly varied as to source, value, and acceptance. Beside the works cited in §§ 395, 425, cf. also James Ussher, Hist., etc. (§ 289) ; P. H. Schuler, Geschichte der populdren Schrifterklarung unter den Christen, Tiib. 1787, 2 vols. ; Meyer's Gesch. der Schrifterklarung, passim; Rosenmiiller's Handb. der Liter., Ft. IV. Very much may be learned, also, from the catalogues of various collec- tions of Bibles, e. g., that of Brunswick, by Ludolf O. Knoch, 1752, and ful- ler, Hann. 1749 fP. 10 Pts. ; the Wernigerode, 17G6 ; the Duke of Wtirtem- berg's, formerly Lork's, by J. G. C. Adler, 1787 ; the library of the British and Foreign Bible Society ; and those of private individuals : J. G. Palm, 1735 ; J. M. Goze, 1777 ; Josias Lork (Bibelgeschichte, I., II., 1779 f.) ; Duke of Sussex, 1827 ; as well as from catalogues of auctions, e. g., by S. J. Baum- garten, J. S. Mori, J. J. Griesbach, J. A. Ntisselt, especially F. Miinter, J. D. Kieffer, Silv. de Sacy, etc. Baumgarten has also, with the help of others (e. g., of Semler) edited two works on his own library {Nachrichten von einer Hallischen Bibliothek, 1748 ff., 8 Pts., and Nachrichten von merkwiirdigen Buchern, 1752 ff., 12 Pts.), in which are many valuable notes for the history of the Bible. Much in the following account I draw from my own collec- tion of Bibles, as was the case in great part with the foregoing. \_The Bible of Every Land, Bagster, Lond. 1848.] 461. One thing more should be noticed by way of preface. In the period which we are now about to traverse we shall be unable to confine ourselves to the history of that method of circulating the Scriptures which makes a strict adherence to ANGLO-SAXON. 477 tLe text its law in rendering into another language. It will appear, on the other hand, that the first attempts at this work almost invariably disregarded this law, and often even preferred the metrical style, because originally designed not for the needs of the learned, but for the edification of the people, which it was thought could more easily be effected by greater freedom. Nevertheless, this history should make it a rule, in its further course, and as soon as the idea of the canon has again come into force, to confine itself to those phenomena which have re- gard to this idea, passing over those which aim to give to the people Christian ideas in biblical dress but in uncanonical form. The nature of the subject and its development justi- fies this distinction and demands it. The distinction is just as imperative here as in the beginning of onr First Book ; so that only those can disapprove our plan who still treat the history of the N. T. as if the collection existed before its conijjonents. In the Mid- dle Ages the idea of the canon practically did not exist at all (§ 329), and the first requisite was to bring some knowledge of a biblical kind to the peo- ple in their own language. This was naturally done, not immediately by complete and accurate Bibles, but by such adaptations as, in extent and form, could commend themselves to them. Here belong (1.) Rhyme-Bibles, historical in contents, as a matter of course, from Genesis and other historical books of the O. T. as well as from the Gospels; (2.) Historical Bibles, following the text (of the Vulgate) now closely, now more freely, in part extracting, in part embellishing with apoc- ryphal additions, m part supplementing from ancient profane history, which as to mass of material constituted but the smaller part of what was known of antiquity. Ed. Reuss, Art. Historienbibel, in Herzog's Encyli. (3.) Anno- tated Bibles ; inasmuch as much of Scripture was unintelligible to the peo- ple without interpretation, for the time the patristic glosses were themselves Sacred Scripture. (4.) Psalms ; the book of the Bible which was first and oftenest literally translated ; with it, in the form of an appendix, usually a number of Cantica from the O. and N. T., on which more particularly see Strassb. Beitr., VI. 66 ; Revue, Febr. 1857. Translations of the most recent period, made after the introduction of an accredited church version, properly belong in the Fifth Book, as having an exegetical end in view, and yet can only be entitled to mention there from their intrinsic value. Yet it has been borne in mind that many of tliem have been intended to imjjrove the church versions or to displace them, and so they have in part found their place in the history of these latter, 462. To the Germanic mind and language belongs the credit of having taken the first step toward a better state of things. We do not refer to the Goths, whose independent de- velopment in the West was soon arrested and brought to noth- ing. In fact, their German Bible was a fruit of Byzantine life, and not a graft upon the Roman tree. But another people of German speech actually and consciously broke through the papal restriction of language, and that in the very land which to-day still claims to be a home of ecclesiastical freedom. These were the Anglo-Saxons settled in Britain, whose monks 478 HISTORY OF THE VERSIONS. and missionaries were engaged for several centuries in intro- ducing in wider circles also, in the primeval forests of the Rhine and the Weser, the Gospel, civilization, and agriculture. Af- ter the eighth century several attempts at tianslation were made among them, of which fragments are still extant ; but unfortunately here also the pressing in of Roman speech and culture soon destroyed the tender germs of a new ecclesiastical life and made them unfruitful. Legend of the peasant Ctedmon (Bede, Hist., IV. 24), who was made a poet by revelation, and is said to have put the whole biblical history into verse. There is extant of it only the beginning (Genesis) and small frag- ments of the Gospels and of the end of things, in a diffuse paraphrasing style, not altogether like that of the Heliand, which has been regarded as a frag- ment of it (§ 463). Ccedmon's Metrical Paraphrase of Parts of the Holy Scripture, in Anglo-Saxon, with an English Translation and Notes, by B. Thorpe, London, 1832. Cf. also H. Leo's Angelsdchs. Sprachprohen, Halle, 1838 ; Ccedmon's bibl. Dichtungen, by C. W. Bouterweck, Elb. 1849, 2 vols. ; Ccedmon's Schopfung und Abfall der Engel, translated by J. P. E. Greverus, Oldenb. 1852. Proper translations, in part also mere historical adaptations (from the pre- Jeromic Latin text?), of the eighth century and later, are ascribed, by tra- dition, to Bede, Aethelstan, Aeldred, Aelfric, even to King Aelfred. Printed: portions of the Gospels, by Th. Marshall, 1665, with the original edition of Ulfilas (§ 445) ; Heptateuchus, liber Job et evang. Nicodemi anglo-saxonice, histories Judith fragm. dano-saxonice, ed. E. Thwaites, Oxf. 1698 ; the Gos- pels by B. Thorpe, 1842 ; the Psalms (partly metrical), the same, 1835 ; also 1640 by J. Spelman. [Jos. Bosworth, The Gothic and Anglo-Saxon Gos- pels in Parallel Columns toith the Versions of Wycliffe and Tyndale, 2d ed. Lond. 1874.] There is more still in MS. at London and Oxford, but of im- portance only for the philologist. Special mention is due the version of the Gospels restored by C. W. Bouterweck from interlinear glosses in the North- umbrian dialect of the twelfth century in the so-called Codex of St. Cud- bert at Oxford, Giitersloh, 1857. [Anglo-Saxon and Northumbrian Version of the Gospels, published at the University Press, Cambridge, England : St. Matthew, ed. Kemble and Hardwick, 1858 ; St. Mark, ed. W. W. Skeat, 1871 ; St. Luke, by the same, 1874 ; St. John, by the same, 1878. " The standard edition." (Schaff)] Cf. in general Ussher, Hist, controv., pp. 102 ff., 349 ff., 465 ; Alter, in the Memorab., VI. 190 ; VIII. 194 ; Pfannkuche, in the Gutting. Bibl., III. 609 ; Ed. Dietrich, in Niedner's Zeitschr., 1855, IV. 495 ff. 463. Not until a century later did the German mother coun- try also begin to take hold of the matter. What some writers of the Middle Ages say, and modeim writers have repeated without proof, of German Bibles which Charlemagne or his son Louis are said to have caused to be prepared, is based upon a misunderstanding. The real beginning of this work was made by sacred poetry, at the period when the glory of the Carlovingians was already beginning to wane, with the life of Christ the Saviour, which was told according to the Gospels, but not without embellishment, and interspersed with edifica- tory remarks. It was afterward treated in prose also, after the ANGLO-SAXON — GERMAN. 479 model of a Latin harmony. Most attractive next to this were the beautiful narratives of the Old Testament, the mysteries of the Canticles, and especially the book of the Psalms, which met as nothing else could do the wants of the spirit unsatisfied by the world. The oldest of these works originated in the upper and middle valley of the Rhine, but the language and faith of the northern lowlands is not unrepi-esented. The legend of German translations by and for Charlemagne arises in the sixteenth century, at once obtams a definite form (Hrabanus, Hajano, and Walafrid, 807 ; cf . Flacius, Pnef. ad Otfrid. ; Ussher, De script, vernac, p. 109 ff.), and is variously embellished ; but it is wholly unknown to the con- temporary historians, and is based upon misunderstanding of the commenda- tions by the emperor, directed to the clergy, of the study of the Bible (in the Vulgate) ; see Baluzius, Capitul., II. 202, 237, and the contemporaneous (^Conc. Turon., 813, Can. 2, 17, in Mansi, XIV. 85) command to translate (impromptu) the homilies read into the language of the people. See further my Fragmens Utt. et crit. relatifs a Vhist. de la Bible Fram^aise. (Revue, II. Iff.) For Louis the Pious there has really no evidence been found except a pas- sage in Flacius Illyr., Catal. testium veritatis, ed. 1562, p. 93, entitled Prcefa- tio in lihrum antiquum lingua sazonica scriptum, whose origin is unknown, whose contents is a strange mixture of the legend of Cfedmon with the de- scription of the poena of Otfried, and which declares that a Saxon poet at the command of the emperor rendered the whole Bible into verse. The usual view now is (Schmeller, Heliand, II. 14, and others) that the reference is to the Heliand, but that this is only a fragment of a larger work. For my reasons to the contrary, see I. c, p. 11 ff. In the ninth century belong : a rhymed Harmony of the Gospels, in High German, interspersed with mystical reflections, now known under the name of Krist, by Otfried of Weissenburg, in lower Alsace, about 860. Editions by M. Flacius, 1571, 8° ; also in J. Schilter's Thes. antiqq. teuton. (Ulm, 1727, 3 vols, fob), I. ; best by E. G. Graff, Kon. 1831, 4° ; also with Introduction and other additions by J. Kelle, Regensb. 1856 ; Bonner Bruchstucke von Otfried, ed. H. Hoffmann, 1821 ; rendered into New High German by G. Rapp, Stuttg. 1858. See Oberlin, Alsaiia literata, I. 17 ft'. ; G. C. Dsetrius, Otfri- dus monachus evv. interpres, Helmst. 1 717 ; Schmidt's Bihl., I. 431 ; Lechler, in the Studien, 1849, I., II. ; F. T. Horning, Conjectures sur la Vie d'Otfr. de W., Str. 1833 ; Lachmann, in Ersch and Gruber's Encykl., III. 7 ; D. v. Stade, Spec, lectionum francicarum ex Otfr., Stad. 1708. Heliand, a Low Saxon Harmony of the Gospels, whose author is unknown, and whose date cannot be determined with certainty, in alliterative verse, and breathing a spirit of warlike chivalry rather than of monastic quiet. Edition by J. A. Schmeller, Munich, 1830, with glossary, 1840, 2 vols. 4° ; by J. R. Kone, with translation, Miinster, 1855 ; New High German by C. L. Kannegiesser, B. 1847 ; by C. W. Grein (alliterative) Rint. (1854), 1869 ; by G. Rapp, Stuttg. 1856 ; by C. Simrock, Elb. 1856 ; F. E. Ensfelder, Etudes sur le Heliand, Str. 1853 ; H. Middendorf, Ueber die Zeit dcr Abfassung des Heliand, Miinster, 1862 (about 820) ; E. Windiseh, Der Heliand und s. Quellen, L. 1868 ; Grein, Die Quellen des Heliand, Cassel, 1869. Fragments of a very old translation of Matthew, from a MS. of the mon- astery Monsee, in the Vienna library, edited by S. Endlicher and H. Hoff- mann, 1834 ; by J. F. Massmann, 1841. It is carried back by some into the eighth century, yet doubtless only because of the rough forms of speech, which may be dialectic. A translation of the Gospel Harmony falsely ascribed to Tatian, which 480 HISTORY OF THE VERSIONS. Victor of Capua, in the sixth century, rendered from the Greek (of Ammo- nius ?) ; in prose. Editions by J. P. Palthen, Greifsw. 1706, 4° ; also in Schilter, II. ; by J. A. Schmeller (first partially, 1827), Vienna, 1841, 4° ; cf. Hess, Bihlioihek der h. Gesch., II. 543. In tlie tentli century belongs the translation of the Psalms by Notker La- beo, Abbot of St. Gall (980), in Schilter, I. There are in existence, how- ever, several versions, by unknown authors, independent of one another, named, after the MSS., the Triers, the Windberg, edited together, but not complete, by E. G. Graff, Deutsche InterUnearversionen der Psalmen, Quedl. 1839. Low German Psalms of the Carlovingian period, by F. H. v. d. Ha- gen, Br. 1818 ; Low Saxon Psalters, see also J. H. a Seelen, Meditt. exeg., II. 517 ; Goze, Merkw. Bibeln, II. 179. By Williram (Willeram) of Ebersberg in Bavaria (c. 1080) a Latin and a German paraphrase of the Canticles, the latter in prose. Editions by P. Merula, Leyd. 1598 ; by M. Freher, Worms, 1631 ; by J. G. Scherz, in Schilter's Thes., I. ; by H. Hoffmann, Br. 1827. In the last two are to be found several smaller fragments, the Lord's Prayer, etc. ; Baumgarten, Handh., IV. 283. Williram's translation is the basis of the mystic exposi- tion of the Canticles by the Abbesses Rilind and Herrat at S. Odilia in Al- sace (12th cent.). Edition by J. Haupt, Vienna, 1864. To the same period belongs the metrical version of Genesis and a part of Exodus, edited by H. Hoffmann, in the second part of his Fundgruhen (a more complete and somewhat later recension of this work edited from the Milstatt MS. by J. Dienier, Vienna, 1862) ; to the thirteenth century, finally, the Chronicles of Rudolf v. Hohenems, essentially a Rhyme-Bible, which is preserved in various recensions and numerous MSS., but printed from one of the worst (the historical books of the O. T., etc., edited by G. Scliiitze, Hamb. 1779, 2 vols. 4°); see A. F. C. Vilmar, Die Weltchronik des R. v. Ems, Marb. 1839 ; Massmann, Die Kaiserchronik, III. 54. In the same period and later Psalters nndtiply, of which many are still preserved in MS. and differ from those afterward printed ; e. g., one in the former Strassburg Library, and one in my own collection (^Strassb. Beitrage, VI. 54 ff.). Cf. in general J. B. Ott, Bericht von deutschen Ueberss. der h. S. vor der Re- form., 1710 ; with additions by Breitinger in Simmler's Samml., I. 359 ff.; Gervinus, Geschichte der deutschen Nationalpoesie, Pt. I. ; R. v. Raumer, Die Einwirkimg des Christenth. auf die althochdeutsche Sprache, Stuttg. 1845 ; Griisse, Literaturgesch., III. 285. 464. As soon as the language liacl become accustomed to the subject, and inclination had grown with exercise, it could not fail that a more complete German Bible should come into existence. But when and by whom we know not. It may be presumed that such undertakings were not numerous ; but at least two classes, wholly unlike each other, must be distin- guished, — the Historical Bibles, enriched with various apoc- ryphal additions, and the faithful translation of the Vulgate. The former class left out the purely didactic and prophetical elements of Scripture, and was doubtless better fitted for the edification of the people of that time, but with an advancing theological consciousness must have gone out of use as insuffi- cient and misleading. The latter, existing perhaps in but one original edition, might, as it spread, change and improve in idiom according to time and place. It certainly reaches back GERMAN. 481 to the beginning of the fourteenth century. While it was finding its way to the people and being copied for rich burghers by skillful scholars, it does not seem to have been fostered in monasteries. Remains of it are among the rarest of literary treasures. Accounts are given of various MSS. of a Historical Bible, all of which, however, appear to be defective, by J. F. Mayer, Diss. Hamburg., VII., IX., and in the appendix to his history of Luther's version ; Weller, Altes aus alien Theilen der Geschidite, II. G27; Riederer, Nachrichten zur Kirchen-, Ge- lehrten-, und Buchergeschlchte, II. 7; J. M. Goze, Verzeichniss of his collection of rare Bibles, II. 156 ff. ; Merzdorf, Bihlioth. Utiterhh., Old. 1850, p. 110 ; H. Palm, Einemittel/iochdeutsche Hlstorienbibel (in his own possession), Bi'esl. 18G7. I have instituted a thorough comparison of the earlier known copies (the most complete is in my own possession) in the Strassb. theol. Beltruge, VI., where the existence of three distinct works of the kind is shown, one of which is only an adaptation of Comestor (§ 533), the second i-ather a Chroni- cle, but the tliird, found in a great number of MSS. in various German dia- lects (cf. Massmann, I. c), is an Old German Historical Bible, grown up in part from German poetical adaptations. Among these latter belong also the beautiful Minnelieder, lirst made known by 1). G. S. (Schober), Augsb. 1752 ; afterward. Herder, in his Hohe Lied, and Bartholmd, Niirnb. 1827. The idea that this Historical Bible is nothing but a resolution into prose of a rhymed German original is to be rejected altogether. Whole books and long passages are translated literally from the Vulgate. This work and its various recensions have been discussed most thoroughly and fully by Tli. Merzdorf, who has edited in full two texts, with variants : Die deutschen Historienbibeln des Mittelalters nacli Ifl HSS., Tiib. 1870, 2 vols, (without the N. T., which is usually lacking). Accounts of various MSS. of the second class, that is to say, of the Ger- man translation of the Vulgate, are given by Lambecius, Bihlioth. Vindoh., II. ; J. F. Mayer, Dins. Hamb. ; Weller, I. c, II. 241 ; Ott, in Simmler's Samml., I. 2, 3, pp. 386, 713 ; Hottinger, Bibl. quadrip., p. 140 ; J. Reiske, De verss. germ, ante Lutherum, 1697; D. G. Schober, Bericht von alien deut- schen geschriebenen Bibeln, Schleiz, 1763 ; J. Nast, Liter. Nachricht von der hochdeutschen Bibelubers. welche vor mehr ah 500 Jahren in den Klbstern Deutschlands ilblich war (?), Stuttg. 