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.Tro<TT6kois iis npfcrfivTepia) eK/cATjtrtcts, 
 where the author is obviously speaking of the Apostles not as writers but as 
 a particular body of disciples who had authoritatively founded the Church. 
 Cf. also ch. ix. But especially ch. viii. : i]Kovad rivo>v 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- 
 v<i)(XK€Tai /xe'xpiJ eyxi^pe7. See Gieseler, Entstehung der Evv., p. 142 if. Inspira- 
 tion of the Septuagint (Apol. I., 61). 
 
 Epistle to Diognetus, c. 135 A. d. (usually placed with the works of Justin (in 
 favor of which, after the example of several, though not without opposition, 
 Otto, De ep. ad Diogn., Jena, 1845), also in Patrum apost. opp., ed. Hefele, 
 1842), quotes, in ch. 12, a passage from the Epistles to the Corinthians, and 
 in ch. 11 finds the ideal of the church where (j)Sl3os vofiov aSerat, koI ■Kpo<l)-nj6ov 
 X«pis yivcitTKeTut, Kal evayye\iujy ttIcttls 'ISpvrai, koI aTToaroXoiv irapaSoais ^uAacrtreTai, 
 in which certainly it is not the Epistles but tradition that is placed by the 
 side of the written Gospels. Moreover, precisely these chapters are regarded 
 by criticism as a later interpolation. In tlie genuine portions (chs. 5, 6, 9), 
 there are echoes of apostolic words and thoughts (Paul, John, the Sermon 
 on the Mount), but no quotations. Cf. also Quartalschr., 1825, p. 444 ; C. 
 D. a Grossheim, De ep. ad Diogn., L. 1828 ; G. I. Snoeck, Introd. in ep. ad 
 Diogn., Leyd. 1861. 
 
 In Hernias (§ 275) traces of reading of the Synoptic Gospels, Paul, and 
 
300 HISTORY OF THE CANON. 
 
 1 Peter. The sicut scriptum est occurs only with reference to an apocryphal 
 writing. (I. vision 2, ch. 3.) 
 
 Hegesippiis, about 160, brings the Gospel of the Hebrews to Rome, ap- 
 parently without offense and with the consciousness of full community of 
 faith, which was therefore at all events independent of an official canon, and 
 appeals in general (Euseb., IV. 22) to the Law, the Prophets, and the Lord, 
 not to apostolic writings. Cf. the following section. Schulthess, Symh. crit., 
 I. ; Schwegler, Nachap. Zeitalter,!. 343 ; Weizsiicker, in Herzog's Encykl.; 
 T. Jess, in the Zeitschr. fUr hist. TheoL, 18C5, I. 
 
 Melito of Sardis (c. IGO) instructed himself and his brother Onesimus by 
 the study of the Old Testament and Christological extracts made therefrom. 
 On the New Testament Eusebius (H. E., IV. 2G) appears to have found 
 nothing in his works except a writing on the Apocalypse of John, which was 
 thus the first apostolic book made by a Catholic the subject of Christian 
 discussion. — In his catalogue of the books of the Old Testament Esther is 
 lacking and Nehemiah is included with Ezra ; the Minor Prophets stand in 
 the midst of the Major. Cf. F. Piper, Melito {Studien, 1838, I. 54 ff.) ; 
 Corpus apologetarum, ed. Otto, IX. 374 ft'., 439. 
 
 A fragment of his contemporary, Claudius Apollinaris of Hierapolis, has 
 been preserved {Chron. pasch., p. 13, ed. Dindorf), in which, by appeal to 
 gospel writings (John) the view is maintained, against those who held to the 
 Synoptic account, that Jesus did not keep the Jewish Passover before his 
 death. 
 
 Dionysius of Corinth (c. 170) informs the Romans (Euseb., H. E., IV. 23) 
 that at Corinth the epistles of Clement and Soter, their bishops, were read 
 to his church on Sunday. Therefore no doubt those of Paul also ? He 
 complains of the corruption of his writings, and consoles himself by the fact 
 that it had fared no better with the KvpiaKoi ypa^aX (the Gospels ?) though 
 
 TOlaVTM. 
 
 Athenagoras (f 177) appeals for evidence of the truth of the Gospel to 
 the Old Testament, quotes once {De resurrec, ch. 18, 0pp., Oxf. 1682, ed. 
 Otto, 1857) the First Epistle to the Corinthians, and in his Apology some 
 sentences from the Sermon on the Mount. Reminiscences from Romans, 
 Galatians, 1 Timothy {Legat., chs. 13, 16, 37) ; also apocryphal words of 
 Jesus (ibidem, ch. 32). 
 
 The most frequent allusions, and giving evidence of a greater number of 
 writings, are contained in the letter of the churches of Vienne and Lyons 
 (of the year 177, in Eusebius, H. E., V. 1) : Epistles to the Romans, Philip- 
 pians, both to Timothy, First of Peter, Acts of the Apostles, Gospel of John 
 (6 Kvpios) and Apocalypse, which last is expressly quoted as ypatpij. May not 
 Irenieus, the famous bishop of Lyons, have written this ? — Cf . also the 
 Martyrium Polycarpi, printed \vith the Apostolic Fathers, and Eusebius, H, 
 E., IV. 15. 
 
 295. As soon as the first impulse had been given, men 
 learned to recognize the value of these memorials for Christian 
 knowledge and Christian life more and more fully, and to prize 
 them more and more highly. In particular, the necessity of 
 finding new and stouter weapons against heresy led theolo- 
 gians more and more to the study of the doctrinal writings of 
 the Apostles. Long since, too, custom and the wrangling of 
 schools had brought their minds down and out of tliat unaf- 
 fected enthusiasm which had once given them so much power 
 in themselves. The intoxication of overstrained hopes had de- 
 parted amid the pressure of an earnest and often gU)omy presen 1, 
 
COORDINATION OF APOSTOLIC WRITINGS WITH O. T. 301 
 
 and those whose ardor was not wholly chilled by the awaken- 
 ing to sober reality were glad to refresh themselves by return- 
 ing in thought to a happier time, which its increasing distance 
 painted in colors ever more splendid. The farther the heavenly 
 Jerusalem receded before the longing eyes of the Church, the 
 more glorious to its remembrance became the earthly and 
 whatever had once proceeded from it. 
 
 Hegesippus, in Eusebius, H. E., III. 32: /xexpi roSv rare xp^"^" TrapOivos Ka- 
 Oapa ffjLdv^v Tj iKKKricria . . . ds 5' 6 iephs twv awoa-ToKiiiv X'^P"^ elA?7<pci rov ^iov 
 TeAoj- . . . TTiviKavTa t^s a,9eov irAaj'Tjy tV apxVf i^dixl3avev r] (TvcTTacns 5ia rrjs tQv 
 erepoSiSaaKaXcvv ciTraTTjs, k. t. A. Admitting" the facts to be as here represented, 
 — and even this can be done only with limitations, — the causal relation of 
 them is based upon a mistake very easily corrected from the New Testa- 
 ment itself, but which must naturally have contributed to this transforma- 
 tion of theological methods (cf. Jess, I. c, p. 60 ft".). 
 
 And when in the consciousness of believers the Apostles had once gained 
 a place by the side of the Prophets as bearers of the Spirit, it was but a step 
 farther to ascribe to their writings a similar authority (Landerer, in Her- 
 zog's Encykl., VII. 273 f.). Only the glory which soon surrounded both 
 the men and the books was not always the retiection of the light shed by the 
 latter, but mostly that of the once clear but now obscure twilight of tra- 
 dition. 
 
 But beside this there came also, called forth by the reaction against the 
 practice of the Gnostics (§ 292), a stricter adherence to tradition, appealing, 
 to be sure, to the Apostles as the original authorities, but not exclusively 
 and directly to their wi-itings for its own authentication ; cf. § 51-5. But 
 these latter must, in the course of time, have been placed higher and higher 
 by discerning minds, as they were distinguished more and more clearly in 
 spirit, contents, and form, from the later literature. 
 
 296. It is furthermore to be expressly noted that the Church, 
 went to work in this portion of its dogmatic development in 
 such a manner that the apostolic writings were placed higher and 
 higher in authority and dignit}^, until they at last came to be on 
 a level with those of the Old Testament. But this very move- 
 ment may be recognized as in a twofold respect the result of 
 the final formation of a Catholic Church, uniting in peace 
 Jewish and Gentile Christians. For, in order that this might 
 take place, not only must the living consciousness of the op- 
 position between letter and spirit in general first be obscured, 
 but also, in particular, the revelation of the Old Covenant 
 must be regarded as formally complete and authoritative, 
 which Paul and his contemporaries had denied. 
 
 According to the common conception, advocated especially by the Prot- 
 estant theology, but running counter to all history, we must think the re- 
 verse, that if any exertion was necessary to attain the end, it must have been 
 to maintain the Old Testament on a level with the New, which from the first 
 had absolute authority. But even the antinomian Gnosis never contended 
 in the name and in favor of a canon of the New Testament Scriptures. Tlie 
 Gospel was doubtless from the beginning placed above the Law, and Christ 
 above Moses, but not the written preaching of the former above written 
 
302 HISTORY OF THE CANON. 
 
 prophecy. TertuU., De pudic, cli. xii. : Nos in apostohs quoque veieris legis 
 fqrmam salutamus. 
 
 The other important element in this development — the recognition by 
 each of the two old parties of the writings of those Apostles who were pre- 
 ferred by the other — was then easily accomplished as the natural conse- 
 quence of the foregoing. Refusal to enter into this union was a sign of heresy. 
 Of a formal agreement to this effect, however (Augusti, Handh. d. ArchdoL, 
 II. 177), there is nowhere anything said. 
 
 297. This advance in the religious consciousness, by which 
 the first Apostles were placed upon a level with the prophets, 
 and their writings came to be regarded as products of a special 
 inspiration, bestowed upon them alone, was completed toward 
 the end of the second century. The earliest trace of such a 
 coordination of the two classes of books and at the same time 
 of an actual collection of apostolic writings is found in the so- 
 called Second Epistle of Peter. Among the ecclesiastical 
 writers, Theophilus of Antioch, and after him Irenseus, Ter- 
 tuUian, and Clement of Alexandria, may be regarded as the 
 first and best known representatives of this new tendency, 
 provided it be well understood that always and everywhere 
 Scripture and tradition, regarded as equally authentic and thor- 
 oughly harmonious witnesses, constitute the common source of 
 knowledge and rule of doctrine. 
 
 2 Pet. iii. 15 : HavAos . . . eypa\pev v/xiv, ais Koi iv traffais toas iTricrroXais . . • 
 ev ais iffTi Svavo7]Td TLva & ol a/j.a6e^s crTpel3\ovcnp iis koI ray Xoinas ypaiias. ... A 
 quotation which is all the more noteworthy here because it is only true in 
 this abstract general sense. 
 
 Theophilus (c. 180), Ad Autolycum (ed. Wolf, Hamb. 1724 ; ed. Otto, 
 Jena, 1861), iii. 11 ff. : coordination, in theory and argumentation, of the pro- 
 phetic and apostolic writings, S<a rh rohs -rrduTas irvfvfji.aTO(l>6povs 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 reTpdfjLop<i>ov 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 eypd<t>7](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, ypa<f>al, 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 iTTi<jToK}]U bpLoKoyovfxivriv Kara\4\oLTzeV ecrroi Se koX SevrepaV aix<pi^dWeTai yap) , 
 2 and 3 John {iaroo Se koI Sevrepav koI rpirrjf eirel ov iravres (pcurl yvricriovs eivai 
 ravras) ; these epistles are nowhere mentioned in the Greek text of Origen ; 
 James {v ^epoixevt), In Johan., Vol. XIX. 6), Jude (el irpocToirS rts, In Matth., 
 Vol. XVII. 30, and einaToAi] oAiyScrrixos /leu ireiT\r)p<uixevr) Se oiipaviov x'^P'-'^^s, 
 ibid., X. 17). The authors are brothers of Jesus, and are called Apostles 
 only in the Latin texts. 
 
 The separation of such a third, middle class was the first step toward its 
 advance into the first. 
 
 He professes everywhere to follow the ecclesiastical tradition (in his omni- 
 bus fiihil aliud probamus nisi quod ecclesia, Horn. I. in Luc). In view of this 
 declaration it may surprise us that in Horn. VII. in Jos., in his explanation 
 of the trumpets of Jericho, the Apostles, together with all twenty-seven later 
 canonized writings are represented as the stormers of the world and its 
 philosophy. The passage is no longer extant in the original, it is true, but 
 may properly be regarded as genuine, showing that then as well as now the 
 pulpit and the teacher's chair might have different standards of canonicity. 
 Cf . also Horn. XIII. in Genes. 
 
 In the O. T. he recognizes but twenty-two evSiaOriKovs filfSAovt (Eusebius, 
 VI. 25, and Selecta in Psalmos, 0pp., XI. 378, Lomniatzsch) ; in order to 
 make out the number of the Hebrew letters, while several are put together 
 under one number, of the Apocrypha only the Epistle of Jeremiah is ex- 
 pressly introduced ; Esther is placed at the end ; Maccabees reckoned as an 
 appendix, but the order in general is obviously of Greek origin. On the 
 Apocrypha in general see his Ep. ad Africanum (0pp., Vol. XVII.) , from 
 which it is clear that he also regards the books of Daniel and Esther in their 
 
316 HISTOKY OF THE CANON. 
 
 enlarged Greek recension as inspired ; nay here, as often elsewhere, he also 
 quotes Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sh-ach, and Maccabees as Oelos K6yos, Scriptura 
 (e. g., De princip., II. 1, 5 ; Cont. Celsum, III. 72 ; VIII. 50 ; Vol. VI. In 
 Joh., ch. xix. ; In Matth. tract., 'SI ; Homil. in Lev. 1; In Num. 18 ; Philocal, 
 ch. xxii., etc.). Hebrew tradition is not authoritative with him, but rather 
 the usage of the Christian Church {Ad Afric, ch. xiii. ; I. c, p. 42). 
 
 How unsettled even yet is the idea of canouicity is shown by the use 
 which Origen makes of Clement (Vol. VI., In Joh., ch. xxxvi.), Barnabas 
 {Cont. Cels., I. 63), and especially Hernias (§ 275). Even the Gospel of Peter 
 and the Acts of Paul he does not reject imconditionally [u tis irapabix^Tai, 
 Horn, in Jer. XV., 4 ; Vol. XX. In Joh., ch. xii., etc.). 
 
 312. In general no important change took place in the es- 
 tablished collection even in the course of the thh^d century. 
 The Epistle to the Hebrews, however, gradually overcame the 
 obstacles which had hitherto prevented its acceptance in the 
 Oriental Church. The Epistles of James, Peter, Jude, and 
 John, also, which thus far had been partially unknown or 
 doubted, appear to have been circulated more and more widely, 
 although the most distinguished church teachers make but 
 little use of them. With respect to the Apocalypse alone was 
 there developed a positively unfavorable sentiment, which is 
 the more surprising since this book had formerly been accepted 
 with so great approval. 
 
 In the Apostolic Constitutions the following are adduced as authorities 
 for the period after Jesus' death (II. 55) : r]fj.us ol ScvBeKa Kal rh rrjs e/cAoyrjj 
 (TKevos IlaCXos . . . (rvv 'laKw^cf tc^ rod Kupiou a5eK(pw Kal erepots o^' /xaOriTois Kal 
 rois k-KTo. SiaKovots. Regular jjublic readings are appointed, V. 19 ; VIII. 5, 
 etc., especially II. 67, from all the (canonical) books of the O. T., after 
 which are to follow al -rrpd^eis al rifxerepat . . . Kal iirL(jTo\a\ TlavKov rod crvyepyov 
 7)nwv, afterward tlie Gospels a eyii MaTdatos Kal 'la!dvyr]s irapeSwKaney vfj.1v Kal & 
 ol crvvepyol TlaiXou Trapei\7]<p6rfS Kar^Xeiipav vfj.7v AouKcls Kal MapKos. Of the other 
 books nothing is said. In VI. 16 is a warning against forged, godless writ- 
 ings : oil yap to7s 6v6p.a<ri xph vf^as irpoaex^''^ '''^'' aizoaT6\(t>v 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 {<pep6fx.ei'at) 
 are not considered at all. He quotes the Epistle to the Hebrews as Pauline 
 (Euseb., VI. 41) ; cf. P. J. Monster, De Dion. Alex, circa apoc. sententia, 
 Hafn. 1826. 
 
 Other testimonies of this period for the same Epistle, especially from 
 Egypt, are collected by Bleek, Hehr., I. 132 ff. A synodal letter from An- 
 tioch (c. 264) quotes it as Pauline without comment (Mansi, I. 1038). 
 
 Methodius, Bishop in Lycia (c. 300 ?), wrote a commentary on the Apoc- 
 alypse, fragments of which are found in Andreas Cappad. (§ 527). 
 
THE WEST. 317 
 
 313. In the West similar plienomena present themselves, 
 with an even smaller number of witnesses. The Apocalypse 
 enjoyed the respect of the majority, so far, that is, as they held 
 chiliastic views. The Epistle to the Hebrews, on the other hand, 
 Avas much more generally excluded or doubted. In general, there 
 is no lack of proof that here also the formation of the collec- 
 tion of sacred books was constantly dependent upon prevailing 
 dogmatic conceptions. This was all the more true in the Latin 
 Church, since the authority of tradition, in all things relating 
 to doctrine much more oppressive and rigorous than in the 
 Greek Church, had its effect upon the theology, and historical 
 investigation was not only more difficult but also more danger- 
 ous. 
 
 Caius, presbyter at Rome about 220, did not recognize the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews as Pauline (Euseb., VI. 20) ; Decimam quartam quce fertur ad He~ 
 brceos (licit ejus non esse ; sed et apud Romanos usque hodie quasi Pauli ap. 
 non habetur (Jerome, De viris illustr., 59). Eusebius says, however, only 
 Trapa "Paifiai&v riai. He also asserts (III. 28) that Caius accused the heretic 
 Cerinthus (§ 245) of having deceived the world Si' arroKahv\l/ewv us virb b.-KoaT6- 
 \ov fieydxov yeypa/xf^evaiv. The description of the work agrees with the Apoc- 
 alypse of John. Eusebius, however, does not appear so to have understood 
 it ; still less Theodoret, Hcer. fab., II. 3. A smiilar assertion is made of 
 unknown opponents of the Apocalypse by Dionys. Alex. (Euseb., VII. 25) 
 Cf. Liicke, Offenb. Joli., p. 307. 
 
 Hippolytus (probably Novatian bishop of Portus Romanus, or some other 
 place in the vicinity of Rome ; see Gieseler, in the Studien, 1853, IV. ; 
 [Neander, Ck. Hist., I. 681]; died e. 258 as a Catholic martyr) rejected the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews (Stephanus Gobarus, in Photius, Cod., 232) and 
 wrote a (lost) apology : 'tirhp tov Kara 'Iwavvriv eiiayy. Kal airoKaA'Li^ecos ; see 
 0pp., ed. Fabricius, 1716, fol. p. 38 ; Jerome, De viris illust., 61. He was a 
 Chiliast, but was made use of also l>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 <f)i]aavTes ; " cf . VI. 20. Even more distinctly 
 Jerome, see note 1 under § 322. 
 
 It may also be observed here that in the Diocletian persecution, for the 
 first time (apparently), the attention of the heathen authorities was directed 
 to the sacred books of the Christians as an important part of the foundation 
 of their religion and organization, and they were demanded, chiefly of the 
 clergy (among whom, doubtless, they were almost exclusively to be found). 
 (^Traditores.) Walch, Ketzergesch., Pt. IV. ; Lessing, Theol. Nacldass., p. 93 ; 
 A. Frick, De traditoribus, L. 1737. [Neander, Ch. Hist., I. 148 ff.] 
 
 314. Matters remained at this point until late in the fourth 
 century. The historian Eusebius of Csesarea could still appeal 
 to no decisive authority, least of all form for himself settled 
 views of the value of particular books, and the continual un- 
 certainty of tradition, to which alone he still appealed, was 
 communicated to his personal opinions. He attempted, so far 
 as possible, from scattered statements of individual authors of 
 earlier times, or from the usage of the churches so far as known 
 to him, to determine the degree of apostolic authority which 
 should be ascribed to each of the books accepted by the Church, 
 but his knowledge was not sufficient in all cases to attain deci- 
 sive results. Hence also modern scholars have not always been 
 able to obtain from his statements a clear idea of the state of 
 the collection at that time, in fact not even a trustworthy 
 classification of the writings regarded in one place or another 
 as apostolic. The most certain thing appears to be that, aside 
 from some differences in use of language, Eusebius agrees on 
 the whole with Origen. 
 
 Eusebius (f 340) Hist. eccL, III. 3, 31, 39, and especially 25. Cf . also VI. 
 13. High impoi'tance of his testimony because of its historic basis and ten- 
 dency. There are some contradictions in his statements, which only show 
 all the more clearly that no official decision was extant. We give below the 
 substance of the principal passages, together with additions from others in 
 brackets ; from which the following classification results : — 
 
 ^ 1. Bi0\la ofj.oXoyovfj.ei'a ( ifSidd-rjKa, avafjicplXeKTu, avavTippr)Ta, generally recog- 
 nized ; cf. Rettig, De signlf. tu>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* <t>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.<pu)vla, uSfiov re Kal twv ■Kpo(pr]Tc!>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<TT6\(iiv oupavlov e'/c/cArjo-ias, the tradi- 
 tional rule of faith. Chrysost., Horn. 58 in Genes., 0pp., IV. 566, places 
 over against the Kavuv Seias ypafrji the oheloi Koyi(7fxol. Isid. Pelus., IV. ep. 
 114, Thu Ko.v6va rrjs aA7)9eias, ras OeUs <py]ix\ ypacpas, KaTOTrTevcr(x)fj.ev. 
 
 Accordingly jSi/SAta KavoviKo., libri regulares, might properly be such as con- 
 stitute or contain the rule. 
 
 (2.) Collection or catalogue of the books containing the rule: Canon apost., 
 85, after the double catalogue : radra irepi Kav6vcov SiaTeTax^^- Amphilochius 
 (see § 320), at the close of his catalogue, vs. 319 : — 
 . . . ovTos a.\p€v5ea'raTOS 
 Kaviiv hv eiT) toiv deoTTueiiffToou 'Ypa(pwv. 
 
 Hence &i^\ia Kavovi(6fxeva or KeKavovi(Tfj.eva (J. e. napadodeuTa tricFTevQiVTa re Qeia 
 ehai, Athanas., Ep.fest., II. 38), also eVSia^Tj/ca, cf. Eusebius above, § 314. Isi- 
 dor. Pelus., Ep. I. 309: ovdev rwv evSiadriKoiv koI KeKavoviajxevcov ^i^Kioov 5e7 trpoTifiau 
 els avdyvoKTiv. Libri intra canonem conclusi, Rufin., In symbol., ch. xxxvii., p. 165, 
 Oxford edition ; Pseudo-Athan., St/nopsis S. S., II. 96 ; the Sacred Scriptures 
 have not an indefinite but a definite number of books : ovk aopiara aW' 
 upifffieva Kal KiKavovia-fifva ; in the ancient Latin translation : cej'to canone com- 
 preliensos. At all events this latter definition became the current one, and 
 by the term canon there was always expressed the idea of a combination of 
 several elements into a uniform whole, in which the dogmatic side is 
 of course presupposed. The word does not occur in this sense until after 
 Eusebius. (For m Origen it is only found at all in the translation.) 
 
 Oeder, Conject., p. 446 f.; Augusti, Handb. der ArchdoL, II. 176 ; H. 
 Planck, De signific. canonis in eccl. antiqua, in Rosenmiiller's Sijlloge, I. ; 
 Credner, Zur Geschichte des Rations, Halle, 1847, pp. 1-68 ; F. C. Baur, Ueber 
 die Bedeutung des Worts Kavwv, in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschr., 1858, I. 
 
 317. Since the custom of public readings in the churches 
 was older than this strict distinction of canonical books, and 
 the original selection of the writings to be read was not made 
 in accordance with such a distinction, its introduction threat- 
 ened to rob the churches of a means of edification which from 
 long use they had learned to love. The old reading-books 
 were therefore retained even when they were not canonical, 
 though in this case ascribing no dogmatic authority to them. 
 They formed, as it were, a second canon. Yet this finer dis- 
 tinction was naturally only a matter for the learned. The 
 common people, to whom purely scientific and dogmatic in- 
 terests were foreign, or who at least could be aroused upon 
 such matters only by means of practical and tangible formulas 
 and with the help of party passion, understood nothing of them. 
 Their judgment of the value of any book was necessarily gov- 
 erned by the degree of impression which it was able to make 
 upon them, and so must often have been wholly different from 
 that of the men of the schools. 
 
 Cf. §§ 281 f., 294 f. — BijSAta avayivoii(rK6fj.eva, SevrepoKavouiKa, libri ecclesiastici. 
 Athau., I. C, icrrl Kal erepa /3i/3Aia tovtcui' e^wdiy 'oil Ka.vovi^6fj.iva iJ.hv TeTUTroi/ieVo Se 
 21 
 
322 HISTORY OF THE CANON. 
 
 iriipa. Tuv narepcDV avayivciffKeffdai tois &pTi irpo(repxoiJ.fVois Kal jSouAoytteVois Karjixfiff- 
 6ai rhu tt)s eixrefielas \6yov. Kufin., Expos, in Symbol., ch. xxxvii. : Sciendum quod 
 et alii libri sunt qui nan canonici sed ecclesiastici a inajoribus appellati sunt . . . 
 quce omnia legi quidem in ecclesia voluerunt, non tamen proferri ad autoritatem 
 Jidei confirmandam. 
 
 Among these belong especially : — 
 
 (1.) The so-called Apocryjjha of the O. T., especially the Wisdom of Solo- 
 mon and of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Judith, Tobit (Athanasius reckons Esther 
 also here, § 320) ; but not the additions to Daniel, Ezra, Jeremiah, on which 
 see the same section. — Jerome, Prcef. ad Sal. : Sicut Judith et Tobite et 
 Maccahb. libros legit quidem ecclesia sed eos inter canonicas SS. non recipit, sic 
 et hcec duo voll. (Wisdom and Eccles.) legit ad cedijicationem plebis, sed non 
 auctorilatem dogmatum confirmandam. C£. Rufin., I. c. ; Epiphanius (§320) : 
 aZraL (Wisdom and Sirach) xpvctf^oi ixev flat koI wcpeAinoi aW' ets apiduhv prjrcSv 
 oiiK avacpepovrai, Sih ov5' iv rp t^j Sia6r)KTis kiISutoi (bookcase) averedrjaav. Cf. 
 Pseudo-Athan., Synops. SS. 
 
 (2.) The disputed Epistles, where they did not yet pass as canonical (the 
 Antilegomeua). With some, therefore, the Apocalypse also (Cyril, Catech., 
 
 IV. 3G : TO Tioiira (not generally recognized) e^ca Keicrdtc iv Sevrtpqi. Jerome, 
 on Psalm cxlix. ; Apocalypsis in ecclesiis legitur et rccipitur, neque enim inter 
 apochryphas SS. habetur sed inter ecclesiasticas). 
 
 (3.) Barnabas, Clement to the Corinthians (Euseb., III. 16, IV. 23), Her- 
 nias, and the Apostolic Constitutions (Athan., I. c; Euseb., I. c; Jerome, Cat., 
 10 ; Rufin., I.e., who adds the Judicium Petri also, and several Petrine Pseud- 
 epigrapha.) Cf. Sozomen, VII. 19, and the appropriate sections of the First 
 Book of this work. Also Acts of John, Thomas, the Clementines, etc. 
 (Pseudo-Athan., Syn. SS, : e'l ai;> 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<pal, but in Hcer., 8 (1. 19), in another enumeration, 
 as aij.<pi\eKra. The Apostolic Constitutions also appear in Hcer., 80, as B^tos 
 K6yos, in Hcer., 70, as eV afj.(pi\eKTCf> 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, <pap- 
 /xaKa TTJs ^vxvs' ft firjSfv erepo:' &ovKeff0e rriv yow kuivtjv KTr)(Taat)e, tov air6aTo\ov 
 \t£v airoaroKuv, Montf .J ras irpd^fis, to evayyeAia ; and frequently, see Suicer, 
 Thes., sub voce. 
 
 321. The agreement of so many justly honored Church 
 teachers and the power of custom finally decided forever the 
 canonicity of the sacred books. The legal confirmation of this 
 decision by the councils is of no importance for the history ex- 
 cept that the first attempt at closing the cancm in the Greek 
 Church can be connected with a definite date. This date is 
 given by the synod which convened at Laodicea about the 
 year 360 or somewhat later, which forbade the public reading 
 of any uncanonical books, and then proceeded to enumerate the 
 canonical ones, omitting the Old Testament Apocrypha and 
 the Apocalypse. True, the genuineness of this last article has 
 been disputed ; yet it is at all events the oldest record of this 
 kind, since another, differing in contents, found in the collec- 
 tion of the so-called Apostolic Canons, certainly did not possess 
 at the beginning any public and general authority. Later 
 generally current ordinances do not exist. 
 
 Cone. Laodic, Can. 59 : on oh Se? I^iwtikovs ^aXfxohs (church hymns of 
 Cliristian origin) \eye(r6ai iu rfj iKKK-qcria, ovSe aKavoviara ^ifi\lu aWa pi6va, rd, 
 KapoviKk Trjs KaivrfS /cat TraAaia? Siadr]Kris. 
 
 Can. 60 has twenty-two books of the O. T. ; Esther stands between Ruth 
 and Samuel, the Prophets last, Baruch, Lamentations, and the Epistle ex- 
 pressly with Jeremiah ; the question of the text of Daniel and Esther is 
 then decided. In the N. T. the Catholic Epistles stand before the Pauline, 
 that to the Hebrews between Thessalonians and I'imothy. 
 
 Mansi, II. 574 ; L. T. Spittler, Krit. Untersuch. des 60sten Laod. Kanons, 
 Brem. 1777 ; J. W. Bickell, m the Studien, 1830, III. ; Schrockh, Kirchen- 
 gesch., VI. 249 f. ; Credner, Gesch. des Kan., 219. [Westeott, Hist, of N. 
 T. Canon, 2d ed. p. 384 ff. (against the genuineness of the canon).] The 
 importance of the canon should not be overestimated, because it arose only 
 
LATIN CHURCH. 327 
 
 from a provincial synod. Even should it be spurious, the tone of the pre- 
 ceding would presuppose an oflicial collection. The catalogue is in complete 
 agreement with that of Cyril of Jerusalem. 
 
 Considerably richer, at the same time bearing witness to the imperf ectness 
 of criticism or to the uncertainty of tradition or theological principles, is the 
 85th Apostolic Canon : "Eo-tco v/ui/ ttSo-i K\-np^Ko7s koI AatKoh /8i/3A^a trefidcrixia koI 
 ayia rrjs fxey ttoA.. StaflrJKijs (Moses to Esther in the present order, then) 'lovSld 
 (though not in all the manuscripts), MaKica^aiuiv rpia, i&J/S, v|/oA.t., 2oAo;U. rpla, 
 irpo<prirat . . . e^aidev Se vfuy wpoaiaTOpilffdco fiavdavftu vfj,a)V tovs veovs ri)" (Tocplav 
 rod -rroAvixaOovs 'Stpdx. "Hixfrepa Se . . . (four Gospels, fourteen Epistles of 
 Paul, two of Peter, three of John, James, Jude), Vi\r\iJ.iVTos in. 5vo, koI al Sia- 
 Tayal vfj.7v to7s eTria-KS-rrois St' ifiov K\7]ij.€Vtos 4v oktw fii^Kiois irpoa-jre(pwvrifievai, &s 
 ov xph SjifiOfftiveiu iirl iravTOiv Sia tk iv avrah imkttlko.' kcCI al irpd^ns 7i)xwv tuv airocr- 
 
 322. In the same way, and only a few years later, the Latin 
 Church arrived at the final establishment of its canon. The 
 example of the Greeks, especially of Origen, had here also for 
 some time prevented the acceptance of the five disputed Cath- 
 olic Epistles, but there was soon earnest opposition only to the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews, which Avas rejected by most of the 
 Church leaders of this region of the second half of the fourth 
 century. The influence of the oriental custom also showed itself 
 with some in respect to the Old Testament Apocrypha, which 
 were regarded as books for edification only. Most of the Latin 
 Fathers, however, especially those of Africa, made little ac- 
 count of this distinction. 
 
 A smaller number of complete catalogues. Hilary of Pictavium (f 368), 
 Prolog, in Psalm., agrees with Origen (even in respect to the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews, De trinit., IV. 11), and reduces the O. T. to twenty-two books (the 
 Hebrew letters), to which Judith and Tobit are added in order to represent 
 the full number of the Greek alphabet. With Jeremiah the Epistle is ex- 
 pressly included. He quotes Wisdom and Sirach also as prophets, but 
 never the five disputed Catholic Epistles. 
 
 Philastrius of Brixen (f 387), De hceres., ch. 88 : Statutum est ah apostolis 
 et eorum successoribus nan aliud legi in ecclesia debere catholica nisi legem et 
 prophetas, et evangelia et actus app. et Pauli XIII. epp. et VII. alias qiice acti- 
 bus app. conjunctce sunt. Yet in ch. 60 he accounts as a heretic him who re- 
 jects the Apocalypse, and in ch. 89 him who rejects the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews. Evidently notes patched together from various sources. The 
 Apocrypha of the O. T. are also here and there quoted as genuine prophetic 
 books, after the custom of the West. 
 
 Rufuius, Presbyter at Aquileia (f 410), Expos, in Symbol., ch. 37 : Secun- 
 dum majorum traditionem per ipsum Sp. S. inspirata creduntur . . . (the 
 Hebrew canon) . . . in his concluserunt numerum lihr. V. T. Novi vero (all 
 twenty-seven books). Hcec sunt quce Patres intra canonem concluserunt et ex 
 quibus Jidei nostne assertiones constare voluerunt. Sciendum, etc. ; see § 317. 
 
 The very wide-spread aversion of the Latins to the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 is often mentioned by Jerome (§ 323), see In Isa., iii. 6 : latina consuetudo 
 non recipit ; In Matth., xxvi.: multi latini dubiiant, etc. For a series of writers 
 of the second half of the fourth century, of whom only a few ascribed the 
 Epistle to the Apostle (beside the above also Ambrose), see Bleek, Hebr., I. 
 183 ff. The famous commentary on the Pauline Epistles by Hilarius Dia- 
 conus (Ambrosiaster, § 519) did not take it up. 
 
828 HISTORY OF THE CANON. 
 
 What Jerome, Catal., 4 and 18, says of current doubts (a plerisque) re- 
 specting 2 and 3 John and Jude, doubtless refers rather to the Greeks. 
 
 323. The decisive result was brought about in the West by 
 the two greatest lights of that division of the Church, the 
 learned Jerome and the talented Augustine, both of whom, 
 however, lacked a proper call to this particuUir work. The 
 former brought to the criticism of the canon no courage, the 
 latter no learning, and neither of them either principles or in- 
 dependence. The first, belonging to both Churches alike, ex- 
 tricated himself by commending to each the custom of the 
 other, while the second was constrained to conceal his weakness 
 behind the authority of a one-sidedly accepted tradition, where- 
 by the very validity of Scripture itself was endangered. In 
 consequence of so unscientific treatment there not only arose a 
 canon richer than that of the East, but — a very characteristic 
 point — a double one, the authors being equally orthodox, 
 about which, after all decisions, there might still be dispute. 
 
 Jerome, Ep. ad Paulln. (0pp., Frankf. III. 5, and all the older Latin 
 Bibles), enumerates the books of the O. T. in the following order : Penta- 
 teuch, Job, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Prophets, Minor and Major, 
 David, Solomon, Esther, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah. — Prolog, galeat. in 
 Reges : twenty-two Hebrew letters and five finals, corresponding to twenty- 
 two books of the O. T., of which five are doubled (Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, 
 Ezra, Jeremiah) ; the enumeration in many respects different, mostly in the 
 Hebrew order, but Job before Psalms, Ruth with Judges ; the books of Solo- 
 mon together ; Ezra and Esther last of all. . . . Itaque Sap. Sal. et Jesufil. 
 Sirach et Judith et Tobias et Pastor non sunt in canone. Cf . his Prcef. in libr. 
 Sal. (§ 317). Prcef. in Toh. : Lihrum Toh. Hebrcei de catalago div. S. S. 
 secantes . . . sed melius esse judico Pharisceorum displicere judirio et episco- 
 porum jussionibus deservire. 
 
 For the N. T. cf ., beside De viris illus., ch. i.-ix., Ep. ad Paulln., p. 7 : 
 Tangam et novum breviter Testamentum. Mattlueus, Marcus, Lucas, p.t Joannes 
 quadriga Domini et verum cherubim. (Cf. Prcef. in Evv., Ad Damas., and 
 Prooem. in Matth.). . . . Paulus ap. ad VII. ecclesias scribit, octavo enim ad 
 Hebrceos a plerisque extra numerum ponitur (non ejus creditur propter styli ser- 
 monisque dissonantiam, Catal., ch. v. ; it is nevertheless explained by a trans- 
 lation from the Hebrew: hceretici integrum repudiarunt, Procem. in Tit.); 
 Timotheum instruit ac Titum, Philemonem pro famulo deprecatur. . . . Actus 
 App. (quorum) . . . scriptor Lucas medicus . . . Jacobus, Petrus, Joannes, 
 Judas apostoli VII. epp. ediderunt (Jacobi ep. ab alio quodam sub nomine ejus 
 editur asseritur licet paulatim tempore procedente obtinuerit autoritatem, Catal. 
 ii. ; Petri secunda a plerisque ejus negatur propter styli cum priore dissonan- 
 tiam, Catal. i. ; ex quo intelligimus pro necessitate rerum diversis eum usum esse 
 interpretibus, Ep. ad Hedib., ch. xi. Joannes scripsit unam epistolam . . . re- 
 liquce dure Joannis Presbyteri asseruntur, Catal. ix., xviii. Judas . . . autori- 
 tatem vetustate et usu meruit, Catal. iv.). . . . Apocalypsis Joannis tot habet 
 sacramenta quot verba. . . . 
 
 Ep. ad Dardan. (III. 46) : Illud nostris (latinis) dicendum est hanc ep. quce 
 inscribitur ad Hebrceos non solum ab eccl. Orientis sed ab omnibus retro eccles. 
 grceci sermonis scriptoribus quasi Pauli ap. suscipi, licet plerique eam vel Barna- 
 bce vel dementis arbitrentur, et nihil interesse cujus sit cum ecclesia^tici viri sit et 
 quotidie ecclesiarum lectione celebretur. Quod si eam latinorum consuctudo non 
 
COUNCILS OF HIPPO AND CARTHAGE. 329 
 
 recipit inter scripLuras can. nee grcBcorum ecclesice Apocalypsin Joan, eadem 
 libertate suscipiunt, et tamen nos utraque suscipimus nequaquam huj'us temporis 
 consuetudinem sed vett. scriptorum autoritatem sequentes . . . yet without full 
 conviction apparently, cf. Comm. in Tit., i., ii. ; In Ephes.,n.', In Ez., xxviii., 
 etc. : si quis imlt recipere, or : sive Pauli sive alterius esse putas, etc. ; In 
 Amos, viii., quicunque est ille qui scripsit. . . . In Jerem., xxxi., etc. 
 
 Since the often mentioned plerique cannot possibly mean so many lost 
 writers, it is much more natural to assume that in the time of Jerome many 
 churches still had no complete copies, because those books which had not yet 
 become generally disseminated at the close of the second century had much 
 greater difficulty in winning their way later. 
 
 Augustine, De doct. chr., II. 8, distinguishes among the " divine " writings 
 first the properly " canonical," then others with which the reading must not 
 begin, because they require a larger exercise of judgment ; then he says : 
 Divinarum SS. indagator . . . tenehit kunc modum in SS. canonicis ut eas quce 
 ah omnibus accipiuntur ecclesiis cath. prceponat eis quas qmedam non accipiunt, 
 in eis vero quce non accipiuntur ah omnibus, prceponat eas quas plures gravi- 
 oresque accipiunt eis quas pauciores minorisque auctoritatis ecclesice tenent. Si 
 autem alias invenerit a pluribus, alias a gravioribus haheri, quamquam hoc 
 facile invenire non possit, cequalis tamen auctoritatis eas habendas puto. This 
 certainly presupposes that the canon was not closed by common agreement, 
 that its constituents had unequal value, and that this value depended not 
 upon the character and origin of the books themselves but upon their circu- 
 lation, as it happened to be greater or less ! — Then a catalogue : Quinque 
 Moyseos. . , . Paralipomenon, as a continuous history ; sunt alice tanquam ex 
 diverso ordine (Jiistorice), quce neque huic ordini neque inter se connectuntur, 
 Job, Tobias, Esther, Judith, Macch. libri duo, Esdrce duo, . . . deinde Pro- 
 phetce, in quibus David unus libr. Psalmorum et Salomonis tres . . . nam illi duo 
 libri, qui Sap. et Eccles. inscribuntur, de quadam similitudine Salomonis esse 
 dicuntur . . . qui tamen quoniam in auctoritatem recipi meruerunt inter pro- 
 pheticos numerandi sunt. Reliqui, etc., the minor and major prophets. His 
 XLI V. libris V. T. terminatur auctoritas. In the N. T. four Gospels, four- 
 teen Epistles of Paul, Hebrews last, the Epistles of Peter, John, James, 
 Jude (wanting in some editions, probably only from oversight), the Acts of 
 the Apostles, and the Apocalypse. 
 
 De peccat. merit., I. 27 : Ad Hebrceos epistola quanquam nonnidlis incerta sit 
 (magis me movet auctoritas ecclesiarum orientalium quce hanc quoque in canoni- 
 cis habent) quanta testimonia contineat advertendum. — Expos, in ep. ad Rom., 
 11 : nonnulli cam in canonem SS. recipere timuerunt. Sed quoquomodo se 
 haheat ista qucestio. . . . Beside frequent quotations of the Epistle as Pauline, 
 also undecided and ambiguous ones, Paul and the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 are introduced in De Civil. Dei, XVI. 32, as two witnesses {sic intellectum est 
 in Ep. ad Hebr.), and quoted in Adv. Julian., III. 85, Jidelis Jidei prcedicator 
 qui scripsit epistolam. 
 
 Contra Gaudent., I. 31 : Hanc Scr. quce appellatur Maccah. non habent 
 Judcei . . . sed recepta est ah ecclesia non inutiliter si sohrie legatur vel audia- 
 tur. Cf. De civit. Dei, XVII. 20, on Wisdom and Sirach, XVIII. 26 on 
 Judith, etc. 
 
 On tJerome and Augustine cf. also §§ 454, 517. On the canon of the lat- 
 ter, Clausen, August., p. 40; Schneegans, August., p. 28. 
 
 324. It was precisely the less critical view which attained 
 legal authority at several assemblies which were held in the 
 last decade of this centin-y at Hippo and Carthage, under the 
 personal leadership of Augustine. They likewise forbade the 
 public reading of uncanonical writings, except the lives of 
 
830 HISTORY OF THE CANON. 
 
 the martyrs, but included in the Old Testament all the Apoc- 
 rypha or the so-called Greek canon, and in the New the Apoc- 
 alypse and all the disputed epistles, with the proviso that the 
 confirmation of this catalogue should be obtained from Rome. 
 This was actually done some years later by Bishop Innocent, 
 and a new assembly at Carthage only needed to change an 
 equivocal expression in favor of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
 Finally there appeared a decretal ascribed to the Roman bishop 
 Gelasius, which contained a complete catalogue of all the ca- 
 nonical books and the Apocrypha ; with this all further discus- 
 sions of the canon properly ceased or at least were decided in 
 advance. 
 
 Concil. Hippon. (393 ? in Mansi, III. 924); its Acta are of doubtful genu- 
 ineness, but the portion which concerns our subject (can. 36) is repeated 
 word for word in the Concil. Carthag. III. (397, in Mansi, III. 891), can. 
 47: Ut i^rceter Scripturas canonical nihil in ecclesia legatw sub nomine divin. 
 SS. Sunt autem canonicce SS. : Genesis . . . Psalterium, Salomonis libr. V. 
 (Proph.). Tobias, Judith, Hester, Esdros libr. II., Maccab. II. Novi autem 
 Test. Evv. libr. IV., Acta app. Pauli ap. epp. XIII. Ejusdem ad Hebrceos 
 una, Petri duce, Joannis tres, Jacobi una, Judce una, Apocal. Joan, \_ita ut de 
 conjirmando isto canone transmarina ecclesia coiisulaturj. Liceat etiam legi 
 passiones, etc. (see above, § 317). 
 
 Innocent I. (Bishop of Rome, A. D. 405), Ep. ad. Exsuperium ep. Tolos. 
 (in Mansi, III. 1040) : Qui libri recipiantur in canone SS. S. hrevis adnexus 
 ostendit : Moysis libri V., Jos., Jud., Rcgg., Ruth, Prophetce . . . Salomonis 
 libri v., Psalt., Tob., Job, Esth., Judith, Maccab. libri II., Esdrce libri II., 
 Paralip. libri II. Item N. T. Evv. libr. IV., Pauli epp. XIV., Johannis 
 III., Petri II., Jacobi, Judce, Act. app. Apocahjps. Johannis. Cetera autem 
 (here he mentions pseudepigrapha of Peter, John, Andrew, Thomas, James, 
 and Matthias) non solum repudianda sed et damnanda noveris. 
 
 Concil. Carth. V., A. D. 419 (in Mansi, IV. 430), can. 29, repeats the earlier 
 catalogue with the single alteration: ^jop.PawZinMmero XI F^. . . . hoc etiam 
 fratri Bonifacio urbis Romce episcopo . . . pro conjirmando isto canone inno- 
 tescat quia et a Patribus ita accepimus in eccl. legendum. This inquiry in 
 Rome shows that no earlier decision was known, that the custom rested 
 upon no solid basis, and that they had no knowledge of the Roman usage. 
 
 Decretum Gelasii I. (c. 495) de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis (in Gra- 
 tian, Pt. I., Dist. 15, 3 ; Mansi, VIII. 146) consists, according to Credner's 
 comprehensive investigation (^Zur Gesch. des Kanons, pp. 149-290) of several 
 parts of different date, of which that referring to our present subject is 
 probably the latest. How little the decision, whether it be attributed to 
 Gelasius or be regarded as later, did away with diversities of opinion, is evi- 
 dent from the many various readings in the numerous extant manuscripts. — 
 The canon is thus divided : (1.) Ordo V. T., including the historical books, 
 Genesis to Chronicles, Psalms, three books of Solomon, Wisdom, Ecclesias- 
 ticus. But the two latter are wanting in some manuscripts. (2.) Ordo 
 prophetarum, all sixteen, the major first, the minor in varying order in all 
 the manuscripts. Jeremiah sometimes alone, sometimes with Lamentations, 
 sometimes with Baruch. (3.) Ordo historiarum, in varying order : Job, 
 Tobit, Judith, Ezra, Esther, Maccabees (sometimes but one book). (4.) 
 Ordo N. T., four Gospels, fourteen Epistles of Paul (in many manuserijits 
 but thirteen) in an order different from ours, Hebrews last ; Apocalypse of 
 the Apostle John (wanting in some codices); Acts of the Apostles (very 
 
OTHER NATIONAL CHURCHES. 331 
 
 often standing before Paul); finally epp. canonicce VII., Peter generally 
 first ; in some Joannis ep. una, alterius Joannis preshyteri epp. II. • always 
 last, Ep. Judce. Ztlotis. At tlie close (after the list of orthodox councils 
 and Fathers) an Index librorum prohibitorum (ab hcereticis s. schismaticis con- 
 scriptd), among which the Gospel of Peter, The Shepherd, Apostolic Canons, 
 Jesus and Abgar, and many writings at that time scarcely known in the 
 West, by which the decretal shows its dependence upon earlier documents. 
 
 325. Thus the Christian Canon of Scripture was fixed in the 
 two principal Churches at nearly the same time and in es- 
 sential harmony, though not without disagreement in several 
 particulars. The two Churches appear to have set about the 
 task from different points of view. The Greek canon is evi- 
 dently based upon the principle of accepting nothing which 
 had not a well-grounded right to the high preeminence of 
 divine origin and apostolic authority ; the Latin clearly ex- 
 presses the tliought of excluding nothing which had been sanc- 
 tified by custom and approved by use. The one Church was 
 eager to exclude, that it might not become too rich ; the other 
 toolc good care not to become too poor. The former sought to 
 sift the sources of doctrine, the latter to increase the sources of 
 edification ; both indeed without sufficient aids, and therefore 
 not in all respects successful in their undertaking, yet after all 
 guided generally by a tolerably correct tact, and not to be 
 either approved or condemned unqualifiedly by a more critical 
 posterity. 
 
 The abolition of the middle class, thus completed, was a necessity that 
 must certainly have been felt by the councils, if the mere reading books 
 were not finally to supplant the canonical, and the latter fail of their pur- 
 pose, face to face with religious uncertainty and confusion. 
 
 Up to the time of the Council of Trent no (Ecumenical assembly of the 
 Church ever pronounced upon the canon ; at least in respect to the Council 
 of Florence, A. d. 1441 (§ 331), there is a dispute among the Catholics them- 
 selves upon this very point (Welte, in the Tilb. Quarlalschr., 1839, p. 245), 
 and much weiglit has been laid by one party upon the fact that there was 
 given by the African councils and the subsequent pa2)al decisions not an of- 
 ficial canon of revelation, but a canon for the public readings in the churches, 
 and at Trent the latter was simply raised to the dignity of the former. J. 
 Martianay, Traite du Canon, Par. 1703. 
 
 Very significantly, Augustine (when Hilar. Arelat., Ep. August., 226, 
 charged him with having brought in testimony from the Wisdom of Solo- 
 mon, — testimonium non canonicum omittendum), De prcedest., I. ch. 27 ff. : 
 Nan debuit repudiari sententia libri Sap. qui meruit in eccl. Christi de gradu 
 lectorum (from the reader's stand) tarn, longa annositate recitari et ab omnibus 
 . . . cum veneratione divince auctoritatis audiri. 
 
 326. The other national Churches, which stood outside these 
 two great centres of Christian development, were obliged in 
 this matter, as in all others, to move according to the impulse 
 communicated to them from these centres. Gaul and Spain 
 especially were completely dependent upon Rome, and even 
 knew the Scriptures only in the translations which came from 
 
332 HISTORY OF THE CANON. 
 
 or were commended by Rome. Egypt, Etliiopia, Arabia, and 
 Armenia, on the other band, although much less closely con- 
 nected hierarchically among themselves or with the chief seats 
 of the Greek ecclesiastical power, and hence possessing their 
 own editions of the Scriptures in the vernaculars, neverthe- 
 less first received the Bible from the hands of the Greeks. 
 They generally have, therefore, in the Old Testament, the full 
 richness of the Alexandrian Canon, but in the New, so far as 
 we know, they sooner or later obtain the Apocalypse. Syria 
 also, in the fourth century, already had the usual collection, if 
 not her official canon, thus extended. 
 
 Pesliito (§§ 308, 426). O. T. in a peculiar order : Pentateuch, Job, 
 Joshua, Chi'onicles, Psahns, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Ruth, Canticles, Esther, 
 Ezra, Nehemiah, Isaiah, Minor Prophets, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, 
 Daniel. — The so-called Karkaphentian recension (§ 427) places Job after 
 Judges, the Psalms after Samuel, the writings of Solomon after the Proph- 
 ets, then the book of the women (Ruth, Esther, Judith), last Sirach, Acts, 
 Catholic and Pauline Epistles, Gospels. — The Hexapla version naturally in- 
 cludes the Apoci'ypha also. Later Syriac versions give the missing books 
 of the N. T. Eplirem (f 378) uses all the twenty-seven books of our canon 
 both in his Syriac and his Greek writings (Leugerke,''£yj^r., p. 1). The 
 printed Philoxenian version (§ 428), it is true, does not have the Apocalypse; 
 but it is from a defective manuscript. The Epistle to the Hebrews stands 
 last, without the name of Paul, which, however, is lacking in some other 
 Epistles also. — Later, see § 329. 
 
 The Ethioijic canon (as it is described for us by Ludolf, Hist, ceth., III. 4, 
 and Comment, ad eandem, p. 295) agrees in number and arrangement with 
 the LXX., and in the N. T. is the same as our present Greek canon. But 
 this arrangement cannot have been a lixed one and probably therefore had 
 come under Roman influence. The use of apocryphal writings (Enoch, 
 Esdras, Apocalypse of Isaiah, etc.), some of which are even found in manu- 
 scripts of the Bible, shows that the idea of the canon must have been long 
 unsettled. The Ethiopic Church obtained through the so-called Apostolic 
 Canons an official catalogue of the sacred books, but in several differing re- 
 censions, so that only the figures of the whole number of the books (81), but 
 not their names, were constant (A. Dillmann, in Ewald's Jahrb., V. 144 ; cf. 
 Ewald, in Lassen's Zeitschr., V. 164). These figures did not exclude a vary- 
 ing number in the O. T. and required the extension of the N. T. by the 
 eight books of the Apostolic Constitutions or Canones concil. (the so-called 
 Synodi). 
 
 The Armenian canon (according to printed editions) likewise follows the 
 LXX., but places the three books of the Maccabees with the other historical 
 books ; has some transpositions in the Prophets, places the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews before the Pastoral Epistles, and relegates Sirach, a second recen- 
 sion of Daniel, Manasseh, and 3 Corinthians, together with the account of 
 the death of Jolm, to an appendix after the N. T. 
 
 Cf . in general the appropriate sections of the Fourth Book. It may be 
 observed in passing that both in the Syrian and in the Armenian Church, in 
 the former in ancient times, in the latter in modern, an exegetical literature 
 has attached itself to the Sacred Scriptures, of which, liowever, only the 
 former has been partially known and studied in Protestant circles (§ 517), 
 while the latter has scarcely appeared at all save in catalogues of books. 
 
 327. The investigation of the canons of religious parties 
 
HEKETICAL SECTS. 333 
 
 standing more or less apart from the Catholic Church prop- 
 erly belongs to the history of doctrines rather than here. Yet 
 there is in reality but little to say, since the older sects, which 
 had arisen before the closing of the canon, gradually disap- 
 peared from the stage, and the later ones did not depart from 
 the Catholics in this point. The conti-oversies with Arians, 
 Novatians, and some others doubtless led to partisan judg- 
 ments respecting cme or another biblical book. The greatest 
 divergence was in the case of the Manicheans, who, being dual- 
 ists, were properly alien to Christianity. In their canon, how- 
 ever, the question was not so much of a selection of books as 
 of far-reaching theological principles respecting the relation of 
 Scripture and Spirit in general. 
 
 It has already been stated, in the sections referring to the subject in the 
 First Book, that the Jewish Christians in Palestine, at least until into the 
 fifth century, had their own sacred literature, the Gospel of the Hebrews, 
 Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, etc. 
 
 It is also to be remembered that the Arians (though not all, and not from 
 the first, Bleek, Hehr., I. 164 If.) denied that the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 was by Paul, and rejected it ; cf. Theodoret, In Hehr., beginning ; idem (?), 
 Dial, de trin., p. 922, Hal. Of the Goths in particular and their Arianism, 
 see, with reference to our question, Massmaun, iSkeireins, p. 65 if., and the 
 introduction to his edition of Ulfilas. It has not yet been discovered that 
 Ulfilas (§ 444) translated the Epistle to the Hebrews ; and the traces of its 
 use by the author of the Skeireins are uncertain. Yet we know that Arians 
 as well as Novatians found Scriptural proofs of their doctrines in it, § 313; 
 cf. Epiphanius, Hcer., 69 : (pvaei avT^v avaipovvres airh tov a.TroaT6\ov . . . rb Se 
 p7)Thv . . . KaKws iKSexofrat, that is by false interpretation of ch. iii. 1, 2. 
 
 On the Alogi, who rejected the Johanuean writings altogether, see Epiph., 
 Hcer., 51 (I. 424). 
 
 We can only speak of a canon among the heretics in an improper sense, 
 since as a rule they knew at the most only an apologetic use of Scripture, 
 giving to apostolic utterances a significance favoring their interests ; but not 
 an official theological one, in the sense of building their dogmatics from the 
 foundation upon a collection of sacred books. 
 
 What some (Kirchhofer, p. 508, and before him Gerhard of Maestricht, 
 l. c.) adduce as a special canon of the Nestorians is properly the beginning 
 of a Bibliotheca Syriaca (Ebedjesu, Catal. Script., ed. A. Ecchellensis, Rome, 
 1650), in which some modern Jewisli works stand between the Old and New 
 Testaments, with which latter the enumeration of the Christian literature 
 then begins. The O. T. has the canon of the LXX., although so arranged 
 that the books of Ezra, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Daniel parvus (?), and Mac- 
 cabees stand at the end. See also Asseman, Bihl. or.. III. 1, p. 5 ff. 
 
 The Manicheans rejected the O. T. altogether (cf. § 330) and only ac- 
 cepted the New as an incomplete record of history and doctrine. Princi- 
 pal source, Augustine, Contra Faustum Manich. II. XXXIII. Cf. Lardner, 
 Credibility, etc., II., p. 635 ff. ; Miinscher, Dogmengesch., III. 93; Heilmann, 
 De aucloritate II. N. T. ap. Manichceos (0pp., I. 73); F. Trechsel, Ueber den 
 Kanon, die Kritik, u. die Exegese der Manich., Bern, 1832 ; [Beausobre, Hist, 
 de Manich., I. 297 f.] ; Kirchhofer, Quellens., p. 434, and the church histo- 
 rians in general. See also Diestel, Gesch. des A. T. in der chr. Kirche, p. 
 113. 
 
 328. After the decisions of the councils no serious opposi- 
 
334: HISTORY OF THE CANON. 
 
 tiou to any part of the canonical collection could be thought 
 of, — at least nothing of the kind could have counted upon any 
 result during the whole period of the so-called Middle Age. 
 On the one hand the matter was regarded as settled ; on the 
 other the historical and critical preparatory knowledge of the 
 theologians was far too small for any of them to be able to 
 tcike up such a question. Of the doubts formerly raised 
 against particular books there remain only confused reminis- 
 cences, which soon vanish. Yet these books doubtless circu- 
 lated much more slowly, and, especially with reference to the 
 Old Testament Apocrypha, science, although so dependent 
 upon the Church, never wholly yielded her prerogative to cus- 
 tom. 
 
 Euthalius (§ 377) still brings up the old grounds of doubt against the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews in order to oppose it (in Zacagni, p. 669), and for 
 the first tiuie divided off the Catholic Epistles for the regular church read- 
 ings. 
 
 Cosmas (Z)e mundo, VII. p. 292, Montf.), c. 535 A. D., appeals boldly to 
 Ireujeus, Eusebius, Athaiiusius, the Syrian Church, and others, for support in 
 rejecting all the Catholic Epistles : Tax KaQoKmas aviKaOev tj iKicXrjcric a.fi(pt0u\- 
 Aofievas ex^' '""^ • • • oure eis ahr^v \6yov eirot7]craTo, aAA.' ol Kavoviaavr^s rets 
 evSiadeTous Pi^\ovs iravTiS dis afi(ptfi6\ovs avras edr]Kav . . . oil XPV '''^v reAeiov 
 XpLCTTLavhv SK tQv afji.(pi^. (jTTjpt^'ecrflat. Which only shows the absence of any 
 absolutely binding decision. 
 
 Leontius Byz. (c. 560), De seeds, ch. ii., has but twenty-two books m the 
 O. T., without Esther. 
 
 In the Latin Church the more frequent use of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 does not begin until after 450, Bleek, I. c, p. 320 fP. 
 
 Cassiodorus (f 562), De divin. lectt., ch. xii.-xiv., gives several catalogues, 
 two complete, with the O. T. Apocrypha, from Augustine and the LXX. 
 (from his own copy, it is doubtless to be understood), containing seventy-one 
 and seventy books (the latter luimber on account of the accidental omis- 
 sion of Ephesians), for which types are found in the O. T. ; a third one, 
 from Jerome, of forty-nine books, vpithout the Apocrypha, which ho defends 
 in similar manner, without pointing out the cause of the great difference. 
 Ch. xi. : Nunc videamus quemadmodum lex dioina tribus generihus divisionum a 
 diversis patribus fuerit intimata quam tamen veneratur et concnrditer suscipit ec- 
 clesia. Ch. xiv. : Omnia tria genera divisionum non impugnare sed invicem se 
 potius exponere videntur, which is nonsense unless one remembers that here 
 also the ecclesiastical and practical standpoint entirely displaces the theo- 
 logical. It is noteworthy tliat (ch. viii.) he had Chrysostom upon the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews translated, because there was as yet no Latin commentary 
 upon it in existence. On him see (§ 522) F. D. de Sainte-Marthe, Vie 
 de Cassiod., Par. 1695; Schrockh, XVI. 128; St'audlin, in the Kirchenhist. 
 Archiv, III.; Lorentz, in the Hall. Enq/kl., I. 21. 
 
 A wholly different division, probably from an ancient oriental (Antio- 
 chene ?) document, in Junilius, De partihus legis div., I., ch. 3-7 (m Africa, 
 c. 550): (1.) historical books ; Pentateuch to Kings, Gospels, Acts, quibus 
 adjungunt plnres : Chronicles, Job, Ezra, Judith, Esther, Maccabees ; (2.) 
 prophetic books : all sixteen, together with Psalms. Also, the Apocalypse, 
 de quo apud orient, maxime duhitatum ; (3.) lihri proverlnnles : Proverbs and 
 Sirach. Adjungunt quidam Sap. et Cant. • (4.) libri slm.jiUcis doctrince : Eccl. 
 Pauli epp. XIV., Petri I., Joh. I., quibus adjungunt quam plurimi the remain- 
 
THE MIDDLE AGES. 335 
 
 ing five epistles. At the close another division is made, into lihri perfectCB 
 auctoritatis (those from the first called canonical), libri medice auctoritatis, 
 quos adjungi dix'unus a pluribux, and lihri nullius auctoritatis, reliqui omnes, 
 according to an nnintelligible statement also Canticles and Wisdom. Cf. 
 Hoffmann, in the Hall. Encykl., II. 29. 
 
 Anastasins Sinaita, Patriarch of Antioch (f 599), holds strictly to the canon 
 of Laodicea ; sixty books, i. e. thirty-four in the O. T., without the Apocry- 
 pha, twenty-six in the N. T., without the Apocalypse. 
 
 Pope Gregory I. (f 604) excuses himself for quoting a passage from Mac- 
 cabees (il/or. in Job, Bk. xix., ch. 17) by saying that he brings forward ex 
 libris licet non canonicis sed tamen ad eccl. cedijicationem editis testimonium. 
 The book of Tobit is quoted (x. 6) as quidam Justus ; the Wisdom of Solo- 
 mon (v. 25; vi. 7; xix. 13) as quidam sapiens (yet elsewhere as Scriptura 
 and Solomon). Of Paul it is said (xxxv. 25): quamvis epp. XV. (Laodi- 
 ceans ?) scripserit sancta tamen ecclesia non amplius quam quatuordecim tenet; 
 that is to say 10 + 4, i. e. Law and Gospel ! 
 
 Isidore of Seville (f 636), De offic, I. 12, and Etym., VI. 2, also in the 
 Liber prouemiorum in V. et N. T., at the beginning, in the O. T., places the 
 Apocrypha, together with Esther, at the end (quartus ordo. . . quibus auc- 
 toribus scripti sint minirne constat) ; and in the N. T., combines without com- 
 ment the two contradictory statements of fourteen Epistles of Paul and seven 
 churches to which he Avrote. Ad Hebrceos ep. plerisque latinis incerta. — But 
 of all these books, the Apocrypha included, it is said : hi sunt scriptores ss. 
 II. qui per Sp. S. loquentes ad eruditionem nostram et prczcepta vivendi et cre~ 
 dendi regulam conscripserunt ; and in his Liber prooem., at the beginning, he 
 expressly reckons Tobit, Judith, and Maccabees among the SS. canonicce ; in 
 De offic, I. c, it is said that Wisdom is rejected by the Jews from the canon 
 on account of its testimony to Christ. He also mentions the older doubts 
 respecting the Antilegomena. 
 
 An anonymous English writer, De mirabil. SS. (0pp. August., XVI. ed. 
 Bassan), II. 32, 34, refuses to accept the mii'acles of Bel and the Dragon and 
 the Maccabees, quod in auctoritate divince Scr. non habentur. 
 
 Condi. Tolet. IV., a. d. 633 (in Mansi, X. 624), can. 17, condemns those 
 who reject the Apocalypse and will not preach upon it according to custom 
 between Easter and Pentecost; librum multorum conciliorum auctoritas et sy- 
 nodica prcesulum rom.decreta Joannis Ev. esse perscribunt et inter divinos II. re- 
 cipiendum. Probably in consequence of a Catholic reaction against the Ari- 
 anism formerly prevalent among the Western Goths, and at the same time 
 in the interest of the Latin Bible against the Gothic. 
 
 The council of Constantinople, A. D. 691 {quinisexta, i. e., making enact- 
 ments supplementary to the fifth and sixth ecumenical councils ; or Trullana, 
 from its place of meeting in the palace, see Mansi, XL 939), can. 2, confirms 
 the so-called Apostolic Canons, and, among other synodal decrees, those of 
 Laodicea and Carthage ; it does not therefore appear to have found it neces- 
 sary to go into any more accurate definition of the canon, and perhaps did 
 not even suspect that it was giving its sanction to contradictory judgments 
 respecting the Scriptures. 
 
 John of Damascus (f 754), Defide orth., IV. 17, has a peculiar division of 
 the O. T., into four pentatenchs : (1) fj vofiodeaia ; (2) toi 7po(^e»a (Joshua, 
 Judges, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles ; (3) al cnxvp^is ^i0\oi (Job, Psalms, the 
 books of Solomon) ; (4) »; irpocp-qTMr]. Besides, as an appendix, Ezra and 
 Esther. — Wisdom and Sirach evaperoi fj-ev koI Kakal a\\' om apiQuovvrai uiiSe 
 e/cejcTo iu rrj Ki^drco (see Epiphanius, §§ 317, 320). In the N. T., he has all 
 twenty-seven books and the Apostolic Canons. 
 
 The Council of Nicsea, A. d. 787, interdicts, among others, the Epistle to 
 the Laodiceans, although it is ev ncn ^t0\lois eyKetjiteVij. In other respects it 
 confirms the canons of the Condi. Trull. 
 
336 HISTORY OF THE CANON. 
 
 Charlemagne took pains to secure pure and correct manuscripts of the Bi- 
 ble ; that he caused the canon itself to be regulated is not to be assumed. 
 When the synod of Aachen, A. D. 789 (Baluzius, CapituJ. regg. franc, I. 221), 
 appealed to that of Laodicea, this signified not the exclusion of the Apocry- 
 pha and the Apocalypse, but the maintenance of the fifty-ninth canon (§ 321). 
 Pope Adrian I. had sent the king the epistle of Innocent to Exsuperius 
 (§ 324) to mforni him concerning the canon. 
 
 The stiehonietry which Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (f 828), 
 adds to his Chronography still bears witness to the tenacity of ancient views. 
 In the O. T. twenty-two books, including Baruch, but not Esther. The N. 
 T. without the Apocalypse. As Antilegomena, beside those already men- 
 tioned, Susanna, Maccabees, Odae, Solomon, Apocalypses of John and Peter, 
 Barnabas, and the Gospel of the Hebrews. Finally also a great mass of 
 proper A2:)oerypha of the Old and New Testaments, on which see § 319. 
 The same document is translated in Anastasius Bibliothecarius (f c. 886), 
 Hist. eccL, p. 101. Cf. Creduer, Ziir Gesch. des Kanons, p. 95 £f., and § 320. 
 If, as is conjectured, this portion is of ancient origin, it is all the more re- 
 markable that an orthodox church dignitary could have satisfied a later age 
 with it. 
 
 Hrabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Maycnce (f 85G), De instil, cleric, II. 
 53, 5 1, has a complete canon of seventy-two books, and mentions the ancient 
 doubts respecting the Antilegomena, all word for word from Isidore. In 
 the Prolog, ad Sap. he says of the Apoeryjiha of the O. T., with respect to 
 Jerome : Hos moderno tempore inter SS. enumerat ccclesia legitque eos sicut cet- 
 eras canonicas. 
 
 His contemporary, Haymo of Halberstadt (f 853), Hist, sacr., III. 3, still 
 finds occasion to defend the Epistle to the Hebrews, from wliich nothing 
 more can be inferred than that he had read the defense in earlier writings. 
 We pass over many catalogues in writers of this and later periods as without 
 interest for our history. 
 
 Notker Labeo of St. Gall (f 912), De viris ill., ch. iii., still says of the 
 Apocrypha, Esther, and Chronicles: Noi pro auctoritate sed tantum pro memo- 
 ria et admiratione hahentur. 
 
 The slower circulation of the books once disputed is shown also by the 
 proportionally greater rarity of copies of the Apocalypse (§ 392), by the 
 lack of stiehometry in them (§ 377), and by the frequent omission of the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews from among the Pauline Epistles (Cod. D has it by 
 a later baud, or at least is derived from an original in which it was omitted ; 
 F has it only in Latin, G not at all ; cf. § 302). The very fact that double 
 as many manuscripts exist of the Gospels as of the Pauline Epistles them- 
 selves shows that no theological idea of the canon, but practical needs, 
 shaped the Bible. 
 
 Other peculiarities in the manuscripts : Cod. A has two epistles of Clem- 
 ent in the N. T. ; Cod. Sinaiticus includes Barnabas and Hermas ; Cod. G 
 gives at the close at least the superscription (not the text) of the Epistle to 
 the Laodiceans. 
 
 A stiehometry given by Coutelier (Pair, apost., I., Prcef. ad Barn.), has 
 the following peculiar catalogue : Genesis — Chronicles, Psalms, five books 
 of Solomon, sixteen prophets, three books of Maccabees, Judith, Ezra, Esther, 
 Job, Tobit, Gospels of Matthew, John, Mark, Luke, Epistles of Paul to the 
 Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 
 Colossiaus, Philemon, 1 and 2 Peter, James, 1, 2, and 3 John, Jude, Barna- 
 bas, Apocalypse, Acts, Hermas, Acts of Paul, Apocalypse of Peter. Ex- 
 actly the same, with the omission of Chronicles, is also found in the Cod. 
 Claromontanus, ed. Tischendorf, p. 468. In this catalogue the omission of 
 Philippians and Thessalonians is doubtless only a clerical error, the desig- 
 nation of the Epistles of Peter ad Petrum the result of thoughtlessness, the 
 
MEDIEVAL TESTIMONY RESPECTING THE CANON. 337 
 
 mention of the Epistle of Barnabas before the Apocalypse and the Acts a 
 proof of African origin, inasmuch as we are donbtless to understand by it 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews (Tert., De pudlc, ch. xx.) ; the last three num- 
 bers, however, point back to a date before the end of the fourth century. 
 The canon of the ancient Cod. Amiatinus (§ 456) comes very near to that of 
 our present Bible (only somewhat differently arranged ua the O. T.); see 
 Kaulen, Gesch. d. Vulgata, p. 217. 
 
 The more strange these catalogues are, the more do they show the slight 
 theological and practical interest which attached to the matter, and it would 
 be very incorrect to infer from it a great degree of independent judgment ; 
 these free utterances only sliow that orthodoxy was not looked after so 
 sharply in the matter of the canon as in other things. The scientific doubts 
 in reality no longer existed, but each writer plumed himself upon his read- 
 ing and failed to attain historical accuracy at all, e. g., Thomas Aquinas, 
 Prol. in Ep. ad Hebr. : Sciendum est quod ante Synodum Nictenam quidam 
 duhitarunt an ista ep. esset Pauli. 
 
 329. But one would be greatly mistaken if he should sup- 
 pose that in this age, amid the manifold other discussions of 
 the scholastic theology, questions of this kind were taken up at 
 all thoroughly. Dogma no longer depended upon the word of 
 Scripture, but the latter upon the traditionally accepted inter- 
 pretation. But it is to be expressly emphasized in a history 
 of the canon that through the actual and practical use of the 
 Scriptures in that age the theological conception of the canon, 
 which had never been the prevailing one, was completely lost. 
 The historical content of the Bible, as it was laid down in the 
 books or preached to the people, was so permeated through 
 and through with apocryphal additions that the critical ques- 
 tion as to the source, or the theological judgment as to the his- 
 torical value, was evidently subordinate to the edificatory pur- 
 pose and the domination of taste. In like manner patristic 
 glosses were mingled with the text as of equal value, at least 
 for use. The properly doctrinal writings of the Bible disap- 
 peared from the Church almost entirely. 
 
 On Bible matters during the Middle Age, historical and metrical Bibles, 
 annotated Bibles, see below, §§ 4G1 ff., 522 ff. E. Reuss, Fragmens litteraires 
 et critiques sur Vhist. de la Bible franpaise, 1852 (in the Strassb. Revue de 
 The'ol., IV. 1 ff.). Almost every manuscript of a medifeval translation or 
 recension gives peculiar proof of the fact that the distinction between canon- 
 ical and apocryphal had vanished. See especially Ott, in Simler's Samml., I. 
 3, p. 713 ff. ; E. Reuss, in the Strassb. Beitrdge, VI. 
 
 Theological testimonies of this period respecting the canon : Petr. Cluniac. 
 (f 1156), Ep. 2, Bk. I. : Restant post hos authenticos S. S. II. sex non reticendi 
 lihri (Wisdom, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, Maccabees) qui etsi ad illarn subllmem 
 prcEcedentium dignitatem pa-venire non potuerunt propter laudabilem tamen et 
 pernecessariam doctrinam ab ecclesia suscipi meruerunt. — Hugo a S. Victore 
 ("f 1141), Elucid. de S. S., ch. vi.: Omnes ergo Jiunt numero XXII. Sunt 
 prceterea alii quidam libri . . . qui leguntur quidem sed non scrihuntur in canone. 
 He counts the N. T. eight books (four Gospels, Acts, Paul, Catholic Epis- 
 tles, Apocalypse). The Church Fathers have equal rank with those books 
 which non scrihuntur in canone tamen leguntur. — Richard a S. Victore 
 22 
 
338 HISTORY OF THE CANON. 
 
 (t H70), Except., II. 9, repeats the same. John of Salisbury, Bishop of 
 Chai'tres (f 1182), Ep. 172 ad Henric. Coinit., says with respect to the diver- 
 gent catalogues in Cassiodorns: Sed hoc credutur an alterum nullum affert 
 salntis dispendium .... Quia ergo de numero librorum diversas pair, sententias 
 lego, cath. eccl. doctorem Hieronymum sequens . . . prohatissimuvi XXII. lit- 
 eras hehr. et llhros V T. . . credo. The Ajjoci-ypha (among which also be- 
 longs The Shejjherd, which he admits he never saw) quia Jidem et religionem 
 cedijicant pie admissi sunt. In the N. T., also, for the sake of completeness, 
 he speaks of former doubts ; the following is characteristic: Quindecima 
 quce ecclesice Laodicensiwn scrihitur, licet (ut ait Hieronymus) ab omnibus ex- 
 plodatur, tamen ab apostolo scripta est. A gloss in the Decret. Gratiani (Pt. I., 
 dist. 19, ch. 6) gives respecting the books found in the canon the following 
 noteworthy definition : Potest esse quod omnes recipiantur, non tamen quod 
 omnes eadem veneratione habeantur. All these remarks betray, not at all a 
 critical interest in the matter, but the absence of any practical one. The 
 same may be said of the texts of the Byzantine canonists, first collected by 
 Credner (Gesch. des Kanons, 251 ff.), who contented themselves with deter- 
 mining the authorities which should decide in matters relating to the Bible, 
 and left it to the theologians to adjust them one to another, a task which the 
 latter doubtless took good care not to attempt. 
 
 The doggerel verses which Hugo de S. Caro (f 1263) gives in his Postille, 
 Prcef. in Josuam, return to the Hebrew order of the books so far as the metre 
 permits : — 
 
 Quinque lihros Moysi Josue Judicum Samuelem 
 
 Et Malachim ; ires prcecipuos bis sexque prophetas, 
 
 Hebrceus reliquis censet prcecellere libris. 
 
 Quinque vocat Legem, reliquos vult esse prophetas. 
 
 Post hagiographa sunt Daniel David Esther et Esdras 
 
 Job Paralipomenon et tres libri Salamonis. 
 
 Lex vetus his libris perfecte tota tenetur. 
 
 Restant Apocrypha Jesus Sapientia Pastor 
 
 Et Macchabceorum libri Judith atque Tobias. 
 
 Hi quia sunt dubii sub canone non numerantur, 
 
 Sed quia vera canunt ecclesia suscipit illos. 
 
 Nicolaus a Lyra (f 1340), § 541, in liis Postille, also distinguishes very 
 definitely two classes, after Jerome, and says of the books of the second, non 
 sunt de canone sed per consueiudinem romance ecclesice leguntur, or even : Hie liber 
 est apocryphus (e. g., 3 and 4 Esdras). Yet they stand in the editions in the 
 usual order according to the arrangement of the Vulgate. — Some other me- 
 diseval quotations from Latin writers are collected by Diestel, I. I., p. 180 f. 
 
 In the orient his contemporary Nicephorus Callisti {Hist, eccl., II. 45 f.), 
 designates twenty-seven books in the N. T. as canonical, seven of them for- 
 merly eV an<pi^6Kois, but now everywhere accepted. (Therefore also the 
 Apocalypse.) Ne^fict Kal irapfyypairTa are various Petrine writings, the Acts of 
 Paul, The Shepherd, Barnabas, Apost. Constitutions, Gospel of the Hebrews, 
 etc. But the tenacity of custom is shown by the circumstance that even in 
 printed copies (e. g., in a Bulgarian N. T., Moscow, 1G02 ; see Korner, in 
 Weller's Altes aus alien Th. der Gesch., II. 809) the Apocalypse appears sep- 
 arated from the rest of the N. T. and placed behind a stout barricade cf 
 four leaves. 
 
 Of the same age perhaps are catalogues preserved in Syrian writers, which 
 present no further variation from the long completed canon (LXX.). A pe- 
 culiar note is found in Greg. Barhebrfeus, Nomocanon, in Mai, Collect, nova 
 Scr., X. 53 ; Judith immediately follows Ruth ; after the three books of 
 Maccabees a book of James (read Job), Psalms, etc. In the N. T. the Acts 
 at the end, after the Apost. Constitutions. In notes he quotes Athanasius 
 
TWELFTH AND THIRTEENTH CENTURIES. 339 
 
 against the Apocrypha and Esther, Dionysius Alex, against the Aijocalypse, 
 Origen on Hebrews. 
 
 It is noteworthy that in the manuscripts of the Bible of the later Middle 
 Age (even in the German and Romance), as well as in printed Bibles before 
 the time of Luther, the small apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans fre- 
 quently appears, sometimes after Galatians, sometimes after Colossians or 
 Thessalonians. Several theologians, in order to get rid of it, repeat the 
 strange expedient of Gregory the Great (§ 328), or give a similar one ; see 
 Fabricius, Codex apocr., I. 865. In pre-Lutheran German editions, e. g.^ 
 Niirnb. 1483 and others, in the Bohemian version, in the Worms Bible, 1529, 
 in Eck, 1530, in Dietenberger, 1534, and in the Commentary of Le Fevre 
 d'Etaples (§ 543) it stands likewise with the rest. A Dresden codex of the 
 Vulgate places Hernias between Psalms and Proverbs (Anger, in the 
 Deutsch. morgenl. Zeitschr., 1851, p. 105). 
 
 330. The idea of the canon was not bvonglit to the con- 
 sciousness of the Church again until the religious movement 
 which began to make itself felt and to exert its influence upon 
 science in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. It again be- 
 came necessary to dispute with heretics from the Scriptures, — 
 and witli those who had already abandoned the church doctrine 
 on this very point. Here and there the people began to get 
 hold of the Bible, and in spite of all hindrances laid in the 
 way, it could not be but that, as God's word, it should be 
 more sharply separated from all additions and restored to its 
 proper completeness and purity. The age brought certain 
 books, as the Apocalypse with the fanatics. Canticles with the 
 mystics, into prominence, and caused others to be less re- 
 garded ; but the attempt of Protestants to prove that their 
 views of the canon were already current among the Walden- 
 sians, and at a time when the latter were not yet in existence 
 at all, is based upon error, if not upon fraud. 
 
 The Cathari (Albigenses, etc.), in southern France and upper Italy (see 
 especially C. Schmidt, Hist, des Cathares, 1849, 2 vols. ; idem, in the 
 Strassh. tkeol. Beitrdge, I. 85 ff. ; and the Church historians in general, espe- 
 cially Gieseler, II. 2 ; 4th ed. 552 if., [Neander, Ch. Hist., IV. 565 if., Tor- 
 rey's translation] ), had literal translations of the N. T. at least, and par- 
 tially rejected the Old : — 
 
 Acta concil. Lumbers., A. d. 1165, in Mansi, XXII. 159 : Responderunt 
 coram omni multitudine quia non recipiebant legem Moysis neque prophetas 
 neque psalmos nee V. T. nisi solummodo evangelia epp. Pauli et VII. canonicas 
 epp. actusque app. et apocalypsin. Petrus Monachus, in Duchesne, Scriptt., V. 
 ■556 : Novum Test, benigno deo Veins vero maligna attribuehant et illud omnino 
 repudiabant pra'ter quasdam auctoritates (quotations) quce de Vet. Testam. 
 Novo sunt inserted quas ob Novi reverentiam recipere dignum cestimabant. — 
 Reinerius, Summa de Catharis, in Martene, Thes., V. p. 1769 : item quod di- 
 abolusfuit auctor totius V. 2\ exceptis his libris : (Job, Psalms, the five books 
 of Solomon, and sixteen prophets) quorum quosdam dicuni esse scriptos in 
 ccelo, illos scilicet qui fuerunt scripti ante destructionem Jerusalem quam dicunt 
 fuisse ccelestem ; p. 1772 : /. de Lugio (c. 1230) recipit totam bibliam sed 
 putat eam scriptam in altera mundo. Cf. also D'Argentre, Colleciio judic, I. 
 43 ff. ; Moneta, Summa adv. Catk., Rome, 1743, Bk. I. passim; Disputatio 
 inter catholicum et Paterinum hcereticum, in Martene, V. 1703 ff. These wit- 
 nesses are contradictory, probably the doctrinal opinions of the time also. 
 
340 HISTORY OF THE CANON. 
 
 The only extant Catharic N. T. (§ 4G5) places the Apocalypse immedi- 
 ately after the Acts, Paul last, and aftei- Colossians the ai)ociyphal Epis- 
 tle to the Laodiceans. The Cathaii had other Apocrypha besides a John 
 ( Unsch. Nachr., 1734, p. 703 ; Thilo, Codex, p. 884), which Nazarius brought 
 from Bulgaria to the Cathari of Concorezzo before 1200 A. D., and the Visio 
 Jesajca: Moneta, p. 218: Dicunt prophetas bonos fuisse, aliquando autem omnes 
 damnabant prceter Isajam, cujus dicunt esse quendam lihellum in quo habetur 
 quod Sp. Isajce raptus in corpore usque ad VII. caelum ductus est, in quo vidit 
 et audiuit qucedam arcana quibus vehementissime innituntur. 
 
 Of the canon of the Waldensiaus we liave only to say here that the cur- 
 rent opinion that they knew how carefully to separate the Apoeryjdia of the 
 O. T. from the canonical books is based upon a creed said to have been com- 
 posed in 1120, but certainly edited not earlier than 1532, possibly intention- 
 ally dated back by a later author, and is in point of fact false. The spuri- 
 ousness of the document and its later origin are shown, among others, by 
 J. J. Herzog, De origine Waldens., Hal. 1848, p. 40, and in the Revue de 
 Tlieol., Str. 1850, I. 334 ; on the canon (in which, after the Hebrew manner, 
 the two books of Samuel are separated from Kings, and precisely the same 
 thing is meant by the Apocrypha as among Protestants : Li libres apocryphes 
 li qual nan son pas receopu de li kebrios mas nos li legen, enaima dis Hierome al 
 prologe de li proverbi, per lenseignament del poble non pas per confermar lau- 
 thorila de las doctrinas ecclesiasticas) see E. Reuss, Revue de The'oL, Str. 1850, 
 II. 327. The language of this document is not that of the twelfth century 
 but that of the sixteenth. Of the four copies of the Waklensian N. T. thus 
 far known two contain also Wisdom and Sirach. Cf. § 465. 
 
 331. The fifteenth century, much as it was occupied with 
 church affairs, brought no innovation in this particuhir ques- 
 tion. Its efforts were directed toward more practical matters 
 than the canon. Only a few theologians directed their atten- 
 tion to this subject, or more correctly speaking, ventured in- 
 dependent judgments on particular biblical books ; but this 
 was not until the spirit of the Reformation had already broken 
 its fetters. Where that did not strike root such freedom could 
 neither go very deep nor long continue. These doubts, whether 
 from critical incompetence or from policy, were ascribed to 
 Jerome, beyond whom historical investigation did not venture 
 to penetrate. Moreover it should not be foi-gotten that that 
 age had a mighty problem in the solution of which even the 
 keenest criticism of the canon would not have aided it. And 
 even tliis was an advance, that by means of the first printed 
 editions of the Bible, especially tlie Latin and German, the 
 conception of the canon as opposed to ordinary literature came 
 again more clearly into the consciousness of the world as well 
 as of the school. 
 
 Cf. below, § 468 ff. 
 
 Conformably to the Council of Florence, Eugene IV. published in 1441 a 
 catalogue of the canonical books, wliich entirely agrees with the later Tri- 
 dentine canon (§ 336; Harduinus, Acta cone, IX. 1023), and this is properly 
 the first official utterance of the Roman see upon this matter. 
 
 Alphons. Tostatus (f 1455), Prtef. qucest. 1 in Scr. : Alii autem sunt libri qui 
 ad S. S. pertinent qui in canone non sunt, sed quartum locum obtinent . . . hos 
 
FIFTEENTH CENTURY — THE REFORMATION. 341 
 
 apocr. loco censent. Quanquam korum doctrina ad convincendum . . . minus 
 idonea sit, ct auctoritas non ita ut ceterorum solida, s. tamen Eccl. etsi priorihus 
 minorem, eis tamen auctoritatem accomodat. Dioiiys. Carthus. (f 1471), Prol. 
 in Sir. : Liber iste non est de canone quanquam de ejus veritate non dubitetur. — 
 Thus is continually kept up the contradiction of separation in theory and 
 mingling in practice, from which the Church could at last escape in scarcely 
 any other way than it did at Trent. 
 
 J. L. Vives (f 1540), Ad Augustin. de civit. del xvi. 22: Hieronymus, Ori- 
 genes, Augustinus et alii veterum de hoc (ep. ad Hebrceos auctore) amhigunt ; 
 ante celatem Hieronymi a Latinis ea epistola recepta non erat inter sacras. 
 
 Tho. de Vio Cajetanus, Cardinal (f 1534), Prooem. ad Ep. ad Hehr. (fol. 
 374, ed. Lyons, 1556) : De auctore huj'us ep. certum est communem usum eccle- 
 sice etdoctorum nominare Paulum, Hieronymus tamen . . . non audet aj/irmare, 
 etc., etc. Et quoniam Hieronymum sortiti sumus regulam ne erremus in discre- 
 tione libb. can. {iiam quos ille canonicos tradidit canonicos habemus, etc.) ideo 
 dubio apud Hier. auctore ep. ezistente dubia quoque redditur ep. quoniam nisi sit 
 Pauli non perspicuum est esse canonicam. (Then follow internal evidences 
 against Paul.) Nos tamen loquentes ut plures Paulum autorem nominabimus. 
 Ibid., fol. 410, Prooem. in ep. Jacohi : Non est usquequaque certum an ep. hcec sit 
 Jacobi fratris domini ; dicente Hieronymo, etc. (then internal evidences), ex 
 quihus minus certus redditur auctor. — Fol. 454 : similar statements respecting 
 2 and 3 John : propterea ambo minoris auctoritatis sunt. The same, word for 
 word, of Jude, fol. 455. Only 2 Peter is defended against Jerome, because 
 he finds in him in this case no tradition, but only a subjective judgment. 
 Perhaps also because there was no possibility of supplanting the author 
 named except by decisive rejection of the work from the first class. — On 
 the Apocrypha of the O. T. he agrees entirely with Jerome, but possunt did 
 canonici i. e. regulares, ad cedijicatione Jidelium. 
 
 Erasmus, Declar. ad censur. fac. tlieol. paris., 0pp., IX. 864 : Juxta sensum 
 humanum iiec credo ep. ad Hebr. esse Pauli aut Lucce, nee secundam Petri esse 
 Petri, nee Apocalypsin esse Joannis ap., . . . yet he asks whether the Church 
 regards not merely the contents of these books as canonical an etiam receperit 
 titulos. Id si est damno duhitationem meam . . . plus apud me valet expressum 
 ecclesicB judicium quam ullce rationes humance. Idem, Supput. error. Beddce, 
 0pp., IX. 594 : Scripsi semper fuisse dubitatum, non scripsi ab omnibus dubita- 
 tum . . , et ipse, ut ingenue fatear, adJiuc dubito, non de auctor itate, sed de auc- 
 tore (ep. ad Hebr.), etc. Also from internal evidence, cf. his Annott. in N. T., 
 at the close of each of the disputed books, also of the Apocalyjise. 
 
 This desire for criticism, shy as it was, was soon checked. The Sorbonne 
 declared (D'Argentre, Collect. Judic, II. 52) : Jam non est fas Christiano de 
 illis dubitare. Concil. Senonense, A. D. 1528, deer. 4 (Harduin., IX. 1939) : 
 In enumerandis canonicce scr. libris qui prcescriptum ecclesice usum non sequitur, 
 Carthaginiense cone. III. Imioeentii et Gelasii deereta, et denique dejinitum a 
 ss. patribus librorum catalogum respuit . . . is veluti sehismatieus et hereseon 
 omnium inventor . . . reprimatur. 
 
 332. But this idea was suddenly brought by the Reforma- 
 tion into the fores::i'onnd of theological discussion. In break- 
 ing with Rome and ecclesiastical tradition upon the doctrine 
 which was recognized as the fundamental idea of the Gospel, 
 the Bible was also declai-ed to be independent of tradition, and 
 its authority based, objectively, upon its origin, once for all 
 established, and its divine inspiration ; subjectively, simply 
 upon the testimony of the Holy Spirit in the soul of the be- 
 liever. So especially Calvin and his school ; Luther more def- 
 
342 ' HISTORY OF THE CANON. 
 
 inltely and positively, placing at the foundation the doctrine 
 of the grace of God in Christ, regarded as the norm and rule. 
 According: to this the Church had no need or right to select 
 the books or to collect them. A view which at the first was 
 in the most beautiful harmony with the whole spirit of the re- 
 form movement ; but which at once proved itself insufiicient 
 when theology, with its cool and sober intelligence, took that 
 movement under its discipline and protection. 
 
 The conception of the Lutheran reformers of Scripture as the rule of 
 faitli, though from the first moment of the movement everywhere clearly 
 declared, was not expressly formulated in the confessions until late. Form. 
 Concord. Epit., p. 570 : Credimus . . . unicam rtgulam et normam secundum 
 quam omnia dogmata omnesque doctores cestlmari et judicarl oporteat nullam 
 omnino aliam esse quam prophetica et apostolica scripta V. et N. T. . . . Re- 
 liqua vera sive Patrum sive neoterlcorum scripta, quocunque veniant nomine (ex- 
 pressly also ofticial creeds), sacris Uteris nequaquam sunt cequiparanda sed 
 universa illis ita suhjicienda sunt ut alia ratione non recipiantur, nisi testium loco 
 qui doceant quod etiam post apostolorum tempora . . . doctrina sincerior con- 
 servata sit. 
 
 The same, and even earlier, among the Reformed, with decisive rejection 
 of the claims of the Church as a higher, normative authority, Conf. Helv. /., 
 ch. 1: Scriptura canonica, verbum Dei Sp. S. traditum et per prophetas apos- 
 tolosque mundo propositum, omnium perfectissima et ahsolutissima philosophia, 
 pietatem omnem, omnem vitce rationem sola perfecte continet. Conf. Helv. II., 
 ch. 1: Credimus SS. canonicas ss. prophetarum et App. utriusque Test, ipsum 
 verum esse verbum Dei et auctoritatem sujjicientem ex semet ipsis non ex hominihus 
 habere. . . . Et in hac Scr. s. habet ecclesia plenissime exposita qucecunque per- 
 tinent cum ad salvijicam fidem turn ad vitam Deo placentem recte informandam, 
 etc. Conf. Gall., 5 : Credimus verbum his libris comprehensum ab uno Deo esse 
 profectum, quo etiam uno, non autem hominibus, nitatur ipsius auctoritas. Cum- 
 que hcec sit omnis veritatis summa, complectens quidquid ad cultum Dei et salutem 
 nostram requiritur, neque hominibus, neque ipsis etiam angelis fas esse dicimus 
 quidquam ei verba adjicere vel detrahere vel in eo immutare. Cf. Conf. Scot., 
 art. 18, 19; Conf. Belg., art. 7; Conf tetrapol., art. 1; Declar. Thorun., II. 1, 
 etc. But especially, because earlier and authoritative, Calvin, Instit., ch. i. 
 § 21 if.; later editions, Bk. I., ch. vii. ; Zwingli, 0pp., ed. Schuler, I. 195 f. 
 See also W. Musculus, Loci Comm., Bas. 1560, p. 228; P. Vermilius, Loci 
 Comm., CI. III., Bk. III., § 3: Non est verum quod assumunt, scripturam habere 
 autoritatem ab ecclesia; eius enim frmitas a deo pendet, non ab hominibus, et 
 prius est verbum, ac quidem firmum ac certum, quam ecclesia. Nam ecclesia per 
 verbum vocata fuit, et Sp. dei agit in cordibus audientium verbum et illud legen- 
 tium, ut agnoscerent non esse humanum sermonem sed prorsus divinum. A Spiritu 
 itaque accessit autoritas verbo Dei, non ab ecclesia. Cf. Bk. VI., §§ 5, 8. P. 
 Viret, De vero verbi dei ministerio, Bk. I., ch. v. 
 
 Yet this standpoint was still foreign to some circles : Conf Bohem., art. 
 1 : Docent scripturas ss. quae in bibliis continentur, et a patribus receptee auctor- 
 itateque canonica donatce sunt, pro veris habendas, etc. Conf. Angl., art. 6 : 
 Sacrce Scr. nomine eos canonicos V. et N. T. libros intelligimus de quorum auc- 
 toritate in ecclesia nunquam dubitatum est. 
 
 More extended attempts at a definition of canonicity are made only in 
 some Reformed symbols : Conf. Belg., 4 : Libri canonici sunt quibus nihil op- 
 poni potest (by which it is meant to express their absolute authority, not the 
 grounds of it) ; ibidem, 5 : Hosce libros solos pro canonicis recipimus . . . 
 non tarn quod ecclesia eos pro huiusmodi recipiat et approbet, quam inprimis quod 
 
CANON OF THE REFORMERS — OLD TESTAMENT. 343 
 
 Sp. S. in cordibus nostrls testatur a Deo profectos esse comprohationemque in se 
 ipsis habeant. Conf. Gall., 4 : Hosce llbros agnoscimus esse canonicos . . . 
 no7i tantum ex communi ecclesice consensu sed etiam multo magis ex testimonio et 
 intrinseca Sp. S. persuasione j quo sugyerente docemur illos ab aliis II. ecclesi- 
 asticls discernere. . . . The preference is here everywhere given to the dog- 
 matic grounds of decision over the traditional ; true, only in theory, and 
 that with reference to the inner testimony of the Spirit, in a way insufficient, 
 even dangerous, for the safety and stability of the canon. But it is to be 
 remembered tliat here, as often in the world, theory and practice did not al- 
 ways go together (§§ 333, 335). 
 
 Yet tliis danger was avoided, at least in the consciousness of theologians, 
 by the principle of the analog ia Jidei, i. e., by the fact that the Reformation 
 was based much less upon the formal principle of the authority of Scripture 
 than upon the material principle of justification by faith, an article which not 
 only in general constituted the rule of all doctrine and criticism, but also in 
 particular decided questions of cauonicity and soon those of interpretation 
 as well. In the Reformed theology this is less evident because Calvin and 
 his followers were less strict in the application of it to the particular books, 
 (§ 335) ; Luther, on the contrary, carried it out to the extreme so very con- 
 sistently that he in reality overtlu-ew the old canon : Luther's Vorrede zum 
 iV. T. : Summa, St. Johannis Evangeli und sein erste Ep., St. Paulus Epis- 
 tel, sonderlich die zu den Rom. Gal. und Eph. und St. Peters erste Epistel, das 
 sind die Blicher die dir Christum zeigen und alles leren das dir zu wissen nott 
 und selig ist ob du schon kein ander Buck noch lere nymmer sehest noch liorest. 
 — Vorrede auf Ep. Jacobi: Auch ist das der rechte priiffestein alle Bucher zu 
 taddeln wenn man sihet ob sie Christum treiben oder nil . . . was Christum 
 nicht leret, das ist nicht apostoUsch, wenns gleich Petrus oder Paulus leret, wieder- 
 umb was Christum predigt das ist apostoUsch, wenns gleich Judas Annas Pila- 
 tus oder Herodes thet. 
 
 On the Protestant view of the relation of Scripture to faith see also the 
 writings of Sack, etc., cited in § 290. Especially, however : H. J. Holtz- 
 mann, Kanon und Tradition, ein Beitrag zur neuern Dogmengeschichte und 
 Symbolik, Ludw. 1859. For this and the following sections see especially 
 my Hist, du Canon, ch. xvi. f . 
 
 333. For it should not be forgotten that the leaders in the 
 great work of the Reformation properly entered into indepen- 
 dent criticism of existing opinions only in those doctrines which 
 were closely connected with the fundamental article of Protes- 
 tantism, justification by faith. In other matters there was no 
 thought even of a thorough investigation of tradition. In the 
 Old Testament the Reformers went back to the Hebrew canon, 
 principally, doubtless, because Christ and the Apostles gave no 
 testimony to the books of the Greek appendix, although the 
 judgment of the ancient Fathers may have been of some weight 
 also. But although they denied to the so-called apocryphal 
 books all dogmatic authority, they retained them as useful for 
 edification, and all Protestant translations of the Bible con- 
 tained them, though carefully separated from the other wri- 
 tings. 
 
 Centur. Magd., I. 451, ed. Semler : Etsi numerus II. authenticorum V, T. 
 ab App. nominatim non est expressus, tamen haud obscure ex citationihus conj'ec- 
 tari potest quod eos pro certis et probatis habuerint de quibus antiquitas judaica 
 
344 HISTORY OF THE CANON. 
 
 nunquam duhltavit. Then follows (also I. 29) a catalogue, in wliich, perhaps 
 not witlioiit design, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Esther, and some other historical 
 books are omitted. 
 
 CEcolampadius, Ej). ad Valdenses, A. d. 1530, in Scultet., Annul, ev., II. 
 313 : . . . Judith, Tab. Eccles. Bar. duos ultimas Esdrce tres Maccab. duo capp. 
 ultima Danielis non contemnimus, sed non divinam cum ceteris illis auctoritatem 
 damus. 
 
 Conf. Helv. II., 1 : Interim nihil dissimulamus quosdam V. T. libros a veter- 
 ibus nuncupatos esse apocryphos, ab aliis ecclesiasticos, utpote quos in eccl. legi 
 valuer unt quidem, non tamenproferri ad auctoritatem Jidei conjirmandam. Conf. 
 Gall., 4 : Libri ecclesiastici. . . qui ut sint utiles, non sunt tamen ejusmodi ut ex 
 iis canstitui possit aliquis Jidei articulus. Conf. Angl., 6 : Alias autern libros, ut 
 ait Hieronymus, legit quidem ecclesia ad exempla vitce et farmandos mores, illos 
 tamen ad dogmata confirmanda non adliibet (then follows a catalogue of the 
 O. T. Apocrypha). Conf. Belg., 6 : Dijferentiam constituimus inter II. ss. et 
 apacryphos, qui sunt. . . (catalogue), quos quidem ecclesia legere et ex iis docu- 
 menta de rebus cum II. canan. consentientibus desumere potest. At nequaquam ea 
 ipsorum vis et auctoritas est, ut ex ullo ipsorum testimonio aliquod dogma de jide 
 certo canstitui possit. Declar. Thorun., II. 1 : Libri illi qui non in hebrceo V. 
 T. canane sed tantum in grceco textu habentur sunt apocryphi et divino canard 
 acce7iseri non debent, etsi utiliter ad cedif. eccl. legi possunt. Conf. Vald. see 
 § 330. 
 
 In the editions the Apocrypha have a place by themselves from the first : 
 Dis sind die Bucher die bey den alten vnder bibl. Geschrift nit gezdhlt sind, auch 
 bei den Ebreern nit gefunden (Ziir. 1529 ff.), to which is added, yedoch be- 
 werdt nutzUch und in hohem Brauch (Strassb. 1530) ; Apocrypha das sind 
 Bucher so nicht der h. S. gleich gehalten vnd dach nutzlich vnd gut zu lesen sind 
 (Witt. 1534), etc. Among the French, on the contrary, longer notices, at 
 first in the apologetic sjiirit, even defending their inspiration : Puis donq que 
 taus ant une mesme source et saine racine, pour une resecation qu'en ont faite les 
 Juifs, ne laisse de les lire et en prendre doctrine et edification (still in the edi- 
 tion of Lyons, 1551). On the contrary in the Geneva editions expressly : 
 Ces livres qu'on appelle apocryphes ont este' de tout temps discernez d'avec ceux 
 qu'on tenoit sans dijficulte estre de VEscriture saincte. . . on les doit tenir pour 
 escritures prive'es et non pas autentiques. . . il est vray quails ne sont pas a me- 
 priser. . . toutesfois c'est bien raison que ce qui nous a este donne par le S. Es- 
 prit ait preeminence surce qui est des hommes. (Calvin, 6>/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. KaWiypa<poi 
 were necessary for authors unacquainted with writing altogether, or at least 
 with the Greek, and in general because of the method of book-making then 
 prevalent, for general legibility. Librarii, Correctores, etc. 
 
 Supposed traces of autographs m Ignatius, Ad Philad., viii. (cVtoTs apx^iois, 
 cf. § 289), and Tertullian, De prcescriptione hcer., eh. xxxvi. (authenticce literce); 
 see J. E. I. Walch, De App. litt. authent. a Tert. commemoratis, Jen. 1753j 
 Stosch, De canone N. T., p. 52 ff. ; Griesbach, I. c, p. 66; Gabler, Preface to 
 the same, p. 26, and all the Introductions. 
 
 Fables of the discovery of autographs of John at Ephesus in the fourth 
 cent'ny, after Chronic, pasch., p. 5, and Petrus Alex., De paschate, in Stosch, 
 I. c, p. 44; or in the foundations of the temple at Jerusalem, under Julian 
 (Philostorg., VII. 14 ; Niceph. Callisti, X. 33) ; of Matthew in the grave of 
 Barnabas in Cyprus, according to Theodorus Lector, in the fifth ; or even 
 still extant, as of Mark at Venice and Prague, cf. Dobrowsky, Fragment, 
 pragense ev. S. Marci vulgo autographi, Prag, 1778. 
 
 Cf. in general J. F. Mayer, Utrum autographa biblica hodie extent, Hamb. 
 1692; B. G. Clauswitz, De autographorum Jactura rei chr. et innoxia et utili, 
 Hal. 1743; E. L. Rathlef, Hist, autographorum apost., Hann. 1752 (thinks 
 they were not lost before the time of Diocletian); Knittel, Ad Ulfilce fragm., 
 p. 122 ff.; Binterim, De lingua orig. N. T., p. 9 ff. [Westcott, in Smith's 
 Diet., III. 2112 f.; Schaff, Companion to the Gk. Test., p. 85 ff.]. 
 
 352. Yet we can sketch a description of these original copies 
 even now, partly from what is known of the books of the an- 
 cients in general, partly from the later copies which have come 
 down to us, in the oldest of which the art of book-making is 
 still in its infancy. According to these the Apostles must 
 have written without spaces between words, without accents, 
 without punctuation, and without division of the text into 
 paragraphs. Superscriptions and names of authors were also 
 lacking except where they formed an integral part of the text. 
 
 In all these points, therefore, criticism has free range and is bound by no 
 authorities, but only by the rules of grammar and logic, and especially by 
 the demands of convenience and custom. 
 
MANUSCRIPTS — MATERIAL — VARIANTS. 369 
 
 Cf. on this and several later sections, B. de Montfaueon, Palixographica 
 grceca, P. 1708, fol. ; A. Calmet, Aus iocs fiir Materien die BUcher der Alten 
 hestanden, und von den verschiedenen Arten zu schreiben, Bibl. Unterss., I. 161, 
 of the German translation ; H. A. Erhard, Diplom. Schriftkunde, in Ersch 
 and Gruber's EncykL, I. 1^9. 
 
 [Other works on Diplomatics and Palaeography : Nouveau Traite de Diplo- 
 matique, Par. 1750-65, 6 vols. 4°; Bast, Commentatio palceographica, in App. 
 to G. H. Schafer's ed. of Gregorius Corinthus, De Dialectis, L. 1811; Silves- 
 tre, Pale'ographie Universelle, P. 1839, fol. II. (fine fac-similes) ; Westwood, 
 Palceographia Sacra Pictoria, Lond. 1843 ; Wattenbach, Anleitung zur griech. 
 Palceographie, 2d ed. L. 1877, 4°, and 12 plates, fol. ; idem, Schrifltafeln zur 
 Gesch. d. griech. Schrift u. zum Studium d. griech. Pakeogr., B. 1876-77, 2 vols, 
 fol.; idem, Das Schrlftwesen im Mittelalter, 2d ed., L. 1875, 8°; Gardthausen, 
 Griechische Palceographie, L. 1879, 8°. Schaff, Companion to the Gk. Test., pp. 
 88, 93 ff.; Westcott, in Smith's Diet., III. p. 2112 ff.] 
 
 The invention of marks of punctuation is older, it is true, but their use 
 did not reach beyond the schools of the grammarians. 
 
 353. The material used for writing in common life was the 
 Egyptian paper, upon which the ink was spread with a reed 
 pen. Parchment was not unknown, but was too costly for 
 ordinary use. The text was written in columns, in a charac- 
 ter not unlike that found on ancient monuments, the so-called 
 lapidary style, but inclined toward somewhat more rounded 
 forms. The written leaves were rolled together. 
 
 For a description of the process of making paper from the papyrus (ira- 
 irvpos, Cyperus papyrus, L.) see Pliny, Hist, nat., XIII. 21-27. Cf. Fortia 
 d'Urban, Essai sur Voriqine de Vecriture, P. 1832; Krause, Art. Papyros, in 
 the Hall. EncyJd., III. 11. 
 
 Technical terms : x°-P'^vs, charta ; fi.4\av, atramentum j KaAa/*oy, calamus j 2 
 Jn. 12 ; 3 Jn. 13. Hence liber, /Si'^Aoy. 
 
 Elsewhere occur also the wax tablet (^wivaKlSiov, Lk. i. 63) and parchment 
 (jieii^pavai., 2 Tim. iv. 13). 
 
 354. Such was the original form of the apostolic writings. 
 The progress of the art of writing, and the various attempts 
 to facilitate the reading of the books, brought about a series 
 of changes in this form, some of which have had a permanent 
 influence upon the text itself, and have lasted after tlie inven- 
 tion of the art of printing. More ancient, however, and at 
 the same time more numerous, more manifold, and more im- 
 portant, are those changes which directly affected the text and 
 its different essential elements. The method in which, in early 
 times, copies were multiplied, renders this phenomenon a per- 
 fectly natural one ; the sacred writings but shared the fate of 
 ancient literature in general. 
 
 The history of the text of the N. T. is treated specially in the Prolegomena 
 to the critical editions of Wetstein, Scholz, Tischendorf [Wescott and Hort, 
 1881], etc. Yet their presentation of the subject is in many respects de- 
 pendent upon a preconceived theory. So also with Griesbach, Curoi in hist, 
 textus epp. Pauli {0pp., II. 1-135). Cf. J. Croius, Ss. et historicre observa- 
 tiones in N. F., Gen. 1644, 4°; J. A. Osiander, De originibus varr. lectt. N. T., 
 2^ 
 
370 HISTORY OF THE WRITTEN TEXT. 
 
 Tub. 1739 ; J.' Friek (§ 289), pp. 118-185; J. S. Scmler, Vorbereitung zur 
 Hermeneutik, III., IV. ; his Apparatus ad interpr. N. T., pp. 28-81. Popu- 
 lar : Tiscliendoi-f, Haben wir den echten Schrifttext der Evo. und Apostel ? L. 
 1873. 
 
 355. The variations from the original text, or the so-called 
 vai'ious readings, were liable to arise as long as the text was 
 merely copied, and upon the whole no variety of them belongs 
 exclusively or chiefly to any particular epoch, or precedes an- 
 other in time. This is true whether they be considered as to 
 their source, as due to accident, carelessness, or design ; or as 
 to their form, as additions, omissions, displacements, or trans- 
 positions ; or finally as to their extent, as affecting letters, 
 words, or whole sentences. 
 
 Different idea of a variant, according as one takes for the standard the 
 assumed or critically obtained original text, or some historically given one; 
 e. g., in Mt. viii. 28, Mk. v. 1, Lk. viii. 2G, rtpaa-rivwv and Tep-yeff-nvwv are vari- 
 ants with reference to the original text, the latter and Tahap-nvwv with refer- 
 ence to the Vulgate and witnesses agreeing with it ; in the hrst passage 
 Tepa(Ty]vwv and Tabap7)vwv are variants with reference to the received text, etc. 
 
 Lectiones varice s. varia?ites j a<paKfiaTa, errores y aWouicreis, adulter ationes. 
 
 Origen, In Matth., XV. (III. 671, Ruseus): Nuvl 5e driKovSri ttoWv jfyovev 7) 
 Twv aPTiypdcpoov Stacpopd, f'/re airh paQvfxias rtvoSv ypa<pi(DV, e'/re in:}) rdX/nris rivcSv /u-ox- 
 6r]pas T7]s SiopOwa^ws rcou ypaKpo/j-efuv, eifre Kal awh tSiv to. kavTois SoKovvra iv rp 
 Siop0aJo-ei Trpo(TTi.6evTwv t) a^aipovvTuv. (A criticism of this passage, which is 
 certainly not altogether clear, is attempted by A. D. Loman, in the Leidner 
 ' theol. Zeitschr., 1873, p. 233.) 
 
 Cf . for the further fixing of the terminology, the articles Integritdt and In- 
 terpolation en, by E. Reuss, in the Hall. Encyli. 
 
 F. A. Knittel, Neue Gedanken von den Schreibfehlern in den HSS. des N. 
 T., Bvg. 1755. 
 
 356. Yet it may be asserted with tolerable certainty that 
 the further back we go in the history of the text the more ar- 
 bitrarily was it treated. Since originally copies of the writings 
 of the Apostles were taken only for private use, and not at all 
 for histovico-dogmatic purposes, for which the oral teaching in 
 the churches was sufficient, but rather for individual edifica- 
 tion, it is conceivable that in this work one might neither 
 strive after punctilious accuracy, nor scruple to undertake all 
 sorts of alterations. Nay, if we consider that the authors 
 themselves, or their amanuenses in dictation, may have made 
 mistakes, and that the former, in revision, may have introduced 
 improvements and additions, the question comes whether the 
 text ever existed in complete purity at all, and in what sense. 
 
 That the authors may have offended against current rules with reference 
 to orthography, placing of the augment, apostrophe, nu movable, etc., and 
 that their copyists (like our proof-readers) may have corrected these errors, 
 will not appear impossible to any one with our present insiglit into their lin- 
 guistic knowledge. 
 
 Unhellenic expressions due to imperfect acquaintance with the correct 
 usage, in so far as they can be shown to be the genuine readings (1 Thess. 
 
DESIGNED ALTERATIONS — FOR IMPROVEMENT. 371 
 
 ii. 8, 6fxeLp6fx.fvoi; Phil. ii. 30, irapa3oA.€i)(ra;uei'os),may be reckoned iii this class, 
 unless one prefers to assume an otherwise unknown provincialism. 
 
 Other passages, whose genuineness is unquestioned, have excited suspicion 
 as to whether they have been correctly placed by the copyists : e. g., 1 Tim. 
 V. 23 ; Rom. xvi. 25-27 (and many in the latter Epistle according to A. 
 Gratz, Interpolationen im B. an die Romer, EUw. 1814, p. 32 fE.). Cf. also 
 § 111. Laurent, Neutest. Studien, p. 31 S. 
 
 However they may have come into existence, variants meet us as soon as 
 quotations from the apostolic writings occur at all in later authors ; for we 
 may infer from the concurrent testimony of still extant manuscripts that we 
 have not here to do with mere errors of memory. So both in Catholic and 
 heretical writers (§§ 287 if., 508). Especially instructive in this connection 
 are the discussions with Marcion (§ 24G). Cf. also § 3G2. Even in Irenfeus' 
 time (Adv. Hccr., V. 10) attention was paid to better manuscripts (crTvov^ala 
 Kol apxcua avriypacpay. 
 
 Yet not all the books of the N. T. were affected to the same extent by 
 such changes. The writings of John (Gospel and Epistle) have unquestion- 
 ably suffered least, the Synoptic Gospels more than the Pauline Epistles, 
 but Luke somewhat less than the other two. The Catholic Epistles, but 
 especially the Acts and the Apocalypse, have been corrupted most. The 
 causes of these phenomena have doubtless been altogether different in each 
 particular case. In general it may be said that more frequent use furnished 
 more frequent occasion for alterations. They appear in the Synoptists more 
 often as conformations, in the Acts as free editing and annotation. Among 
 the Epistles, the higher importance which was ascribed to those of Paul may 
 have given them an additional protection. The Apocalypse, which from the 
 third century on fell into discredit in the theological world, was certainly 
 studied the more eagerly in unlearned circles, as often happened afterward, 
 and in consequence was circulated in more and more corrujjt copies. 
 
 857. In the most ancient period, as soon, that is, as the writ- 
 ings of the Apostles began to be a subject of scholarly occupa- 
 tion, or at lettst were copied by members of the profession, the 
 changes which crept into the text were doubtless, for the most 
 part, such as were designed for its improvement. The inten- 
 tion was, that is, to transform it, partly in accordance with the 
 rules of language, syntax, and euphony, where an unclassic 
 style offended the ear of the scholar ; partly in the interest 
 of greater clearness, where a harsh expression or a foreign 
 idiom occurred ; partly also in the interest of a supposed his- 
 toric truth which seemed not to consist with the text as it 
 stood. 
 
 Aiopd^aeis, in Origen, I. c, to whom, moreover, we owe wholly unnecessary 
 variants, e. g., Jn. i. 28, Brida^apS. For the complaint of Dion, of Corinth of 
 such trifling (paStovyricrat), see § 294. Euseb., H. E., IV. 29, of Tatian : tov 
 5e a,Tro<Tr6\ou cpaal ToAfjirjcral Tivas avrhv fieraippdcTat <pcci/d,^, iis i-n-iSiopOoifji.evei' avr'bv 
 t))v TTjs (ppdaeoos avi'Ta^ii'. Anxiety of Irenseus for the fate of his own writings 
 (in Euseb., V. 20). IIow correctly many Church Fathers judged of the lin- 
 guistic peculiarities of the N. T., see in Wetstein, Libelli crit., p. 48 ff. 
 'A5jrfp0a>Ta 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<ray or Trpocreireao}/ ; vi. 1 : eAerjfxocrvi'riv for StKaiocrvvrfv ; Heb. iv. 2 : crvy- 
 KsKpa/xdvos or -011$ ; Lk. v. 14 : 'Iva els fxapr. rj v/mv tovto ; 2 Cor. v. 3 : eKSvcrdixevoi 
 for ifdvff. ; Gal. iii. 1 completed from v. 7 ; Lk. ix. 56 as an explanation of 
 the likewise suspicious vs. 55 ; Ja. iii. 12 rec. ; Mt. xxv. 16, iKep5r)(r€P for 
 eVoirjo-ec ; Philem. 12, irpodXa^ov added. — Exegetical misimderstandings : Heb. 
 X. 2 : eVel &v ; xi. 4 : KaXuTai ; Ja. ii. 18 : e/c for x'>'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]<p for 6 Trarrjp ; all of which bear upon 
 possible Ebionitic errors, or are intended to do away with all doubt respect- 
 ing the virginity of the mother of Christ. 
 
 The following are mtended to guard against different dogmatic miscon- 
 ceptions and objections : Mk. vii. 13, rf} irapaSoa-ei, rf} ;uaip5 added ; Jn. vii. 39, 
 oijiraj ^v iri/evfia aytov, iir' avTols or some other phrase added ; Mk. xiii. 32, 
 oiiSe 6 vihs omitted ; 1 Tim. i. 17, ix6va} dea;, (To<pcf added ; Lk. xix. 41 and 
 xxii. 43, 44 omitted, and, as Epiph., Ancor., 31, expressly observes, by the or- 
 thodox ; 1 Cor. ix. 20, ^iM &iv avrhs inrh vS/xou omitted. 
 
 In defense of apostolic honor and dignity : 1 Cor. xv. 10, ovk iyw Se, /xSvos 
 added ; Mt. v. 11, \!/evS6fxevot added. Or prophetic : Jn. x. 8, ^ph e/xov omit- 
 ted. Perhaps also Mt. viii. 31, iTriTpe\poi', etc., for airSa-reiAov. 
 
 1 Cor. vii. 3, ocpeiXo/xevr) fiivoia for ocpeiATj, is a euphemism, uidess suggested 
 by the ascetic spirit. 
 
 To conceal a divergence in moral principles : Mt. v. 22, elKrj omitted or 
 inserted ; vs. 32, the last clause omitted. 
 
 Several of these corrections are properly exegetical opinions and almost 
 belong in the category of § 357. Examples may also be derived from the 
 notes to the next section of how, even in the copies of the Catholics, critically 
 untenable but dogmatically useful readings were to be found. Schulthess, 
 Si/mbb. ad intern, crit. librorum canon. (1833), II. 1 &., brings a formal accu- 
 sation of corruption against the orthodox. Cf. his Theol. Nachr., 1829, II. 
 287. 
 
 362. But frequent mention is also made in the ancient wri- 
 ters of actual corruptions, perpetrated in dogmatic and polemic 
 interests. At a time when the apostolic writings had become 
 the supreme rule in matters of faith, vrhen consequently the 
 honor accorded them must have been the surest protection 
 against such falsification, both parties. Catholics and heretics, 
 reproached each other with the greatest bitterness for this kind 
 of deception. Granting this reproach to be well-founded, it 
 surely could have affected but a very few copies, which were 
 quickly and easily discarded ; but the examples adduced by 
 tlie Church Fathers (for we do not possess the writings of 
 
376 HISTORY OF THE WRITTEN TEXT. 
 
 their opponents) depend mostly on exegetical misconceptions, 
 and reveal only the ignorance of the accusers, here and there 
 perhaps even the unfairness of the accusation. 
 
 The very passionateness of these accusations, their apparent attempt to 
 make their impression by invective rather than by facts, excites a prejudice 
 against them which is not clone away by the coutemptibleness of the charges. 
 Thus the Valentinians are attacked by Irenseus (IV. 6) for a transposition 
 of the clauses in Mt. xi. 27 which occurs also in Catholic Fathers ; by Tertul- 
 lian {De came Chr., ch. 19) for changing the singular in Jn. i. 13 into the 
 plural, which is alone genuine. Ambrose (^De fide, V. 7) charges the Arians 
 with having foisted into Mk. xiii. 32 the words ouSe b vi6s, which are un- 
 doubtedly genuine ; also (De Spir. S., III.), with the omission in Jn. iii. 6 of 
 the addition of the Old Latin version : quoniam Deus spiritus est. Nestorius 
 was taken to task for a variant in 1 Jn. iv. 3 which his opponent Cyril also 
 has ; cf. in general Griesbach, 0pp., II. 114 ff. ; Schmidt, Einl., II. 35 If. ; 
 Eichhorn, V. 120 if. ; Trechsel, Kanon und Kritik der Manichder, p. 91 fl. 
 [Westcott, in Smith's Diet., III. 2113 f. ; Schaff, Companion to the Gk. Test., 
 p. 173 f.] 
 
 Of the Artemonites Eusebius relates {H. E., V. 28) from older sources : 
 Tats diiais ypacpais a,<p6^cos ene0a\ov ras x^^P"'-^ Xiyoi/Tis ahras SiwpdioK^vai, so that, 
 indeed, the copies of Asclepiodotus, Theodotus, Apollonides, Hermophilus, 
 were at variance among themselves. But of what kind this variation was, 
 or wherein the SiSpdwais consisted, we know nothing, and the confident assur- 
 ance of the accuser that one need only compare these copies, requires the as- 
 sumption of a previous critical exammation on his part which, probably, no 
 one will believe. 
 
 These accusations are directed most frequently and vehemently by Irenseus, 
 I. 27, but especially by TertuUian, Adv. Marc, V., cf. § 246, and Epiphanius, 
 Hcer., 42, against Marcion, of whose Gospel we have spoken above. His sins 
 against the Epistles, according to these witnesses, are in part of similar char- 
 acter to those above (e. g., in Gal. ii. 5 he read correctly oh oiiSe, which liis 
 opponent omitted ; in 2 Cor. iv. 4 he correctly construed 6 Qehs tov alavos 
 TovTov together, which TertuUian separated by a comma ; in 1 Thess. ii. 15 
 he had, with several of our manuscripts, tou? iSiovs TrpocprjTas, etc.), and in 
 part of no dogmatic importance whatever, in fact wholly accidental variants 
 or clerical errors (e. g., in 1 Cor. x. 19 Up6dvTov instead of f'iBwKov ; in Eph. 
 ii. 15 aiiTov wanting after aapKi ; v. 31, irphs tV ywalKa omitted, etc.), so that 
 even in cases where the appearance is really against Marcion, and where we 
 should now by no means be able to undertake his defense, the accusation is 
 highly suspicious, as in the case of the omission of koI TTpo<pT)Toov in Eph. ii. 20, 
 of Col. i. 15, 16, of 'A5a^ and oLvOpooiros in 1 Cor. xv. 45, and several similar 
 cases. Yet it is to be assumed frou: the nature of the case that the accusa- 
 tion of willful alteration was not fabricated outright. Two points, however, 
 should not be left unnoticed, first, that the conclusions which have been dra\vn 
 from these declamations (Halm, Ev. Marc., § 246) rest in part upon exegeti- 
 cal misunderstandings, and that nothing is less certain than that he exjinnged 
 from the Epistles to the Galatians and Romans all the portions passed over 
 by his accusers in silence (yet see, e. g., Tert., V. 14: Salin et hie amplissimum 
 abruptum intercisce Scripturce, etc., according to which nothing would remain 
 between Rom. viii. 11 and xi. 33 but x. 1-4) ; and, second, that Marcion's 
 work of sifting, if it were such as represented, must have been a rather in- 
 consistent piece of patchwork, and consequently have completely failed of 
 its purpose. Cf. J. F. C. Loffler, Marcionem Pauli epp. . . . adidlerasse. duhi- 
 tatur, Traj. ad V. 1788 ; J. F. Schelling, De Marcione paul. epp. emendatore, 
 Tub. 1795 ; Ritschl, Das Ev. Marcions, p. 151 ff. ; see also Mill, Prolegg., 
 § 289 ff. Most thorough of all, Hilgeufeld, in Niedner's Zeitschr., 1855, 
 
LITURGICAL ADDITIONS. 377 
 
 III. ; he admits alterations and omissions, but in part rather upon the ground 
 of inference than of positive testimony. 
 
 Inasmuch as Epiphanius complains of much more numerous corruptions of 
 the Epistles than TertuUian, it might be assumed that Marcion's pupils con- 
 tinued these methods. 
 
 The corruption of the Gospels by the Emperor Anastasius, related by Vic- 
 tor Tumiunensis in Chron. {ad ann. 506), is based upon a laughable misap- 
 prehension (cf. C. M. Pfatf, De evv. sub Anastasio imp. non corruptis, Tiib. 
 1717 ; Stosch, De canone JV. T., p. 298 ff.), and is inadmissible even in the 
 form in which it is related by Liberatus Diaconus, Breviar. (in Galland. XII. 
 152), that the Patriarch Macedonius was deposed because he corrupted the 
 Gospels (especially 1 Tim. iii. 10). Mill, Prolegg., 1013 ff. 
 
 Similar accusations by the Latins, who clung to their bad translation, 
 against the Greeks, and by the Fathers who were accustomed to the LXX. 
 against the Jews. 
 
 Moreover, such corruption would only have been possible in a complete 
 dogmatic revision of all the apostolic writings, and the accusations refer only 
 to isolated passages. The same is true of what may be laid to the charge of 
 a naive orthodoxy. Two codices insert in 1 Cor. viii. 6 koX %v irvevixa ayiov iv ^ 
 ra tzoLvra. koX rifieis ev avr^. On 1 Jn. v. 7 see § 360. 
 
 363. Finally, even the public use of the apostolic writings, 
 otherwise so favorable to the preservation of the text, became 
 the occasion of a new kind of corruption. The practice of 
 reading particular portions in public and of writing these in a 
 separate collection on this account led to the custom of append- 
 ing all kinds of liturgical additions in order to make them bet- 
 ter fitted for the purpose. Especially, since most of the pas- 
 sages were taken out of their connection, they had to be 
 supplied with suitable introductory words, and at the close 
 appear all sorts of formulas used in divine worship. These 
 additions then found their way into the more complete copies. 
 
 Beginnings : Lk. ii. 41, 'Ictf(r^<J> 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<Tiv ; Jam. iv. 13 : ironjaofiei/ . . . noir]ac»/jLei' ; 1 Jn. 
 iv. 2 : yiycoffKerai, -re ; 2 Cor. iii. 1 : et fih for ^ iu.ri ; xii. 1 : 5et for Sij ; SO 
 Tj/j.e'is and v/ji.e7s frequently mterchanged. 
 
 Interchanges of synonyms: Kvpws and 6e6s', Kvpios, 'l'n(^ovs, and. XpiarSsj 
 'irjaovs and avT6s; elwev, €<pT], and A^yei ; fxa6i)Tai and aw6(TTo\oi; Se, koI, and odv', 
 Sia and inr6 ; ck and a-n-6 ; eira and juera ravra. — IlvAri and 6vpa, Lk. xiii. 24, 
 Acts iii. 2 ; wpa and vfi^pa, Lk. vii. 21 and frequently ; reAiadi^aerai and 
 Te\€ioodr}creTai, Lk. xviii. 31 ; irifLi^iavTa and aTrocrrelKai/Ta, Jn. xiii. 20 ; KaraSiKacr- 
 6r](rri and KaraicpLOriari, Mt. xii. 37 ; TraiSiou and TraiSapiov, xi. 16 ; p^yua and 
 \6yos, Rev. xvii. 17. Plural and singular, Mt. iii. 8 ; compoimds and simples, 
 or two difi^erent compounds ; prepositions with different cases ; modes and 
 tenses ; the article inserted and omitted ; personal pronouns in the genitive 
 and accusative likewise, — all these in numberless cases. 
 
 Transpositions, especially in enumerations : Mt. xv. 30, x'^^ohs, rvcpXovs, 
 Kcot^ous, etc., in every possible order ; Rom. i. 29 ; Gal. v. 20 ; 2 Cor. xi. 23 ; 
 Rev. viii. 5 ; Lk. iii. 24 ff., the genealogy, in which some copies have the 
 series of names in the strangest confusion (because of a change from lines 
 into columns ?) ; Heb. ii. 14, aV/iaros kolI o-apK6s ; Mt. xxv. 2, iJiwpal — <pp6vifxoi. 
 Or in the construction : Mt. xi. 16 : Kadrifievois iv ayopa7s ; 1 Jn. i. 10 (also 
 ii. 10, 19) iv i-iixlv ouK icTTLv ; 1 Cor. ix. 8 : fj koI 6 vS/xos ravra oh \eyei ; Eph. ii. 
 12 : Twv SiadrjKwv ttjj eizayyeXias or t<2v iirayyeAiwv ttjs SioQtjktjs. So also the 
 separate clauses in 1 Cor. viii. 8 ; ix. 1 ; x. 19 ; xi. 11 ; xv. 39. 
 
 Wrongly resolved abbreviations : Rom. xii. 11 : Kaip^ or Kvpl(j> ; 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<ppoy Const. 39. Const, inserts crdp^ be- 
 fore avQp<i)-Kwv ; before KTi)v6iv Occ. omits it. 44. et iari awfxa if', eari Kal izv- 
 Alex. Occ, ecTTi (TcS^a ^. Koi effTi a. iry. Const. 47. Alex. Occ. lack 6 Kvpios, 
 but the latter adds 6 ovpdvios at the end. 50. K\-npovofxel Const. Alex., kA»j- 
 povomcTii Occ. 51. Cf. § 305. 62. poiry Occ, avaariiaovTai Alex. Occ, eyep- 
 drjo-ovTUL Const., etc. 
 
 Similar tables in Scholz, I. p. xx.; Eichhom, IV. 321, etc [by B. B. War- 
 field, in Schaff's Comp. to the Gk. Test., p. 222]. Only let it not be mider- 
 stood that all the witnesses of a family always agree. 
 
 371. After the conquests of the Arabs tlie text of the New 
 Testament suffered but few new and noteworthy alterations. 
 Egypt and Syria forgot the Greek language and no longer pre- 
 pared manuscripts. In the West men either did not feel the 
 need of them at all, or contented themselves with the few 
 old copies which had been preserved from earher times. In 
 Greece, on the contrary, where alone the need of them was 
 still felt, the ancient books were soon worn out and destroyed, 
 and there remained only a great mass of later copies, with 
 which, upon the revival of Greek studies, the west of Europe 
 also was supplied, or which at least must often have been the 
 sources of occidental copies. The ignorance and thoughtless- 
 ness of the later copyists, by which the strangest blunders were 
 often introduced into the text, at the same time protected it 
 from all intentional disfigurement. 
 
 Droll examples of such misconceptions : 2 Cor. viii. 4, Cod. Corsend. (3) 
 at Vienna, has in the text : eV iroWo^s twu avnypdcpoov ovtws eup-nrai ; Mt. xxvi. 
 60, Cod. D has two different ancient marginal readings in the text at the 
 same time, each simply with the introductory words and the addition jh elf/s 
 
384 HISTOEY OF THE WETTTEN TEXT. 
 
 (i. e. etc.), and from this, in the accompanying version, sequentia ; cf. Gries- 
 bach, 0pp., II. 110 ; Scholz, Prolecjg., I. 14. — 1 Cor. xv. 5, Cod. E combines 
 two different readings of its critically emended original, placed one over the 
 other, fiera ravTa [elra\ toIs SciSeKa [eVSe/ca], in this mamier : juera Taueira tou 
 SwevSeKa ; Heb. x. 33, the same MS. has in the same way, viSi^o/xevodfarpL^o/xevoi 
 (the first half is the various reading weLSi(6fj.ivoi) ; Heb. vii. 3, in the Complu- 
 tensian Edition, after a MS., a portion of the table of contents of the chap- 
 ter (eV ^ '6ti Koi rod 'A^paafj. irpoeTtfiriOT]) stands iu the midst of the text. 
 
 An exhaustless source of easy corruption was the orthography, which had 
 become unsettled because of Itacism, by which tj, i, v, oi, ei, etc., were fre- 
 quently interchanged. The oldest editions, especially Erasmus and the Com- 
 pluteusian, too often allowed these errors to stand. 
 
 372. Having now given an account in the foregoing of the 
 vicissitudes through which the text itself has passed, and hav- 
 ing pointed out the circumstances and conditions which con- 
 tributed at the first to its increasing corruption, afterward to 
 its sufficient preservation as to its main substance, it remains 
 to say something more of the external form of the ancient 
 manuscripts of the Bible. True, this department of the sci- 
 ence, beyond all treated in this history, is not only altogether 
 foreign to theology, but is no more closely connected with even 
 a purely literary-historical conception of our subject than would 
 be the case with any other book of antiquity; the matter might 
 appropriately be left to the general history of literature or of 
 human arts. Yet we are determined, partly by custom, still 
 more by the direct relation of many externals to the form of 
 the text itself or to the estimation of critical aids, to undertake 
 the description of these matters also. 
 
 Strictly speaking, only what is to be said of the material and form of the 
 books, and the characters in which they are written, is foreign to biblical 
 science proper. On the contrary, the treatment of the text for the purpose of 
 easier understanding (Punctuation, Divisions, etc.) is closely connected with 
 the main subject. 
 
 373. The Egyptian paper, whose want of durability was an 
 injury to the literature, early went out of use, and was re- 
 placed by several other materials. From the fourth century 
 manuscripts of the Bible were multiplied upon prepared skins. 
 But later, when parchment became so scarce that men began 
 to erase the writing of ancient books in oi'der to replace it by 
 new, cotton paper fortunately came into use, the oldest traces 
 of which reach back into the tenth century, and finally, in the 
 thirteenth, the still used linen or rag paper. 
 
 It is related, for example (Jerome, De vir. ill., ch. 113; Ep. ad MarcelL, 
 III. 76), that the library of Pamphilus at Cesarea, even in the century of 
 its origin, had already become so dilapidated {corrupta) that the priests Aca- 
 cius and Euzoius began to rewrite it upon skins. 
 
 Very few papyrus manuscripts (beside those of Herculaneum and those 
 belonging to the Egyptian literature) are extant, of the Greek N. T. in pa^'- 
 ticular none at all to my knowledge, since it has been shown that the Cod. 
 
MANUSCRIPTS — MATERIAL — FORM. 385 
 
 CottoiiiaiHis (Gospels I) in the British Museum consists of parchment, and 
 not, as was believed from the time of Wetstein, of papyrus. 
 
 The order of Constautine for the making of parchment copies for the 
 churches of Constantinople (§ 366) is well known. Beautiful manuscripts, 
 finely written in golden letters upon thin parchment (v/xevoov AeTrrt^Tr/s), were 
 articles of pious luxury even in the fourth century (Chrysostom, Homil. 32 
 in J oh., 0pp., VIII. 188). Jerome also {Prcef. in J oh.) censures the pas- 
 sion for copying old books upon membranas purpureas aura argentoque, instead 
 of looking to the purity of the text. 
 
 All the ancient manuscripts of the Bible now extant are these Codices 
 membranacei, SicpBepai. 
 
 Codices rescripti, iraAlfMxl/ritTToi (e. g. C, P, Q, Z) (the new wi-iting sometimes 
 between the lines of the old, sometimes crosswise), see Kopp, Bilder und 
 Schriften der Vorzeii, I. 185 ; Knittel, below, § 445 ; Tischendorf, Codex 
 Ephrem., see § 392. 
 
 Charta bombycina, lintea. — Our quill pens first came into use in the seventh 
 century. 
 
 Cf. in general G. F. Wehrs, Vom Papier, den vor der Erfindung desselben 
 iiblich gewesenen Schreibmassen, etc., Halle, 1789. 
 
 374. Even earlier, perhaps, a change took place in the form 
 of the books. The inconvenient rolls were exchanged for bun- 
 dles of a certain number of leaves which were laid one upon 
 another or folded together and then bound up into volumes. 
 The single bundles or layers forming the volume were not nec- 
 essarily equal in number of leaves, but in size were mostly like 
 our present quarto and small folio, with a gradual tendency to 
 grow smaller. 
 
 The layers were called, according to the number of double leaves, Tpiaait, 
 terniones, of twelve pages, rerpaa-aa, quaterniones, of sixteen pages (Euseb., 
 Vita Const., IV. 37) ; so also quinterniones, of twenty pages, etc. 
 
 Tevxos, volumen, the whole volume (hence, for example, ri irevTo.T^vxo^ sc. 
 j8^/3Aos, the Wty\n or five-parted (book of the Mosaic Law), cf. Joh. Damasc. 
 above, § 328). Also awixdnov (Euseb., I. c, 36). 
 
 375. On the other hand, the old characters and the custom 
 of writing in columns were maintained for a long time. Yet 
 the first gradually lost their stiffness and perpendicular lines, 
 became inclined, and began to be connected together, until in 
 the tenth century the cursive character became general, and 
 uncials were used only for sumptuous copies. About this time 
 also decorations, gilding, and illuminated initial letters came 
 into use, and in proportion as the spirit and contents of tlie 
 Scriptures became more alien to those whose chief business 
 was copying, they gave the greater care to the external make- 
 up of the copies. 
 
 Liter ce majusculce (unciales'), minusculce. 
 
 For fac-sinailes of the writing of various N. T. MSS. see (beside § 352) 
 the different volumes of the larger edition of Matthfei (§ 413) ; Hug, in his 
 Einl. ; Birch's Gospels (§ 417) ; Bianchini (§ 453), and many monographs on 
 single codices (§ 392). 
 
 The oldest cursive manuscripts, so far as can be determined, date from 
 25 
 
386 HISTORY OF TliE WRITTEN TEXT. 
 
 the years 890-900. The uncial MSS. G, H, M, S, U, X Gospels, E, F Paul, 
 are thought to be later. Particularly in lectionaries the uncial character 
 maintained itself longer. 
 
 The number of columns was not the same in all MSS.; e. g., Cod. A has 
 two columns on a page, Cod. B three, Cod. Sinaiticus four, while Cod. C has 
 continuous lines. 
 
 The custom of large initials, colored and flourished, survived the begin- 
 ning of printing, and reappears in the incunabula. Even when they were 
 omitted the printers for a long time left spaces for them. — ^ Abbreviations, 
 compendia scripturce, and ligatures came more and more into use, and the 
 oldest printed editions are in tliis respect true fac-similes of the later MSS. 
 The oldest abbreviations, of the most frequent names and words, which are 
 found even in A, B, C, are simply combinations of the inflective ending with 
 
 the initial letter, with a line drawn above : 0C, 0T, IC, IT, KC, KY, nNA, nNC, 
 ICA, for Oehs, 6fov, 'Ir/cous, 'irjcrov, Kvpios, Kvp'tov, Tn/fv/.i.a, Trreu/xaros, 'l(Tpar]\, and 
 some few others. A stroke for N at the end of words also occurs early. 
 
 376. Aside from the general scarcity of books, reading was 
 rendered difficult for the unpracticed by the total lack of all 
 explanatory pointing. It was not until in the course of the 
 ninth century, after isolated attempts in earlier times, that 
 copyists generally introduced the breathings and accents into 
 the copies of the New Testament. A still greater hindrance 
 to the easy reading of the text was the custom of writing with- 
 out breaks between the words. This gave occasion for many 
 misunderstandings, and much theological wrangling. The evil 
 was but poorly remedied by more frequent initial letters, and 
 w.hen punctuation was finally adopted science was no longer 
 free and clear enough to get the full advantage of it. 
 
 The oldest application of the system of accentuation (§ 352) to the N. T. 
 is in Cod. B (by the first hand ?). Euthalius (§ 377) introduced it into his 
 edition (ayayvwvat KUTct. npoawSiav, p. 409), but without winning general ac- 
 ceptance for it. Among the older MSS. D, E Paul, E, K, L, M Gospels 
 also have accents and breathings ; it is only with tlie cursive character that 
 their introduction becomes more general. It appears to have taken place 
 much earlier with the LXX., for Epiphanius (end of the fourth century) 
 testifies to the use of a-riCeiu /cora irpoawSiav in the Scriptures (7)e pondd. et 
 mens., 2), and also mentions our still used accents, breathings, marks of quan- 
 tity, critical marks, and even a mark of punctuation. 
 
 The Iota subscript (earlier sometimes, postscript) was introduced with the 
 cursive character. 
 
 Examples of doubtful construction because of the lack of punctuation : 
 Jn. i. 3 : & yeyovev iv avT^, Epiph., Anchor., lo ; f> 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,<Tcrov sometimes as a proper name, sometimes as an adverb, and the more 
 correct form has become generally prevalent only in modern times. 
 
 Codices of the N. T. of the period before stichometry ; A, B, C, Z, Lin. 
 
 377. Some of these inconveniences were removed by the 
 Alexandrian deacon Euthalius, in his edition of the Acts and 
 Epistles completed about the year 462, in which the text was 
 divided into stichoi or lines, each line containing one clause. 
 This method, which represented, as it were, a punctuation of 
 ideas, met with approval, and was applied by others to the 
 Gospels also. This stichometric writing, as it is called, was in 
 use down to the eighth century. It may not have been, how- 
 evei-, an invention of Euthalius, but only the application of an 
 older custom to the text of the New Testament. 
 
 Stichometry was introduced into manuscripts of the Greek and Latin 
 classics (orators) in the fourth century. Jerome (Prcef. in Jes. : interpreta- 
 tionevi novum novo scrlhendi genere distinximus) made use of it in his transla- 
 tion. It occurs in the O. T. (Masoretic text) in some poetic passages, simple 
 in Dent, xxxii., more elaborate in Ex. xv., Judg. v. ; also in the ordinary 
 printed editions. 
 
 In the Greek O. T. Origen had the poetical books likewise written a-TixvpoSs, 
 anxv^^", Kara arixous ; this remained the custom (Greg. Naz., Cann., xxxiii., 
 Amphilochius, Iambi ad Sel., and others, number TreVre (XTixvpas 0i/3Aovs), and 
 has been followed in several editions of the LXX. (also for Wisdom and 
 Sirach). So in the Cod. Alex, and Vatic, and several Greek psalters ; also 
 in MSS. and older editions of the Vulgate. 
 
 Euthalius, Ep. Sulcensis actuum app. et epistolarum, ed. Gr. and Lat., by 
 L. A. Zacagnius : (in Collect, monum. vett. eccL, Rome, 1698, 4°, p. 403 fp.) 
 ■KpuTov ^yttiyf: TTj;/ awoaToXiKTjv fii^Kov aroiX'^^i' (read aTixv^hv) avayvovs re Kol 
 ypdxl/as ... ; p. 410 : irphs evarjuov a.vayvw<riv. . . . Cf. Wetstein, Prolegg., p. 
 195, ed. Semler (ed. 1730, p. 73 ff.) ; Rosenmiiller, Hist, interpr., IV. 3 ff. ; 
 especially Mill, Prolegg., 940 ff. 
 
 On the different meanings of o-ti'xos (versus, versiculus^ among the ancients 
 (line, verse, clause), see especially Suicer, suh voce ; Ritschl, Alex. Biblioth., 
 p. 91. Jerome, Prooem. in I. xvi. ad Jes., calls the three verses which the 
 Latin version interpolates in Ps. xiv. ocio versus. 
 
888 HISTORY OF THE WRITTEN TEXT. 
 
 The stiehoi were iiunibered and summed up at the end of each book, as 
 was done in the Hebrew Bible also. Yet it is still a question whether these 
 Euthalian stiehoi are meant, or rather the older solid lines of conventional 
 length ; for tliis method was doubtless intended originally to serve the pur- 
 poses of the book-seller, and to furnish the buyer, in correspondingly fig- 
 ured catalogues (aTixo/xerp/a) a measure of the size of the works. 
 
 Stichonietric Manuscripts : D Gospels, E Acts, D, E, H Paid. The last 
 is a genuine Euthalian codex. This origin is not to be assumed for the 
 others, and the stichometry is perhaps conditioned by the accompanying 
 Latin translation. 
 
 Beside the stiehoi, ^7};uaTo are also mentioned, whose relation to the former 
 is uncertain. — Cf. on the whole matter, E. Reuss, Art. Stichometrie in Her- 
 zog's Encykl. [iV. Y. Independent, Feb. 14, 1884.] 
 
 378. In order to save costly space this method was given up 
 again, and copyists contented themselves with marking the 
 ends of the stiehoi with points or other signs. This was the 
 beginning of the punctuation of the text, which came in from 
 the eighth to the tenth century, and for which various very 
 simple signs were used, some of which had long been approved 
 by grammarians. In connection with this came also the sepa- 
 ration of the words. But it was not until the sixteenth century, 
 after the invention of printing, that this system reached its 
 present development, and first in some editions of the classics. 
 