1779 ; J. Kehrein, Zur Geschichte der deutschen Bibelubers. vor Luther, Stuttg. 1851 ; T. Fritz, Comin. in Ps. civ., Arg. 1821, p. 84 ; J. H. a Seelen, Meditt. exeg., II. 517-598 ; C. Schottgen, Nachricht von einem alten deutschen MS. der Sprichvi. u. des Prediger Sal., Dr. 1746 ; Rosenmiiller, Hist, interpr., V. 174 ; Schrockh, Kirchengesch., XXI. 259. — Single specimens also given in Unsch. Nachr., 1717, p. 908, 1718, pp. 18, 171, 725. — There are but few whole Bibles extant ; most of the MSS. contain only single books, particularly Gospels and the Psalms. Riederer, I. c, III. 9, describes a MS. of the Pauline Epistles. Of the name of one or several authors we have no certain knowledge. A MS. of the Gospels in the Leipzig University Library, in the Middle (Franeo- Thuringian) Dialect, proceeds from a monk Matthias of Beheim (1343), at Halle a. d. Saale, who lias often been regarded as the translator ; the text is perhaps somewhat older than the year given, but already has the chapter division of Cardinal Hugo ; edited, with philological apparatus, by R. Bech- stein, L. 1867. The other names which occur in MSS., Nic. Brakmut of Girsperg (near Rappoltsweier), in the Zurich MS. of 1472 described in Sim- ler, and Job. Lichtenstern, of Munich, are those of copyists. The most cele- brated copy is at Vienna, in three parchment folios, beautifully adorned with pictures, written in 1378 for King Wenzel. 31 482 HISTORY OF THE VERSIONS. Low Saxon translations existed independently of the High German. G. W. Lorsbach, Beschreibung zweier niedersiichsischen Bibel-HSS., in his Archiv, II. 55-238 ; Die vier Blicher der Konige, aus einer oldenhurger HS., edited by Merzdorf, 1857. 465. It would almost seem as if even greater activity should have been developed in France, spurred on not less by the opposition of the spiritual potentates than by the encourage- ment of the princes. Unfortunately the history is still more involved in obscurity, partly from the unfavorable character of the earlier periods, in consequence of which many documents have been destroyed, partly from the indolence of the present, in consequence of which those still extant remain unused. The beginning of the work can no longer be determined ; yet it appears to be in some way connected with the religious move- ment at the close of the twelfth and beginning of the thir- teenth century. In theory never absolutely forbidden, but in reality never favored and often suppressed, the popular Bible became here for the first time a party issue against the Church. General mention is made of translations of the Waldenses and Albigenses, but not all that is still extant in manuscript in Southern French dialects can be referred to these with com- plete certainty. This department of the science has thus far waited in vain for a skilled linguist who should be at the same time well versed in the history of the Church and interested in the history of the Bible. Altogether unsatisfactory, and little based upon independent investiga^ tlons is the history of the French Bible of ancient times in R. Sunon's Hist, du V. T., p. 331 ; Disquiss. crit., p. 198 ; Hist, des versions, p. 317; and Nouv. Obss., p. 142 ; (Lallouette) Histoire des traductions franfaises, P. 1692 (a controversial pamphlet) ; Le Long, Bibl. sacra, I. 325 ; Lebeuf, Recherches sur les anc. trad, en I. fran^aise, in the Mem. de V Academic, XVII. ; Hist, litt. de France, VII. 53 ff. ; IX. 149 ; Rosenmuller, Handb., IV. 332 ; Archi- nard. Notice sur les premieres versions en langue vulgaire, Gen. 1839 ; E. Peta- vel. La Bible en France, P. 1864. As bibliographical catalogues may serve : Paulm, Paris, Catalogue des MSS.fr. de la Bibliotheque du roi, 7 vols, (which, however, nowhere goes into the text), and in particular Leroux de Lincy, in the Prolegomena to his edition of the books of the Kings (§ 466). — Cf. my Fragmens, etc. (§ 463), in the Strassb. Revue, II., IV., V., VI., XIV., as well as my article Romanische Bibeliiberss., m Herzog's Encykl. With what is said in § 330 cf. the Acta concil. Tolos., 1229 QIansi, XXIII. 197), Can. xiv. : Prohibemus etiam ne libros V. T. aut N. laid permittantur habere nisi forte Psalterium vel breviarium pro divinis officiis aut horas b. V. Marice aliquis ex devotione habere velit. Sed ne prceynissos libros habeant in vulgari iranslatos arctissime inkibemus. More strictly still the Synods of Tar- ragona, 1234, and Beziers, 1246. Unfortunately these prohibitions are the only absolutely certain thing we know of Romance versions of the Bible of the twelfth or thirteenth century. Their sources, their extent, their age, their history, their relations to one another, are involved in deep obscurity. No influence of the Greek text is probal^le ; they were doubtless paraphrases in various dialects, including Northern French. In the first place, the Romance N. T. which Fleck (Reise, II. 1, p. 90) dis- FRENCH. 483 covered in the library of the Acad, des Arts at Lyons (cf. Gieseler, II. 2, ed. 4, p. 561, and especially Cunitz, in the Strassb. theol. Beitrdge, IV.) is cer- tainly to be regarded as a Catharic production (not Piedmontese-Walden- sian), particularly from the ritual supplement, and is free from any trace of heresy in the text. Tlae common assertions that there were Romance versions of the Bible long before Waldo (Fiisslin, I. 339 ; Hegelmair, Geschichte des Bibelverhots, p. 123 ; Monastier, Hist, des Vaudois, I. 105 ; Muston, and most of the older historians of the Waldensians) are certainly true, at the most, only when (and hardly even then) one generalizes the term completely away from the Waldensians projjerly so called. As respects these, I have shown that their oldest records, as the Nohla leyczon, are acquainted with biblical history not from Scripture, but from tradition ; not to speak of the fact that these rec- ords do not go back beyond the thirteenth century, accorduig to later inves- tigations perhaps not even so far. The tradition of the translation of the Bible by Peter Waldo (more cor- rectly Waldes, i. e., son of Waldo, as the ancient witnesses call him) reduces, upon careful consideration of the most ancient evidence (Gualter. de Mapes, De nugis curialium, in Ussher, De ckr. eccl. success., 1682, p. 112 ; Steph. de Borbone, De VII. donis Sp. S., in D'Argeutre, I. 87; Pseudo-Reinerius, Summa, ch. 5 ; Yvonet, De hceresi pauperum de Lugduno, in Marten, Thes. anecd., V., 1777), to this, that Waldo, a rich citizen of Lyons, non multuin literatus, had translated for his own instruction, by a certain grammarian, Stephen of Ansa (yar. lect., Emsa, Evisa), the Gospels, aliquot (multos) alios libros hihlice et auctoritates sanctorum (Patrum), which a priest, Bernhard of Ydros, afterward copied from his dictation. Whether there was thus formed a textus cum glossa, or sententice per titulos congregatce, i. e., a collection of dicta prohantia, the evidence does not agree. It is still conceivable that the more complete copies which were certainly soon in the hands of the Waldenses were not a new translation, but came from the Albigenses, being adapted everywhere to the dialect of the locality. Such are already known to Innocent III., 1199 (Epistt., ed. Baluz., ii. 141, 142, I. 432 ft'.), in the diocese of Metz : evangelia, epp. Pauli, psalterium, moralia, Job, et plures alios libros in gallico sermone, though only by hearsay. But it is ridiculous to carry back the four still extant Waldensian MSS. of the N. T. (at Ztirich, Grenoble, Dublin, and Paris, Cod. 8086), some of which certainly wei-e not written until the sixteenth century, and the last of which probably does not belong here at all, into the twelfth century, and to explain their peculiar (i. e., non-Clementine) readings as the results of Wal- do's learned collations : W. St. Gilly, The Romaunt Version of the Gospel of St. John, loith an introductory History of the Version anciently in use among the old Waldenses, Lond. 1848 ; cf. in general Ed. Reuss, Les traductions vau- doises et cathares, in the Strassb. Revue, II. 321 ; V. 321 ; VI. 65. It is there shown that the text of the Zurich MS. came from an Erasmian edition ; that not in the Lyons MS. (Catharic), but probably in the Dublin and Zurich MSS. (Waldensian), traces, though very slight, of Catharic theology can be recognized ; finally that in these MSS. two radically different translations are contained, the latter of which exists in two recensions. The MSS. of Grenoble and Paris have not yet been investigated. So long as these ver- sions are not printed it may be of value that Herzog has copied the Dublin MS. m full and deposited it in the Berlin library. 1 have myself copied many portions from the Lyons and Zurich MSS., and have made a complete collation of both wth the Vulgate. The passage recently printed from Cod. 8086 (in a Berliner philol. Zeitschr. (?), known to me only from an isolated extract) : Lo libre de Ester la reyna, is not in the Waldensian dialect. The Canticles, with a mystic commentary, in a Waldensian translation, af- ter a Geneva MS., with variants from a Dublin, published by J. J. Herzog in the Zeitschr. fur hist. Theol, 1861, IV. 484 HISTORY OF the versions. 466. And yet such a one could not but be richly rewarded for his labor, so mimifold and unknown are the treasures still extant. Every province took part in the work of translation ; consequently linguistic monuments of all regions and of several centuries are to be found among them. Poetical adaptations of the biblical material alternate with others in prose ; free paraphrases of the historical portions, also mingled with addi- tions, with literal translations. Among the latter belong in particular a noteworthy series of Psalters. History names sev- eral kings, St. Louis and Charles the Wise in particular, who are said to have caused the Scriptures to be translated, but science as yet has no means of coming to a clear conclusion ; we have several names, but nothing certain. There was very widely spread in France at the end of the Middle Ages a work which in its historical portions, after the scholastic model, mingled with the pure word of Scripture many impure addi- tions. In the judgment of the French bibliographers, the extant translations of the Psalms reach back into the eleventh century ; but great obscurity still hangs over this question, as over most of those here to be raised. The number of MSS. of all kinds (Rhyme-Bibles, Historical Bibles, translations proper, with and without glosses) is greater in France, and they have been less used, than anywhere else. Purely traditional and devoid of all further founda- tion is what is related of translations for St. Louis (1250), by Jean du Viguier (1340), Jean de Sy (1350), Jean Vaudetar (1372) ; for Charles V. (1380), by Raoul de Prailles (Praelles, Presle) ; by Nic. Oresme, Bishop of Lisieux, etc. These data can never be of any significance until a scholar has studied the MSS., instead of being content to confine his attention to minia^ tures and other external matters. More fully known thus far are a translation of the four books of the Kings, said to be of tlie twelfth century, in a Northern French dialect, pub- lished by Leroux de Lincy, 1841, 4°, and a (now destroyed) MS. of the li- brary of Strassburg, containing, in a similar but later dialect, the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, with extracts from the Glossa ordinaria and interlinearis (§ 529), and the remaining historical books of the O. T., together with the Psalms, without these, described by me in the Revue, IV. 1. The Psalter at least is saved by my copy. An old French Psalter, in prose, from an Oxford MS., and a metrical one, from a Parisian MS., were edited by Francisque Michel, Oxf. 1860. H. Breymaim, Introd. aux deux livres des Machabees, trad. fr. du ISme siede, Gott. 1868. Nearly all the extant MSS. contain a somewhat free, but in the main faith- ful translation of the Historical Bible (Historia scholastica, Histoire escolastre) prepared about 1170 by the Parisian chancellor Petrus Comestor (§ 533), with a scholastic, not a mystic, commentary ; this translation was by a cer- tain Canon, Guiars des Moulins, of Picardy, 1294 ; see my full discussion of it in the Strassh. Revue, XIV. 1857. It is there shown that Guiars added nothing to Comestor's Latin text but a sketch of the history of Job, the Proverbs, and possibly the remaining Solomonic books, at least Wisdom and Sirach. In the place of the Maccabean history of Comestor he inserted a more faithful translation of the Vulgate. In general, however, he intro- duced into the text of the Historia scholastica the authentic text of the Vul- gate, which is wholly lacking in Comestor. Whether he also adopted the FRENCH — SPANISH. 485 Acts of the latter is still uncertain. Psalms, Prophets, Epistles, were certainly wanting, but in the course of the fourteenth century were added to the work of Coniestor-Guiars in a simple, unannotated, literal translation. The MSS. vary in the different position of these additions, and also in their number. For some have a complete Job and the four Gospels (instead of the earlier annotated harmony of Guiars). Of the Apocalypse the different MSS. con- tain various recensions, with and without glosses. This investigation is based for the present upon three MSS. at Geneva, one at Paris, and a splen- did one at Jena, which stands particularly near to the original work of Guiars. As to the origin and date of the additions to Guiars, nothing can thus far be made out except that they certainly do not belong to his work. For the rest my work is nothing less than conclusive. For the carrying out of the investigation see § 468. The so-called translation of Guil. Le Menand is only an adaptation of the Life of Jesus by the Carthusian Ludolf of Saxony. 467. Most of the other countries of New Roman Europe also followed this movement. But history has everywhere forgot- ten much that was praiseworthy or given only doubtful ac- counts of it. Spain and Poland received the Bible at the hands of their kings, so tradition says, — surely a royal gift. Eng- land and Bohemia obtained it amid the throes of an ecclesiasti- cal upheaval, in the one case the first sign of an awakening among the people, in the other consecrated also by the fiery test of martyrdom. Other information is less definite or un- authentic. The records of this first period have in many places perished, or have only in scanty measure been made ac- cessible by printing and criticism to the investigator and col- lector. Of the spread and use of all these works nothing can be ascertained, and the Church historian learns even less from them for his purposes than the mere bibliophile. Traces of translations of the Bible into various Spanish dialects have been previously pointed out, but little that is certain ; cf. R. Simon, Hist, des ver- sions, p. 493 ; Gilly, Romaunt Version, p. 70. If James I., of Arragon, about 1233, prohibited the Bible in the common language (Martene, VII. 123 : statuitur ne aliquis lihros V. vel N. T. in romancio habeat, et si quis habeat intra octo dies . . . tradat eos episcopo comburendos), this agrees very well with the state of things in Southern France (§ 465). Nothing so old seems yet to have been found in Spanish libraries. There is in the royal library at Paris (Cod. 6831-33, 3 vols, fol.) a manuscript Bible said to be in the Catalonian dialect (which Muston and Gilly reckon among the Waldensian monuments, failing to notice the diiferenee in language), and an incomplete O. T. differ- ent from it ; neither of them have yet been closely exammed, but they are certainly older than the fifteenth century ; cf. J. M. Guardia, in the Revue de I'instr. puhlique, Apr. 1860. Alphonso X., of Castile, is said to have had the Bible translated about 1260. It is more certain that the Carthusian General, Bonif. Ferrer (f 1417), was the author of a translation of the Bible, of which Guardia still points out two MSS. ; cf. § 468. F. Perez Bayer also speaks of fragments of two MSS. of the beginning of the fifteenth century in his possession, but without giving any further information as to their or- igin and relationship. (A Notizia de biblia del sigh XV. en la casa del duque de Alba, Madr. 1847, gives an account of a Jewish translation of the 0. T. by Rabbi Mose Arrajel.) 486 HISTORY OF THE VERSIONS. A Polish Bible translated for Hedwig, Queen of Vladislaus IV., 1390, of which, howevei", only the Psalter now exists, or perhaps ever did exist. Published by Duuiu (and Kopitar), 1834. Grasse, Literaturgesch., V. 485, refers to another ancient Psalter, and to a fragment of the O. T., of 1455. English, by J. Trevisa, 1357 (?) ; J. Wiclitfe, 1380 ; J. Purvey, ISUG or 1420. Ussher, I. c, p. 156 ff. But are these different works ? Under Wicliffe's name (as the more celebrated ?) an Old English version of the N. T. was printed m 1721 by J. Lewis, and in 1810 by H. H. Baber, with a historical introduction ; also in Bagster's English Hexapla (§ 475), and again, Lond. 1847, with the statement Now first printed from a coiitemporary MS. ; two versions printed m parallel columns, by J. Wicliffe and his followers, by Jos. Forshall and F. Madden, Oxf. 1850. — A monk, Rich. Rolle (f 1349), of Hampole, is named as translator of the Psalms. Cf. also A. J. de Ruever- Groneman, Diatr. in J. Wicliffi vitam et scripta, Traj. 1837, p. 252 ff. ; idem, in the Godgel. Bydragen, 1863. Tradition of an Italian Bible by Jac. de Voragine, Bishop of Genoa (f 1298), Sixtus Senensis, Bihl. sancta, IV. Others in MS. according to Le Long, I. 353 ; especially Lami, De erud. app. (1738), p. 308 ff., who points out forty MSS. in Florentine libraries alone which contain portions simply of the N. T. in Italian, and are said to reach back iuto the fourteenth century. Bohemia : a Gospel of John of the tenth century (?). Schaffarik and Palacky, Bohm. Denhnaler, 1840 ; Psalter of 1396 ; Gospels in the tiiue of Huss. The whole Bible from 1410 on, in several partially defective copies at Dresden, Leutmeritz, Prague, OlmUtz, and other places, and in various recensions. See J. Dobrowsky, Slovanka, II. ; the same author, on the first text of the Bohemian version of the Bible, in the Neue Abhh. der h. Ges., III., and other wi-itings ; fuller discussion in Grasse, I. c. ; Durich (§ 477). Tradition of a Magyar Bible, 1456, by Lad. Bathori ; see Wallaszk}', Resp. lit. hung., p. 75. Ussher, I. c, p. 195, speaks of portions of the Bible in Dutch ; see the fol- lowing section. The oldest belonging under this head is doubtless the Rhyme- Bible (JRymhyhel) of Jac. v. Maerlaudt (fourteenth century) ; beside this the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Gospels, and N. T. Several MSS. are described in the Catal. d. Bibl. van de Maatschappy d. nederl. Letterkunde, Leyd. 1829, p. 1 ff. ; Le Long, Boekzaal d. nederd. Byhels, p. 155 ff. A Danish translation of some of the historical books of the O. T. (Genesis to Ruth), written about 1470, published by Ch. Molbech, Copenh. ; see Jac. Grimm, in the Gott. gel. Anz., 1831, 96. 