 The question whether punctuation sprang out of stichometry or grew up 
 beside it (Hupfeld, in the Theol. Studien, 1837, p. 859) has not the impor- 
 tance attributed to it, inasmuch as it is certain that the latter is not to be 
 derived from the former, and that the former only works its way into the 
 MSS. in later times and gradually. 
 
 Punctuation of the Alexandrian grammarians by means of three signs 
 (jeKfia (TTiyfi}], fxiar] ariy^ih, uiroiTTtyfxij ; in Isid., Origg., I. 19, dlsdnctio, at the 
 close of the periodus, media distinctio, for the colon or larger clause, subdistinc- 
 tio, for the comma, or smaller clause) i. e., a pomt at the top, in the middle, 
 and at the bottom of the line. So Cod. E Gospels. 
 
 Cod. L has crosses at the close. Earlier only single points at certain 
 places, in A, B, C, D, Z also still smaller pauses and spaces. 
 
 Cod. K Gospels marks the end of the stiehoi with points. F Paul sepa- 
 rates all words by points ; only later MSS. do this by simple spaces. G Paul 
 also has many points to divide words, and larger letters at the beginning of 
 the stiehoi. Cf. in general Hug, Einl., I. § 45. 
 
 Our present punctuation, said to have been invented by the two Manutii 
 at Venice, was not first introduced into the N. T. by Robt. Stephens, as was 
 formerly said, but appears in the very first edition of Erasmus. 
 
 J. F. Mayer, De notis biblicis veterum sensum S. S. indicantibus, Hamb. s. a. 
 (also in Hist. vers, luth., p. 203) ; G. F. Rogall, De auctoritate et antiquitate 
 interpunctionis in N. T., Reg. 1734. 
 
 It is also to be noted as a peculiarity of ancient writing, that while the 
 larger letters by which new divisions, larger o'r smaller, were designated, 
 came to stand regularly at tlie beginning of the line, or rather before the 
 justification, they were not necessarily the first letters in the sentences, but 
 often some other, just as it happened after making the lines of equal length 
 and avoiding spaces, even though they might stand in the middle of a word. 
 
 879. Different copies differed also in contents. Inasmuch 
 as the New Testament canon grew up gradually out of several 
 
BILINGUAL MANUSCRIPTS. 389 
 
 separate collections, it is conceivable that in ancient times one 
 manuscript would contain this part, another that, of the subse- 
 quent whole. Even hiter, when this gradual rise of the New 
 Testament had been forgotten,. the size of the writing and the 
 thickness of the parchment usually caused its separation into 
 several voluuies, which naturally corresponded to the former 
 partial collectiuns. The very cost of manufacture, combined 
 with the relative importance of the different portions of Scrip- 
 ture, contributed to make very many of the copies incomplete. 
 
 Inasmuch as on account of the low degree of education at that period, 
 most of the copies bound in more vohimes than one finally became defective, 
 as still happens daily with so many printed books, most of our extant MSS. 
 are only these partial collections, and contain either the Gospels alone, or 
 the Acts with the Catholic Epistles, or the thirteen (fourteen) Pauline Epis- 
 tles, or the Apocalypse. Of our uncial manuscripts (beside Cod. Sinait., 
 § 392) only three (A, B, C) have come down to us in a condition presup- 
 posing original completeness. A Gospels and G Paul one might be tempted 
 to regard as fragments of one and the same copy. Even among the cursives 
 there are not twenty complete (Scholz). 
 
 380. It is likewise certain that the oldest copies contained 
 nothing but the Greek text. But the possessors, both learned 
 and unlearned, doubtless began very early to write in the mar- 
 gin all sorts of emendations, explanations, and other annota- 
 tions, which finally grew even to the extent of proper commen- 
 taries. How this led to the corruption of the text has already 
 been pointed out. The exegetical need naturally increased 
 with the distance of the apostolic age, and the decline of knowl- 
 edge rendered a once current explanation of an obscure or con- 
 troverted passnge or rare expression more and more unalterable, 
 especially if it could be supported by a famous name. Thus 
 the note finally came to be as sacred as the text itself, and at a 
 certain period the latter without the former was scarcely known 
 or regarded as of tiny value. 
 
 Codices puri, mixti. — Scholia, y\w<T(xat, cf . § 359. — Even the increasing 
 scarcity of writing material may have led to more frequent annotation. 
 Examples of Codices with commentary, X, Y. 
 
 381. For church use in countries where Greek was not un- 
 derstood by the people, copies were written in which a trans- 
 lation into the language of the country was placed beside the 
 original text in a separate column, or even inserted between 
 the lines. The latter, however, may have been done rather 
 for exegetical purposes. The former practice, more frequent 
 in the Latin West, though sometimes found also in oriental 
 countries, and not without analogy in the synagogue, was re- 
 peated in later times in a different way, as the ancient vernac- 
 ular in these regious was obliged to give place to a new one. 
 
 Codices bilingues — Codd. grceco-latini, with an interlinear translation, e. g.. 
 
390 HISTORY OF THE WRITTEN TEXT. 
 
 A Gospels, G Paul ; with the version in a separate column, T> 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 exo<xptical one was 
 introduced, into sections, as they were called, which is as old as 
 the other, but never obtained especial favor. The first occasion 
 for it was the harnionistic treatment of the Gospels by Ammo- 
 nius in the third century, which made necessary a breakincr up 
 of the text into numerous very small parts, in order to facilitate 
 the finding and comparison of parallel passages. This arrange- 
 ment was perfected by Eusebius. At the beginning of the 
 fifth century some unknown church teacher divided the Pauline 
 Epistles into chapters, which Euthalius noted in his edition and 
 imitated in the remaining Epistles and the Acts. 
 
 The Ammonian-Eusebian division of the Gospels into 1,162 sections (this 
 is the number given by Epiphanius,^ ncoraL, 50, of which Matthew has 352, 
 Mark 235, Luke 343, John 232 ; Suidas, however, sub voc. titAos, has 
 different numbers), refers to ten canons or tables (which are printed in the 
 older editions of the N. T., e. g., Erasmus, 1519 ff., Stephens, 1553, and 
 others, and now introduced by Tischendorf also), the first of which designates 
 the sections common to all four Evangelists, in parallel columns, by their 
 respective figures, the next three those found in but three Gospels, etc. 
 These figures are then repeated in the margin of the text. Cf. Wetstein, 
 Prolegg., 183 ; Marsh, Additions to Michaelis, I. 469 ; Tischendorf, Prolegg. 
 to Ed.' VIII. 
 
 Euthalian chapters (Ke^dXaia) in connection with the table of contents 
 attached to each book (eK-^ecru), hi t<Sv ao<l>u>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 Ke<pd\aia. See Matthsei, Editio minor, Apoc, 
 p. 9 S. 
 
AMMONIAN SECTIONS — CHAPTERS. 393 
 
 These numbers were never used in quotation. 
 
 C. F. Sinner, De distinctionibus textus N. T. in capita versus, etc., L. 1694. 
 
 Indices or tables of contents for chajiters (iKsyxoi, etc.) are found even in 
 Pliny, Nat. Hist., I., in Aulus Gellius and Josephus, and the first speaks of a 
 predecessor in this method. 
 
 Cod. B, Vaticanus, has an altogether peculiar chapter division, which has 
 nothing- in common either in the Gospels with Eusebius and Ammonius, or in 
 the Pvpistles with Euthalius. The Epistles are treated as a single continuous 
 book. — The details of the peculiar chapter divisions of the ancient oriental 
 versions belong imder the special history of these latter. 
 
 386. After the Gospels had obtained a similar division, 
 perhaps in the sixth century, there was finally accomj)lished in 
 the middle of the thirteenth a uniform, but unfortunately not 
 better, work upon the whole Bible, which is usually ascribed 
 to Cardinal Hugo, known by his monastic name of St. Carus. 
 He is said to have undertaken it for the purpose of a Latin 
 Concordance. The division seems almost to have had in view 
 uniformity of length rather than the nature of the contents. 
 In this respect it is sometimes too long, again too short, rarely 
 fitting, even in the large, and often totally inappropriate and 
 destructive of the sense. Yet custom has rendered it unalter- 
 able. These our present chapters came into the Greek copies 
 in the fifteenth century, but are not found in all the older 
 printed editions. 
 
 The TtrAoi, breves, of the Gospels, of whose date and origin nothing certain 
 can be said (Matthew, 68 ; Mark, 48 ; Luke, 83 ; John, 18), are properly 
 headings of columns, with a general smmnary (breviariian) prefixed, figures 
 in the margin, and summation at the end {capitulatio, avaKecpaKaluats^, in 
 connection ^vitli which the KepdXata are often reckoned up also ; e. g.. Cod. L. 
 Under the same head, doubtless, belongs a numbering of the Epistles which 
 was likewise in use in the ]\iiddle Ages, and in both languages : e. g., 1 Cor. 
 67 ; 2 Cor. 27, etc. 
 
 On Hugo, see also §§ 329, 529. Whether he was the first to undertake 
 this work, or how far he undertook it alone, is uncertain. See Jahn, Einl., 
 I. 3G8. 
 
 The Greek MSS. which have liis chapter numbers may have received them 
 in the West, whither they had been brought in great numbers by fugitive 
 Greeks. 
 
 Erasmus placed them in the margin of the Latin translation, but not in 
 the Greek text, in all his editions, and beside them the older numbering ; 
 but the latter only in the Gospels and some of the Epistles ; the Complu- 
 tensian Polyglot, however, introduces them everywhere. The Aldine edition 
 of 1518 and the Hagena.u of 1521 have neither chapters nor even pauses. 
 Stephens printed m his editions both the Greek and the Latin numbering. 
 The oldest purely Greek editions which have the chapters are Basle and 
 Strassburg, 1524. But two manual editions appeared at Paris as late as 1549 
 without chapters. 
 
 It should be remarked further that the chapter division has varied in 
 many passages, and still does to some extent. Manuscripts (Latin, French, 
 Romance) do not altogether agree, especially in Chronicles, Ezekiel, Malachi, 
 Psalms, etc. An account is given of very strange variations by E. Reuss, in 
 the Revue de theoL, IV., p. 6 ff. 
 
394 HISTORY OF THE WRITTEN TEXT. 
 
 The a.i>aKe<pa\alujais, or Greek chapter index, is also found in older folio 
 editions ; Erasmus, 1511) if., Stejiheus, 1550, Wechel, IGOl, and in some 
 smaller ones. 
 
 387. Finally, the smallest and latest division of the books of 
 the New Testament, that into verses, is simply an imitation 
 of a Jewish arrangement connected with the introduction of 
 the system of accentuation into the Hebrew text. It is not 
 altogether clear how it found its way tlience to the Christians. 
 It is only certain that it was first applied to tlie Latin Bible, 
 like the chapter division. The Greek manuscripts do not have 
 it, nor the older editions of the New Testament. It appears in 
 printing about the middle of the sixteenth century, and has 
 remained from that time on. Most editions divide the text 
 into paragraphs according to it, although it is essentially ab- 
 surd, often erroneous, and even at the best not necessary to the 
 understanding, but rather a hindrance to it. 
 
 The verse division is certainly much niore appropriate to the spirit of 
 Hebrew speech, especially in poetry, though even here it is often erroneously 
 applied, and in simple prose it unnecessarily breaks up the text. In the 
 N. T. the Pauline Epistles, in particidar, are often rendered unintelligible by 
 this means (especially by the beginning of a new paragraph with each 
 verse). 
 
 A method of division by means of letters, much used in older printing, 
 preceding the verse division, is ascribed in its origin to Cardinal Hugo, who 
 is said to have introduced it for the j^urpose of convenient reference for his 
 Latin Concordance. Two other Dominicans, John of Derlington and Richard 
 of Stavenesby, then added the fragments of the text, and in this form the 
 work was called by the head of the order at Paris the Concordance of 
 St. James. In this the first seven letters of the alphabet, A-G, were placed 
 in the margin at equal distances apart. About 1310 Conrad of Halberstadt 
 (De Media Civitate, generally called De Alemania) improved this system by 
 using for the shorter chapters of Hugo only four letters, A-D, and abbre- 
 viating the quotations from the text. This latter edition was printed about 
 1475 and frequently afterward (Quetif and Echard, Scriptt. Ord. Prced., I., 
 p. 203 ; Fabricius, Bihl. lat. me.d. cetatis, sub voce Conradus ; Buddeus, Isagoge, 
 ed. 1730, p. 1543; Riederer, Nachrichten, I. 3, p. 247). This division ap- 
 pears in Latin, German, and French Bibles, though not all, from 1491 on 
 (Biblia summata, dlstincta, utriusque Test. Concordantiis illustr., Bas., Froben, 
 8°), in the N. T. some years earlier. It disappears about 1550. Of Greek 
 editions of the N. T. the Complutensian and the larger Stephens have it. 
 
 The verses (not to be confounded with the ancient versus, § 377) first 
 occur in non-Hebrew printing, so far as I know, in the Vulgate printed by 
 Robt. Stephens in 1548 ; in the Greek N. T. in his edition of 1551 (§ 402), 
 numbered and paragraphed. But there are many later editions which do 
 not have them ; so the Froschauer, the Brylinger, the Leipzig editions of 
 Vogelin and his successors, the Basle editions of Osten, the first Crispins, 
 i. e., nearly all which may be reckoned of the Erasmian family, and some of 
 the Stephanie. The paragraphing of the verses did not become prevalent 
 until the period of the textus receptus, through Beza and the Elzevirs. 
 
 388. Among the external alterations of the text belong 
 finally the inscriptions, that is to say, certain literary and his- 
 
VERSES — SUPERSCRIPTIONS — SUBSCRIPTIONS. 395 
 
 torical notes on the books, which were originally wanting, but 
 gradually became almost integral parts of them. Among these 
 we reckon tirst the titles, which evidently do not come from the 
 authors, but which must naturally have been introduced into 
 the copies as soon as several books were brought mto one col- 
 lection. They ai'e based partly upon the contents, partly upon 
 tradition, are mutually related, and in the course of time have 
 become more and more extended. 
 
 The later introduction of the titles is evident (1) from the nature of the 
 case ; e. g., 'EttlcttoAt] irpcoTr] . . . ; (2) from their inappropriateness ; e. g., irpd^ns 
 T&ic anoffToAotiv, cf . Acts i. 1 ; (3) from the later usages in them ; e. g., 'laiawov rod 
 6io\6yov ; perhaps also irphs 'E0palovs. Even the simple EiiayyfKiov cannot he 
 original (as De Wette, II., § 32, and others maintain, Chrysostom, Horn. I. 
 in Matth., cf. Horn. I. in Rom., 0pp., VII. 4 ; IX. 429). For only with Kara 
 MaT0., etc., would it have the genuine ancient sense. (4) From the testimony 
 of the ancient writers, e. g. TertuUian, Cont. Marc, IV. 2, V. 11, 17, in the 
 first passage of Luke, in the others of the Epistle to the Ephesians. Cf. D. 
 Salthen, De inscr. epp. paid., Reg. 1741. 
 
 On the Epistles to the Ephesians and Hebrews in particular, see §§ 121, 
 153. 
 
 Examples of expansion : Kara ^aTBaiov, Cod. B ; EvayjiKiov Kara Mard., 
 usually; Tb Kara MarQa^ov ayiov evayyekiov, later ; "Apx^rat rh . . . the latest. 
 
 Tlphs 'Paifxaiovs — irphs 'P. iwiaroXi] — irphs 'P. eTr. TlavXov — Tov aylov an. U. ivr. 
 TTphs 'P. 
 
 'ATTOKaAv^pLs 'laidi/vov, Cod. C. — Cod. 17 adds rod Oioxiyov. — Cod. B adds 
 Ka\ fvayyeXiarov. — 'Att. rov aylov air. Ka\ evayy. 'Ico. rov dioAoyov, 37. — 30 
 adds ivSo^ordrou irapQevov r)yaw7)fxivov iiriarriOiou. — IG adds %i' ip Uar/xcf) r'p 
 vfiaco iOedaaro. — 'Irjaov Xp. airoK. Sodelaa rqi 6eo\. 'loodvvri, 26. 
 
 389. Later, variable, and often erroneous besides, are the 
 subscriptions which were added to each book. At first they 
 simply repeated the title, but there was soon added to them 
 information about the author, time and place of writing, and 
 similar matters. We cannot say certainly how they finally 
 obtained a fixed form, but they are evidently notes of ancient 
 fathers, based partly on doubtful tradition, partly on still more 
 doubtful exegesis, and are devoid of all historical value. 
 
 Their later origin appears (1) from their absence in the older MSS.; 
 
 (2) from the incorrectness of their statements ; e. g., Mark : iypdcpi) pw/xaiarl 
 4v 'Piifiri ; Galatians : iypdcpv airo 'Pu>^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|ioC<ra (Toup); ibid., ayeAaiovs (Gothofred); 
 XV. 29 : a7r' epyuiv veKpuv (Valckenaer) ; Acts vi. 9 : hi^va-Tivwv (Beza) ; ii. 9: 
 'iv^lav instead of 'lov^aiav (Erasmus); Lk. ii. 2 : irph rrjs (Boullier); Mt. xxvii. 
 9: Zaxapiov (Origen); Mk. ix. 49 : TrSo-a ivvpia (Scaliger); 1 Cor. xv. 32 : Kar^ 
 audpuiTTwu (idem). 
 
 Others deserve no respect, being products of dogmatic prejudice : e. g., 
 Mt. xxviii. 19 : ^awriCovTes ff. to be stricken out (Teller) ; Lk. iii. 22 : (too- 
 fiariKoj etSei to be stricken out (Valckenaer); Jn. i. 1: deov ?iu 6 \6yos (S. 
 Crell), or Oehs ?V kuI 6 \6yos (Bahrdt); Rom. ix. 5 : wv 6 eVi (Schlichting). 
 
 In modern times Dutch philologists in particular (Valckenaer, 0pp., II. 
 229-324 ; Venema and Verschuir in the latter's 0pp., 358-443 ; Wassen- 
 bergh in Valckenaer's Scholia, II. 9-62 ; Toup and others), also some Ger- 
 mans (Fritzsche, Gersdorf, Eichhorn, Einl., V. 321, Schott, Isag., 576, Hit- 
 zig in the Ziircher Monatsschr., 1856, p. 63 ff.), have still regarded conjecture 
 as necessary, e. g., in Jn. xix. 19 : vaa-dnrcp ; Acts ii. 9, 10 to be stricken out ; 
 2 Pet. i. 5: koI avrol Sia tovto; Gal. ii. 1: reacrdpooy ; Heb. xi. 37: iTreipdaBrjaau 
 to be altered ; perhaps Ja. iv. 6 ; 1 Cor. iv. 6. (Bornemann in the Siichs. 
 Studien, I. 37). Lachmann (Pref., Vol. II., p. 6 ff.) gives a list of passages 
 which might perhaps be aided by conjecture : e. g., Mk. i. 2, 3 the quotation 
 to be corrected ; ix. 23 : ej Swri ■KtaToxra.i ; Lk. xiv. 5: ois ^ /SoC? ; Jn. viii. 44 : 
 &s h.v \a\^; 1 Cor. viii. 1: on ov iravTis, etc. See also the expositors on all 
 the passages cited. 
 
 399. But notwithstanding all these perhaps unavoidable de- 
 fects, we should not detract from the fame of those who took 
 the first steps in this difficult way. This fame belongs to the 
 Spanish scholars who, under the direction and according to 
 the plan of Cardinal Francis Ximenes de Cisneros, Archbishop 
 
410 HISTORY OF THE PRINTED TEXT. 
 
 of Toledo, edited the great Coniplutensian Polyglot, in which 
 for the first time the Greek New Testament was included. 
 The text was derived from several manuscripts not further 
 described, though doubtless mostly late, but does not seem to 
 deserve the reproach afterward brought against it, of having 
 been altered to agree with the Vulgate ; nay, even in the light 
 of modern criticism, it still bears comparison with any other 
 recension of the period immediately subsequent. The famous 
 work is still illustrious to-day, more on account of its rarity 
 and monumental character than on account of the service it 
 could render to science; but these qualities assure it immor- 
 tality more than does their greater internal comjjleteness the 
 better of its successors. 
 
 On the Polyglot of Alcalk (Complutum) see in general W. E. Tentzel, 
 De bibllis poli/gL, Witt. 1686 ; Hottiuger, Blbllothecarius quadrip., p. 133 f.; 
 Kortholdt, De edd. S. S., p. 374 £f. ; H. von der Hardt, Memoria Ximenii, 
 Helmst. 1717 ; J. H. Stiiss, De nataliiiis lihrorum, Goth. 1742, Pt. I. ; Neue 
 Beytrdge v. alten u. neuen theol. Biichern, 1755, III. ; Walch, Bibl. theoL, 
 IV. 167 ft". ; S. Seemiller, De bibliis Complutensibus, Ingolst. 1785 ; Roseu- 
 miiller, Handb., III. 279 ft. ; Hefele, in the Tilb. Quartahchr., 1844, II. ; 
 idem, Der Card. Ximenes, 1851, p. 113 ft. ; Mill, Prolegg., 1089 ; F. De- 
 litzscli, Studieii ziir Entstehungsgeschichte der Polyglotte des Card. Ximenes, 
 L. 1871. [Tregelles, Account of the Printed Text, etc., pp. 1-19 ; Seliaff, 
 Companion, p. 232 ft'.] 
 
 The pi'inting of the work began with the N. T., edited by the cooperation 
 of Demetrius Ducas of Crete, Antonius of Lebrixa (Nebrissensis), James 
 Lopez de Stunica and Ferdinand Nuiiez de Guzman. This forms the fifth 
 volume, and is dated January 10, 1514. The whole was completed in 1517, 
 but the edition was not sanctioned by the papal see until [March 22d] 1520 
 (6 vols, fol., with Hebrew text, LXX. and Vulgate). A very peculiar form 
 of the letters in the N. T. ; no breathings, a simple and jjeculiar system of 
 accentuation, and the separate words numbered to point out their corre- 
 spondence with the Latin translation. 
 
 The editors call their chief source a codex venerandce vetustatis ; but criti- 
 cism has not yet succeeded in ascertaining whence it came nor whither it 
 went. Formerly Cod. B was thought of. Possibly the note refers to the 
 O. T. [Tregelles, Account of the Printed Text, etc., p. 12 ft.] 
 
 Suspicion cast upon the N. T. on account of alleged Latinization (§ 360. 
 The passage 1 Jn. v. 7 was doubtless taken from the Vulgate.) by Wetstein 
 and Semler. Controversy on this point between J. M. Goze ( Vertheid. der 
 Complut. Bibel, 1765; Ausfiihrl. Vertheid., 1766 ; Forts., etc., 1769) and Sem- 
 ler {Genauere Unters., 1766 ; Samml. iiber die Beweisstellen St. 2). On the 
 side of the latter, J. N. Kiefer, Gerettete Vermuthungen iiber d. compl. N. T., 
 1770. Cf. Walch, Neueste Rel.-Geschichte, IV. 423 ft. ; Wetstein, Libelli, 
 p. 70. 
 
 The text of the Complutensian N. T. has only very recently been reprinted 
 in its purity (§ 418). Yet the Plantine editions (§ 403), and those related to 
 them, hold to it prevailingly. This disfavor is doubtless due in part to eccle- 
 siastical separation, perhaps more yet to tlie costliness of the work. Of 
 Complutensian readings which did not pass over into the Plantine editions 
 and stand for the most part wholly isolated in ancient times, modern criti- 
 cism has replaced many in the text ; more have commended themselves at 
 least to individual critics. Further see § 403. The printing is not accurate. 
 
ERASMUS. 411 
 
 Especially noticeable are many clerical errors clue to Itacism ; c£. § 371. 
 Variants in the margin are only found in very few and important passages, 
 e. g. Mt., vi. 13; 1 Jn. v. 7. Parallel passages are more frequent, and there 
 is added a Greek lexicon and an explanation of the proper names. 
 
 400, Before this work was published, the enterprising Basle 
 printer, John Froben, had had a separate edition of the New 
 Testament prepared by the famous theologian and humanist 
 Erasmus of Rotterdam. Without proper preliminary labor, 
 rather a commercial entei'prise than a scientific undertaking, 
 it was hastily prepared, with very insufficient helps, and fault- 
 ily printed. With more time and increasing care the editor 
 corrected this latter fault in the four following editions, so far 
 as it was within his power. The text itself, however, was not 
 essentially altered, and the work is important only as the first 
 and most influential, not because of its inner value. But what 
 the gifted and learned author did besides, in his own field, as- 
 sures iiim an enduring place of honor in the history of the in- 
 terpretation of the Scriptures. 
 
 I. 1516, folio. The sources were two late Basle codices (Gospels 2, 
 Acts, Ejjistles 2), which Erasmus corrected by the aid of two others (Gos- 
 pels, Acts, Epistles 1, 3) and then sent to the press. For the Apocalypse 
 he had only one MS. (Apoc. 1) borrowed of J. Reuchlin, the last leaf of 
 which had a gap, so that he had to retranslate some lines from the Vulgate. 
 This MS., long supposed to be lost, has lately been rediscovered by Delitzsch. 
 It places the certainly not very careful and scientific pi'ocedure of Erasmus 
 in a yet more unfavorable light than it had usually been regarded before, 
 for the whole N. T. (Delitzsch, Handschriftliche Funde, L. 1861 f., 2 Hefte). 
 On the title page stand mulli codices and numerous Fathers, jjartieularly 
 Latin, to justify the alteration of the annexed translation (in comparison with 
 the Vulgate). The text is extremely defectively printed, evidently accord- 
 ing to an unorthographically written MS. ; here and there whole clauses and 
 parts of verses are wanting. In this edition there is a preface of the printer 
 afterward omitted. 
 
 II. 1519, folio. The proof-reading is considerably better, the text only 
 very little altered, and, judged by the criticism of to-day, not improved. 
 This edition also appeared before the publication of the Complutensian, and 
 happens to agree with it somewhat less often than the first. It v/as the 
 source of Luther's version. 
 
 III. 1522, folio. The Complutensian edition is still without noteworthy 
 influence, and the few passages in which Erasmus now agrees with it, among 
 them 1 Jn. v. 7, are drawn wholly independently from other sources. Other- 
 wise only very few changes. 
 
 IV. 1527, folio. With a text of the Apocalypse altered in many points 
 to agree with the Complutensian, and for the most part happily; otherwise 
 few new readings. 
 
 V. 1535, folio. Printed from the foregoing almost entirely without 
 change. The whole apparatus of the editor consisted finally of eight MSS. 
 This edition has been twice repeated, 1539^1 and 1705, in the Basle and 
 Leyden complete editions of Erasmus' works, though in the latter with the 
 arbiti'ary introduction of some Stephanie readings. 
 
 The work is dedicated to Pope Leo X. All the editions have a classic 
 Latin translation, the fourth tlie Vulgate also ; several other appendages be- 
 
412 HISTORY OF THE PRINTED TEXT. 
 
 side, some of which, however, do not appear until the second edition (ratio 
 sen compendium verce theol. ; paradesis ad leclorem ■ apologia • critical revision 
 of the Vulgate); also exegetical : introductions of Theophylact to the Gos- 
 pels, arguments of the editor to the Epistles, and a whole volume of notes, 
 which, however, is now seldom found, and as an integral part of the volume 
 containing the text. Cf. § 543. Variants are found in the margin of the 
 Apocalypse from the third edition on. On the numbering see § 386. 
 
 The Erasmian editions have a considerable number of readings which 
 never appeared again in the following families of texts, very few of which 
 have been favored by modern critics. The relative value of the first two 
 recensions varies ; the Complutensian readings are better especially in the 
 Apocalypse, partly also in the Gospels ; Erasmus more often has the advan- 
 tage in the Epistles and Acts. 
 
 Characteristic signs of the whole Erasmian family (original editions and 
 reprints) : Mk. xi. 26 is lacking ; xiii. 9 : axQri<TicrQi ] 2 Pet. i. 8 : avpaKrovs ', 
 Rev. ii. 13 : riixepais ifxais- — No verse division. 
 
 For literary-historical references, also on the many contentions which arose 
 because of the work, see Masch, p. 281 ff. ; Lork, Bibelgeschiclite, II. 25 ff.; 
 Matth£ei, N. T., XII. 220 ; Baumgarten, Nachr., VI. 189; Hall. Bibl., I. 
 379. 
 
 [Cf . on Erasmus the monographs of Miiller, 1828, Drummond, 1873, Gilly, 
 1879, and the article Erasmus, by Stiihelin, in Herzog's Encykl., IV. 278- 
 290, new ed. (abridged in Schaff's EncycL, I. 753.] 
 
 401. From these two original editions came the text of the 
 New Testament as it was circulated down to the last quarter of 
 the last century, and still is circulated, chiefly, to-day. During 
 this whole period all critical activity consisted, and still does 
 consist, in part, in a mere superficial improvement of the text 
 first printed, by means of gradually increasing helps timidly 
 used ; soon, indeed, in a mere mingling of the readings of dif- 
 ferent current editions, helps being completely neglected. In 
 the period immediately following, however, people were con- 
 tent with reprints of the Erasmian editions. 
 
 Editions of the Erasmian family: I. From the first edition : the N. T. in 
 the Greek Bible of the Aldine press at Venice, 1518, fol., with a dedication 
 by Francis Asulanus to Erasmus. Without chapter divisions. By no means 
 all the errors of Erasmus are corrected. Some new readuigs from an un- 
 known source, of which most happen to agree with the Complutensian, sev- 
 eral may possibly have been only happy corrections. The work is very rare. 
 Delitzsch, Handschriftl. Funde, I. 62. — From this a N. T., Venice, 1538, A. 
 de Sabio. 
 
 II. From the second edition : Hagenau, T. Anshelm, by N. Gerbel, 1521, 
 4°, also without chapter divisions, formerly regarded as Luther's source, and 
 famous from its supposed rarity. Few alterations. — Strassburg, W. Kopf- 
 fel (Cephalaeus), by J. Lonitzer, 1524. A faulty reprint of the foregoing 
 with unimportant alflerations. — Venice, 1533, A. de Sabio ; Paul only. 
 
 III. From the third edition : Basle, J. Bebel, by J. Ceporinus, with pref- 
 ace by Q^^colampadius, 1524, 1531, 1535 ; has a small number of pecidiar 
 readings and corrections. Characteristic of this class : Rev. xviii. 7: roaovrov 
 Kepdaare ; and together with II. : Acts xxi. 3 : avacpavevros ttjj Kvnpov. The 
 Bebel editions differ extremely little from one another. 
 
 The first edition of Bebel repeated, Ziirich, 1547, C. Froschaupr ; the 
 third, Basle, J. Walder, 1536 (miniature edition, with patristic additions); 
 
STEPHENS. 413 
 
 the same, Basle, T. Plater, 1538, 1540, 1544 (copies dated 1543) ; the same, 
 Basle, N. Bryliuger, 1543 ; the same, Basle, H. Curio, 1545. Eiich of these 
 editions has some unimportant peculiarities. 
 
 IV. From the fourth edition ; Louvain, Rescius, 1531. 
 
 V. From the fifth edition : simply re[)rinted with scarcely any alterations 
 worthy of mention, A. Osiander, Ev. Harmonie, Basle, 1537, 15G1, fol., and 
 N. T., H. Frohen, 1541, fol. —The latter also 1545, 4°, with some Behel 
 readings, and from this a second, N. Brylinger, 1548, and the N. T. in tho 
 Greek Bible of J. Herwag, 1545, fol. (Characteristic of this last class, Rev. 
 xxii. 21, iravroiy Tjixuiu.") 
 
 VI. From the same, but with the introduction of several Bebel and some 
 peculiar readings (Characteristic of the class, 2 Pet. ii. 18 : wras.) : the 
 Gr£eco-Latiu editions of N. Brylinger, 1542, 1544, 154G, 1549, 1550, very- 
 similar to one another but very shabby. (For later editions, see § 403.) 
 The earliest bilingual edition of this series (1541) is somewhat more closely 
 related to the preceding class. 
 
 VII. The edition printed by Charlotte Guillard, Par. 1543 (by Jaques 
 Toussaint, Professor at Paris ?), is based upon that of Bubel, bvit introduces 
 in the Apocalypse several improvements from the last Erasmian, and has 
 beside a small number of wholly peculiar readings, some of which are found 
 in the Complutensian or in Colines, from an unknown source. — Reprint, 
 J. Dupuis, Par. 1549. Both editions give the names of various different 
 booksellers on the title page, so that there are several kinds of copies ; the 
 first those of J. Roigny and J. Bogard, the second those of M. Fezandat, 
 R. Gran Jon, H. and Dion, de Marnef. 
 
 402. Meanwliile some otherwise famous men of the sixteenth 
 century were endeavoring, by comparison of new and more 
 numerous manuscripts, to carry on the work of the purification 
 of the text. It proceeded the more rapidly for a time because 
 it was supposed that the necessary rules and skill were at hand 
 from the critical study of the classics. In general, in every 
 new work of this kind some former one was made the basis, 
 and improvements were introduced sparingly. For the most 
 part, also, it was learned printers who either undertook the 
 work themselves, or selected and employed men of science 
 for it. Among the first deserves to be mentioned, before all, 
 Robert Stepliens, who, unfortunately not with the highest 
 degree of skill, availed himself of the treasures of the royal 
 library at Paris, actively aided by his no less distinguished son 
 Henry. His editions became of great importance for the period 
 subsequent. 
 
 A. Recension of the Parisian printer S. de Colines (Colinaeus), 1534 
 ('Ev AeuKerla), shabby and rare, but especially distinguished by the adoption of 
 many readings from ancient sources. It is based, as is clear from the Apoc- 
 alypse, upon the third of Erasmus ; it alters the text more frequently, and 
 happily, according to the Complutensian (apparently), but very often, also 
 (if not everywhere), according to MSS. (especially in the Ejjistles) where 
 modern criticism in most cases agrees. Some alterations might seem arbi- 
 trary ; at least this was the opinion of contemporaries. 
 
 B. Much less independent are the two recensions of Robt. Stephens 
 (Stephanus), imprimeur du roi at Paris. The first, in two neat manual 
 editions, known among bibliographers by the first words of the preface. 
 
414 HISTORY OF THE PRINTED TEXT. 
 
 mirificam, without particular indication of sources or their use. I. 1546, 
 with a small but incomplete list of typograpliical errors. It follows Erasmus 
 mostly, but adopts a considerable number of Complutensian readings. That 
 which is new and peculiar to itself is unimportant. — II. 1511), said to be with- 
 out typographical errors, because no list of them is aftixed, only slightly 
 different from the preceding. 
 
 C. The second Stephanie recension, down to the present day most fre- 
 quently of all older editions used as a standard ; iirst, III. Paris, 1550, fol. 
 {edUio regia), beautiful presswork ; in the margin parallel passages and 
 variants from the Complutensian and fifteen MSS., among which was Cod. L. 
 It abandons many Complutensian readings and follows Erasmus instead. 
 Almost nothing new. In the Epistles and Apocalypse Erasmus is retained 
 almost unaltered. Ancient and modern chapter division, Eusebian Canons 
 and numbering, patriotic introductions to the separate books, etc. [Repub- 
 lished by F. H. Scrivener, Camb. 1859 ; new edition, 1877, with the variations 
 of Beza (15G5), Elzevir (1624), Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles.] 
 IV. Geneva, 1551, 2 Pts., 16°; first edition with verse division ; the rarest 
 and least beautiful of the series, with Erasmus' translation and the Vulgate. 
 The text of the preceding altered in but few places, but important as the 
 immediate source of the textus receptus. 
 
 Cf. in general Mdl, 1155 fE., 1220 fP.; Baumgarten, Nadir., I. 195 ; II. 5, 
 471 ; IV. 377 ; Semler, Vorher., IV. 361 ; E. Reuss, Art. Stephanus in Her- 
 zog's Encijkl. 
 
 Characteristic of the first Stephanie recension 2 Tim. iv. 13 : <pi\<iivy\u ; of 
 the second (Ed. III.) 1 Pet. iii. 11 omits ayadhv CnT-nadTu ; of the third (Ed. 
 IV.) Col. i. 20 omits Si' avTov- 
 
 On the alleged separate recension of Crispin, see the following section. 
 
 403. The slight results of the labors of the last named editors, 
 though undertaken with great pains and much zeal, inasmuch 
 as no attention whatever was paid to the first improved recen- 
 sion, and tiie second even took a step backward, leads us to 
 suspect that science had at that time already arrived at the 
 stage which she was able to reach with the means at hand, and 
 which the age was able to bear. Indeed we might introduce 
 even here the expression Textus Receptus, which is generally 
 applied only to a later recension (if it is still to be used at 
 all) ; for the text was not essentially altered from that already 
 fixed upon until a much more modern and propitious age ; 
 observing, however, what has always been overlooked, that 
 there was a double form of this text, as there was once a two- 
 fold original edition, and that only ignorance or prejudice could 
 have allowed the better of them to be so utterly forgotten in 
 modern times. 
 
 A. The Stephanie Family, in which, according to § 402, with an Erasmian 
 basis, a number of Complutensian, and a smaller number of new Stephanie 
 readings occur : — 
 
 First Class : The edition of 1546 repeated : Paris, 1549, printed by Prevot 
 for Birkmann or Haultin ; handsome but inaccurate. — Paris, 1568 (Copies 
 dated 1569), Robt. Stephens, the son. — Frankfurt, at Wechel's press, 1597, 
 fol., with LXX. ; reprinted, Venice, 1687, fol., N. Dulci {rxvKus). — Frankfurt, 
 Wechel, 1600, small size. All these editions depart here and there from 
 their original, and are independent of one another. 
 
TEXTUS EECEPTUS. 415 
 
 Second Class : Repetitions of the edition of 1550. 
 
 First Group: Basle, Uporin, 155U; Basle, Bry linger, 1553 and 1558 (Greek 
 only) ; Frankfurt, Wechel, IGOl, fol., with all the critical and exegetical ad- 
 ditions of Stephens ; London, Bill, 1(3215 ; Strassburg, Miilb, edited by J. H. 
 Bdcler, 1645. All these are independent of one another, and alter the 
 Stephanie text either not at all, or in very few passages only. Bocler's second 
 more, see § 406. Here belong also, according to their title-page, several 
 modern, undated Cambridge editions which I have not seen ; one of which 
 has an English translation by J. Scholetield. 
 
 Second Group: (Crispiuic Text) Geneva, 1553, with preface by the printer, 
 J. C. Ci'ispin; Greek titles, superscriptions of chapters, parallels, variants iu 
 the margin ; differs from Stephens in several passages. This text repeated, 
 with all its appendages : Zurich, Froschauer, 1559 and 1566 ; Basle, Brylin- 
 ger, 1563 (Greek only) ; Leipzig, Vogeliu, 1563 (1564), 15*J5. The last three 
 agree in some passages with the earlier editions of Bi-ylinger. Characteristic 
 of the group : Jn. i. 28, fir]6l3apa, or 1 Pet. iii. 7 : ^orjs (sic). 
 
 Tliird Group : The text of the third Stephens edition is also found in sev- 
 eral later editions, which, on account of their other critical additions, we shall 
 have to mention jiarticularly below (§ 407 f.); Walton, Mill, Birsch, and the 
 editions dependent oil them. 
 
 Third Class : Repetitions of the edition of 1551. 
 
 First Group : The second edition of Crispin, Geneva, 1564 (1565) ; Basle, 
 Perna, 1570, fol., with the Glossa Compendiai-ia of Flacius (§ 548). Both of 
 these editions with isolated alterations and independent of each other ; the 
 latter reprinted, Frankf ., Beyer, 1659, fol. 
 
 Second Group : Wittenb., S. Selfisch, 1583 (? a title-page edition of it, 
 Amst., Jeger, 1583), 1605 (Title-page ed. 1606), 1618, 1623. — Strassb., T. 
 Riehl, the only undated edition of older times (before 1596). — N. T. poly- 
 glott., ed. by D. Wolder, Hamb., Lucius, 1596, fol. — Giessen, Hampel, 1669 
 (Title-page edition, Frankf., Wiist, 1673 ; copies of both on large paper, 4°). 
 — All these editions contain the same text, that of the fourth Stephens 
 edition, with some alterations. Characteristic : Mk. iv. 21 : Kaierai and Rev. 
 iii. 12 : Kaw at the same time. For a continuation of this series, see § 405. 
 All these editions have Erasmus' translation, his arguments, a Sunima totius 
 Scr. and an Index theol. 
 
 B. The Erasmo-Stephanic family, in which, with an Erasmian basis, 
 a fsmall number of Stephanie readings occur. 
 
 First Group : Tlie later Brylinger family : Basle, 1553, 1556, 1558, 1562, 
 1564, 1566, 1571, 1577 ; Basle, Osten, 1588 ; Leipzig, Vogelin, 1563, 1565, 
 1570 ; Leipzig, Steinmann, 1578, 1582, 1588 ; Leipzig, Lanzenberger, 1591, 
 1594, 1599 ; Frankfurt, Palthen, 1596 ; all with Latin translation, without 
 verse numbering, and line for line throughout like one another and those 
 mentioned in § 401, VI. Also, Greek only, Basle, Brylinger, 1586, with verse 
 division. Finally, Frankfurt, Endter, 1661. Characteristics : Mk. xvi. 8 : 
 raxecos, 2 Pet. ii. 18 : buras. The number of Stephanie readings adopted in- 
 creases in this series ; the editions of 1562, 1563, 1566, and 1586 in particular 
 are innovations in this respect. 
 
 Second Group : Lyons, De Tournes (Tornsesius), 1559 ; text of Guillard 
 (§ 401, VII.), mingled with Stephanie readings. — Title-page edition, Lyons, 
 Roussin, 1597. 
 
 Third Group : Basle, Barbier and Courteau, 1559 (1560) ; also Zurich, 
 1559, fol. reckoned by some as the first edition of Beza, because of the trans- 
 lation of Beza printed with it. The Stephanie text is sometimes altered ac- 
 cording to Brylinger's. 
 
 Fourth Group : The text in the famous Commentary on the Gospels begun 
 by M. Chemnitz, carried on by P. Leyser, and completed by J. Gerhard 
 (§ 555), printed at first synoptically and afterward mingled with the text. 
 
416 HISTORY OF THE PRINTED TEXT. 
 
 The older portions, printed in parts, 1593-lGlG, have a text nearly related 
 to that of liryling-er. Frankfurt and Leipzig, by various printers, and freq. 
 The portion written by Gerliard, in two divisions, of wliieli tlie last appeared 
 first, Jena, 1G17 and IGliG, is the Stephanie text almost unchanged. Fii'st 
 and third parts, Geneva, Berjon, 1G28, fol. Complete editions, Geneva, 
 Chouet, IGio, fol. ; Frankfurt, Hertel, 1652, fol. ; llamb. Hertel, 1704, fol. 
 Several unknown to me are mentioned by Le Long and Fabricius. 
 
 C. The Flantine family, in which, with a Complutensian basis, there oc- 
 curs a proportionately small number of Erasmo-Stephanic readings, and al- 
 most no others. The statement (Hefele, Ximenes, 134) that these are mere 
 reprints of the Conipluteusian is erroneous. 
 
 First, in the Antwerp Polyglot, Vol. V., printed by C. Plantin, prepared 
 by Ceued. Arias Montanus (de la Sierra), 1571, fol., and therefrom, with 
 slight variations, in the Parisian Polyglot (§ 407), 1G30, fol. The Antwerp 
 Polyglot contains, as Vol. VII., still another copy of the N. T., with the 
 date 1572, and with the Vulgate, revised by the editor, printed between the 
 lines. The latter has been the source of numerous reprints. It frequently 
 varies from the first. The Polyglot has in its principal text critical signs 
 for additions and omissions, which, however, are not retained in the reprints. 
 Variants only in a few editions, and sparingly, in the margin. The Themata 
 verballa for school boys, in most, and the above interlinear version in many. 
 
 Antwerp, C. Plantin, 1573, 1574, 1583, all Greek only ; 1584, Grseco- 
 Latin ; the last only folio ; Leyden, F. Rapheleng, 1591, IGOl, 1G12, 1013. 
 Most of the Plantine editions cive forma minima. — Paris, 1584, 4°, Prevoteau, 
 with Syriac and Latin translation (also copies 158G, Le Bouc). The Gospels 
 with commentary by Lucas of Briigge, 1G06, fol. 
 
 Heidelberg, H. Commelin, 1599, fol., (Title-page edition, IGIG) with the 
 translation. The same edition, set in 8°, with the dates 1599, 1602, and 
 Lyons, Vincent, 1599 ; Geneva, 1599 ; all one and the same title-page edi- 
 tion. 
 
 Geneva editions : Pierre de la Roviere, with the translation, (n) sine loco, 
 1609, fol., and Aurel. Allobr., 8° (the same edition) ; (b) Aurel. or Colon. 
 Allobr., 1010-11 ; (c) sine loco, 1619, fol. and 8° ; also Aurel. Allobr., 1619, 
 1631, 8° (all the same edition) ; without the translation, (rf) Aurel. Allobr., 
 imd,fonn. min. ; (e) Colon. Allobr., 1619, I6I1O, 4° ; also Geneva, 1620, 4° 
 (differing in title page only) ; Jacob Stoer, sine loco, 1627 ; S. Crispin, sine 
 loco, 1612, 1622. — From 1612 on still more Stephanie readings enter into 
 this group. 
 
 The Plantine text has been repeated in later times : Leipzig, Kirchner, 
 1657, fol. ; Vienna, Kaliwoda, 1740 ; Mayence, Varrentrapp (edited by H. 
 Goldhagen), 1753 ; Liittich, Kersten, 1839 ; and the Harmony of J. A. 
 Rotermundt, Passaii, Ambrosi, 1835. 
 
 The number of peculiar readings, nowhere else printed (agreeing with the 
 Complutensian) is very great ; as a characteristic (against the Compluten- 
 sian) may serve Acts v. 24 : o re apx^epeis. 
 
 404. But another more independent recension of this period 
 remains to be noticed. The critical collections of the younger 
 Stephens, which he had increased still more by his journeys, 
 came into the hands of Theodore Beza, renowned for his part 
 in the Reformation in France, who himself possessed several 
 veiy old, formerly unknown manuscripts, and who even began 
 to collate the Oriental versions. He issued a series of editions 
 in which the original was accompanied by a translation of his 
 own, in which, however, the Stephens text was but seldom 
 
BEZA. 417 
 
 changed and not always happily. A man of affairs and of the 
 Chuicli, he lacked the necessary tact in the little matters of 
 criticism, and doubtless also the courage to maintain what he 
 saw to be better in opposition to custom. His tianslation often 
 expresses a wholly different reading from the text standing by 
 the side of it, and his notes, important as they are from a the- 
 ological point of view, sufficiently show that it was already too 
 late and yet much too early for the task that was here pre- 
 sented. 
 
 Beza himself, to whom his translation was of more importance than the 
 criticism of the text, counted in the first edition, Latin alone, 1557 (the Greek 
 N. T. of 1559, mentioned in § 403, api^eared without Beza's cooperation), so 
 that the first Grrseco-Latin edition, 15G5, is called Ed. II. 
 
 [On the life and labors of Beza, see the works of La Faye, Gen. 1606, 
 Schlosser, Heidelb. 1809, Baum, L. 1843 and 1851, and Heppe, Elberf. 
 1861 ; also the article Beza in Schaft'-Herzog's Encycl., I., 255 tt'.] 
 
 The proper Bezan editions are partly large, partly small, the former folio, 
 with the Vulgate and the new translation, a full commentary with index, dedi- 
 cated to Queen Elizabeth ; the latter 8°, dedicated to the Prince of Conde, 
 do not have the Vulgate (with the exception of the third), and instead of 
 the commentary marginal notes, which, from the third on, are collected 
 from Beza by Loiseleur Villier and J. Cherpont. These editions are not al- 
 together alike as to text. Most of them do not state the place of printing 
 (Geneva), and are often erroneously marked Paris in the catalogues of li- 
 braries and book-stores. 
 
 A. Genuine Bezan editions. 
 
 First Group : I. Principal edition (Geneva), H. Stephens, 1565, fol. Ba- 
 sis, Stephens iV. The changes made agree in part with the Complutensian 
 or Erasmus, but are in part wholly new readings. By no means all of Be- 
 za's changes have been approved by modern critics. Repeated, Geneva, 
 1565, 1567, manual editions, and 1569, fol. with the Syriac text, without im- 
 portant difference. (Title-page edition of the last, Lyons, 1571.) 
 
 Second Group : The remaining large editions, for which Beza collated 
 Codd. D Cantahr. and D Clarom. (§ 392), as well as the Peshito and Arabic 
 versions; yet without arriving at more than a few improvements, which were 
 afterward altogether neglected in criticism. II. Geneva, 1582, fol. ; III. 
 Geneva, 1589 (also copies dated 1588), fol. IV. Vignon, Geneva, 1598 (also 
 copies without this name) fol. The last edition reprinted by Daniel, Cam- 
 bridge, 1642, fol. The first in the Libri hist. N. T., with commentary, by 
 B. Walseus, Leyden, Wyngaerden, 1652, 4°. (Title-page edition, Ravesteiii, 
 Amst. 1662) ; some readings, however, were adopted from the fourth. 
 
 It is to be observed also that Beza both tacitly, in the translation, and ex- 
 pressly, in the notes, commended many readings which he did not receive 
 into his text. His choice in these cases is often happy; unfortunately no suc- 
 ceeding editor took the hint. No characteristic signs can be given for the 
 genuine Bezan editions, since all the innovations of the first group have 
 passed over into the Elzevir editions ; yet we mention, by way of example, 
 as introduced by Beza, the now altogether rejected readings : Rom. vii. 6, 
 airodavdyTos ; Rev. xi. 1 adds ku] 6 ayyeXos eia-rriKet ; and the generally approved : 
 Acts ix. 35, rhv 'S.dpoova. ; for the second group : 1 Cor. xv. 55, v^Kot- and KevTpov 
 transposed; and, also now generally approved: Acts xvi. 1, irvivfxa'l-naov; 
 Ja. ii. 18, x'^P^^- 
 
 B. Semi-Bezan editions : — 
 
 First Group : Editions of H. Stephens, Geneva, 1576, 1587, 1604, small 
 27 
 
418 HISTORY OF THE PRINTED TEXT. 
 
 size, without translation. The first with the famous preface of the editor on 
 the laugiiage of the N. T. (§ 47) ; the following with another upon the an- 
 cient chajjter division. They have much in common with Beza and some 
 peculiar readings, as if the two critics had used the same helps and had done 
 their work partly in conjunction. The edition of 1587 reprinted by Vautrol- 
 lier, London, with some readings from 1582. 
 
 Second Group : Later manual edition with Beza's preface and translation, 
 Stephens (Geneva), 1580 ; Vignon, 1590, 1604, IGll. (Copies of the latter 
 also by S. Crispin.) They have most of the peculiar readings of the first 
 group. 
 
 Third Group : Slightly changed reprints of the edition of 157G : Typogr. 
 reg., London, 1592 ; Harsy, Lyons, 1599-lGOO, 2 vols., and by Harsy's 
 widow, 1611 ; Stoer, Geneva, 1609, 1625 ; by various jjrinters, London, 
 1653, 1664, 1672, 1674, with notes by C. Hoole ; Emery, Paris, 1715 (the 
 title-page states a wholly different source) ; and in the Commentary of J. 
 Price, Flesher, London, 1660, fol. 
 
 Characteristic of this family (B.) : Mt. i. 11 adds laKiijx ; Mt. ix. 18, &pxov 
 
 TtJ. 
 
 C. The strange edition of E. Lubinus, Pedanus, Rostock, 1G14, 3 vols., 
 with Latin and German interlinear translation, the order of the Greek words 
 changed to corresjiond with the German in usum tironum, and the readmgs 
 of the two classes just mentioned mingled. (Title-page editions, Hallerfeld, 
 Rostock, 1617 ; Ferber, Rostock, 1626 ; Janson, Amst. 1614.) 
 
 405. Beza's work was the last feeble attempt for more than 
 a century to improve the text by means of manuscripts and 
 other ancient witnesses. His successors did no more than to 
 make choice from among the existing printed readings, and 
 thus arose at their hands a series of mixed editions, in whose 
 preparation no preliminary critical researches whatever are to 
 be supposed. The case was simplest and easiest where Ste- 
 phens and Beza were mingled, — the latest, and among Prot- 
 estants, by the displacement of the pure Erasmian, the most 
 widely current, — since but a small number of passages came 
 in question. The mingling of Stephanie and Plantine read- 
 ings was a matter of greater extent, but also more rare. The 
 most noteworthy point in all this is that notwithstanding the 
 anxious clinging of theologians to the letter, which has been 
 the greatest hindrance to criticism, no scientific conception of 
 the inviolability of the attested text seems to have existed. 
 
 A. Stephano-Bezan family. 
 
 First Group : Werlin, Tiibingen, prepared by M. HafenrefPer, 1618, 4°. 
 Reprint of the third Stephens edition with the introduction of some few Bry- 
 linger and Bezan readings, from Beza's first edition, with statement of vari- 
 ants at the end of each chapter. 
 
 Second Group : Reprint of the fourth Stephens edition in the form given 
 it by Selfisch (§ 403), with the introduction of a small number of readings 
 from the first recension of Beza. First issued by Borhek, Wittenb., 1622, 
 4°, with the cooperation of E. Schmid, at the cost of Bishop Nicephorus of 
 Thessalonica, with Greek title, intended for the Orient ; then by Selfisch, 
 Wittenb., 1635, with Erasmus' translation, tables of contents. Index theoL, 
 and other additions ; Wiist, Wittenb. 1661 ; Mevius, Frankf., 1653 ; Wiist, 
 Frankf, 1674, 1686, 1693, 1700. Here also may be placed the edition, with 
 
MIXED EDITIONS - ELZEVIRS. 419 
 
 translation and commentary, of Erasmus Schmid, Niirnb., 1G5S, fol., wLicla, 
 however, departs somewhat more frequently from Stephens, and even has 
 some new readings of its own. Characteristic, at least of most. Rev. ii. 5 : 
 ev rdx^t. 
 
 Third Group : Reprint of the fourth Stephens edition, with a few read- 
 ings from Beza's iirst recension, and some peculiar ones, all of which, how- 
 ever, do not appear at the very first : E. Vignon (Geneva), 1574, 1584, 
 1587 ; J. Vignon, Geneva, 1615 ; Paul Stephens (Geneva), 1(317 ; J. Crispin 
 (Geneva), 1G32 (Title-page edition J. De Tournes) ; 1). Frere, London, 
 1648. As to external make-up these editions belong with the later Stephens 
 editions, 1576 fi. (§ 404). They have variants in the margin and exegeti- 
 cal notes by Is. Casaubon. Characteristic : Acts vii. 48 omits vao7s and Jn. 
 xviii. 1 rov KeSpaiv at the same time. As to text alone the edition of J. 
 de Tournes and J. de la Pierre (Geneva), 1632, belongs here. 
 
 Fourth Group : Blaeu, Amst. 1633 ; on the basis of Beza, 1589, readings 
 from Robt. Stephens, II. 1549. 
 
 B. Stepliano-Pl.antine family. Not related to one another. 
 (1.) Mylius, Cologne, 1592. Retains fully two thirds of all Plantine 
 readings and replaces the rest by Stephanie ; also has a small number from 
 Brylinger. 
 
 (2.) E. Hutter, Niirnb. 1599, fol., in tAvelve languages, and 1602, 4° (cop- 
 ies by Walschaert, Amst. 1615) in four. On the editor, see Umch. Nachr., 
 1716, p. 392. In this edition are Plantine and Stephanie readings in nearly 
 equal numbers, beside some from Beza and others. The editor frequently 
 introduces into the text manuscript glosses, nay even fancies of his own, or 
 additions translated from the Vulgate, and orthodox Lutheran Dicta prohan- 
 tia fabricated by him with naive audacity, beside some real critical improve- 
 ments. 
 
 (3.) J. de Tournes, Geneva, 1628 (copies sine loco and Aurel. Allobr.) ; 
 also Geneva, 1628 (copies with 1629), the latter with Beza's translation and 
 the Frencli. In the former Plantine readings very largely prevailed, in the 
 latter Stephanie. 
 
 In every one of these three (four) recensions the selection of Plantine and 
 Stephanie readings is different. 
 
 406. The most famous and widely circulated of these mixed 
 editions based chiefly upon Beza's recension is that which has 
 made the name of the Elzevir family of Dutch printers a much 
 mentioned one in the history of the text even to-day. _ They 
 made the need of theologians of a fixed text the basis of a 
 clever and successful business speculation, by announcing, 
 without furtlier comment, that their neat manual editions, 
 which were distinguished for beauty and correctness, contained 
 the text received by everybody, which soon became the actual 
 fact, at least through large regions. In consequence the slight 
 degree of liarmless and irregular freedom which had been al- 
 lowed in the criticism of readings almost entirely disappeared 
 in the learned world. The petty literalism of the schools 
 finally made variants a dangerous thing, forbade criticism, and 
 the text just as it stood became a part of orthodoxy. Yet this 
 fact, though undeniable, is not to be taken in the strictest 
 sense. 
 
 Edd. ElzeviriancB ; famous also in classical literature and otherwise, 
 
420 HISTORY OF THE PRINTED TEXT. 
 
 printed at Leyden and Amsterdam, mostly (the N. T. always) in forma 
 m'tnlma. Leyden, 1G*^4, HVSd (Preface : textum ergo hahes nunc ah omnibus 
 receptum in quo nihil iinmuUUum aut corruptum dainus . . . J'ormain ■Tepi(p6priTou 
 Ka\ ivwvov h. e. oKijriv re pariter koI <piXr\v], 1641 ; Amst., 1G50, IGG:;!, 1G70, 
 1678. Yet the third edition, on account of several peculiar readings, really 
 ought not to he hrouglit into this series at all (see Note 8). 
 
 [For a liistory of the Elzevir family and a list of their publications, see 
 Les Elzeoier, Hisloire et Annales typographiques, by Alphonse Willems, Brus- 
 sels and Paris, 1880, 2 vols.] 
 
 The text of the first edition, which is usually regarded to-day as the gen- 
 uine and normal representation of the Textus Receptus, but in reality is so 
 no more than many others, is by no means taken from the Editio regia of 
 Robt. Stephens, from which it is said by Mill (Prolegg., § 1307) to depart in 
 but twelve passages, by Tischendorf (Ed. 1841, p. (j'j.) in but 127, but from 
 the first manual edition of Beza, 1565, from which it departs only in some 
 few passages which were changed in accordance with Beza, 1580. The hand 
 which gave the text tliis form is unknown to us (D. Heinsius or A. Thysius 
 has been conjectured) ; the merit is not great, and the best woi-k in it is that 
 of the proof-reader. 
 
 Tlie seven (not eight) original Elzevir editions vary among themselves in 
 some passages (so that only IV., V., and VI. are precisely alike) ; hence the 
 numerous reprints, aside from all other changes, also vary in these passages. 
 Since two of these passages were evident errors (Rom. vii. 2, anh tov avSphs, 
 I.-III. ; Rev. iii. 12, \ar£, I.-VI.), in view of the necessity of proof-reading 
 for a careful revision, iu this point alone, the number of altogether servile 
 reprints is to be placed at only twenty. Many of these reprints, even iu 
 the wider sense, which diifer also, perhaps, in size and other incidental mat- 
 ters, have misleading titles : Ad probatissimos codices, etc., or Ex utraque regia 
 editione, which is said to mean Stephens, lood, and the Antwerp Polyglot, 
 from which latter they derive nothing whatever, but which was mentioned 
 with the other on account of the Catholics. 
 
 Yet but few editions have been rejirinted from the Elzevii's absolutely 
 without change ; most have in some passages favorite Stephanie readings, or 
 at least have exchanged or improved the Elzevir variants. According to the 
 extent of such changes we divide the whole mass into two classes. 
 
 First Class : Pure Elzevir editions, i. e., unchanged reprints of one of the 
 seven genuine Elzevirs. 
 
 (1.) Of the first : Wourdan, Amst. 1626, with Beza's version ; Jannon, 
 Sedan, 1628, the smallest iu existence ; Paris, in J. Morin's Greek Bible, 
 1628, fob, in copies with the names of different booksellers, C. Sonne, S. 
 Chappelet, X. Buon, A. Estienne (Title-page edition, S. Piget, 1641) ; Wechel, 
 Hanau, 1629 (New title, Ammon, Hamburg, 1655), with R. Stephens' pref- 
 ace. 
 
 (2.) To the third belongs, as to its text, Whittaker, London, 1633, which 
 was printed by the Elzevirs, and whose peculiar readings passed over into 
 Elzevir III. (Title-page edition, Elzevir, 1641, 8° ; not to be coirfounded with 
 the one mentioned in Note 1.) 
 
 (3.) To the seventh : Cagnolini, Padua, 1692 ; Orphanage, Halle, 1710, 
 with a Modern Greek version by L. Koletis. A series of similar bilingual 
 editions published by English Bible Societies, Tilling, London (Chelsea), 
 1810 (1814), 1819 (18l;4). Later, see below. Also, Moscow, 1821, 4° 
 (Typogr. S. Synod.), with LXX. 
 
 Second Class : Editions with very few changes, drawn from various sources. 
 
 First Group, the different editions independent of one another ; Jansson, 
 Amst. 1632, 1639 ; Royal press, Paris, 1642, fob, edition de luxe (Maza- 
 rine) ; Laur., Amst. 1647, with Beza's version ; Leers, Rotterdam, 1654, 
 1658 ; Bodmer, Ziirich, 1677, and with Beza, 1663, 1671 ; also 1708, of 
 
ELZEVIRS. 421 
 
 which some copies without the version ; Molin, Lyons, 1G74, witli the Vul- 
 gate ; Winter, Abo, 1G88 ; Hugueton, Amst. ; the Harmony of the Gospels 
 of J. Le Clerc (§ 179), 1G99 (copies with 1700), fol. ; Quiiiau, Paris, 1701 ; 
 Brocas, Paris 17i;2 ; Seminary, Padua, 1725 ; Mayer, Jena, 17^1, witli com- 
 mentary by C. Stock ; Collin, Stregiias, 1758 ; Watts, London, lSli7 (often 
 repeated from stereotype plates), with Modern Greek version ; so also Til- 
 ling, London, 181:8 ; a Harmony of the Synoptists, Malta, 18o8 ; one of the 
 four Gospels by J. Strong, New York, 1854 ; title-page edition, 1859 ; N. T. 
 by J. Jowett, Cambr. 1843 (1847). (American title-page editions, Cambr. 
 1847, 1851) ; Cologne, 185G (title-page ed. 1831, 18GG), neatly and cheaply 
 reprinted from the jjreceding, the onl}' Elzevir printed in Germany for al- 
 most a century, but at the expense of the English Bible Society, for the pur- 
 pose of keeping the more recent recensions out of the hands of students. 
 Also, with English versions, 18G3, 18G9, and with German, 18G4. 
 
 Second Group : A special class is formed by the Leusden editions (J. Leus- 
 den, Prof, at Utrecht ; § 17), in which 1900 verses of the text, which con- 
 tain all the words used in the N. T., are marked with asterisks, and of these 
 those wliich occur but once and those which are found several times are 
 designated by different signs. This much repeated triiiiug shows the taste 
 of the age, which had changed criticism into Masoretic counting, and be- 
 lieved in the uuchangeableness of the text. Here belong : Smytegelt, 
 Utrecht, 1G75 ; Boom, Amst. 1G88 (also copies Van Someren ; also Smith, 
 London) ; Vv'ust, Frankf. 1G92 (copies with 1G93), edited by R. Leusden ; 
 Lipper, Liineburg, 1G33, with preface by J. Winkler and Luther's version ; 
 Wetstein, Amst. 1G93, 1701, 1717, 1740 ; also impressions of all (except 
 1701) with Arias' translation, and of the first with a Dutch version ; 
 Luchtmans, Leyden, 1G99 (New title-page, 171G, 1751, 17G5, 1785) ; Leip- 
 zig, 1702, 1709, 1733, with preface by Rechenberg ; Reyher, Gotha, 1708 
 (New title-page, Hansch, 1710, 1712) ; Stossel, Chemnitz, with preface by 
 C. F. Wiliseh, 1717 ; two editions, one with Luther's, the other with S. 
 Schmidt's Latin version ; new title-page of both, 1730 ; Voss, Leipzig, 1724, 
 1730, 1739 ; Voss, Berlin, 1750, 1757, 1774 ; also with Arias' version, Voss, 
 Leipzig, 1722, 1727, 1737, 1745 ; Berlin, 1753, 1757, 1761, and with Luther, 
 L. 1732 ; Wetstein and Nourse, Leyden and London, 1772 ; Wingrave, Lon- 
 don, 1794, 1804 ; Bradford, Philadelphia, 1806 ; all these English and Amer- 
 ican editions Grseco-Latin ; Collins, New York, 1824. 
 
 Third Group : Editions which, for critical purposes, printed the most cur- 
 rent text together with a collection of variants : — 
 
 (1.) Elzevir, and later, Blaeu, Amst. 1658, 1675, 1685, 1699, edited by E. 
 de Courcelles (§ 407). Here also, as to the text, we place the edition Mi- 
 geot, Mons, 1673, with French and Latin version (Sacy and Vulgate), and 
 the edition of the Catholic Epistles with commentary by B. Carpzov, Curt. 
 Halle, 1790. The whole series may be recognized by the brackets (1 Jn. 
 V. 7). 
 
 (2.) T. Sheldon, Oxford (by J. Fell ; § 407) ; thence Bennet, Oxf. 1703, 
 fol., with Greek scholia, by J. Gregory, and Konig, Leipzig, 1697, 1702, the 
 latter with preface by A. H. Franke. Here also belong, as to text : Smy- 
 tegelt, Utrecht, 1675 (a different one from that already mentioned) ; Heini- 
 chen, Leipzig, 1691 (also copies Lipper, Liineburg) and 1697, with pref- 
 ace by Adam Rechenberg ; Jeffray, Cambridge, 1700 ; Reyher, Gotha, 
 1715, with the O. T. Apocrypha and a preface by E. S. Cyprian. 
 
 (3.) Wetstein, Amsterdam, 1711, 1735, edited by Gerhard v. Maestricht 
 (§ 407) ; reprinted, Renger, Halle, 1730, with notes by C. Neudecker ; and 
 without the variants. Orphanage, Halle, 1740, 1756, 1762, 1775 ( the books 
 in Luther's order, also copies with Luther's version) ; Mechel, Basle, by A. 
 Birr, 1749 ; Thurneisf^n, Basle, 1825 ; Foidis, Glasgow, 1759, 4°; Ruddiiiian, 
 Edinb. 1750, 1771 ; University Press, Edinb. 1807 ; Wilson & Cadell, London, 
 1808 (stereotype editions, 1812, 1821, 1829, 1840), edited by W. W. Dakins. 
 
422 HISTORY OF THE PRINTED TEXT. 
 
 A glance at the foregoing list of genuine Elzevir editions, scarcely twenty 
 of which, not even all the Leusdens, are without variations from their orig- 
 inal, shows, in the first place, that their number is not so overwhelming as 
 is generally supposed ; secondly, that the appellation Textus Receptus be- 
 longs to them neither in the sense of absolute uuchangeableness nor in that 
 of especial independence ; finally also, that tliis text made its way into 
 Lutheran circles much later than into the Reformed, and under the patron- 
 age of the Halle school (the Pietists, § 558). Yet the difference between 
 the previously prevalent btephanic and Stephano-Bezan text and the Elzevir 
 is far too slight to lay weight upon. No notice was taken of the variants 
 except in so far as the better known editions were distinguished thereby. 
 Hence it was possible to assert that there were really no various readings, or 
 only clerical errors, that no one should trouble himself about them, or that 
 they served only as occasions for dangerous contention ; see the prefaces of 
 A. Birr, 1749, and of the edition of Stregniis, 1758. For the way in which 
 theological science settled the matter, see Moldenhawer, Introd., p. 197 : 
 Dantur quidem vv. II. cum autem potissimum ex incuria scriharum ortum trahant, 
 nulli ardculo Jidei fraudi sint, analogiam fidei non turheni, et vera lectio ope 
 regularum herm. et crit. dignosci queat, minime textum corruptionis arguunt et 
 permisit eas deos ne deesset hominibus occasio assidue scrutandi II. ss. So also 
 Bdrner, Isagoge, p. 59. But the orthodox theory of criticism is expressed in 
 the following (Leusden, Philol hehr. gr., p. 47) : Plerceque vv. II. ex oscitantia 
 scribarum irrepserunt, quce studio Complutensium, Erasmi, Stephani, Bezce sunt 
 restitutce adeo ut (as if these agreed ! ) in hodiernis edd. quiescere possimus. . . . 
 Non cuilibet concedenda est facultas eligendi lectionem, nam tumsensus eliceretur 
 qualem aliquis judicat eligendum cum solius Sp. S. sit determinare quid ad S. S. 
 pertinent. And it is adduced as an example that 1 Ju. v. 7 ought not to be 
 struck out, because a dictum probans would be lost. 
 
 R. Simon (Hist, du V. T., p. 8) ; Les catholiques, qui sont persuades que 
 leur religion ne depend pas seulement du texte de V Ecriture, mais aussi de la 
 tradition de V^glise, ne sont point scandalises de voir que le malheur des temps 
 et la negligence des copistes ayent apporte des changements aux livres sacrcs. 
 II n'y a que des protestants pre'occupe's ou ignorants qui puissent s'en scanda- 
 liser. Hence the storm of opposition to L. Cappelle's Critica s. V. T., which 
 could only be printed under Catholic management (1G50). 
 
 The wishes of Polyc. Leyser (De nooiter adornanda N. T. edit., L. 1723), 
 whose voice was the only one beard upon critical matters at that time among 
 the Lutherans, refer to externalities only, and show no suspicion of the true 
 state of the case. 
 
 Third Class. Improperly so-called reprints of the Elzevir text, with more 
 frequent changes (according to Stephens). 
 
 First Group : On the basis of the first Elzevir edition, with some non- 
 Stephanie readings also : Buck, Cambr. 1632 ; repeated, Roger Daniel, Lond. 
 1G52, 1653 ; Field, Cambr. 1665 ; Redmaine, Lond. 1674, 1705 ; Churchill, 
 London, 1701 (two editions) ; Knaplock, Lond. 1728 ; Tonson and Watts, 
 Lond. 1714, 1728, 1730, 1756, edited by M. Maittaire ; Rivington, Lond. 
 1775, 1786 ; Ewing, Dublin, 1746, 1775 ; Ekshaw, Dublin, 1794 ; Pickering, 
 Lond. 1828, of the smallest conceivable size, with Lilliputian type. 
 
 Second Group : An edition with Modern Greek version by Maximus of 
 Kallipoli, sine loco (Geneva ?), 1638, 2 vols. 4°, ordered by the Patriarch 
 Cyril Lucar, in which the text of Elzevir II. is altered by the aid of R. 
 Stephens, 1546, and H. Stephens, 1587. 
 
 Third Group : In the three complete editions of the works of Cocceius 
 (§ 557), Amst. 1675, Frankf. 1689, Amst. 1701, there is printed an almost 
 complete N. T., in which Elzevir IV. is abandoned in many passages, at least 
 in the Epistles. 
 
 Fourth Group : Tlie second edition of Bdcler, Sfadel, Str. 1660, abandon.; 
 Stephens (§ 403) for Elzevir but seldom. 
 
ELZEVIRS. 423 
 
 Fifth Group : Gleditsch, Leipzig, witli preface by J. G. Pritz, tables of 
 contents and variants, 1703, 1709, 1724, 1735 ; reprint of the first, Vnlpius, 
 Giessen, edited by J. H. Mai, 1705 ; also copies with Luther ; of the fourth, 
 March, Leipzig, 1744, with a peculiar section division and tables of con- 
 tents by C. Schottgen ; repeated, Gampert, Breslan, 17(J5 ; Korn, Breslau, 
 1782, 1795. Less like the foregoing, Teubner, Wittenb. 1730, edited by C. 
 S. Georgi, with but few variants ne imperiiiores turbentur ; repeated, 1737, 
 with Arias' version ; Normal School, Prague, ed. C. Fischer, Xlll; Upsala, 
 1806-1817, 2 vols. Characteristic of most, 2 Cor. xi. 10, <T(ppayr,aiTai. 
 
 Sixth Group : Lankisch, Leipzig, 1713, N. T. quadrilingue (Peshito, Vul- 
 gate, Luther), ed. C. Reineccius (new title-page, 1747), fol. ; thence a series 
 of manual editions which agree line for line : Breitkopf, Leipz. 1725, 1733, 
 1742, 1753, 176G, 1783 ; reprinted. Orphanage, ZUliichau, 1740, 4° (also 
 copies with Luther) ; Helwing, Detmold, 1787. (Title-page edition, Ba- 
 deckcr, Duisburg, 1804.) Characteristic, Rom. xii. 11, Kvpiw {KaipQ). 
 
 Seventh Group : The text of Mill (§ 407), on account of the fame of the 
 original edition, has been very often repeated with slight changes in Eng- 
 land and America, and is even now more widely current there than the El- 
 zevir : Editions by W. Bowyer, printer in London (later Nichols), 1715, 
 1728, 1743, 1760, 1770, 1777, 1787, 1816 (cf. §§ 398, 408 ; Lork, I. c, II. 
 69); also Baskerville, Oxford, 1763, 4° and 8°; Jos. Priestley's Harmony of 
 the Gospels, London, 1777, 4°; Clarendon Press, London, 1805 (a complete 
 Greek Bible), 1808, 1813, 1819, 1828, 1830, 1836, 1844, and perhaps freq. 
 — Thomas, Worcester (Mass.), 1800; Reeves, Lond. 1803; Bagster, Lon- 
 don, 1813, 1825, 1829 (and freq., stereotyped), in 8°, 12°, 32°; also sine anno 
 and with English version ; Thomas, Boston, 1814 ; Booth, London, 1825, 
 with commentary, 3 vols. — Parker, London, 1855, with notes by Webster 
 and Wilkinson. — Parker, Oxford, with scholia by E. Burton, 1831, 1835, 
 1848, 1852, 1856; Univ. Press, Oxf., Harmony of the Gospels, by E. Greswell, 
 1834, and freq. ; Univ. Press, Oxf., with English version and critical appar- 
 atus by E. Cardwell, 1837, 2 vols. ; Rickerby, Lond., with scholia by W. 
 TroUope, 1837; Pickering, London, with scholia, LXX., Josephus, and Philo, 
 by E. W. Griniield (editio Jiellenistica), 1843, 4 vols. ; Bagster, Lond. 1829, 
 with variants and grammatical notes by W. Greenfield ; also Perkins, Pliila. 
 1841, and freq. (stereotyped); also sine anno ; N. Y. 1847 (1859), with notes 
 bv J. A. Spencer. — The Am. Bible Union published with Mill's text, N. Y. 
 1854, 4°, a portion of the N. T. (Catholic Epistles and Apocalypse) as a 
 specimen of a new English translation. Whether more since is unknown to 
 me. [N. Y. 1860 ; the new version in full, N. Y. 1866.] 
 
 Eighth Group : Ruddiman, Edinb. 1740 ; Urie, Glasgow, 1750 ; Brough- 
 ton, Oxf. 1742 ; Richardson, Lond., with notes by S. Hardy, 1768, 1778, 1820 
 (also copies without the notes, Allman, London, 1820) . 
 
 Ninth Group : Royal Press, Turin, 1741 ; Typoqr. Semin., Padua, 1745, 
 1755, 1762 (twice), 1774, 1789, 1796, 1820 ; Bortoli, Venice, 1751. All 
 shabby and defective ; change the Elzevir text frequently according to R. 
 Stephens, 1546. 
 
 Tenth Group : Wallis, N. Y. 1808, ed. P. Wilson (repeated from stereo- 
 type plates, Hartford, 1822, 1825, 1829 ; Phila. 1829, 1833, 1838, 1858, and 
 probably freq.). In this edition, on the contrary, the oldest Stephens text 
 is in many passages altered according to Elzevir. 
 
 Fourth Class : The Elzevir text frequently changed according to the Plan- 
 tine editions : — 
 
 First Group : Cramoisy, Paris, 1632, fol., with commentary by J. Gordon. 
 
 Second Group : Longman, London, 1794, 1801, 1809. 
 
 407. Meanwhile the industry of the more unprejudiced 
 scholars was applied the more zealously to the increase and 
 
424 HISTORY OF THE PRINTED TEXT. 
 
 sifting of the critical apparatus. It was no disadvantao^e what- 
 ever tliat the prevailing prejudices hindered the more frequent 
 transformations of the text, for they were yet always too 
 hasty ; it was thus possible to collect and store up, with more 
 time and care, the treasures with which a freer century, in 
 fresh power, might begin a more enduring work. The splendid 
 and richly gotteii-up Polyglots of Paris and London brought 
 up again from their graves, as it were, the witnesses of the first 
 centuries. The example invited imitation, and with the con- 
 sciousness that they wei-e working for the future, others car- 
 ried on indefatigably the work begun, and soon pressed on 
 from the business of collection to the threshold of theory. 
 With the last of these works science departed from Great 
 Britain through Holland to Germany, which has ever since 
 been its home, and where for the first time it succeeded in 
 bringing forth ripe fruit. 
 
 Biblia hebraica samaritana chaldaica grceca syriaca latina arahica, And. 
 Vitre, Paris, 1G45, 10 vols. fol. max. Under the direction and mostly at the 
 expense of Guy Michel Le Jay. The first volumes were published in laid. 
 The N. T. (Parts V. and VI.), 1G30 and 1G33. Cf. Le Long, Diss, de bibl. 
 polygl., printed in Masch, p. 350 ; liosenmiiller, Lit., III. 314. On the text 
 printed, see § 403. 
 
 Biblia s. polyglntta, etc., ed. Brian Walton (f IGGl). Cf. Stdudlin, in the 
 Kirclienhist. Archiv, I. 2. [H. J. Todd, Memoirs of the Life and Writings of 
 Brian Walton, together ivilh the Bishop's Vindication of the London Polyglott 
 Bible, Lond. 1821, 2 vols.] T. Roycroft, Lond. 1G57, G vols. fol. The N. T. 
 (New title-page, 1G98) Greek, Latin, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic. The Gos- 
 pels also Persian. The more famous contributors, p]dm. Castle (Ciistellus), 
 Edw. Pococke, Sam. Clarke (Clericus), Th. Hyde, Dudley Loftus, and 
 others, gave their attention not so much to the original Greek text as to the 
 oriental versions. The above mentioned (§ 17) apparatus is in the first vol- 
 ume ; Edm. Castle's Lexicon heptaglotton forms a seventh and eighth. The 
 N. T. forms the fifth volume. The sixth contains, beside many critical col- 
 lections on the versions, those on the Greek text also. The text is simply 
 reprinted from the third Stephens edition of 1550, from which I have found 
 only a few variations, of Plantine origin. Cf. in general E. Reuss, Art. 
 Polyglottenbibeln, in Herzog's Encykl. 
 
 E. de Courcelles, N. T. editio nova in qua diligentius quam unquam antea 
 var. lectt. ex MSS. et impr. codd. collectce sunt, Amst. 1G58, 12° (§ 40G). Con- 
 demned as heretical on account of the variants (1 Jn. v. 7 is bracketed), see 
 Masch, p. 230 ; Baumgarten, Nachr., II. 32 ; Handh., IV. 198 ; J. G. Mol- 
 ler, Stephan. Curcell. in ed. N. T. socinizans, Rost. 1G96. The text in all 
 four editions is precisely alike, and is reprinted from Elzevir II. The pref- 
 ace gives an account of the earlier editions and declares very intelligently 
 that, in the first place, it is not yet time to judge of readings but to collect 
 and preserve them ; and that the suppression of them is the real source of 
 the increasing corruption. 
 
 J. Fell, Bishop of Oxford, N.T. . . . acced. var. lectt. ex plus centan MSS. 
 codd. et antiquis verss. collectce, Sheldon, Oxf. 1G75, 8° (without the name of 
 the editor). For the first time the Gothic and Coptic versions are also nsed. 
 The text is likewise taken, essentially, from Elzevir II. (§ 403). Fell's 
 preface is interesting for the history of criticism. Cf. Baumgarten, I. c, 
 200. 
 
PARIS AND LONDON POLYGLOTS —WETSTEIN. 426 
 
 J. Mill, Fell's pupil and spiritual heir : JV. T. gr. cum lectt. var. MSS. 
 verss. edd. Patrum et in easdem notis . . . praru'dtitur dlssertatio qua de II. N. T. 
 et canonis cunstitutione (§ 23) agitur et historia textus ad nostra usque tempora 
 deducltur, Sheldon, Oxf. 1707, fol. The fruit of the labors of thirty years, 
 and throwing all previous works into the shade. He used, beside many new 
 MSS., in particular the oriental versions, but unfortunately only in the Latin 
 translations of the Polyglots. (Against him, C. A. Bode, Pseudo-critica 
 Mdlio-Bengeliana, Helmst. 17G7.) The Prolegomena separately, with notes 
 by D. Salthen, Reg. 1734. — Against Mill : 1). Whitby, Examen. var. lectt. 
 J. Millii, London, 1710, fol., Leyden, 1733, 8°. See also Clarke, Ep. de ed. 
 Milliana (in Kiister's ed. see below), and in general Baumgarten, Nachr., 
 IV. 204 ; Unschuld. Nachr., 1710, p. 21 ; Lork, BibelgescUchte, I. 429. 
 
 New revised edition : Collectionem Mill. rec. meliori ordine disposuit et lo~ 
 cupletavit L. Kiister, C. Fritsch, Amst. 1710, fol. (also copies Rotterdam, 
 1710 ; Gleditsch, Leipzig, 1723, 1746. The same (Dutch) print throughout, 
 and Gleditsch is the publisher from the first.) 
 
 The text printed is the Stephens of 1550, from which neither editor de- 
 parts except in very few passages, and these not always the same. Mill's 
 edition is the last important critical work which has grown up on English 
 soil, inasmuch as the later ones have been forgotten ; it has maintained itself 
 in high consideration there even down to the present time, so that through 
 its fame the old Stephens text also has obtained a large measure of immor- 
 tality. Cf. § 406. Only very recently has science again revived there. 
 
 Gerhard v. Msestricht (De Trajecto Mosce), Syndic at Bremen, laid down 
 in a Specimen nov(e ed., 1706, thirty-seven canons (afterward forty-three) for 
 the estimation of variants, the first attempt at a theory of N. T. criticism. 
 His editions (§ 406) have, beside the apparatus, the prefaces of Courcelles 
 and Fell, his own Prolegomena, and critical notes at the close. On the title- 
 page he signs himself with his initials only, G. D. T. M. Cf. Pfaff, § 396 ; 
 Bengel, § 410 ; Baumgarten, I. c, IV. 206. 
 
 408. Among the Germans who followed in the footsteps of 
 these Britons we mention first John Jacob Wetstein, a preach- 
 er's son, of Basle. As to time, it is true, he had still other 
 predecessors, but his work belongs in the line of those just 
 mentioned. He had been obliged to leave his native land on 
 account of suspicions of heresy, and had found a reception 
 among the more liberal-minded Arminians at Amsterdam, 
 after that, on journeys and in other ways, he had by unremit- 
 ting diligence possessed himself of a vast amount of material. 
 He would gladly have gone farther and made use of the results 
 obtained by criticism for an actual and thorough revision of 
 the text ; but his bad reputation had followed him, and he too 
 was obliged to sacrifice his convictions to the spirit of the age, 
 and to content himself with designating the readings preferred 
 as approved, because otherwise he would have found no press 
 for his edition. But the review of these shows that his choice 
 was both discreet and happy. 
 
 N. T. gr. editionis receptee cum lectt. var. codd. MSS. edd. verss. et patrum 
 nee non commentario pleniore ex scriptoribus hehr. gr. et lat . . . . op. et stud. 
 J. J. W., Dommer, Amst. 1751 f., 2 vols., fol. 
 
 On his person and life (* 1693, f 1754), see Unsch. Nachr., 1738, p. 71 ; 
 C. R. Hagenbaeh, Wetstein der Kritiker und seine Gegner, in Illgen's Zeilschr. 
 
426 HISTORY OF THE PRINTED TEXT. 
 
 1839, p. 73 ; Btittger, ibid., 1870, IV. — Acta oder Handlungen betreffend 
 Irrthiimer und anstussige Lehren J. J. W., Basle, 1730 ; Ordinis theologorum 
 basil, dedaratio de N. T. Wetsteniano, llol (in the Bihliolh. Hugaiia, 111. 1); 
 J. C. Valk, Observationes ad hanc declarationem, 1757 (Biblioth. Hag., III. 
 649) ; J. A. Eruesti, Specimen castigationum in Wetst. N. T., L. 1754. — 
 Kraft, Bibl, VIII. 99 ; X. 99 ; Baunigarten, Nachr., II. 48 ; IV. 114. 
 
 The Prolegomena were printed anonymously at Amsterdam, 1730, 4°, then 
 enlarged and put before the separate portions of the large edition, and in 
 the appendix as Animadvv. et cautiones ad examen var. lectt. neces^aricB. 
 The former edited separately, with notes and additions, by Semler, Halle, 
 17G4. The latter, with other essays of the same author, under the title 
 Wetstenii libelli ad crisin et interpr. N. T., 17G6. The new edition of the 
 whole work announced by A. Lotze, Rotterdam, 1831, 4°, brought only the 
 Prolegomena. 
 
 The text printed is the Elzevir of 1624, with the exception of a few 
 Stephanie readings. Immediately under it (or, where a gloss was to be 
 struck out, within it, by means of a dash) stand the variants which Wetstein 
 unconditionally preferred. Doubtless it was something unheard of at that 
 time, when the Lord's Prayer in Lk. xi. was curtailed, a whole pericope 
 stricken out in Jn. viii., Qiov set aside in Acts xx. 28, h read in 1 Tim. iii. 16, 
 1 Jn. V. 7 expunged, and the closing doxology of the Epistle to the Romans 
 attached to the fourteenth chapter ; not to speak of many glosses struck 
 out, or of readings which had nowhere appeared since the Complutensian. 
 
 Wetstein won especial merit b}'' a more accurate description of MSS. 
 (§ 392), many of them but newly collated. He was also the tirst to investi- 
 gate the Philoxenian version. Yet he did not attain to a clear view of the 
 history of the text, and so of the principles of criticism. He had an inordi- 
 nate prejudice against the Latin version and everything connected with it, 
 and could not adopt the system of families put forward by Beugel while he 
 was at work. 
 
 On the commentary, rich, but certainly not collected in an orthodox spirit, 
 see § 563. 
 
 Here may be placed some of the editions prepared by the I^ondon printer 
 W. Bowyer (not to be confounded with those mentioned in § 40G), wliich 
 profess to give the text according to Wetstein's marginal readings : Lond. 
 1763, 12°; 1783, 4°; 1812. This system, however, is not carried through 
 completely ; in particular, Bowyer often contents himself with brackets 
 where Wetstein strikes out. 
 
 409. All these preliminary labors made the task of criticism 
 lighter and more attractive, and it could not fail that some 
 should at last conceive in earnest the thought of giving life 
 and motion to the dead material, and of carrying through, by 
 the aid of the variants collected, a new recension of the text. 
 Here again it was the English who led the way, to the horror 
 of all who clung to custom, but unfortunately too soon and 
 ungraciously forgotten by those who came after them. Sev- 
 eral even then hit upon the idea of interrogating the oldest 
 witnesses alone, paying no attention to others. Some, how- 
 ever, continued their researches and the announcement of their 
 results, and found, instead of sober judgment and due acknowl- 
 edgment, only clamor and suspicion. 
 
 1. Cramoisy, Paris, 1707, fol. (Copies Martin, Paris, 1709) ; a Harmony 
 of the Gospels by N. Toinard, thoroughly revised according to MSS., but 
 chiefly according to the Vulgate. 
 
BENTLEY - BENGEL. 427 
 
 2. E. Wells published, at Oxf. 1709-19, iu 10 parts, 4°, a text actually 
 revised according to MSS., slightly iu the Gospels, much iu the Epistles aud 
 Apocalypse, with English version and paraphrase, which, however, was little 
 noticed. 
 
 3. Richard Bentley, the renowned critic of classical literature, promised 
 a new recension of the Greek text and the Vulgate, and published a specimen 
 in 17'20. See Unsch. Nachr., 1721, p. 612 ; Pritz, Introd., ed. Hofniann, 
 p. 414 ff.; Wetstein, Pro/e(7y., p. 392 ; Eichhorn, Einl, V. 303; Tischendorf, 
 Prolegg., Ed. VII., p. 87 [VIII.]. Controversial writings by Conyers Mid- 
 dleton, 1721 ff. Cod. Alex, and the revised Vulgate were to be the foundation. 
 The 22d chapter of the Revelation of John, printed as a specimen, departs 
 from the Elzevir text in more than forty places, which are almost without 
 exception so read by modern criticism. When Bentley, perhaps weary of the 
 controversy going on, gave up the enterprise, gossip affirmed that he felt that 
 he was not equal to it. 
 
 4. N. T., Greek and English, Roberts, Lond. 1729, without accents, very 
 handsomely printed, with some critical and theological notes. The unknown 
 editor was named Mace (others, Macey). Tlie judgment of contemporaries, 
 taken in connection with the real state of the case, is very characteristic : 
 Pritz, Introd., p. 422 : Novce in divinam religionem machinationes . . . temerario 
 ausu in ss. II. grassatur pro lubitu delens, mutans, etc.; Baumgarten, Handb., IV. 
 208 : Gehort zu den allerverwegensten Untemehmungen loelche von den Wider- 
 sachem der Goitheit Christi und der Dreieinigkeit je versucht icorden . . . geht in 
 eigemndchtigen und willkilrlichen Verdnderungen des Textes weiter als je ein 
 Herausgeber ; Masch, p. 328 : Textus ita mutatus est ut Arianorum hypothesi 
 succurrat lectio. Excursuses give contributions to the higher criticism of the 
 Antilegomena (at that time unheard of). The text is changed in numerous 
 passages, in which it frequently agrees with the Complutensian, more often 
 still introduces wholly new readings, and not seldom brackets supposed 
 glosses. It m also said in connection with Gal. iv. 25, " There is no manu- 
 script so old as common sense." In the large majority of cases modern 
 criticism agrees with him. 
 
 More boldly yet, and proceeding on the basis of very peculiar notions, W. 
 Whiston {Primitive N. T., 1745) proposed to restore the text of the historical 
 books from Cod. Cantab., that of Paul from Cod. Clarom., the rest from 
 Cod. Alex. The design was never carried out. Against him S. J. Baum- 
 garten (resp. ^e\\\\ev),Vindicice textus N. T. adv. W. Wh., Hal. 1750. 
 
 5. This idea was realized in the main in the edition of E. Harwood, Lond. 
 1776, which is to be regarded not so much as a new recension as a printed 
 edition of some exclusively preferred MSS. Hence it gives almost line for 
 line a text never before seen. From its results as well as from its sources 
 the work coidd have little inflvience, and the simultaneous appearance of 
 Griesbach's pressed it altogether into the background. Harwood often 
 agrees with Lachmann, who proceeded upon similar but more rational princi- 
 ples. 
 
 410. Less boldly but with greater effect, the Swabian theolo- 
 gian, Johann Albrecht Bengel, took up the task of tlie revision 
 of the text. He was the first among the Lutherans to venture 
 in earnest upon the undertaking of giving the text a new form 
 upon fixed principles, at the same time opening the way for 
 further progress in the future. Although led to become a 
 critic from dogmatic anxiety, he approached with prudence and 
 unembarrassed by the power of custom a task which in his 
 sphere was altogether new and looked upon with suspicion. 
 
428 HISTORY OF THE PRINTED TEXT. 
 
 Science owes to liim the fruitful idea of classifying the wit- 
 nesses according to families, and the convenient method of 
 arranging readings comprehensively according to their probable 
 value. Both were opposed by the learned, and the results of 
 them yet more violently by the ignorant, and bis work appears 
 to have had little influence outside the limits of his native 
 country. The age still distrusted these things, and pietism and 
 orthodoxy, otherwise so hostile, guarded w^ith equal jealousy 
 the letter of their New Testament Masora. 
 
 On Bengel and his N. T. see § 561 ; Burk, Lelen Bengels [Stuttg. 1831], 
 p. 197 tt'. ; Friiliaufgelesene FrUchte, 1738, p. 159 ; Baunigarten, Nachr., 11. 
 42, 475 ; Hartmann, in Herzog's Encykl. [abridged in Scliaif' s Rel. Encycl.']. 
 [Also Oskar Wiichter, BengeVs Lebensabriss, 18(35.] 
 
 N. T. ita adornatum ut textus probatarum edd. medullam, margo var. lectt. in 
 suas classes distributarum delectum, apparatus subjunctus criseos s. compendium 
 limam et fructum exhibeat, Cotta, Tiib. 1734, 4°. To it belong (1) Prodromus 
 N. T. gr. recte cauteque adornandi, 1725 ; (2) Notitia N. T. recte cauteque 
 adornati, 1731; (3) Tractatus de sinceritate N. T. tuenda, 1750; (4) Examen 
 canonum Gerh. de Mastr., 1742 ; (5) several Defensiones, — all, together with 
 still other matter, printed with the whole apparatus, Ed. II., ed. P. D. Burck, 
 1763, 4°. 
 
 He received no reading into the text which had not already occurred in 
 some edition, except in the Apoealyjise, which he permitted himself to alter 
 according to MSS. Most of his changes are discreet and have been ap- 
 proved by modern critics. The apparatus discusses only the more important 
 variants ; the margin of the text gives a selection of tliese, divided according 
 to their value into five classes. The Latin vci'sions, the Cod. Alex., and the 
 difficulty of the reading were decisive with him. The first class (a) included 
 those readings preferred to the received text, the second 03) those probably 
 better ; the other classes (7, S, e) he placed after the printed text. 
 
 Opponents of Bengel : Wetstein, Prolegg., ed. Sender, p. 398 ; C. B. 
 Michaelis, see § 396 ; Semler, Ad Wetstenii lib. crit., p. 167; Bode, see § 407; 
 beside a great crowd of b.abblers. 
 
 Manual editions, with the critical notes in the margin, but without the 
 apparatus : Faber, Stuttg. 1734 (1738) ; Berger, Tiib. 1753, 1762, 1776 ; 
 Heerbrandt, Tiib. 1790. — The first gives the criticism of the larger edition 
 unchanged. That of 1753, on the contrary, of which the last three are mere 
 reprints, often changes the estimate of the readings given in the marginal 
 notes. A reprint of the first recension by A. BUttig, Weidmann, L. 1737. — 
 It is, moreover, to be observed that Bengel in his Gnomon (^§ 561) often pre- 
 fers different readings than in the editions. Hence his son, Ernst Bengel, 
 added in that of 1776 and afterward a Tabula quce criseos Bengeliance diversas 
 periodos exhibet, in which all changes are noticed. 
 
 To the Bengelian recension belongs also an altogether peculiar edition by 
 E. Stephan, Stein, Str. 1779, in which the books of the N. T. are arranged in 
 chronological order ; the text of the Gospels is printed in the form of a 
 harmony, the parallel passages being completely mixed, and extracts from 
 the Epistles and from isagogics are interpolated in the Acts. So far as col- 
 lation is still possible, the readings a and ^ of the later Bengelian recension 
 are almost without exception received into the text, though very often only 
 in brackets by the side of the older readings, or, where the question was of 
 omission, only indicated by brackets ; but some passages are independently 
 changed. 
 
 Bengel's text is also printed in the N. T. of Koppe (§ 580), in all its paris 
 
BENGEL. 429 
 
 and editions (1778-1828), with the single exception of the Epistles of James 
 and to the Corinthians, by Pott, who in the later editions has followed Gries- 
 bach. 
 
 411. Yet the great revolution of thought in the hist half of 
 the last century could not be without influence in the reahn of 
 this science also. Criticism was not only permitted, but obliged, 
 to come forward more freely with the undeniable results of 
 the material that had been amassed. At length there appealed 
 new recensions of the text, which aimed to sliape it in accord- 
 ance with higher critical theories, and which did not allow 
 themselves to be restricted by the baseless right of the current 
 readings. Here and there, however, method or inclination led 
 to a moderate revision only. At the same time scholars went 
 on increasing the knowledge of particular manuscripts, and en- 
 riching and arranging the collection of readings. Their labors 
 tended directly to the advantage of those who were undertaking 
 the more comprehensive work, and needed ready helps for it. 
 From the time when the prejudice of the unimprovableness of 
 the text was finally compelled to give way, and the usefulness 
 and profit of such investigations was assured, tlie business of 
 collection was taken up with a restless energy which often 
 seemed to overestimate the importance of the subject. 
 
 J. S. Semler was here also the first to open the way for the new ideas and 
 systems which had been quietly maturing : see his writings cited in § 409 f . ; 
 especially also his Vorhereitung zur theol. Hermeneutik, Halle, 1760 ff. 4 Pts. ; 
 in part also his Paraphrasen (§ 573). He seized upon Bengal's idea of 
 families, and made out of it what he called, inappropriately, the system of 
 recensions (Lucian and Egypt), which, though, it is true, with essential 
 modification and much clearer definition, has ever since been one of the lead- 
 ing thoughts of N. T. criticism. 
 
 At the head of the modern collections undertaken for the enrichment of 
 the apparatus, not contemplating a direct working out of the problem, stands 
 the collation carried on at the expense of the Danish government by A. 
 Birsch, J. G. C. Adler, and D. G. Moldenhauer, particularly at Rome, 
 Florence, Vienna, in the Escurial ; by Adler for the Syriac versions also, the 
 results of which were deposited in the following works. Quatuor Evv. gr. c. 
 var. a textu (Stephens, 1.550, or properly Mill) lectionibus e codd. vatic, etc., 
 Hafn. 1788, 4°, also copies in fol. This edition was damaged in a conflagra- 
 tion, and was not completed. Without text : Var'ue lectiones ad textum Act. 
 et Epp. e codd., etc., Hafn. 1798 ; Apoc, 1800 ; Evangg., 1801, 3 vols. 8° ; 
 Adler, Uebersicht MM. kritiscken Reise nach Rom, Alt. 1783. On the Copen- 
 hagen MvSS. in particular see C. G. Hensler, 1784. Cf. Michaelis, N. Bibli- 
 oth., VI. 104 ; Eichhorn, Bibl, II. 116. 
 
 F. C. Alter had the N. T. printed (1786 f. 2 vols. 8°) according to a Vi- 
 enna cursive MS., correcting, as he says, only obvious faults, and added to 
 the whole the readings from twenty-four other Vienna MSS. as well as the 
 Slavic and Co})tic versions, unfortunately not in summary form but sepa- 
 rately from each source. His text is in very many passages the Compluten- 
 sian. He very seldom agrees with other editions against Elzevir. Of his 
 new readings he has many in common with Griesbach or Matthfei. The 
 rest are almost entirely valueless. Cf. Delitzscli, Handschrifd. Funde, II. 23. 
 — Monographs on various Vienna codices before this time : H. Trescho, 
 1773 ; A. C. Hwild, 1785. Cf. Michaelis, I. I., V. 122 ; Eichhorn, I. I., 102. 
 
430 HISTORY OF THE PRINTED TEXT. 
 
 On particular uncial MSS. see the monographs in § 392 ; on the more 
 noted cursives : G. G. Fappelbaum, on three Berlin MSS., 179G, 1815, 1824 ; 
 on the Ebuer MSS. at Nuremberg, C. Schoiileben, 1738, and Gabler, 0pp., 
 I. 215 ; on the Cod. Molshemensis at Strassburg, Arendt, in the Quartalschr., 
 1833, p. 24G ; on the Cod. Montfortianus at DuUin, Paulus, Mem., VI., VIII.; 
 on the Pressburg MS., EntUicher, in Rosenmiiller's Si/IL, IV. ; on the Cod. 
 SeideUanus at Frankfurt am O., Middeldorpf, ibidem, and in Rosenmiiller's 
 Rep., II. 87 ; on the Cod. Uffenhachianus at Hamburg, Henke, 1800, and Gab- 
 ler, 0pp., I. 197 ; and many others. 
 
 Other collections of variants, with and without theoretical and practical 
 discussion : J. Derinout, Collectanea critica in N. T. (mostly from Dutch 
 MSS.), Leyd. 1825 ; W. F. Rink, Lucuhratio critica in Act. et Epp. (from 
 Venetian MSS., with an attack upon the exclusive preference given to Alex- 
 andrian and Western witnesses), Basle, 1830 ; cf. the same writer, in the 
 Studien, 1846, II. ; J. G. Reiche, Comm. criticus in N. T., I.-III. 1853 ff. 
 4° ; idem, Codd. paris. insigniorum nova descriptio, Gcitt. 1847. 
 
 412. At the head of modern critics, in fame if not in time, 
 stands Johaiin Jacob Griesbach, once professor at Jena. He 
 carried out the idea of ancient recensions of the text, attempted 
 to establish it historically and diplomatically, and built there- 
 upon a system according to which the text reLitively most 
 widely circulated was given the preference ; that is to say, that 
 which was current in several places, in the East as well as in 
 the West. He did not therefore neglect the rational estimation 
 of particular readings, but stood by the Elzevir text so long as 
 there were no decisive reasons against it. His own industry 
 and new preliminary labors by his contemporaries placed at his 
 disposal the richest apparatus that had ever yet been at the 
 command of an editor, and nature gave him the ability to use 
 it with skill. From him dates the favorable presumption 
 respecting the Alexandrine-Occidental readings which still 
 commends them to most critics, though in part for other rea- 
 sons. His theory, it is true, has been outgrown, but his name 
 will always be mentioned with respect, and while Germany 
 will never forget him he is beginning to win a new home be- 
 yond her borders. 
 
 J. C. W. Augusti, Ueher GrieshacVs Verdienste, Bresl. 1812 ; cf. Doring, 
 Deutsche TheoL, I. 531 ; E. Reuss, in Herzog's Encyklopddie. 
 
 Editions. First Recension. I. Lihri N. T. historici, Curt, Halle, 1774, 8°, 
 Pt. I., II., containing the first three Gospels in harmonic form. — II. As a 
 second part belonging to the foregoing, Epistoke N. T. et Apoc, Halle, 1775. 
 — III. Si/nopsis Evv. Matth. Marc. Luc, Halle, 1776 (only a title-page 
 edition of the former Harmony). — IV. Second edition of the historical 
 books, not in harmonic form, 1777 (in which likewise John and Acts only 
 title-page edition), together with No. II., iV". T. gr. textum adjidem codicum 
 versionum Patrum rec. et lect. var. adj. J. J. G., 2 vols. 8°, also copies 4°. The 
 preface treats of the necessity of a critical revision of the text (with refer- 
 ence to the synoptic arrangement of it), and gives a summary of the appa- 
 ratus and of the rules of criticism. The variants are placed beneath the text. 
 Cf. Michaelis, Or. Bihl, IX. 44, X. 52 ; Ernesti, Bl'd., XIV. 33, 98. 
 
 Second Recension. V. Principal edition, Curt, Halle and London, 1796, 
 
GRIESBACH. 431 
 
 180G, 2 vols. 8°, also copies 4° ; with very complete apparatus, especially from 
 Birseh and Alter (§ 411), and important prolegomena on the history of the 
 text, the plan of the new work, the theory of criticism, and the summary of 
 helps. The changes introduced between the text aud the apparatus are 
 specially indicated. Cf. Haenlein's Journal, IX. 1 ; Gottinger Bihl., IV. 
 509 ; Gabler, Auserles. Liter., III. 27. Two beautiful reprints of this edi- 
 tion, London, Mackinlay, 1809, and Rivington, 1818. — VI. Synopsis, Ed. 
 2, 1797. 
 
 Third Recension. VII. Edition de luxe, Goschen, L. 1803-7, 4 vols, fol., 
 on vellum paper, with engravings, but not altogether tastefid in type ; with 
 only a selection of variants, marked with signs indicating their value. — 
 VIII. Manual edition, L. 1805, 8°, with short critical preface and a selec- 
 tion of variants marked with signs of their value. — IX. Si/nopsis, Ed. 3, 
 Curt, L. 1809. — X. Ed. 4, 1822. — XL Mamial edition, Goschen, L. 1825, 
 a repetition, in somewhat larger size, of VIII. 
 
 Fourth Recension. XII. N. T. Vol. I. a revised edition of V., improved 
 in the critical annotations, but not in the text (a very few passages excepted), 
 and enlarged by D. Schulz, Laue, Berlin, 1827, uncompleted. Cf. Allgem. 
 Lit. Zeitung, 181:9, II. 481 ; Winer's Journal, IX. 65. 
 
 Here belong, beside the already mentioned Diss, de codd. ev. origenianis, 
 1771, and Curce in hist, textus gr. Epp. pauL, 1777 (both in Griesbach's 0pp.), 
 in particular : Symholoi criticce ad supplendas et corrigendas var. N. T. lec- 
 tionum collectiones, Halle, 1785, 1793, 2 vols., in which are full descriptions of 
 many MSS. ; also an uncompleted Commentarius crit. i?i gr. N. T. textum, 
 covering only Matthew and Mark, first published in many separate pro- 
 grammes, afterward all together, 2 vols. 8°, 1798, 1811 ; including also Mele- 
 temata de vetustis N. T. recensionibus. 
 
 Griesbach took the Elzevir Textus Receptus for his basis, and altered it 
 only where he thought he had decisive reasons for it, simjjly commending 
 other good readings in the margin. His choice rested primarily upon the 
 theory of recensions, but secondarily also upon the philological and exegeti- 
 cal estimation of the inner contents of tlie variants. He distinguished three 
 recensions (by which he meant forms of the text) : an Occidental, character- 
 ized by glosses ; an Alexandrian, by grammatical corrections ; aud a Con- 
 stantinopolitan, mingling the readings of the others. Only the second was a 
 proper recension or scholarly revision of the text. The agreement of the 
 first two he regarded as particularly important, often decisive. For the 
 rational part of his criticism, see, beside the larger prolegomena, the preface 
 to the manual, and Haenlein's Journal, IX. 8 ff. 
 
 The different recensions of Griesbach are distinguished from one another 
 by the fact that the first more often puts two readings in the text, one over 
 against the other, without deciding between them, while the second more 
 often abandons the common text. The third, called the Leipzig recension, 
 or sim2)ly the Griesbach text, the text most widely circulated by means of 
 the manual editions, departs only a little more from the foregoing. But 
 Griesbach's results are strikingly new only when we leave out of account 
 his predecessors. Mace, Bengel, Wetstein, in whom by far the most of his 
 changes are already found. His merit is not to be underrated, but doubt- 
 less much that would not be an honor to him has been forgotten through the 
 indulgence of his contemporaries and successors. Also, much of what he 
 only commended in the margin had already been so commended, or even re- 
 ceived into tlie text. 
 
 In spite of the fact that this form of the text, taken as a whole, was so 
 slightly and so discreetly altered (so that it is in reality absurd to attempt 
 to characterize the previous text by a common name, as something radi- 
 cally different), Griesbach foiuid the old school opposed to him. (J. Hart- 
 mann, Manila c. mutat. text., etc., Rost. 1775.) But he briefiy and conviu- 
 
432 HISTORY OF THE PRINTED TEXT. 
 
 cingly, and in Germany forever, silenced this opposition in the preface of 
 1775. His peculiar critical system, on the contrary, failed to give satisfac- 
 tion ; partly because of its historically doubtful assumptions ; partly because 
 of its too subjective basis ; partly, and especially, because it was a mere 
 after-improvement of a form of the text wholly unattested, which had arisen, 
 so to sneak, accidentally. See Bertholdt, E'ml., I. 310 tr. ; Eichhorn, Einl., 
 IV. 2(50 ft'. ; Scliulz, Prolegomena to his edition ; Gabler, Prcef. ad opp. 
 Grieshachil, II. Griesbach's system was attacked most vehemently by C. 
 F. Matthsei (§ 413) in the writing : Ueber die sogen, Recensionen welche der 
 Herr Abt Bengel, der Herr Dr. Semler und der Herr G. K. R. Grieshach in- 
 dem Texte des N. T. wollen entdeckt haben, L. 1804. Yet Hug and Eichhorn, 
 in particular, followed in their introductions the fundamental thought of the 
 system of recensions, giving it a more definite form, and distinguishing an 
 ancient common text {koiv^ iKSoais) and several actual scholarly recensions, 
 etc. (§ 307 ff.). C. D. Beck also professes Griesbach's principles essentially 
 in his text-book : Monogrammata hermeneutices, L. 1S03. 
 
 The text of Griesbach is repeated in the editions of H. A. Schott (at 
 Jena, f 1830) with Latin version and variants. I. Marker, L. 1805, an ac- 
 curate reprint of the first recension ; the readings of Griesbach indicated by 
 special type in the text. II. Marker, L. 1811, reprint of the second recen- 
 sion, with rare variations. — III. Marker, L. 1825, the same recension, with 
 more changes ; among them also new readings. Repeated, P. J. Boeklin, 
 Christianstadt, Norway, 1834. (For a so-called fourth edition of Schott, 
 see § 418 ; cf. also Gabler's Journal, III. 159.) — A pseudo-Schott edition, 
 L. 1809 (i. e., Feichtinger, Linz) ; reprint of Schott's Latin version with 
 Griesbach's third recension of 1805, and, like that, with Goschen's type. The 
 same text repeated, Univ. Press, Camb., Mass. 1809 ; Hillard, Boston, 1825 ; 
 Fo-.vler, N. Y. 1805 ; a stereotype edition, Walton and Maberly, Lond. 
 18j0, 1855, and freq., with the variants of Mill and Scholz. — Si/nopsis Evv., 
 ed. Ue Wette and Liicke, Reimer, Berlin, 1818, 4°; repeated, 1842 ; after 
 Griasbach 1305 ; yet some readings of 1790 are preferred. 
 
 41o. Griesbach's most violent opponent. Christian Friedrich 
 Matthiisi, of Moscow, hit upon an inlinitely easier way. Pos- 
 sessing more tlian a hundred manuscripts wliicli had not yet 
 been collated, with the usual weakness of human vanity, he 
 ascribed to these unbounded value, and lioped to restore the 
 text from the collation of them, neglecting all other a,pparatus. 
 All disfigurements of the text appeared to him to have arisen, 
 to a greater or less extent, from the pressing into it of scholia 
 and glosses, and he therefore proceeded to find the relatively 
 purest text by excluding these. From the nativity of his 
 sources it was natural that the text he obtained should be the 
 later Constantinopolitan and little different from the Elzevir. 
 The result in no way justified his passionate attacks upon his 
 predecessors. 
 
 I. JV. T. ex codd. mosquensihus nimquam antea examinatis emendavit led. 
 var. animadv. criticas et scholia gr. inedita adj. C. F. MaHhcei, Hartknoch, 
 Riga, 1732-1788, 12 vols. 8°; properly twelve separate title-pages, one for 
 each book ; Greek and Latin, the Vulgate, printed from a MSS., standing 
 by the side of the text. The Catholic Epistles appeared first, the Gospels 
 last. Various appendices from Greek MSS., tables of contents, superscrip- 
 tions to the chapters, etc. Many fac-similes and descriptions of MSS. From 
 
MATTH^I — KNAPP. 433 
 
 1785 Matth:«i was rector of the Gymnasium at Meissen, from 1789 Prof, 
 of Greek Literature at Wittenberg, from 1805 held tlie same position at 
 Moscow, t 1811. 
 
 II. Greek only, with critical notes, Eusebian and Eutlialian numbering, 
 synaxaria, and indication of the readings in use in the Greek Church. Vol. 
 I., Gospels, Wittenb. 1803 ; Vol. II., Acts and Catholic Epistles, Grau, 
 Hof, 1804 ; Vol. III. Pauline Epistles and Apocalypse, Schumann, Ronneb. 
 1807, 8°. 
 
 He divided his MSS. into Codices perpetui, Lectionaries, and MSS. with 
 scholia, etc., and found the purest text in the first. He paid little attention 
 to versions and patristic quotations, but cherished a deep respect for the in- 
 telligence and industry with which the sacred text must have been selected 
 and copied b}^ Byzantine (and Russian ?) archimandrites and monks. 
 
 The two editions differ in but very few passages. Where he abandons 
 the common text he frequently agrees with the Complutensian, seldom with 
 Erasnuis. Wholly new readings are not very numerous, and by far the 
 most of them occur in the Apocalypse ; moreover, later critics have rejected 
 them almost without exception. The gain from his labor consists, therefore, 
 simply in the collation, and his invective against his predecessors (Ed. I., 
 pref. to Matthew ; Ed. II., Vol. I. p. G87 &., etc., and § 412) was groundless. 
 Cf. Michaelis, Or. BibL, XX. 106, XXI. 20 ; N. BihL, I. 207, II. 1G2 ; 
 Eichhorn, BihL, II. 303 ; Schmidt, Bibl, VIII. 5. 
 
 The Elzevir text is altered according to Matthjei in many passages in the 
 edition of T. Pharmakides, Angelides, Athens, 1842 fif., 7 vols. 8°, with the 
 commentaries of Euthymius, CEcumenius, Andreas and Aretas (§§ 51:7, 
 631). 
 
 414. The works tlius far mentioned, which were afterward 
 followed by other similar and more extensive ones, liad estab- 
 lished two facts beyond controversy: in the first place, that 
 the traditional text could no longer be retained without altera- 
 tion unless seietice was to be of less service to the Scri|itures 
 than to the lenst of the otlier books of antiquity ; and in the 
 second place, that complete certainty of results was iK)t attain- 
 able. Thence came and still comes, for some, the demand that 
 the work be carried on, and for others, more numerous, but 
 less courageous, the right to content themselves with a simple 
 improvement in details, adopting the most certain of the re- 
 sults of their predecessors, and making them common property 
 by means of neat and cheap school editions, without extensive 
 critical apparatus, or with none at all. No doubt the decision 
 in each particular case was based not so much upon a definite 
 theory as upon an approximate judgment in accordance with 
 principles easily comprehended, but also easily changing. 
 
 N. T. gr. recoqnovit, etc., G. C. Knapp (f 1826, Prof, at Halle), Orphan- 
 age, Halle, 1797, 1813, 1824, 1829, 1840, each two parts, small 8°. The 
 preface gives a short history of the text and a statement of the particular 
 point of view of the editor. Beneath the text is a selection of vai'iants and 
 a running table of contents. The last four editions have, besides, a second 
 preface and a collection of the conjectures of older critics. The last two 
 editions were prefaced or edited after Knapp's death by J. C. Thilo and M. 
 Rddiger. All five are identical, line for line, and are praised for their ex- 
 28 
 
43-1 HISTORY OF THE PKINTED TEXT. 
 
 cellent punctuation, whether correctly or not is a question for the exegetes. 
 See also llaenlein's Journal, XI. 508 ; Winer's Journal, VII. 501. 
 
 The editions of Knapp represent a twofold recension, in the first and sec- 
 ond editions, for the last three were not further changed. In general it 
 may be said that the Griesbach recension of 1796 is the basis, and that the 
 departure from it consists chiefly in the fact that Knapp verj^ often con- 
 tented himself with simply inclosing in single or double brackets the numer- 
 ous glosses which Griesbach had expunged. Yet he also adopted readings 
 which Griesbach commended in the margin, but more often goes back to the 
 Elzevir text, though more seldom in the second edition than in the first. 
 
 Simple reprints of Knapp's second recension : Valpy, Loud. 1824 ; Serig, 
 L. 18:^8, edited by C. C. von Leutsch, printed by Fischer, with Arias' ver- 
 sion (new title-page, without Leutsch's name, 1839) ; the printer has fre- 
 quently changed the rhetorical, logical, and critical brackets (round and 
 square). — Weidmann, L. 1832, edited by A. Goschen, with new Latin ver- 
 sion, together with the readings of Griesbach and Lachmann. It makes no 
 distinction between Knapp's two kinds of critical brackets. — Nauck, Berlin, 
 1837, with Luther and the two kinds of brackets. — Starr, N. Y., edited by 
 R. B. Patton, 1835, 4°, with wide margin, on blue lines for use in public 
 reading. 
 
 Freer revisions of Knapp's text (second recension) : Tauclmitz, L., edited 
 by J. A. H. Tittmanu (Prof, at Leipzig, f 1831), 18l0 (new title-page, 
 1828), 10°, and 1824 (1831), 8°, without distinction in the brackets. It not 
 infrequently departs from Knapp, mostly returning to Elzevir, particularly 
 by the erasure of brackets, or by the introduction of new ones holding a 
 position intermediate between the two texts. Griesbach's readings are but 
 seldom adopted. Some new ones occur, but worthless. This Tauclmitz 
 edition was revised by A. Halm (Prof, at Leipzig, afterward at Breslau, 
 f 1863), with the addition of the readings of Griesbach and Knapji, as well 
 as those of Scholz and Lachmann, which had appeared in the mean time ; 
 1840, exceptionally finely printed. It retains perhaps half of Tittmann's 
 changes, going back in other cases more frequently either to Elzevir or to 
 Griesbach, but also taking some few readings from Lachmann. Repeated 
 without change in 1841, small size, two columns, verses paragraphed. The 
 first repeated in size and style, 1861, frequently changed in text, yet chiefly 
 only by disappearance of the brackets, half by return to the receptus, half 
 by erasure. — Tittmann's text is given almost unchanged in the edition of 
 Anton Jaumann, Munich, 1832, 8° (new title-page, 1836). Halm's is re- 
 peated in the edition prepared by E. Robinson, N. Y., often since 1842 
 (stereotype), also sine anno. By the same editor, a Harmony of the Gos- 
 pels, Crocker, Boston, 1851, and freq. — Here belongs also the edition be- 
 gun by J. E. R. Kauffer, Teubner, L. 1827, which, however, did not go 
 beyond Matthew. 
 
 J. S. Vater (Prof, at Halle, f 1826) follows much more conservative ten- 
 dencies in his edition, Gebauer, Halle, 1824, 8°. He often departs from 
 Knapp, but mostly by erasing his brackets, or by introducing them where 
 Knapp had stricken out glosses, or by ex^ircssing a less degree of doubt 
 by the form of the signs. Yet in some passages the criticism is more severe 
 than in Knapp, and portions of the text are bracketed which Knapp re- 
 tained, but Griesbach had stricken out ; some, indeed, which Lachmann and 
 Tischendorf were the first to reclaim. By far the most of his new readings 
 have remained peculiar to himself alone. See Allg. Lit. Zeitung, 1824, IL 
 161, III. 453 ; Winer's Journal, II. 332. — Thence unchanged, the Gospels, 
 Watts, Lond. 1824, 4°, with Vulgate and Peshito. 
 
 415. In more recent times, after various attempts, incomplete, 
 but not unworthy of praise, several thorough recensions of the 
 
VATER - SCHOLZ. 435 
 
 text, upon principles altogether different, have been prepared. 
 First to be mentioned, as the earliest, and in a certain sense 
 aiding the maintenance of the traditional text, is that of Jo- 
 hann Martin Augustin Scholz. The author, Professor of Cath- 
 olic Theology at Bonn, had himself increased the aids to criti- 
 cism in extent, though not in real value, while on his journeys, 
 especiiilly in the Orient, and had conceived a certain prefer- 
 ence for his new additions. Recognizing the distinction of 
 families, yet in the simplest sense, without the addition of the 
 system of recensions, he aimed to adhere to that family in 
 which the text had been relatively least altered. Now he 
 naturally fonnd the greatest agreement among the witnesses of 
 the Byzantine family, because their succession is more com- 
 plete and unbroken, but also much later; hence he thought it 
 was to be assumed that its text, having been favored by geo- 
 graphical circumstances, went back to the most ancient times. 
 These principles, however, have not been accepted by all as 
 sound. 
 
 1. The Commentary on the Gospels by H. E. G. PanUis (§ 576), Eohn, 
 Liibeck, 1800 flf. 3 vols. 1804, 4 vols., contains the Griesbaeli text, but re- 
 vised in many passages according to the original authorities, agreeing often 
 with Harwood, Lachmann, and Tischendorf. 
 
 2. Similar, but wholly independent of the foregoing, the commentaries of 
 C. F. A. Fritzsche (§ 592) on Matthew, 1826, Mark, 1830 (Fleischer, L.), 
 and Romans, 1836 if. (Gebauer, Halle). — Essentially the same text of the 
 Gospels is repeated in the edition of F. A. A. Niibe, Kiihler, L. 1831, with 
 a new Latin version ; in other portions it holds almost exclusively to Knapp, 
 but attempts some unhappy emendations. 
 
 3. The text is revised more thoroughly still in F. Bleek's Commentary 
 (§ 593) on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Diimmler, Berlin, 1836 f. 
 
 4. The Harmony of M. Rodiger, Grunert, Halle, 1829 and 1839, also pro- 
 fesses to present Griesbach's text. Yet it not infrequently abandons it, and 
 agrees in its changes mostly with Tischendorf, often also with Lachmann. 
 
 5. Yet more independent, and departing considerably more from Gries- 
 bach, the N. T. (with Commentary, § 592) of H. A. W. Meyer, Vanden- 
 hoek, Gott. 1829, the text of which likewise approaches Lachmann and 
 Tischendorf. 
 
 6. N. T. gr. textum ad fidem testium criticorum rec. lectionum familias sub- 
 fecit copias criticas add. J. M. A. Scholz, Fleischer, L. 1830, 1836, 2 vols. 4° 
 (printed by Andrese, Frankfurt). Between the text and the very rich cata- 
 logue of variants with references to authorities and manuscript nomencla- 
 ture (affecting nearly 30,000 portions of the text) stand those readings 
 which are most widely current in the families of witnesses, but to which 
 others are here preferred. 
 
 The 2)rolegomena, beside the matter otherwise customary, carry out the 
 thought that there are two classes of witnesses, those agreeing with the 
 Textus Receptus and those differing froni it; the former of which he calls 
 Oriental or Constantinopolitan, the latter Alexandrian and Occidental. Now 
 since the latter differ much among themselves, while the Oriental agree, the 
 Oriental should have the preference ! The apparatus was rather externally 
 increased by Scholz than internally sifted. His simplification of the system 
 of families was really a result of prejudice. All that does not agree with 
 
43G HISTORY OF tpie printed text. 
 
 the numerous Byzantine MSS. is called Alexandrian, and is regarded as sus- 
 picious on account of the arbitrariness of grammarians, as if there were 
 grammarians nowhere else, and the Alexandrian text could never have be- 
 come mingled with the Constantmopolitan. Altogether unproved, also, is 
 the comiection of the Constantinopolitan text, which certainly was not the 
 standard before the fourth century, with that of the early churches of Asia 
 Minor, and upon the basis of contemporary testimony (§§ 366, 369) it might 
 be altogether denied. 
 
 As respects the results of the operations based upon this theory, Scholz 
 certainly departs often from Elzevir, but much more frecpiently from 
 the so-called Alexandrian text, to which Griesbach gave the preference, and 
 later critics still more. But inasmuch as Griesbach did not dej^art from the 
 common text unless compelled to do so, the two recensions in reality resem- 
 ble each other much more than would be expected upon principles so totally 
 different. Of wholly peculiar readings, departing from Elzevir and Gries- 
 bach alike, Scholz has but few, but in many of them has Lachmanu in his 
 favor. 
 
 To this recension belong the following works by the editor (f 1851) : Bih- 
 liscJi kritische Beise durch Frankreich, die Schioeiz, Italien, PalciMina und 
 Archipelagus 1818-1821, L. 1823 ; Curce criticce in Hist, textus evv., Pt. I., 
 II., Heidelb. 1820 (Pt. I. also under the title De critica N. T. generatijii) ; 
 Dc virtutibus et viliis utriusque codicum familice, L. 1845. For other writings 
 of the same author see §§ 21, 383, 392. 
 
 Cf. Vater, in the Kirchenhist. Archiv, 1824, I. ; Schulthess, Annalen, 1826, 
 II. 481-530 ; Gabler, preface to Griesbach's 0pp., II. p. 14 ; Allgem. Lit. 
 Zeitung, 1834, I. 306 ; Tischendorf, p. 417. 
 
 Scholz' text is simply reprinted, with English version added, and variants 
 from Griesbach and older editors, Bagster, Lond., sine anno (§ 406) ; the 
 variants in the margin. Title-page edition, Wiley, N. Y. 1859. The Greek 
 text in Bagster's English Hexapla, 1844 (1860), 4°, is also from Scholz. 
 
 416. But the g^reatest departure from the text previously 
 common was made by Carl Lachmanu, Professor at Berlin, 
 the first noted critic of the New Testament for more than 
 a century wlio did not properly belong among professional the- 
 ologians. Proceeding from the idea that it is impossible ever 
 to lecover the original text, because of the lack of coutempo- 
 rary witnesses, and that the weighing of readings according to 
 critical rules is ratlier an apparent than a real aid, he believed 
 that nothing remained for criticism to do but to restore the 
 relatively oldest text which can be discovered by the aid of the 
 extant documents. For this purpose there was need of but 
 a very small number of manuscripts, but often also, when his 
 chosen witnesses left him in the lurch, of bold decision. But 
 no edition was better fitted than his, as compared with the 
 common text, to place in clear light the indescribable arbitra- 
 riness with which the copyists must once have gone to work. 
 This theory has found enthusiastic admirers, but naturally 
 could not be accepted as the last word of science. 
 
 N. T. gr. ex. rec. C. Lachmnnni ed. stereot., Reimer, B. 1831 (new title- 
 page, 1837, 1846, also copies without date); the text only, and at the end the 
 variants of the Textus Receptus. — N. T. gr. et lat. C. Lachmannus recen- 
 
LACHMANN. 487 
 
 suit, Ph. Buttmannus grcBCce lectionis auctoritates apposuit, B. 1842-1850, 2 
 vols. Also, an account of his edition in the Studien, 1330, IV. SIT-Sio. 
 
 [See his Biography, by Hertz, Berlin, 1851 ; the article Biheltext des N. 
 T., by O. von Gebhardt, 'in Herzog's EncykL, 2d ed., II. 425 if. Also Tre- 
 gelles. Account, etc., p. 99 ; Wescott and Hort, GV. Test., II. 13 ; Abbot, in 
 Schaff's Relig. Encycl., I. 275 ; Schaff, Companion, p. 254 ff.] 
 
 The purpose of Lachmann (f 1851) was not to restore the true text, but 
 the oldest accessible to us, in order, from this as a starting point (not from 
 the bad common text, as all before him, even Griesbach, had done), to enter 
 upon further investigations and improvements. He hoped first to discover 
 the text as it was read in the time of Jerome, and made it up, for the East, 
 mostly from A, B, C, also P, Q, T, Z for the Gospels, H for Paul, and from 
 Origen ; for the West, from D, G for Paul ; for the Gospels from the oldest 
 MSS. of the Itala ; in general from Irenseus, Cyprian, Hilary of Pictavium, 
 Lucifer ; and for the Apocalypse from Primasius. 1) Gospels and E Acts, 
 as well as the Vulgate, are given but a secondary position. If both families 
 agree, or some of the witnesses of one with all tliose of the othei-, the read- 
 mg is decided ; if they are divided on both sides it is uncertain, and one 
 reading (which ?) is placed in the text and the other in the margin. In the 
 second edition the above-mentioned witnesses are always fully noted ; noth- 
 ing at all is said of Byzantine witnesses. 
 
 The idea of this work is correct; the aids, even for this purpose, wholly 
 insufticient. The MSS. (of which the most important, B, C, were not at all 
 accurately collated) are so defective that for considerable portions but a 
 single witness remains (§ 392), for the Occidental family none at all but the 
 Vulgate (e. g., in the Catholic Epistles) ; but the text of the latter (§ 456) 
 is itself still in a very bad state, notwithstanding Lachmann's pains to restore 
 it critically. 
 
 The conscientiousness of the editor went so far as to admit into the text 
 manifest clerical errors when they were sufficiently attested by ancient au- 
 thorities. This should have prevented his imitators from ascribing to this 
 text any other than the relative value which Lachmann's principles might 
 naturally vindicate for it. With a more correct appreciation of the immedi- 
 ate design the criticism would have been more favorable and the praise due 
 would not have been wrongly directed. See Rettig, in the Studien, 1832, 
 IV. ; C. F. A. Fritzsche, De conformatioie N. T. critica quam C. L. dedit, 
 Giessen, 1841 ; D. Sclmlz, De aliquot locc. N. T. lectione, Br. 1833. Also, 
 Allg. Lit. Zeitung, 1833, I. 409 ; 1834, I. 309 ; Tischendorf, in the Jena Allg. 
 Lit. Zeitung, Apr. 1843, and in his edition of 1849, Prolegg., p. 41 ; ed. of 
 1859, Prolegg., p. 102 ff. ; Wieseler, in the Studien, 1861, IV. 
 
 The criticism of Lachmann's collaborator, Ph. Buttmann, in the N. T. 
 published by Teubner, L. 1856, is confined to still narrower limits. It is 
 said to be based essentially upon the single Cod. B, and where this is defec- 
 tive upon Cod. A . The readings of G, L, T and Elzevir in the margin. The 
 text thus obtained agrees mostly with Lachmann, or with Tischendorf. 
 Other clianges are rare ; but what Lachmann simply bracketed is often 
 erased. New edition, 1860 (1864,1865). — By the same editor. Decker, 
 B. 1862, an edition holding yet more strictly to the Cod. Vatic. ; printed in 
 uncials. 
 
 With the Lachmann family are also to be reckoned : the edition of V. 
 Loch, Manz, Regensb., 1862, agreeing mostly with Buttmann, but often only 
 bracketing glosses stricken out by him ; that begun by Westcott and Hort, 
 Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1870; the Harmony of H. Levin, Niedner, Wiesb., 
 1866 ; the critical edition of the Epistle to the Galatians by J. T. Vdmel, 
 1865. Also the recension of the Acts on the basis of Cod. D, Cantabr., by 
 F. A. Bornemann, Grossenhain, 1848, may properly be mentioned here. 
 
 The N. T. of E. von Muralt, Meissuer, Hamb., 1846, and, with complete 
 
438 HISTORY OF THE PRINTED TEXT. 
 
 apparatus, 1848 (title-page edition, 1860), also professes allegiance to Laeh- 
 manu's principles. It promises integram varietatetn cetatis apostolicce, and a 
 text founded upon the versions of the second and third centuries, the Alex- 
 andrian MSS. of the fourth and fifth, the Grseco-Latin MlSS. of the sixth to 
 the eio-hth, and a number of new St. Petersburg MSS., as well as the Slavic 
 version. Here, evidently, some of the sources are overestimated as to age ; 
 the placing of Cod. Vat. at the foundation (and this holds true also of Lach- 
 niann and Buttmann), in view of the generosity of the Roman librarian, who 
 forbids the noting of variants (Muralt, in Renter's Rep., 185li, p. 7), and of the 
 untrustworthy character of the older collations of this MS., cannot give abso- 
 lute confidence, and the new collation of Russian treasures can bring no impor- 
 tant gain. Cf. Studien, 1849, III. 735. The text is overloaded with signs 
 of all kinds for the direct indication of the principal sources. It returns 
 very frequently to Elzevir ; in particular, and very suddenly, from the point 
 at which Cod. B fails. 
 
 417. Lachmann's fundamental idea is also the ruling princi- 
 ple of the criticism of Constantine Tischendorf, the most inde- 
 fatigable of our New Testament textual critics. For he also 
 recognized no higher recommendation for a witness than its 
 age, and had therefore little to do with the great mass of them 
 and the common text that has come from them. But he would 
 not forego his own judgment of readings, and simply keep rec- 
 ord of what has happened to be preserved from ancient times. 
 Moreovei-, he comprehended from the first the fact tliat the 
 fewer witnesses one chooses to recognize as authoritative, the 
 more certain must he be of them. And as at the beginning of 
 his work he was still young enough to hope that the original 
 text could yet be found, he was also bold enough not to be 
 afraid of the immense labor of the necessary preparatory stud- 
 ies. He also unearthed rich treasures for this purpose both 
 East and West, and made them accessible to the learned world ; 
 and if in the future any more definite results are to be obtained 
 than he himself reached, it will be due to his toil. 
 
 I. N. T. gr. textum adfidem antiq. testium rec. hrevem apparatum crit. c. var. 
 lectt. (of the principal recensions of modern times, together with Elzevir) suh- 
 junxit comment, isagog. prcemisit G. F. C. Tischendorf, Kcihler, L. 1841, 16°. 
 Containing also the treatise De recensionibus quas dicunt textus N. T. ratione 
 potissimum liahita Scholzii, L. 1840. Cf. his essays in the Heidelh. Studien, 
 1842, II.; 1844, II.; in the Jena Allg. Lit. Zeitung, Apr. 1843 ; and in Her- 
 zog's Encykl., Art. Bibeltext, p. 181 ft". In the Prolegomena the variations 
 between Elzevir I. and Stephens III., between Griesbach and Knapp, and 
 between Matthjei and Griesbach are also summarily indicated. — See Rink, 
 in the Studien, 1842, II. ; D. Schulz, in the Jena Allg. Lit. Zeitung, June, 
 1842. — This first recension of Tischendorf departs farthest of all from the 
 common text, even more than Lachmann, and many of its readings were 
 afterward quietly retracted. 
 
 II. N. T. gr. ad antiquos testes rec. lectionesque var. Elzevir. Stephan. Griesb. 
 notavit C. Tischendorf, Firmin Didot, Paris, 1842, 12°. The variants men- 
 tioned in the title stand together at the close. Verses paragraphed. The 
 edition is dedicated to Guizot. This edition may be regarded as in the main 
 a little changed repetition of the preceding. 
 
TISCHENDORF. 439 
 
 III. N. T. gr. et lat. Textum versionis vulgatce latince in antiquis testibus 
 V. S. V. Jager in consilium adhibito indagavit C. Tischendorf. Opus DD. Affre 
 archiepiscopo paris. dicatum, Par. 1842, large 8°; also 1842 (1847, 1851, 185U), 
 12°, without the version and the critical apparatus of the larger edition. 
 (On the title-page of the two latest impressions Jager is shamelessly named 
 as the real editor, and Tischendorf's Prolegomena are printed without his 
 name.) The idea of restoring a Greek text which should give the original 
 of the Vulgate is in itself an interesting one, but upon closer consideration 
 merely preliminary, and in any case for a long time yet impracticable, and 
 the attempt now under consideration is in many respects unsatisfactory. 
 For (1) the Vulgate grew up from various sources, and is therefore itself an 
 arbitrary mixed text ; (2) its own text is in a sad state of neglect and highly 
 uncertain ; (3) the Clementine text, made the basis by Tischendorf, has no 
 critical value whatever, and has perhaps itself been altered in accordance 
 with the Greek ; (4) the choice of Greek readings to constitute the new text 
 is not made upon very fixed principles, and where the Latin is not decisive 
 the other recension, afterward changed throughout by Tischendorf himself, 
 is followed. Consequently, especially considering the complete silence re- 
 specting the authorities used in each case, nothing is gained for the main 
 object, and it may be doubted whether " the Catholic theologians of France 
 will now learn Greek more gladly and more easily." It is noteworthy how 
 few peculiar readings result from this mode of procedure, while the agree- 
 ment with the previous Tischendorf editions is exceedingly frequent. 
 
 IV. N. T. gr. ad antt. testes rec. apparatum crit. multis modis auctum et 
 correctum apposuit comm. isag. prcemisit C. Tischendorf, Winter, L. 1849, 8°. 
 The preface gives an account of the travels of the editor (on which see 
 especially § 392) and of his critical principles and aids. A rich catalogue of 
 variants with references in the lower margin. Catholic Epistles before Paul. 
 Second principal recension, returning very frequently to older readings, but 
 giving up mostly those of Lachmann, not Tischendorf. 
 
 V. N. T. gr. rec. C. Tischendorf stereot. ed., B. Tauchnitz, L. 1850, 8°, 
 with a brief summary of the critical witnesses (i. e.. Uncial MSS. and 
 versions) and Elzevir readings in the lower margin. Arrangement of books 
 the same. The text, with two wholly isolated exceptions, is repeated from 
 IV. (New title-page, 1862.) 
 
 Synopsis evangelica ex quatuor evv. ordine chronologico (with John also broken 
 up) rec. prcetexto brevi comment, ill. (i. e., with a critical preface) ad antt. testes 
 . . . rec. C. Tischendorf, L. 1851, 8°, with the collection of variants as in IV. 
 (This Harmony was repeated in 1854.) It gives the same text as V., except 
 that it introduces the pericopes Mk. xvi. and Jn. viii. in brackets instead of 
 omitting them altogether. The new edition of 1864 (1871) has a changed 
 text. 
 
 VI. N. T. gr. rec. inque usum acad. instruxit C. Tischendorf. Really a tri- 
 lingual edition, with Luther and the Latin (from it the Greek separately, 
 18o5, 1857, 1861, 1864 ; Greek and Latin, 1858 ; Greek and German, 1864), 
 Mendelssohn, L. 1854 (1865), with a small selection of variants and the 
 Eusebian numbering in the Gospels. Usual order of the books. The same 
 text, altered only in a few places (mostly with Lachmann). 
 
 VII. N. T. gr. ad antiquos testes denuo rec. apparatum crit. otnni studio per- 
 fectum apposuit commentaiionem isag. prmtextuit C. Tischendorf, Winter, L. 
 1856-1859, 2 vols., 8°. Third principal recension. Returns to a considerable 
 extent to Elzevir and Griesbach, yet also brings out again many readings 
 before given up from the edition of 1841, and lays claim to special merit (a 
 very doubtful claim) in a completely altered, alleged original apostolic 
 orthography and syntax, beside speaking more fully than ever before in the 
 Prolegomena of the helps. An editio minor appeared simultaneously, which 
 contains, under the same text, a selection, much too extensive for a manual, 
 from the exceedingly rich apparatus of the other edition. 
 
440 HISTORY OF THE PRINTED TEXT. 
 
 VIII. Editio octaoa critica maior, Giesecke and Devrient, L. 1864-1872, 
 2 vols. 8°. Fourth principal recension. Differs greatly from the preceding, 
 and in such a way that the common readings adopted in VII. are al- 
 most all set aside again, and more frequently still those peculiar to Lach- 
 rnann, or which appeared for the fii"st time in I. and II., and were after- 
 ward abandoned, are introduced. Critical prolegomena are still lacking. 
 [Tischendorf was prevented by a stroke of apoplexy, May 5, 1873, followed 
 by paralysis and death, Dec. 7, 1874, from preparing the Prolegomena to his 
 eighth edition. The work was entrusted in 1876 to Dr. Caspar Rene 
 Gregory, an American scholar residing at Leipzig, with the aid of Dr. Ezra 
 Abbot of Cambridge, Mass., and finished in 1883.] 
 
 \ Novum Testamentum Gr(ece, etc., editio octava critica minor, in one volume ; 
 the same text as the major, with the principal readings. The best manual 
 edition is that by O. von Gebhardt, with the readings of Tregelles and 
 Westcott and Hort : Novum Test. Grace Recensionis Tischendorjiance uUimce 
 Textum cum Tregellesiano et Westcottio-Hortiano contulit et brevi adnotatione 
 critica additisque locis parallelis illustravit 0. de G., L. 1881 ; the same text 
 with Luther's revised German version, L. 1881.] 
 
 The great divex'sity of Tischendorf 's text in these four recensions (for Ed. 
 III. is not to be considered here), to some extent even in the reprints which 
 appeared between them, is to be attributed not so much to any defect in his 
 theory of criticism as to the necessity of at once turning to account the vast 
 accessions to the helps won by the editor himself. In the last stage of his 
 work, Tischendorf probably had at his command more than twice as many 
 witnesses of the first rank (according to his principles) as at the beginning 
 of it. In view of this ever-increasing enrichment, perhaps a diilerent 
 method might have commended itself. A happy combination of Laclimanu's 
 idea and Tischendorf 's richness would have given a firm basis for the future, 
 whereas now, through the influence of subjective judgment, which is neces- 
 sarily subject to change, the whole matter has come into a state of uncer- 
 tainty, which the next period will no longer tolerate. 
 
 Special mention is due here to the diplomatic-critical preliminary labors 
 of Tischendorf, some of which have already been referred to, in his splendid 
 editions of single MSS. (§ 392), among which, in particular, Ephnm, Claro- 
 montanus, and Sinaiticus, and collections of documents : Monumenta sacra 
 inedita, 1846 ; Collectio nova, 1855 flf. 5 vols. ; Anecdota sacra et pmfana, 
 1855 (I860) ; also Latin (§§ 453, 456), and apocryphal (§ 243). Of. in 
 general J. E. Volbeding, C. Tischendorf in s. SBjahrigen schriftstellerischen 
 Wirksamkeit, L. 1862. [Dr. Abbot's article in the Unitarian Review, March, 
 1875 ; Dr. Gregory, in the Bib. Sac, Jan. 1876 ; Dr. Von Gebhardt, in 
 Herzog's Encj/kL, liew ed. 1878, II. 429 fP. ; SchafP, Companion, p. i:57 ff_.] 
 
 None of Tischendorf 's recensions have thus far been simply reproduced in 
 other editions, except VII. in the Evangelientafel of M. H. Schulze, L. 1861. 
 
 418. But to arrive at any fixed ami final result is precisely 
 what German science, since the advent of these modern^ criti- 
 cal systems, has done even less than before. The selection of 
 readings which each one may take, according to his taste, from 
 the extant editions, and that with the guaranty marks of a 
 competent firm, has become a greater task, — to the conscien- 
 tious scholar a more difficult one, to the ordinary supplier of 
 the market a welcome one, because so easily assuring tlie ap- 
 pearance of independence. Moreover, the mingling of elements 
 is implied in growth. That in view of this confusion, destruc- 
 tive to exegesis, if not to theology, conservative minds often seek 
 
OTHER EDITIONS IN GERMANY. 441 
 
 and find the remedy in the old text unaltered should not sur- 
 prise us. The comparison of all those who, in our times, have 
 not been able to attach themselves unconditionally to any one 
 leader will show very clearlj^ how diverse are the principles 
 and how little the attainment of the end depends upon the ex- 
 tent of the helps alone. 
 
 It is wholly unnecessary to make a distinction between Catholic and Prot- 
 estant editions, since theologians and critics of the fonner Church have been 
 able to advance this department of science in precisely the same way as some 
 Protestants, or have shown no hesitation in appropriating to themselves what 
 has been won in the other communion. No doubt for many Catholics the 
 text approved by the Roman see (Compluteusian and Erasmus), whose very 
 diversity, however, is of itself a charter for critical research, may have a 
 certain higher authority, but they do not appear to have attained to that def- 
 erence for those older (and in many respects better) texts which is usual in 
 Protestant countries and schools for the Elzevir. — For simple reprints of 
 Elzevir, Mill, and other favorite forms of the so-called Textus Receptus, see 
 above in the apjiropriate sections. 
 
 I. Editions independent of Tischendorf, and returning exclusively to 
 older recensions, without regard to modern criticism : — 
 
 (1.) Fues, Tubingen, 1821, by P. A. Gratz (Prof, at Tubingen, afterward 
 at Bonn), a simple and faithful reprint of the Compluteusian text (even with 
 the typographical errors), together with the Vulgate and the readings of 
 Stephens, Griesbach, and Matthsei in the margin. The Apocalypse is also 
 appended in full in Stephens' recension. — Repeated, Kupferberg, Mayence, 
 1827 (new title-page, 1851), but without the above critical additions, and in 
 place of them a selection of variants from MSS., with indication of their rel- 
 ative critical value. 
 
 (2.) Fues, Tiibiugen, 1827, by Leander van Ess, with the Vulgate ; con- 
 structs a peculiar text from the Compluteusian and Erasmus, as the two edi- 
 tions approved by Leo X. (with marginal readmgs from Stephens, Griesbach, 
 and Matthrei). This text is a good one so far as it could be with these aids. 
 Of course where the Compluteusian and Erasmus agree there was nothing to 
 change upon this principle. Cf. Gieseler, in the Studien, 1828, II. 405. 
 