468. Meanwhile the second half of the fifteenth century had begun, the epoch with which in the history of the European world, and hence of all mankind, the modern era begins. Religious and ecclesiastical movements were being born amid a terrible desolation of moral and social life. The discovery of the art of printing and an increasing preference for the popular languages accompanied them, the former the mightiest instrument of restoration, the latter the most significant symp- tom of maturity. But the nations, stricken in war, political affairs, and trade, were still unable to make use of their opportunity. The eyes of many were turned toward the just discovered New World as to the still unseen promised land. The next period was almost altogether unfruitful for biblical work, though full of restless expectation, and another gene- POLISH — BOHEMIAN — MODERN ERA. 487 ration passed away before the spell was dissolved and the Scriptures became a popular book. That Ferrer's translation (§ 467) was printed at Valencia in 1478 appears to be beyond doubt ; the undertaking is ascribed to a Dominican monk, Jac. Borrell, and a German printer. But Conrad Gesner (Partitiones iheoL, 1549, fol. 15) speaks of the destruction of the edition. Tlie last four leaves of a copy are said to have been found in the archives of Valencia in the year 1645. The Bibliotheque Mazarine at Paris possesses a Psalter (reprinted from this ?), s. a. et L, 4° (Gothic). Cf. Ussher, I. c, p. 175 ; Grasse, Lit. Gesch., V. 484 ; Guardia, I. c. (§ 467) ; Jos. Rodriguez de Castro, Biblioteca Espanola, 1781 ; J. L. Villanueva, De la leccion de la sayrada escr. en I. vulgares ; and Valera's preface to his version (§ 476). Italian translation by Nic. Malherbi (Malermi), a Venetian Benedictine, Ven. 1471; see Fabricius, Historia Biblioth., I. 23. Ebert mentions a second wholly different Bible of the same year and place. The first is a Historical Bible. Bohemian Bible, Prague, 1488 ; Venice, 1506, and freq. A Dutch Bible, at Delft, 1477, and Gouda, 1479. According to Ebert the former contained only the O. T., without the Psalms. The Psalms, Delft, 1480, and freq. ; see Catalogus d. Bibl. v. d. Maatschappy d. nederl. Letter- kunde te Leide, 1829, p. 73 ff. AU these editions are among the greatest rarities, even in rich libraries ; there are probably few copies in private hands, if any at all. The same is true also of the French block Bibles, of which three principal classes are to be distinguished (see my essay cited in § 466) : — I. The N. T. complete (Paul immediately after the Gospels), without date (1478 ?), printed at Lyons, by Barth. Buyer, fol. Two editions of it exist, differing also in text. One is printed in columns, the other in continuous lines. In the subscription are mentioned, as editors, not as translators, two Augustinian monks, Julien Macho and Peter Farget. There is a copy of the first edition in the Leipzig City Council Library ; several at Paris. The translation is the same as that found in the additions to Guiars, by no means the work of Guiars himself, as we still possess it in the Gospels at Jena. It is found unaltered in the following work. II. The complete Bible, i. e., the work of Guiars (§ 466), completed by an unknown hand, was first printed for Charles VIII. about 1487, Paris, by Verard, 2 vols., fol., and afterward repeated perhaps twelve tiines, partly at Paris, partly at Lyons, until 1545. The editio princeps was edited by the king's confessor, J. de Rely. Several of these editions are not preserved even in Paris, in particular the three which I myself possess, two Lyons editions, 1518 and 1521, fol., and a third from which title-page and sub- scription are gone. I have given the accurate nomenclature, so far as it was possible, I. c, p. 148 ff. The text consists, as has been said, of a partly nar- rative, everywhere annotated adaptation of the historical books of the O. T., of an annotated Apocalypse, and of a plain translation of the Vulgate in all the rest. The work was called La grant Bible in distinction from IV. III. Single portions : the books of Solomon, together with Wisdom and Sirach, 1482 ; Psalter, about the same time ; Apocalypse, 1502 ; Pauline Epistles, aimotated, 1507. IV. La Bible pour les simples gens was the title of a shorter adaptation of the histories of the O. T., of which I have described five undated editions from Parisian copies, I. c, p. 153. 469. Germany alone, the mother of the new art, immediately and industriously put it to the service of the good cause. And although the seventeen editions of her old translation of the 488 HISTORY OF the versions. Bible were due solely to the enterprising commercial spirit of the printers, yet their rapid succession, if not the present scarcity of copies, bears witness plainly to the desire of the people. True, we no longer speak of their inner value, and it often seems scarcely conceivable to tlie reader how the harsh literal imitation of a Latin work itself so full of errors could have been intelligible at all even to contemporaries. They have now fallen to the rank of typograpliical curiosities, and the names of the printing establishments at Mayenee, Strass- burg, Augsburg, and Nuremberg have become more famous than those of the pious translators ; but even so they remain a noble monument of how the German nation was quietly pre- paring for the inspiration of power. Before 1477 five undated editions, in a High German dialect verging to some extent toward the Swiss ; the oldest and rarest of them, though in disputed order, were printed at Mayenee and Strasshurg (according to the usual opinion), the fifth at Augsburg (G. Zainer), with a statement of the place. Yet bibliographers themselves are not agreed as to the places of printing ; according to Ebert Augsburg and Nuremberg are to be supposed instead of Mayenee, and Strassburg should have the first place (1466, Egge- steyn and Mentelin). From 1477 to Luther seven at Augsburg (1477 his, 1480, 1487, 1490, 1507, 1518), by various printers, one at Nuremberg, 1483, Anton. Koburger, typographically the finest (Osc. Hase, Die Koburger Bihel. zu Nilrnh., L. 1869), and one at Strassburg, 1485 ; all in folio of larger or smaller size, usually in two volumes. From the fifth edition on copies are tolerably fre- quent but almost always defective or damaged. Beside these complete Bibles there also belong here an edition of the pericopes of the Gospels and Epistles and a series of editions of the Psalms, the oldest of which, with German notes, was printed in 1477, f ol. ; afterward with the Vulgate, especially in Strassburg, in small size. Three Low German Bibles, Cologne, 1480 ; Liibeck, 1494 ; Halberstadt, 1522, all rare, particidarly the first. J. Niesert, Nachricht iiber die erste zu Coelln gedruckte niederd. Bihel, 1825. On the relationship of all these editions to one another, and to the works mentioned in § 464, the last word has not yet been said. Unfortunately, it has thus far been bibliographers and collectors of curiosities who have taken hold of the matter rather than textual critics. See Nast, Nachr. v. d. seeks ersten deutschen Bibelausgg., 1767 ; cf. § 464. G. W. Panzer, Geschichte der Niirnherger Ausgg. der Bihel, N. 1778 ; idem, Augshurger Ausgg., N. 1780, and other bibliographical writmgs of the same author ; J. M. Goze, Versuch einer Historic der gedruckten niedersdchsischen Bibeln, 1775 ; J. D. Michaelis, Beschreihung einiger altdeutschen Biheluherss. vor Luther's Zeit {Syntagma comment., I.) ; Meyer, Geschichte der Schrifterkl., I. 250 ff. Earlier notices in J. F. Mayer, Geschichte der luther. Ueherss., p. 181 ; Baumgarten, Handb., III. 283 ; VII. 387 ; Nachr., I. 97 ; VI. 95 ; VII. 1. — G. Steigenberger, Ueher die zwei alteste gedr. d. Bibeln zu Milnchen, 1787. Cf. also Zapf, Bibliogr. Nachr., Augsb. 1800 ; J. B. Riederer, Nachrichten zur Kirchen-, Gelehrten-, und Biicher-Geschichte, Altd, 1764 f., I. 1 ; C. C. Am Ende, Von deutschen Psaltern, in Riederer's Ahhh., 1768, 2 and 4. Here may be mentioned also the eloquent wish of Erasmus (Prcef. in Paraph. Evv.) for the circulation of the Bible among the people. Un- founded tradition of a German version by him : J. H. Stuss, De Erasmi vers. N. T. germanica, Gotha, 1742 ; Unsch. Nachr., 1742, p. 711 ; 1744, p. 942. GERMAN — LUTHER. 489 470. But these old Bibles were at once forgotten when Mar- tin Luther published at Wittenberg, in September, 1522, his New Testament, the fruit of his leisure at Wartburg. The time was ripe for a work to which several were addressing themselves at the same time, but which only one brought to a happy issue. All eyes were fixed upon its progress, and the separate portions of the Old Testament rapidly followed, while the press was scarcely able by repeated and often improved editions to satisfy the demand. Finally, after the first com- plete Bible had appeared, in 1534, and seven years later had undergone, with the learned cooperation of several friends, a thorough revision, the last form given it by its author came to be regarded as a part of the creed, and as the norm according to which controversy as to suspected alterations must be de- cided. The more accurate bibliographers enumerate various single passages (e. g., the penitential Psalms) which Luther had published in German before, mostly in sermons and other tractates of ulterior contents. Worthy of note are the exceedingly rare German translations of some books which are peers of Luther in age, but in age alone : Euangelium Johannis des gotUchen Cantz- lers, . . . d. Nic. Krumpach (Pastor of Querfurt), L. 1522, 4°. (Unsch. Nadir., 1732, p. G88) ; in the same year, by the same author, Czwu Epp. des Fursten der zwelff botten S. peters, . . . (and likewise the three Pastoral Epistles). — Euangelia der vier Euangelisten auffdas ddrUchest verdeutschi, Augsb. 1522, 4 Pts., 16°, in which the John is by Krumpach, the rest (?) by J. Lang, Angustinian Prior at Erfurt. — Der psalter des Kinigs und propheten Dauids, by Ottmar Nachtgal, Augsb. 1524, 4° (annotated) ; cf . Unsch. Nackr., 1721, p. 544. — Psalter des kihiiglichen prophetten D. geteutscht, by Casp. Am- man, Augsb. 1523, 12°; Psalms from the Latin of Job. Campensis, Augsb. 1536 ; see Panzer, Augsb. Biheln, p. 57; Baumgarten, Nadir., VI. 384 ; Bib- lioth. Sdieibeliana, p. 9 ; Riederer, Nachr., I. 2, 3, 4 ; II. 6 ; the same author also points out an edition of the Gospels, L. 1522, and two versions of Mark and Luke. Literary history of Luther's version (altogether complete only do\^^l to 1581): J. F. Mayer, Hist. vers. germ. . . , Lutheri, Hamb. s. a., 4° ; J. M. Kraflft, Emendanda (to the foregoing), Slesv. 1705 ; idem, Nadiridit von der ersten Bibelausg. Luther's, Alt. 1735 ; G. G. Zeltner, Kurzgef. Historie der gedr. Bibelversion L., Nlirnb. 1727; J. C. Bertram, Entdedcungen in d. deut- schen Bibelgesch. (Abhh., I., II.); C. G. Giese, Nadiriditen v. d. Bibeliibers. Luther's, edited by J. B. Riederer, Alt. 1771; J. G. Palm, Hist, der Bibelii- bers. Lutheri bis 1534., edited by J. M. Goze, Halle, 1772. Also Goze's Neue Entdeckungen, and Vergkichung der Originalausgg., etc., L. 1777; G. W. Pan- zer, Vollst. Gesch. der deutschen Bibeliibers. Luihers bis 1581, 2d ed. NUrnb. 1791 ; H. E. Bindseil, Verzeichniss der Originalausgg., etc., Halle, 1841, 4°. For the oldest editions, Riederer's Nachr., III. 10. Popidar works : S. G. C. Kiister, B. 1823 ; C. A. Weideman, L. 1834 ; C. W. KrafPt, Strassb. 1835; H. Schott, L. 1835. [Art. German Versions, in Kitto's Cyclop.'] Summary of the original editions (Wittenberg, Melchior Lotther and his sons) according to Panzer. I. Before the appearance of the whole Bible : N. T., seventeen editions in at least three recensions ; the Pentateuch (1523), seven editions ; the other historical books (1524), four editions ; the poet- ical books (1524), three editions ; the Psalms separately, six editions ; finally 490 HISTORY OF THE VERSIONS. single prophets and apocryphal books. Almost without exception in folio. J. G. Laelimann, De Lutheri prima versione V. T. per partes, Hv. 1758. II. Complete edition of the Bible, 1534, 2 vols. foL, and four times afterward ; also the N. T. separately four times and the Psalms twice. III. lievised edition, with the cooperation of Melanchthon, Bugenhagen, .Jonas, Creut- ziger, and Aurogallus, 1541, 2 vols, fol., and down to the time of Luther's death four times more. The last, of 1545, was regarded afterward, and un- til the time of the pietistic controversies, as the unchangeable standard edi- tion. But before that time, IV. 1546-1580, the whole Bible thirty-six times, the N. T. seven, and the Psalms three, said to be changed (especially m the Epistles) according to Luther's posthumous papers, but opposed by the stricter orthodoxy until the Elector Augustus commanded a return to the text of 1545 (Unsch. Nachr., 1723, p. 182 ; J. C. Bertram, in the Appendix to the German edition of R. Simon, III. 259). For the reprints, see § 472. — For many other notes belonging under this head see Unsch. Nachr., espe- cially 1727, p. 183 ; 1732, p. 519. C. Monckeberg, Beitr. zur Herstellung des Textes der luther. BibelUbers., Hamb. 1855. The division of verses was not introduced until after Luther's death. A critical diplomatic reprint of the last edition of Luther, 1545, with all the variants occurring in former editions and in Luther's other writings, was published by H. E. Bindseil and H. A. Niemeyer, 1845 ff., 7 vols. 8°; see Allg. Literaturzeitung, 1848, II. 537. 471. Luther's Bible not only became the firmest support of the Reformation and the noblest monument of his own fame, but it is a national German work. He had few aids in attain- ing his ideal beside his own genius and faith. Linguistic sci- ence was yet in its infancy ; the extant expositors of Scripture were unsatisfactory ; tbe old versions were almost more mis- leading ; and new principles must first be gained and tested. But the master, full of self-confidence, dared to place himself above his predecessors. Although many faults in details have since been pointed out in it, yet for its time his Bible was a miracle of science. Its language, happily rising out of Old German harshness, the best that Luther wrote, and surpassed b}^ none of his contemporaries, sounded like a prophecy of a golden age of literature, and in manly vigor and anointing of the Holy Spirit it has ever remained a model unapproached. The exegetical helps at the command of Luther were the LXX., the Vul- gate, some of the Latin Fathers, especially Jerome (against whom, unfortu- nately, he was prejudiced), the first very imperfect Hebrew text-books ; for the N. T. no preparatory philological work except Erasmus. For it was from his text (1519), and not from Gerbel's edition (1521), as was formerly thought, that he made his translation. Controversial writings upon this point by P. A. Boysen, 1723 ; T. Eckhard, 1723 ; J. G. Palm, 1735 ; J. F. Eckhard, 1762 ; cf. Lilienthal's Exeg. Bibl., p. 400 ; Unsch. Nachr., 1722, p. 1090 ; 1724, p. 893. See J. A. Gotz, Ueherhlieh iiher Luther^s Vorschule, Meisterschaft, und Reife, Niirnb. 1824 ; G. W. Hopf, Wiirdigung der luth. Bibelverdeutschung mit Riick- sicht auf dltere und neuere Ueberss., Niirnb. 1847; Panzer, Gesch. der kathol. Uebers., p. 29. Alleged discovery of a German translation of the N. T. by Erasmus, which Luther may have copied ; see § 469. The character of Luther's version is not punctiliously literal, but free, LUTHER. 491 having regard to the genius of the German language ; it is noteworthy that it was precisely this, its best quality, which, though it did not in the least limit its continued usefulness, was the first to be criticised by the narrow- ness of theologians (§ 483). Cf. on this matter, in particular, Luther's let- ter to Wenzel Link, Vom Dolmetschen und Fiirbitte der Heiligen, 1530, re- printed in Gdtz, p. 128 ff. ( Werke, Erlangen ed., LXV. 102) ; W. A. TeUer, Darstellung und Beurtheilung der deutschen Sprache in Luther's Bibelubers., B. 1794 ; D. V. fetade, Erkl. der deutschen Worter, etc., Brem. 1724 ; J. G. Wei- ler's Gedanken, p. 137 ff. ; Ph. Marheineke, Ueber den relig. Werth der Bibel- ubers. Luther's, B. 1815 ; J. F. Wetzel, Die Sprache Luther's in seiner Bibel- ubers., Stuttg. 1859 ; E. Opitz, Die Sprache Luther's, H. 1869. To Luther's version belong also his prefaces to the separate books, which for a long time were inserted in the editions ; afterward omitted, first in the manual editions, in part, doubtless, because of their critical faults. (§ 334.) There are no chapter headings in the old and genuine Lutheran Bibles. It may be mentioned, as a point worthy of particular notice, that in not a smgle Lutheran edition of the Bible until long after the death of the Re- former is the sentence 1 Jn. v. 7 to be found. See Palm, Codd. Lutheri, p. 123 if. ; Utisch. Nachr., 1711, p. 156 ; 1733, p. 179. 472. As upon a long awaited watchword, those everywhere who were prepared for the great innovations in the Church seized upon Luther's version. True, it did not lead the way to the Reformation, but the Reformation could not have gone on without it. It was printed everywhere in Germany. The Swiss did not wait until it was completed, but hastily supplied what was still lacking and adapted the rest to their dialect. In other places also, in consequence of being obliged to wait so long for the completion of the Wittenberg edition, plans were made for obtaining the Scriptures in full. A still more complete paraphrase awaited it in the northern regions of Ger- many, into the lowland languages. It had already penetrated, along with the new doctrine, to the remaining branches of the Germanic stock, to Denmark, Sweden, and Holland. Later, it reached distant Iceland, all the countries on the Baltic Sea, even Lapland, wherever the need that was felt of reading the Bible was greater than the ability to translate it anew from the original text. According to Panzer, Luther's Bible was reprinted in Germany, down to 1580, thirty-eight times, beside the N. T. seventy-two times, not counting separate portions of the O. T. ; mostly at Augsburg, Basle, Frankfort on the Main, Nuremberg, and Strassburg, also at Colmar and Hagenau ; in many styles, also in small size ; among them also an edition of the N. T. on parch- ment, Augsb. 