 II. Editions which have come under the influence of various modern re- 
 censions : — 
 
 (1.) The Harmony of the Four Gospels by J. Gehringer, Fues, Tiib. 1842, 
 4°, has a mixed text, from the Compluteusian, Elzevir, and Griesbach, the 
 first two predominating ; it has also a very small number of readings from 
 Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf. 
 
 (2.) On the basis of Knapp : the two editions prepared by C. G. W. 
 Theile (Prof, at Leipzig, f 1854) for B. Tauchnitz, Leipzig, one Greek alone 
 (first the Gospels only, 1842, then complete) 1844 (new title-page, 1848, 
 1850, 1852, 1854, 1856, 1858, 1865), and one with Luther, 1852; both with the 
 readings of the best recensions and all sorts of other additions. They very 
 often abandon Knapp, mostly for Lachmann (almost solely in passages where 
 Tischendorf's first edition also agrees), elsewhere either for Elzevir or for 
 new brackets. The two editions only differ in a few passages, in which the 
 second usually goes back to Knapp or Elzevir. Reprinted from the second 
 edition, with the Vulgate, without statement of sources, Tauchnitz, L. 1854 
 (1862). 
 
 (3.) A wholly different recension is exhibited in Theile's N. T. polygl., 
 (with Vulgate and Luther), Velhagen and Klasing, Bielef., 1846, which 
 abandons Elzevir but very seldom, mostly in favor of Lachmann. There are 
 also copies of a later date, 1849, 1854, and others, 1855 and 1858, with the 
 
442 HISTORY OF THE PRINTED TEXT. 
 
 English version addetl. — This text repeated, Liesching, Stuttg. 1853, with 
 Luther. (Bible Insitution.) 
 
 (4.) From Griesbach's recension of 1805 : the so-called fourth edition of 
 Schott (§ ■ll'i), Barth, L. 1839, completed by L. F. O. Baumgarten-Crusius, 
 Prof, at Jena (f 1843). But it often abandons Griesbach, altogether or at 
 least b}' bracketing, mostly for Lachmanu, seldom for Elzevir, sometimes 
 for emendations peculiar to itself. The text in Schott's uncompleted Com- 
 mentary on the Epistles (Thess., Gal., L. 1834) is made up in the same way. 
 — I'rom Schulz' edition of 1827: the Harmony of R. Anger (Prof, at 
 Leipzig), Gebhard and Reisland, L. 1852 (printed by Tauchnitz), frequently 
 abandons Griesbach, very seldom for Elzevir or new readings, mostly for 
 Laclimann and Tischendorf, at least by brackets. 
 
 (5.) Comiected with Lachmann : the text of the Epistles commented upon 
 by L. I. Riickert (§ 593 ; Eph., 1834 ; Cor., 1836 f., Ktihler, L.).— The Har- 
 mony of the Four Gospels by J. H. Friedlieb (Prof, at Breslau), Aderholz, 
 Bresl. 1847. Yet it differs in many places, merely indicating many of 
 Lachmann's changes by brackets, or, on the other hand, doing away with 
 Lachmami's brackets, partly by acceptance and partly by erasure ; in many 
 cases, also, it goes back to older readings (mostly Griesbach's), and has 
 some peculiar to itself. New revised edition, Manz, Regsb., 1869. — The 
 N. T. of F. X. Reithmayr (Prof, at Munich), Weiss, Munich, 1847, with 
 the Vulgate, takes for its basis in the Gospels Lachmann's first edition, in 
 the rest the second, but in many cases indicates Lachmann's omissions and 
 additions by brackets, and in others very frequently abandons him altogether, 
 mostly for Griesbach ; among these cases in particular are many in which it 
 coincides with the text constructed by Tischendorf after the Vulgate (which 
 often agrees with Lachmann also). Complutensian readings and emenda- 
 tions peculiar to itself also occur. 
 
 419. Down to the time of Mill and Mace we had to mention 
 more prominently in this portion of our history, in so far at 
 least as the object was to give an account of the earnest and 
 effective advancement of science, non-German names. From 
 that time siie sought a new fatherland, where for the first time 
 she was truly at home, and has grown great. Yet she has not 
 been altogether unknown in other lands. Theological preju- 
 dice and the spirit of the times and of the churches, directed 
 toward practical life, have not only prevented a similar occupa- 
 tion in those countries themselves with such recondite matters 
 as the Apparatus Criticus and variants, but they have also 
 been willing to listen to but little of what the Germans have 
 to say of them. Holland and Switzei'land supply themselves 
 mostly at the rich market of their neighbor. In the Catholic 
 Church there is little demand for the Greek text. France is 
 not altogether inactive, though of course witliout aid from the 
 priests and without gain for the cause. The Reformed in that 
 country prefer to obtain what they need from England. Tliere, 
 however, theology is still, in a measure, at the stage in which 
 variants may endanger salvation. Yet some advance has been 
 made toward a clearer understanding of the matter, and the 
 standai-d writers of criticism have here and there obtained a 
 blank space beneath the text. Were it enough to look sim- 
 
EDITIONS IN OTHER COUNTRIES. 443 
 
 ply at the number of editions and their neatness of form, Eng- 
 land should doubtless stand at the head. 
 
 In tliis section I make no claim to completeness. The editions are no- 
 where all catalogued, and in the lack of regular intercourse in the book 
 trade I know only what has happened to come into my own hands. Libra- 
 ries contain almost nothing at all of what belongs here, and the only bibli- 
 ographical catalogue known tome (W. T. Lowndes, The Bibliographer's Man- 
 ual, 1834, Vol. III., s. V. Testament) is already too old, superficial, and for 
 scientific purposes altogether useless. We place in this section only those 
 texts which were not to be mentioned above as mere repetitions of older re- 
 censions (§ 406 ; also §§ 403, 412, 414, 415). 
 
 In France no Greek N. T. had been printed since 1722, when J. B. Gail, 
 Prof, of Greek Literature at Paris, had at least the Gospels printed for the 
 Lyceums (the episcopal seminaries probably did not use even these), Delelain, 
 Par. 1812, 1814, 1820, in the last the Acts also. Je fus informe qu'il n'ex- 
 istait pas a Paris un seal exeniplaire du N. T. Je mis aussitut la main a 
 Voeuvre. Non tarn electus (truly ! let one but read the prefaces and intro- 
 ductions) quam derelictus, malui me quam neminem. The text, as the author 
 does not say, is Griesbach's of 1805 with some few Elzevir readings. — From 
 the same source, with somewhat more frequent changes, mostly from Elze- 
 vir, and in part with reference to the Vulgate, is the handsome N. T. of the 
 Hellenist J. F. Boissonade, Lefevre, Paris, printed by Eberart, 1824. Lit- 
 tle changed from this, a series of school editions, mostly including only the 
 historical books, and these singly, Delalain, P. 1827 and freq. Also entire, 
 1830 : designed throughout only for boys, as those who alone needed it. — 
 Belin, P., by E. Lefranc, sine anno. — Further examples of this class are 
 unnecessary. — The Orientalist Brosset prepared for Didot, 1831 (new title- 
 page, 1837), an edition which honorably acknowledges Griesbach, whose 
 text is only changed in a few places, professedly according to the Georgian 
 version (!), i. e., according to Elzevir. For the editions of Tischendorf pub- 
 lished by Didot, see § 417. — A handsome miniature edition, ed. Timothee 
 and DaroUes, Toulouse, 1840, is closely related to Boissonade. 
 
 A. Rilliet, of Geneva, applied the most recent critical principles, first, by 
 way of example, in an edition of the Epistle to the Philippians, with com- 
 mentary (G. Be'roud, 1841), afterward in a complete French version. 
 
 From Italy I know but one edition, Typog. Semin., Padua, 1820, which is 
 only slightly different from those mentioned in § 406, yet not uninfluenced 
 by "Griesbach. Editions are now prepared in Venice for Jesuit schools, of 
 which, however, only one, 1847 (Elzevir), is known to me, in which likewise 
 Stephens and Elzevir reading-s are mingled. More frequent there are edi- 
 tions of beautiful lectionaries for public use, of which a splendidly gotten up 
 copy, 1840, f ol., lies before me. — Here may also be mentioned the Harmony 
 of the Gospels by F. X. Patrizzi, Herder, Freib. 1853, 4°, with an Elzevir- 
 Griesbach text. 
 
 From Holland I know but one edition, Luchtmans, Leyd. 1809, by H. A. 
 Aitton, in which Griesbach's text of 1805 is changed in the dogmatically 
 important passages according to Elzevir, a critical proceeding for the recon- 
 ciliation of faith and science well received, particularly in England. Sub- 
 stantially repeated in a series of Glasgow editions by various publishers, 
 1817, 1822, 1830, 1832, 1836 (and freq.) ; Hurst, Lond. 1834 ; Parker, 
 Lond. 1838. 
 
 Switzerland has furnished but one edition, Bonnant, Geneva, 1813, by F. 
 Gaillard (new title-page, Rusand, Lyons, 1821), which received perhaps 
 about one half of Griesbach's readings into the Elzevir text. 
 
 Of Protestant countries England prints by far the most editions, mostly 
 commercial enterprises and school editions devoid of all scientific value. 
 
444 HISTORY OF THE PRINTED TEXT. 
 
 Beside the numerous editions with pure Elzevir or mixed Elzevir and 
 Stephens text (§ 400), some peculiar recensions have also appeared there in 
 modern times. 
 
 1. The Gospels, by Jos. White, CoUingwood, Oxf. 1798, in which, upon 
 the basis of Griesbach's criticism, approved additions are inserted in Origen's 
 method, with asterisks, suspected glosses distinguished by means of daggers, 
 other preferred variants placed in the margm of the common text. 
 
 2. Editions of Adam Dickinson and W. Duncan, Edinb. 1817 (1829, 1835, 
 stereotyped, perhaps fi-eq.). Text, Elzevir II. with single Griesbach readings 
 and bracketing throughout of the glosses stricken out by Griesbach. 
 
 3. Editions of Ed. Valpy, cum notis vamru?n,Valpy, Loud. 1816, 1826, 1831, 
 1836, 1853, 3 vols. Bengel's text, improved by the introduction of Griesbach 
 readings, mostly commended by Beugel himself in the margin. Wholly 
 different from this, a frequently printed manual edition, Valpy, Lond. 1824. 
 
 4. Editions of S. T. Bloomfield : (1.) Larger, with fuller notes, for older 
 students, Longman, Loud. 1832, 2 vols., 1836, 1839, and freq. ; also reprinted, 
 Perkins, Boston, 1837. — (2.) Smaller, with shorter scholia, for begimiers, 5th 
 ed., Lond. 1847, and freq. The text in the two is not precisely the same, 
 but is substantially a mixture of Stephens and tlie Complutensian, chiefly on 
 the authority of Scholz. Also independent but infelicitous attempts at 
 emendation. 
 
 5. Edition with annotations by C. Wordsworth, Canon of Westminster, 
 Livingston, Lond. 1857, 4 vols. 4°. A mixed text, from Griesbach, Lach- 
 mann, and Tischendorf, but sparing the dogmatically important passages. 
 A critical edition of the Apocalypse by W. Kelly, Lond. 1860, agrees stiU 
 more frequently with the two last-named German critics. 
 
 6. On the basis of wholly independent criticism, which, however, substan- 
 tially agrees in its principles with Lachmann, Tischendorf, Muralt, and 
 Buttmann, the edition of S. P. Tregelles, of Plymouth, with rich apparatus 
 (Bagster, Lond. 1857-1879, small 4°). Earlier, in 1844, the Apocalypse as a 
 specimen. [The Prolegomena, with Addenda and Corrigenda, were compiled 
 and edited in a supplementary volume by Dr. Hort and A. W. Streane, 1879. 
 See, on the character of Tregelles as a critic, and his relation to Tischendorf, 
 O. von Gebhardt, in his article Biheltext, in Herzog's Encykl., new ed., II. 
 428 ff.; Westcott and Hort, Gk. Test., 11. 13 ; Dr. Hort's notice of Tischen- 
 dorf and Tregelles in the Journal of Philology, March, 1858.] 
 
 7. Editions of H. Alford, Lond. 1849 ff. (4th ed., 1860) ; also reprinted, 
 N. Y, 1859 ff. 4 vols., with commentary ; critically very dependent and 
 vacillating between the authority of the witnesses and subjective judgment. 
 [" In the fifth edition he nearly rewrote the text and digest, chiefly on the 
 basis of Tregelles and Tischendorf, and in the sixth (1868) he collated also 
 the Codex Sinaiticus, and incorporated its readings." Schaff, Companion, 
 p. 267.] 
 
 [8. Westcott and Hort : The Neto Testament in the Original Greek, Camb. 
 and Lond. 1881, 2 vols.; the first volume containing the text, the second the 
 Introduction, 324 pages, and Appendix (Notes on Select Readings, 140 pages, 
 Notes on Orthography, and Quotations from the O. T., which are distin- 
 guished by uncial type in the text, pp. 141-188). Both volumes republished, 
 from duplicate English plates, N. Y., Harpers, 1881. — By the same firm, 
 a convenient diglot edition, containing Westcott and Hort's Greek Text 
 and the English Revised Version on opposite pages : The Revised Greek- 
 English New Testament, N. Y. 1882. " The Greek Testament of Westcott 
 and Hort presents the oldest and purest text which can be attained witli the 
 means of information at the command of the present generation." Schaff, 
 Companion, p. 269.] 
 
 [9. F. H. A. Scrivener, Prebendary of Exeter, The New Testament in the 
 Original Greek, according to the Text followed in the Authorized Version, together 
 
SUMMARY. 445 
 
 with the Variations adopted in the Revised Version, Camb. 1881. The readings 
 adopted by the Revisers are at the foot of the page, and the displaced 
 readings of the text are indicated by heavier type.] 
 
 [10. Dr. E. Palmer, Archdeacon of Oxford, H KAINH AIA0HKH. The 
 Greek Testament, with the Readings adopted by the Revise)-s of the Authorized 
 Version, Oxf. 1881. Presents the Greek text of the Revisers, with the 
 discarded readings of the textus receptus (Stephens, 1550) and of the version 
 of 1811 in foot-notes.] 
 
 [The University presses of Oxford and Cambridge have also published 
 The Parallel New Testament, Greek and English, containing the Authorized 
 Version, the Revised Version, the Revised Greek Text, and the readings dis- 
 placed by the Revisers, in parallel columns, with space for manuscript notes, 
 Nov. 1882.] 
 
 In the above (§§ 399-419) all the editions are catalogued which I myself 
 possess or have had opportunity to become acquainted with otherwise. My 
 Bibliotheca edd. N. T. gr. contains in addition, in ch. 25, a small number 
 which I have not been able to look into, and in ch. 2G some others about 
 whose existence I am in doubt. Beside these, some may have appeared in 
 recent years in England and America which are as yet unknown to me. 
 These deficiencies are probably not of importance for the history of the text. 
 [This list of Reuss supplemented and brought down to 1882 by Prof. Isaac 
 H. Hall, and printed in Schaff, Companion, p. 497 flf. See also Prof. Hall's 
 article. The Greek Testament as published in A^nerica, in the Trans. Amer. 
 Philol. Assoc, Vol. XIII. 1882 ; also published separately, in pamphlet form, 
 Critical Bibliography of the Greek New Testament as published in America, 
 Phila. 1883.] 
 
 420. Thus the History of the Text has also divided itself into 
 two periods, marked off by the nature of the subject, before 
 which, representing the prepai'atory epoch, came the description 
 of the autographs. The first period embraced the history of the 
 written text, both as to its external form and its essential con- 
 stitution. Here were to be traced the origin and propagation 
 of a great number of alterations, some designed, others acci- 
 dental, which have disfigured the text, from which the Church 
 was unable to protect herself and to which she paid no at- 
 tention. The second period embraced the history of the text 
 since the invention of printing, an account of manifold attempts 
 to restore it to its original purity. Although the conclusion of 
 this history is that the end aimed at has not been reached and 
 never will be, theology may comfort itself with the assurance 
 that no truth indispensable or important to it is affected, and 
 may go on making use of the abiding and uncorrupted contents 
 of Scripture for the teaching and edification of the Church. 
 This, which is its essential purpose, constitutes the interest of 
 the History of the Versions. 
 
BOOK FOURTH. 
 
 HISTORY OF THE DISSEMINATION OF THE NEW TESTA- 
 MENT WRITINGS. 
 
 HISTORY OF THE VERSIONS. 
 
 421. The rapid spread of Christianity in the century of its 
 origin was simply the work of the apostolic preacliing and of 
 the enthusiasm whicli tliis must have aroused among people 
 impoverished in faith and longing for spiritual nourishment. 
 Writing and books had no share in this most marvelous of 
 all conquests. The method of instruction used by the messen- 
 gers of the Christian faith made these things unnecessary, and 
 from their character and immediate purpose they could only 
 be of use where the new ideas had already taken root. 
 
 The latter fact held at that time of the O. T. as well as of the apostolic 
 writings, and is still true without limitation of both. Cf. above, §§30 if., 
 284 ft'. It should never be forgotten in this connection that the mightiest 
 impulse to the Gosjiel came at the beginning from a source which rendered 
 all Scripture unnecessary, — from the eschatological expectations. (§ 36). 
 
 422. If the dissemination of the apostolic writings was not 
 rapid even in the circles where they could be immediately un- 
 derstood, it must have been much less so without these circles. 
 In point of fact, Christianity made its way into lands where 
 the Greek language was not known, and these countries were 
 able to accept and retain it without needing its written records ; 
 nay, even without knowing them. This was the case chiefly 
 wherever the Semitic dialects were spoken, and in all parts of 
 the Roman empire where the native languages had disappeared 
 from the cities and fled to the villages and mountains. 
 
 Irenfeus, Adv. Hcer., III. 4, p. 178, still speaks of many barbarous peoples 
 upon whose hearts tlie faith of Christ had been written without paper and 
 ink. Pantaenus (Euseb., H. E., V. 10) found among the Indians (in Yemen ? ) 
 the Gospel of Matthew in the original, i. e., certainly not a canonical text. 
 
 With respect to the state of things in Latin countries, cf. also § 49. The 
 longer continuance of heathenism outside the cities (paganism) is not to be 
 attributed to the lack of versions, but to the general conditions of religious 
 culture, and to the custom of the Christian missionaries of beginning in the 
 cities. 
 
 Critical doubts as to the completeness of certain of the oldest versions will 
 be considered below. 
 
ECCLESIASTICAL CHARACTER. 447 
 
 423. Just as the more general dissemination of the New 
 Testament books was accomplished only by the introduction of 
 public church readings, so also the versions arose only in con- 
 sequence of this custom becoming a necessity. And since the 
 most immediate effect of this custom was the rise of the canon, 
 it might be expected — an expectation which appears to be 
 confirmed by the history — that the versions would not be con- 
 cerned with single writings, but would have for their subject- 
 matter more or less complete collections. The versions are not 
 older than the canon, and since, at the time of the formation 
 of the latter, the two collections, the Old Testament and the 
 New, were placed on the same level, both theologically and ec- 
 clesiastically, it may be further said that the Christian versions 
 of the Scriptures, as a rule, include both from the beginning. 
 
 Even of the O. T., aside from the Chaldee paraphrases, intended for Pal- 
 estine and the Eastern schools, there were at the period indicated no other 
 translations current than the Greek. 
 
 424. Partly in consequence of this custom, partly in conse- 
 quence of the general state of popular education and religious 
 instruction, it came about that all the ancient versions obtained 
 a more or less official, ecclesiastical character, either immedi- 
 ately upon their preparation and by design, or by the power 
 of circumstances. The people themselves in general became 
 acquainted with the Scriptures only in the church, as formerly 
 in the synagogue, and only so far as they were read to them 
 publicly. The version gradually obtained the authority of the 
 original, and the latter was finally forgotten, and often suspi- 
 ciously placed below the version even by priests and persons of 
 some learning. 
 
 That in the better times of tlie Church, especially the Greek, the laity also 
 read the Bible privately, cannot be denied in view of the testimony of Chrys- 
 ostom and others. Nevertheless, it may be maintained that this practice was 
 not so general as a one-sided polemic interest represents it (L. van Ess, 
 GescUchte der Vulgata, p. 6 E. ; Ussher (§ 287) ; Walch, above, § 289), and 
 that it was in any case an evanescent phenomenon. Moreover, this solidar- 
 ity in the knowledge of the Bible was a means of preserving unity of faith. 
 Cf. also § 287. 
 
 425. Considered from this ecclesiastical point of view, the 
 history of the literature of these versions has an interest alto- 
 gether different from that hitherto presented, when they were 
 considered solely with reference to the needs of a laborious 
 verbal criticism. As the faith bound Christendom together 
 into one great people, so the languages which it was taught 
 to speak divided this people into families, and with every new 
 translation another member detached itself from the centre 
 previously held fast, and in its farther progress went its own 
 way. The language of the Romans had become the ecclesias- 
 
448 HISTORY OF THE VERSIONS. 
 
 tical as well as the political language of the whole West, and 
 its remaining so was not the least cause of the stability and 
 inner unity of the Latin Church. In the East, which indeed 
 never grew into this unity, one province after another won for 
 itself, together with the biblical books rendered into its own 
 vernacular, a greater independence; unfortunately breaking 
 thereby, in many cases, the last thread by means of which it 
 might have drawn spiritual life and power from some more 
 favored region. 
 
 Beside the ordinary introductory manuals, cf . (especially on the ancient 
 versions) C. Kortholt, De variis S. S. editionlhus, Kil. (IGliS) 168(3 ; R. 
 Simon, Hist, des versions du iV. T., Rott. 1690 ; Brian Walton, Apparatus 
 biblicus (§ 17) ; Le Long (§395) ; J. A. Fabricius, Bibliolheca Grceca, IV.; 
 J. G. Hagemami, Nachrichten v. d. fiirnemsten Ueberss., Br. 1750 ; Walch, 
 Bibl. iheol. selecta, IV. 47 fE. ; Semler, Vorbereitung zur Hermeneutik, II. ; 
 Michaelis, Tractatio de variis lectionibus N. T., Hal. 1749 ; Rosenmiiller, 
 Handb. der Liter, der bibl. Kritik, II., III. ; Gesenius, Art. Bibeliibersetz- 
 ungen, in the Hall. Encykl. ; Meyer, Geschichte der Schrifterkldrung (§ 501) 
 Lohnis, Herm. (§ 595), p. 310 ff. ; Griisse's Literaturgesch., passim. 
 
 On tlie ancient Oriental versions cf. also especially Hottinger, Bibl. orient 
 talis, Heidelb. 1658 ; idem, De translationibus bibl. in II. vernaculas, Tig. 
 1662 ; H. Benzel, De antiquis bibliorum verss., Lond. 1733 ; Du Coutaut de la 
 Molette, Essai sur Vecriture Sainte, P. 1775. 
 
 In the course of this account the geographical point of view, in connection 
 with those otherwise natural, must and will come into favorable considera- 
 tion in the arrangement of the material. 
 
 426. Earliest of all the lands near the birthplace of Chris- 
 tianity, Syria possessed this sign and pledge of national Chris- 
 tian civilization. In its northern and eastern cities the ver- 
 nacular had not given way before the Greek conquerors, and a 
 native government made Edessa the centre of a Syriac Chris- 
 tian culture, though limited in extent. Certainly as early as 
 the third century, perhaps even somewhat earlier, the Bible, 
 the Old Testament according to the Hebrew text, was read 
 here in the vernacular ; pious ignorance even connected the 
 Apostles and their helpers with the translation, and it be- 
 came the foundation of a rich and long-flourishing theological 
 literature. 
 
 Chronicles of Edessa, from the Syriac (in Assemanus, Bibl. orient., I.). 
 translated in Eichhorn's Repert., I. 199 ff. ; T. S. Bayer, Historia osrhoena et 
 edessena, St. Pet. 1734. 
 
 J. S. Assemanus, Bibliotheca orientalis clementino-vaticana, Rome, 1719 ff. 
 4 vols. fol. ; extracts in German by A. F. Pfeiffer, Erl. 1776, 2 Pts. Cf. J. 
 F. Gaab, in the Neue Repert., III. 358 ; A. G. Hoffmann, in Bertholdt's Jour- 
 nal, XIV. 225 ; G. Bickell, Conspectus rei Syrorum lit., Monast. 1871. 
 
 Divergent opinions of the age and origin of the Syriac version among the 
 earlier critics, e. g., in the preface to Frost's edition ; in Ridley (see below), 
 p. 283 ff. ; Michaelis, Einl., I. 392. Its high antiquity is shown by its canon, 
 Dy its original text, by its circulation among all parties of the Syrian Church, 
 by the early rise of a Syriac theological literature. But it surely does not 
 
SYRIAC — PESHITO. 449 
 
 go back far beyond the beginning of the third century. The mention of a 
 Syriac Gospel at the time of Hegesippus (Euseb., H. E., TV. 22) refers rather 
 to a particular writing than to a translation (§ 198). The Syrians claim 
 that the O. T. was already translated in great part in the time of Solomon ; 
 cf. Gabriel Sionita, Prcef. ad Psalmos, 1625. The N. T. is ascribed to an 
 apostle, Thaddseus, or Adjeus. 
 
 Fragments of an ancient Syriac translation of the Gospels, found in a con- 
 vent in the Nitrian Desert m Egypt, edited by W. Cureton, Lond. 1858, are 
 regarded by Ewald (Jahrh., IX. 70 if.) as older than the Peshito. But upon 
 this supposition there appears to be no explanation of the circumstance that 
 late readings (glosses, emendations) occur in it, which would compel us to 
 infer a long use of this translation, and not its speedy displacement by a 
 better and more authentic one. Small additions to Cureton's text, from a 
 Berlin MS., published by E. Rodiger, in the Monatsbericht der Berl. Acad., 
 July, 1872, and thence by W. Wright, London, 1872. C. Hermansen, De cod. 
 evv. syr. a W. Cureton edito, Hafn. 1859. 
 
 427. The whole work is carried out, in all its parts, with the 
 aid of happily chosen helps and upon fixed principles which 
 aim at fidelity and clearness, even if it did not come from a 
 single pen, which seems to be at least supposable for the New 
 Testament. The Syrian divines, although infected like their 
 Greek and Latin brethren with a mania for insipid allegoriz- 
 ing, named it reverently the Peshito, i. g., the simple, sacrificing 
 all display of mystic subtlety to the plain sense of the words. 
 Notwithstanding its limited canon, it remained the common 
 property of all the sects into which the Syrian Church soon 
 divided, although polemic found in it here and there single 
 readings which gave support to the quarrels of the schools. 
 
 On the canon of the Peshito see § 308. Various explanations of the name. 
 For more than one translator of the N. T., among others, Michaelis, Hug, 
 and Bertholdt. 
 
 That it was translated directly from the Greek text does not need to be 
 proved from the retention of Greek words here and there (which, in view of 
 the constitution of the Syriac language at that time, does not prove so much), 
 nor from the interchange of them, since no other source is conceivable. A 
 use by the translators of the so-called Itala (according to Bengel) is too re- 
 mote. Nor can later alterations and interpolations (according to Griesbach) 
 be pointed out with certainty. 
 
 Its critical and exegetical value : Mill, Prolegg., 1237; F. E. Boysen, 
 Krit. Erlduterung des Textes des JV. T. aus der syrischen Uehers., 1751 ff., 
 with preface by J. B. Carpzov ; G. B. Winer, De usu versionis syriace N. T. 
 caute instituendo, Erl., 1823 ; Reusch, Syrus interpres cumfonte N. T. grreco 
 collatus, L. 1741 ; M. Weber, De usu vers. syr. N. T. hermeneutico, L. 1778 ; 
 J. D. Michaelis, Curce in vers. syr. Actuum apost., Gott. 1755 ; J. Perles, 
 Meletemata peschitthoniana, Vrat. 1859. — Griesbach estimated its critical 
 value lightly, because he regarded it as having been often revised according 
 to Greek MSS. 
 
 The distinction of Maronite and Nestorian MSS. concerns chiefly the char- 
 acter, orthography, division of cliapters, and order of books; whether pecul- 
 iar readings of dogmatic significance are to be found in the latter is disputed, 
 and doubtless rather assumed than proved. 
 
 Editions of the N. T. : by Moses v. Marden and A. v. Widmannstadt, 
 Vienna, 1555, 2 vols. 4° (cf. Muller, Symbola syr., p. 29 f. ; Iliit, Or. Bibl^ 
 29 
 
450 HISTORY OF THE VERSIONS. 
 
 II. 260 ; IV. 317 ; V. 25 ; and J. C. Beck, Edd. principes N. T. syr., Basle, 
 1776) ; in the Antwerp Polyglot, 1571, and thence in the Paris, 1630, and 
 the London, 1657 ; by M. Trost, Cothen, 1622, 4° ; by A. Gutbier, Ilamb. 
 1664, 8° (often repeated, with changes, see Rosenmiiller, Handh., III. 116) ; 
 by J. Lensden and C. Schaaf, Leyd. 1709, 4° ; by the English Bible Society, 
 Lond. 1816, 4°. Also a series of editions with Hebrew letters, and now and 
 then single books as specimens. On its relative completeness, see the fol- 
 lowing section, and in general Le Long, I. 104 ; Masch, II. 1, p. 511 ; Hirt, 
 Or. Bi-hl., II. 493 and passim ; Schaaf's preface ; Brnns in Eichhorn's Re- 
 pert., XV., XVI. —An English translation by J. Murdock, N. Y. 1851. 
 
 For the sake of completeness, it may be said that in the O. T. the addi- 
 tions of the Greek Bible are appended and in many MSS. incorporated, and 
 that in particular books, for example the Psalms, the influence of the Greek 
 text may be clearly pointed out. Both of which facts show that one ecclesi- 
 astical province could not maintain a complete independence of the theologi- 
 cal or liturgical customs prevalent in the rest. 
 
 Editions of the O. T. in the Paris and London Polyglots, in the latter 
 with the Apocrypha ; best, by S. Lee, Lond. 1823, 4° ; the Pentateuch by G. W. 
 Kirsch, L. 1787, 4° ; the Psalms by T. Erpenius, Leyd. 1625 ; G. Sionita, P. 
 1625 ; J. A. Dathe, Halle, 1768 ; the apocryphal books by P. A. de Lagarde, 
 L. 1861. Many single portions in chrestomathies. 
 
 [Best European editions those of Lee, published by the British and For- 
 eign Bible Society, and Greenfield, published by Bagster, in the Polyglot 
 and separately. Better still that of Dr. Justus Perkins, Urumiah, Persia, 
 1841, reprinted N. Y. 1874, by the Am. Bible Society, in Nestorian type. 
 Schaaf's Lexicon Syriacum Concordantiale, published as a companion volume 
 to Schaaf and Leusden's edition, mentioned above, is a valuable aid to the 
 student. (Schaff's Companion to the Gk. Test., p. 153 f.)] 
 
 Cf. in general, E. Rodiger, Art. Peschito in the Halle Encykl. On the O. 
 T. : L. Hirzel (on the Pentateuch), 1825 ; G. L. Spohn (Isaiah), 1785 f. ; 
 C. A. Credner (the Minor Prophets), 1827 ; J. A. Dathe (the Proverbs), 
 1764, and other critical monographs. On the N. T. : G. E. Voigt, De ver- 
 sione syriaca, Jena, 1670 ; J. C. Harenberg, De antiqua versione syriaca (Bibl. 
 Brem., VII. 480) ; J. E. Gerhard, Diss, ad N. T. syr., in Menthen's Thesau- 
 rus, II. 43 ; especially J. Wichelhaus, De N. T. vers. syr. antiqua, Halle, 
 1850. 
 
 What has been called the Karkaphentian version, at least so far as the ex- 
 tant MSS. are concerned, is nothing but a collection of readings and critical 
 (even merely orthographic) notes on particular passages of the Peshito of 
 the O. and N. T., though having a peculiar order of the books (Scholz, I. 
 521), or a recension confining itself to such matters ; cf. especially Wise- 
 man, Hor(B syr., I. 147 £E. ; Martin, in the Journal asiatique, 1869, 6th series, 
 Vol. XIV. 
 
 For textual criticism cf. also the essays of G. H. Bernstein in the Deutsche 
 Morgenl. Zeitschrift, 1849, p. 385 ff., and several in tlie sixth volume of the 
 London Polyglot ; and in general the editions provided with apparatus ; 
 also M. H. Reinhard, De vers. syr. N. T., Vit. 1728 ; L. G. Jahn, Ohss. in 
 vers. N. T. syr., Vit. 1756. 
 
 428. The disputatious spirit of the later theologians could no 
 longer be satisfied with a translation which, instead of striving 
 after diplomatic accuracy in the rendering of words, attempted 
 the part of an interpreter of the sense. Therefore a zealous 
 monophysite bishop, Philoxenus of Hierapolis, had prepared by 
 his chor-bishop Polycarp, soon after the beginning of the sixth 
 century, a new translation of the New Testament, whose 
 
SYRIAC — PHILOXENIAN. 451 
 
 superiority was to consist in precisely that literalness wliicli 
 was wanting in the older version. It seems not to have been 
 designed, however, for use in the churches, as may be inferred 
 from the critical additions and even from the extended canon. 
 This Philoxenian version was brought to a still higher degree 
 of scrupulous, literal, and consequently unidiomatic accuracy 
 by a monk, Thomas of Heraclea, at Alexandria, in the year 
 616. 
 
 The four smaller Catholic Epistles edited by Edw. Pococke from an Ox- 
 ford MS. Leyd. 1630, 4°, are said to belong to Polycarp's work ; see Eich- 
 horn, Einl., IV. 440 ; but others deny it. The rest was thought to be lost. 
 Yet Bernstein (see below) believes he has discovered the Gospels in a Ro- 
 man MS. {Cod. angelicus). To his work also belonged a Psalter after the 
 genuine Christian mode, of which scarcely any trace has been preserved. 
 
 To the recension of Thomas (the so-called Harclean, from Heraclea) is 
 said to belong the Apocalypse printed by L. de Dieu, Leyd. 1627, 4°, from a 
 Leyden MS. See Eichhoi-n, I. c, 458. Yet there is great difference of 
 opinion on the matter. The editions of the Peshito have been supple- 
 mented by means of both these writings since their discovery. 
 
 The whole Harclean version, without the Apocalypse, was edited (from 
 Oxford MSS.) by Jos. White, Oxf. 1778-1803, 4 vols. 4° ; the Gospel of 
 John by G. H. Bernstein, L. 1853, 8° (from a Vatican MS.). 
 
 G. H. Bernstein, De charklensi N. T. translatione syriaca, Vrat. (1837), 2d 
 ed. 1854 ; cf . Storr, in Eichhorn's Repert., Pt. VII. ; Michaelis, Briefwechsel, 
 Pt. I. ; idem, Or. Bihl, XVII. 122 ; XVIII. 171 ; H. E. G. Panlus, Cata- 
 logus MSS. quibus versio N. T. philoxeniana continetur, Helmst. 1788. The 
 older work of Polycarp Adler ( Verss. syr., p. 52) thinks is preserved in a 
 Florentine MS. ; Bernstein, on the contrary, points to a MS. in the Bihlio- 
 theca angelica at Rome. 
 
 Critical marks and marginal glosses in the MSS. of both (?) recensions, 
 and disputed explanation of them. To judge from the purpose and aids of 
 this translation, it is certainly more probable that the former refer to read- 
 ings of Greek MSS. than to those of the Peshito, all the more since most of 
 these readings can still be confirmed from our extant MSS. But the view 
 that the signs actually passed over from a Greek MS. into the version falls 
 to the groimd with the hypothesis of a recension of the Greek text by Origen 
 (§§ 365, 367). 
 
 429. In the southern part of Syria, in heavil}^ afflicted Pal- 
 estine, whose ill-advised churches had once rejected the noblest 
 branch of the apostolic literature, the people, except so far as 
 they spoke Greek, were long destitute of almost all means of 
 Christian biblical edification in this form. We know only of 
 a so-called Hebrew Gospel, which was different from the ca- 
 nonical. Later, perhaps shortly before the invasion of the 
 Arabs, at least the really indispensable portions, the current 
 church readings from the generally recognized Gospels, were 
 translated into the degenerate Aramaic dialect of the country. 
 
 Version, language, and character were discovered by Adler in a single 
 MS. at Rome. See Michaelis, Or. Biblioth., XIX. 125 ; Adler's Reise, p, 
 119 ; a specimen in Adler's Verss. syr., p. 147, and in Eichhorn, Einl., TV. 
 493 ; Evangeliarium hieros. ex cod. vat. syr., ed. F. Miniscalchij Verona, 
 1861, 4°. 
 
452 HISTORY OF THE VERSIONS. 
 
 We also mention here, in passing: (1.) the Syriac version of the LXX. 
 prepared l>y 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<p6pws v) iJ.6i'ov Kara, rb 
 ypdji/xa TO ttjs 7pa(p^s iKKa/x^dvovcnv rj Kado\tKT} iKKKijaia, Sia Tr)s wnpas t7}v fi\a^7]v 
 iyvooKvla, ov deiJ.iT7]u rrjv avdyvooatv evreWirai lliare . . . iiriTerpacpdat fxev aKOvetv 
 . . . avaytvaxTKeiv 5e evia ttjs yp. fueprj koI fidXiCTo, t^s TraAatSs SiadrjKTji airriy6pev- 
 rai. 
 
 Cyril Lucar had formerly (1G29) given the opposite answer, Confess., 
 Qu. 1 : 'ils rh aKOveiu ra rrjs tepas yp. ovSevl rwv xp- aTrriy6pevTai ourais oi/Se rh av- 
 ayivaxTKetu. 
 
 A modern Greek version of the N. T. by Maximos of Kallipoli appeared 
 in 1638 (Geneva or Leyden ?), 2 vols. 4°, with the original text, like most of 
 the subsequent editions, very beautifully printed. Another, by the monk 
 Seraphim of Mitylene, Lond. 1703, and freq., also Halle, 1710. J. H. Cal- 
 lenberg (§§ 491, 493) had printed at Halle, 1746, single books (Luke, Acts, 
 several Epistles) as tracts for the missionaries. All the editions under Prot- 
 estant influence. Later editions, Chelsea (London), 1810, and freq. It was 
 not until the present century that the Patriarch permitted the reading of the 
 N. T. in the vernacular, so that editions could also be printed in St. Peters- 
 burg (1817). 
 
 The N. T. of Colleti (Ven. 1708, fol.), on the other hand, is of Catholic 
 origin. The Jews had prepared translations much earlier ; some of them 
 even printed in Hebrew characters and in Constantinople itself. 
 
 Cf. in general Masch, II. 2, p. 324 ; J. M. Lange, De vers, grceco-barhara 
 N. T., Altd. 1707; Baumgarten, Hall. Bibl., III. 474. 
 
 There are several national Russian versions. The oldest by Fr. Skorina, 
 Prague, 1519, of which it is said there is but one copy in existence, which 
 contains only the historical books of the O. T. (Ebert). By Ernst Gliick, 
 1698 (? cf. Tetsch, Curldnd. Kirchengesch., III. 48). It is unknown to me 
 whether the copies printed from time to time at Leipzig (e. g., 1838) contain 
 a later version. At the command of the Emperor Alexander I. an official 
 version of the N. T. was prepared by the ecclesiastical academy at St. Peters- 
 burg, under the direction of the Archimandrite Philaret, which was printed 
 together with the Old Slavonic text and circulated by the Bible Society of 
 that city. It appeared in parts. The preface to the Gospels (1819) is also 
 signed by the Metropolitans Michael of Novgorod and Seraphim of Moscow ; 
 in 1820 there had already been printed the fourth edition of the Gospels, the 
 second of the Acts, beside the first of the Catholic Epistles, Romans, and 
 Corinthians ; the rest followed later ; but the work was scarcely completed 
 when the Society was obliged to dissolve. See in general Henderson, Bibli- 
 cal Researches, p. 103 ff. 
 
512 HISTORY OF THE VERSIONS. 
 
 491. But aside from Europe, which had been more or less 
 moulded by Christianity, even the more remote portions of the 
 earth were not neglected. First of all, the Christian peoples 
 of the Orient, to whom the art of printing bad not yet found 
 its way, were to be provided for from the West. In the ac- 
 complishment of this task the already existing versions were 
 not always adhered to. The Armenians founded literary in- 
 stitutions^ in Europe for themselves ; the Georgians were di- 
 rected to Russia ; the Christians in the Levant, mostly of Ara- 
 bic speech, although their ecclesiastical language, or at least 
 ecclesiastical character, was in some cases still Syriac or Cop- 
 tic, found in Rome a not altogether disinterested patroness, 
 who was the first to prosecute foreign missions systematically 
 and on a large scale, intent chiefly, to be sure, that as there 
 was but one shepherd, so there should be but one fold for the 
 flock of Christ. 
 
 Cf. §§ 432, 433. — The Troit^Lgimdii (Congregatio cardlnalium et prelatorum 
 de Jide cathoUca propaganda) established by Gregory XV. at Rome, in 1622, 
 first and chiefly for the purpose of uniting the Oriental Christians to the 
 Latin Church, yet not without merit and influence as respects foreign mis- 
 sions. A college was connected with it in 1G27 by Urban VIII., which, not- 
 withstanding all its peculiarities and the narrowness of its tendencies, is even 
 yet the grandest missionary and philological institution in existence. 
 
 In the Arabic language, beside several catechisms and similar writings, 
 the Bible also was printed, in a version made or revised from the Vulgate by 
 Sergius Risins, 1671, 3 vols. fol. A later one by Raph. Tuki, 1752, 4°, was 
 not completed. See Schelling, in the Repert, X. 154 ; Aurivill., Diss., p. 
 308 ; Michaelis, Or. Bibl, XII. 12 ; XVI. 99 ; XVIII. 179 ; XX. 131 ; Eich- 
 horn, Bibl., V. 65. — The N. T., 1703, 2 vols. fol. Syriac and Arabic, the 
 latter in Syriac characters (Carshuni). 
 
 In Syria itself repeated editions in both languages were published at vari- 
 ous places (Aleppo, Chosroe, and others) during the seventeenth and eight- 
 eenth centuries (mostly, however, only what was liturgically necessary, the 
 Psalms and Gospels). 
 
 Modern Arabic versions have been made or aided by Protestants also : 
 N. T. by Sal. Negri, Lond. 1727, 4°; J. H. Callenberg, of Halle (f 1760), 
 a man exceedingly active in missionary matters (Hartmann's Tychsen, I. 
 17 ff.), caused to be printed, from 1730 to 1750, among other things (§§ 492, 
 493), single books of the N. T. (Matthew, Acts, Romans, Hebrews) in Ara- 
 bic. Cf. his Nadir, von einem Versuch die MuJiammed. zur Erkenntniss Christi 
 zu leiten, H. 1739 ff. The English Bible Society circulates the version of 
 Risius, Lond. 1820, and freq. ; see Allg. Literaturzeitung, 1832, I. 40. By a 
 Wiirtemberg missionary, Schlienz, at Malta, beside many educational and 
 religious works, some portions of the Bible (Proverbs, Peter) were published 
 in 1834 ff. Recently, an Arabic version for missionary purposes was begun 
 by S. Lee, of Cambridge (Eng.), and carried on by Jarrett. 
 
 Beside these, the Bible or N. T. has been printed, 1824 fP., at the Royal 
 Press, Paris, for the English Bible Society, in both Syriac and Arabic, the 
 latter in both Arabic and Syriac characters, partly each text by itself, partly 
 two by two, in parallel columns, under the direction of Silv. de Sacy; also 
 in Syriac with the peculiar character of the so-called Chaldean Christians or 
 Nestorians in Kurdistan. 
 
MISSIONARY ORGANIZATIONS. 513 
 
 Arabic N". T. ; new translation by Nath. Sabat, Calc. 1816, and freq. 
 
 Coptic-Arabic N. T., Gospels and Psalter, Lond. 1826 ft'. Cf. § 439. 
 
 The facts respecting tlie state of the Christians in the Orient wliich should 
 be borne in mind here may be found in the ancient and modern books of 
 travel, e. g., Rauwolf, Troilo, Dandini, Mariti, Volney, Niebuhr, Scliolz, and 
 others. C. Ritter, Ein Blick auf Paldsiina und seine christl. Bevolkerung, 
 1852 ; Kunstmann, in the Quarialschr., 1845, I. 
 
 492. The broadest field for this kind of Christian activity 
 was opened in those boundless regions into which the message 
 of salvation had never yet penetrated effectively. The time 
 of mistaken and barbarous attempts to convert by force had 
 passed by, and Europe began to send forth messengers of peace 
 by all the avenues which the spirit of trade, that soul of a 
 more mature national life, had opened, but had also already 
 adorned and disfigured with the signs of its good and evil 
 thoughts and customs. Catholics and Protestants, govern- 
 ments and individuals, religious societies and commercial cor- 
 porations, vied with one another in the great work of missions, 
 with disproportionate and slow results, it is true, yet never 
 without some gain to hamanity in the end. Frequentl}^, espe- 
 cially on the Protestant side, a new version of the Bible was 
 the means of working, or the standard by which Christianity 
 announced its occupancy on a foreign shore. 
 
 For detailed accounts of the missionary organizations themselves (Propa- 
 ganda, Jesuits, Portuguese — Danes, Halle, Moravian Brethren, Methodists, 
 Baptists, etc.) we must refer to the manuals of Church History. 
 
 The Hungarian nobleman J. Ungnad von Sonneck was engaged upon a 
 Turkish version (1565) ; but it was never completed, or at least never 
 printed. The Polish renegade Alb. Bobowsky (Ali Bey) actually translated 
 the Bible into Turkish in 1653 ; his work was never printed, but was after- 
 ward made the basis of Kieffer's (Zenker, Bibl. Or., p. 209 ; Le Long, 1. 135). 
 Turkish N. T. by W. Seaman, Oxf. 1666, at the expense of a trading com- 
 pany (Baumgarten, Hall. Bibl., V. 471 ; Ernesti, Theol. Bibl., V. 383). Sin- 
 gle portions also printed by Callenberg, about 1735. 
 
 Greenlandic version by P. Egede, 1744. Frequently printed at Copen- 
 hagen, now also in London. Thiess, Handh., II. 511. 
 
 For India various institutions have been at work : — 
 
 (1.) Danish missionaries at Tranquebar, B. Ziegenbalg, J. E. Grundler, 
 and B. Schulze, since 1714, in the Tamil language ; Bible, N. T., and separate 
 portions, often printed. Unsch. Nachr., 1726, p. 511 ; 1734, p. 274 ; Maseh, 
 II. 197 ; Eichhorn, Asiat. Sprachkunde, 210 ; Baumgarten, Nachr., IX. 283 &. 
 Schulze left behind him a Telugu version also. 
 
 (2.) The Callenberg Institution : The whole N. T. in separate portions, 
 also the Psalms since 1749, in the Hindustani language, after the translation 
 of the above-mentioned B. Schulze. See Masch, II. 202 ; Callenberg, 
 Nachricht von Herausgebung des N. T. in hindust. Sprachen (i. e., into various 
 Indian dialects), Halle, 1758. 
 
 (3.) The Dutch East-India Company had the Gospels (translated by W. 
 Konyn) printed in the Singhalese language (Ceylon), Colombo, 1739 ; N. T. 
 1772. Cf. Eichhorn, Asiat. Sprachkunde, p. 267 fF. 
 
 (4.) The Dutch East-India Company, in the Malayan language, for the 
 Sunda Islands, by D. Brower, Just. Heurn, Corn. Ruyl ; single books sine© 
 33 
 
614 HISTORY OF THE VERSIONS. 
 
 1629, the N. T. 16G8, at Amsterdam, the Bible 1731, Amst., with Roman 
 characters ; 1758, at Batavia, with Arabic. See Calleuberg, Von Bekehrung 
 der Muhammedaner, II. 1 ff.; Baumgarten, iVacAr., IV. 388 ; Masch, II. 193; 
 Aclelung, Mithrid., I. 104 ; IV. 43. 
 
 Cliinese version of the liturgically necessary portions of the Bible, the 
 Psalms and the pericopes, by Jesuits (L. Biiglio and Emm. Dias), about 
 1670. Matthew and Jolm, in the dialect of the island of Formosa, by the 
 Dutchman Dan. Gravius, in 1661. (Masch, p. 211 ff.) 
 
 John Elliott translated the Bible into the language of the aborigines of 
 Virginia, Cambridge, Mass., 1661. See Bibl. Brem. nov., II. 199, 677 ; 
 Symbb. hag., II. 541 ; Adelung, Mithrid., III. 3, 379. 
 
 Creole N. T., i. e., in the jargon spoken by the negroes in the former 
 Dutch colonies in America, printed at Copenhagen, 1781 ; Barby, 1802 ; 
 Bautzen, 1865 and freq., in various translations. Also the Psalms, 1784, 
 1865. See Lork, Bibelgeschichte, I. 458 ; Adelung, II. 252. 
 
 493. Israel was not the last people to whom the Christian 
 duty was fulfilled. The New Testament was carried to them 
 in the sacred dress of the language of their prophets, as well 
 as in the ragged coat of the jargon of their peddlers. But 
 while individuals were zealously striving, by the Scriptures 
 and preaching, to bring the light of the Gospel to bear upon 
 this unhappy people, the shortsightedness of governments and 
 the brutal hatred of the people persisted in denying them the 
 rio-hts of men and citizens, and to the narrow-minded supersti- 
 tion of theologians is due no small share of the blame for the 
 fact that all these endeavors have thus far failed of the desired 
 results. 
 
 Hebrew versions of the N. T. begin even in the time of the Reformation 
 (see in general, Wolf, Bibl. hebr., II. 416 ; IV. 155 ; Masch, II., ch. 1 ; 
 Carpzov, Crit. s., 749 &.). Gospel of Matthew by Seb. Miinster, Basle, 1537, 
 fol., and freq., also with the Epistles to the Hebrews ; at first doubtless only 
 as a retranslation into the supposed original language. Also by J. Quinqua- 
 boreus. Par. 1-551 ; by J. Mercier, P. 1555 ; Mark and Luke, by Walt. 
 Herbst and F. Petri, Witt. 1574 f.; the four Gospels by J. Clajus, L. 1610 ; 
 and from the Vulgate by J. B. Jonas, for the Propaganda, Rome, 1668, fol.; 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews, by F. A. Christian, L. 1676 and freq. The 
 whole N. T., Lond. 1661, and by Elias Hutter in his Polyglot editions 
 (§ 401) ; single books also at the Callenberg Institution, 1734 ff. 
 
 In our own day several new Hebrew versions, mostly by converted Jews, 
 some of the N. T. (Lond. 1817, large 8°; 1840, 16°), some of single books 
 (e. g., Luke, Berl. 1851 ; Romans, by Delitzsch, 1870), have been prepared 
 and circulated, some vfith Hebrew commentary. 
 
 Of Jewish versions, or rather paraphrases, i. e., editions with a text in a 
 modern language but in Rabbinical characters, spelled also more or less in 
 accordance with common Jewish pronunciation, and with Hebrew words 
 scattered through, there are several, though only in Germany, or for German 
 speaking Jews. The O. T. has also been published in this manner by Jews ; 
 see Wolf, Bibl. Hebr., I. 1287 ; Carpzov, Crit. s., p. 757 ; and in the Biblia 
 Pentapla (i. e., the Scriptures in a fivefold translation (Luther, Piscator, 
 Ulenberg, Jewish, and Dutch), and hence accused of heresy (Bern, Ent- 
 deckung des Greuelwesens, etc., Hamb. 1710), 1710, 3 vols. 4°). The N. T. 
 by J. Ilerzuge, Cracow, 1540, fol. ; Luke, John, Acts, Romans, and Hebrews, 
 by EUas Schade, Str, 1592 ; Luther's N. T. by Chr. MoUer, 1700 ; the 
 
BIBLE SOCIETIES. 615 
 
 N. T. by J. H. Reiz, in the Bihlia Pentapla, by Miiller and Frommann, partly 
 a free paraphrase, for the Callenberg Institution, 1736, 3 vols. 16°. In 
 recent times, especially from London (1820 ff.), frequent editions of the 
 N. T., the Psalms, the five books of Moses, have gone out in this way. Cf. 
 also Baumgarten, Hall. Bibl, III. 95 ; V. 377. 
 
 It is only recently that the N. T. has been printed for the Jews, in 
 Hebrew characters, also in the Persian and Arabic languages, and in the 
 patois of the Polish and Spanish Jews. — The book of Genesis in the Tartar 
 dialect of the Crimea, for the Caraites living there, is of Jewish origin. So 
 also the Modern Greek-Jewish Bible ; Wolf, I. c, IV. 1219. 
 
 494. Since the beginning of tlie present century this means 
 of propagating the Christian faith, on account of its great 
 importance, has become to many the immediate end in itself, 
 and has been prosecuted with an outlay of energy in com- 
 parison with which former endeavors are thrown into the 
 shade. Here begins the history of the Bible Societies, which 
 have set themselves the task of multiplying the written word 
 of God by the aid of liberal contributions to such an extent as 
 to make it accessible to every one, even the poorest and most 
 distant. This work, begun in England, has spread over the 
 whole earth, into fields of labor already innumerable, partly 
 independent of one another, partly not, and exists in all 
 countries of Protestant and Greek confession. It has increased 
 the number of editions of the old translations indefinitely, 
 and the number of these is itself far surpassed by that of those 
 newly prepared. 
 
 Sources, the Annual Reports of the Bible Societies, among which by far 
 the most important — although, like all the others, overloaded with pious '^ 
 bombast — are the Reports of the British and Foreign Bible Society, since 
 1805. [Among American Societies, the American Bible Society is the most 
 important : see its Annual Reports ; also those of the Am. Bible Union 
 (Baptist).] 
 
 A. H. Niemeyer, Art. Bibelgesellschaften, in Ersch and Gruber's EncyH., 
 I. 10 [Art. Bible Societies, in Encycl. Brittanica, 9th ed.] ; C. SchoU, in Her- 
 zog's Encykl., II. ; Bernstein, in Stiiudlin's Archiv, II. 1 ; (J. S. Vater) De 
 studio quo nostra cetate id actum est ut remotissimis populis verhum dei rr} ISlif 
 StaXeKTCfj pateat, Reg. 1816 ; J. Owen, History of the Origin and First Ten 
 Years of the Br. and For. Bible Soc, Lond. 1816, 2 vols., afterward a 3d vol., 
 1820; H. Marsh, History of the Translations, etc., Lond. 1812; Thomson and 
 Orme, Historical Sketch of the Translation and Circtdation of the Scriptures, 
 Perth, 1815 ; W. P. Strickland, History of the American Bible Society, N. Y. 
 1849 ; (J. G. Schoner) Nachr. von der russischen Bibelgesellsch., Niirnb. 1818 ; 
 Magazin fur Missions- und Bibelgesellsch., Basle, 1816 ft".; G. de Felice, Essai 
 sur I'esprit et le but de V Institution Biblique, P. 1824 ; Or. Douen, Hist, de la 
 Societe Biblique de Paris, 1868. — If all these emphasize the religio- practical 
 side of the work in a manner most pleasing to the reader, there meets him 
 in C. S. Dudley's Analysis of the System of the Bible Society (Lond. 1821, 
 600 pages ! ) the mechanical-bureaucratic and truly English part of the 
 execution, with a most offensive display of forms and figures. 
 
 495. Several of these Bible Societies, having vast pecuni- 
 ary resources at their command, are at work for lands which 
 
616 HISTOKY OF THE VERSIONS. 
 
 are still unoccupied by the Gospel. Through them the bold 
 words of the preacher of Byzantium have almost come true, — 
 the nations by thousands read the Bible in their own languages. 
 Of many a new trauslation, at least, not even the name of the 
 lano"uage in which it is composed was before known in Europe, 
 and it is frequently the case even yet, as of old, that the arts 
 of reading and writing must be brought to a distant forgotten 
 or neglected tribe before they can use the Bible that is pre- 
 sented to them. It is to be hoped that the divine germ on 
 which depends the success of the great harvest, though in the 
 most imperfect envelope, may everywhere take root ; for that 
 much unripe fruit has been poured forth into the world from 
 the cornucopia of Christian love no one will deny but he who 
 in his joy at the end overlooks the defectiveness of the means, 
 or is even inclined to measure the kingdom of God by human 
 standards. 
 
 It is difficult to make the enumeration of the versions under this head 
 complete, not to speak of the editions, for the reason that every year brings 
 several new ones into existence, and by no means all the regions of the earth 
 have yet been provided for ; and it is impossible to keejj abreast of the times 
 everywhere by means of the book-trade or even the journals. 
 
 The most noted centres are St. Petersburg for Northern and Central Asia, 
 the Caucasus and Russia ; New York and Philadelphia for America and 
 Oceanica ; Amsterdam for the Sunda Islands ; Calcutta, Madras, Bombay, 
 for India and the neighboring countries, among Avhich should also be men- 
 tioned the very active missionary institution at Serampore ; but above all, 
 London, which has supported all the others with money, and whose field is 
 the whole earth. We necessarily confine ourselves to a brief summary. 
 [This summary may be filled out and brought down to the present time by 
 means of the late reports and catalogues of the Bible Societies.] 
 
 Turkish language : A series of new versions ; the Bible by J. D. Kieffer, 
 P. 1819 ff. ; the N. T. by E. Henderson, Lond. 1825 ; edition with Armenian 
 characters, and with Greek, St. Petersb. 1819. A Turkish N. T. was also 
 printed at Dresden, 1813. 
 
 Modern Armenian N. T. by J. Zohrab, P. 1825 (also in parallel columns 
 with the Ancient), and in the dialect of Ararat. — Armenian edition of the 
 St. Petersburg Bible Society. — Edition by E. Biggs, Smyrna, 1853. 
 
 Persian versions of the N. T. (also some portions of the Old) by H. Cole- 
 brooke, Calc. 1805 ; H. Martyn, Calc, Lond., and St. Petersb., since 1815 
 freq. (see Allq. Lit. Zeit., 1825, III. 353 ; Life of Henrij Martyn); also 
 Astrachan, 1818. The O. T. by Robinson, Lond., 3 vols. ; the Bible, by W. 
 Glen, Lond. 185G. 
 
 The N. T. and the Pentateuch in the language of the Afghans (Pushtu), 
 Serampore, 1818 ; Bible, Hertf. 18G3. The Gospels in the language of the 
 Beluchis. 
 
 Most numerous of all are the works of missionaries in and for India, and 
 it is to be hoped they are of more value as translations than as specimens of 
 the arts of printing and paper-making in that region. (^Memoirs of the 
 Translations of the S. S. into the Languages of India, Lond. 1820 ; Specimens 
 of Editions of the S. S. printed at Serampore, 1818 ; Brief Vieio of Baptist 
 Missions and Translations, Lond. 1815.) They begin almost with the century, 
 but have been vastly increased, especially since 1818. Printed mostly at 
 
ASIATIC — AFRICAN — POLYNE SIAN. 517 
 
 Serampore ; also at Calcutta, Madras, Bombay, Frederiksnagor, Colombo, 
 etc., as well as at Loiidou. Few complete Bibles as yet ; mostly the N. T. 
 and portions of the O. T. ; in some cases only single books of the N. T. 
 
 Beside the Sanslcrit, the ancient sacred language, and the widely current 
 Mohammedan language of India, the Hindustani (Urdu), in several transla- 
 tions, among which one by Henry Martyn, there are now editions in the fol- 
 lowing languages : — 
 
 Northern India : In Bengali (in several translations, also in Roman 
 letters), in the Maghada dialect of the province of Bahar, in the Uriya 
 of the province of Orissa, in the proper Hindu language (Hindui, or Hmdi) 
 in two characters, and in its dialects Baghelkundi, Kanoj, Braj, Koshala. 
 
 Central India and the region of the Indus : In the dialects of Udeipur, 
 Marwar, Jeipur, Baikanir, Battanir, Malwa (Ujein), Harrot, Smdh, Multan, 
 Punjab (Sikhs), Kashmir, Jombu. 
 
 Himalaya districts : Nipal, Palpa, Kumaon, Garwhal. 
 
 Southern India (Madras) : In the Telinga or Telugu, Canarese, Malay- 
 alim, and Tulu languages, and some other Dravidian dialects, all in Malabar 
 and Mysore. Here also belongs the Tamil version which was revised by 
 Fabricius and Rheuius (Madras, 1827 and freq., 4 vols.). 
 
 Western India (Bombay) : In the dialects of Gujerat, Cutch, Konkan, 
 and in the Mahrathi language. 
 
 Ceylon : Singhalese (Colombo, 1819, 3 vols. 4°), Indo-Portuguese, for the 
 descendants of colonists, and Pali, the sacred language of the Buddhists. 
 
 Farther India : In the languages of Assam, Burmah, Siam, Manipur, and 
 Khassu. 
 
 For the Sunda countries, in the Malayan language, beside older revised 
 versions (by Wilmet, Bible, Harlem, 1824, with Arabic letters, for tlie Malay 
 peninsula, and N. T., Lond. 1818, with Roman letters, for the Moluccas), new 
 ones exist in the dialect of Batavia, in the Javanese, N. T., Hague, fol. (see 
 Allg. Lit. Zeit., 1847, I. 790), in the Dyak language of Borneo, and in the 
 language of the island of Macassar, Amst. 1852 ff. 
 
 Chinese translations by Morrison and Milne, Mai. 1813 ff., in 21 parts ; by 
 Marshman, Seramp. 1815 ff., gotten up in the style of the country. Other 
 works have been begun, also by Giitzlaff. See Nouv. Journ. Asiat., I. 94. 
 The Gospels, in Roman letters, in the dialect of Shanghai, Amoy, Ningpo, 
 1853. A Japanese version has been begun (Luke printed from wood at 
 Hongkong in 1856) ; likewise one for the Lu-chu Islands. 
 
 For Central Asia, or Tatary in the broadest sense : Translations in Man- 
 chu (O. T. and Matthew, 9 vols. 4°) ; N. T. in the Mongol language, both 
 Eastern, or Buriat dialect and Western or Kalmuck, St. Petersb. 1815 ff., 
 by J. J. V. Schmidt ; O. T. in Selenginsk, 1830, by R. Yuille ; in the lan- 
 guage of the Orenburg, Karass, and Nogai Tatars, and in that of the Bu- 
 charei, Astrachan, 1818 ff. ; a translation for the Caucasian Tatars. See 
 also the Zeitschr. der dcutsch. morgenl. Gesellschaft, 1850, p. 143. Tibetan. 
 
 Africa : Account of a first attempt in the Berber language of North 
 Africa (1833) given in Lassen's Zeitschr., VI. 245. The countries on the 
 Upper Nile (Journ. Asiat., I. 61 ; Fundgruhen der Or., III. 268) have been 
 provided for by a new Amharic version of the Bible, prepared by a native, 
 Pell Piatt (Lond. 1824 ff., in parts). Single portions only are thus far 
 printed in the languages of the Bnllom, Mandingo, Grebo, Accra, Atye, and 
 Yoruba Negroes of Western Africa, by A. W. Hanson, J. C. Taylor, and 
 others ; in the Haussa language of Central Africa, by J. F. Schon ; also in 
 the Suahili, Kikamba, Galla, and Kinika languages in the East, and a com- 
 plete Madagascar Bible (Lond. 1855). Here and there, also, German 
 missionaries are at work, and some of the editions come from Basle and 
 Tubingen. British missionaries (Robt. Moffat and others) in the Cape 
 countries have begun translations which are already far advanced and some 
 
518 HISTORY OF THE VERSIONS. 
 
 of them completed, in the Sechuana, Sesuto, Zuhi, and Namaqua lan- 
 guages, which have been printed since 1837 in Grahanistown and Capetown. 
 (Namaqua N. T. also Berlin, 18GG.) There is now also a complete Bible in 
 the Kaffir language, Umkangizo, 1857 f . 
 
 North ^Vmerica : Eskimo Bible for Labrador, begun since 1813 (London) ; 
 N. T. 1840, Pentateuch, Psalms, 1830 ft'. For the Mohawk, Chippewa, 
 Delaware, Seneca, Cherokee, Sioux, Cree, Chickasaw, and Choctaw In- 
 dians there has been printed, in some cases the N. T., in others (for the 
 beginning of their Christian instruction) the Gospel of John. See also Allg. 
 Lit. ZelL, 1817, No. 209. More recently the O. T. also has been taken up, 
 e. g., Joshua for the Choctaws, N. Y. 1852 ; Isaiah for the Mohawks, 1839. 
 
 South America and the Antilles : Several translations, some of them but 
 just begun, in the negro dialects of the English and Dutch colonies, 
 especially of Guiana, Cura9ao, etc. For the aborigines there is as yet, so far 
 as I know, nothing in existence but a Luke in Mexican (Lond. 1833) and in 
 the Aymara language of Bolivia (Kapf, in the Wiirtemh. Studien, IX. 2), 
 Yet there appear in catalogues names of languages which are unknown to 
 me, and wliich possibly belong here. — Mayan (Yucatan). 
 
 Oceanica and Polynesia : Completed, or at least far advanced translations 
 in the languages of the Sandwich Islands (Hawaii, Gospels, 1828), Tahiti 
 (N. T., Paihia, 1840 ; Bible, by Nott, Davies, and others, Lond. 1847), the 
 Rarotougas (N. T., Lond. 1841 ; Bible, 1851 f.), the Marquesas, the Tongas 
 (N. T., 1852, Bible, 18G2), New Zealand (Maori N. T., Ranana, i. e., London, 
 1844 ; O. T., 1845 fP.), the Samoan or Navigator's Islands, the Fijis (N. T., 
 1853, Bible, 1858), and many others. On the continent of Australia for the 
 aborigines (Narrinyeri). 
 
 What all these for the most part very quickly made translations have 
 accomplished with respect to linguistic correctness and in aid of a compre- 
 hension of tlie Scriptures by the natives, or what, considering the relation of 
 apostolic doctrine and methods to the raw linguistic material of uncivilized 
 races, they could accomplish, will be for a later century to decide. For 
 exaniple, there has already arisen dispute and division among the translators 
 and societies at work for China over the bare possibility of correctly rendering 
 the idea of God {Journal of Sacred Lit., VI. 411). Even before there had 
 been genuinely classic but little edifying scenes between European philolo- 
 gists (Henderson and Kieflfer, over the latter's Turkish N. T., 1824 f .), doubt- 
 less not altogether due to professional jealousy. Cf. also the judgment of 
 H. V. d. Gabelentz (Lassen's Zeitschr., II. 237), upon the work done in Russia, 
 and Neumann's (^Zeitschr. der deutsch. morgenl. Gesellsch., 1849, 352) on the 
 Chinese ; as well as what the Brahmin Ram Mohan Roy acknowledges of 
 his own work in Bengali. (N. Journal Asiat., II. 37.) W. HofPmann, Die 
 christl. Literatur as Werkzeug der Mission, B. 1855. It is therefore unnecessary 
 to note the (often unknown) names of the translators, whose well-meant but 
 necessarily imperfect work will sooner or later be displaced by better. — In 
 Eastern India it has already come to the stage that the missionaries no 
 longer intend to learn the language of the country, but prefer to train 
 a body of native teachers in an English education, by whom a fit translation 
 shall then be made. Graul's Pceise, V. 277. 
 
 496. These societies have been much more important and 
 beneficial in Europe itself, particularly in those regions where 
 a Christian conviction, already existing and long since spread 
 among the people, gives the natural key to the otherwise closed 
 book. Here it was not only easier to find a skilled hand for 
 the preparation of a new version into any of the provincial 
 
BIBLE SOCIETIES — WORK IN EUROPE. 519 
 
 dialects ; it is also a more immediate and greater blessing to 
 bring the Bible within reach of even the poorest. And this 
 end can be attained the more certainly the smaller the field of 
 labor for which the society has been formed. Here and there, 
 it is true, human prejudices and sectarian interests have been 
 combined with this labor of love. The Bible organizations 
 have not been untouched by dogmatic quarrels and confessional 
 division ; the distribution of the Word of God often borders 
 very closely on waste, and through excess of zeal pearls are 
 sometimes thrown before swine ; in English and French hands, 
 particularly, it has often sunk to the level of a mere means of 
 anti-Komish propaganda. 
 
 To enumerate the countless editions of older European versions which have 
 proceeded from the Bible Societies would be beyond our power and space. 
 They have been sufficiently noticed in the foregouig sections. The number 
 of wholly new versions for European peoples is not very great ; several which 
 were not really national, official works may have been worked over or re- 
 vised, particularly within the immediate sphere of British activity. Yet we 
 pass no judgment upon this matter. The Russian Bible Society (established 
 in 1812) was obliged after a few years to fight against political difficulties, 
 and in 1826 was dissolved, after that, beside a national edition in two lan- 
 guages (Ecclesiastical Slavic and Russian), it had published the Bible in 
 twenty-seven languages, fourteen of which had never before been used for 
 that purpose. A Protestant society, however, has taken its place, which 
 confines its activity at present to non-Cliristian peoples, and to the non- 
 Russian languages, at the same time naturally caring for those of its own 
 faith. For details see the latest report of Frommann and Dalton, 1863. E. 
 Henderson, Biblical Researches and Travels in Russia, 1826. 
 
 New translations into dialects which had them before : Armorican (Bas- 
 Breton), Modern Greek (Pentateuch and Joshua, Lond. 1833), Russian. 
 
 Dialects which had not before been provided for : Scandmavian : that of 
 the Faro Islands. Finnish : those of the Norwegian Laplanders, Karelian, 
 Mordvinian, Tscheremissian, Sirenian, Tschuwassian. Slavic : Samogitian, 
 Serbian (by Wuk Stephanowicz Kai'adschicz, N. T., B. 1857, and freq., Bible, 
 Belgrade, 1868), Bulgarian (together with the Old Slavic, N. Y. 1867; 
 Psalms, Constant. 1866). Romance : Catalan, Piedmontese, Vaudois. Al- 
 banian (printed together with the Modern Greek, in Corfu, 1827), in several 
 dialects ; Moldavian ; Illyrian, Budimu, 1831, 6 vols. 
 
 The editions of the Bible for the blind should also be mentioned, espe- 
 cially in the Wiirtemberg Blind Asylum, now complete in sixty-three parts. 
 
 497. Particularly important for our history is the funda- 
 mental principle common to all these societies, to circulate 
 none but the current Church version, where such a one exists. 
 This principle, judicious as it is in itself considered, neverthe- 
 less has the disadvantage of hindei'ing, if it does not render 
 impossible, the improvement of those versions, which is founded 
 in the spirit of Protestantism, and is ever more pressingly de- 
 manded by science. It is no doubt always difficult to define 
 correctly and clearly the limits of such an undertaking, and 
 especially so to choose the persons to whom the Church shall 
 
620 HISTORY OF THE VERSIONS. 
 
 commit the perilous work ; but it certainly must and will be 
 ventured upon finally, and perhaps first of all where the need 
 is proportionately less, but where religious conviction is less 
 rigid in its forms. Attempts have already been made, and 
 were it not for the love of peace they would by this time have 
 been to a great extent successful, in spite of the clamor of nar- 
 row and petty criticism. 
 
 In Germany I know of no Bible Society which has printed any other than 
 Luther's version, and indeed most of the editions, so far as is known to me, 
 are still based, even in the subordinate matters of orthography, punctuation, 
 and the headings of the chapters, upon the widely current Canstein editions ; 
 down to the time of these, single phrases had been quietly replaced by more 
 modern ones. The same is true of the exceedingly numerous private edi- 
 tions prepared by booksellers. Yet the principle of going back strictly to 
 the last edition of Luther, 1545, has already been applied in many (but by 
 no means in all) of the editions circulated by Bible Societies (Wiirtemberg, 
 Bavaria, Hamburg- Altona), but in view of the undeniable change in the lan- 
 guage, both in diction and syntax, can only be carried out to the disadvan- 
 tage of tlie reader and with no gain to the cause. Cf. Monkeberg, in the 
 Berl. Zeitschr., March, 1855. 
 
 The Strassburg Bible Society, in 1828, had a N. T. stereotyjied with im- 
 provements in the margin. A similar edition of the O. T. was abandoned, 
 although several times talked of, on aeeoimt of decided opposition ; C. W. 
 Krafft, Darf Luther's Bibel durch Bibelgexellschaften revidirt werden ? Str. 
 1846 ; C. H. Bogner, Gesch. der Bihelgeselhch. zu Strassburg, 186G. — The 
 Frankfort Bible Society supported or favored the circulation of Meyer's re- 
 vision (§ 498), but did not meet with approval. 
 
 Preparations for a revision of Luther's version, perhaps to be undertaken 
 under ecclesiastical sanction (in which, however, ne quid nimis was to be the 
 ruling principle), in C. Monkeberg and C. Frommann, Vorschldge zur Re- 
 vision, etc., Halle, 1861 f. [Now completed, whole Bible, 1884.] But more 
 seriously in Switzerland, by a commission appointed in 1860 by the Church 
 Conference, under Antistes S. Preiswerk, of Basle, which has already pub- 
 lished specimens. 
 
 The Paris Bible Society, before it split from dogmatic causes, printed 
 only the recensions of Martin and Osterwald (now only the latter, an alto- 
 gether unsatisfactory version both scientifically and linguistically), but not 
 the more modern Genevan versions, which are in disrepute on the Orthodox 
 side. Before its establishment a beautiful edition of Sacy's N. T. had been 
 printed by generous contributions (1816, and freq.), but it has never been 
 officially used in the liturgy, and since that time this, like every other Catho- 
 lic version, has become an apple of discord between Bible Societies of stricter 
 and laxer practice. (B. Pozzy, La Bible et la version de L. Sacy, 1858.) In 
 the year 1834, with English money {Society for Promoting Christian Knowl- 
 edge), preparations were begun in Paris for a new version ; after much labor 
 (most of it, however, Penelopine, because the changes must at the same time 
 be conservative) there was ready for the press in 1842 a N. T. in large 4°, 
 also in smaller form, afterward also the O. T. ; but it has not really been put 
 into circulation even yet. A fuller but very unsatisfactory account of this 
 miscarriage is given in the Esperance of November 4, 1859. A Lausanne 
 society published in 1839 (3d improved edition, 1859) a N. T. of its own ; 
 French clergymen of Switzerland are at work on the O. T., of wliich the 
 Psalms appeared in 1854, since then the Pentateuch also. This work jirides 
 itself upon the greatest possible literalness. L. Burnier, Ln ver-tion de Lau- 
 sanne, 1866, together ^vith other writings. — One of the three Paris Bible 
 'Societies now prints later versions also. 
 
ATTEMPTS AT REVISION OF CURRENT VERSIONS. 521 
 
 The Bible Society of Copenhagen made no objection to endorsing a re- 
 vision made by the first theologian of the country. Miinter, Dc nova vers, 
 vemaculce recognitione, 1817. On a new translation see A. Michelsen, m the 
 Zeitschr. fur luth. TheoL, 1869, I. On a Swedish version, G. L. Plitt, ibidem, 
 1865, IV. 
 
 There was published in America, by a New York Society (American Bible 
 Union), in 1854, as a specimen of a revised version of the N. T., a quarto 
 volume (2 Peter to the Apocalypse) with text and pauifully minute vindi- 
 cation of details [N. T. published, N. Y., 1860 ; whole Bible, 1866]. In 
 England an Anglo-Biblical Institute has been formed for the purpose of re- 
 vising the translation of the Bible (Journal of Sacred Literature, V. 248). 
 B,ecently, on both sides of the ocean in common, mostly under episcopal co- 
 operation, and with great apparatus of committees and regulations, a revis- 
 ion of the official version is being prepared, respecting which Ph. SchafE, of 
 New York, has published several notices. The ruling principle is still : to 
 introduce as few alterations as possible. [The New Testament published May 
 17, 1881, by the University Presses of Oxford and Cambridge, England, 
 mider the title : The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ 
 translated out of the Greek: being the Version set forth A. D. 1611 compared 
 with the most ancient authorities and revised A. D. 1881. The text is divided 
 into paragraphs, the chapter and verse numbers being placed in the margin. 
 With an appendix containing the readings preferred by the American Com- 
 mittee, recorded at their desire. Numerous reprints in America, some ex- 
 act, others incorporating the American Appendix into the text. The Old 
 Testament is expected to appear during the current year (1884). The lit- 
 erature relating to the Revision is very great ; see especially A. Roberts, 
 Companion to the Revised Version of the Neio Testament, Loud. 1881 ; with a 
 supplement by Ph. Schaff, Chairman of the Am. Committee of Revision, 
 N. Y. 1881 ; The New Revision and its Study, by Drs. Abbot, Riddle, Dwight, 
 Thayer, Kendrick, and Crosby, members of the Am. Revision Committee, 
 Phila. 1881 (reprinted from The Sunday-School Times) ; B. H. Kennedy, 
 Ely Lectures on the Revised Version of the N. T., Lond. 1882 ; W. A. Os- 
 borne, The Revised Version of the Neio Testament, A Critical Commeiitary 
 with Notes upon the Text, Lond. 1882 ; (Dean Burgon) Three articles on New 
 Testament Revision in the London Quarterly Review, Oct. 1881, Jan. and Feb. 
 1882 ; a most severe and unsparing attack upon the Revision ; in reply: 
 The Revisers and tfie Greek Text of the New Testament. By Two Members of 
 the New Testament Company (Bishop Ellicott and Ai-chdeacon Palmer), Lond. 
 1882 ; Schaff, Companion to the Greek Testament and English Version, N. Y. 
 1883, 2d ed. rev. and enlarged, 1884, p. 371 ff., where a good bibliography 
 may be found. Documentary History of the American Committee on Revision, 
 Prepared by Order of the American Committee. To be published after the 
 completion of the work (N. Y. 1884). A valuable contribution to the his- 
 tory of the English Committee in the London Times, May 20, 1881.] 
 
 498. Meanwhile individuals are exercising their powers on 
 the work. In most Protestant countries several attempts of 
 the kind have been made, partly by those whose aim has been 
 simply to improve the existing version, partly by those who 
 have worked independently. There has also been much scien- 
 tific discussion as to the conditions and principles of such an 
 undertaking. True, even the best version cannot and ought 
 not to be applied to public use so long as it is commended only 
 by its inner value and not by the order and authority of the 
 Church ; but let this value be recognized by unprejudiced in- 
 
522 HISTORY OF THE VERSIONS. 
 
 telligence, competent science, and sound taste, and theologians 
 would gradually accustom themselves to the use of the new 
 form in their own instruction, and this would be the beginning 
 of an ecclesiastical change. But there is little prospect of such 
 a change during our century, as little in Germany as in Eng- 
 land. 
 
 Germany : Einige Gedanken iiber die Versuche neuer Ueberss. hes. des N. T., 
 in Cramer's Beitrdge, I. ; C. F. Aichinger, Vorschldge die deutscke Bihel be- 
 treffend, 1774 ; J. M. Faber, De emendanda versione Lutheri, Erf. 1778 ; 
 Schultliess, Die Unverdnderlichkeit der luther. Bibel, iu his Forschungen, II. 
 232 ; J. Pfeiffer, Vorschlag Luther's N. T. moglichst zu herichtigen, B. 1817; 
 R. Stier, Altes und neues in deutscher Bibel, Basle, 1828, and several later 
 writings of the same author ; Grashof, Die luther. Bibeluhers. und die Bediirf- 
 nisse unserer Zeit, 1835 ; Ruck- und Vorblick auf Luther's Bibel, Straub. 
 1835 ; Heim, Ueber Einfuhrung einer berichtigten deutschen Bibel'dbers., in the 
 Wurtemb. Studien, X. 2 ; C. Strobel, Ueber die Revision der luth. Bibel (Zeit- 
 schr. fur luth. Theol., 18G2, III.); Delitzsch, ibidem, 18G3, I. ; Gutachten d, 
 theol. Facul. zu Rostock, Schwerin, 18G3 ; Dorner, Ueber einheitliche Textge- 
 staltung und Verbesserung der luth. Uebers., 1868. 
 
 Eevised Lutheran texts : by J. F. v. Meyer, Senator of the city of Frank- 
 fort, 1819, 5th ed. 1851, 3 vols. 8°, highly commended and little unproved ; 
 E. C. Kraus, Tiib. 1830. More thorough, R. Stier, 2d ed., Bielef. 1859. 
 
 New versions of the present century : C. F. Preiss, 1811 ; C. J. Sch'afer, 
 1816 ; (Richter and Pleissner) Zwickau, 1830 ; E. G. A. Bbckel, 1832 ; J. 
 K. W. Alt, 1837 ; C. v. d. Heydt, 1852 ; all the N. T. only. —The whole 
 Bible, by Augusti and De Wette, Heidelb. 1809-1814, 6 vols. ; but espe- 
 cially in a later revision by De Wette alone, 1831, and freq. — Protestanten 
 Bibel, N. T., published by P. W. Schmidt and F. von Holtzendorff, with the 
 cooperation of several, L. 1872. 
 
 In France a new Protestant version is scarcely possible from the lack of 
 freedom of speech, to say nothing of that of thought, although there are cer- 
 tain now living who lack not so much the desire and the need as the ability. 
 The translators, starting with the idea that they must work directly for the 
 great public (because there are unfortunately but few " studying " theolo- 
 gians), prescribe for themselves at the outset the law that no changes are to 
 be made v/here dogma would be affected, but that elsewhere a literalness is 
 to be observed which tortures the language unconscionably. Cf . Ed. Reuss, 
 in the Strassb. Revue, X. 172 ; Nouv. Revue, I. 1. — N. T. by E. Arnaud, 
 1858, 1865 ; A. Rilliet, Geneva, 1858 (after Lachmann's text, with critical 
 notes) ; for the sect of the Darbyites, N. T., Vevey, 1859 ; for the Sweden- 
 borgians, N. T. by Le Boys des Gays and Harle, St. Amand, 1862. — 
 Prophets and Psalms by Perret-Gentil, Neuchatel, 1852 ; the remaining 
 books of the O. T. by the same, 1861. The poetical books of the O. T. by 
 L. Vivien, and many single attempts in the Strassb. Revue. There has just 
 appeared (1872), under the auspices of the Venerable Compagnie, of Geneva, 
 a new version of the N. T. by H. Olti-amare, and they have in press the 
 O. T. by L. Segond (by the latter a selection of separate portions, 1864 ; 
 Isaiah, 1866). A society of Paris clergymen has begun a version appearing 
 in parts, 1864 ff. 
 
 Recently a violent controversy has begun in journals, essays, and con- 
 ferences over the question of the revision of the French Bible {La version 
 d' Osterwald et les Soc. bibliques, 1862 ; La question bihUque en 1862, etc.), 
 which thus far only shows more clearly the impossibility of such a thing 
 upon a common ecclesiastical basis. See also Em. Cadiot, Essai sur les con- 
 ditions d' une traduction populaire de la bible en Frang., Str. 1868. The book 
 
MODERN CATHOLIC VERSIONS. 623 
 
 of Petavel, mentioned in § 465, is rather critical than historical ; likewise O. 
 Douen, § 486. 
 
 In England, since the middle of the last century, many voices have been 
 raised in favor of a revision of the church version. See Thiess, Handb. der 
 theolog. Literatur, I. 223 ; Ersch, Repertorium, 1785-1800, I. 184 f ., II. 146 f ., 
 III. 123 ; Eichhorn, Bibl., VIII. 980. But such a revision is even more 
 needful for other than church purposes, which will just as little be able to 
 bring it about. In recent times the question has been taken up again. 
 J. Beard, A Revised English Bible the Want of the Church and the Demand of 
 the Age, Lond. 1857 ; (S. Davidson) in the Theological Review, 1866, p. 188. 
 Single books have often been translated by exegetes without reference to 
 church use. [Scholefield, Hints for an Improved Translation of the N. T., 1832 ; 
 Trench, The Authorized Version of the N. T. in Connection with some Recent 
 Proposals for its Revision, rev. ed., Lond. 1859 ; Ellicott, Considerations on 
 the Revision of the English Version of the N. T., Lond. 1870 ; Lightfoot, On 
 a Fresh Revision of the N. T., 2d ed., Lond. 1871 ; all three essays, in an 
 authorized American edition, in one volvime, with introduction by Ph. Schaff, 
 N. Y., 1873 ; Selwyn, Notes on the Revision of the Authorized Version, Lond. 
 1856 ; F. Ili£f, Plea for the Revisal of the Bible Translation of 1611, 
 Lond. 1857 ; Plea for a New Eng. Version of the Scriptures, by a Licentiate 
 of the Church of Scotland, Lond. 1864 ; ALford, How to Study the N. T., 
 Lond. 1865-68, 3 vols., contains numerous corrections of the Authorized 
 Version ; A. Dewes, Plea for translating the Scriptures, Lond. 1866 ; articles 
 in the New Englander, Feb. and May, 1859 ; Quarterly Review, Jan. 1863 : 
 Contemp. Rev., June, 1866, Feb. 1870 ; Briiish Quar. Rev., Jan. 1870. Article 
 Version, Authorized, by E. H. Plumptre, in Smith's Diet., IV. pp. 34, 38 &., to 
 which is appended a full bibliography by Prof. Abbot ; Schaff, Companion to 
 the Gk. Test., p. 371 ff.] 
 
 499. With all its numerous associations for the purpose of 
 supplying the spiritual and physical needs of the people, the 
 Catholic Church has no Bible Societies. Indeed its prominent 
 men have often expressed themselves with bitter severity 
 respecting the Protestant societies, and in such terms that 
 their opponents have been able to find in their words fully as 
 much enmity against the Bible itself as against the scarcely 
 concealed views of those who were engaged in circulating it. 
 And yet it would be an error to suppose that this Church has 
 done nothing at all for this purpose. Many Catholic clergy- 
 men of high rank have, even in our own century, prepared 
 translations of their own ; oftener still have institutions been 
 founded to put copies into the hands of the people in larger 
 numbers. This has been the case particularly in regions where 
 the two Churches are obliged to live together as neighbors, 
 and, we would fain believe, not simply from necessity. Never- 
 theless the old charge remains true, that the greater the 
 distance from the birthplace of the Reformation the less is the 
 Bible used as a means of religious training among Catholic 
 people. 
 
 Pius VII. declares to the Archbishop of Gnesen, June 28, 1816, and to 
 the Archbishop of Mohilew, Sept. 4th, that the circulation of the Bible by the 
 Protestants is a shameful undertaking, the Bible Societies a pest (See Hase, 
 
624 HISTOKY OF THE VERSIONS. 
 
 Kirchengesch., 6th ed., 574 ; Wald, Decreta quibus socc. bihl. a P. R. damnantur, 
 Reg. 1818 ; Wachler, Theolog. Nadir., 1817, p. 237). Encyclical letters of 
 the same sentiment by Leo XII., May 5, 1824 ; Pius VlII., May 24, 
 1829 ; Gregory XVI., May 8, 1844 (Inter prcecipuas machinationes, see Tiib. 
 Quartalschr., 1844, p. 696) ; Pius IX., Nov. 9, 1846, Dec. 8, 1849. — The 
 forbidduig of the laity to read the Bible without oversight and official 
 explanation (ut biblia vulgari sermone edita non aliis permitterentur nisi quibus 
 illorum lectio ad fidei atque pietatis augmentum profutura judicaretur, Regg. 
 Indie, III., IV., 1564) has for its pretext the obscurity of the Scriptures and 
 their manifold corruption imprudentia vel fraude, but is really and con- 
 sistently based upon the Catholic principle of the hierarchy and of tradition, 
 and so did not need to be supported by the taunt that the Bible men (socii, 
 sectarii biblici) give the Scriptures even to the stupid heathen rabble {ab-> 
 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<Sv Otiwv tj/mu airoKaAv'pri yvcScriv. Monographs on him 
 (mostly dogniatico-historical) by C. Otto, Jena, 1841 ; T. Abauzit, Mont. 
 1846 ; A. Kayser, Str, 1850 ; E. Scherer, in the Strassb. Revue, XII. 
 
 507. No further preparations had been made when, after the 
 middle of the second century, the apostolic writings also were 
 brought into the realm of theological discussions, so that from 
 this time on both portions of the Scripture had the same 
 history in this respect as well, except in so far as their mutual 
 relation determined differently the laws of exposition in details. 
 The fact has already been mentioned, and repeatedly, that at 
 that time ecclesiastical tradition had attained ruling authority ; 
 it is therefore to be expected that its influence would be felt in 
 exegesis. And so there was added to this striving after a sup- 
 posed deeper understanding by arbitrary interpretation of the 
 assumedly figurative language of the Bible a second principle. 
 
532 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 fundamentally just as correct, in application equally dangerous 
 and misleading, that of the analogy of the faith, i. e., the 
 necessity of a harmony between the results of exegesis and 
 the contents of dogmatic tradition. These two principles, now 
 separated, now combined, were the guiding stars of Christian 
 interpretation of the Scriptures all through the period of its 
 childhood ; its most flourishing period falls within the next 
 three centuries. 
 
 It is notewoitliy that the more the rule of faith ohtains supreme and 
 undisputed authority, the more extravagant and unrestrained becomes alle- 
 gory, as if its orthodoxy gave sufficient warrant for its practice. 
 
 It is evident from tliis that in the next period, and in ancient times 
 generally, we cannot speak so much of different hermeneutical systems, 
 mutually exclusive of one another, as of prevailing tendencies and methods. 
 Yet some isolated exceptions will appear in the course of the presentation. 
 
 The greater or less learning of the individual expositors is of little or no 
 importance, since the end sought was mostly not so much the objective 
 understanding of the Scriptures as dialectical, rhetorical, or ethical profit. 
 Moreover the example and authority of predecessors, combined with a cer- 
 tain exegetical tradition as to the apostolic usage of language running 
 parallel with the dogmatic (§ 359), was a valued aid as a sort of preliminary- 
 knowledge. ^ 
 
 C. J. Estlander, De usu S. S. in eccl. cath. duobus primis p. C. seculis, 
 Helsingf. 1829. 
 
 508. It was in the first instance the philosophic tendency, 
 which had taken possession of many minds which had been 
 drawn to Christianity in different ways, that led to a scientific 
 treatment of the Scriptures, also of the New Testament. And 
 here the so-called heretics set the example for the teachers 
 who stood in closer connection with the Apostolic Church. 
 The necessity of seeking for their peculiar doctrines a support 
 which should secure to them a place within the Church, with 
 whose tradition they found themselves at many points in con- 
 flict, drove them to the writings of the Apostles, and to such 
 an interpretation of them as would bring them into harmony 
 with their systems or oppose in advance a refutation of these 
 systems by means of them. In general, the very nature of a so- 
 called Gnosis or deeper knowledge of religious truths implied 
 that, as the great interpreter of all riddles, it would be more 
 inclined to lean upon writings still unknown to many or kept 
 secret, than upon the simple faith which the unlearned mem- 
 bers of the Church could obtain from the nearer and more 
 generally accessible sources. 
 
 The last remark is still confirmed wherever a religious mysticism seizes 
 upon the more obscure books chiefly, while the " simple " stand by the more 
 plain. 
 
 Iren., Adv. Hrer., III. 12 : reliqui (beside Marcion, § 246) scripturas qui- 
 dem confitentur interpretationes vero convertunt. Tertull., Prmscr., xxxviii. : Alius 
 [^Marcion^ manu scripturas, alius IValentinus'} sensus expositione intervertit. 
 
GNOSTICS. 633 
 
 . . . Marcion palam machcera non stilo usus est. . . . Valentinus pepercit quo- 
 niam non ad niateriam Scripturas sed materiam ad Scripturas excogitavit et 
 tamen plus ahstulil et plus adjecit auferens proprietates singulorum verhorum et 
 adjiciens dispositlones non comparentium rerum. Eusebius, H. E., IV. 29 : 
 The SeveriailS XP'^"'''^'' fva/yy^Kiois iSiws fp/j.r]uevovTes Toiv lepuu ra j/orj/uara ypa- 
 <pS)v. Epiphaiiius, Hceres. indie, 0pp., I. I39G : The Moiitauists KexRVTai- Tfa- 
 \ai^ Ka\ vea StadrjKT] kuto, rhv povv rhv 'iSiou fj.eTaTroiovfj.fyoi. Inasmuch as the al- 
 legorical method of iuterjiretation had for its essential aim the exjjlaiuing 
 away of the Jewish element in Christianity, Marcion, to whom even the Jew- 
 ish form was repugnant, cannot have made use of it. 
 
 Examples of Gnostic interpretations are collected by Irenseus (Adv. Hcer., 
 I., passim), Origen {Comm. in Johann. ev.), and others, and from them by 
 Grabe, Spicil. PP., II. 43, G2, 83 ff. ; R. Simon, Hist, des commentateurs, p. 
 25 ff. ; Baur, Ckr. Gnosis, p. 234 ff. Now, in particular, the so-called Phi- 
 losophoumena (§ 292) should be compared. 
 
 Special mention is made of Basilides' twenty-four books e^-nyrjriKa els rb 
 fvayyeXioi' (his own Gospel ? § 245. Clem. Alex., Strom., TV. 506 ; Enseb., 
 H. E., IV. 7) and of Heracleon's commentary on Luke (Clem., ib., 502) and 
 John (Origen, I. c, passim). Other fragments are found in the evnofxal e'/c 
 ruv @eo56TOi) Kal ttjs avaroXiKTjs Ka\ovfj.evr]s SiSacTKaXlas Kara robs OvaAeprlvov XP^^' 
 ovs and eK rwu ■npo<p-r]TiKwv eK\oya\, ascribed to Clement. (Also in Fabricius, 
 Bihl. gr., V. 134.) Cf. J. G. V. Engelhardt, De excerplis ex Theodoto et doctr. 
 orient., etc., Erl. 1830 ; and Stieren's Irenceus, I. 899 ff. 
 
 The Valentinian Ptolemfens points out divine. Mosaic, and traditional ele- 
 ments in the Law, and distinguishes in the first class those portions which 
 Jesus came to fulfill, Mt. v. 17, Rom. vii. 12, those which are abrogated be- 
 cause mingled with error, Mt. v. 38, Eph. ii. 15, finally tyi)ical and symbol- 
 ical Jjortions, S ixereOriKev 6 ffcuT^p airh alcrBrjTov Kal <paivofjevov M rh vvev/xaTiKhv 
 Kal aopuToy, the ritual law, 1 Cor. v. 7. {Ep. ad Floram, in Ejiiphan., Hceres., 
 xxxiii. ; Grabe, Spicil. PP., II. 68 ; A. Stieren, De Ptolemcei Ep. ad Floram, 
 Jena, 1843.) Doubt about the genuineness. 
 
 With still less difficulty the heretical asceticism found in certain utter- 
 ances of Jesus and the Apostles scriptural warrant for its ideas of celibacy, 
 etc. Cf. the fragments of Tatian, above, § 292. 
 
 609, Similar needs and attempts gave rise to analogous phe- 
 nomena in the bosom of the Church itself. The faith which 
 had been received in popular dress must be worked out scien- 
 tifically and adjusted to the results of a speculation which had 
 grown up upon a different basis. The consciousness of supe- 
 rior mental power in individuals who had received another in- 
 spiration beside that of moral regeneration led to the delusion 
 of a special prerogative for a completely subjective treatment 
 of the sacred books. From this point to the pretense of a spe- 
 cial illumination for the understanding of the Scriptures, per- 
 haps even to the belief in it, was but a step farther. In this 
 sense, the so-called mystic exposition was used in the Greek 
 Church even before the close of the second century, although 
 mostly as yet without definite theoretical rules. 
 
 Distinction between nia-Tis and yvwais (Clem., Strom., VII. 732 : f] fiev irlff- 
 Tis aiivTojxos effTi Tuv KaTei?eiy6vTuiv yvwcris, rj yvwats de atrSdet^is twv 5(0 rricrreajs 
 7Tapei\r]IJ-fJ'-^'"^v Sia ttjs KvpiaKrjs SiSaiTKaAlas eiroiKoSofiov/jeyri rfj Trlcrrei.), and the 
 twofold interpretation founded thereon, according to the letter for ordinary 
 
634 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 Christians, and according to tlie hidden meaning for the more perfect (yvuff- 
 
 The expression mystic interpretation refers to the biblical idea of /xvarri- 
 ptov (t] 6eov ffocpia r) aTT0KiKpvfji.ij.4vri, %v ouSels tZv apx6vroov rov aloiivo^ tovtov eyvw- 
 K€j/ . . . ^^fuf 5e aire KaKv^pey o Oebs Sia rod irvev/uaTos, 1 Cor. ii. 7 if.). MvaTr)pi6v 
 iffTt rh fJLi] waff I ypcipt/j-ov dAAa jj.6vov toIs dewpov/xevois (dappov/jifpoii), Theodoret, 
 on Rom. xi. 25. 
 
 610. It certainly was based upon the apostolic model, and 
 and in so far was only a further application of the hints which 
 were contained in the isolated examples of the New Testa- 
 ment use of Scripture. But what it really promoted and de- 
 veloped was partly the stricter idea of inspiration which would 
 no longer tolerate the verbal sense of many biblical narratives 
 and statements, partly, and more yet, the extreme spiritual- 
 izing tendency of the more noted theologians of the Greek 
 Church. Unsatisfied as philosophers with the insipidity of 
 Judaism, and yet confined as scriptural scholars to its narrow 
 forms, they came to have a contempt for the letter and for the 
 simple history, whether of the heroes and fathers of Israel or 
 of the human appearance of Jesus. Only the authority of ec- 
 clesiastical tradition was not to be compromised. The literary 
 centre of this school was Alexandria, where human philosophy 
 was able to maintain its ancient prerogative by the side of 
 Christianity. 
 
 J. A. Dietelmaier, Veterum in scliola alex. doctorimi series, Altd. 1746 ; J. 
 G. Michaelis, De scholce alexandrince catecheticce origine progressu et dodoribus 
 {Symbb. Hit. brem., I. 195 ff .) ; J. W. Feiierliii, De ratlone docendi theologiam 
 in schola alex., Gott. 1756 ; J. F. Hilscher, De schola alex., L. 1776 ; H. E. 
 F. Guerike, De schola quce Alexandrice floruit catechetica, Halle, 1824 f., 2 
 vols, (especially II. 50 if.). Here belong also the investigations respecting 
 the Platonism of the Church Fathers, formerly vigorously carried on, upon 
 which cf. Niedner's Zeitschrift fur hist. Theol., 1861, III. 
 
 J. S. Semler, De myst. interpr. studio ab cegypt. PP. repet., 1760 ; J. F. Le- 
 bret, De origg. et principiis alleg. ss. II. interpret., Tiib. 1795 ; G. L. Bauer, 
 Hist, interpretationis mystical V. T. (in his Hermen. V. T., p. 29 ff.) ; J. A. 
 Ernesti, Narratio critica de interpr. prophetiarum messian. in ecclesia chr., L. 
 1769 ; M. Baumgarten, Commentar zum A. T., Pt. I., Introduction. 
 
 It is incorrect to begin the series of N. T. exegetes of the Catholic Church 
 with Theophilus of Antioch (f 180); see §§ 297, 513. Nor, probably, did 
 Pantfenus, the first head of the school of Alexandria, change the methods 
 of using Scripture before in favor. 
 
 T. Flav. Clemens Alex, (f 217; 0pp., ed. Sylburg, Col. 1688 fol. (according 
 to which edition he is here cited) ; ed. Potter, Oxf . 1715, 2 vols., fol.) makes 
 frequent use of the N. T. as well as of the Old according to the following 
 expressly stated principles : Tlaaa ypacp-f) i>s iv irapafioKfj flprj/j-epr] (^Strain., V. 
 575). Oyre ^ TrpocpriTeia ovre 6 ffWTi]p airXws . . . ra Oe7a /xvarripia a-Trecpdey^aro 
 a\\' iv Trapa^o\a7s. . . . ^ETnKpvTTTOvrat rhv vovv at ypa(pa.\ 'Iva (TjTijTtKol inrdpx'^fJ.ei' 
 . . . Tois iK\(KTo7s Twv av6pwiroi)v rols e/< Trlffreoos els yvwffiv eyKp'nois T7]pov/xevu r^ 
 ayia ftvffT'fipia Trapa/3oA.a7s iyKaXiimTai k. t. \. (VI. 676 ff.). In the passage I. 
 OOO '. TeTpax^s i^fuv iKXrjTTTeov rov vofxou r^v PovKrjffiv f] ws ffrifjieiov i/xcpaivovffav, 
 ^ ws ivToKriv Kvpovffav ^ deffni^ovffav ons npofriTelav, if one holds to the simple 
 
MYSTICAL EXPOSITION -ORIGEN. 535 
 
 literal sense, there lie already the fundamental principles of the Origenistic 
 theory and of the medijeval schematic treatment. 
 
 His lost work, "TiroTuiraia-eis, in eight books, may have been devoted to 
 more special biblical studies, although the remark of Eusebius (H. E., VI. 
 14), that it contained a short Siriynais of the whole Scriptures, points rather 
 to a mere incidental historico-theological summary than to a proper com- 
 mentary. Cf. also my Hist, du Canon, p. 95. 
 
 Cf. in general J. G. Walch, De Clemente Alex, ejusque errorihus {Alisc. ss., 
 pp. 510-574); C. F. Kling, in the Studien, 1841, IV. 
 
 511. Now came a man who won for these hermeneutical 
 principles, long instinctively followed, a considerable author- 
 ity, not only by combining them into a system and attempt- 
 ing to establish them scientifically, but also by a long series of 
 independent exegetical works, in which he for the first time 
 practically applied them to their full extent. Origen becam^ 
 the standard of scriptural exegesis in the whole ancient 
 Church, partly because he was the first, and because example 
 seems at that time to have had even greater influence than 
 usual, and partly because he was really exceedingly brilliant 
 according to the taste of his century, which admired even the 
 caprices of an uncontrolled imagination as flashes of a higher 
 wisdom. Gifted with a versatile mind, of broad and varied 
 training, he knew how to present his thoughts, now in a form 
 adapted to the larger circle, now in a method current among 
 the thinking classes, and he did not neglect, in the ethico- 
 philosopliical exposition which he followed by preference, the 
 sober historical explanation of the text. 
 
 We have preserved, partly in the original, partly in e/cAoyol, partly In 
 Latin translation (probably not very accurate), especially by Rufinus and 
 Jerome, works upon most of the books of the O. T. and Commentaries on 
 Matthew, Luke, John, and the Epistle to the Romans. Also the collection 
 of extracts arranged by Basil and Gregory, Philocalia, ed. Tarin., P. 1619, 
 4°. (For editions of his works, see § 311.) His theory Is given fully and 
 systematically in his work Ilept apx^v, IV. 1 ff. 
 
 The works of Origen are called T6fj.oi (among the Latins Commentarii), 
 6/xi\iai (sermones, tractatus), cnfifieicio-eis, TrapeK0o\al (scholia, annotationes, a 
 genus commaticum, so to speak); with respect to the latter form scholars 
 are not agreed. 
 
 From a critical point of view much of what is extant is not altogether 
 above suspicion. 
 
 J. A. Dathe (prfes. J. A. Ernestl), De Origene interpretationis grammaticce 
 auctore, L. 1756 ; C. R. Hagenbach, Obss. circa Origenis methodum interpr. 
 S. S., Basle, 1823 ; J. J. Bochmger, De Origenis allegorica S. S. inter pretatione, 
 Arg. 1829 If., 3 Pts. ; cf. L. Rohrich, Recherches Ustoriques et critiques sur 
 Origene, Geneva, 1835 ; E. R. Redepenning, Origenes, 1841, 1846, 2 vols. ; 
 Schrockh, Kirchengesch., IV. 29-145. [Neander, Schaff, Church Histories'] ; 
 Rosenmiiller, Hist, interpr.. III. 1-1.56 ; R. Simon, Hist, des comment., p. 37 ff.; 
 Huet, Origeniana (in his edition cited in § 311), Bk. II. ch. 2. Older writ- 
 ings are catalogued in Walch, Bibl. patrist., pp. 37, 465, ed. Danz. Cf. In 
 general, Fabricius, Bibl. gr., V. 247 ff. ; Oudin, Scriptt. eccl, 1. 231 ff. ; Von 
 Colin, in the Halle EncyE., III. 5. [E. tr. of Origen's writings in the 
 
536 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 Ante-Nicene Library, Edinb. 1869-1872, 2 vols. ; see Art. Origen, in Scliaff- 
 Herzog.] 
 
 512. He regarded the Scriptures as a living organism, like 
 the human, the three elements or constituents of which are 
 likewise different in value and purpose. In tlie literal or ver- 
 bal meaning, which he compared to the body, he found, or 
 probably even looked for, all sorts of offenses and folly, as a 
 sign, intentionally inserted, that the reader must rise above it 
 to the view of divinely pure truth. This he found first in the 
 moral sense, which, like the soul, everywhere permeates the 
 word of Scripture and so gives life to itself and to all Christen- 
 dom. Higher yet, as the spirit above the lower powers, stands 
 the mystic sense, which is hidden from the Jews and from most 
 believers, and includes the mysteries of the New Covenant, 
 both those already revealed and those only to be revealed in 
 the future life. Thus Origen was continually pointing out the 
 analogies between the visible and the invisible world, and 
 merging the historical in the ideal. 
 
 The historical, literal sense, rh pt}T6v, Th aco/xaTiKSf, r] irpSx^tpos iKdoxv, v ^*l's, 
 7) rl/t\7] laropla, on account of actual or supposed anthropomoi'pliisms, contra- 
 dictions, immoralities, and absurdities, frequently altogether denied, and in 
 any case little valued. Where it can be retained, useful for the simple (ot 
 air\ovaT€poi.) 
 
 The moral sense, fi rpoiroAoyla, not a mere moral application, but an etliieo- 
 mystical treatment, for the more advanced (oi iirl iviaov o.vaBefir)K6Tes). 
 
 The mystic sense, rh air6pp-rtTov, r] aWriyopia, »; avaywyi), the reference to the 
 New Covenant and the kingdom of God (discernible only by the Tt'Aeioj) ; 
 in Origen as yet without separation between tliis world and the next in the 
 hermeneutical theory. Otherwise called ^lavoia, irvfvuaTiKrj SiTjyncns, i'6r}iu.a, 
 0ea>pla. On the disputed meaning of the last word, see Morus, Herm., II. 
 210 ; Von Lengerke, Ephrem Syrus, p. 143 f., and in general Suicer, m the 
 Thes. eccL, sub voce. 
 
 Relation of this exegesis to Origen's philosophical system of the analogies 
 between the visible and the invisible world. There was no danger of look- 
 ing for or of finding too much in the Scriptures in view of the exhaustless 
 stores of superhuman wisdom deposited in them. 
 
 For the rest, the Alexandrians, like others, appealed to ecclesiastical tra- 
 dition, which existed, however, to their minds, in the common consciousness 
 of the Church, in an inherited Gnosis, rather than in definite fonuulas or 
 any external authority. 
 
 513. Origen enjoyed, even during his lifetime, particularly 
 on account of his marvelous learning, a wide-spread fame, and 
 became the exegetical oracle of the Church. Even the Latins, 
 little inclined to speculation, could not escape his influence. 
 And when afterward his orthodoxy was first doubted and then 
 denied by a stricter age, his method had long since become the 
 common property of theologians, and had nothing to fear from 
 this adverse judgment of its author. It was further recom- 
 mended, notwithstanding the decline of freedom in religious 
 
ORIGEN — TERTULLIAN. 537 
 
 thought, and aside from the prevailing taste, especially by the 
 fact that it gave easy help over actual difficulties in interpreta- 
 tion, and that far from exhausting its subject, it permitted any 
 one not altogether unendowed with brains to pluck continually 
 new flowers from the garden of allegory. 
 
 Perhaps it was precisely the increasing restriction of free thought in theo- 
 logical matters that was one of the principal reasons why struggling minds 
 threw themselves into allegory, where a field of uutrammeled activity was 
 still open to them. 
 
 Among the admirers and imitators of Origen may be reckoned : — 
 
 In the third century, Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus Romanus (§ 312), f 250 ; 
 Dionysius of Alexandria, Pierius, a presbyter of the same city, Theognostus 
 6 e^riyr]T-fis, president of the school there (see Eusebius, H. E., VII. 25, 32) ; 
 Methodius of Tyre, who, however, did not agree with Origen dogmatically 
 (Photius, Cod., 234) ; Pamphilus, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Bishop of New 
 Caesarea, f 2G5 (Panegi/rlcus in Origenem, ed. Beugel, 1722), cf. J. S. Weickh- 
 mann, De scliola Origenis sacra ex Gregorio Thaumaturgo, Vit. 1741. Of 
 none of these, however, are any proper exegetical writings preserved. 
 
 In the fourth century, Eusebius of Csesarea, the liistorian, f 340 (Com- 
 mentary on the Psalms and Isaiah, in Moutfaucou, Coll. nova PP. gr., p. 1706, 
 I., II., beside writings on biblical chronology and geography, which, however, 
 scarcely show any need of returning to the historic interpretation) ; Hilary 
 of Pictavium, f 368 (Commentary on the Psalms and Matthew, 0pp., ed. 
 Bened., P. 1693, fol.) ; Tyrannius Rufinus, presbyter at Aquileia, f 410 
 (translation of many homilies of Origen on the O. T. and of his commen- 
 tary on the Epistle to the Romans). 
 
 In the fifth century (?) Pseudo-Theophilus (Bishop of Antioch in the 
 second century), Xf&ri IV. allegoriarum in IV. evangella, in Latin. An in- 
 complete work on Matthew, in Latin, among the works of Chrysostom. 
 
 514. But philosophizing was not the business or the need of 
 all. There were also more positive minds who either, sick of 
 the ever questioning wisdom of the world, in order to gain 
 more solid ground had taken refuge in the bosom of the Church, 
 or, with genuine Roman conceptions of civil law and household 
 order, heartily hated all caprice, particularly in still more im- 
 portant matters. For them the Church was not to be made 
 an academy ; Avhat the Portico at Athens never attained, the 
 hall of Solomon Avas to give them, a certainty of faith, invio- 
 lable either by external criticism or by inner doubt. But for 
 this there must first be obtained a basis which should have its 
 authority in itself, independent of human wit, and which could 
 at the same time serve as a bulwark against every invasion of 
 error. In place of philosophic speculation came the dogmatic 
 principle. 
 
 Q. Septim. Florens Tertnllianus, presbyter at Carthage (f 223) ; died a 
 heretic ; father of the Latin orthodoxy and ecclesiastical language, a born 
 lawyer, of eccentric mind and harsh disposition, an ascetic and a wit ; with 
 affected rhetoric presenting Christianity from the point of view of its contra- 
 riety to reason. 0pp., ed.'Semler, Halle, 1770 f., 6 vols. 8° ; ed. F. Oehler, 
 L. 1S52 f., 2 vols. 8°. [Migne, Par. 1844 ; E. tr. in Ante-Nicene Library, 
 Edinb. 4 vols.] 
 
638 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 Irenseus, an Asiatic and Bishop of Lyons (f 202), a pious, zealous, and 
 
 narrow man. His work "EAsyxos Kal auarpovrj ttjs yl/evSoofvixov yvwffeuis is iu 
 "xeat part only preserved in Latin. Editions by Massiiet, P. 1710, t'ol., by 
 IStieren, L. 1849 ft"., 2 vols. 8°. In both a series of literary and historico-dog- 
 inatic appendices. [Also Harvey, Cainb. 1857, 2 vols. ; E. tr. in Ante- 
 Niceue Library, Ediub. 1869, 2 vols.] 
 
 These two (cf. § 297 if.) stand at the head of the first anti-Gnostic, then in 
 general auti-pliilosophic tendency. Cf. J. G. Rosenmuller, De theologice chr. 
 origine (L. 1786), p. 75 ff. ; idem, Hist, interpr., II ; Schrdckh, Kirchengesch., 
 111. 208 f., 389 f. ; IX. 87 f. ; Eiclihorn, BiU., I. 620 ; Semler, Antiquitates 
 herrn. ex TertulUano, Hal. 1765 ; A. Stieren, Art. Irenaeus, iu the Encykl., 
 II. 23 ; idem, De Iren. operis fontihus indole et doctrina, 1836. [A. Hauck, 
 Tertullian's Leben u. Schriften, Erl. 1877.] 
 
 515. This principle was the authority of tradition. The 
 danger to the faith of the Church which might possibly grow 
 out of the current method of Scripture interpretation was very 
 early apprehended. Even before the time of Origen, in oppo- 
 sition to the Gnostics, individuals, especially in the West, had 
 warned against the capriciousness of the allegorical method. 
 They sometimes went so far in this polemic that they seemed 
 to wish to give over altogether the use of Scripture in theology, 
 declaring the rule of faith, as handed down in the Church, and 
 especially as preserved in the original apostolic churches, to be 
 fully sufficient to decide all disputes. Yet they really meant 
 by this simply that interpretation has its warrant, it not its 
 standard, in the common faith of the church. By this means 
 the need of stability, which the prevalence of allegorical expo- 
 sition had endangered, seemed sufficiently met, and protected 
 by this wall from error on their own part or that of others, dog- 
 matic theologians could now without fear indulge in the irre- 
 sistible impulse to mystic interpretation. 
 
 In any case the avithority appealed to is a concrete one, whether a 
 baptismal confession or other sanctioned formula, or in general the doctrine 
 handed down by direct apostolic succession of teachers, especially in par- 
 ticular churches (propter potiorem principalitatem, TertulL), by which a sort 
 of legal prescription was obtained against heretics — especially developed 
 by Tcrtuliian, in the book De prcescriptionibus adv. hcereticos (A. Cres, Les 
 ide'es de Tert. sur la tradition eccL, Str. 1855). Cf. Iren., III. 24, 1 : Ubi 
 ecclesia ibi et spiritus Dei, et ubi spiritus Dei ibi ecclesia . . . cujus non par- 
 ticipant omnes qui non currunt ad ecclesiam. IV. 26, 5 : Disrere oportet 
 veritatem apud quos est ea quce est ab apostolis ecclesice successio. Cf. III. 1, 2; 
 4,2. Tertull., Prfescr., xxxvi.; Cont. Marc, IV. 5. — Kostlin, in the Tub. 
 Jalirb., 1850, I. 
 
 Exegesis was not thus freed from allegory ; indeed this, as well as every 
 other mode of proof, was doubtless used to establish the church doctrine. 
 The question of the absolute subordination of exegesis to the regula fidei 
 has been discussed among moderns since Lessing (§ 289) ; cf. Sack, Nitzsch, 
 and Liicke, three letters on the authority of the Scriptures and their relation 
 to the rule of faith in the Protestant and in the ancient churcli, Bonn, 1827. 
 Pieces of declamation like the following are not historical evidence, it is true 
 (fidfs tua te aalvmn fadt, non exercitatio scriptnrarum ; jides in regnln pnsita 
 est habens salutem in observatione legis; exercitatio in curiositate consistit habens 
 
DOGMATIC METHOD — AUTHORITY OF TRADITION. 539 
 
 gloriam solam de perit'm studio. . . . Nihil prqficit congressio scriptt. nisi ut aut 
 stomachi quis ineut eversionem aut cerebri. Tert., Prcescr., ch. xiv. f.), yet they 
 reveal a tendency which coukl not possibly lead to a criticism of tradition by 
 Scripture. Just as little is the freedom of exegesis secured by the right, 
 denied to the heretics, of appealing to the latter. (Id., ibid., ch. xvi.-xix.) 
 Ergo non ad SS. provocandum est nee in his constitiiendum certamen quibus aut 
 nulla aut incerta victoria est. — Sunt enim multa verba in scripturis divinis quoe 
 possunt trahi ad eum sensum quein sibi unusquisque sponte prcesumsit . . . ideo 
 oportet ab eo intelligentiam discere scripturarum qui earn a majoribus secundum 
 veritatem sibi traditam servat, etc. Recognit., X. 42. 
 
 That practice developed in this direction is undeniable. In controverting 
 heretics, the Scriptures, which they " mutilated and wrested," could be of 
 little use. (Iren., III. 2 ; Tertull., I. c.) Although it was attempted, appeal 
 was made by preference to ecclesiastical testimony. Vincent of Lerinum 
 (f 450), Commonit., I. 2 : Necesse est, propter tantos tarn varii erroris anfractus, 
 ut propheticce et apostolicce interpretationis linea secundum ecclesiastici et catholici 
 sensus normam dirigatur. Ibid., ch. iii. : Tenendum quod semper, quod ubique, 
 quod ab omnibus creditum est. 
 
 The Gnostics, it is true, also appealed, to establish what they could not 
 justify by their exegesis, to an esoteric apostolic teaching. (1 Tim. vi. 20 ; 2 
 Tim. i. 14 ; ii. 2. Tert., Prcescr., ch. xxv.) But the Catholics denied that any 
 such teaching existing outside their own well-known tradition (Iren., III. 
 3,1). 
 
 516. Then came a period in which the Church, free from 
 external enemies, had leisure and opportunity, and hence also 
 the desire, to give her doctrines a more definite and scientific 
 form, in which consequently all other interests became subordi- 
 nate to the dogmatic. In proportion as the church doctrine 
 became more defined beyond the word of Scripture, and logic 
 became the more useful instrument of theology, exegesis was 
 oblio-ed to come into greater and often admitted dependence 
 upon dogmatics. This is especially manifest in works upon 
 doo-matics, whether with or without reference to the contro- 
 versies of tlie day. The allegorical method might be used or 
 rejected according to individual conviction. 
 
 The latter fact is most clearly illustrated by the exegesis of the Audians 
 (Epiphan., Hcer., LXX. ; Theodoret, H. E., IV. 10 ; Schrockh, Kirchengesch., 
 VI. 214 f.), which from literalness became grossly anthropomorpliic ; and 
 in the controversies on eschatology, especially the resurrection of the flesh, 
 on which point the Chiliasts (e. g., Nepos, "^Keyxos aW-nyopiarwu ?) and most 
 of the Latins opposed the more spiritual interpretation of the Alexandrians. 
 Among the opponents of allegory belong also the authors of the Apostolic 
 Constitutions, which in the hierarchical interest held fast to the literal inter- 
 pretation of the Levitical enactments (Rosenmiiller, Hist, interpr., I. 117 ff.), 
 and the Clementine Homilies, to which it might signify the disparagement 
 of the O. T., and to which, therefore, precisely that was welcome which was 
 abhorrent to Origen. 
 
 It may be shown, for the rest, that decision by appeal to the concrete 
 authority of the Church, as a body hierarchically organized for this purpose, 
 was adhered to more strictly in the West. In the Greek Church, on the 
 other hand. Scripture and tradition remained rather in the relation of equally 
 immediate sources of knowledge, for the reason, among others, that the 
 philosophic spirit was not so completely dead, and one could assume and dis- 
 
540 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 cover their agreement without feeling obliged, for the sake of greater 
 certainty and clearness, to set up the latter as the indispensable interpreter 
 of the former. The current doctrines of offenses to be removed by allegor- 
 ical inter2)retation, and of the validity of the Law only thus to be rescued, 
 were the common possession of both chui'ches. 
 
 It may be confidently asserted that the great dogmatic theologians of that 
 period had no definite hermeneutic theory. Their good sense in conflict 
 with prejiulice and tlie taste of the age groped about in search of a middle 
 way between the TraxvTepoi t^v didyoiav (the literal expositors) and the &yav 
 6ewpr]TiKol (the allegorizers), Greg. Naz., Horn. XLII. They opposed the 
 former because they surrendered striking dicta prohantia, and called them 
 Judaizers, and the latter as abettors of heresy. The true sources of knowl- 
 edge are a\7i9eia rov evayyeXlou, TrapdSoats twv a,iTocrT6\o)v, owtAo'tijs ttjs iriaTews 
 (Basil, Cont. Eunom., I., muV.), but the history is abhorrent et inl \f/i\6oy arai- 
 Ojxev TWf Trpay/xdraii' ovk ayadov fiiov Trapf'xeTai 'qjxlv to, unodelyfxara (Greg. Nys., 
 Prooem. in Cant.), and the Law completely avoii(l)e\i}s el nv voo7to irvevixaTiKcos 
 (Cyril, De adorat. in Sp., I. 13). Cf. H. Weiss, Die grossen Kappadocier 
 Basilius, Gregor v. Naz. und Gregor v. Nysm als Exegeten, Braunsb. 1872. 
 
 Cf. in general the dogmatic and controversial writings of Cyprian of 
 Carthage (f 258. 0pp., ed. Baluze, P. 1726, fob), Athanasius of Alexandria 
 (t 371. 0pp., ed. Bened., P. 1G98, 3 vols., foL), Basil of Ca;sarea (f 379. 
 0pp., ed. Gamier, P. 1721, 3 vols., fob), Gregory of Nazianzus (f 391. 0pp., 
 ed. Toll., Yen. 1753, 2 vols., fol. [the Benedictine ed., Par. 1778-1840 is the 
 best]), Gregory of Nyssa (f 394. 0pp., ed. Fronton le Due, P. 1638, 3 vols., 
 fob), Cyril of Alexandria (f 444. 0pp., ed. Aubert, P. 1638, 7 vols., fob), 
 Isidore of Pelusium (f 449. 0pp., P. 1638, fob), and many others ; also the 
 following section, as well as the monographs of UUmann, Greg. v. Nazianz 
 d. Theolog, Darmst. 1825 [E. tr. by G. F. Coxe, 1857 ; Benoit, St. Gre'goire 
 de Naz., Par. 1877] ; Niemeyer, on Isidore, 1825 ; Klose, on Basil, 1835; 
 Rupp, Gregors d. B. v. Nyssa Leben u. Meinungen, L. 1834; Rettberg, on 
 Cyprian, 1831, etc. 
 
 517. Both methods, the dogmatic and the allegoincal, existed 
 side by side, and in consequence a peculiar confusion came into 
 works devoted to the interpretation of Scripture. While many- 
 gave the mystic explanation almost in jest, and wliat had been 
 with Origen a spiritual necessity descended to imitative sub- 
 tlety, others attempted to lay down new theories respecting 
 the use of the allegorical interpretation, partly by recognizing 
 the hidden sense only in certain passages, the literal everywhere, 
 partly by aiming to limit caprice by a standing, as it were 
 lexical, signification of the different figures, partly by sub- 
 jecting to the allegorical treatment only those passages not 
 immediately applicable for dogmatic and ethical purposes, 
 partly, finally, by striving to estimate properly the continual 
 typical relationship between the Old and New Testaments. 
 There was no lack of excellent directions for biblical interpre- 
 tation ; unfortunately those who gave them were the first to 
 violate them. 
 
 The middle way sought, between bald llteralness, which was despised, and 
 allegorical fantasticalness, which was distrusted, failed of being found be- 
 cause interpreters could not free themselves from the principle of a mani- 
 fold sense, and because a Christian theological meaning for every word 
 
CHURCH FATHERS. 541 
 
 was regarded as a postulate of the idea of Saci'ed Scripture. All rules by 
 which they attempted to guide themselves were themselves arbitrary, and 
 had so Uttle imier necessity that in practice they always went without rides, 
 in order not to appear devoid of spirituality. 
 
 Ephrem Syrus, president of a theological school at Edessa (f 378. 0pp. 
 syr. gr. et lat., ed. Assemani, Rome, 1732, 6 vols., fol. [A Latin translation 
 by Caillau, Par. 1835, 8 vols., forming a part of the Paires Selecti] ; cf . Ctes. 
 a Lengerke, De Ephremi Syri arte hermeneutica, Reg. (1828) 1831 ; Gaab, 
 in Paidus, Mem., I. 65, II. 136 ; Is. Gotz, Via et ouvrages d' Ephrem, Gen. 
 1843 ; P. Picard, Recherches sur S. Ephrem, Mont. 1866 ; D. Gerson, Die 
 Comment, des E. im Verhixlt. zur judischen Exegese, in Frankel's Zeitschr., 
 1868), the first Syrian exegete known to us, whose commentaries, covering 
 the greater part of the O. T., are yet said to have come down to us only in 
 an abridged form. Cf. a Syriac biograjjliy of him m Uhlemann's Syriac 
 Grammar, in Hasse's and Grimm's Chrestomathies ; in general, Fabricius, 
 Bihl. gr., V. 319 ; Oudin, Scriptt., 1. 493 ; Rodiger, in the Halle Encykl, I. 35. 
 
 Of Athanasius (§ 516) there is extant a commentary on the Psalms, ed. 
 Antonelli, Rome, 1746, fol. 
 
 Didymus of Alexandria (f 392), of whose exegetical writings only one has 
 been preserved, on the Catholic Epistles, in Latin. Jerome, De viris ill., ch. 
 cix. Text in Gallaudi, Bibl. PP., VI., also separately. Col. 1531 ; F. Liicke, 
 Qucestiones et vindicice didymiance, Gott. 1829 f., 4 Pts. ; Guerike, Schol. Alex., 
 II. 83 ff. ; Fabric, Bihl. gr., VIII. 351 ; Von Colin, in the Halle Encykl, 
 L24. 
 
 Ambrose, first a soldier, afterward Bishop of Milan (cZe tribunalibus ad 
 sacerdotium raptus docere vos coepi quod ipse non dldici, De Oj/iciis, I. 1. f 398), 
 wrote on the Gosjjel of Luke (in verbis ludens in sententiis dormitans, Jerome, 
 Prolog, in homil. Origen. in Luc), and many smaller works on the O. T., 0pp., 
 ed. Bened., P. 1686, 2 vols., fol. [Baunard, Hist, de St. Ambroise, Par. 1871; 
 Ebert, Gesch. d. Lit. des Mittelalters im Abendlande, L. 1874, vol. I. p. 135 ff.] 
 
 Sophroniiis Eus. Hieronymus [Jerome] (§§ 32.3, 454), monk at Jerusalem, 
 etc. (f 420), a tireless copyist and compiler, who made theological author- 
 ship his business from the first, much praised by later writers, but by no one 
 more than by himself ; learned as were none of his contemporaries, espe- 
 cially in the sciences auxiliary to exegesis, but ueitlier intellectually strong, 
 independent, nor courageous. He has excellent preparatory knowledge, a 
 hearty contempt for unfamed expositors, and blames Origen (whom he ad- 
 mired and translated) because liberis allegories spatiis evagatus ingenium suum 
 facit ecdesice sacramenta {Comm. in Jesaj., V., prol.), but knows himself that 
 singula scripturcB verba singula sacramenta sunt {Ad Ps. xci.), and therefore 
 desires to rise from the turpitudo literce ad decorem intelligentite spiritalis (Ad 
 Amos ii.). His hesitation, now for, now against Origen, is not to be referred 
 to a divergence in exegetical principles, but to dogmatic caution. Commen- 
 taries, especially on the Prophets and the N. T., 0pp., ed. Tribbechovius, 
 Frankf . 1688, 12 vols. fol. ; ed. Martianay, P. 1693 &., 5 vols., fol. ; ed. Val- 
 larsi, Verona, 1734 ft'., 11 vols. 4° [Migiie, Par. 1845] ; J. W. Baum, Hie- 
 ronymi vita, Arg. 1835 ; J. Clericus, Qucestiones Hieronymiance, Amst. 1719 ; 
 Schrockh, Kirchengesch., XL ; Von Colin, in the Halle Encykl. For other 
 writings see § 454. [A. Thierry, St. Jerome, P. 1867, 2 vols., 3d ed. 1876 ; 
 Cutts, St. Jerome, Lond. 1877.] 
 
 Aurelius Augustinus, Bishop of Hippo (f 430), 0pp., ed. Bened., P. 1679 ff. 
 11 vols, fol.; reprinted, Basle, 1797 ft., 18 vols. 4° [also P. 1836-1839, 11 vols. 
 8°, and by Migue, P. 1841, 10 vols. 8°, 2d ed. 1863, 11 vols.; most important 
 works translated in the Augustinian Library, Edinb. 1872-1876, 15 vols. 8°; 
 his Confessions translated in the Library of the Fathers, Oxf. 1839-1855, 12 
 vols. 8°]. In this edition, vols. III.-V., in various forms, writings on Gene- 
 sis, Psalms, Job, the Gospels, the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians 
 
542 HISTOKY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 ami the first of John, and many Sermones on particular passages. Cf. H. N. 
 Chuisen, Aur. August. S.S. interpres, B. 1827; C. F. Schneegans, Apprecia- 
 tion de St. Aug. d'apres ses travaux sur I'hermeneutique, Str. 1848. [Archb. 
 Trench, Essay on the Merits of Augustine as an Interpreter of Holy Scripture, 
 prefixed to his Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount, draivn from the Writ- 
 ings of St. Augustine, Lond. 1850.] His exegetical system, the rational part 
 of which is still worth consideration, and wliich demanded plillological, crit- 
 ical, and historical knowledge in which he himself was wholly deficient, is 
 laid down in the work De doctrina Christiana, IV. Yet (III. 2) in case of the 
 slightest uncertainty, even in external matters, e. g., quomodo distinguendum 
 aut pronunciandum, consulatur regulajidei; and (III. 14) quidquid in sermone 
 divino neque ad morum honestatem neque ad fidei veritatem referri potest figu- 
 rate dictum est. His atteinpts to interpret ad literam led him, in this respect 
 also to a certain degree the standard-bearer of much later centuries, to 
 scliolastic methods and subtleties. On the whole, his exegesis was the great 
 man's weak point. See in general Ginzel, Der Geist des Augustinus, Quar- 
 talschr., 1848, IV. ; 1849, I. ; H. A. Naville, S. AugusVm, Gen. 1872. 
 
 The " seven rules " of Trychonius (Liber de VII. regulis, Ven. 1772, and 
 freq., Bibl. max. PP., VI. ; cf . Augustine, De doctr. chr.. III. 30 ; Semler, De 
 regulis Trych., Hal. 1756 ; Fliigge, Gesch. der theol. Wissensch., II. .249) are 
 not a hermeneutical theory, but remarks upon various classes of passages 
 which present special difficulties to the expositor, without value or comiec- 
 tion. Eucherius Lugd. (beginning of fifth century), Liher formularum spir- 
 italis intelligentice, Rome, 1564, is only a collection of desultory allegorical 
 studies in the form of a vocabulary. In his 0pp., Basle, 1530, fol., there are 
 also commentaries on Genesis and the four books of the Kings. 
 
 In Cyril's works (see the preceding section) are commentaries on the 
 Pentateuch, the Prophets, and John. Others on Matthew, Luke, etc., frag- 
 mentary, in Mai, Scriptt. vett. collectio nova, VIII., X. 
 
 On account of the great influence which he exerted during the Middle 
 Ages, we may also mention here Pope Gregory I., the Great, about two cen- 
 turies later (0pp., ed. Bened., P. 1705, 4 vols., fol. Ven. 1768, 17 vols. 4°), 
 whose exegetical works on Ezekiel, the Gospels, 1 Samuel, Canticles, but es- 
 pecially Moralium in I. Job. II. XXX V. (often separately, e. g., Basle, 1496, 
 fol.) were the great model of mystic exposition for the subsequent period : 
 in voluminibus Gregorii quanta mysteria saci-avientorum aperiantur nemo sapiens 
 explicare valebit etiamsi omnes artus ejus vertantur in linguas, Isid. Hisp., De 
 cedes, scr., ch. xxvii. 
 
 518. Over against all tlie tendencies and methods described 
 in the foregoing, there came in toward the end of this period, 
 in the second half of the fourth century, another, which pro- 
 ceeded from the theological school at Antioeh, at that time 
 just in its prime, and which we may call the historic. A 
 happy providence had brought together at this place a series 
 of thinking men, who took deliglit in critical investigations 
 and had an open eye for history, and who combined with a 
 certain striving after freedom from the fetters of the authori- 
 tative faith a hearty aversion from the fantastic extravagances 
 of the allegorize rs. Exegesis, their favorite pursuit, they car- 
 ried on upon the basis of philological science, and with a 
 stricter regard to the chronological relations of the sacred 
 ■writers. As theologians they did not deny the deep-rooted 
 connection between the Old and New Testaments, and will- 
 
HISTORICAL EXPOSITION — CIIRYSOSTOM. 543 
 
 ingly adhered to the apostolic principle of tj'pical references, 
 regarding them, however, as a result of religious reflection, not 
 of the historico-critical study of the text. 
 
 F. Miinter, De schola antiochena, 1811, German in Stiiuclliu's Archiv, Pt. 
 
 I. ; Rosenniiiller, III. 246 if. ; Lengerke, Ephrem, p. 59 ff. ; H. Hergen- 
 rdtber, Die antioch. Schule und ihre Bedeutung auf exeg. Gebiete, Wiirzb. 
 1866 ; H. Kihn, Die Bedeutung der ant. Schule auf exeg. Gebiete, Weissb. 
 1866. [Diestel, Geschichle d. A. T. in d. christl. Kircke, Jena, 1869, p. 
 126 ff.] 
 
 The most famous of them are : Eusebius of Emisa (f 360) (Jerome, De 
 viris ill., ch. xci.), who first followed historical principles in the classification 
 of actual Messianic prophecies. 
 
 Diodore of Tarsus (f 394), y\/iKif rcf ypd/j-ixari trpocrexoov, ras Bewpias iKTpeir6fi- 
 evos (Socrates, VI. 3 ; cf. Sozomen, VIII. 2). Suidas edited his writings, 
 among them a herraeneutical work on the difference between aXXriyopla and 
 Oewpla, the latter of which, in the sense of theological exposition of Scripture, 
 he appears to have commended. Fragments of his exegetical writings in 
 Greek and Latin Catence. Cf. Semisch, in Herzog's Encyld. 
 
 Theodore of Heraclea, Titus of Bostra, Dorotheus, Lucian, Ibas of Edessa 
 (f 457), finally Cosmas, in the sixth century. 
 
 Above all, Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia in Cilicia (f 429), o e'lij'yrjT^s. 
 See F. L. Siefl^ert, Theodorus Mopsuestenus, V. T. sobrie interpretandi vindex, 
 Keg. 1827; O. F. Fritzsche, De Theodori M. commentariis in Psabnos et II. 
 N. T., Hal. 1836 ; idem, De vita et scriptis Th. M., Hal. 1836 ; R. E. Klener, 
 Syniboke lift, ad Theod. M. pertinentes, Gott. 1836 ; W. C. H. toe Water, De 
 Theodora prophetarum interprete, Amst. 1837. Cf . Socrates and Sozomen, II. 
 cc. ; Theodoret, H. E., V. 40 ; Fabricius, Bibl. gr., IX. 153 ; Schrockh, 
 Kirchengesch., XV. 190 ff. [Kihn, Theod. und Junilius als Exegeten, Frei- 
 burg-im-Breisgau, 1880 ; W. Moller, in Schaff-Herzog Encydop<xdia, Art. 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia.~\ Printed, 0pp., ed. A. F. V. a Wegnern, B. 1834. 
 Vol. I. contains a commentary on the Minor Prophets, which alone is pre- 
 served complete. Commentaries on Genesis, Psalms, Job, the rest of the 
 Prophets, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, the Gospels, and Paul, have been lost. 
 Fragments : Commentariorum in N. T., ed. Fritzsche, Tur. 1847 [A. Mai, 
 in Script, vet. nov. Coll., VL, Rome, 1832, and Nov. patr. bibl., VII., Rome, 
 1854] ; Fragmenta syriaca e codd. nitriacis, ed. Ed. Sachau, L. 1869 (on 
 Genesis). Others in Miinter, Fragmenta PP. grcecorum, 1788, and in the 
 Catenc^. There is quoted also a work De allegoria et historia contra Originem 
 
 II. V. J. L. Jacobi (Berl. Zeitschr., Aug. 1854) also ascribes to him a com- 
 mentary on the smaller epistles of Paul, preserved in Latin (which D. Pitra 
 published in part in the Spicil. Solesmense, I. 1852, as by Hilary of Picta- 
 vium) and has published the rest in a series of Dutch programmes, 1855 ff. 
 [H. B. Swete, Theod. episc. Mopsuesteni in epp. B. Pauli commentarii j the 
 Latin Version loiih the Greek Fragments, Camb. 1880-1882, 2 vols.] 
 
 The Antiochians were perhaps anticipated by Julius Afrieanus, presbyter 
 at Nicopolis in Palestine (f 232), of whom two critical fragments on the 
 genealogy of Jesus (Euseb., H. E., I. 7) and the History of Susanna (Origen, 
 0pp., I. 10, Ruseus) have been preserved. Cf. Rosenmiiller, III. 157. 
 
 The attempt of the older Protestant polemics (Hody, De textibus orig.. III. 
 1) to prove a preference on the part of the Churcla Fathers in general for the 
 original text over the Greek translation is based upon delusion and miscon- 
 ception. 
 
 519. The most celebrated of them, advancing be^^ond this 
 point of view, attempted to meet especially the needs of the 
 
544 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 larger circle of readers, but first of all those of his own 
 hearers, and aimed at a practical exposition. In extended rhe- 
 torical discourses or homilies he set forth the verbal meaning 
 with constant attention to the course of thought, and connected 
 therewith, in harmony with the form which he had chosen, the 
 religious and moral observations which were founded directly 
 in the text. Dogmatic and polemic digressions were not neces- 
 sarily excluded, but were never made the principal thing, and 
 the more or less frequently inserted allegorical additions appear 
 rather as rhetorical ornament and deference to custom than as 
 something necessary to the expositor. Certainly the Christian 
 people of ancient times never anywhere enjoyed richer instruc- 
 tion from the word of Scripture than when it came to them 
 in this way from the golden mouth of a preacher genuinely 
 accomplished in the Bible. 
 
 Joliii Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (f 407) (0pp., eel. Bern, 
 de Montfaucou, P. 1718 if., 13 vols., fol., and freq. [reedited, P. 1835-1840]). 
 His works contain, beside many single ones on passages of the O. T., homilies 
 on the whole N. T., Mark, Luke, and the Catholic Epistles excepted. Cf. 
 Montfaucon's Vita Chrysost., in the thirteenth volume of his edition ; Fabricius, 
 Bihl. (jr., VII. 553 ; Oudin, I. 687 ff. ; Ranke, in the Halle Encykl, I. 21 ; 
 Neander, Der heilige Chri/sostumus und die Kirche seiner Zeit., B. 1827, 3d ed. 
 1848, 2 vols. [E. tr. of 1st vol. by J. C. Stapleton, Lond. 1838] ; R. Simon, 
 p. 147 ; Rosenmiiller, III. 265 ; Schrbckh, Kirchengesch., X., especially 
 p. 436 fP.; G. W. Meyer, De Chrysost. II. ss. interprete. Nor. 1806, Pt. II., Erl. 
 1815 ; C. Datt, jS^. Jean Chrys. comme predicateur, Str. 1837 ; J. Pettersson, 
 Chrysostomus homileta, Lund. 1833. [Riviere, Chrysostom comme predicateur, 
 Str. 1845 ; Lutz, Chrysostomus, Tiib. 1846 ; Perthes, Life of Chrysostom, 
 Boston, 1854 ; W. A. W. Stephens, Life and Times of Chrysostom, Lond. 1872, 
 2d ed. 1880 ; C. Burk, Art. Chrysostom, in Schaff-Herzog Encycl.'\ 
 
 The necessity, more instinctive than scientific, of not giving loose rein to 
 allegory, leads him to the theory (just now much in favor) of prophecy 
 entering into the Scriptures piecemeal. On Ps. xlvi.: Ta fjiiv is 6i/)?)Tat 
 iKKy]iTriov, to. Se kirevavrias toIs Keij-aivois, ra Se kolto, dnrA^v SkSoxvi', to. re alaBrjTdt, 
 (the actual histoi'v) voovvres, koI ra votjtoi. (the typical reference) e/cSexo/^fo'- 
 On Ps. cix.; Kal yap ouToos irpo(pr}Telas Tp6iTos eVrli', on rci jjikv irpooiinia els erepov 
 Toi Se AeiirS/iieva (Is 6.\\ov \ey6/u.€va. 4(Tti. Kal y&p tovto iTpo<p7)Teias eiSos /ueTo|w 
 StaKSTTTeiv Kal laropiav Tivdi, ifi^dWuv Kal fj-era ravra SieleAfie?^ irdXtv iirl ret 
 irp6T(pa. 
 
 520. This happy combination of sober historic spirit with 
 sound practical sense under more favorable circumstances must 
 have had the most salutaiy influence upon the progress of bib- 
 lical study and upon the relation of the Scriptures to theolog- 
 ical science in general. And all the more since the distinction 
 between learned and popular exegesis at that time was not 
 so great as it usually is in our day. True, custom, training, 
 prejudice, and often also the desire of literary fame, prevented 
 a strict and exclusive adherence to the better principles, but 
 the way had been discovered, and could be followed until it 
 should lead to complete freedom from all restraints hostile to 
 
DECLINE OF THE SCIENCE. 545 
 
 sound science. Single commentaries of rich brevity and sound 
 sense already made it evident that the problem had been 
 attacked, and gave assurance of the good vs^ill to solve it. 
 
 Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria (f 450). 0pp., eel. J. L. Schulze 
 and J. A. Nosselt, Halle, 17G9 fP., 10 vols. [Migiie, Par. 1859-1860, 5 vols.] 
 Commentaries and scattered notes on the Pentateuch, the Psalms, the 
 Prophets, several historical books of the O. T., still much mingled with 
 allegory. We mention this exegete here on account of his excellent com- 
 mentary on the Pauline Epistles. Cf. R. Simon, p. 314; Yahvichxs,, Bihl. gr., 
 VII. 430 ; Oudin, Scriptt., I. 1051 ; Schrockh, Kirchengesch., XVIII. 355 ; 
 Rosenmiiller, IV. 35 ;^ J. F. Richter, De Theodoreto epp. paid, interprete, 
 L. 1822 ; E. Binder, Etudes sur Theodoret, Gen. 1844. In the Halle edition, 
 Vol. I., J. L. Schulze, De vita et scriptis Theod., and Vol. X., Garnier, Diss, 
 de hist, et II. Theod. [lloos, De Theodoreto Clementis et Eusehii compilatore, 
 Halle, 1883 ; A. Bertram, Theodoreti episcopi Cyrensis, doctrina christologica, 
 Hildesh. 1883.] 
 
 Here may be placed also the commentary on the Pauline Epistles printed 
 among the works of Ambrose (also separately. Col. 1530), which some have 
 ascribed to the Roman deacon Hilarius (c. 380) ; but see on the contrary 
 Herzog, in his EncyHopddie, Art. Ambrosiaster ; it will probably have to re- 
 main under this conventional name. To the same Hilarius is also ascribed 
 the Qucestiones in V. et N. T. preserved under the name of Augustine. 
 
 521. Unfortunately this tendency was able neitlier to win 
 general approval nor to maintain itself long in the Church. 
 Not only did it oppose itself in vain to the taste of the time, 
 which scornfully taunted it with the insipidness and triviality 
 of its exegetical results, it also in many cases came into conflict 
 with traditional dogmatic notions. In the West it found no 
 acceptance except with here and there one, and perhaps among 
 the decried Pelagians, and even in the East it was soon looked 
 upon with suspicion by the stricter theologians, along with the 
 orthodoxy of its advocates. Its inability to win its way, even 
 when advocated by gifted minds, foreboded the decline of 
 science. After flourishing for a short century this school had 
 no more pupils, and a century later still a pi^niy generation 
 pronounced the anathema upon those which were already almost 
 forgotten. 
 
 The Antiochians gave special offense by preferring the Hebrew text to 
 the LXX., regardhig Canticles as an erotic poem, saying little of the 
 ■KvevfiaTM^ Siriyi)(Tts, even practicing only a humilis et demissa interpretatio 
 («'. e., historico-literal), and by diminishing the number of proper Messianic 
 projjhecies, especially in the Psalms (Ernesti, 0pp. theoL, ed. 2, p. 445). 
 Doubtless also because they paid no homage to the imitators of Origen, that 
 is to say, to the great mass of exegetes ; Leont. Byz., De sectis (see § 320): 
 Hie scelestus (^Tkeodorus) in omni prava interpretatione SS. lahores sanctorum 
 doctorum qui in vis laborarunt nunquam irridere et illudere desinebat. Whoever 
 disparages the exegetes easily seems to them a blasphemer of the word of 
 God. Experto credite. 
 
 Theodore, Theodoret, and some others, were condemned at the Council of 
 Constantinople in 533 (at the same time with Origen, their opponent) ; their 
 exegesis, however, was not the only cause. 
 35 
 
546 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 Of Pelagiiis, the celebrated British monk and opponent of Augnstine 
 (f 420), there is extant a commentary on the Panhne Epistles ( 0;j/3. //ieron., 
 ed. Mart. V. ; ed. Vail. XI.). The present text, though certainly still Pela- 
 gian here and there, probably went through purifying hands in ancient times. 
 Cassiod., De div. lectt., ch. viii. : Epistolam ad Rom. qua potui curiositale purgavi, 
 reliquas vobis emendandas reliqui. 
 