1535, 2 vols. 12°; an account of it by J. H. v. Seelen, Liih. 1747; Panzer, p. 336. An approximate summary of later editions is given by Walch, Bibl. TheoL, IV. 86 ff. Particular points are discussed by J. M. Krafft, Prodromus hist. vers. germ, bibl., Hamb. 1714 ; Forts., 1716. The first four Zurich editions (1524, 1527, and 1530 twice) contain, beside the older portions of Luther, a translation of the Prophets and Apocrypha peculiar to them, by Conr. Pellicanus, Leo Juda, Theod. Bibliander, and others ; from 1531 on also a new translation of the poetical books ; see Pan- zer, p. 260 ; Breitinger, Von den Zuricher Ausgg. der Bibel, in Simmler's 492 HISTORY OF THE VERSIONS. SammL, II. 381 ; J. C. Niischeler, in Lork's Bibelgeschlchte, I. 212. No classical German wrifcten language at that time existed, and the Basle re- prints of Luther are provided with small glossaries for the Saxon dialect. Other so-called combination Bibles are that of Worms, 1529 (G. G. Zelt- ner, Nachr. v. d. Wormser Bibel, Altd. 1734), and a series of editions, Strass- burg and Durlach, by W. Kopffel, 1530 if., the text of which was made up partly from the Ziirich edition, partly also from the translation of the Prophets by the Anabaptists L. Hetzer and J. Uenk, Worms, 1527, Augsb. 1528 and freq. ; on which see Baumgarteu, Handb., VIII. 285, 308 ; Unsch. Nachr., 1711, p. 763. I have in my possession a complete German Bible, bound at Strassbui'g in 1542, consisting of the Wittenberg editio princeps of Luther's O. T., Pts. 1-3; Hetzer's Prophets (Hagenau, 1528), the Apocryjjha of Zurich (Strassb. 1530), and a Strassburg reprint of the N. T. of 1525, both by Knobloch, fol. Here also may be placed the Lutheran N. T. revised by Jac. Beringer, chancellor at Speyer (Strassb. 1526, fol.), in which the Gospels are worked into a harmony ; see Riederer, Nachr., IV. 14. Preceding Luther in time : Ruth, by Boschenstayn, 1525 ; Malachi, by Hetzer, 1526 ; Hosea, by Capito, 1527, and similar small attempts. See Riederer's Nachr., II. 80 ff. Low German (indigenous) Lutheran Bibles by J. Hoddersen, since 1533, at Liibeck, Hamburg, Wittenberg, Magdeburg, frequently ; see Goze, above, § 469 ; Baumgarteu, Nachr., III. 1 ; VI. 98 ; VII. 390. Danish N. T. 1524, Bible 1550. Found also in Hutter's Polyglot. Swedish N. T. 1526, Bible 1541, by Or. and Lor. Petri, and Lor. Ander- son. Icelandic N. T. 1540, Bible 1554, by Gudbrand Thorlacius, Bishop of Holum. Cf. L. Harboe, in Lork's Bibelgesch., I. 399 ; Lork, ibidem, 11. 203 ff. Dutch N. T. 1526, Antw. by Jac. v. Liesvelt, from whom these oldest Dutch Bibles are called Liesvelts. See Riederer's Nachr., II. 137. — For the Dutch Lutherans A. Vischer, in 1648, translated Luther's Bible anew ; it is still used in this form. It need not be remarked that all these versions were reprinted until dis- placed by more modern and better ones (§ 485). The oldest of these hastily made translations, whose authors are unknown to us, were doubtless in the first instance speculations of booksellers who had correctly judged the temper of the time. For further literary refer- ences, see § 485. 473. At about the same time, or even earlier than Germany, France also obtained a Bible, the first strictly literally trans- lated, at first likewise in parts, finally complete. But it did not come from the pen of a Luther. Indeed, we scarcely know whether we ought to call Jaques Le Fevre's work the first- fruits of the Protestant movement. The French Reformed have at least never recognized it. Nameless, homeless, hiding from priestly zeal, winning no fame for its author, and scarcely promoting the cause, it lived an uncertain life, and soon fled to a foreign land, under the protection of the German emperor. On Jac. Faber Stapulensis, i. e., of Etaples near Boulogne, a man well- versed and active in philosoj^hy and literature, who was very accessible to the ideas of the Reformation (f 1537) and also has merit as an exegete FRENCH — LEFEVRE — OLIVETAN. 493 (§§ 454, 543), see C. H. Graf, Essai sur la vie et les e'crits de J. L. d'E., Strassb. 1842 ; enlarged in Niedner's Hist. Zeitschr., 1852, I., II. Cf. also J. W. Baum, Orlgines evangelii in Gallia restaurati, Arg. 1838 ; Baumgarten, Nachr., VI. 377; Or. Douen, Societe hihlique de Paris, p. 1 ff. ; H. de Saba- tier-Plantier, /. Le Fevre d'Etaples d'apres de nouveaux documents, P. 1870. There appeared from him, anonymously, the Gospels, Paris, Sim. de Co- lines, 1523 and 1524, in three editions ; the second part of the N. T., 1523, 1525, and Antw. 1526 ; complete N. T., Paris, 1525 ; the Psalms, P. 1525. On account of the persecutions which he but narrowly escaped (the legisla- ture prohibited the translation in 1525) he brought out the continuation of his work at Antwerp, Martin Lempereur, O. T., 1528,4 Pts. 8°; whole Bible, 1530, etc. (§ 480), fol. There the clergy showed themselves less hostile. Le Fevre's authorship in the O. T. depends more upon presumption than upon proof. His name is nowhere mentioned in the complete work. The Paris editions are among the greatest rarities. I have a N. T., Basle, 1525. May this have been the real place of jjrinting ? No literary-critical investi- gation of this version Las yet been made. 474. It was not until 1535, though still early, that the friends of the Reformation movement, who were gradually organizing themselves into churches, obtained a French Prot- estant Bible ; and Switzerland had to be its birthplace. The author was a cousin of Calvin, Peter Robert, surnamed Olive- tan, endowed with good will and a considerable knowledge of Hebrew, but not enough for the exegetical skill of his distin- guished relative, so that his work could not dispense with speedy and thorough revision. This was given it, in part re- peatedly, first by the practiced hand of the Geneva Reformer himself, afterward by his successors. Seldom printed in France, oftener in foreign lands, this Bible, not so much like a child neglected at the birth as like one more and more corrupted in the bringing up, has bequeathed to succeeding generations the sense of its defects and the endless task of correcting them ; it has become the only Church edition, yet the Church has never been able to bring its text into a fixed state ; and in its num- berless transformations and improvements it has always lagged behind the language and behind science. The Bible of Pierre Robert (of Noyon in Picardy ; Olivetanus is, I sus- pect, an assumed literary name) was printed in 1535, fol., in the village of Serrieres, near Neuchatel, in Switzerland, by his countryman Pierre de Wingle, and at the expense of the Waldenses, as it is stated, although these people at that time spoke and wrote Romance. This original edition of the French Protestant Bible now only exists in a few copies in public libraries. Cf. Leger, Hist, des Vaudois, p. 165 ; Monastier, Hist, des Vaudois, I. 211 ; Douen, I. c, p. 32 ff . — As to the sources and value of this work, which in the Apocrypha repeats the Antwerp Polyglot, in the N. T. is dependent upon Erasmus, and only in the O. T. is prepared from the original text with really praiseworthy diligence and independent scholarship, although with the aid of S. Pagninus (§§ 481, 551), see my extended discussion in the Strassb. Revue, 1865 ff., 3d series. III., IV., V. It is there shown, also, that the reprints of separate portions which appeared in 1538 f. under the pseudo- nym Belisem de Belimacom (i. e., Nameless of Nowhere) are also by Olive- tan. 494 HISTORY OF the versions. Likewise very rare, or rather altogether undiscoverable (in my opinion even questionable) is the series of reprints : Geneva, 1540 ; Lyons, 1541. — Fii-st hasty revision by Calvin : Geneva, 1545, and frequently in both cities. — More thorough revision, Geneva, 1551, with new translation of the Psalms by L. Bade, and new Apocrypha by Beza. From that time on the editions in both cities (nowhere else) very frequent. For the continuation of the history of this Bible see § 486. A controversy arose over the Geneva version between Catholics and Prot- estants in the first half of the seventeenth century. The literature is to be found together in Le Long, II. 1038. The best known and niost extensive documents are that of the Jesuit P. Cotton, Geneve plagiaire, 1618, and the Defense of the Geneva Professor B. Turretin, 1619. 475. Changeful, like the history of Protestantism itself in England, has also been that of the English Bible. The whims of a despot, the close connection of Church and State, the sud- den change of religious policy with the person of the ruler, and the internal divisions of the Reformed party, prevented this work from coming so soon to vigorous success. Many at- tempted it. The first forfeited his life in consequence ; sev- eral were obliged to seek a home for it in foreign lands. It was not until the reign of Elizabeth, when with the restoration of civil order the feeling of independence and the sense of free- dom became domesticated in the nation, that the national Church received from the hands of her royal mistress an edi- tion in the language of the people, prepared by her bishops in common. J. Lewis, A Complete History of the Several Translations of the Holy Bible and N. T. into English, 2d ed. Lond. 1739 ; Continued to the present time, 1818 ; Newcome, Historical View of English Biblical Translations, Dubl. 1792 ; A. C. Ducarel, A List of Various Editions, etc., Lond. 1778 ; H. Cot- ton, List of Editions, etc., Oxf. (1821) 1852 [by the same author, Rhemes and Doway, An attempt to show what has been done by Roman Catholics for the diffusion of the Holy Scriptures, Oxf. 1855] ; Anderson, The Anncds of the English Bible, Lond. 1845, 2 vols, [new ed. revised, 1862 ; Am. ed. by Dr. S. I. Prime, abridged, N. Y. 1849, 1 vol.] ; L. Wilson, Accou7it of Edi- tions, etc., 1845 ; Mrs. H. C. Conant, The Popular History of the Translation of the Holy Scriptures, N. Y. 1856. [A new edition, revised by Dr. T. J. Conant, N. Y, 1881 (continued to the publication of tlie Revised N. T.)]. B. F. Westcott, A General Vieiv of the History of the English Bible, Lond. 1868 [2d ed. 1872] ; Baumgarten, Handb., VII. 95 ff. ; Bellamy, Preface to his Commentary on the Pentateuch. [Add John Stoughtoii, Our English Bible, London (Religious Tract Society), undated, c. 1878 ; W. F. Moulton, History of the English Bible, Lond. 1878 ; John Eadie, The English Bible, Lond. 1876 ; J. I. Mombert, A Handbook of the English Versions of the Bible, N. Y. and Lond. Is83 ; cf. the same author's article on English Bible Ver- sions, in Schaff's Relig. Encycl, I. p. 731 ff. ; Henry Stevens, The Bibles in the Caxton Exhibition MDCCCLXXVIL, etc., Lond. 1878 ; also the intro- duction, by S. P. Tregelles, to Bagster's English Hexapla, cited below.] First N. T. by W. Tyndale, 1526, of which but one complete and one de- fective copy exist. Printed in all twelve times, in two editions, always in Holland. The author was burned in 1536 in Belgium. ENGLISH — ITALIAN — SPANISH. 495 None of the following pre-Jacobite (§ 485) translations and editions of the whole Bible are longer to be had on the continent, and must be very- rare even in England : — (Zurich) 1535, fol., by Miles Coverdale and others ; (Lond.) 1537, fol. by Tho. Mathew («'. e., J. Roger) ; Lond. 1539, by Rich. Taveruer. In the same year one approved by King Henry VIII., Lond. 1549 and freq., by Edm. Becke. Geneva, 1560 (the N. T. earlier), and afterward frequently in England, by the Puritans (M. Coverdale, W. Whittingham, Ant. Gilbie, and others) ; usually called the Breeches Bible, from the expression used in Gen. iii. 7. Repeatedly revised in England : 15G1, by Th. Cranmei*, 1576, by Lor. Tom- son. Lond. 1568 and freq. ; the first official Church version in England, under the direction of Archbishop Pai'ker of Canterbury, by a number of bishops (Bishops' Bible, also Leda Bible, from a wood-cut from profane history). Some of these rare recensions have been recently reprinted ; particidarly happy is the thought of the enterprising printer, S. Bagster, to print together, in parallel columns, the translations of Wicliffe, Tyndale, Geneva, Cranmer, as well as the Catholic and Royal still to be mentioned ( The English Hex- apla, Lond. 1821, 4°). Also, by the same publisher, 1836, a fac-simile edi- tion of Tyndale's first N. T., with a biographical introduction. Similar edi- tions of the oldest and almost lost printed versions, by F. Fry (Tyndale, Bristol, 1862 ; the others, from 1539 on, Lond. 1865, fol.). \_New Teslament. Tyndale's First Edition, supposed to have been Printed at Worms by Peter Schoffer in 1526 ; a Fac-Simile on Vellum, Illumined, Reprinted from the Copy in the Baptist College, Bristol. With an introduction by Francis Fry, 1862 ; by the same edi'tor, A Bibliographical Description of the Editions of the N. T., Tyndale's Version in English, with numerous Readings, Comparisons of Texts, and Historical Notices, the Notes in full of the Edition of 153^, etc., Lond. 1878, 4° ; illustrated with seventy-three plates, titles, colophons, pages, cap- itals (Am. Bible Society) ; The First Printed English N. T. Translated by Wm. Tyndale. Photolithographed from the Unique Fragment now in the Gren- ville Collection, British Museum, edited by Edw. Arber, Lond. 1871. The photolithographed text contains the prologue, a list of the books of the N. T., a wood-cut, and the Gospel of Matthew from ch. i. to xxii. 12, with marginal notes.] 476. That the Reformation did not penetrate into Italy and Spain is known from history. The elements of it which ex- isted there were speedily suppressed, and a strict watch was kept against infection from without. The degree of evil and corruption had indeed become so great that a reaction might be expected, but indilferentism contributed more, almost, than either interest, wickedness, or superstition, to strangle it at the birth. Doubtless zealous men, Spanish fugitives in the Netherlands, Italians in Switzerland and France, took pains to make translations of the Scriptures, but these either did not find their way into their native country at all, or no longer found there soil prepared for them, or expositors, without whom they would not have been intelligible to the masses; and although some of them were fitted for a wider circle of influence, they were permitted to comfort only the authors themselves and their unfortunate companions in exile. 496 HISTORY OF THE VERSIONS. The Italian and Spanish versions of the first half of the sixteenth century, like the French of Le Fevie, may be reckouetl among Catholic versions, in- asnmeh as tlieir authors did not formally se^jarate themselves from the Eomish Church, and probably intended no act of opposition to it. The N. T. in Italian, by A. Bruccioli, Ven. 1530 ; the whole Bible, 1532, fol. ; afterward and frequently, until the end of the century, at Geneva and Lyons ; also in Hutter's Polyglot. By Massimo Teofilo, Ex- Benedictuie, Lyons, 1551, revised by Ph. Kusticius ('?), Geneva, 15G0 ; by N. des Gallars and Beza, Geneva, 1562, together with the O. T. of Bruc- cioli. A new and especially valuable translation of the Bible, by G. Diodati, Geneva, 1607, 4°, which lias maintained itself in use beside all later ones down to the present time ; a new recension of it, by G. D. Miiller, L. 1743 and freq. Later editions have all appeared in Germany : N. T. by Ferromontano, L. 1702 ; i. e., C. H. Freiesleben, 2d ed. Altd. 1711 ; Delia Lega and Ravizza, Erl. 1711 ; M. D'Erberg (whole Bible), Nor. 1711, fol. ; J. G. Gluck (Glicchio), L. 1743. Cf. in general Le Long, I. 353 ; Rosenmiiller, IV. 302 ; R. Simon, Hist. verss., 483 ; Baumgarten, Handh., II. 99 ; V. 95 ; Nachr., III. 189. The N. T. in Spanish, by Fr. de Enzinas (Dryander), Antw. 1543 (now again circulated by the London Bible Society) ; by J. Perez, Ven. 1556. The Bible, by Cassiodoro Reina (Basle), 1569, 4° ; also in Hutter's Polyglot ; revised by Cypr. de Valera, Amst. 1602, fol., from which the N. T. separately, Amst. 1625. There are also Spanish Bibles (O. T.) by Jews, printed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries at Ferrara and Amsterdam. Cf . Fabricius, Hlstoria hihl, 1. 13 ; Le Long, I. 361 ; Rosenmiiller, IV. 268 ; Baumgarten, Handb., II. 483 ; Riederer's Nachr. zur Kirchengesch., II. 145 ; IV. 265. Letters of Dryander and Reina referring to the subject were pub- lished by Ed. Bohmer in a Strassburg Holiday Programme, 1872. The Portuguese version of J. Ferreira D'Almeida (N. T., Amst. 1712 ; afterward at Tranquebar and Batavia, now by the London Bible Society ; the O. T. printed in separate numbers since 1719 in the East Indies) be- longs from its place of printing in the same category. See Baumgarten, Nachr., II. 293 ; Handb., II. 487. 477. The Slavic peoples were more fortunate at first, at least those of them living more to the west. Bohemia, already- long prepared for the Reformation, exchanged her old Hussite Bible for a new one, based upon better aids. Even in Poland, the land of anarchy and license, many were affected by the religious movement of the century, and all the opposing ten- dencies of the time existed together there almost in peace, at least more peacefully than anywhere else in Christendom. Each of them sought a firm basis for itself in a translation of the Bible of its own. There was a Lutheran, a Reformed, and a Unitarian, and several of them were repeatedly revised or replaced by new attempts. P. T. Carpov, Notitia vers, polonicre et bohemicre, Rost. 1757 5 J. T. Eis- ner, De edd. cod. s. bohemicis (Mus. Hag., IV.); idem, Versuck einer bohmi- schen Bibelgesch., Halle, 1765 ; Fort Durich, De davo-bohemica cod. s. versione, Prague, 1777 ; Baumgarten, Handb., 1. 474 ; II. 1 ; Nachr., IV. 290. A new translation was prepared by the Bohemian Brethren under the SLAVIC — CATHOLIC. 