 His follower Julian, Bishop of Eclanum, in Apulia, also busied himself vnih 
 scriptural interpretation ; considerable fragments are preserved in Augus- 
 tine's incomplete work, Cont. Jul. Cf. Rosenmiiller, III. 557 fP. 
 
 522. Even before the Cluircli in this sentence bad condemned 
 her own science, the source had dried up whence it might have 
 been still further enriched. And here we enter upon a new 
 stage of tliis history. Through a series of troubled centuries, 
 during which the genius of Christianity was preparing its 
 blessings for mankind by a quieter way than that of literature, 
 there was no longer any thought of independent and original 
 production, either in the domain of theology in general, or in 
 that of exegesis in particular. Ruled by the desire, now 
 become a necessity, of being regarded as orthodox, and soon no 
 longer having any encouragement from the common people, 
 only a few still took the trouble, by drawing from the riches 
 of tlie Fathers, to make themselves familiar with the Bible, 
 and Scripture interpretation was engaged in rather as a kind 
 of mental practice than for scientific puiposes. 
 
 Here properly comes Jerome, with his only too faithfully followed example. 
 Whether it be learning or polymathy, reading or mental poverty, he makes 
 no secret of the fact that his exegetical writings are mostly others' work, to 
 which he himself has only given the form, at the most bestov/ing upon the 
 dogmatic coloring a greater degree of prudence. He was to the Latiu 
 Church as an exegete what Cicero, whom he likes to quote, was to the 
 Romans of his day as a philosopher, a porter and herald of Greek science. 
 Adv. Rufin., I. {ppp., II. 137) : Commentarii quid operis habent? Alterius 
 dicta edisserunt . . . multorum sententias replicant et dicunt ; hunc locum quidam 
 sic edisserunt alii sic interpretantur . . . ut prudens lector, quum diversas expla- 
 nationes legerit, judicet quid verius sit, etc. Procem. in Gal. : Legi hcec omnia 
 (Greek commentaries) et in ynente mea plurima coacervans accito notario vel mea 
 vel aliena dictavi, etc. Procem. in Eph. . . . ut studiosus lector agnoscat hoc 
 opus vel alienum esse vel nostrum. 
 
 Cassiodorus (§ 328), De institut. divin. litt., gives the list of the Fathers 
 to be used, which showed a strong tendency in the course of the centuries 
 not to mcrease, as with our modern writers of catenfe and compilers, but to 
 diminish. Cf. § 526. Notker Balbulus, Bishop of Luttich (f 912), De inter- 
 pretibus SS., or De viris ill. (in Pezius, Tkesaur., I., and Gallandi, Bibl., 
 XIIL), ch. iv. : In Matthceo Hieronymus tibi sufficiat, in Marco pedissequo 
 Matthcei Beda pedissequus Hieronymi. From the same spirit springs the 
 verse : Si Augustinus adest sujficit ipse tibi. 
 
 523. The latter would not have been a bad thing in itself if 
 readers and teachei^s had been guided by sensible rules. But 
 never did caprice and fancy trifle with the Scriptures more 
 wantonly. The people either no longer obtained anything at 
 all from them, or only the remains of a science altogether igno- 
 
THE MIDDLE AGES. 547 
 
 rant of its own aim or method. The historical foundation of 
 the doctrinal portions of the Bible was corrupted throughout 
 by apocryphal additions, and was regarded as edifying solely "' 
 on account of these ; the purely didactic portions were wholly 
 neglected and unknown to the congregations ; and as in gen- 
 eral only in and for the cloisters could anything like Christian 
 theology exist, so what was called, in distinction from these, 
 the world, could neither exert any influence upon these matters, 
 nor understand anything of them. It was not yet necessary to 
 forbid the reading of Bible at a time when barbarism still 
 needed severe mental discipline before it could outstrip the 
 clergy in Christian knowledge, and when Christianity was in 
 the way of becoming a monastic ordei", provided such had been 
 its destiny. 
 
 Cf. §§ 329, 459 ff. — The interesting specimens of meclifevcil pulpit elo- 
 quence which have been published in modern times belong to a later period 
 (twelfth and following centuries), and, moreover, are mostly of the mystic 
 tendency, which we are by no means to think of as the most prevalent. We 
 speak of a mystic tendency here, however, ui the sense of § 535. 
 
 524. Through this whole period, therefore, there is nothing 
 to be said of dilTerent schools in the history of exegesis. We 
 have to do only with different methods of repeating, in ever 
 new form, the results of earlier ages. The business was car- 
 ried on almost as if the understanding of the Scriptures were 
 a long lost miraculous gift. Naturally also, there is no prog- 
 ress to be recognized in the science, so that it would be of any 
 advantage to hold strictly to the chronological order. The 
 methods of procedure described in the following are in part 
 contemporaneous. Only in case the design were to write a 
 proper literary history would it be necessary to observe the 
 order, inasmuch as every expositor, often even a comparatively 
 insignifica)it one, might serve his successor as a source, and the 
 latest and nearest were sometimes the very first to be used. 
 
 There is something in its way touching in the fact that each commenta- 
 tor, venerated, used, copied from, and looked up to as an oracle by succeed- 
 ing generations, had as a rule begun, in complete mental poverty, by placing 
 himself in the same relation to his predecessors. So it was in reality the 
 oldest Latin Fathers whose exegetical works were extant, Augustine, Am- 
 brose, Jerome (through the last, but mostly unknown to them, Origen), be- 
 side Gregory and Isidore, whose ideas or conceits were continually being 
 brought out again, often under new names. For whoever should take the 
 trouble to prepare an exegetical concordance for that period would probably 
 find again in those writers the most of what, from the ninth century on, was 
 borrowed more directly and easily from Hrabanus, Alcuin, Bede, and others. 
 
 525. A convenient framework was offered by the principle, 
 which had gradually become fixed, of the fourfold sense of 
 Scripture. This principle, which had gained an authority 
 
548 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 which no one dared or desired to attack, and which could only 
 be limited by still greater extravagance, was at the same time 
 the tyrant of science and the last asylum of mental freedom. 
 At a time when he who loved peace and quiet did better to 
 study the Fathers than the Scriptures, and when it had to 
 be commanded by the temporal power that the clergy should 
 understand the Lord's Prayer, the natural impulse of the 
 human mind to action, in the realm of religious knowledge at 
 least, could still be satisfied by the practice of allegorical trif- 
 ling. Hence it everywhere came into the Church again where- 
 ever the fetters of intellectual restraint tended to become too 
 oppressive ; everywhere, also, it was immediately abandoned, 
 as the poorest kind of liberty, as soon as a better was to be 
 had. 
 
 Gregory the Great still holds to the Origenistic canon of a threefold 
 sense : Prcef. in Job. : Sciendum est quod qucedam historica expositione transcur- 
 rimus et per allegoriam qucedam typica investigatione perscrutamur, qucedam per 
 sola ynoralitatis instrumenta discutimus, nonnulla autem per cuncta simul sollicV' 
 tius exquirentes tripUciter indagamus. Primum fundamentum historice ponimus, 
 deinde per significationem typicam in arcem Jidei fabricam mentis erigimus, ad 
 extremum per moralitatis gratiam cedijicium colore vestimus. 
 
 But Eucherius (§ 517) already mentions the classification of a fourfold 
 sense, and this view gradually obtained general recognition. A distinction 
 was made in the so-called mystical sense between the reference to redemp- 
 tion as it had already appeared {sensus allegoricus in the narrower meaning) 
 and that to future matters and revelations (setisus anagogicus). By many 
 ingenious, fanciful, and absurd comparisons, figures, and arguments, exegetes 
 sought to prove the necessity and naturalness of the number four, and to ex- 
 plain their meaning. Well-known is the mnemonic verse : — 
 Litera gesta docet, quid credas allegoria, 
 Morcdis quid agas, quo tendas anagogia. 
 The methods described in the following run uito one another in many points, 
 and no strict classification of the different commentaries upon this basis is 
 possible. 
 
 526. The difficulty of procuring the ancient books, togetherj 
 with disinclination to the labor of reading them, led to the 
 practice of placing them in the hands of the priests and monks, 
 who had become poorer in intellect than in worldly goods, by 
 means of extracts. Abbots and bishops were able in this way 
 to win favor with their subordinates. Also, much which to 
 the earlier writers had been a necessary preliminary labor, or 
 to which they had first been obliged to give toilsome attention, 
 was now regarded as sufficiently vouched for by their names, 
 and could be presented in shorter and more categorical form. 
 Examples of this method of procedure occur even in the early 
 Greek Church. It was practiced throughout the Middle Ages 
 upon certain especially favored Fathers, particularly not in the 
 form of proper commentaries, abridged, but in that of exegeti- 
 cal anthologies adapted from the complete works of a great 
 church light. 
 
THE MIDDLE AGES — COMPILATIONS. 549 
 
 Cassiodorus, on the Psalms, also Complexiones in Epp. Ada et Apoc. (ed. 
 Maffei, Flor. 1721), principally from Augustine. From the same source, 
 though with the aid of some others, even of Pelagius, came the commentary 
 of Primasius, Bishop of Adrumetum (f c. 550), on the Paulme Epistles, Col. 
 1538 and freq. A collection of extracts from the writings of Augustine, 
 upon the Pauline Epistles, is to be found in tlie works of Bede (§ 527) ; in 
 the judgment of scholars, however, it does not belong to him, but to Florus 
 Magister, principal of the cathedral school at Lyons (9th cent.) : In aposto- 
 lum qucecunque in opp. S. Aug. exposita inveni cuncta per ordinem in unum 
 colligens transcribere curavi. I have, in MS., a similar work under the name 
 of Bede on Galatians — Hebrews (appellatur liber Jlorum ex merito sme pul- 
 critudinis). An epitome of Augustine' s work on the Psalms was written 
 (c. 450) by Prosper Aquitanus (Opp., P. 1711). 
 
 From the works of Gregory, scattered Explanationes in ohsc. loca utriusque 
 test, were collected by Paterius, Bishop of Brescia, in the seventh century, 
 and by the monk Alulf, of Tournay, in the eleventh, his Gregoriale s. expo- 
 sitio V. et N. T. Both in Opp. Greg., IV. Odo of Clugny (10th cent.) epit- 
 omized liis Moralia in Job. ; P. 1617. 
 
 Of John of Damascus (f 754. Opp., ed. Le Quien, P. 1712, 2 vols., fol.) 
 there are extant eK\oyal from Chrysostom on the Pauline Ejjistles. [F. J, 
 H. Grundlelmer, Joh. Damascenus, Utrecht, 1876 ; Jos. Langen, Joh. v. Da- 
 mascus, Gotha, 1879 ; J. H. Lupton, St. John of Damascus, Lond. 1882.] 
 
 527. But such works more usually proceeded by the method 
 of proper coui[)ilcitiou. That is to say, several writers were 
 drawn from at the same time, one being made the basis, and 
 the gaps being covered, as it were, by the aid of others, some- 
 times without bringing them into accord. This proceeding 
 arose from the same causes as that already described, and had 
 for its object to collect the scattered treasures of science into 
 one place. True, the study of the ancient literature was 
 thereby made dispensable, and so one more means of education 
 withdrawn from the already declining taste and energy of the 
 time. The value of such works is naturally determined by the 
 choice of sources from which they were drawn ; but this often 
 depended upon chance and opportunity, and can hardly be 
 taken as the measure of the merit of the author. 
 
 Examples, the better known among many : Andreas of Csesarea in Cappa- 
 docia, on the Apocalypse (c. 500), ed. Sylburg, 1596 and freq. ; afterward 
 epitomized, when it is not known, by a certain Aretas, and often printed 
 with CEcumenius (§ 531). On Aretas see Delitzsch, in the Zeitxchr.fiir luth. 
 TheoL, 1863, 1. [Rettig, Die Zeugnisse des Andreas mid Arethas, in the Studien 
 u. Kritiken, 1831, p. 734 if. ; Prof. Dickson, Art. Arethas, in Smith and Wace, 
 Diet, of Chr. Biography, I. The Greek text of Arethas is presented most 
 fully by Cramer, in his Catence GrcBC. Patrum in N. T., Oxf. 1840.] In 
 the sixth century, Procopius of Gaza, on a great part of the O. T., of which 
 only Kings and Chronicles have been printed, in Greek, ed. J. Meurs, Leyd. 
 1620 ; the preceding books in Latin, ed. C. Clauser, Tig. 1555. J. C. G. 
 Ernesti, De Procopii G. comm. ineditis, L. 1785. Olympiodorus of Alex- 
 andria, c. 650, on Ecclesiastes, Job, and Jeremiah, printed in Catence and 
 larger collections. 
 
 Isidore of Seville (f 636), Allegor. S. S. V. et N. T. ; Qucestiones de V. et 
 N. T., and several other works. Opp., ed. Areval., Rome, 1707 ff., 7 vols. 
 4°. [Reprinted in Migne, Patrolog. Lat., LXXXI.-LXXXIIl.] 
 
550 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 Beda Venerabilis (f 735), an Anglo-Saxon monk, on many books of the 
 O. T. and the entire N. T. : Scripturi maxime quce in PP. exemplis inveni- 
 mus hinc inde collecta ponere curabimus sed et nonnulla propria ubi opportunum 
 videbitur interponemus (Prol. in Marc). He introduced the custom seldom 
 observed by copyists of noting the source in the margin. 0pp., Col. 1688, 
 8 vols. fol. [Giles, London, 1843, 12 vols. 8° ; Patrol. Cursus, Par. 1850, 
 XC.-XCV. ; historical works, Stevenson, 1838.] H. Gehle, De Bedce Ven. 
 vita et scriptis, Leyd. 1838 ; A. Sahler, Essai sur Bede le Venerable, Str. 1830 ; 
 Weiss, in the Freib. Zeitschr., XVIII. 295. [K. Werner, Beda d. EhrwUr- 
 dige, Vienna, 1875.] 
 
 Claudius of Turin and Sedulius, a Scotchman, at the beginning of the 
 nuith century, on Paul and other books ; of the first only Galatians pre- 
 served (epistolam ex tractatibus bb. Aug. et Hieron. permixtis procuravi ordinare 
 sententiis). See Bibl. PP. max., VI., XIV. Atto of Vercelli (f 900), on 
 the same, mostly from Jerome. 0pp., Verc. 1768. So also Lanfranc, Arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury (f 1089), 0pp., D'Achery, P. 1646. 
 
 Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople (f 890), was also a learned, judicious, 
 and industrious compiler, who, though he left no exegetical works, investi- 
 gated many biblical questions in sejiarate essays {Qucestiones, the so-called 
 Amphilochia, see Hergenrcither, in the Tub. Quartalschr., 1858, II.), mostly 
 after ancient fathers, and rather in the scholastic than in the mystic style. 
 
 528. Particularly active in this direction was the century in 
 which Charlemagne sowed the seeds of a neAv intellectual life, 
 or rather roused a new literary activity, for which, however, 
 he could furnish neither the material nor the means. He cer- 
 tainly wished to benefit his age, and had a general idea of 
 what was lacking in it and himself ; he patronized and ele- 
 vated tliose who had a tinge of knowledge, and bade others 
 imitate them. But laws do not create an intellectual want, 
 and the ti'ee which he planted had no root. He liimself was 
 too much distracted by worldly cares, and his lifetime came 
 at the very beginning of the development of hierarchical domi- 
 nation and feudalism, which at first only paralyzed all the 
 forces and hopes of society, and were not to call out a reaction 
 till long after. Besides, he had no successor, who, like him- 
 self, stood in advance of his century. 
 
 Alcuin (t 804), the leader of the Carlovingian century, on Genesis, Psalms, 
 Canticles, John, and some of the Epistles {0pp., ed. Froben, Ratisb. 1777, 2 
 vols., fob). Magis Patrum sensibus uteris et verbis, quam mece quidpiam prcesum- 
 tioni committens, cautissimo stylo providens ne quid contrarium SS. Patrum sensi- 
 bus ponerem {Prolog, ad Gislam). Cf. Lorentz, Leben Alcuins, 1829 [trans- 
 lated into English by Slee] ; Niemeyer, in the Halle Encykl., I. 2 ; C. L. Tuef- 
 ferd, Essai sur Ale, Str. 18.30. [Momiier, Alcuin et Charlemagne, 2d ed. P. 
 1863 ; K.Werner, Alcuin und sein Jahrhundert, Paderb. 1876 ; A. Ebert, ^W^'. 
 Geschichte der Literatur des Mittelalters im Abendlande, L. 1880, II., p. 12 ff.] 
 
 Paulus Warnefried, a deacon at Aquileia ; an explanation of the ordinary 
 pericopes (a Postilla in the ancient sense, i. e., post ilia textus verba legendum), 
 a compilation ordered by the emperor himself. A similar Postilla by Sma- 
 ragdus of Verdun (f 820), Arg. 1536. 
 
 Haymo of Halberstadt (f 853), on the Psalms, Isaiah, the Minor Proph- 
 ets, Canticles, and Apocalypse, Col. 1529 ft., separately. 
 
 Hrabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mayence (f 856), is said to have been 
 
THE MIDDLE AGES — GLOSSES. 551 
 
 the first to comment upon the whole Bible (on Walafrid see the following 
 section); but in his 0pp., ed. Colvener, Col. 1627, 6 vols., fol. [reprinted in 
 Migne, vols. C VII.-CXII.], the O. T. is not printed entire, and of the N. T. 
 only Matthew and Paul ; in part from Greek sources, but from miore numer- 
 ous Latin ones, quorum lectioni intentus in schedulis ea mandare curavi quce ab 
 iis exposita sunt vel ipsis eorum syllahis vel certe meis breviandi causa sermoni- 
 bus (Prol. ad Matth.). Also Allegorice in univ. SS., an alphabetical index of 
 significant figurative expressions. [Kunstmann, Hrabanus Maurus, Mayence, 
 1841 ; Spingler, Rabanus Maur., Ratisb. 185G.] 
 
 Two works on Matthew, noteworthy for that time, by the monks of Cor- 
 vey, Paschasius Radbert (f 8G5) and especially Christianus Druthmar (c. 
 870), the latter philologically learned himself, but revealing by his scholia 
 the ignorance of his readers even more than his own learning ; ed. Wimphe- 
 ling, Arg. 1514. By the former {0pp., ed. Sirmond, P. 1618) also upon the 
 Lamentations and Psalm xlv. 
 
 Engelmann (Angelomus) of Luxeuil, c. 855, on Genesis, Samuel and 
 Kings, and Canticles, Col. 1530 ff., separately. Remigius of Auxerre, c. 
 880, on the Psalms, Minor Prophets, and Paul, the latter formerly ascribed 
 to others, even to Haymo ; Col. 1539, and in various larger collections. 
 
 See in general J. C. Rittelmayer, De Vinterpretation de VEcriture S. pen- 
 dant le 9e siede, Str. 1832 ; Bahr, Geschichte der romischen Literatur im karo- 
 lingischen Zeitalter, Carlsr. 1840. 
 
 529. Inasmuch as these endeavors had not proceeded from 
 an actual need, they quickly tired and gave place to an indo- 
 lence yet more stolid. The interpretations were soon still 
 more abridged and either placed in the margin of the text, or 
 at the end of the smaller divisions, in the form of scholia, from 
 which their lack of coherence and comprehensiveness is mani- 
 fest. Literal, moral, and mystical interpretations are placed 
 side by side, under the proper rubrics. It is in this way that 
 the tendency of science to abridge and to be content with sec- 
 ond hand knowledge is most clearly evident. From the mar- 
 gin the glosses strayed between the lines, in wild confusion 
 and full of contradictions. For even this miserable harvest of 
 exegetical learning was raked together on foreign fields. 
 
 Glossce extrinsecce, marginales ; intrinsicce, interlineares. Post'dlce in the 
 later sense. If we consider the thing, without regard to the name, the 
 method of glossing in distinction from that of commenting was much more 
 prevalent. Cf. my article Glossen, in Herzog's Encykl. 
 
 The two most famous works to be mentioned here are those known under 
 the names Glossa ordinaria and Glossa interlinearis in particular ; the former 
 by Walafrid the Squint- Eyed (Strabus, Strabo), Abbot of Reichenau (f 849), 
 (and others ?), gathered from Augustine, AmlDrose, Jerome, Gregory, Isi- 
 dore, Bede, Alcuin, and Hrabanus, with anonymous glosses, doubtless by the 
 compiler himself, without exclusive tendency, the chief source for the fol- 
 lowing centuries, called by Peter Lombard simply Auctoritas (Ed. Reuss, 
 Art. Strabo, in Herzog's Encykl.); the other by Anselm of Laon (f 1117), 
 very brief and defective, and altogether unscientific. The two were after- 
 ward written together (§ 466), finally also printed together, with the text, 
 s. a. et I. (e. 1480 ?), 4 vols., fob, and often afterward with Lyra (§ 541). 
 There are several other exegetical works by this Anselm printed in the 
 works of Anselm of Canterbury. 
 
552 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 Other glosses by Peter Lombard, Bishop of Paris (f 1164) [F. Protois, 
 Pierre Lombard, Par. 1881], on the Psahus, ou the basis of Anselni, and Col- 
 lectanea on Paul, P. 1535, 1541, separately ; but especially Hugo a S. Caro 
 (§§ 329, 386), Postillce in universa biblia sec. quadruplicem sensurn, Ven. 1487, 
 6 vols., fol., and freq. His concordance, which was often revised and re- 
 printed long afterward, may also be mentioned here, as a work in aid of 
 exegesis. See on it C. Meier, in the Halle Encykl., II. 11. 
 
 630. We should not fail to note the fact that many of these 
 glosses, especially in later times, were of a purel}^ linguistic 
 character. In the West the knowledge of the Latin language, 
 which had been the exclusive language of religious science, 
 was lost more and more, and when one observes how trivial 
 the marginal notes begin to be from a grammatical point of 
 view, it may be inferred from this, in connection with the ab- 
 sence of any other than the Latin text, that any proper use of 
 the Bible, even among the clergy, can only have existed to an 
 exceedingly small extent. The Greeks also wrote philological 
 scholia in their copies, mostly extracts from older commen- 
 taries ; we are accustomed to rank them higher than the others 
 because they ai'e not so useless to us. They also formed sepa- 
 rate collections of them, in alphabetical order, and studied the 
 secular writers for the same purpose ; these then became the 
 not altogether valueless beginnings of Greek lexicography. 
 
 For Greek Scholia on the N. T. see the editions of Gregory (§ 407) and 
 Matthfei (§ 413). 
 
 Collections of notes (y\oocrff7jfxaTa), mostly grammatical and historical, on 
 particular difficult expressions (yAwaaat) or proper names in the Bible and 
 in profane writers, from the twelfth to the sixteenth century, by lexicog- 
 raphers, Hesychius of Alexandria, Suidas, Phavorinus, J. Zonaras, and 
 grammarians, Thomas Magister, George of Trapezns, Manuel Chrj'soloras, 
 and many others. From these the Glossre sacrce edited separately: Glossa- 
 rium gr. in N. T., ed. Alberti, Leyd. 1735 ; Hesycliii glossce ss., ed. Valcke- 
 uaer (0pp., I. 173 if.); ed. J. C. G. Ernesti, L. 1785 ; Suidce et Phavorini 
 gl. ss., ed. Ernesti, L. 1786 ; J. F. Schleusner, Auctarium obss. in Snidam et 
 Hesychium, 1809 ff., Pts. I.-IV. ; Zonarce gl. ss. specimen, ed. F. W. Sturz, 
 1818 f., I., II. ; a glossary on Paul, ed. Matthfei, Moscow, 1774. 
 
 Cf. Fabrichis, Bibl. gr., IV. 540 ; J. A. Ernesti, De vero usu et indole glos- 
 sarioriim gr., L. 1742 ; J. C. Harenberg, in Bibl. brem. nov., V. 280, VI. 278 ; 
 J. C. G. Ernesti, De glossis ss. Hesycliii, 1782 ; idem, De Suidce usu ad crisin 
 et interpr. II. ss., 1785 ; Rosenmiiller, Hist, interpr., IV. 356. [S. Berger, De 
 glossaries et compendiis exegeticis quibusdam medii cevi, Par. 1879.] 
 
 631. In the Greek monasteries the custom more and more 
 pi-evailed, which indeed had not been unexampled even earlier, 
 of placing the notes of various expositors on a particular pas- 
 sage side by side, unaltered and in summary form, so that 
 they formed, as it were, a continuous chain of connected links 
 of interpretation. Such works make scarcely any cLiim to 
 merit of their own, and are to be judged solely according to 
 the extent of their sources, among which may be some lost 
 
THE MIDDLE AGES — CATENAE. 663 
 
 to US, or according to their particular point of view, if tliey 
 have one. This kind of writing certainly betokens a low ebb 
 of science ; yet several who occupied themselves in it deserve 
 honor for their wise choice. This last endeavor, however, was 
 too weak to win for the study of the Bible a place in theology 
 which it had not been able to maintain in a stronger century. 
 
 Catence Patrum, aelpai twi/ narepaiu, (TvAAoyal, ffvvayaiyal i^rjyfiffeaiv, iiriTOfial 
 ep)x7)vnwv. Cf. Th. Ittig, De catenis et bibliothecis Patrum, L. 1707; Fabricius, 
 Bibl. gr., VII. ; Bucldeus, Isag., p. 1422 ; Le Moyne, Varia sacra, prole- 
 gomena, p. 53 ; J. F. S. Augustin (prjes. J. A. Nosselt), De catenis PP. grce- 
 corum in N. T., Hal. 1762 ; RosenmuUer, Hist, interpr., IV. 263 flf.; Fritzsclie, 
 Art. Exeg. Sammlungen, in Herzog's Encykl. 
 
 Relative extent and value of them. The authors mostly unknown, the 
 text in a doubtful state ; many still unprinted. Summary in Walcli, Bibl. 
 theoL, IV. 388, and Bibl. patr., ed. Dauz, p. 247; Grasse, Literaturgesch., III. 
 253. The name (of later origin) has been applied by some to similar works 
 from Procopius and Primasius down. 
 
 Passing over mere translations, we mention (Nicephori) Setpa, etc., com- 
 piled from fifty-one writers, on the Octateuch and the books of the Kings, 
 L. 1772 ff., 2 vols. fol. ; Nicetfe Cat. PP. gr. in Jobum, ed. P. Junuis, Lond. 
 1637, fol. ; Expositio PP. gr. in Psalmos, ed. Cordier, Antw. 1643, 3 vols. fol. 
 On the N. T. there are printed : two on Matthew, ed. P. Poussin, Toul. 
 1646, 2 vols. fol. ; one on Mark, by the same, Rome, 1673, fol. ; Victoris 
 Antioch. et aliorum Cat. in Marcum, ed. Matthsei, Moscow, 1775, 2 vols. 8°; 
 Catense on Luke and John, ed. B. Cordier, Antw. 1628, 1630, fol., the first 
 only in Latin. A series of Greek Catente on the whole N. T., ed. J. A. 
 Cramer, Oxf. 1838 ff., 8 vols. 8°. 
 
 Among these Catense are also reckoned, but improperly, the collections 
 founded chiefly on Chrysostom and prepared in his spirit by (Ecumenius of 
 Tricca in Thessaly (10th cent. ? Von Colin, in tlie Encyld., III. 2) on the 
 Acts and Epistles (ed. Morel, P. 1631, 2 vols, fol.), by Theophylact, Bishop 
 in Bulgaria, on the greater part of the N. T. (^Gospels, P. 1631 ; Paul, Lond. 
 1636 ; 0pp., Yen. 1754, 4 vols, fol.), and by the Constantinopolitan monk 
 Euthymins Zigabenus on the Gospels (ed. Mattthaii, L. 1792, 4 vols. 8°), the 
 last two in the twelfth century ; by Euthymins also on the Psalms. Fabri- 
 cius, Bibl. gr., VII. 460. — Euthymins, (Ecumenius, and Arethas (§ 527) are 
 printed together in the edition of the text of Theoklitos Pharmakides, re- 
 ferred to in § 413. 
 
 532. The methods in which we have seen that the would- 
 be learned study of the Bible was carried on thus sufficiently 
 confirm the well-known fact that in the Middle Ages all theo-i 
 logical knowledge had become a matter of tradition, and no\ 
 free intellectual activity or independent progress was longer \ 
 to be thought of. This state of things was due as much to the 
 course which mental training had taken, and to the way in 
 which on the one side worldliness and brutality and on the 
 other mysticism and asceticism divided between them the con- 
 trol of the clergy, as to the pressure from above to wliich alone 
 it is usually charged. Discussion of dogma had become alto- 
 gether unnecessary, hence also discussion from the Scriptures ; 
 and study of them directly for the people because the Ian- 
 
554 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 guage closed them to the jaeople. There remained, therefore, 
 nothing whatever save mental gymnastics in the monkish taste 
 of the time. 
 
 It has already been related under the History of the Canon, § 330, how it 
 was not until the heretical reaction of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries 
 that a proper dogiuatico-scientific use of the Scriptures began to come in 
 again, and even then, in the ruling Church, only so far as it was externally 
 necessary for controversial purposes. Exegetical works in this sense we 
 have none to bring forward, l)ut the Acts of the Inquisition and various his- 
 torical and controversial writings of the age of the Cathari, and continuing 
 from that time, show that practical life to a certain extent revived even this 
 side of the use of the Bible earlier than did science. 
 
 533. The rise of scholasticism, which brought a more vigor- 
 ous life into literature in general, also brought about, exter- 
 nally considered, a greater fruitfulness in the field of Scripture 
 interpretation. Yet upon closer examination it is much less 
 than one might have expected of a theology so highly wa-ought. 
 The starting point of this science was something wholly differ- 
 ent from the study of the Bible. For anything belonging to 
 history or which must be historically apprehended, the men of 
 the schools had no susceptibility. They were far too thor- 
 oughly the slaves of formalism and logic to find in tiie rich 
 material of the sacred books much more than an opportunity 
 for the extension of their systems, or the garnishing of their 
 dead and empty categories. As the Church had put Moses 
 and Christ on a level, so it was their attempt to reconcile both 
 with Aristotle by putting upon each the dress of the other. 
 The doctrine they obtained from the Church ; but their philos- 
 ophy they managed so well that they can now maintain it 
 as a free possession of their own. 
 
 The most eminent exegetes among the scholastics, properly so-called, or 
 at least those most influential in their time, are : Rujjrecht of Deutz (f 1135), 
 on the Minor Prophets, Canticles, John, Apocalypse, and other works, espe- 
 cially De trinitate et operihus ejus, an exegetico-dialectic work on the greater 
 part of the Bible {0pp., Mog. 1631, 3 vols, fol.) ; Peter Abelard (f 1142), on 
 the Epistle to the Romans {0pp., P. 161G) ; John of Salisbury (f 1182), 
 on Paul, Amst. 1646 ; Tliomas Aquinas (f 1274), on Job, Psalms, Prophets, 
 especially the afterward so-called Catena aurea in Evv., and an exposition of 
 the Pauline Epistles (0pp., P. 1636 ff., 23 vols, fol.) ; Albert the Great, 
 Bishop of Regensburg (f 1280), on the Prophets, Gospels, Apocalypse, and 
 the so-called Mariale, i. e. on the pericope of the Annunciation of Mary, in 
 230 scliolastic Qu(estiones. (0pp., ed. Jammy, Lyons, 1651, 21 vols, fol.) 
 [See Hortel, Thorn, von Aquino u. seine Zeit, Augsb. 1846 ; Hampden, Life of 
 Thomas Aquinas, Lond. 1848 ; Cicognani, Sulla vita di S. Tomasso, 1874, E. 
 tr., Life of Thomas Aquinas, Loud. 1882 ; W. T. Townsend, The Great 
 Schoolmen of the Middle Ages, Lond. 1882.] 
 
 Among the scholastic treatises on the Bible should also be reckoned the 
 Historia scholastica of Peter Comestor (le Maugeur), priest at Troyes, after- 
 ward chancellor at Paris (f 1179), properly a Historical Bible with most 
 wretched profane history interwoven, for the schools, and with appendices 
 consisting of more or less extensive ]jhilosopliico-exegetical excui'suses and 
 glosses. Frequently printed from 1473 on. Cf . § 466. 
 
THE MIDDLE AGES — SCHOLASTICISM. 555 
 
 634. In general, the peculiar character which science took 
 on under the hands of these renowned schools is to be recog- 
 nized in their exegetical works but rarely and with limitations. 
 True, some attempted to apply their well-known dialectic 
 method to exposition, but inasmuch as exegesis, even by these 
 theologians, was only exceptionally taken up in the service of 
 dogmatics, they had no interest in working out in an accurate 
 and thorough way the relation between Scripture and philoso- 
 phy. Generally speaking, indeed, where scholasticism was able 
 to give itself up freely to its scientific bent, although proceed- 
 ing from a positive basis, it did not attempt to fix even this, and 
 its occupation with the Bible was mostly only an incidental 
 matter inviting to trifling, in which the sacred text furnished 
 not so much the subject as the opportunity for disputation. 
 
 The manifold sense of Scripture was a datum ; scholasticism had not to 
 prove this principle, but to vindicate it logically and then to follow it, as its 
 predecessors had done : Alexander Ales., Summa, Pt. I. qu. 1, membr. 4, art. 
 2 ff . : Hie modus est in S. S. ut sit unicus sensus literce multiplex vero in mys- 
 terio . . . Quatuor sunt sensus S. S. . , . cum Veritas prima trina sit et una, 
 modus scientice veritatis prima est trinus in uno ; unus literalis triplex spiritualis, 
 anagogicus ad Patrem, allegoricus ad Filium, tropologicus ad Sp. S. — Thorn. 
 Aquin., Summa, Pt. I. qu. 1, art. 10 : Auctor S. S. est Deus in cujus potestate 
 est ut non solum voces ad significandum accommodet, sed etiam res ipsas, et ideo, 
 cum in omnibus scientiis voces significant res, hoc habet proprium ista scientia, 
 quod ipsce res signatce per vocem etiam significant aliquid. Ilia ergo prima 
 signijicatio, qua voces significant res, pertinet ad primum sensum qui est . . . 
 literalis ; ilia vero qua res significatce per voces iterum res alias significant dici- 
 tur sensus spiritualis, etc. 
 
 The scholastico-dogmatic discussions (collationes) , which may be regarded 
 as the peculiar characteristic of the school, usually appear as external appen- 
 dices to the customary extracts, which often do not go beyond glosses. Lack 
 of system (e. g., in the determination of the dogmatic character of the sep- 
 arate portions, epistles, sections) and classification prevails to a greater or 
 less extent in the expositions. The meaning of Scripture, from bold dia- 
 lectic hairsplitting, became inexhaustible (according to Bonaventura, beside 
 the senses already named, the symbolic, hyperbolic, and synedochical) ; but 
 notwithstanding all the ecstasy over its depth (see Bonaventura, Princip. 
 S. S. : Est ejus inattingibilis altitudo propter auctoritatem inviolabilem, inex- 
 haustibilis plenitudo propter profunditatem imperscrutabilem, infallibilis certitudo 
 propter processum irrefellihilem, impretiabilis valetudo propter fructum incestima- 
 hilem, incontaminabilis pulcritudo propter puritatem impermixtibilem, etc.,) extra- 
 ordinarily little that was new or of genuine worth was brought to light from 
 the mine. 
 
 See in general A. Tholuek, De Thoma Aq. et Abalardo S. S. interpretibus, 
 Hal. 1842 ; E. C. W. Elster, De medii mvi theologia exegetica, Gott. 1855 ; 
 Jul. Soury, Des etudes hebra'iques et exegttiques an moyen age, P. 1867. 
 
 535. The two otherwise opposed parties of the age, the scho- 
 lastics and the mystics, met upon this field. With both the 
 proper theological use of the Scriptures had to a greater or less 
 extent disappeared ; they had i-eceived their exegetical princi- 
 ples by like inheritance, and not merely had their exegesis come 
 
556 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 to them from dogmatics, as elsewhere in Christendom, but 
 both alike from tradition. In all this, therefore, there was 
 no cause for the ap^^earance of the opposition existing between 
 them on other points. The one party could exercise its wits 
 in interpretations precisely like those to which the other was 
 perhaps drawn rather by its cast of mind, and the subtle, cap- 
 tious method of the former was also the most natural form of 
 thought to the latter when they were willing to allow the in- 
 tellect to speak. 
 
 The number of exegetical writings having a definitively practical purpose 
 (mostly tropological, now called moral) increases especially from the twelfth 
 century on ; but there are but few famous names to be mentioned, and these 
 known mostly for very different causes than their exegetical labors. E. g., 
 Guibert of Nogent, tropologies on some of the Prophets and Genesis ; Bern- 
 hard of Clairvaux (1140), especially for his eighty-six Sermones on the Song 
 of Solomon ; Hugo of St. Victor (f 1141), on the greater part of the Bible 
 [Best edition of his works, Rouen, 1648, 3 vols. See Liebner, Hugo von St. 
 Victor, 1832.] ; Richard of St. Victor (f 1173), on the Psalms, Canticles, and 
 the temples of Moses, Solomon, and Ezekiel [Best edition of his works, 
 Rouen, 1G50. See J. G. v. Engelhardt, Richard von St. Victor, Erl. 1838.] ; 
 Honorius of Autun, on all the poetical books of the O. T. ; Radulf of Fla- 
 vigny (c. 1130), on Leviticus ; Herve of Mans, on Isaiah and Paul, the latter 
 formerly ascribed to Anselm of Canterbury, Col. 1533 ; Zacharias of Gold- 
 borough (Chrysopolitanus), on the harmony of the Gospels, all in the twelfth 
 century; also Cardinal Bonaventura (f 1274), on the Psalms, Ezekiel, Canti- 
 cles, Luke, John, Apocalypse (0pp., Rome, 1588, 8 vols. foL, Suppl., Trid. 
 1772, 3 vols. foL), etc. [A. Holleuberg, Studien zu Bonaventura, Berl. 
 1862.] 
 
 Of the great mass of exegetes of the fourteenth century, most of whose 
 works have wholly disappeared, we mention also Vitalis a Furno (du Four), 
 Speculum morale totius S. S., Lyons, 1513 ; Peter Berchorius (le Bercheur), 
 Prior at St. Eloi, near Paris (f 1362), Reductorium morale super tota hihlia, 
 and Dictionarium morale bibl., 0pp., Col. 1684, 3 vols. fol. ; Robt. Holcott, 
 Moralitates historiarum, Ven. 1505, and the Commentaries on the Psalms, fre- 
 quently printed in the early days of the art, by Peter of Herental, Michael 
 Angrianus, Joh. de Turrecremata, and Jac. Perez de Valentia ; some of 
 these of the fifteenth century. 
 
 536. Yet the general tendency of the mystic school was not 
 wholly without influence upon the interpretation of Scriptm'e. 
 This influence manifested itself in the choice of subjects, in 
 the preference for certain lines of thought, in the frequency of 
 particular figures. Among the mystics the so-called moral 
 element in the meaning of Scripture was most prominent ; by 
 which is meant, however, not a pithy, vigorous, and practical'7 
 application for the purpose of renewing the heart and quick-' 
 ening the conscience, but a trifling and lifeless, often even 
 thoughtless, contemplation of the states of the soul before and 
 after regeneration. Every text was in reality equally avail- 
 able for this purpose ; but the Old Testament especially in- 
 vited to it, particularly in portions where purely historical ma- 
 terial offered free play to the imagination. No book has been 
 
THE MIDDLE AGES— MYSTICISM. 557 
 
 treated in this way so many times as the Song of Solomon, be 
 cause in a purely external asceticism,' intellectual revehy amid 
 voluptuous imagery is gladly indulged in as a substitute for 
 the forbidden bodily pleasures. 
 
 Cf. Cramer, Continuation of Bossuet's WelUjeschichte, VI. 101 ff. ; Ed. 
 Cunitz, Hist, critique de V interpretation du cantique des cantiques, Str. 1834 ; 
 F. Uhlemann, De oaria Cantici interpr. ratione, B. 1839. 
 
 Aside from the Canticles, whose interpreters are innumerable, the Psalms 
 in particidar were treated for purposes of edification, not only with more 
 reason, but also moi-e happily. 
 
 The prophetical exegesis of the Abbot Joachim, of Floris in Calabria 
 (f 1202), is peculiar. He expounded the apocalyptic prophecies as such, and 
 with the strictness of a reformer, against the corruption of the world and 
 the Church (Ven. 1519, and freq. ; see Halm, in the Studien, 1849, II. 401), 
 while the numerous other commentaries on the Revelation of John were all 
 of the mystic-contemplative sort. 
 
 537. And yet, if we consider the spirit of the time, it is pre- 
 cisely in this mystic treatment of Scripture that the Middle 
 Age expressed its last and most Christian thought. True, the 
 custodians of the word had lost the real character of the Bible, 
 as connected history, law, and gospel, and the veil of Moses lay 
 heavy and thick over their eyes ; but they still lived in glad 
 faith in the richness of an inexhaustible revelation, and read 
 continually from out the motley manifohhiess of its figures the 
 earnest exhortation to separateness from the world. The body 
 in sackcloth, the heart with the saints, and the gaze on the 
 cross, they found the way of recovery from the longest and 
 most anxious birth-throes which the hum;m race, so far as its 
 history is known, has ever undergone. And if the light of the 
 Spirit onlv came to them through the painted windows of 
 their cloisters, half-quenched and distorted withal, it did not 
 dazzle an unprepared eye, but threw a gentle gleam upon the 
 dark walls of the cell, which concealed the nobler life of the 
 century and with it the hope of the future. 
 
 The exegetical literature of tlie Middle Age is worthy to have an anthol- 
 ogy gathered from it in a more friendly spirit than it has been done, for ex- 
 ample, by Rosenmiiller, or could be done by earlier writers. Only one must 
 not go to it with the question, what has it accomplished for a real historico- 
 didactic understanding of Scripture, if he would appreciate its true value. 
 History and dogmatics, in their relation to the Bible, ought to be subject to. 
 a sound hermeneutics ; edification does not depend upon hermeneutics, but 
 upon the Christian principles and ideas which the reader brings with him, 
 and may be all the more legitimate an element of the whole exj)osition inas- 
 much as more can avail themselves of it. 
 
 538. Such were the exegetical treasures which the monastic 
 labors of the Middle Age had gathered, rather for immediate 
 edification than for the purposes of a scientific understanding 
 and a theological use of the Scriptures. The time was draw- 
 ing near when new political and ecclesiastical arrangements 
 
558 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 were to change the social and intellectual life of Europe. On 
 one side and another the day began to dawn for science. But 
 she awoke grachially, as from a heavy sleep ; nowhere more so 
 than in the field we are now considering. If it were impor- 
 tant here to mention the more remote causes which combined 
 to produce this remarkable resurrection, we might refer to 
 many facts otherwise well-known in history ; but we content 
 ourselves with those which are more closely connected with 
 religious science. The active intercourse with the Orient, the 
 freer life of the universities beside the gloomy existence of the 
 cloisters, the ecclesiastical confusion, itself a fruit of awaken- 
 ing consciousness, the growing power of the state as opposed 
 to the Church, the fear that the people, now coming to their 
 majority, and infected with the spirit of freedom, might slip 
 away altogether from the guidance of the priesthood, all this 
 contributed to introduce a more active life into the schools. 
 
 In a much less degree we miglit take account (1) of the more frequent' 
 exegetical lectures at the universities and in the monasteries, which, how- 
 ever, did not pass beyond the ordinary mystic and scholastic horizon ; (2) 
 the founding of chairs for the Oriental languages, decreed at Vienne in 1311, 
 the design of which was simply a more effective missionary activity; (3) the 
 return of some from Aristotle to Plato, which did not take place until the 
 very close of this period, and had very little influence upon exegesis. § 543. 
 
 639. But long before these and other causes bad been able 
 to produce any noteworthy effect upon Christian study of the 
 Scriptures, the Jews, had set a good example altogether with- 
 out these incitements. They also had had their wintry mid- 
 dle age, — shorter, to be sure, but no less deadening intellect- 
 ually ; they also, and more directly than the Christians, felt 
 themselves drawn within the sphere of the intellectual move- 
 ment of that people which had for a long time been the only 
 one to preserve the flowers of civilization which it had threat- 
 ened to destroy. They obtained from this source, beside much 
 else, a delight in linguistic science, and hastened to apply it, 
 in manifold ways, to the books the letter and law of which had 
 always been alike sacred to them, while the Christians had 
 often forgotten both. First in Spain, afterward also in the 
 countries adjacent, in which the science of the Orient had 
 taken refuge, they applied themselves with an intelligent and 
 not unfruitful industry to their sacred writings, and wrote, 
 beside many allegorical and scholastic commentaries in which 
 they also made the spirit of the Bible tributary to their own 
 and that of the time, more than one linguistically and histori- 
 cally sound, which may even yet be read with profit. 
 
 Inasmuch as the literary history of the Jewish exegesis of the Middle 
 Age does not come within our field, and naention is only made of it here for 
 the honor due to it, and because even in the fourteenth century it was be- 
 
THE RENAISSANCE- JEWISH EXEGESIS. 559 
 
 ginning to exert a salutary influence on the Christian, we confine ourselves to 
 the names most justly renowned among the properly grammatico-historical 
 expositors. 
 
 R. Abraham Aben Ezra of Toledo (f 1167) [Erseh and Gruber's EncyU. ; 
 Gratz, Gesch. der Juden, VI. pp. 198 ff., 440 flE.] and R. Solomon Isaac 
 (Yarchi, Rashi) of Troyes (f 1170) [Jost, Gesch. des Judenthums ; Bloch, 
 Lehensgesch. d. Salomo Jizchaki, 1840], both on the whole O. T. The latter, 
 however, among the Jews themselves the favorite exegete to the present 
 day, is a devotee of a thoroughly Jewish scholasticism. R. David Kimchi 
 of Narbonne (f 1190) on the Prophets and Hagiographa ; [his work on 
 Zechariah translated by McCaul, Lond. 1837 ; see Art. Kimchi, in Encycl. 
 Brit., 9th ed. XIV.] Don Isaac Abravanel (Abarbenel) of Lisbon (f 1405) 
 [Ersch and Gruber, Encykl. ; Gr'atz, Gesch. der Juden, VIII. p. 334, IX. 
 p. 6.] on the Pentateuch, former and latter Prophets. Printed together in 
 the so-called Rabbinical Bibles, e. g., ed. Buxtorf, Basle, 1618, 3 vols., fol. ; 
 often sejiarately ; also in Latin. 
 
 There is also found among the Jews of this period halachistic (canonistic), 
 philosophic (especially cabalistic, zealously studied by the scholars of the 
 Renaissance), and allegorical exegesis (Midrash, Rabboth). See in general 
 § 503, and also Rosenmiiller, Hist, interpr., V. 210 ff. ; Augusti, Preface to 
 Haymanu's German translation of Raschi's Genesis ; Leusden, Phil. hebr. 
 mixtus, p. 110 ff. ; Surenhusius, Bi'jSAoy KaraWay^s, pp. 1-88 ; R. Simon, V. T., 
 III. chs. v.-vii. ; Bnddeus, Isag., p. 1433 ff. ; Schwarzauer, in Fiirst's Orient, 
 III., lY. passim; Ewald and Dukes, Beitrdge zur Gesch. der Auslegung des 
 A. T., Stuttg. 1844, 3 vols. Many essays in Fiirst's Orient, and in the Zeit- 
 schri/ien of Geiger, Frankel, Gratz, etc. 
 
 540. In the Christian Church the first thing to attract our 
 attention is the fact that, as the period of the Reformation ap- 
 proaches, the activity in the field of exegesis diminishes rather 
 than increases. As in the beginning it was the Church that 
 brought the Scriptures into existence, so it was the Reforma- 
 tion that brought into existence the true study of the Scrip- 
 tures, and not the reverse. The century preceding was obliged 
 to direct its forces upon a different plan, as it were in the 
 prelude to the mighty battle. On the eve of great revolu- 
 tions a mysterious impulse directs the eyes of the chosen 
 leaders of the movement, small and great, to the mightier 
 motives of the world and of men. Moreover, upon the thus- 
 far trodden highways of theology there were too many hin- 
 drances to improvement. Scholars had to contend not only^ 
 with the clergy, in so far as they were disposed to oppose free 
 progress, and with the power of indolence among the profes- 
 sion, but especially with the insufficiency of their own means. 
 
 This appeared most strikingly in the period between the invention of 
 printing and the Reformation, during which scarcely anything new or worthy 
 of mention was written upon the Bible, and the presses were set in motion 
 almost exclusively for ancient works. The latter fact alone shows suffi- 
 ciently the power of inherited ideas. It was only by the dissemination of 
 the classics that the art of printing directly helped on the revolution of 
 things. In the realm of the Church it did not place itself at the disposal of 
 the new ideas until they had already come to maturity. 
 
 541. In the West, of which alone we shall speak from this 
 
560 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 point, the forms and tendencies of exegetical works became 
 more varied. Bat the better attempts were still very rare and 
 looked upon with suspicion, and by the side of them, much 
 more numerous, apparently also more successful, were the 
 patchwork compilations of the old style, some of them giving 
 lamentable evidence of the neglect and poverty of the literary 
 culture of the time. While on the one hand there appears the 
 surprising progress of improving the Latin Bible from the Rab- 
 bins and of allowing to the literal sense the highest value, on 
 the other the ecclesiastical power asserts all the more decidedly 
 its right and intention to fix this sense by its own authority ; 
 endless scholastic and mystic talk expanding into monstrous 
 commentaries crushes science beneath the burden of its own 
 helplessness ; and the first beginnings of dogmatically and 
 morally reforming exegesis border in time upon works which 
 are only too bulky, not too trivial, to pass for the originals of 
 our modern pontes asinorum. 
 
 The first trace of the apijlication of science in new ways is found in the 
 famous work of Nicolas of Lyra, a Franciscan monk of Normandy (f 1340) : 
 Postillce perpetuce s. commentaria hrevia in universa hiblia. Li advance of his 
 predecessors in the O. T., through the influence of the Jews (Siegfried, 
 Maschi's Einfluss auf Nic. v. Lyra, in Merx' Archiv, I. 428) (on which ac- 
 count he has often been regarded as a convert ; see agamst this view M. PI. 
 Reinhard, Pentas diss., p. 147), he inclined more to the historical sense 
 (Prol. 1 : Hahet iste liber hoc speciale quod una litera continet plures sensus. 
 . . . Prol. 2 : Omnes tamen prcesupponunt sensum literalem tanquam funda- 
 mentum ; unde sicut cedijicium declinans a fundumento disponitur ad ruinam, 
 ita expositio mystica discrepans a sensu literali reputanda est indecens et ineptci), 
 and propounded the theory of a twofold literal sense, whereby proper tyjjol- 
 ogy, especially prophetic, was agam recognized. First edition, Rome, 1471, 
 6 vols., fol., and very freq. ; last, Antw. 1634, 6 vols. In some editions is 
 found the Glossa ordinaria, in most polemical Additiones by Paulus of Bur- 
 gos (Prol.: Sensus litsralis non debet did ille qui repugnat ecclesice autorilati 
 quaniumcunque sit conformis significationi literce) and Replicce defensivce by the 
 Franciscan Matthias Doring (15th cent.) ; see Masch, II. 3, p. 357 £f. ; R. Si- 
 mon, V. T., p. 414 ; Commentateurs, p. 477 ; Unsch. Nachr., 1720, pp. 229, 549. 
 
 The higher appreciation of the literal sense was still very repugnant to 
 the ecclesiastical authority, and could win its way only gradually. See 
 especially J. Charlier de Gerson, Chancellor of the University of Paris 
 (t 1429), Propositio7ies de sensu lit. S. S. (0pp., ed. Du Pin, Antw. 1706, Vol. 
 I. p. 1), Prop. 3 : Sensus literalis judicandus est prout ecclesia a Sp. S. inspi- 
 rata determinavit et non ad cuiuslibet arhitrium. [Lecuy, Essai sur la Vie de 
 Gerson, Par. 1835, 2 vols. ; C. Schmidt, Essai sur Gerson, Str. 1839 ; Schwab, 
 Joh. Gerson, Wiirzb. 1858 ; H. Jadart, Jean Gerson, recherches sur son origine, 
 son village natal, et safamille, Rheims, 1882.] 
 
 The latest exegetes of the old school before the dawn of the period of the 
 Renaissance proper, and likewise the most read, are Alphonsus Tostatus, 
 Bishop of Avila (f 1455), 0pp., Ven. 1728, 27 vols., fol., seven of them on 
 Matthew alone, and the Carthusian Dionysius of Rickel (Doctor ecstaticus, 
 f 1471), Opj)., Col. 1533, 12 vols., fol., also much of it in separate portions, 
 and in German translation of the same period. (§ 331). 
 
 The first examples of dogmatically and ethically reforming exegesis are 
 found in Wiclif (of whom, however, nothing properly exegetical is printed) 
 
THE RENAISSANCE — STUDY OF THE CLASSICS. 661 
 
 and in John Huss (Narrative of the Passion, Corinthians, Catholic Epistles) ; 
 see Hist, et monumenta J. Hussii, Nor. 1714 f., II. [See, on Wiclif, Robt. 
 Vaughan, Lond. 1828, 2 vols., 2d ed. 1831 ; new edition under title John de 
 Wyclife, a Monograph, 1853 ; C. W. Le Bas, 1833 : G. V. Lecliler, Johann 
 von Wiclif und die Vorgeschichte der Reformation, L. 1873, 2 vols. ; E. tr. 
 of Vol. I. with important additional notes, by Principal Lorimer, John Wic- 
 lif and his English Precursors, Lond. 1878, 2 vols., in 1 vol. 1881 ; this work 
 supersedes all others. See also R. S. Storrs, John Wycliffe and the first 
 English Bible, N. Y. 1880 ; Burrows, Wiclif 's Place in History, Lond. 1882. . 
 On Hus, biographies by Fricdrich, Regeusb. 1862 ; Krummel, Darnist. 1863 ; 
 Gt'iWet, Life and Times of John Huss, Boston, 1861, 2 vols., 3d ed. 1870 ; Wrat- 
 islaw, John Hus, Lond. 1882.] 
 
 On the lowest step scientifically stood the author and readers of the 
 famous Mammotrectus (corrupte dictus, quum vero nornine dicatur mammothrep- 
 tus, avice alumnus, Erasm., Colloq., p. 561 ; this name is from Augustine, on 
 Ps. XXX., where the printed text, p. 1, is unmeaning : Quia morem gcrit ped- 
 agogi qui gressus dirigit parvulorum mammotrectus (^a^^c^SpeTTTos?) poterit ap- 
 pellari) by the Minorite J. Marchesini of Reggio, c. 1450 (according to Griisse, 
 V. 202, c. 1300), a Vade mecum on the Bible and spiritual duties ad modum 
 Min-Ellii, designed for the ruditas pauperum clericorum, and chiefly of gram- 
 matico-lexical contents ; nuper cum in hunc codicem incidissem minimum ab- 
 fuit quin risu dissilirem (Erasm., /. c). Twenty editions from 1470 on. See 
 M. G. Christgau, De mammotrecto, Frankf. a V. 1740 ; Merzdorf , Biblioth. 
 Unterhalt, Old. 1850 ; Baumgarten, Hall. Bibl, VI. 293. 
 
 542. But here must be mentioned another circumstance, of 
 an altogether peculiar kind, which contributed, though not 
 directly, yet perhaps more, and more lastingly, than any other, 
 to the happy transformation of things. This is the knowledge"/ 
 of the Greek Lmguage and the study of the classics in general, / 
 which since the middle of the fifteenth century had been 
 spreading more and more in Western Europe, especially in 
 Italy and the countries of the Rhine. For it not onh' gave the- 
 ologians the opportunity to replace the only text of the New 
 Testament hitherto accessible by a more authentic one, an 
 advantage they learned to make use of but slowly, but what 
 is more, it educated their taste, gave to the philological and lit- 
 erary instinct natural to many fresh and free nourishment, and 
 aroused in them again a consciousness of the true conditions of 
 correct Scripture interpretation. Nor were the Greeks the 
 only ones to come ; their presence reminded of the other ancient 
 and likewise forgotten guests, the Romans, and the new art 
 and zeal of the printers, who were themselves not the least 
 important patrons of science, put them into every one's hands. 
 
 The first fruit in this field was the Annotationes in latinam N. T. in- 
 terpr. ex collatione gr. exemplarium of Laurentius Valla (f 1457, as Canon at 
 Rome), critical and exegetical notes on particular passages of the Vulgate, 
 without interest as respects theological contents, ed. Erasmus, P. 1505, fol. 
 Also under the title De collatione N. T., ed. J. Revius, Amst. 1630, and in 
 the Critici ss. Cf. J. Wildschut, De L. Vallce vita et scriptis, Leyd. 1831. 
 
 The writings of Picus de Mirandula on the creation and of Marsilius 
 Ficinus on the Epistle to the Romans belong not so much to the philologi- 
 eal as to the philosophical reactionary tendency of the century. 
 36 
 
562 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 543. How mighty an influence this new element exerted 
 upon the minds of the awakening learned world may be most 
 readily seen partly from the skeptical aversion with respect to 
 the medieval ecclesiastical science into which many allowed 
 themselves to be led by it, partly from the controversies be- 
 tween the Humanists and their opponents, which, like fever 
 symptoms, accompanied the great change in the mental atmos- 
 phere. The opponents of the movement saw, almost sooner 
 than its friends, whither it would lead. And there was really 
 great danger for the hitherto ruling power in the fact that 
 men were no longer disposed to ascertain what the Bible might 
 and ought to have said from the decisions of the Church and 
 by the aid of their own wit, but to find out, by means of sim- 
 ple rules of language, what it actually did say. There could 
 not fail to be an immediate reflex influence upon theology. 
 This change was already completed by the generation preced- 
 ing the Reformation. But the Reformation itself could not 
 proceed from those who saw the highest attainment of the new 
 spirit in the sjDhere of literary cidture, and who lacked both 
 the courage to attain greater results and the insight to see that 
 taste and science alone could not make the world better. 
 
 Jaques Le Fevre d'Etaples (§ 473), a new Latin version of the Pauline 
 Epistles, with commentary, P. 1513, fol. ; commentary on the GosjDels, P. 
 1522, fol. ; on the Catholic Epistles, Basle, 1527; all frequently. His ex- 
 egesis is still uncertain, embroiling him with the clergy and Erasmus alike. 
 [Graf, Essai sur la vie et les e'crits de Lef'evre d'Etaples, Str. 1842, and an 
 extended biography in the Zeitschr. fur hist. Theol., 1852, I. and II.] 
 
 ^lius Antonius Nebrissensis (of Lebrixa in Spain, f 1522), Quinquagena 
 s. L. locc. S. S. explanatio, in the Critici Sacri, VIII. 
 
 Tho. de Vio, Cardinal and Bishop of Gaeta (Cajetanus ; f 1534), on the 
 N. T., without the Apocalypse ; separately : Gospels, Epistles, etc., ad sen- 
 sum literalem accomodata, with free views (§ 331), and independent of the 
 Fathers. 0pp., Lugd. 1639 f. 
 
 Desid. Erasmus, of Rotterdam (f 1536), a new Latin version of the N. T., 
 in his editions (and often reprinted, § 400 ff.), together with notes (Anno- 
 tationes ; also in the Critici sacri and separately) and a defense in advance 
 contra morosos ac indoctos, the manifesto of science against the bondage of 
 custom. Independent of this, his Paraphrases {liherius quoddam perpetui com- 
 mentarii genus nom commutatis personis), first separately, frequently together, 
 e. g., Leyd. 1706, fol. ; last ed. by Augustin, B. 1778, 3 vols. 8°, with liter- 
 ary introduction by J. A. Nosselt. The paraphrastic form, in itself inept, 
 was nevertheless for that time, which had forgotten how to look for the con- 
 nection of thought in the Scriptures, an inestimable boon, hiantia committere, 
 abrupta mollire, confusa digerere, involuta evolvere, iwdosa expUcare, obscuris 
 lucem addere, hebraismum romana civitate donare, . . . et ita temperare irapd- 
 <ppa<riv ne fiat irapappSuriats h. e. sic aliter dicere ut non dicas alia (Ep. dedic. ad 
 Card. Grimanum, before the Pauline Epistles). See in general Burigny, 
 Vie d'Erasme, P. 1757, 2 vols. ; H. A. Erhard, in the Halle Encykl. ; Kerker, 
 in the Tub. Quartalschr., 1859, IV. ; G. L. Plitt, in the Zeitschr. fiir luth. 
 Theol., 1866, III. [See, on Erasmus, Seebohm, Oxford Reformers, Lond., 
 2d ed. 1869 ; Drummond, Erasmus, his Life and Character, Lond. 1873, 2 
 vols. ; Pennington, Life of Erasmus, Lond. 1875 ; A. Horawitz, Erasmiana, 
 Vienna, 1. 1878, II. 1880.] 
 
HUMANISTS— THE REFOEMATION. 563 
 
 For criticisms upon these works and controversy over them see R. Simon, 
 I. c, p. 521, and in general A. Miiller, Leben des Erasmus von Rotterdam, 
 Hamb. 1828, and especially Burigny, Vie d'Erasme, P. 1757; German, with 
 additions, by H. P. C. Henke, Halle, 1782, 2 Pts., II. 533 f. ; H. A. Erhard 
 in Ersch and Gruber's Encykl., I. 36. 
 
 Contemporaneous attacks upon the monks, their language, studies, and 
 doctrines ; Reuehlin, Hutten. Introduction of the study of the Hebrew lan- 
 guage. E. T. Llayerhoft', /. Reuehlin und seine Zeit, B. 1830 ; Schnurrer, 
 Biog. Nachr. von Lehrern d. hebr. Sprache zu Tubingen, 1792 ; L, Geiger, 
 Das Studiwn d. hebr. Sprache in Deutschland im IGten Jahrh., Br. 1870 ; 
 Schrockli, Kirchengesch., Vol. XXX. 
 
 544. These deeper needs found eloquent spokesmen in the 
 men to whom posterity has given the name ol; the Reformers. 
 Their design — it is important to recognize this even for tlie 
 purposes of our history — did not extend to a thorougli and 
 unprejudiced revision of Christian doctrine according to the 
 Scriptures. On this matter they acknowledged themselves to 
 be in accord with the Catholic Church in many important 
 points. Their attempt was rather to purify it from practical 
 corruptions and liturgical or disciplinary abuses. Their funda- 
 mental religious principle had already been expressed by Au- 
 gustine. It was not introduced into theology for the first time 
 as a new discovery, but it was to be exegetically established as 
 a Christian inheritance. In general, however, both in matters 
 of faith and of church constitution, the word was a return to 
 the Apostles. 
 
 The common idea, that the Reformation was undertaken in the interest 
 of free investigation (" libre examen "), is only true with great limitations, 
 and in the modern sense such a thing as criticism of the Bible on the basis 
 of reason, or in opposition to the contents of the church faith, was neither 
 theoretically recognized nor practically tolerated by the Reformers. When 
 they desire investigation it is always with the conviction that it will and 
 must — and that from the Scriptures and not in any otlier way — establish 
 precisely that which was already the substance of a perfected opposition to 
 the traditional, never with the secondary thought that it is only by continual 
 investigation in the future that the truth is to be found or brought nearer. 
 The History of the Canon has already sufficiently shown (§§ 332, 334) that 
 the material principle of theology, the objective contents of the Gospel, was 
 from the beginning the absolute standard of all doctrine, even of the Scrip- 
 tures themselves. (Cf. Diestel, I. c., p. 231 fE.) 
 
 545. Over Hgainst the decrees of the Church was set as a 
 standard the sole authority of the Bible, and in consequence 
 to the Bible itself was ascribed the highest right of decision in 
 all cases of disputed interpretation. This point of view com- 
 pelled theologians not only to maintain in its fidl strictness the 
 principle, never given up in theory, of the divine inspiration 
 of the Scriptures, but also to ascribe and vindicate to the word 
 of God in its written form a series of properties which had un- 
 til then been denied to it, in particular its independent clear- 
 ness and sufhcient completeness for all that man had need to 
 
564 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 know. Thus it came about that in the points of immediate 
 controversy the correct interpretation was very closely con- 
 nected wiih the dogmatic interests of the new churcli, and in 
 general that the Bible, by the very principle of the Reforma- 
 tion itself, was raised to the position of the direct object of 
 theological study. But this special dogmatic interest of itself 
 gave to the Scripture interpretation of the Reformers a certain 
 one-sidedness. It was essentially dogmatic, even wliere it may 
 be called practical, and from this time on we may speak again 
 of what during the Middle Ages did not exist at all, or at least 
 in but slight degree, — a proper theological use of the Scrip- 
 tures. 
 
 It is not to be forgotten in this connection that tlie doctrines which the 
 Reformation made most prominent — those of anthropology and soteriology 
 — naturally combined most intimately, as in Paul himself, the dogmatic and 
 ethical elements of the Gospel. And the fact that, so far as the purely meta- 
 physical dogmas were concerned, the Reformers stood by the formulas of 
 the great church councils of the fourth to the sixth centuries, shows most 
 clearly that the Reforniation had its basis and source not in philosophic at- 
 tempts but in religious needs and impulses. 
 
 Equally important in this history is the other circumstance, otherwise 
 wholly external, that from the first the exposition of the Scriptures was car- 
 ried on by the Reformed theologians prevailingly in the vernacular lan- 
 guages, not only in the pulpits more frequently, thoroughlj^, and impres- 
 sively, but also in books. 
 
 Here should be mentioned, from dogmatics, the article of the Affectiones 
 S.S. ; among which especially the inspiratio (even of the letter, Sp. S. auclor 
 principalis'), the perspicuitas (at least ^'naZt's, i. e., of everything necessary for 
 salvation), and the sujftcientia (auctoritas normativa et Judicialis) in opposi- 
 tion to tradition. For the appropriate passages of the symbols see § 332. 
 
 546. But even the appeal to the Scriptures in pronounced 
 opposition to the authority of ecclesiastical tradition, which 
 necessarily made the study of the Bible at once the first of all 
 sacred sciences, was only in principle wholh'^ correct, and in 
 reality did not win freedom of investigation. For the mass of 
 scholastic conceptions which were retained without question 
 in the traditional form was so overwhelmingly great and con- 
 cerned points so essential, especially in the doctrines of God 
 and Christ, that the system, richly blessed with inviolable arti- 
 cles of faith, became fixed while as yet the regenerated art of 
 exegesis had but just begun to try its wings. This art was 
 still in its infancy when a rule of faith laid down in the con- 
 fessions and afterward more and more sharply set forth took 
 it under its motherly care and discipline. This has continued 
 to be the case everywhere much longer than necessary. True 
 exegesis was made subject to the standard of the true faith. 
 
 If what has just been said sounds like criticism it is to be observed that 
 it necessarily follows from the point of view of the principles of exegesis, 
 which certainly is satisfied only in so far as purely Biblical Theology is sepa- 
 
THE REFORMATION. 565 
 
 rated from scholastic (see my Hist, de la Thc'ol. Ckre't., I. 1 fP.). The prin- 
 ciples of a subjective or scholastic dogmatic theology ought never to be the 
 histox'iau's standard of judgment respecting the progress of scriptui-al theol- 
 ogy. And in the present case such a proceeding would be as thankless as 
 it would be unfair. 
 
 Form. Cone, Art. 2, p. 655 f., Rbg. : Hominem . . . ita corruptum esse ut 
 in rebus spiritualibus, quce ad conversionem et salutem nostram speclant, natura 
 ccBcus sit, et verbum Dei pnedicatum neque intelUgat neque intelliyere possit . . . 
 donee virtute Sp. S. ... ex mera gratia, sine omni sua cooperatione converlatur, 
 etc. It follows logically from this (Melanchthon, Loci, p. 369), interpretatio 
 est donum piorum. 
 
 Conf. Helv., 1536, Art. 2 : S. S. interpretatio ex ipsa sola petenda est ut ipsa 
 interpres sit sui caritatis Jideique regula moderante. Conf. Helv., 156G, ch. 2 : 
 Illam duntaxat S. S. interpreiationem pro orthodoxa et genuina agnoscimus quce 
 ex ipsis est petita Scripturis (ea; ingenio ejus lingme in qua sunt scriptce secun- 
 dum circumstantias item expensce et pro ratione locorum similium plurium et 
 clariorum expositce) cum regula Jidei et caritatis congruit et ad gloriam dei hom- 
 inumque salutem eximie facit. Conf. Scot., Art. 18 : (^Scripturce) interpreta- 
 tionem neque ad privatam neque ad publicam aliquam personam pertinere con^ 
 Jitemur neque ad ecclesiam aliquam . . . sed jus et aucloritatem hanc esse 
 solius Sp. dei per quern S. S. Uteris sunt mandatce, etc. Declar. Thoriui., p. 
 415, Aug. 
 
 Matth. Flacius, of Jena (f 1575), the first among Protestants to form a 
 hermeneutic theory (^Clauis S. S., Basle, 1567, 2 vols, fol., and freq.). Tract. 
 I., reg. 3 : Sp. S. est auclor simul et explicator scripturoe. Reg. 9 : Cum con- 
 vertimur ad Christum turn tolUtur velamen de nostra corde et etiam de ipsa Scr. 
 nan solum quia illuminamur spirituali luce sed etiam quia scopum et argumentum 
 totius S. S. tenemus nempe ipsum Dominum Jesum cum sua passione et beneficiis. 
 Reg. 17: Omnis intellectus ac expositio S. S. sit analogia Jidei, with an attempt 
 at an enumeration of the fundamental articles of the faith prefixed. His 
 rules are nothing but a late abstract from the existing common practice. 
 The best proof of the relation stated between exegesis and dogmatics is af- 
 forded by the controversies over the Lord's Supper. Cf. Gust. Frank, De 
 Mcitth. Flacii in II. ss. meritis, L., s. a. [See, on Flacius, W. Preger, Matth. 
 Flacius lllyricus und seine Zeit, Erl. 1859^1861.] 
 
 547. What had been begun by the slowly extending clas- 
 sical culture was completed by the rapidly gvowing poleraic in- 
 terests, and the empty and trifling allegorical method went 
 out of use almost before its untenableness was clearly recog- 
 nized scientifically. And it is to be acknowledged with thank- 
 fulness and respect that much was accomplished in this period 
 for grammatical exposition with astonishingly scant}' aids. 
 But although the manifold sense of Scripture was protested 
 against, the historical did not in consequence always come into 
 honor, and particularly in the Old Testament, the explanation 
 of which was to be sought in the New, the allegorical inter- 
 pretation was often regarded as the only acceptable one. Thus 
 the grammatical interpretation, in name at least, was the con- 
 trolling exegetical principle, and boasted of its victory over 
 what was called the glittering jugglery of the sophists and 
 scholastic theologians ; but wherever it threatened dogmatics 
 with impoverishment it also was sacrificed. 
 
566 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 Luther's violent invective against the " foolery " [Affenspiel] of the 
 spiritual signification (0pp., Halle, XXII. 1981J) expresses religious repug- 
 nance to the monastic learning which had been beaten into his head ; 
 Melancthon's quiet discussions (De rhetorica II., III., Basle, 1519 ; Eleinenta 
 rhetorice.A, Vit. 1536), logical insight. But neither of them, any more thaa 
 their successors, had a clear idea of the allegorical interpretation, which they 
 at the same time combated and practiced. 
 
 The necessity of discovering Messianic references everywhere dominated 
 exegesis. Flacius, I. c, p. 7 : Finis legis est Christus ; ille solus est ilia mar- 
 garita aut thesaurus quern si in hoc agro domini invenhnus heiie sumus negotiati. 
 Luther, on Gen. xvi. : Grammatica non debet regere res sed servire rehus. 
 Cf. his preface to Canticles. In this book particularly, as well as in the 
 Psalms and the Revelation of John, the literal sense failed to receive due 
 attention, but most of all in the generally accepted special Messianic 
 prophecies. On the contrary, where the fundamental questions of dogmatics 
 were not prominent, especially with Luther himself, it was a sober and 
 unprejudiced exegetical judgment, and not at all prejudice against them, to 
 find in prophets and disciples " beside gold, silver, and precious stones, 
 wood, hay, and stubble ;" see Bretschneider, Luther an unsere Zeit, 1317; 
 J. F. Krause, Opusc, p. 199 IS.., in which, quite one-sidedly, of comse, Luther 
 is made the prototype of the modern " rational " exegetes. 
 