497 guidance of Luc. Helltz, a baptized Jew, N. Alberti, G. Vetter, and others, and printed in 1579 ff. 6 vols. 4°, at Kralitz iu Moravia, in the castle of Baron J. Zerotin. It has been used by the Slavs of Hungary down to our own time. Revised edition by D. Krmann and M. Bel, Halle, 1722 ; afterward at Brieg, 1745 ; Halle, 176G ; Pressburg, 1787, and freq. ; in modern recensions by Eisner, M. Justitoris, G. Palkowitz. Another, Prague, 1769, 3 vols. fol. J. S. Diitschke, De translationibus s. cod. in I. polonicam (Bibl. Hag., TV. 299) ; Sylv. Ringeltaube, Nachrichi von poinischen Bibeln, Danz. 1744, Unitarian versions, at the expense of a Prince of Radzivil, Brzesc, 1563 ; by Simon of Budny, Czasl. 1572 ; N. T. by M. Czechowicz, 1577 ; by Val. Smalcius, 1620. Reformed, by P. Paliurius, Danzig, 1632. (Danzig, 1606, a N. T. ; pre- viously the Reformed had used the Brzesc Bible.) Repeated, Amst. 1660, and freq. Lutheran N. T. by J. Selucianus, 1551. The Reformed (Danzig) Bible was also used by the Lutherans, who printed it, Halle, 1726, Kon. 1738, and freq. Polish Bibles and New Testaments are now many of them printed at Berlin, Leipzig, Poseu, St. Petersburg, and Moscow. 478. Thus the work of reform everywhere brought with it work upon the Scriptures, designed for the immediate instruc- tion and edification of the people, and thousands of copies found their way into the liovels. Even the Catliolic party, where it was unable to control this beginning, was obliged to follow the example set, with however bad grace it may often have addressed itself to the task, in order not to leave to its opponents alone the mighty weapon which, now that a thirst for biblical knowledge was once aroused, was invincible. The circulation of these Catholic Bibles depended upon a variety of circumstances, and outside of Germany was inconsidei-able. Within the period which we now have under consideration, at least, we find in Italy, England, Holland, and Poland, only such works as deserve mention not on account of their influ- ence, but simply for the sake of literary-historical complete- ness. In or at least for England there was printed at Rheims, in 1582, a Catholic version of the N. T. by W. Allen (afterward Archbishop of Mecheln), which is still in use, known as the Rhemish Version. (Riederer, Nadir., I. 389). Stereotype edition, Dublin, 1829. The Bible printed at Douay in 1609 and afterward in England itself is in its second part not an altogether new work. Italian versions of the N. T., by S. Marmochini, 1538, by the Dominican Zacaria, Ven. 1542, have become exceedingly rare. Dutch N. T., Delft, 1524 (Riederer, 1. 123) ; Bible, Antw. 1534, fol.; by N". van Wingh, 1548. — Flemish version, by Louvain theologians, 1598 ; the latter still printed (e. ^., Brussels, 1846). Polish, by the Minorite Hier. Leopolitanus, 1536 and freq. ; but especially that by the Jesuit Jac. Wuyk (otherwise Wiec, Wuyek), Cracow, 1599, fol. still reprinted at the present day. Bohemian Bible, Prague, 1549, and freq. 32 498 HISTORY OF THE VERSIONS. 479. The Catholic press was most active and least niggardly toward the jjeople in Germany, where at the same time with Luther's Bible more than one version appeared from the other side to be set over against it. Not only as a controversial measure but also to help the sale of their versions, the reproach of unfaitlifulness was ordinarily made against the work of Luther, and their own declared to be the only genuine. This charge appears hardly justified, since it must be acknowledged that the Catholic translators made use of Luther's work, and that their alterations in his text were mostly insignificant, based upon the text of the Vulgate, and in a linguistic point of view fell notably short of their model. None of them maintained themselves in use beyond the sixteenth century. G. W. Panzer, Versuch einer Tcurzen Gesch. der rom. kath. deutschen Bibeliiberss., Nlirnb. 1781. For the literature of the controversial writings directed against Luther's Bible, see Walch, Bibl. TheoL, IV. 99. The oldest work belonging here would be the N. T. of Jac. Beringer, which, however, was prepared in a spirit favorable to the Reformation (§ 472). Hostile to it : the N. T. of H. Emser, L. 1527 and freq., is Luther's revised according to the Vulgate ; repeated in the Bible of J. Dietenberger, Mayence, 1534 and freq., which was gotten up in the same way, and in that of J. Eck, Ingolst. 1537 and freq., in which the O. T. was translated anew from the Vulgate. Some portions were transferred outright from Protestant editions, as the Apocrypha from the Ziirich version. As a specimen of Catholic polemics the following may serve in place of many others : J. Th. A. Berghauer, Bi/3Ato/xaxe/a, d. i. bihllscher Feldzug und Musterung vieler (also post-Lutheran) Jdmmerlich verfdlschten Bibeln, etc., Ober-Ammergau, 1746, 4*^. 480. In France the circulation of the Bible among the Catholics progressed more slowly, because there it was carried on even among the Reformed almost wholly from without. Li the country itself there was printed only the Bible of Guyars des Moulins and his continuators, in part poorly and scholasti- cally annotated. The woi'k of Le Fevre no longer belonged to its native country, and in Belgium wag reconciled to the Church by the learning and diligence of the Louvain theolo- gians. A native attempt by a member of the Paris theological school, that chief protectress of the purity of the faith, brought its author endless trouble and the people no good. Down to the time of the Bourbons the cause of the Church was generally fought with other weapons than those of the Scriptures. On the editions of Guyars, see § 468. The oldest French Bibles containing the text alone, literally translated, are those printed at Antwerp by Martin Lempereur, 1530, 1534, 1541, fol. (La Sainte Bible en francoys translatee selon la pure et entiere traduction de S. Hierome, etc., without any statement as to its authorship ; cf. § 473). The N. T. frequently separately, by various printers, or at least for various CATHOLIC - VULGATE. 499 publishers. So far as I am acquainted with the different editions of this series, they vary considerably in text and in the additions in the inargin. It was subjected to a revision which, if not official, at least greatly improved its circulation, by the Louvain theologians, N. de Leuze and others, 1550, and in this form, with many revisions (P. de Besse, 1G08, P. Frizon, 1621, F. Veron, 1647), but on the whole with little variation in the different recensions, it continued for a full century to be the real French Catholic version. The numerous editions were all printed at Antwerp, Paris, Rouen, or Lyons. Cf. Le Long, I. 329, 336 : R. Simon, Versions, p. 339 ; Baumgarten, Nachr., VII. 192 ; Unsch. Nachr., 1735, p. 567. For the history of the Bible of Rene Benoist (P. 1566, fol. ; the N. T. frequently in the above-mentioned four cities), see Rosenmiiller, Handh., IV. 353. 481. The Catholic Church as such did not trouble herself with undertakings of this kind, which were always designed onl}^ to meet special needs. Holding unswervingly to her traditions, and recognizing therein the secret of her streno-th, she was and continued to be the Latin Church, and allowed no Bible to be appropriate for church use, or valid as the rule of faith, but her time-honored Vulgate, which was at the same time a world-wide sign of her unity. But when the rej^eated reprints of it immediately after the discovery of printing brought to light clearly for the first time the lamentable state of its text, and many mistaken attempts at improvement, varying in design and aids, had begun to threaten it with a yet greater danger, there came to the Church the imperative task of purifying and fixing it, in order that there miglit be no more dispute on questions of genuineness and text. The fact that the Catholic Church stood by the version, instead of going back to the original, is to be explained from her point of view, which was rather practical than dogmatic, as before in her ar- rangement of the Canon, and should least of all be objected to by Protestants, who soon even outdid their opponents in this respect. No book was more frequently printed in the period immediately after the discovery of printing than the Latin Bible — more than one hundred times down to 1520. See the larger bibliographical works, especially Masch, II., Pt. 3. The date and place of the oldest edition are still disputed. The older opinion declares for Mayence, 1462, by Fust and Schoffer (by whom certainly the oldest dated Psalter, 1457 ; see Schelhorn, in Riederer's A hhh., p. 1). Others go back to Gutenberg, 1450. It is certain that several undated editions form the beginning. (See Seemiller, De edit, moguntina hihl. a. 1^63, Ingolst. 1785.) The oldest editions besides are of Strassburg, Cologne, Basle. None out of Germany before 1471. Cf. also Meyer, Gesch. der Schrifterkl., 1. 186 ff. Some of the oldest editions are also described by Zapf, I. c, § 469. I have in my own possession an undated edition, printed with very uneven type, which shows at the close (by a later hand) the date 1460. But tliis is doubtless an error, and the copy probably belongs to the so-called Biimler edition, and should be imprinted Eggesteyn, Strassburg, 1466-68. See 500 HISTORY OF THE VEESIONS. Ebert, Nachr., 2278 ; J. F. Lichtenberger, lEclaircissements sur la Bible latine dite de Baemler, in the Mag. Encych, 1806. The printers naturally made use of the next best MS., or of an older edition. The variation of text arising therefrom is very great, but has never been thoroughly investigated. The editions are classified by bibliograpliers simply by external cliaracteristics, as dated or undated, or by certain addi- tions, e. g., the subscription in verse : Fontibus ex greeds hehrceorum quoque libris, etc., from which Van Ess, p. 171, understands a recension from the original text, whereas it is in reality nothing but a printers' puff (occurring in many editions since 1479) ; also a glossary of the biblical proper names, concordances or parallel passages, finally the marginal numbering (§ 386), by which the chapters are divided into sections by means of letters, for con- venience of reference, which appears from about 1480 on in the N. T., and was finally introduced into the O. T. also by Froben, Basle, 1491, and from that time passed over into the Bibles in other languages, down to the time of verse division. The first critical care bestowed upon the text was by the editors of the Com- plutensian Polyglot (§ 399), who placed it between the LXX. and the Hebrew, as the Roman Church, representing Jesus, stands between the Synagogue and the Greek Church, which represent the two robbers. (Pi-olegomeiia.) In the period immediately following scholars ventured (the Dominican Santes Pagninus, see Leusden, PhUnl. hebr., p. 409, Baumgarten, Hal. Bibl., 1. 187, Cardinal Cajetanus, Bishop Augustinus Steuchus, ISliS ff.) to pass over the Vulgate and give to the public Latin versions of the Bible or of particular portions of it secundum hebr. veritatcm, etc. ; a fact which is to be explained from the very perplexity of the schools at so confused a text. The improvements of Robt. Stephens (N. T. 1523, Bible 1528 and freq. ; an especially fine edition, 1540, fol., 1545, in two columns, with the Zurich Latin version) were not allowed to pass so easily, because they were dog- matically suspicious, and attempted, doubtless not without design, silently to substitute the new for the old. Another improved Vulgate, likewise from the original text, was published by the Benedictine Isid. Clarius, Ven. 1542. On this stage of the history of the Vulgate, of. in general Kaulen, I. c, p. 318 ff. 482. This task tlie fathers of the Council of Trent recognized as a duty of the Church, after giving to the work itself the honor and dignity of sole authority. The theologians of the University of Louvain immediately took up the matter ; but their work, having been undertaken upon their own responsi- bility, seemed to lack the proper warrant. The Popes them- selves appointed a committee for the preparation of a standard edition ; but it accomplislied nothing, and Sixtus V., energetic and impatient, at last took hold of the matter himself, and did in a short time what ought to have been the work of a whole life. His successor, Clement VIII., was induced to suppress the Sixtine Bible, and to replace it by one supposed to be better, which has since that time remained unchanged, and still drags along its defects, to Catholic criticism a sacred thing, not to be meddled with, and to Protestant a far too uninviting field. VULGATE — SIXTINE AND CLEMENTINE EDITIONS. 601 Condi. Trident., Sess. IV. (April 8, 1546) : SS. Synodus, comiderans non parum utilitatis accedere posse ecclesice si ex omnibus latinis edd. quce circumferuntur ss. II. qucenam pro aulhentica habenda sit innotescat, statuit et declarat ut lime ipsa vetus et vulgata editio, quce longo tot sceculorum usu probata est, in publicis lectionibus, disjMlationibus, prcedicationibus, et expositionibus pro authentica habeatur, et ut nemo illam rejicere quovis prcetextu audeat vel prcesumat . . . decrevit et statuit ut posthac SS. potissimum vero hcec ipsa vetus et vulgata editio quam emendatissime imprimatur. As to the sense and bearing of this decree (which was only adopted in the Council itself after much discussion ; see the extracts from Sarpi, Pal- lavicini, and others, in Van Ess, p. 188 flf.), there has been much controversy and misunderstanding down to the present day, both within and without the Romish Church ; see Van Ess, p. 401 ff. ; idem, Pragmatica doctorum cath. tridentini cone. Vulgatam decreti sensum testantium historia, 1816 ; R. Simon, V. T., p. 204 ; Calovius, Crit. s., p. 209 ff. ; Sixt. Amama, Antibarbarus bibl., Bk. I. ; C. J. Herber, De vers. vulg. ex decreto trid. authentica, Br. 1815 ; Alzog, Syst. cathol. explic. SS., p. 5 ff. ; Welte, in the Quartalschr., 1845, I., III. ; Winer, Compar. Darstell., p. 39. The defenders of the Council and liberal theologians assert that it only intended to give the Vulgate the pref- erence over later versions ; its opponents and the stricter theologians that it designed to set aside the original text. The chief design was probably to set up the current Church version as an authentic exposition of the original text, in order to guard so far as possible against arbitrary interjiretation of Scripture. Cf. also the Regulce indie. II. prohibitorum, 1504, apjjroved by Pius IV., in which the reading of the Bible in heretical versions and in the vernacular languages is strictly forbidden (§ 499). Edition of the Lou vain theologians (Jo. Hentenius), 1547, fol. and freq. ; last, N. T., Cologne, 1592 ; not approved. Bihlia sacra vulgata; editionis Sixti V. Pont. Max. jussu recognita atque edita, Rome, 1590, 3 vols, fol., with the bull (like the edition itself, suppressed) jEternus ille, which forbids any future alteration. Only a few copies of this edition have been preserved, in larger libraries, since immediately after the Pope's death (August, 1590), it was withdrawn. This measure has been variously explained. Van Ess is of the opinion (p. 203 ff.) that Jesuitical intrigues were at the bottom of it (by Cardinal Bellarmine, who was after- ward editor of the Clementine edition, 1592). Kaulen (p. 444 ff.) finds the cause substantially in the uncritical haste of the Pope, and his ridiculous method of expunging errors discovered. But the undeniable fact that the Clementine text, of the N. T. at least, in numerous passages follows the printed original text against the Latin MSS., while the Sixtine, on the con- trary, is more true to that of the Vulgate as autlienticated by MSS., might give at least some support to still another explanation. An exceedingly incon- venient weakness was thereby covered. True, so long as the textual criti- cism of the Vulgate is not more thorough than it is at present, this must re- main a mere conjecture. But it is to my mind a very striking fact that the Waldensian and Catharic versions, as a rule, agree with Sixtus against Clem- ent, I. e., that in former times the Sixtine i-eadings were the more widely current ; it would be worth while to follow up this clue and see if the source of the Clementine recension could not be discovered. For a convenient summary of the two recensions see Lucas Brugensis, Rom. correctionis loca insigniora, Antw. 1003 (also in the Biblia Maxima (§ 552), XVIII.) ; cf. also Unsch. Nachr., 1749, p. 311. [See Westcott's Art. Vulgate, in Smith's Diet., IV. 3407 ff.] The Protestants have naturally taken delight in this piece of infallibility : Th. James, Bellum papale s. concordia discors Sixti V. et dementis VIII., Lond. 1000. The papal apologists assert that Sixtus himself discovered so many " typographical errors " that he was only prevented by liis death from undertaking the new revision himself. 502 HISTORY OF THE VERSIONS. The numberless editions of the Latin Bible since 1592 (although even the next two, 1593 and 1598, vary here and there, and an Index locc. corrigen- dorum is generally inserted in the latter), being mere repetitions of the Clementine text, have no interest for us. They are completely catalogued in Masch do\vn to 1780 ; since that time nowhere. For manual use the edi- tion of L. van Ess, Tiib. 1822, 3 vols. 8°, may be recommended, which has the Sixtine readings in the margin. Accordmg to Welte (^Tilh. Quartalschr., 1855, I. 159) the Plantine editions (Antw. 1G03 ff.), and their reprints, which were most widely current outside of Italy, did not remain altogether faithful to the Roman standard editions, but allowed themselves here and there to be led astray by Lucas Brugensis. Even to-day, after an interval of almost three hundred years, there is as yet scarcely any prospect of a work upon the text of the Vulgate correspond- ing to the demands of modern science. Yet even the Catholic theology it- self seems not to be unaware of the need of such a work. At least a vast collection has been begun by the Barnabite Car. Vercellone at Rome : Varice lectiones vulg. lat. bihliorum editionis, Vol. I., Pentatevich, Rome, 1860, 4° ; Vol. XL, Pt. I., Historical Books, 1862. [Pt. 11. 1864 ; unfinished, but a very important work.] 483. When the Reformation had everywhere come to its conckision and men began to consider more cahnly the work of the early zeal, the development of the modern languages, which had awakened to more vigorous life, as well as the progress in the knowledge of the Scriptures, soon made the defects of the current versions felt, and there was nowhere any lack of new works or revisions, or at least emendations. Luther's work alone no irreverent criticism was permitted to touch, not be- cause it was really incapable of improvement, but in conse- quence of that strict and tenacious adherence to old customs which generally distinguished the Lutheran Church above all her sisters. But it is only fair to say that his opponents often regarded as faults what are really his excellences, and that no one of them was able to produce anything that even approached him, to say nothing of anything better. The version begun by J. Saubert, in 1665, under the commission of Duke Augustus of Brunswick-Liineburg (printed as far as 1 Sam. xvii.), has be- come a bibliographical curiosity ; it was attacked even before it was pub- lished, and immediately suppressed in the following year, after the Duke's death ; see H. Conring, Ep. gratul. ad ducem, etc., Helmst. 1666 ; Walch, Bihl. TkeoL, IV. 114 ; Zeltner, De novis verss., p. 125 ; Baumgarten, Nachr., VIII. 300 ; Unsch. Nachr., 1720, p. 800 ; 1722, p. 710. Not until the end of the seventeenth century was the correctness and suf- ficiency of Luther's version really called in question, and then by the Pietists, for whom it was too free (§ 558 f.) ; A. H. Franke, Obt^s. hiblicce oder An- merkk. iiber einige Oerter h. S. darinnen die teiitsche Uebers. des sel. Luther gegen den Originaltext gehalten, etc., H. 1695, especially pj). 236-572. (M. Beck, Versio Lutheri a censura Frankii vindicata, Ulm, 1700.) Later : H. S. Reimarus, Anim. crit. ad vers. Lutheri, printed from the MS. in Rosenmiil- ler's Syll., III. ; J. V. Zehner, Probe einer Verbesserung der deutschen Bihel- ubers., 1750. Against this criticism and the series of new translations which began soon after : G. G. Zeltner, De novis bibl. germ, verss. non temere vulgandis, Altd. LUTHER'S VERSION — CRITICISM AND REVISION. 503 (1707) ; J. Fecht, De controv. recentt. c. vers, luth., 1709 ; F. A. Hallbauer, Anim. theol. in licentiam novas germ. s. cod. versiones condendi, Jena, 1742 ; J. G. Stopel, Memoria translationis Luth., L. 1735 ; C. S. Georgi, De versione L. omnium optima, Witt. 1737 ; F. A. Augusti, Vertheidigung der Version Luth., 1750. But meanwhile the (very modest) attempts at improvement went on with- out interruption, more, indeed, as they had begun immediately after Luther's death, without thorough exegetical criticism. We may mention here the projects or editions of J. Weller, Chief Court Preacher at Dresden, Prett, pastor at Naumburg, Nic. Haas, of Bautzen, Ch. Reineccius of Leipzig, Bernhard in Stendal, Sartorius and Hedinger in Wurtemberg, especially Dieckmann, Superintendent at Stade (1703) ; also Canstein's establisliment (§484) ; Pfaff's Polyglot, 1729, in which the emendations were placed be- neath the text ; finally J. M. Goze (a careful collation of the. original edi- tions of Luther's version), an uncompleted revision. 484. Luther's version was also the first to win the deserved honor of being clieaply and abundantly circulated among the people by piety and commercial enterprise combined. Its in- ner worth was such that it would not have needed this aid in order to put aside all competition. However much in after times the Church was tossed to and fro on the troubled sea of opinions, Luther's Bible was still in the school and home, and was always the anchor that led it back again to solid ground. The other religious bodies which spoke German also made use of it, and their attempts to escape from this influence or to do away with this sign of intellectual impotence often only re- vealed the more clearly its truth. C. H. V. Canstein, a friend of A. H. Franke (f 1719) first conceived the idea of making the Bible cheap by printing it from standing type, and foimded for this purpose, in 1710, at Halle (Orphanage), the still existing Bible House (afterward named after him), which has circulated millions of copies, in more than six hundred editions, in various styles and sizes, at ex- ceedingly low prices, and which has also exerted some influence on the form of the text. See Canstein's Um^tdndl. Nachricht, etc., Halle (1714) ; Lilienthal, Exeg. Bibl., p. 80 ; Lork, Bihelgesch., II. 476 ; A. H. Niemeyer, Geschichte der canstein. Bihelanstalt, Halle, 1827 ; Osw. Bertram, Gesch. der canst. Bihelanstalt, Halle, 1863. Beside the Lutheran, there were prepared in or for Germany Reformed translations, by David Pareus, 1579 ; by J. Piscator, 1602 ; the latter fre- quently printed ; the N. T. by Amandus Polanus of Polansdorf, 1603 ; also a Socinian, by J. Crell, 1630, and one said to be Arminian, at least suspected of it, by Jer. Felbinger, 1660. See Baumgarten, Nachr., 11. 195 ; Lilien- thal, I. c, 101. 485. In all other Protestant lands the temporal and spiritual authorities applied themselves to the business of revision with beautiful harmony. There were to be translations not only better, but authenticated and, so to speak, guaranteed by the Church. The important work was for the most part not en- trusted to single men, but a selection was made of the most learned, and to them was given the honorable commission, here by kings or princes, there by synods or colleges. For it 604 HISTORY OF THE VERSIONS. is only youthful enthusiasm that throws itself, in the spirit of childhood, into the arms of a single leader ; a more mature and sober age, distrustful, scarcely follows several. And so arose in the coarse of the seventeenth century the still curi-ent versions of the non-German Evangelical national Churches, some of them more, others less changed from that time on. Switzerland obtained in 1665 a wholly new translation, made at Ziirich, upon which J. H. Hottinger, C. Suicer, P. Fiisslin, and others were engaged. (A new edition, revised in language, 1772. See Grimm's Stromata, II. 94.) J. J. Breitinger's Nachrichten von dem Collegio biblico zu Zurich, in Simm- ler's Samml., I. 3 ; II. 1. England was obliged to change once more when the theologian-king James I. brought out, in 1611, his Royal Version, upon which forty-seven scholars, divided into six colleges, had been engaged for seven years. These colleges, which had divided the Bible amongst them, three for the O. T., two for the N. T., one for the Apocrypha, worked two each at Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford. No names renowned in science are found among them. For details see Baumgarten, Hall. Bibl, VII. 102, and the general works cited in § 475. As an exegetical work this Bible is praiseworthy for its time, though its diction now sounds very antiquated. [On the origin and history of King James' Version see Plumptre's Art. Version, Authorized, in Smith's Diet., to wliich is appended a very full bibliography by Dr. Abbot ; also Schaff, Companion to the Gk. Test., N. Y. 1883, p. 29J £f. — Editions : The editio princeps, 1611 : The Holy Bible, Conteipiing the Old Testament and the New ; Newly Translated out of the Originall Tongues ; and with the former Translations diligently compared and reuised, by his Maiesties speciall Com- mandement. Appointed to be read in Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Maiestie. Anno Dom. 1611. Fol. Many copies omit the line Appointed to be read in Churches in the sjiecial title to the New Testament, and some even in the general title to the whole •work. — Oxford reprint, 1833 : the folio edition of 1811 reprinted from an. Oxford cojiy, page for page, m quasi fac-simile. Contains the Dedication, Preface, and a list of variations between the editions of 1611 and 1613. — The best critical edition of Kuig James' Version is that of Dr. Scrivener : The Cambridge Paragraph Bible of the Authorized English Version, ivith the text revised by a collation of its early and other principial editions, the use of the italic type made uniform, the marginal references remodelled, and a critical in- troduction prefixed by the Rev. F. H. A. Scrivener, etc., Cambr. 1873, 4° ; with modern spelling. — The standard edition of the Am. Bible Society is the imperial octavo of 1882, based upon the Society's final revision of I860.] In Holland attianpts were early made to replace the Lutheran version by a direct one. Thus there appeared in 1556 the N. T. of J. Uitenhoven, in 1562 the whole Bible, little altered in the O. T. ; in 1587 the Bible of P. Hackius, mostly after the Geneva version. In the year 1618 the Synod of Dordrecht ordered the preparation of a new cluirch version, and appointed for the work a commission of twenty-two members (among whom, for the O. T. Jan Bogermann, for the N. T. Ant. Walseus did the most). The work was published in 1637 under public authority (State Bible). See Leusden, Philol. hebr. gr., Diss. IX. ; Philol. hebr. mixtus, Diss. X., XI. ; Is. le Long, Boekzaal der nederduytsche Bybels, Amst. 1732, 2d ed. 1764, 4° (be- gins with Adam and Eve) ; Baumgarten, Hall. Bibl., V. 1 ; Nachr., IV. 471 ff. ; Fabricius, Hist, biblioth., I. 36 ; Nic. Hinlopen, Hist, van d, nederl. Overzettinge des Bybels, Leyd. 1777. The Remonstrants obtained, in 1680, a translation of their own, by Ch. Hartsoeker. CURRENT VERSIONS IN OTHER LANDS. 505 The Danish versiou is a work completed in 1607 by P. J. Resenius, re- vised in 1647 by J. Svauing. See Baumgarten, Hall. Bihl., VI. 1 ; Nachr., VI. 289. The Icelandic received its permanent form from Thorlacius Sculonius, 1644 ; see Baumgarten, Nachr., VI. 283. It is now printed, like the other church versions, also by the London Bible Society. The Svvedisli version was improved in various ways by J. Rudbeck and J. Lenaeus, 1618 ; by Erich Benzel, 1703. It was not until the time of Gus- tavus III. (1774 ff.) that an official revision took place (at first as a Profof- wersdttning), in which all learned Sweden had a part, but which resulted rather paraphrastically. J. A. Schinmeyer, Vollsldndige Geschichte der schwe- dischen Bibeliibers., 1777 ff., 4 Pts. 4°; MichaeUs, Bibl., X. 140. 486. Of all the lands where the Reformation had taken root, in France alone no national version had come into existence. But nowhere else had the adherents of the purified Gospel been obliged to fight so ceaseless and from generation to gen- eration unsuccessful a battle for their freedom of conscience and existence as a Church. At the time of the bloom of the Protestant theology in France the Geneva version had already so grown into the life of the people that a new one was not to be thought of. When the French language was going through its so-called classical development, in the sunshine of a hostile court, the old uncorrupted Bible language was doubly dear to the hunted Huguenots, a solace in distress and death. In later times other French speaking countries have undertaken many changes in the current version ; these have proceeded partly from individual Swiss and Walloon preachers, and in part have been the periodical fruit of that training which the Geneva clergy had received as a legacy from the great reformer. The first thorough revision of the Olivetano-Calvinistic Bible by tlie Ven- erable Compagnie at Geneva, under the guidance of C. B. Bertram, 1588. Other similar revisions, 1693, 1712, 1726, 1805, and of the N. T. 1835, by the same clerical body, the last two much modernized. Also by individual clergymen : J. Diodati, Geneva, 1644 ; S. Desmarets, Amst. 1669, fol. (very beautifully gotten up) ; D. Martin, Utrecht, N. T., 1696, Bible, 1707 (P. Roques, Basle, 1744, is substantially the same recension); J. F. Osterwald, Neuchatel, 1744 ; the last a much more thorough revision. (L. Junod, J. F. Osterwald, Neuch. 1863.) Between the time of the religious wars and the revocation of the Edict of Nantes several Protestant Bibles were printed in France, as before, most frequently at Lyons, also at Caens, Paris, La Rochelle, Saumur, Sedan, Charenton, Queville, Niort ; most of them, however, in Basle, in French Switzerland, and in Holland ; some also, for refugees, in Halle and other German cities. From 1685 on all were, of course, printed without the coun- try. No more were printed in the country itself until the Bible Society (1824). There is no satisfactory liistory of the French version in existence. For the criticism of this and the Catholic versions mentioned m § 488, of. O. Douen, in the Sirassb. Revue, 3d series, VI. 487. It was properly through these versions alone, projected and approved by the Churches, or at least commended by gen- eral public use, that the circulation of the Scriptures among 606 HISTORY OF THE VERSIONS. the people was accomplished, in the countries named. The other works which might be compared with them, by individ- ual divines and scholars, which did not have the advantage of such commendation, belong, as has already been said, not to the history of the circulation, but to that of the interpretation of the Scriptures. In the Protestant countries of Europe more remote from us, however, down to the second half of the last century, but few of these were produced of which any knowl- edge has come down to us. Frenchmen in Holland and Ger- many produced some better known ones, some of them of good and some of evil reputation. In the German language the at- tempts were much more numerous. But they either fell upon the time of the deepest depression of the language and of taste, or bore the stamp of a religious prejudice which was sickly and even subversive of the word, and those of the most honorable intent were distinguished still more by their dullness and in- sipidity than by their exegetical fidelity. The brave but unfortunate Savoyard Seb. Chastillon (Castalio, Castellio), prominent in the history of the Swiss Reformation, who also prepared a beautiful Latin version, often printed even down to modern times, published in 1555, Basle, 2 vols, fol., a French version, in which he attempted to con- form the Bible to the genius of the French language, and the latter to his own. He singularly failed in both respects, although the attempt deserved neither the classic scorn of H. Stephens nor the dogmatic criticisms of the Calvinistic zealots. This Bible is one of the greatest rarities. There was a copy at Strassburg. Cf. J. C. Fiisslin, S. Castellio's Leben, 1775 ; also Bibl. Hag., III. ; C. R. Brenner, Essai sur S. Chatillon, Str. 1853 ; Hagenbach, in Herzog's Encykl. ; Jac. Miihly, Castellio, Basle, 1862. Translation of the N. T. by J. Le Clerc, Amst. 1703, suspected of Armin- ianism ; the Bible of C. Le Cene (1697), published after his death, at Am- sterdam, 1742, 2 vols, fol., charged with much worse heresies ; cf. Baum- garten. Hall. Bibl, VII. 15 ; Unsch. NacJir., 1702, p. 258 ; Fruhaufgel. Fruchte, 1738, p. 167. The best and most celebrated is the N. T. of Is. de Beausobre and Jae. Lenfant, Amst. 1718, 2 vols. 4°, with exegetical addi- tions, afterward frequently printed in manual editions in various places (also with Luther, Basle, 1746). — An exceedingly rare version of the Gospels and Romans, by J. G. Stuber, pastor in the Steinthal, 1783 ff. German translations (Lutheran) by C. E. Triller, 1703; J. H. Reiz, 1712 ; J. J. Junkherrott, 1732, a ludicrous monstrosity of literalness and word- stickling ; C. A. Heumann, 1748 ; J. A. Bengel, 1753 ; J. D. Michaelis, 1769 ff. (§ 567); J. G. Sillig, 1778 f. ; G. F. Seller, 1783, and freq. ; J. J. Stolz, 1795, and freq. For still others (Moldenhawer, Rullmann, Bolten, Thiess, Zerrenner, Hezel) see the History of Exegesis. Especially famous, but from very different causes : the so-called Berle- burg Bible (a translation not wholly new, by J. F. Haug and others), 1726, 8 vols, fol., for the reverently meditative exposition accompanying it ; the translation of the N. T. by N. L. v. Zinzendorf, who ventured upon the un- dertaking of rendering the " coarse speech of the journeymen of Nazareth " into the pedantic style of the German nobility of his time (Biidingen, 1739), and by his combination of naive devoutness with triviality caused the wrath of the orthodox to overflow : J. H. Benner, Tirocinium zinzendorfianum, Giss. 1742 ; Hallbauer (§ 483) ; T. a Veritate, Das zinzend. Bibeldrgerniss, Hild. CATHOLIC VERSIONS. 507 1740 ; idem, Nahere BeleucUung, etc., 1741. On the other side, P. Miiller, De tentamine, etc., 1743. Of. on both works § 559. , Also, the so-called Wertheim Bible, i. e., Die gottl. Schriften vor den Zeiten des Messie Jesus, Pt. I., Die Gesetze der Jisraelen, Werth. 1735, 4° (by Joh. Lor. Schmidt), proscribed and confiscated at the time, but even now very common. J. N. Sinnhold, Hist. Nachricht von der wertheimer Bibel, Erf. 1737; E. F. Neubauer, Primitice Giss., p. 61 ff. ; a collection of [34] writings for and against the Wertheim Bible, 1738. Tliis collection, however, is not complete. Of. also Walch, Misc., p. 159 £E. ; Unsch. Nachr., 1737, 1738, m the Index ; Ed. Reuss, in Herzog's Encykl. Finally the translation of the N. T. by the notorious C. F. Balirdt (§ 575). Of the Reformed (Swiss) we mention of this period Sim. Gryuseus, Basle, 1776 ; Vogelin, Zurich, 1781. In England also several new translations (or rather attempts at transla- tions in different exegetical works) came into existence in the cours^e of the last century : Humphrey Prideaux, see Unsch. Nachr., 1722, p. 85 ; 1723, p. 1072 ; J. Lookup, see Frilhaufgel. Fruchte, 1740, p. 173 ; Ph. Doddi-idge (§ 569); Ed. Harwood, 17G8 ; J. Worsley, 1770 ; by an anonymous author (Mace), a suspected Greek-English edition, 1729 ; see § 409 and Baumgar- ten. Hall. Bibl., IV. 208. [See the historical works cited under § 475.] A Swedish translation by J. A. Tingstadt, 1783 ff., in separate parts (Eich- horn, Bibl., X. 516), was probably never completed. The Danish version of the N. T. bv Hoeg Guldberg, 1794. See Eichhorn, IX. 581 ; Haulein's Journal, V. 127." In Holland various new versions of the N. T. appeared, of which, how- ever, little was known outside the country : C. Cats, 1701, accused of Socin- ianism (Unsch. Nachr., 1718, p. Ill); Ysbrand van Hamelsveld, 1789, 2 vols. ; J. H. van der Palm, 1818 (Theol. Annal, 1822, p. 773); G. Vissering, a Mennonite preacher, Amst. 1854, and freq. 488. Beside all these works undertaken in Protestant tem- per and purpose, by which, in connection with the common aids of the printing-press and trade, the Bible was circulated among the people more than ever before, the contemporaneous endeavors of (Catholics should not be forgotten. The latter, giving up their former hatred and antagonism, began to inter- est themselves in the matter more for its own sake, and to realize that the principles and the entire structure of the Church must be made to conform to the imperative demand of the time. Yet this took place only where they were in living contact with Protestants, and where science was equally developed in both circles, — hence more especially in France and Germany. In both these countries versions multiplied, and with them the number of readers ; in the former favored mostly by the movements of Jansenism, that Roman Lutheranism ; in the latter especially as an early fruit of the Josephine spirit. Moreover, these Catholic versions are more important than the last mentioned Protestant ones, because they made their way among the people more. Germany : The version of the convert Caspar Ulenberg, Cologne, 1630 and freq., became, to a certain extent, a national version, displacing the earlier ones (§ 479) ; in later recensions by the Mayence Jesuits, 1661 ; by 508 IIISTOliY OF THE VERSIONS. Th. Aq. EbrliarcT, a Benedictine of Wessobruiui, 1722 ; by tbe Benedictines of Ettenbeini-Miinster (D. G. Cartier) 1751, with and without the Vulgate, in beautiful folio editions. Later versions by C. Salzmann, Lux. 1770 ; M. A. Wittola, Vienna, 1775 ; Ign. Weitenauer, Augsb. 1777 if., with Vulgate, 14 vols. ; J. Fleischiitz, Fuld. 1778 ; F. Rosaliuo, Vienna, 1781; C. Fischer, Prague, 1784 and freq.; H. Braun, Vienna, 1786 and freq.; Jos. Lauber, 1786 ; S. Mutschelle, Munich, 1789 ; B. Weyl, Mayence, 1789 ; J. G. Krach, Augsb. 1790; D. von Brentano, Kempt. 1790 ; Anon., Vienna, 1792 ; J. Babor, 1805, mostly only the N. T. See also Werner's Geschichte der kath. TheoL, p. 272 f. France : Versions by Claude DevUle, 1613 ; Jaq. Corbin, a parliamentary lawyer, 1643 ; Michel de MaroUes, Abbe de Villeloin, 1649 aud freq. ; the Oratorian Denys Amelotte, 1666 and freq. ; Ch. Hure, 1702 ; Domin. Bouhours, a Jesuit, 1703 and freq. ; all of the N. T. only. The Abbe de Marolles also began, in 1671, a version of the O. T., but it was suppressed ; some copies of it, however, have been preserved, extending to Lev. xxiii. (Ebert). Special attention was aroused by the (anonymous) version of the N. T. by E,. Simon, Trevoux, 1702. It was accused of Sociuianism by Bossuet, and condemned by Cardinal de Noailles. See Unsch. Nachr., 1703, 1705, passim ■ Baumgarten, Hall. Bihl., VI. 381 ; Graf, in the Strassb. Beitr., I. 229. There were cancels printed for the most offensive pages, which in my copy are oidy bound in. The author did not venture to come out with the O. T. at all. Cf. Baumgarten, Nachr., X. 471. The N. T. translated into English by W. Webster, 1730. Jansenist version, in various recensions and variously known (^Version de Port Royal, Version de Mons, etc.) by Ant. and Isaac Louis Lemaitre de Sacy, Ant. Arnauld, P. Nicole, and other teachers at Port Royal (see Reuch- lin, Gesch. von Port Royal, Hamb. 1839 f.), whose respective parts in the different editions are not well known, though Is. L. Lemaitre is regarded as the principal author. Fu'st printed, the N. T., Mons (i. e., Amsterdam), 1067 (afterward the O. T. also), and very frequently in the Netherlands ; still the most widely current French Catholic version ; often printed in foreign countries (e. g., Lausanne, 1776), and in more i-ecent times at Paris (1816 fP., freq.) : selon Vedition vulgate (also with the Vulgate) avec les differences du grec ; with and without notes on the setis littc'ral and the sens spirituel (§ 562). In consequence of this last feature, as well as of the French text itself, there arose long disputes, of which the history of the Church has much to say (under the reigns of Clement IX., Innocent XL, Clement XL), and which became a leading matter during the last years of the reign of the aged Louis XIV., naturally rather as a pretext than a real cause. Arnauld, Defense de la Version de Mons, Col. 1668 ; Nouvelle De- fense, 1682. Among the bitterest enemies of the Jansenists, next to the Jesuits, was R. Simon ( Verss., p. 396 ff. ; Nouvelles obss. almost entire). Cf. in general Roseumiiller, Handb., IV. 359 ff. During the eighteenth century some other versions came into existence : by Augustin Calmet, in his great exegetical work, 1707 (§ 552) ; by Nic. Legross, anonymously, Cologne, 1739 ; afterward often with his name, also at Paris ; by Mesenguy, P. 1764 ; by Valart, 1789. England : Version by Corn. Nary, 1719, and especially by Alex, Geddes, 1786 ff. ; see Eichhorn, Bibl, I. 694 ; II. 459 ; III. 719. Netherlands : Jansenist version by And. v. d. Schuuren, 1698 and freq. ; another by Aeg. de Wit, 1717 ; the date of a Flemish version by P. Buys, which is now printed by the London Bible Society (also Brussels, 1865 and freq.), is unknown to me. Italy : Version by Ant. Martini, Archb. of Florence (f 1808), approved by the Roman See, Turin, 1776, now circulated by the London Bible Society, LESS EXTENDED EUROPEAN DIALECTS. 509 N. T. 1813 and freq., Bible, 1821. The Catholic editions (Florence, Milan, Turin, Piato) have most of them the Vulgate and exegetical additions. The English Propaganda also circulates the version of Diodati (e. g., Rome, 1849). — Translation from Lemaitre de Sacy, Naples, 1766. Spain : Version by Ph. Scio de San Miguel, Madrid, 1794, with Vulgate and Commentary, 19 vols., also (the new text) by the London Bible Society, 1828; N. T. by Pel. de Torres Aniat, Bishop of Astorga, likewise, 1837. Portugal : Version by Ant. Pereira de Figueiredo, Lisbon, 1784 ff., with Commentary. (The text circulated by the London Bible Society.) Bohemia : Prague, 1677. 489. We have had in mind in the foregoing chiefly the greater nations of Europe, who stood at the liead of all intel- lectual progress. But the versions intended for them w^ere by no means the only ones brought into existence during this period by the ever-increasing zeal for the spread of the word of God. No corner of Christendom was forgotten, no dialect in which anything in this direction still remained to be done for the knowledge of the Gospel. Thus the Bible was carried even to those vanished nationalities whose history is celebrated and whose former freedom and glory now live only in the lan- guage of remote valleys, or to those others which have never been able on their barren steppes to attain independent power and fame. Not all these peoples belong to the Protestant confessions, but it has been mostly Protestants who have felt called upon to give them the Scriptures in their own lan- guage. We have first to mention under this head a number of Christian societies, formed in England in the last century, for the purpose, among other things, of circulating the Bible among the people as a means of religious instruction. The earliest was the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1698 ; most of them are still in existence. They have printed, however, only for the kingdom, English and Gaelic, the latter in various dialects. Celtic languages : Versions into Welsh, by W. Morgan and Rich. Davies, since 1567 ; into Irish (Gaoidheilg), by J. Kern, about 1600 ; into West British (for the Isle of Man, Manx), by J. Phillips, about 1620 ; into Scot- tish (Gaelic, Albannaich) ; into the Armorican-Cymric (Bas-Breton), by Legonidec ; the last by and for Catholics. (Angouleme, 1827, Brest, 1847, 1863, St. Brieux, 1866, and freq.) Through the Bible Societies the editions have become very numerous in this century. See also Th. Llewellyn, An Account of British or Welsh Versions and editions of the Bible, Lond. 1768. It is unnecessary to enumerate later editions. Basque language : By J. de Licarrague, since 1571, printed at La Rochelle and Bayonne (1828). A specimen in the Konigsh. Archiv, II. 277. — Speci- men of a new version, the Sermon on the Mount, in Greek and Basque, Totil. 1831. In the Biscayan dialect (Escuara), Luke, Madr. 1838. — These works belong both in origin and use to the Catholic Church, but are now circulated by the London Bible Society. Rhseto-Romance dialects in the Grisons : By Jac. Biffrun, since 1560 ; J. Gritti, 1640 ; J. A. Vulpio and others, 1674 ; Luc. Gabriel, 1718 ; frequently printed, especially in Chur, down to very recent times, in two dialects. See Unsch.Nachr., 1731, -p. 611; Weller,^tes, II. 819 ; Adelung, Mithr.,!!. 603. That the number of these versions may yet be increased, as in general in any 510 HISTORY OF THE VERSIONS. region where a universal national written language cannot be formed, appears from specimens (the parable of the Prodigal Son) of six different Rhsetian and eio-ht Italian dialects which are spoken in Switzerland alone, in Stalder, Landessprachen der Schweiz, Aarau, 1819. (The same author also has fifteen Swiss-French dialects; while Coquebert de Montbret, Melanges sur les patois de France, P. 1831, gives the same parable in about one hundred dialects.") The Psalms were printed at Aix, in 1702, in Provencal. The Gospel of John in the present dialect of Upper Languedoc, Toulouse, 1820. A N. T. in the Catalan dialect. Loud. 1832 and freq. Scandinavo-Germau dialects seem not to have been added to the list until very recently, § 496. Slavic dialects (for the principal languages, see §§ 477, 490) : Wendish Bible (Sorabic), in the Upper Lusatian dialect, by Michael Frenzel, 1670 ; in the Lower Lusatian, by Gottlieb Fabricius, 1709 ; later, in the former, by several, 1728 (Coleri, Auserles. Bibl., IV. 40), by J. G. Kiihu, 1742, printed at Bautzen. See Baumgarten, Nachr., III. 471 ; IV. 283. — Croatian, by Georg Kobila and Primus Truber, 1553, first and more frequently printed in Tubingen (see Jager, in the Wilrtemb. Studien, II. 1 ; VI. 2). — Windish (according to Ebert Vandal !), i. e., in the critical dialect, by G. Dalmatin, Witt. 1584 ; Baumgarten, I. c, IX. 95. — Lithuanian, first by J. Bretcke, 1590 (not printed), afterward by S. B. Chylinsky, 1660, in London ; in the country itself not until 1701, the N. T. ; in 1735 the Bible, by several, under the lead of J. J. Quaudt; Lork, I. 454 ; Adelung, II. 706; Tetsch, Curland. Kirchengesch., III. 92 ; and especially L. J. Rhesa, Gesch. der litih. Bibel, 1815. — Lettish, by J.Fischer, Riga, N. T. 1685, Bible 1689 ; revised 1739 ; also Riga, 1794 and freq. Baumgarten, I. c, IV. 302 ; IX. 1 ; Tetsch, I. c, III. 110. — In the Dalmatian dialect (Ragusa), by Kassieh, the pericopes, Rome, 1641. Finnish languages : For Finland proper by M. Agricola, Bishop of Abo, the N. T., Stockh. 1548 ; afterward separate portions of the O. T. by E. Petri and M. Stodius, Stockh. 1642, since also at Abo (Turns), and more re- cently at St. Petersburg ; Baumgarten, Nachr., VI. 286 ; Henderson, Biblical Researches, p. 6 if . — In various Lapland dialects by J. J. v. Tornea, 1648 ; by O. S. Graan, 1669. — For Esthonia, the N. T. in the Reval and Dorpat dialects, by Goseken and Fischer, since 1685 at Reval (Tallinas); Lork, 11. 567; Baumgarten, Nachr., IV. 305 ; IX. 381. New translation of the Bible by Hell and Giitzlaff, 1739 ; see Tetsch, Curland. Kirchengesch., III. 86. Magyar (Hungarian) versions in greater number (see P. Wallasky, Consp. reip. lit. in Hungaria, Posen, 1785) ; Lutheran : Pauline Epistles by B. Kom- jathi, Cracow, 1531; N. T. bv J. Sylvester, Szigeth, 1541, and freq. ; by G. Barany, Lauban, 1754 ; by And. Torkos, Vit. 1736. Reformed : N. T. by Th. Felegyhazi, Debr. 1586. The Bible by C. Karoli, Vis. 1589, 2 vols, fob, is the most widely current version ; revised by Alb. Molnar, Hanau, 1608, and freq., and still printed. Another by G. Csipkes of Comorn, Leyd. 1719. Catholic : N. T. (or only the Gospels ?) by G. Pesti, Vienna, 1536 ; the Bible by G. Kaldy, Vienna, 1626. See also Riederer, Nachr. zur Kirchen-, Gelehr- ten-, und Bilchergeschichte, II. 5. There are also to be mentioned a Wallachian N. T., Belgrade, 1648, Bible, Bucharest, 1688, in Cyrillic character, by the Metropolitan Theodosius (see Henderson, I. c, p. 249 ; Weller, Altes, II. 819), which has recently been published again in St. Petersburg ; and a translation into the Maltese lan- guage (an Arabic patois), whose age and origin are unknown to me ; Gos- pels and Acts, Loudon, 1829, earlier separate. 490. We mention finally those peoples on the extreme bor- ders of Europe whose languages retained possession of the country, but became transformed in course of time, and which MODERN GREEK — RUSSIAN.. 611 from other causes also were not drawn into the current of progress along with other nations. In the case of the Rus- sians and Greeks the Bible was adapted to this transformation at a time when there was as yet no sign of the power of the one or of the resurrection of the other. But it should be dis- tinctly borne in mind that it was by no means the purpose of the Orthodox Greek Church to introduce into these countries a properly new translation of the Bible, at the same time offi- cially recognized and popular. Its forms of worship did not require this, or i-ather could not suffer it, and other use of the Scriptures was often repressed and always very limited. Confessio Dosithei {Synod. Hieros., see above, § 338 ; ed. Kimmel, I. 455) Qu. 1 : Should the Scriptures be read KoiviUs tcapa irduToiv rwv xp'CTtai'&jj' ? Aus. : Ov • ■ ■ aW' inrh ^6vuiv rwv yuerct rfjs ■Kpeirovcrris ^pevvrjs rois ^ddecriv eyKvir- tSptoiv tov TTvevfjiOLTOs. . . • Tots Se fxri yeyvixvaa/xevois Kal a.Sia surdissimum et inauditum !). After such declarations, more favorable views on the part of Catholic theologians (L. v. Ess, F. Obertliiir) must of necessity be rare, or would not be permitted to be expressed. Most recent Catholic versions in Germany by C. and Leander van Ess ; the N. T. 1807 and freq. ; afterward the Old also, at first in parts. The last-named is the pi'incipal translator, a former Benedictine, for a time agent of the British Bible Society, and suspected by the Roman Curia ; his N. T. is still printed and circulated by that Society. Catholic polemic against Van Ess : Warnung, etc., Str. 1819 ; M. Molkenbuhr, 1817 ; Kistemaker, Ueber Matth. xxiv. (in the Preface) ; also, B. M. Sclmappinger, 1807 ; Widemann, 1809 ; Gossner, Mimich, 1815, and freq. ; J. H. Kistemaker, 1825 ; J. M. A. Scholz, 1828 fe. N. T. by a pastor of the diocese of Trier, Cobl. 1837. Several of them, on account of the commentaries accompanying them, are mentioned in the history of exegesis. The one now most widely current in Germany is by J. F. Allioli, 1836, and freq. The British Bible Society also circulates the version in Kistemaker's N. T. (more frequently printed in Germany), and Gossner's. In France, Sacy's version is still by far the most in favor, though probably not so much because of its Jansenism as because of its style. A N. T. by E. Genoude, 1821. By the same author also single books of the O. T. with commentary, and the whole with the Vulgate, 1821. The version of the Gospels by Lamennais, 1846, beautiful in style, is intended to serve politico- social purposes by its annotations. See Ed. Reuss, in the Jena Allg. Lit. Zeit., Oct. 1848. We pass over many translations of smgle books. — While the light of the Bible is studiously withdrawn from the people, the ignis fatuus which fell from heaven (§§ 258, 266) is spread by the press with episcopal comitenance. Most of the editions of Italian, Spanish, and Dutch Bibles of Catholic origin which are known to me, probably still others also, are to be credited to Protestant Bible Societies (§§ 476, 488), especially to the British and Foreign Bible Society, but also to the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, which has recently had prepared new translations, or at least revisions, for Catholic countries (Spain, Poland, Ireland, France). A new EngUsli version by Challoner appeared in N. Y. in 1854. The circulation of the Bible in the southern countries of Europe, and the religious or mdustrial means of accomplishing it, sometimes form interesting episodes in the history of worship (Borrow, The Bible in Spain, 1843), or even in political history (Die Familie Madiai in Florenz, 1852 ff.). A N. T. for the then so-called New Catholics, by A. M. Miiller, B. 1845. 500. Thus the History of the Versions has likewise divided itself into two periods, the conditions and phenomena of the SUMMARY. 525 ancient churcb here considered constituting in a certain way the preparatory epoch. During the first period the sacred collection remained almost exclusively a church book, partly because there were no convenient means of circulating it, partly because the people did not possess the requisite pre- paratory Christian training to profit by self-instruction, and finally, because the language of the Bible presented to them an insuperable obstacle. The second period shows how, from weak beginnings, the Bible became more and more a popular book. The History of the Versions became at the same time a history of their actual circulation, especially through the aid first of the spirit of the Reformation, and afterward through missionary activity. The increasing influence which the Scrip- tures in this way obtained over the Christian training of the people constitutes the interest of the History of Exegesis. BOOK FIFTH. HISTORY OF THE THEOLOGICAL USE OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 601. Even during the apostolic age the writings whose history we have thus far been engaged in recounting were made use of in various ways for the edification and instruction of Christians. They found in them partly the instruction itself which they needed, partly and more commonly the con- firmation of the oral preaching by which the faith had been taught them. But this use, an incidental and directly practical one, was the only one, and remained so for a considerable time in the generations immediately following the Apostles. In a word, down to the middle of the second century, no theological and scientific use of these books had been made. Before this time, therefore, we cannot speak of any exegesis of the New Testament. Justification of the title. Tlie fortunes of Exegesis have always been closely coimectecl with those of Theology. Distinction between a History of Hermeneutics and a History of Exegesis. Necessity and interest of the combination of the two. Limitations in the presentation of the literary phenomena. Dilficulty in the grouping of indi- viduals. Preliminary works. More general : Sixtus Senensis, Biblioth. sancta (§ 16), Bk. IV. ; R. Simon, Hist. crit. du V. T., III. ; idem, Hist, des princi- pcux commentateurs du N. T., 1693 ; S. Deyling, De recta interpr. ratione, L. 1721 ; J. H. Callenberg, De scepticismo exeg., pp. 54-182 ; P. H. Schuler, Gesch. der populiiren Schrifterkl., Stuttg. 1787, 2 Pts. ; S. F. N. Morus, Acroases super hermeneutica N. T. (1797, 2 vols.), II., and Eichst'adt's preface to it ; F. Liicke, Grundriss der neutest. Hermeneutik und ihrer Geschichte, Gott. 1817 ; H. N. Klausen, Hermeneutik des N. T., translated from the Danish (L. 1841), pp. 77-337; S. Lntz, Hermeneutik, p. 101 fP. Cf. the well- known works on the history of ecclesiastical literature by L. E. Du Pin, W. Cave, R. Ceilliex-, C. Oudin, and others, the hermeneutic manuals of J. A. Ernesti on the N. T. [Institutio interpretis N. T., oth ed., 1809, E. tr. by Terrot, 1843], of J. S. Semler, G. L. Bauer, G. W. Meyer, J. H. Pareau [Principles of Interpretation, E. tr. by Forbes, Edinb. 1840, 2 vols.], on the O. T., etc. Schrockh's Kirchengesch., passim ; Eichhorn, Asiat. Sprachkunde, p. 538 ff.; Baumgarten, Comm. on the Pentateuch, Introd. ; Landerer, Art. Hermeneutik in Herzog's Enci/kl., especially p. 797 ff.; L. Diestel, Gesch. des A. T. in der chr. Kirche, Jena, 1869. [Add the hermeneutical works of Immer, Herm. d. N. T., Wittenb. 1873, E. tr. by Newman, Andover, 1877 ; NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS. 527 J. P. Lange, Grundriss d. bibl. Hermeneutik, Heidelb. 1878 ; F. X. Reitlimayr (R. C), Lehrbuch d. bibl. Hermeneutik, Kempten, 1874 ; J. C. C. v. Hofmann Hermeneutik, Nordl. 1880. Also L. Wogue, Hist, de la Bible et de Vexeghe biblique jusqu' a nos Jours, P. 1881. Arts. Hermeneutics, by Prof. Salmoiid, m Enajcl. Brit., and in Schaff-Herzog Encyclopcedia.] On particular periods. Ancient : D. Whitby, De SS. Scripturarum inter- pretatione secundum patrum commentarios, Lond. 1714 ; C. W. Fliio-o-e Gesch der theolog. V/issenschaften, 179G, 3 Pts. ; J. G. Rosenmiiller, Hist'Hiterpreta- tionis II. SS. in ecclesia chr., L. 1795-1812, 5 vols, (first in a series of academic programmes) ; F. Vogl, Die h. S. und ihre Interpretation durch die h. Vaier, Augsb. 1836. Medieval : J. B. Bossuet, Einl. in die Gesch. der Welt und Religion, con- tmued by J. A. Cramer, V. 2 ; VI. Modern : G. W. Meyer, Gesch. der Schrifterkl. seit die Wiederherstellung der Wissenschaften, Gott. 1802 ff., 5 Pts. , Bibliograpliieal notices are collected in Le Long, Bibl. s., II.; J. F. Mayer, Bibl. biblica, L. 1709, continued by C. Arndt, Host. 1713, uncompleted : A. Calmet, Dictionaire de la Bible (P. 1722 flf., and freq.) ; in the Appendix . under the title Bibliotheque biblique, also in Latin (German by Glockuer, L. 1751 ff., 4 vols.. Vol. IV.) ; J. F. Buddeus, Isagoge in theoloqiam (1729), d'z,7^",'" ' ^- Scliw»"^el, BibUoth. exeg., Frankf. 1734 ; M. Lilienthal, Bibhsch exegetische Bibliuthck, Kdn. 1740 ; idem, Biblischer ArcMvarius der h. S., Koii. 1745 f., 2 vols., 4° ; J. J. C. Freiesleben, Prodromus hist. lit. SS. imprimis N T. mterpretum, L. 1758 ; J. G. Walch, Bibliotheca theol. selecta, IV. (l/6o), and m many more general bibliographical works, especially Grdsse s LiteraturgescL, II. 1072 if., III. 243 &., V. 455 If. Catalogues of the works specially belonging under this head may be found in J. F. Mayer, I. c, pp. 1-46 ; Pfaif, Hist, theol. lit., I. 140 ff. ; Rosenmiiller, Haiidb., I. 37 S. 502. Nevertheless Christian exegesis is as old as Christianity itself. _ For although there was no methodical study of the apostolic writings, learned Christians occupied themselves in the theological exposition of the Old Testament, the only col- lection of sacred books at that time generally accredited. They had in this the example of the Apostles, who had shown how in the sacred records of the earlier revelations of God the prophecy and confirmation of the later might be found. The exegetical argumentation was naturally carried on under the same principles and in the same way which had been followed in the schools of the Rabbins and in the instruction of the people^ in the synagogues. The first Christians had their exegesis, as they did their Scriptures, in common with the Jews. J. C. B. Dopke, Hermeneutik der neutest. Schriftsteller, L. 1829 ; A. T. Hartmaim, Die Verbindung des A. T. mit dem N., Hamb. 1831, pp. 425-699 ; Redepenning, Comm. in vatic, mess., Pt. III., 1845. Cf. above, § 281 ff. 503. But exegesis was not everywhere uniform in its ten- dency among the Jews. In Palestine, except in so far as it was _ used to supplement legal provisions, it served chiefly to gratify that vehement longing with which minds were turning to the future, and hence had taken on a peculiar divinatory 528 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. character. It traced in the text of Scripture, as it were in a Lieroo-lypb of many significations, signs of the great future, and thus formed the unsteady, unsubstantial bridge which bound too-ether the remembrances and the expectations of the people over the present abyss of despair and torpor. Examples (though not from contemporary sources) in the Targums, in the Talmud, and in numberless writings of the Rabbins. Ancient examples of Jewish exposition for eschatological purposes : Mt. ii. 5 ; xvii. 10 ; xxii. 42 ; Jn. vii. 27, 42, cf. i. 46, etc. Distinction of the verbal signification ^W^ (the body, SDI^), from the hidden meaning, IID, Tiai, HW^l (the soul, Snau;3). Hence the ex- pressions tI7~n^5 for a mystic commentary, ^ti:7"n> for an exegete. (tTIl, to seek, to investigate in the Scriptures, then to treat learnedly of them, in the N. T., Cvrelv, o-uClTTjTTjj.) The cabalistic operations of Gematria (exegesis by reckoning up the numerical value of the separate letters), Temura (by sub- stitution of letters from differently arranged alphabets) , Notarikon (by the resolution of words into the initial letters of others, etc.), bear about the same relation to Scripture that magic does to Nature. The high antiquity of such proceedings cannot be denied in view of such passages as Rev. xiii. 18 (cf. Jerome and other expositors on Jer. xxv. 26 ; Targum and LXX. on Jer. li. 1), although our knowledge of them depends almost entirely upon much later facts and authorities. W. Schickard, Bechinath Happeruschim, i. e., Examen comment, rabbin, in Mosen, Tiib. 1521 ; S. Glass, Philolog. s., p. 57, ed. Bauer ; Ph. D'Acquin, Veterum rahhinorum in exponendo Pentateucho modi tredecim (Crenius, 0pp., IV.) ; Is. Pels, De allegoriis talmudico-rabbinicis, Frankf. 1707 ; A. J. v. d. Hardt, De Judceorum statuto sensum S. injiectendi, Helmst. 1728 ; idem, De sophismatibus Judceorum in probandis suis const itutionibus, Helmst. 1728 ; idem, De Midrasch symbolica commentandi ratione, Helmst. 1729 ; Eisen- menger, Entdecktes Judenthum, I. 453-493 ; Wiiliner, Antiqq. kebr., 1. 341— 530 ; E. A. Frommann, De erroribus qui in interpr. V. T. a Judceis manarunt, Cob. 1763 ; letters on exegesis, in Eichhorn's Bibl.,Y. 203 ff.; H. S. Hirsch- feld, Der Geist der talmudischen Auslegung der Bibel, Berl. 1840, 2 vols. ; Dopke, I. c, p. 88 ff., 104 ff. ; B. Welte, Geist und Werth der altrabbinischen Schriftauslegung {Tub. Quartalschr., 1842, I.). Cf. also the literature under §539. 504. Very different, especially in aim, was exegesis among the Hellenists, particularly at Alexandria. If in the mother- land the letter of the law had become ossified in the life of the people, here the attempt of the schools was to volatilize it and resolve it into a form altogether new and foreign. Greek philosophy, and the most ingenious form of it, least of all akin to the positive, intelligently ethical tendency of Hebraism, was to be naturalized in it, and a new exegetical art, that of turning history into parable and transforming the dry Levitical Law into blooming metaphysics, was necessary in order to adjust the heaven-wide difference, and to conceal the already inwardly complete apostasy. This art itself, how- ever, like the philosophy to which it was subservient, was an exotic. EABBINS — ALEXANDRIANS — APOSTLES. 529 Definition of the idea of allegorical exposition as "an interpretation whereby, without sufficient reason, an expression is treated as figurative, and consequently improperly explained ; " Klausen, Hermeneutik, p. 87. Allegorical interpretation of Greek poets by Plato (Repuh., II., p. 377, etc.), the Stoics, especially Clirysippus (Cicero, De Nat. Deorum, I. 15 ; II. 24 f.), the Neo-Platonists, especially Porphyry. Cf. Pseudo-Clement, Homil., VI., Recogn., X. 30 fip.; Eichhorn m his BiUiothek, V. 222 f.; Creuzer, Symbolik, I., ch. vi. Allegorical mterpretation of the Scriptures among the Alexandrian Jews with an apologetic aim, in support of Hebrew ideas and institutions against the Greeks, but much more in support of neological speculation against the traditional Levitical-realistic Judaism. So Aristobulus, c. 175 B. c. (Eich- horn, I. c, V. 253 if. ; L. C. Valckenaer, De Aristohulo Judceo, Leyd. 1806), the Therapeutse (Philo, De vita contempl., ch. iii., x.), and above all Philo, the contemporary of Jesus. (0pp., ed. Mangey, Lond. 1742, 2 vols., fol. ; ed. Pfeiffer, Str. and Erl. 1785 if. incomplete ; ed. Richter, L.1828, 8 vols., 12°; cf . H. Planck, De princip'ds et causis interpretationis philoniance allegoricce, Gott. 1806 ; C. G. L. Grossmann, De theologies Philonis fontihus et auctoritate, L. 1829 ; F. J. Biet, Quid in interpr. S. S. alleg. Philo a grcecis sumpserit, St. Cloud, 1854 ; and in general the histories of the Alexandrian religious philosophy by Diilme (1834), Gfrorer (1831), and others.) — Distinction of Jj/i/X'"**^ ^^^^ v^^fJ^^aTLKol, exoteric and esoteric teaching ; ?j ptjttj SnjyTjcris, q rpoiriKi], (TvfxfioXiKr], r] Si vnovoLwv, 6ia aviJ.I36\oov, etc. Cf. in general H. Olshausen, Ueher tiefern Schriftsinn, 1824, pp. 16-44 ; De lis qui ante Philonem S. S. allegorice interpretati sunt, Reg. 1814 ; J. B. Carp- zov, in liis Commentary on Romans and Hebrews ; Z. Eranlcel, Ueher paldst. und alex. Schriftforschung, Br. 1854. It is not to be understood from this presentation of the matter that the two methods jnst described were always strictly separated by geographical lines. On the contrary, in consequence of the flourishing commercial rela- tions between the nations, there was early an interchange of ideas, and in particular the new foreign element soon began to exert its seductive power upon Hebraism, and rendered the more service to the theosophic tendencies of the Aramfean Jews from the fact that their fathers had already made use of the same means for different purposes. Similar, but wholly independent studies among Mohammedan theoso- phists. 505. In both directions the Apostles were the pupils of their centuiy. They had in common with the one tendency the principal subject of their exegetical endeavors, tlie doctrine of the Messianic salvation and kingdom, from the other they often borrowed its method. Their standpoint, however, was differ- ent, inasmuch as, being in possession of new and more com- plete revelations, their aim now was to trace them back and find them again in the ancient prophets. Their predecessors had worked out by means of their exegesis an unknown great- ness ; their attempt was to prove this working out by the help of the solution of the great problem already obtained in another way. The former, with difficulty and misgiving, had fashioned the clearness of the futui'e out of the obscurities of the past ; they, with ease and certainty, saw the Old Covenant in the mirror of the New, and as its prototvpe. 34 530 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. The Apostles were moreover perfectly conscious of this more advantageous staiulpoiiit ; Lk. xxiv. C-8 ; Ju. ii. 17, 22 ; xii. IG ; xx. 9 ; especially 2 Cor. iii. 13 a. It is certain that the Apostles, especially the Palestinians, frequently and effectively used the Jewish literal exegesis in support of the Messianic theol- ogy, and there is no doubt that by their oirais irXripaiey direct prophecies are meant ; although the irrelevancy of the connection, a capital defect in the Rabbinical exegesis, and an indisputable fact in the apostolic, has led moderns to diiferent views of its purpose. Cf. Mt. ii. 15, 18 ; iii. 3 ; iv. 15 ; viii. 17 ; xxi. 5 ; xxvii. 35 ; Acts i. 20, and many otheis. Such dogmatic explanations are even attached to single words, Mt. ii. 23 ; Heb. ii. 13. That we are not here to tliiuk of a theoretically recognized double sense, or of any of the typologizing significations at present in favor, is shown incontestibly by such passages as 1 Cor. ix. 9 ; Acts ii. 29 ; xiii. 30 ; Gal. iii. 16, and the quotations in Heb. i. But beside this simpler exposition there is also to be found in the Apostles a higher, reminding one of the Alexandrian. The fundamental thought of it is the idea of typology (tuttos, Rom. v. 14 ; irapapuA^, Heb. ix. 9 ; (tkio, twv u.iKK6vrciiv opposed to awfxa (Xpiarov, the real, the intended, the final), Col. ii. 17 ; Heb. viii. 5 ; fj.vaTT]piov, Eph. v. 32 ; ■jrveviJ.aTiKws, Rev. xi. 8), and Te\ei6Tris is made to consist in the understanding of it, Heb. v. 14 ; vi. 1 ; cf . 1 Cor. ii. and iii. Further examples, Jn. i. 29 ; iii. 14 ; vi. 48 ff. ; 1 Cor. V. 7 ; X. 4 ; Eph. v. 30 ; Mt. xii. 40 ; Heb. iv. 7, 9. In the same way may also be explained passages like Jn. xix. 37, Acts xiii. 47, and others, and in general all references to O. T. events. 'AA\r]yopia, Gal. iv. 24, may also be placed under this head, unless one prefeis to regard it as referring to a purely spiritualizing (Philonic-Origenistic) treatment of history. Cf. Kbstlin, in the Tub. Jahrb., 1851, II. 154 S. In many passages tliis manner of applying Scripture seems to be inter- woven unconsciously with the Christian linguistic usage ; Acts vii. 51; Rom. ii. 29 ; xii. 1 ; 1 Cor. v. 8 ; 1 Pet. i. 2 ; 1 Jn. ii. 27. Here belongs also the symbolism of names in the Apocalypse, ii. 14, 20 ; xvii. 5. Cf . Bleek, Ueier die dogmatische Benutzung alttestamentlicher Ausspriiche im iV. T. (Studien und Kritiken, 1835, II. 441 tt'.) ; idem, m his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, II. 94 ff. ; De Wette, Ueher die syviholisch typische Lehrart im Br. an die Hebrder (^Berliner theol. Zeitschr., III. 1 ff.); Tholuck, Das A. T. im Neuen, an appendix to his commentary on the same Epistle ; R. Stier, Beitrdge zur hibl. Theol., p. 452 ff. For polemic literature see below, § 584 ff. G. Rope, De V. T. locorum allegatione in apostolorum lihris, Halle, 1827 ; R. Nagel, Char, der Auffassung des A. T. im Neuen, Halle, 1850. From the Christian standpoint, and in view of their respective objects, purposes, and methods of procedure, the superiority of the apostolic her- meneutics to the Jewish, especially the Alexandrian, cannot be disputed. Nor, as soon as Christianity and Judaism are recognized as different stages of development of the same revelation, can there be any debate as to the justness of its fundamental principle, although there may doubtless be difference of opinion as to the limits of its application and the degree to which the Apostles were conscious of the grounds of their exposition. With reference to the latter point, it is very clear that in the Pauline school the necessity was felt of doing away with the Law as a wall of separation (Eph. ii. 14), a task related to the Alexandrian. C. Buob, in the Strassb, Revue, II. 103 ; E. Scherer, ibidem, IX. 65 ; Diestel, p. 41 ff. No definite consciousness of the diversity of the two methods can be pointed out in the N. T. On the contrary, such assertions as Acts iii. 24, Jn. V. 46, Lk. xxiv. 27, 44, imply the complete coordination or interchange of the two. APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 531 Cf. in general Hist, de la TTicol Chre't., I. 293 ff., II. 110 if. (3cl ed., I. 408 ; II. 85.) If in the course of this history somewhat less attention is paid to the O. T., this is chiefly because the relation of Chi-istian science to it really affects but a single doctrine. 506. At first the Christians did not go beyond the point of view of their inspired teachers. Indeed, as they were inferior to them in general intellectually, so they did not even rise to a clear and worthy conception of the connection of the divine revelations. It is not so much to be attributed to want of acquaintance with the language and history that the Christian exposition of the Old Testament became chiefly a straining after types, as insipid as it was insatiable, as it is to the enticing ease of this study, as soon as, subjected to no scientific rules, it has become mere ingenuity. Moreover, it rendered very good service in the controversy with Judaism, as well as in silencing the various opponents of the Old Testament, and yielded the richest spoil for purposes of edification. These ruling interests excluded all other treatment of these books. Indeed this method must be acknowledged to be scientiiically consistent, if the identity (not merely the analogy) of all revelatiou is asserted ; from which assertion there follows further the complete passivity of the prophets, their own non-understanding of their prophecies, the necessity of a confir- mation of the Gospel history by the O. T., the complete resolution of the latter into types ((Tvfj.0o\a) or moral allegories (jrapaPoAal), and the need of a peculiar and higher illumination of the expositor. Illustrations and examples in Barnabas (§ 234), Clement (§ 235), but especially in Justin Martyr (f 1G7), who may be regarded as the theorist of these preparatory epochs. {0pp., ed. Bened., P. 1742, fob; ed. J. C. T. Otto, Jena, 1842 If., 3 vols. 8°.) See especially Dial. c. Tryph., chs. xlii., Ixviii., xcii., pp. 2G1, 294, 319. — Ch. cxix., p. 346 : It would be impossible to understand the Scriptures d fj,^ de\7]iJ.aTi tov 9eov iXaiiofxev x"P"' ''"''" vorjcrai. Cohort, ad gent., ch. viii. : Prophecy is a gift of God, not a thing of human endeavor ; the mind remains passive over against tt? tov delov irvevtxaTos evepyeia, V avrh rb Oilov e'l ovpavov Karibv irXTJKTpov llxrir^p opydvca KiOdpas Tivds ^ \vpas roTs SiKaiois avSpdai xpw^evoi' t^V t