 Typology was properly recognized only in relation to the Mosaic insti- 
 tutions and Hebrew histoi-y, but even without these limits custom was often 
 stronger than rule. Cf . the whole section De multiplici sensu in Flacius, I. c, 
 p. 49 ff., where the case is foreseen in which sensus grammaticus pugnat cum 
 sana doctrina vel adversatur ionis moribus ; nay even in which verba gram- 
 matice sumpta nullam videntur adferre utilitatem vel sialiqua apparet longe tamen 
 proveniret uberior ibi interpretatio allegorica adjungerentur. 
 
 On page G3 he thus summarizes the whole theory : Its design is a gram- 
 matico-theological exposition, — obtaining by the former the understanding 
 of the words and their connection, by the latter that of the meaning or pur- 
 pose and the dogmatic use to be made of a passage ; and thus, with unmis- 
 takable side-glances, sets up a new quadruples intelligentia in place of the old. 
 
 548. It naturally follows from the foregoing that the method 
 of the Reformed exegesis must also be different from that before 
 followed. The discussion of the relation of particular passages 
 to the theological system as a whole came into the foreground, 
 and the individual taste of the expositor either rested content 
 with the grammatical demonstration of this relation, or made 
 use of the opportunity to treat all sorts of theological doctrines 
 in dogmatic and practical essays. With respect to the first it is 
 to be said with pride that the influence of humanistic pursuits 
 made itself felt continually, and formed an offset to the growing 
 scholastic tendency ; with respect to the second it is to be re- 
 marked that between pulpit and professorial chair or text-book 
 scarcely any distinction was to be perceived. Men had not yet 
 come to the conviction that church and school had so very 
 different needs. With respect to form, it is also characteristic 
 that the Reformers, being unfriendly to tradition from principle, 
 did not look for their exegetical basis in patristic quotations ; 
 and although they were under a strange delusion in im;igining, 
 as they did, that they had based their theology directly upon 
 
THE REFORMERS — LUTHERAN. 667 
 
 the preaching of the Apostles, ignoring the work of fourteen 
 centuries, even this dekision was not without value for inter- 
 pretation. 
 
 In no other period of this history does the dogmatic, controversial, and 
 homiletic literature belong so closely and accurately under the head of exe- 
 gesis as in this period of the Reformation. But we must here confine our- 
 selves, so far as the literature is concerned, to the proper commentators. 
 Among the Lutherans in the sixteenth century the best known were : — 
 
 Martin Luther (f 1546), Werke, ed. Walch (Halle, 1740 ff., 24 vols. 4°), 
 Vols. l.-IX. Vastly better, the still mcomplete edition of Irmischer and 
 others, Erl. 18'26 ff., Deutsche Werke, 68 vols. 8° ; Opera latina, Vols. L- 
 XXXIII. ; twenty-six of the latter, twenty of the former, exegetical in 
 contents. In form, however, they are not tlu'oughout proper commentaries, 
 in consequence of their very prominent dogmatico-practical aim. (Genesis, 
 Psalms, Galatians, etc.) See H. v. d. Hardt, Nervosus Lutheri in S. S. com- 
 meniarius, Helmst. 1708 ; J. F. Krause, 0pp., p. 242. The Latin version of 
 the Bible (properly only the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Kings, and N. T.), 
 printed at Wittenberg, 1529, fol., whose true author is still unknown, vras 
 formerly ascribed to him ; see Masch, II. 3, p. 325 ; Unsch. Nachr., 1736, 
 p. 746 ; 1737, p. 630; Fritzsche, in Herzog's Encyklop., XVII. 440. Mono- 
 graphs by L. C. Bloss, 1717 ; C. F. Krafft, 1742 ; J. H. Schuster, 1750 ; 
 J. G. Walter, 1752 ; J. C. Bertram, in the German edition of R. Simon, III. 
 575 ff. — In general it may be said that Luther was the restorer of Bible 
 study not in form, but in spirit. Cf. J. G. Pfeiffer, De revocato in acad. chr. 
 per L. studio hihl, J. 1740 ; A. M. Runge, De L. ss. II. interprete, Vit. 1770 ; 
 L. T. Gerold, Luther considcre' comme exc'gete, Str. 1866 ; Jul. Soury, Hist, 
 de la preparation excge'tique de Luther, P. 1871. [A few of the later biogra- 
 phies of Luther are : J. Kostlin, Martin Luther's Leben u. Schriften, Elberf. 
 1875, 2 vols., abridged, in one vol., Leipz. 1882 ; Tulloch, in his Leaders of 
 the Reformation ; Plitt and Petersen, L. 1883. His Commentary on the First 
 Tioenty-tioo Psalms translated into English, Lond. 1826, 2 vols. ; On Galatians, 
 Lond.'l838 ; The Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude, N. Y. 1859.] 
 
 Ph. Melanchthon (f 1560), Opera, Wittenb. 1601, 4 vols, fol.; more com- 
 plete edition, Bretschneider and Bindseil, Halle, 1834 ff., 28 vols. 4°. On 
 Matthew and several Epistles, separately (Romans, ed. T. Nickel, 1861), 
 more in the form of scholia, and with moderate use of dogmatics. It is 
 well-known that his famous Loci grew out of exegetical studies upon the 
 Epistle to the Romans. See G. T. Strobel, Melanchthon'' s Verdienste urn die 
 h. Schr., Altd. 1773 ; W. Thilo, Melanchthon im Dienste an h. S., Berl. 1860 ; 
 F. Galle, Charakteristik Mel. als Theologen, H. 1845. [Biographies by Led- 
 derhose, Heidelb. 1847, E. tr. by Krotel, Phila. 1855 ; Planck, Prceceptor 
 Germani(B, 1860 ; C. Schmidt, Elberf. 1801.] C. Cruciger, on John and Ro- 
 mans, Vit. 1540 f. separately ; J. Bugenhagen (f 1558), Psalms, Acts of the 
 Apostles, Pauline Epistles, separately, since 1524 ; Justus Jonas (f 1555) 
 Acts, Niir. 1524. All together at Wittenberg. 
 
 J. Brentz, of Stuttgart (f 1570), almost all the books of the O. and N. T., 
 separately. 0pp., Tiib. 1575 ff., 8 vols. fol. [Biography by Hartmann and 
 Jager, Hamb. 1840-1842, 2 vols., and by Julius Hartmann, in Vdtern d. luth. 
 Kirche, VI., Elberf. 1862.] Victorin Strigel, of Leipzig (f 1569), Scholia 
 (Hypomnemata) on the Bible (N. T., L. 1565), in the interest of his peculiar 
 views. See J. C. T. Otto, De V. Strigelio liberioris mentis in eccles. luth. 
 vindice, Jena, 1843 ; Matth. Flacius (§ 546), Glossa compendiaria in N. T,, 
 Bas. 1570, fol., with antisynergistic polemic. Joachim Camerarius, of Leip- 
 zig (t 1574), Notatio figurarum sermonis, on the whole N. T., 1572, 2 vols. 
 4°, simply grammatical. Cf . A. W. Ernesti, De Ich. Camerario, L. 1774. 
 Nic. Hemming, on the Epistles (L. 1572), suspected of Cryptocalvinism. 
 
568 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 549. Almost identical as they were in spirit and tendency, 
 as opposed to the Catholic positions, tlie two sister Reformed 
 churclies, liowever much a mistaken and passionate zeal might 
 separate them, could not but have closely-related princiijles 
 respecting the interpretation and use of Scripture. Yet there 
 are also noteworthy differences between them. It is possible 
 that the movement which took its rise from Zwingli, if it had 
 been permitted to follow out its first impulse, might have led 
 to a more independent science ; but even the stricter Calvinism 
 deserves the credit of having allowed dogmatic prejudice to 
 have less influence upon exegesis than Lutheranism. This is 
 probably essentially due to the fact that there was no organic 
 connection between the Reformed national churches while in 
 the process of formation, and consequently no solidarity be- 
 tween their teachers. While in the other case the exegesis and 
 the theology in general proceeded from one place and almost 
 from one man, and this unity was move and more guarded with 
 a zealous and suspicious pedantry, here the different spirit of 
 the peoples, the languages, and tlie schools was able to develop 
 with considerable more freedom. 
 
 Not the least effective for the freer development of exegetical science 
 among the Reformed was, at first, the example of Calvin himself, beyond 
 all question the greatest exegete of the century, afterward the more compre- 
 hensive philological and archaeological studies of the Dutch, English, and 
 French. 
 
 F. Lambert of Avignon (f 1530), on the four books of the Kings, Minor 
 Prophets, Canticles, Luke, Acts, and Apocalypse, separately, mostly at 
 Strassburg, 1525 ff., with leaning toward Zwingli's views. See J. W. Baum, 
 Franz Lambert, Str. 1840. [Other biographies, F. St. Stieve, Bresl. 1867 
 (Latin) ; L. Ruffet, Par. 1873 (French).] 
 
 U. Zwingli (t 1531), on Genesis, Exodus, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, the 
 Gospels, and some of the Epistles (0pp., Tig. 1545, 4 vols, fob; ed. Sehuler 
 and Schulthess, 1828 ff., 8 (10) vols. 8°). [Biographies by J. J. Hottinger, 
 Zur. 1841, E. tr. Harrisburg, 1856 ; R. Christoffel, Elberf. 1857, E. tr. 
 Eduib. 1858 ; J. C. Morikofer, L. 1867-1869, 2 Pts. ; G. A. Hoff, Par. 1882 ; 
 Usteri, Zwingli, Ziir. 1883.] J. fficolampadius, at Basle (f 1531), on the 
 Prophets, Matthew, John, Romans, Hebrews, 1526 ff., separately. [Herzog, 
 Das Leben Oekolampads u. d. Reformation d. Kirche zu Basel, Bas. 1843, 
 2 vols., and in Schaff-Herzog Encyclop. ; Hagenbach, Oekolampads Lehen u. 
 ausffewcihlte Schriften, Elberf. 1859.] M. Butzer (Bucer, Arethis Felinus, 
 t 1551 ) at Strassburg, Gospels and several Epistles, Str. 1527 ff., Bas. 1562, 
 fol. W. F. Capito (Kopffel), at Strassburg (f 1541), Dictata on Genesis, 
 Prophets, Matthew, etc., 1-525 ff., separately. See J. W. Baum, Capito u. 
 Butzer, Elb. 1860 ; J. C. Hoffet, Esquisse hiogr. sur Capiton, Str. 1850. Conr. 
 Pellicanus (Kiirschner, of Ruffach, f 1556) at Ziirich, on the greater part 
 of the Bible. (0pp., Tig. 1532 ff., 7 vols, fol.) In conjunction with Leo 
 Juda, Th. Bibliander, and others, author of the Ziirich Latin version of the 
 Bible of 1543. Cf. § 472. F. Bresch, Esquisse biogr. sur C. Pell, Str. 
 1870. 
 
 John Calvin (f 1564), Opera, Amst. 1671, 9 vols, fol.; more complete 
 edition, Baum, Cunitz, and Reuss, Br. 1863 ff., 4°, still incomplete [to 1882, 
 
THE REFORMERS — CALVINISTIC. 569 
 
 23 vols.]. Commentaries on the N. T., except tlie Apocalypse, and the more 
 important books of the O. T. Pentateuch, Psahus, Prophets, 1539 ff., 
 separately ; of many of his commentaries there are also contemporaneous 
 French editions. New mamial edition, N. T., Genesis, and Psalms, Halle 
 and Berlin, 11 vols. 8°, 1831 ff. ; French, N. T., 1854, 4 vols. [E. tr. of 
 Calvin's works by the Calvin Translation Society, Edinb. 1842-53, 52 vols.] 
 Cf . beside his biographers, Tholuck, Die Verdienste Calvin'' s als A usleger der 
 h. Schr., in his Vermischte Schriften, Pt. II.; Ed. Reuss, Calvin considcre comme 
 exe'yete (Revue, VI. 223) ; D. G. Esclier, De Calvino II. N. T. liistoricum in- 
 terprete, Traj. 1840 ; A. Vesson, Calvin exe'gete, Mont. 1855. [T. H. Dyer, 
 Life of Calvin, Lond. 1849 ; F. Bungener, Calvin, Par. 1862, E. tr. Edinb. 
 1863 ; E. Stiihelin, Johannes Calvin, Elberf. 18G3, 2 vols. ; F. W. Kamp- 
 schulte, Johann Calvin, seine Kirche u. sein Staat in Genf L. 1869, I. 
 (unfinished) ; Th. McCrie, The Early Years of John Calvin, Lond. 1880 ; 
 A. Roget, VEglise et Vetat a Geneve de vivant Calvin, Gen. 1877.] 
 
 H. BuUinger (f 1575), at Ziirich, on the whole N. T., Tig. 1554, fol., before 
 separately. [Biographies by C. Pestalozzi, 1858 ; R. Christoffel, 1875. See 
 also G. R. Zimmermann, Die ziiricher Kirche und ihrer Antistes, Ziir. 1877.] 
 W. Musculus, at Berne (f 1563), on Genesis, Matthew, John, and Paul, Bas. 
 1548 ff., separately. By some reckoned among the Lutherans. [Biography 
 by C. W. Spieker, Frankf. am O. 1858.] 
 
 Seb. Chastillon (f 1563), at Basle, a Latin version (1551), which gave 
 offense by its affected classic elegance (yet very often reprinted down into 
 the eighteenth century), with notes. Cf. § 487. Augn. Marlorat, at Paris 
 (t 1562), N. T. catholica expositio ecclesiastica, P. 1561 f. (also Genesis, 
 Psalms, Isaiah), a Protestant catena. See C. D. Kroniayer, Etude sur A, 
 Marlorat, Str. 1851. Theod. de Beze (f 1605), Latin version and notes in 
 his edition of tlie N. T. (§ 403). See J. W. Baum, Th. Beza, L. 1843 ff., 
 Pts. I., II. [untinished, extending only to 1563 ; H. Heppe, Theodor Beza, 
 Leben u. ausgewdhlte Schriften, Elberf. 1861]. 
 
 550. But a particular circumstance came in to cause a very 
 wide practical divergence between the two churches in their 
 interpretation of Scripture. The Reformed theologians kept 
 their eyes open to the historically given point of view of the 
 biblical writers, especially in the interpretation of the Old 
 Testament, and did not attempt, like the Lutherans, to extort 
 the gospel doctrines directly from the letter at all costs. But 
 for this very reason, in order not to allow these doctrines to 
 suffer, they had less antipathy toward the allegorical interpre- 
 tation, and in particular brought the typical application of the 
 history, doctrine, and laws of Isi"ael increasingly into favor, so 
 that finally this often prevailed over everj^thing else. The 
 Swiss and Germans were long occupied almost solely in this 
 field; the Dutch, English, and French did not fall back into 
 line until later, nowhere without some peculiar character and 
 some gain for science. 
 
 Calvin and his followers were not least obnoxious to the Lutherans on 
 account of their freer treatment of many current proof passages, especially 
 Messianic, e. g., in the Psalms, which were chiefly historically interpreted, 
 and in any case typically or only partially or by accommodation referred to 
 Christ ; see Aeg. Hunnius, Calvinus judaizans, Vit. 1593, and several other 
 subsequent controversial writings (against him, D. Pareus, at Heidelberg ; 
 
670 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 for fuller account see Budcleus, Isag., 1062) ; R. Montacutius, Origg. eccL, 
 I. 310 : Calvinus tela manibus alhletarum pro divinitate Christi expositlonibus 
 suis excutere non injuria interdum dicitur. J. F. Mayer, Bibl. bibl., 1709, p. 85. 
 Walch, Bibl. theoL, IV. 413, still says without commeut : C. oracula de trini- 
 tate et messia ad ynentem Jud. et Socin. exposuit. 
 
 551. In the Catholic Church Scripture interpretation made 
 no progress in the time of the Reformation in the direction of 
 Erasmus ; indeed, his tendency was essentially foreign from it 
 and must necessarily have led it to a freedom unknown even 
 in the Protestant ranks. The power of circumstances and the 
 exigencies of controversj'- naturally brought into use methods 
 simihir to those current among the dissenting parties. The 
 manifold sense of Scripture, out of respect for the Fathers, 
 was not expressly denied, indeed was even commended, but was 
 much more rarely actually sought for and studied, and in 
 course of time came to coincide with the Calvinistic typology. 
 The Catholic theory, which claimed for the Church the pos- 
 session of the Holy Spirit, the only authoritative interpreter, 
 apparently imposed much stricter liinitations upon the knowl- 
 edge of the individual than the Protestant. But in reality 
 there was no difference in this respect. There was really 
 freedom only in those points, constantly growing fewer, upon 
 which no orthodoxy had been formed, among the Catholics, 
 consequently, even in very essential matters. The exegetes 
 themselves, during this and the following period, cannot be 
 classified by methods and principles, but simply by their con- 
 fessions. 
 
 The Catholic expositors are at least as numerous as their opponents, but 
 have little that is peculiar, and are still very much dependent upon their 
 predecessors. Looser ideas of inspiration, particularly among the Jesuits, 
 made up to them whatever of liberty was taken away by ecclesiastical 
 authority. They really ran less risk of being branded as heretics by their 
 fellows than the Protestant expositors. 
 
 The mediaeval theory of mystical interpretation (Sautes Pagninus, Domin- 
 ican at Lucca, Isagogce ad mysticos S. S. sensus II. X VIII., Col. 1540, f ol. ; 
 Sixtus Senensis, Bibl. s., III.) was unavailable for controversial purposes, 
 and from lack of leisure was very little practiced. Pagninus' Latin version 
 of the O. T. (§ 481), founded upon a thorough knowledge of the Hebrew 
 lang\iage, was much used by Protestants also (§ 474). 
 
 During the age of the Reformation proper there were but very few 
 Catholic exegetes who accomplished anything to carry their names down to 
 posterity ; among them the Parisian theologians, J. Gagney, scholia on the 
 N. T. (P. 1539 and freq.), after CEcumenius ; J. Arboreus, on Solomon, the 
 Gospels, Paul, together, P. 1551, 2 vols, fol.; C. d'Espence, on the Pastoral 
 Epistles, P. 15(51, with anti-Romish excursuses on discipline ; C. Guilliaud, 
 Collationes on John, Paul, and the Catholic Epistles, P. 1543 f . ; but especially 
 F. Vatablus (Watebled or Gastebled, f 1547), scholarly notes on the O. T., 
 valued even by Protestants, and received into the Critici sacri (§ 567). [See 
 on Vatablus Schaft'-Herzog EncycL, sub voce.] Likewise the notes which 
 Isid. Clarius, Benedictine at Brescia (f 1555), appended to his revised Latin 
 version (§ 481). 
 
COUNCIL OF TRENT. 671 
 
 Among the Franciscans the following were prominent, among others : Jo. 
 Ferus, on tlie historical books of the O. T., Matthew, John, the Catholic 
 Epistles, 1536 it'. ; F. Titelmann, paraphrastic Elucidationes on the poetic 
 books of the O. T. and most of the New, 1532 if., both frequently reprinted ; 
 Nic. Zeger, of Louvain, Scholia in N. T., Col. 1553. 
 
 Against Cajetanus wrote Ambr. Cathariniis (i. e., Lancelot Polit), on the 
 Epistles, Rome, 1546 and f req. ; Dom. de Soto, on the Romans, Antw. 1550. 
 On the same Epistle, Jac. Sadolet, Cardinal and Bishop of Carpentras, Lyons, 
 1535, with anti-Augustiuiau polemic. 
 
 552. The decrees of the Council of Trent introduced no 
 change, either for the better or for the worse, into Catholic 
 exegesis. This assembly held fast on this point, as on all 
 others, to the principles already long in force, and introduced 
 no new limitations, although it in many ways reaffirmed the 
 existing ones. But what accomplished as much for the unan- 
 imity of Catholic theologians as any decrees could do, was the 
 necessity of standing together and defending themselves by 
 united power against an opponent to whom too little attention 
 had been paid at the first. The growing discord between the 
 Protestant ecclesiastical parties commended this union still 
 more, and polemic centred about the taunt that the heretics, 
 having forsaken the only sure guide, were now following their 
 own ignis fatuus. Unfortunately there came a time when the 
 battle was fought with other weapons than those of the mind, 
 and when even the war of words had little biblical basis. 
 Science languished in both camps, and it is not easy to say 
 whether the sword or scholasticism did it the more injury. 
 
 Condi, trident., Sess. IV. (§ 482) . . . decernit ut nemo suce prudentice 
 innixus in rebus Jidei et morum . . . S. S. ad suos sensus contorquens, contra eum 
 sensum quern tenuit et tenet sancta mater Ecclesia, cujus est judicare de vero 
 sensu et interprelatione ss. SS., aut etiam contra unanimem consensum Patrum, 
 ipsam S. S. interpretari audeat. . . . 
 
 This decree forms the basis of all subsequent Catholic hermeneutics ; 
 R. Bellarminus, Cardinal and Jesuit (f 1621), De verba Dei II. IV. (0pp., 
 Col. 1620, I.) ; Jac. Gretser (Jesuit at Ingolstadt, f 1624), U7ide scis kutic 
 vel ilium esse sincerum et legitimum S. sensum? (0pp., Ratisb. 1736, VIII.) ; 
 J. Martianay, French Benedictine (f 1717), Traite methodique ou maniere 
 d'expliquer VEcriture, P. 1704, and Melhode sacree pour expliquer I'Ecr., 
 P. 17l6 ; Augu. Calmet, Benedictine and Abbot at Senones in the Vosges 
 (t 1757), Bibliotheque sacree, P. 1722, in the Introduction ; M. Gerbert, 
 Benedictine at St. Bias in the Black Forest, Principia theol. exegeticce, 1757. 
 The mystic sense is always maintained, as useful, however, not for argument, 
 but for edification, possibly even as undesigned. 
 
 Most was done in the field of exegesis by the Jesuits, whose works, often 
 reprinted, cast all others into the shade during the seventeenth century ; 
 among them the Portuguese Emm. Sa (f 1596), short Notationes iii totam. 
 S. S., Antw. 1598 ; before, separately. Scholia in Evv. ; the Spaniard J. Mal- 
 donato (f 1583), on the Psalms, Solomon, and the Major Prophets, at first 
 separately, together, P. 1643 ; but especially Comm. in I V. evv., Pont k 
 Mousson, 1596, 2 vols, fol., and very f req. ; also Mayence, 1840 ft'. ; [see I. M. 
 Prat, Maldonat et V Uniuersite de Paris au X VI. siecle, Paris, 1856 ; SchafE- 
 
672 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 Herzog, Art. Maldonatus'] ; Alph. Salmero (f 1597), Commentaria ad hist, evan- 
 gelicam, Madr. 1597 fi., 10 vols, fol., the last live of which extend over the Acts, 
 Epistles, and Apocalypse ; J. Mariana (f 1024), Scholia brevia in V. et N. T., 
 Madr. 1619 [see Schalf-Herzog] ; Ant. de Escobar y Mendoza (f 1GG9), 
 V. et N. T. liter, et moral, comm. illustr., Lyons, 1052, 9 vols. i'ol. ; [see Schaii'- 
 Herzog] ; the Lorrainer N. Serarius (f 1609), on the Pentateuch, the his- 
 torical books of the O. T., and the Catholic Epistles ; the Dutchiuau W. Est 
 (t 1613), a valuable exposition of the Epistles in the Aiigustiuian spirit, 
 Douay, 1014, fol., and very freq., also Mayence, 1841 ft'. ; F. Lucas of Brligge 
 (t 1629), on the Gospels, Autw. 1000 ; Jac. Tirinus (f 1030), ou the whole 
 Bible, Antw. 1032, and very freq., with and without text, 2 or 3 vols., fol. ; 
 Cornelius von Stein (a Lapide, f 1037), a diffuse compilation on the whole 
 Bible, except Job and Psalms, from 1614 on separately, together Autw. 1664, 
 30 vols. fol. and freq., full of allegories and legends (see G. IL Gcitz, De 
 Corn, a Lapide commentariis,lj. 1699); the Italian J. St. Menochius (f 1055), 
 Brevis expositio sensus lit. totius Scr. ex optimis auctoribus collecta, Col. 1030, 
 3 vols. fol. 
 
 The most important (especially Lyra, Sa, Tirinus, Est, Menochius, Gag- 
 ney) collected in J. de la Haye, Biblia magna, P. 1643, 5 vols, fol.; Biblia 
 maxima, P. 1060, 19 vols. fol. 
 
 The best-known in the first half of the eighteenth century are the Jesuits 
 J. Hardouin (f 1729), Comm. in N. T., Hag. 1741, fol., and Is. J. Berruyer, 
 Hist, du peuple de Dieu, P. 1728, 13 vols., and freq., the former paradoxical 
 (§ 49), the latter venturesome and oft'ensive. But particularly the above- 
 mentioned Dom. Calmet's Comm. litteral sur la bible, P. 1707 ft., 23 vols. 4°, 
 or 1724 ff., 8 vols, fol., also in Latin, with many excursuses, also separately 
 collected ; the latter in German : C. bibl. Untersuchungen, with notes, by J. 
 L. von Mosheim, Brem. 1744, G vols. 8° (Fange, Vie du R. P. Dom. Calmet, 
 Sen. 1763.) 
 
 See in general C. Werner, Geschichte der kath. Theol. seit dem Trienter 
 Concil, Miin. 1866, a work, however, which is not very full upon the biblical 
 sciences. 
 
 553. For into the Protestant party also, scarcely as yet 
 moved in this direction, there had been penetrating since the 
 end of the sixteenth century an irresistible demand for stabil- 
 ity. The followers of the Reformers tlioiight they could con- 
 fine and control by formulas and official seals a revolution in 
 the realm of mind whose original force none measured, whose 
 final goal none perceived. In the Lutheran Church the stag- 
 nation came in, and victoriously, with the Formula of Con- 
 cord ; in the Reformed, somewhat later, with the decrees of 
 Dort, but as the decision of a controversy between freedom 
 and slavery in the realm of Scripture interpretation. The more 
 outspoken teachers declared the work, completed, and contented 
 themselves for a long time witli giving to their already estab- 
 lished dogmas the necessary scientific form with the aid of a 
 by-gone dialectics. This form was unquestionably, in its way, 
 a strong, complete, and thoroughly thought out one, but it 
 more and more stifled all warmlh of life, estranged the schools 
 from life, and sealed the Bible from the people anew. 
 
 In judging of this preliminary result of the Reformation, one should cer- 
 tauily disabuse himself of the idea that it was a departui-e from its natural 
 
THE CONFESSIONAL HERMENEUTICS. 673 
 
 path, or a reaction. The Reformation had been carried on from the begin- 
 ning, with and without tlie aid of its promoters, in the sphere of ecclesiasti- 
 cal and political, and consequently of social matters ; its confessions were 
 not individual manifestations of the theological mind but recoixls of vast 
 new organisms, and thus dogmatic theology itself became an element in 
 public social life, and a much more living one than it ever had been in the 
 Catholic Church. The individual might reflect upon what was officially laid 
 down ; there was no neutral ground at his disposal. 
 
 The best known theorists are : W. Frantz, at Wittenberg (f 1628), Trac- 
 tatus theol. de interpr. max'une legitima, 1G19 ; claiming to be purely grammat- 
 ical exposition, in reality mostly anti-Calvinistic polemic ; J. Gerhard, at 
 Jena (f 1637), Loci theol., 1622, 9 vols, fol., ed. Cotta, Tiib. 1762 if., 20 vols. 
 4°; also a special essay, De legitima S. S. interpr., Jena, 1610; [E. R. Fischer, 
 Vita J. Gerhardi, Gotha, 1723] ; Sal. Glass, at Jena (f 1656), Philologia 
 sacra, 1623, and freq. (also 1776-1796, by Datlie and 13auer, his temper ibus 
 accommodata), contains, beside the hermeneutics, a grammar, rhetoric, and 
 logic of the Scriptures, and maintains a se7isus duplex, literalis et mysticus, the 
 former prior naiura et ordine, the latter prior dignitate, comprehending al- 
 legories, types, and parables ; J. C. Dannhawer, at Strassburg (f 1666), /fZea 
 honi interpretis et malitiosi calumniator is, 1642 (in which the Bible goes to 
 school to Aristotle), and Hermeneutica saa-a, 1654 ; A. Pfeiffer, at Lubeck 
 (t 1698), Hermeneutica sacra, 1684, and Thesaurus hermen., 1704 ; J. Olea- 
 rius, Elementa herm. s., L. 1699 ; A. E. Mirus, Fragen aus der Herm. sacra. 
 Dr. 1712. 
 
 The best known among the Reformed is A. Rivet, at Leyden (f 1651), 
 Isagoge ad S. S. (§ 17), ch. xiv. £f. 
 
 554. Theological exegesis, which had done so noble service 
 while it was used to defend the fundamental thought of the 
 Reformation against Catholicism, now, when it concerned it- 
 self with scholastic subtilties, sank to the level of a mere ac- 
 quisition of dogmatic proof-texts. These were taken up like 
 legal documents, according to number, value, and order ; their 
 application was a cardinal point of doctrine, and it was of im- 
 portance to increase their force by obtaining a similar refer- 
 ence from as many other passages as possible. The number 
 of passages thus officially explained continually grew greater. 
 For the jewel of the symbolic faith was jealously guarded, and 
 the interpretation which served it became more unchangeable 
 than even its Elzevir text. The appeal to an inner witness of 
 the Holy Spirit as a guaranty of its truth sounds like a grim 
 irony. There was even a Lutheran patristic set up, and what- 
 ever Doctor Martin had written, his Bible at the^ head, in 
 which he had found room for improvement to the time of his 
 death, became an inviolable rule and relic. 
 
 G. J. Plank, Gesch. der protest. Theologie von der Concord ienformel bis in 
 die Mitte des achtzehnten Jahrhunderts, Gott, 1831 ; A. Tholuck, Der Geist 
 der hither. Theologen Wittenhergs im siehzehnten Jahrh., Hamb. 1852 ; I. A. 
 Dorner, Gesch. der prot. Theol, M. 1867, p. 421 if. ; Gust. Frank, Gesch. der 
 prot. Theol. (1862 ft'.), II. _ 
 
 While some sought to make the list of dicta prohantia complete, others set 
 themselves to deduce the whole system from some few, so that each biblical 
 
57-4 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 author discovered some locus for himself, and set it forth with all his scho- 
 lastic apparatus. The most celebrated piece of work of tliis kiud is Seb. 
 Schmidt's (at Strassburg, f 1696) Collegium biblicum prius (O. T.) et poste- 
 rius (N. T.), Arg. 1671, aud freq., 2 vols. 4°. The O. T. in his view was as 
 relevant as the New. 
 
 Conversely, attempts were made to discover the whole system in each in- 
 dividual author : J. H. Majus (at Giessen, t 1719), Theologia jeremiana, 
 1696 ; Abr. Hinckelmann (at Hamburg, f 1695), Jobi theologia evangelica, 
 1687; J. G. Dorsch (at Strassburg and Rostock ; f 1659), Synopsis theol. 
 Zachariance, 1637; B. Bebel, at Strassburg, Theologia JDojiielis ; Joannis 
 Bapt. ex Matth. Hi. 2 ; Joannea ex Ev. xx. 31, 1683 f. ; G. H. Gotze (at Lii- 
 beck, t 1728), Theologia Elisabethce ex Luc. i. ^1 sqq., 1706 ; F. Woken, 
 Epitome theol. ex ep. ad Titum collecta, L. 1727, and many others. Also (V. 
 E. Loscher) Entwurf einer vollst. Jesus- Theologie (supposed to mean Theol- 
 ogy of Jesus); Unsch. Nachr., 11 ll-Vl\Z, passim ; J. Deutschmanu, at Wit- 
 tenberg (t 1706), Theologia primi theologi Adami vere lutherani, Yit. 1689. 
 
 On the changes which have taken place in the conception of inspiration 
 cf . Tholuck, I. c, p. 253 ff. — Luther's current name Megalander. 
 
 555. Practical exegesis consisted not so much in arriving by- 
 scientific methods at the meaning of dogmatically applicable 
 passages, as in handling skillfully, upon their occurrence, the 
 customary polemic, in knowing where to find an effective text 
 against Papist or Calvinist, or in knowing how, when some- 
 thing of the kind was found by one's opponent, to parry the 
 thrust by exegetical fencing. The polemic was petty, under- 
 handed, and spiritless. With increasing strictness in the idea 
 of inspiration, which was finally extended to the vowel-points 
 and accents, was combhied one-sided overestimation of philo- 
 logical knowledge ; with the growinor weakness of the historic 
 sight an astonisliing uncertainty in the conceptions of allegory 
 and typology. Restraint corrupted taste also ; overawed sci- 
 ence sought for itself a field that was still neutral, which was 
 scarcely to be found any longer, and treated insignificant mat- 
 ters with the ridiculous apparatus of a pedantic learning. 
 
 The better kno\vn names out of a great number are, among the Lutherans : 
 M. Chemnitz, at Brunswick (f 1586) [C. G. H. Leutz, Dr. Martin Chemnitz, 
 Gotha, 1866 ; H. Hachfeld, Martin Chemnitz, L. 1867], a Harmony of the 
 Gospels, ^vith commentary and controversial excursuses, continued by P. 
 Leyser, at Dresden (f 1610), by whom also an Analysis theol. et scholastica 
 on Galatians (L. 1616), and completed by J. Gerhard (§ 553) ; at first in 
 parts ; together. Gen. 1645, foL, aud freq. (cf. § 403). By the last and 
 others a series of works on separate Epistles in " poiismatic " manner (sum- 
 marizing didactic results), Jena, 1641 S. 
 
 Xic. Selnekker, at Leipzig (f 1592), on Genesis, Psalms, Prophets, and 
 Paul, separately, mth loci communes. Dav. Chytraeus, at Rostock (f 1600), 
 on the historical books of the O. T., some of the Prophets, Matthew, the 
 Pastoral Epistles, Romans, and the Apocal^-pse, 0pp. exeg., Vit. 1590, 2 vols., 
 fol. ; Aeg. Humiius, at Wittenberg (f 1603), began a commentary 07' the 
 whole N. T., of which, however, only Matthew, John, Paul, and 1 John were 
 completed ; edited, together with D. Arcularius on the Acts and J. Winck- 
 elmann's Mark, Luke, James, Peter, aud Apocalvpse, and completed by J. 
 H. Feustking under the title Thesaurus evanqelicus . . . apostolicus, Vit. 
 1706, 2 vols. fol. 
 
CONFESSIONAL — LUTHERAN — REFORMED. 575 
 
 F. Balduin, at Wittenberg (f 1627), among others, on the Pauline Epis- 
 tles, at first separately, together 1644, and freq., in quo multiplices commo~ 
 nefactiones e textu eruuntur turn variis qucestt. controversis fundamenta sancB doc- 
 trince monstrantur j Erasmus Schmid, at Wittenberg (f 1637), Opus sacrum, 
 translation and notes on the N. T., Nor. 1658, fol. ; J. G. Dorsch (§ 554), 
 Commentary on the Gospels and several Epistles with Hypomnemata apodic- 
 tico-analytico-exegetica ; G. Olearius, at Halle (f 1715), Biblia-theoretico-prac- 
 tica, 1676 ; M. Geier, at Leipzig and Dresden (f 1680), Commentary on the 
 Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Daniel. 
 
 Abr. Calovius, at Wittenberg (f 1688), Biblia illustrata, a controversial 
 catena (mostly against Grotius), the sum of Lutheran biblical science, Frankf. 
 1672, 4 vols. fol. ; Seb. Schmidt (§ 554), on Genesis, the historical books of 
 the O. T., Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, John, some Epistles, etc., separately; Latin 
 Bible (1696, and freq.) in which, by means of brief insei-ted parentheses, 
 the orthodox interpretation is naively and concisely summed up. An inter- 
 esting Judicium of the Strassburg faculty upon the work is to be found in 
 Clodius' edition, 1740. 
 
 The Bible annotated at the command of Duke Ernst of Saxony by certain 
 sound theologians (among them J. Gerhard, S. Maior, M. Dilherr, S. Glass, 
 and others of Jena), Niirnb. 1641, fol., and freq., the so-called Weimar 
 Bible, had almost official authority; rather popular than scholarly. T. Das- 
 sov, De s. codicis interpret ibus vinariensibus, Vit. 1694 ; J. W. Schneider, De 
 hibl. vinar. memoria seculari, Jena, 1741 ; Unsch. Nachr., 1704, p. 398 ; 1708, 
 p. 103 ; 1714, p. 553 ; 1744, p. 411. 
 
 Among less strictly orthodox contemporaries, G. Calixtus, at Helmstedt 
 (f 1656), notwithstandmg his importance in the field of theology, is unim- 
 portant as a commentator {Scliolce propheticce, Acts, Romans, Corinthians, 
 etc., mostly posthumous imiversity lectures). See E. Henke, G. Calixtus u. 
 seine Zeit, Halle, 1853, I. 261. 
 
 Especially characteristic is the literature of the academic dissertations, the 
 large majority of which belong here, inasmuch as they are occupied with 
 scholastic dogmatics as applied to some one passage of Scripture. The 
 writers most often chose those passages which, actually or apparently, were 
 opposed to the system, and attempted to explain them. This method main- 
 tained itself here much longer than in larger works ; in some universities, 
 €. g., Tiibingen and Strassburg, till long after the middle of the eighteenth 
 century. They also occupied themselves, in the most insipid way, with the 
 mmutine of Biblical Archaeology (§ 565). 
 
 We mention comparatively few of the Reformed here because most of 
 them will appear in other groups farther on ; among dogmatic expositors 
 belong J. Piscator, at Herborn (f 1625), on the whole Bible, separately, 
 1601 ff., together, 1643, 4 vols. fol. ; see Steubing, in Illgen's Zeiischr., 
 1841, IV. ; D. Tossanus (Toussaint), at Hanau (f 1629), on the N. T. 1604 ; 
 D. Pareus, at Heidelberg (f 1622), many books of the O. and N. T. ; 0pp., 
 Frankf. 1628 ; M. Amyraut, at Saumur (f 1664), on Psalms, John, Acts, 
 Epistles ; see C. E. Saigey, AI. Amyraut, Str. 1849, and in the Strassb. Revue, 
 V. 178; also A. Schweizer in Herzog's Encykl. ; F. Gomarus, at Leyden 
 (t 1641), on the Gospels, etc. ; 0pp., Amst. 1644, 3 vols. fol. ; J. H. Hei- 
 degger, at Ziirich (f 1697), Exercitt. hiblica, etc. 
 
 H. A. Roell, at Utrecht (f 1718), on Ephesians and Colossians, 1715, pe- 
 culiar on account of the influence of the Cartesian philosophy upon his exe- 
 gesis. F. A. Lampe, at Utrecht and Bremen (f 1729), on John, 1724, 3 
 vols. 4°, with a leaning toward pietism, notwithstanding a disagreeably an- 
 alytic form. 
 
 556. Exegesis was thus everywhere under the same abjeet 
 servitude to the scholastic dogmatics. But nowhere did the 
 
576 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 arbitrariness of scholasticism appear more glaringly than 
 among that party which had most completely broken away 
 from all connection with traditional Christianity, — the Socin- 
 ians. Even they were unwilling to do without the testimony 
 of the Bible to their theological system. They asserted the 
 necessity of agreement between Scripture and reason, but 
 practiced exegesis in a one-sided manner, so as to foi-ce the 
 Scriptures to support doctrines propounded almost independ- 
 ently of them. The farther these doctrines departed in essen- 
 tial particulars from the apostolic preaching, the more au- 
 daciously they perverted the Word. Their exegesis often 
 appears like the result of incomprehensible blindness or un- 
 candid trickery, but it should not be forgotten that that of the 
 Orthodox was only saved by their adherence to the traditional 
 faith of the Church, not by the truth of its fundamental princi- 
 ples, from equally surprising, if not equally harsh, procedure. 
 
 This party has nowhere propounded any hermeneutical theory. In gen- 
 eral, it acknowledges the Protestant principle of the simple grammatical 
 sense of Scripture,^ but at the same time holds a looser view of inspiration, 
 is very free with tropes, and paves the way for the theory of accommodation 
 by a complete disregard of the O. T. (Diestel, Die .soc. Anschauung v. A. T. 
 in ihrer gesch. u. theol. Bedeuiung, in the Stuttg. Jahrb., 1862, IV., and in his 
 better known work, Das A. T. in der Kirche, p. 387 if., 534 if. 
 
 The works (mostly exegetical) of the leaders of the party are collected in 
 the Bibliotheca fratrum Polonorum quos unitarios vocant, Amst. 1656 fE., 8 
 vols. fol. This work contains : Faustus Socinus, of Siena (f 1604), De S. S. 
 auctoritatc, and essays on several dogmatically important passages, especially 
 of John [see Schaif-Herzog, Art. Socinus] ; J. Crell, of Frauken (f 1633), 
 on most of the books of the N. T. ; J. Schlichting, of Bucowicz in Poland 
 (t 1601), on John and the Epistles ; and J. L. v. Wolzogen, of Austria 
 (t 1661), on the Gospels. — Also : C. Sand (f 1680), Interpp. paradoxes IV. 
 evang., Amst. 1669 ; S. Przipcow (f 1070), on the Epp., Amst. 1692 f. ; D. 
 Brenius, short scholia on the Bible, Amst. 1664 f . ; S. Crell (Artemouius, 
 f 1747), on several important passages of John. 
 
 C. E. Weismann, Rabbulismi exegetici partis socin. insigniora specimina, Tiib. 
 1731 ; F. W. Dresde, De fallaci F. Socini II. ss. interpretandi ratione, Vit. 
 1790 ; Flatt's Mag., XV. 112 ff. ; H. Amphoux, Essai sur la doctrine socini- 
 enne, Str. 1850. 
 
 The same or a closely related form of doctrine was still defended by cer- 
 tain English exegetes late in the following century ; e. g., J. Taylor, Romans, 
 Lond. 1745 ; A. Sykes, Hebreios, Lond. 1755. 
 
 557. Meanwhile the dry scholasticism of the orthodox ex- 
 position of Scripture led certain individuals to attempt, with- 
 out opposing themselves to the Church, to give it a greater 
 and ahnost poetic fruitfulness. The school of the Cocceians, 
 which flourished after the middle of the seventeenth century 
 in Holland, had propounded a system of the theology of the 
 covenants, accord hig to which the revelations of God in his- 
 tory were connected with one another by a kind of evolution. 
 To make this out exegesis was called upon, thus recognizing 
 
SOCINIANS — COC CEIANS. 577 
 
 again, finally, the distinction between tlie forms of faitli and 
 life of tlie Old and New Testaments, although with the use of 
 an extravagant typology. The search was not so much for a 
 plurality as for a fullness of meaning in Scripture, that the in- 
 creasing richness of the Word might keep pace with the re- 
 quirements of their view of history, which was developed in a 
 countless series of figures. A vast amount of learning was 
 expended upon an idea which was no doubt interesting, but 
 which got farther and farther from the truth as it attempted 
 to go into details. 
 
 J. Coceeius (Koch), of Bremen, Professor at Leyclen (f 1669, see Gesenius, 
 in Erscli and Gruber's EncykL, I. 18 [also Sehaif-Herzog]), placed the three 
 covenants of God with men, the patriarchal, the legal, and the gospel, iu 
 a typical relation to one another ; so also the Bible to Church History, to 
 which lie not only applied the periods of development which had been dis- 
 covered by others before him in the Apocalypse, but also referred, as types, 
 other Old and New Testanaent narratives ; all without prejudice to the Cal- 
 vinistic orthodoxy, yet in reality much more favorable to a biblical than to 
 the scholastic treatment of theology. Summa theologke a S. S. repetita, 0pp., 
 
 VII. ; Summa doctr. de f^xdere ct testamento Dei, ibid. His hermeneutic was 
 in many respects more rational and biblical than that of his contemporaries 
 and opponents. But the method as it was understood and applied, espe- 
 cially by his followers, cannot be characterized better than by the sentence 
 by which it is comprehended in the table of contents to his works, which, 
 were it not for its place, might be regarded as an epigram ; verba S. S. sig- 
 nificant id omne quod possunt. Cf. Summa theoL, ch. vi., xlvi. 13. 0pp., 
 Amst. 1675, and freq., 10 vols. fol. [3d ed., auctior et emendatior, 1701]. 
 They contain commentaries on most of the books of the Bible. A. v. d. 
 Flier, De J. Cocceio anti-scholastico, Traj. 1859. 
 
 His principles maintained themselves in the universities of Holland, with 
 varying fortune, carried to excess, naturally, by his foUov/ers, into the eight- 
 eenth century, with many good philologists and still more minds of smaller 
 calibre. Elsewhere little response. (Schulthess, Theol. Nachr., 1826, III. 
 388.) Typological treatment of the Hebrew antiquities. 
 
 For polemic for and against see Schrockh, Kirchengesch. seit der Ref., 
 
 VIII. 544 ff. ; Roseumiiller, Handh., IV. 8 f. ; Walch, Bibl. Theol, II. 1033 ; 
 Werenfels, 0pp., II. 3:iS ; V. Alberti, Cartesianismus et Cocceianismus Belgio 
 molesti, L. 1678 ; (Joncourt) Entretiens sur les differentes mtthodes d^expliquer 
 I'ecrifure, Amst. 1707; Unsch. Nachr., 1708, p. 305 ; 1709, p. 345. 
 
 The more scholarly of the Cocceians, and hence still useful, are Campegius 
 Vitringa, at Franeker (f 1722), on Isaiah, Zechariah, Epistles, Apocalj'pse, 
 and Obss. ss., which contains, Vl. 479, his hermeneutical theory (on hina T. 
 de Hase, in the Bibl. Brem., VI.); J. Braun, at Groningen (f 170i>), espe- 
 cially on the Epistle to the Hebrews ; S. van Til, at Leyden (f 1713), on 
 Matthew and some of the Epistles. Also H. Deusing, Allegoriae. hist, evang., 
 1711 (he develops modern history from any pericope of the Gospels at 
 pleasure ; cf. T. de Hase, in the Bibl. Brem., V.); A. Driessen, De principiis 
 et legibus theologice emhlematicfe allegoricce typicce et propheticce, Traj. 1717; J. 
 d'Outrein, J. Marck, F. Burmann, N. Glirtler, J. v. d. Waeyen, H. Witse, 
 and others, most of them in smaller treatises rather than in larger works. 
 The Bibliotheca Bremensis, 1719 £f., 8 vols., contains many contributions and 
 literary notices which belong here. For a summary of the results of this 
 school, see Pfaff, Hist. litt. theol., I. 94 ff. ; Diestel, I. c, p. 527 fE., also in the 
 Jahrb. der Theol, 1865, II. 
 37 
 
578 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 558. In the Lutheran party also, though somewhat later, 
 there came a noteworthy, but much more healthful reaction 
 against scholastic dogmatism. Following the example of 
 Spener, the so-called Pietists attempted to make the Bible 
 again subserve practical Christianity and the edification of the 
 people, as the Reformers had originally designed. They made 
 small account of the aids of secular science. They strove after 
 the possession of spiritual gifts, and in humility awaited from 
 the enlightenment of the inner vision the knowledge which 
 they intended to use for the benefit of the people. Their in- 
 terpretation of Scripture was not so much an aid to science as 
 a devotional exercise, begun and ended with prayer. Maintain- 
 ing the full doctrine of strict orthodoxy respecting the inspira- 
 tion of the Scriptures, and making it yet stricter where possi- 
 ble by a more strenuous honoring of the letter, they delighted 
 to search its mystical and typical depths, and sought the em- 
 phases of the divine meaning hidden in the smallest phrases, 
 — the one sect of all time which has found its highest happi- 
 ness in the consciousness of being the fewest in number and 
 the poorest in spirit. 
 
 Collegia hiblica : the University of Halle ; see A. H. Niemeyer, Die Uni- 
 versitdt Halle nach ihrem Einfluss auf gelehrie und praktische Theologie, H, 
 1817 ; W. Hossbaeh, Spener und seine Zeit, 2d ed. 1853 ; J. Rathgeber, 
 Spener et le reveil religieux, P. 1868 ; H. Sclimid, Gesch, des Pietismus, Nordl. 
 1863 ; [Heppe, 1879 ; Ritschl, Gesch. des Pietismus, 1880] ; A. Tholuck, 
 Gesch. des Ilationalismus, 1865, I. 
 
 Ph. J. Spener, a native of Alsace, preacher at Frankfort, Dresden, and 
 Berlin (f 1705), Consil., I. 331 : Indignius mihi videtur si qiiis co ipso syrnbol- 
 icis lihris nostris contradixisse et perfidice reus esse arguatur quod in explicatione 
 dicti alicujus nonnihil ah eo sensu dejiecteret qui in aliquo illorum deprehen- 
 ditur. Bedenken, III. 478 : " We blame the Papists for making the author- 
 ity of the Scriptures dependent ah auctoritate ecclesice. May the Lord gra- 
 ciously forbid that we too should depart from our principium of the Holy 
 Scriptures and allow nothing of them to be valid except what is to be found, 
 iisdem i^erhis, in our libri synibolici, — still more that we should not interpret 
 the creeds by the Scriptures but the Scriptures by the creeds, and thus set 
 up genuine Popery in the midst of our Church." [See, on Spener, Walch, 
 Streitigkeiten innerhalh der luth. Kirche, I., II., IV., V. ; Von Canstein, Lehens- 
 heschreibung Spener^ s, 1740 ; Steinmetz, in his edition of Spener's minor 
 works, 1746 ; Hossbaeh, Leben Spener's, 1827, 3d ed. 1861 ; Knapp, Lehen 
 u. Charakter einiger frommen Manner des vorigen Jahrhunderts, 1829 ; Thilo, 
 Spener als Katechet, 1841 ; Wildenhahn, Life of Spener, translated by G. A. 
 Wenzel, Phila. 1881.] 
 
 The theorists of the school (J. J. Breithaupt at Halle (j 1732) [G. A. 
 Francke, Das gesegnete Geddchtniss des seligen Breithaupt, Halle, 1736], In- 
 stitutio hermeneutico-homiletica, Kiel, 1685 ; A. H. Franke, at Halle (f 1727), 
 Manductio ad lectionem S. S., H. 1693 ; Prcdectiones hermenenticce, 1717 ; In- 
 slit, rationem tradens S. S. in suam cedific. legendi, 1723 ; De emphasibus Scr., 
 1698 ; J. Lange, at Halle (f 1744), Hermeneutica sacra, 1733 ; J. J. Ram- 
 bach, at Giessen (f 1735) [Biography by Dan. Biittner, L. 1737 ; Th. Han- 
 sen, Die Faniilie Rambach, Gotha, 1875], De idoneo S. S. interprete, 1720 ; 
 Instt. hermenenticce, J. 1723 ; Erlduterungen thereof, Giessen, 1738, 2 vols. 4° ; 
 
PIETISTS. 579 
 
 Exercitt. herm., Jena, 1728) lay great stress upon the piety of the expositor 
 (passing over in silence his docti'inal soundness according to the creeds) 
 and upon his ability to place himself in religious accord with the biblical 
 author, with express recognition diversitatis styli satis multiplicis, which is 
 to be derived not from the Holy Spirit immediate, but chiefly a suhjecto. 
 Hence also a special hermeneutics, particularly for the different authors 
 of the N. T. The end of the interpretation of Scripture is the glorifying of 
 God by the edification of one's self and others. Historical, grammatical 
 and analytical study leads only to the shell ; while the dogmatic, the poris- 
 matic, i. e. the drawuig of inferences for doctrine, reproof, spiritual training, 
 and comfort, and the practical, i. e. prayer and sighing, lead to the kernel. 
 Rambach forms the middle term between the proper (Halle) Pietists 
 and the legitimate heirs of the scholastic theology ; to him adhere those who 
 attempt to reconcile the two tendencies. § 567. 
 
 559. And yet this sect has done biblical science essential 
 service. No doubt the literalism of the system of emphases 
 demanded an unchangeable text, and prevented criticism, and 
 the perfectly justified impatience at the display of philological 
 learning in the pulpit, at the petty disputation and medley of 
 quotations, led to the opposite extreme. But the need of edi- 
 fication, everywhere present, caused them and others to see, 
 little by little, the insignificance of purely scholastic dogmatiz- 
 ing, and thus dulled the edge of controversy. The unessential, 
 over which, for the most part, the parties and churches had 
 been contending thus far, was recognized as such, and a basis 
 found for peace. Finally, the entering into the mental habit 
 of the sacred writers recommended by this school also aided 
 the still very defective exegesis. One recognized the necessity 
 of distinguishing the peculiar coloring of their preaching, and 
 so without knowing or intending it, was led to a more reason- 
 able theory of inspiration. 
 
 Of Spener explanations of some epistles, e. g., Romans, Galatians, Ephe- 
 sians, Colossians, 1 John, have been printed separately since 1097, some re- 
 printed recently, " in which, beside the literal meaning, the doctrines and 
 practical lessons to be derived therefrom are set forth." P. A. Fischer, 
 Spener exegete, Str. 1862. 
 
 One may best learn the peculiar character of the pietistic exegesis from 
 the lectures of Paul Anton, of Halle (f 1730), printed after the author's 
 death, on the Gospels, Acts, Romans, and Pastoral Epistles, 1737 ff., 23 vols. 
 8°. (J. H. Callenberg, Vita P. Antonii, 1741.) Less spiritual, and hence 
 petty and dull in his dismemberments, emphases, types, and practical ap- 
 plications, J. Lange, Mosaisches, biblisch-historisches, davidisch-salomonisches, 
 prophetisches, evangelisches,apostolisches,apocali/ptisches Licht und Recht, Halle, 
 1729 ff., 7 vols. fol. There are also lectures by J. J. Rambach upon several 
 epistles, published after his death. J. H. Michaelis, at Halle (f 1738), Hehr. 
 Bihel mit Randhemerkungen, also separately, Uberiores annott. in hagiograpka, 
 1720, 3 vols. 4°, to which C B. Michaelis and Rambach contributed. 
 
 Similar methods were followed by mystics of other shades : (J. H. 
 Horch), Mystiscke und profetische Bihel . . . nehst Erliarung der Sinnhilder 
 und Weissagungen, Marb. 1712. Cf. J. Schepp, in the Bihl. Hag., I. 357. 
 The Berleburg Bible (§ 487) purported to give " together with some expla- 
 nation of the literal sense, and of the principal types and prophecies of 
 
680 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 Christ and his kingdom, at the same time . . . an interpretation which re- 
 veals the inner state of the spiritual life." The authors (probably several), 
 unknown and not altogether in accord, combine with the general tendencies 
 of Pietism theosophico-chiliastic ideas, and take issue upon occasion with 
 the church doctrines ; cf. Weizsiicker, in Herzog's Encijki. Zinzendorf and 
 the Herrnhuters [Moravians] accomplished little for biblical interpretation, 
 even in their own sense of the term, because with them the formal jninciple 
 of the Protestant theology (the authority of the Scriptures) was forced al- 
 together into the background by the one - sidedly apprehended material 
 principle (the blood of Christ). Mystical expositions of the Canticles ap- 
 peared in great numbers about the middle of the century, mostly by anony- 
 mous autliors, therefore not by theologians of the schools. 
 
 560. The rise of Pietism and its reassertion of the right of 
 the people to the Bible was at first opposed by orthodoxy with 
 all the scorn of outraged privilege, and all the obstinacy of a 
 conviction which owed the treasure of what it believed it knew 
 and knew it believed not to isolated endeavors but to the 
 united and consistently applied power of several generations. 
 But since the discussion related rather to the form of instruc- 
 tion than to the contents of the faith, the controversy neces- 
 sarily brought about the removal of the differences, and the 
 scholastic learning of the one party was quite susceptible of 
 being reconciled with the more practical bent of the other. 
 Spener's school, though unwittingly, prepared the way for the 
 approximation of Liitheranism and Calvinism, and in general 
 threw purely theoretical differences into the background. 
 
 Against the Pietists wrote V. E. Loscher, at Dresden (f 1749), Brevia- 
 rium theol. exegeticce, 1719 (an earlier edition, Rost. 1715, he disowned ; see 
 Unsch. Nachr., 1715, p. 545), and under his management the famous journal 
 Unschuldige Nachrichten, under various titles (Altes mid Neues ; Fortges. 
 Sammlung v. Altem und Neuem : Fruhaufgelesene Friichte) 1701-50 ; Lbscher's 
 Lehen, by Engelhardt, Stuttg.'l856 ; M. Chladni (Chladenius, f 1725), at 
 Wittenberg, Institt. exegeticce, 1725 ; J. L. Frbreisen, at Strassburg (f 1761), 
 Judicia de iis qui secido prcesente studio exegetico profuerunt aut nocuerunt, 
 1754. Of more genei'al contents, like the last, are also the " Seuffzer " on 
 the exegetical study of this period, in the above mentioned journal, 1702, p. 
 216. 
 
 The successors of the older Halle Pietists combined with the hearty piety 
 of their predecessors a much greater learning. They preached peace (C. B. 
 Michaelis, De studio partium a S. S. interpretatione removendo, 1729), and in- 
 clined more either to historical (Jena : J. F. Buddeus, f 1729 ; J. G. Walch, 
 t 1775 ; see his Leben, 1777) or to philosophical studies, §570. — J. L. 
 Reckenberger, at Apolda, Nexus canonum herm. naturalis, Vit. 1757 ; C. T. 
 Seidel, at Helmstedt, Amveisuug zur Erkldrung der h. S., Halle, 1759. But 
 those Pietists who went on in the beaten track of contempt of the world, 
 one-sidedly exaggerating the Halle spirit, soon had nothing more to say in 
 science. Many good orthodox theologians in the fii'st half of the eighteenth 
 century allowed themselves to be so far affected by the new spirit as to 
 abandon their bitter and uncandid polemic, and in particular to give to their 
 exegetical works a character favoring facts rather than opinions (J. Olea- 
 rius, at Leipzig, f 1713 ; J. H. Mai, at Giessen, f 1719 ; S. Deyling, at 
 Leipzig, f 1755, and others, the rest still less important). Here also cf. the 
 general works on the History of Theology cited in §§ 554, 558. 
 
PIETISTS — APOCALYPTIC EXEGESIS. 681 
 
 561. Worthy of especial mention in this connection, as a 
 peculiar outgrowth of the pietistic tendency, is the delight in 
 apocalyptic exegesis. Proceeding essentially from the hope of 
 a millennial kingdom in the near future, which was naturally 
 regarded as the peculiar prerogative of the small body of the 
 elect saints, it came from the outset into conflict with strict 
 Lutheranism, wliich had declared such hopes to be supersti- 
 tion, and, in view of the strong approval which it found in all 
 German-speaking countries and soon also outside, may have 
 contributed not a little to the weakening of the scholastic the- 
 ology and its influence. It delighted in strange computations, 
 and built castles in the air amid the confusion and wretched- 
 ness of matters as they really were. The Bible and human 
 history certainly came nearer together in this way, but un- 
 fortunately it was only in the fancies of a dreamy prophecy, 
 which led the way to the New Jerusalem hard by the insane 
 asylum, if not into it. 
 
 The history of the exposition of the Apocalypse is given most fully by 
 Liicke, in his Einleitung. — Tlie orthodox Protestant exegesis found in it es- 
 sentially an anti-papal section of Church History, and so interpreted it that 
 the millennial kingdom was in the past. In the eighteenth century this sys- 
 tem was still almost universally defended by the Reformed, Dutch, Swiss, 
 and English ; among the last it prevails even to the present day. — The 
 more famous names among the Lutherans are : D. Chytrseus, 1571 ; G. 
 Nigrinus, 1575 ; M. Hoe, 1G71; C. A. Loseke, 1731. Among the Reformed : 
 H. BuUmger, 1557; T. Brightman, 1612 ; J. Napier, 1615 ; J. Le Buy, 1651; 
 J. Marck, 1699 ; C. Vitringa, 1720 ; Crinsoz, 1729, etc. 
 
 But in the second half of the seventeenth century some began to look for 
 the millennial kingdom in the future, and in the imniediate, definitely calcu- 
 lable future. Apocalypsis reserata, Elbing, 1654 ; C. Heimiseh, Oh der jungste 
 Tag 1670 zu erwarten, Niirnb. ; his Hauptschliissel, etc., 1698 ; Van Helmont, 
 Seder Olam, 1693 ; the great Isaac Newton (in the English Polyglot, Pt. 
 XIX.) ; J. W. Petersen, Die Wahrheit des Rekhs Christi, 1693 ; J. E. Peter- 
 sen, Anleitung zum Verstdndniss der Offenh. Joh., 1696 ; their Verkldrte Of- 
 fenb. Joh., 1706 ; R. Fleming, Schllissel zur Offenh. Joh., 1701 ; M. Kro- 
 mayer, 1708 ; J. C. Seitz, 1721 ; H. Fitzner, 1735 ; and many others. 
 
 While the above-mentioned, being regarded as disreputable fanatics, could 
 gain little countenance for their view, it at once gained the ascendancy, and, 
 being enthusiastically accepted, brought the Apocalypse into the very fore- 
 ground of biblical study, thi'ough J. A. Bengel (§ 410), prelate at Stuttgart 
 (f 1752), a man distinguished equally for piety and learning : Erkldrte Of- 
 fenh. Joh. Oder vielmehr Je.iu Christi, Stuttg. 1740, and freq., down to the 
 present time ; his sixty Erhauliche Reden tiher die Offenh. Joh., 1747, and 
 freq., which also contain noteworthy political prophecies, which history 
 seemed more than once on tlie point of justifying. His system (Burk, Lehen 
 Bengels, 1831, p. 263 ff.) was reproduced in mmiberless writings, modified, 
 commented upon, versified, and has its believers to the present day (§ 584). 
 His best known followers down to the time of the Revolution were : .J. G. 
 Bbhmer, J. J. Zehender, S. B. Fehr, Wille, J. H. Tonnien, J. C. Lucas, W. 
 B. Christiani, G. F. Chimonius, C. A. Crusius, C. G. Berger, G. F, Fein, M. 
 F. Roos, C. G. Thube, E. Bengel (son), etc. 
 
 That with Bengel himself this tendency (though by no means an inciden- 
 
582 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 tal matter) did not disturb the sound basis of his exegesis is evident from 
 his Gnomon N. T. in quo ex nat'wa verborum vl simpUcltas profundilas concin- 
 nitas saluhritas sensuum ccelestium indicatur, Tiib. 1742, and fi-eq., 2 vols. 4°. 
 The apologetico-hermeneutic preface, as well as the concise, fruitful execu- 
 tion of the work, retains the spirit of the Halle school and gives it a more 
 tasteful dress. 
 
 562. Even in the bosom of Catholicism a similar struggle 
 arose. The movement which started with the Jansenists, in 
 opposition to the spirit of the Church, which was languishing 
 in external, formal worship and work -righteousness, found 
 nourishment and support in the Bible, which held up the most 
 faithful mirror to their quiet self-examination. Their inter- 
 pretation of Scripture was as hearty and warm as that of 
 their opponents was intellectual and cold. Kindred in spirit 
 to the German Pietists, they shared with them the fate of be- 
 ing attacked by a school proud of its supremacy and knowl- 
 edge, but without the consolation of having won, at the cost 
 of their undeserved obloquy and persecution, the final redemp- 
 tion of theology. Yet this movement, in consequence of its 
 Catholic origin and monastic, celibate asceticism, was much 
 more closely allied than the pietistic to the media3val mysti- 
 cism, and led to errors which in the bosom of the Protestant 
 Church could not so easily arise. Moreover they maintained 
 a half-way position on the main issue, and defended what they 
 hazarded and won not so much with clear courage of conscience 
 as by verbal artifices and evasions which would have been 
 more worthy of their opponents. 
 
 But a very nuich greater difference between the two schools is manifest 
 in the way in which their spirit expresses itself in language. The French 
 Jansenists lived and wrote in the golden age of the national literature, and 
 were some of them among the classical writers of their fatherland ; the Pie- 
 tists, like their bitterest opponents, were the sons of the period of the Ger- 
 man civil war, their language an unwieldy and motley mixture of rude 
 German and scholastic Latin, with which was soon mingled a mass of for- 
 eign idioms also. 
 
 For the literature on Jansenism see Winer, Handb., 3d ed., I. 650 f. Cf. 
 § 488. [H. Reuchlin, Geschichte v. Port Royal, der Kampfdes reform, u. des 
 jesuitischen Katholicismus unter Ludwig XIII. u. XIV., 1839-44, 2 vols. ; 
 Schill, Die Constitution Unigenitm, Freib. 1876 ; Bouvier, La ve'rite sur les 
 Arnaulds, complete'e avec Vaide de lew correspondance inedite, 1877, 2 vols. ; 
 A. Vandenpeereboom, Cornelius Jansenius, septieme e'veque d' Ypres, sa mart, 
 son testament, ses epitaphs, Bruges, 1882 ; Chas. Beard, Port Royal, Lond. 
 1861 (the best English history of the Jansenist controversy)]. 
 
 Corn. Jansen, Bishop of Ypres (f 1638), dogmatic writings {Augustinus') 
 and posthumous commentaries on the Pentateuch, Psalms, the books of Solo- 
 mon, and especially the Gospels (Teti-ateuchus), Louvain, 1639 ff., separately, 
 and f req. 
 
 The use of Scripture first acquired the practical and ascetic tendency 
 which resulted from the master's theological views among the French. A. 
 Godeau, Bishop of Vence (f 1672), Paraphrases des c'pitres, P. 1651, 6 vols. ; 
 Pasquier Quesnel (f 1719), Le N. T. avec des reflexions morales sur chaque 
 
JANSENISTS — ARMINIANS. 583 
 
 verset pour en rendre la lecture plus utile et la meditation plus aise'e, P. 1687, 
 and freq., 8 vols., German by J. A. Gramlich, Frankf. 1718. [E. tr., The 
 N. T., with moral rejiections upon every verse, Lond. 1719-*25, 4 vols. ; an- 
 other, of a part of the work. The Four Gospels, with a commentary and reflec- 
 tions, both spiritual and moral ; translated, and the Popish errors expunged, by 
 a Presbyter of the Church of England, Bath, 1790, 2 vols. ; new ed., revised 
 by H. A. Boardman, N. Y. 18G7, 2 vols.] (fjjisch. Nachr., 1713, p. 819 ; 
 1715, p. 254 If.) Similarly, the whole Bible, by Le Maistre de Sacy, Du 
 Fosse', Beaubrmi, and others, P. 1672, 32 vols., and fre^. ; A. Arnauld 
 (t 1694), on the Acts. 
 
 Far beyond the limits observed by the above went the restless and eccen- 
 tric Quietist, Job. Maria Bovieres de la Mothe-Gnyon (f 1717), La Ste. 
 Bible avec des explications et reflexions qui regardent la vie inte'rieure, Amst. 
 1713, 20 vols. 
 
 563. Equally removed from disputatious dogmatism and self- 
 satisfied mysticism, and too sober for either, stood the Armin- 
 ians. Originally bound together by their opposition to the 
 too great severity of the Calvinistic system, their theology 
 necessarily assumed from the outset a less strict character, and 
 their interpretation of the Scriptures, so far as the party inter- 
 ests permitted it, maintained a more independent position with 
 respect to the church faith. Perhaps, indeed, they showed too 
 great indifference toward the proper theological contents of 
 the Bible. They cultivated with especial felicity the hitherto 
 so much neglected historical element in interpretation. Some 
 of them also brought classically trained taste to the work. 
 But suspected as they were by all their opponents, although 
 these were so at variance among themselves, their example 
 could not at once have its effect. 
 
 They were honorable enough to admit that no special enlightenment of 
 the Holy Spirit had been bestowed upon them, and hence that none was 
 necessary; and they failed, for this very reason, to see a great many things 
 which their opponents were accustomed to discover. As theological exe- 
 getes they have made little sensation. Sim. Episcopius, at Amsterdam 
 (f 1613), on certain dogmatically important passages of the N. T., 0pp., 
 1650-65, 2 vols., fol. [Life by Ph. Limborch, in Dutch, afterward translated 
 into Latin, 1701 ; Calder, Memoirs of Simon Episcopius, N. Y. 1837] ; Ph. v. 
 Limborch, Amsterdam (f 1712), on the Acts, Romans, and Hebrews, Rotterd. 
 1711, fol. [A. des Armorie van der Hoeven, De J. Clerico et P. a Limborch^ 
 Amst. 1845] ; C. Hartsoeker, on the Gospels, Amst. 1688 if., separately. 
 
 Rather for their philological and historical learning and application of it : 
 Hugo Grotius (De Groot, f 1645), of Delft, jurist, statesman, and theolo- 
 gian, 0pp. theoL, Bas. 1732, 4 vols, fol., containing Annotationes on the whole 
 Bible, with copious comparison of the classics, and little regard for the 
 favorite exegetical ideas of the time. New editions, Ann. in V. T., ed. G. J. 
 L. Vogel, Halle, 1775, 3 vols. 4°; A7m. in N. T., ed. C. E. a Wiudheim, 
 Erl. 1755, 2 vols. 4°; together, Grbn. 1834, 9 vols. 8°. They are to be found 
 also in the Bibl. illustr. of Calovius (§ 555), mostly hostile to them, and in 
 the Critici sacri (§ 567). Cf. C. Segaar, Or. d. H. Grotio N. T. interprete, 
 Traj. 1785 ; Wachler's Theol. Nachr., 1813, p. 207; Burigny, Vie de Grotius, 
 P. 1752, 2 vols. ; Diestel, p. 430. [Luden, Hugo Grotius nach s. Schicksalen 
 u. Schriften dargestellt, B. 1806 ; Butler, Life of Hugo Grotius, L. 1826 ; 
 Motley, John of Barneveld, N. Y. 1874, II. ch. xxu.] 
 
584 HISTOEY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 J. Le Clerc (Clericus, f 1736), at Amsterdam, Latin translation and para- 
 phrase of the O. T., with philological commentary and excursuses, Amst. 
 1693-1731 (also Tiib. 1733 uncompleted), 5 vols. fol. Also his translation 
 of the paraphrase and notes of H. Hammond on the N. T. (Loud. 1653, and 
 freq.) from the English into Latin, with many additions, Amst. 1698, fol., 
 and freq., De optimo genere interpretum S. S. (prefixed to Genesis). Cf. 
 Pfaff, Vita J. Clerici (in the Tiibingen edition of the Commentary). Escher, 
 in the Halle Encijkl., I. 18. 
 
 On Wetstein's Collectanea from the classics and Rabbins see § 409 ; De in- 
 terpretatio7ie N. T., in Wetst. libelli, ed. Semler, p. 110 &. ; H. G. Glockner, 
 Interpretandi ratio a J. J. Wetstenio adhibita examinaia, L. 1754. 
 
 564. All these parties in common, even the last-mentioned 
 not excepted, however diverse the results at which they arrived, 
 tacitly recognized the faith of their respective churches as their 
 guide in the exposition of the Scriptures. This fact may be 
 regarded as tlie peculiar characteristic of the period from the 
 close of the Reformation to the rise of the critical schools. Not 
 that it was greatly different before or after ; but it was more 
 clearly recognized and more honoiably admitted in this middle 
 period. There was no room for an opposite procedure. And 
 when philosophy, by the mouth of her most gifted exponent in 
 that period, and his followers, demanded for herself the suprc^me 
 voice in matters of interpretation, such a demand could neitiier 
 find a response nor leave behind a school in the science, except 
 as the latter renounced all connection with the Church, and after 
 all in reality but changed her master. 
 
 (B. Spinoza) Tractatus theologico-politicus continens diss, aliquot quibus 
 ostenditur lihertatem philosophandi . . . salva pietate et reip. pace posse concedi, 
 etc., Hamb. 1670, 4°. [E. tr. 2d ed.. Loud. 1868.] A definite denial of the 
 authority of theology over reason, based upon the view that the Scriptures 
 teach nothing but simple faith in God and obedience to Him, and that conse- 
 quently philosophy needs not come into contact witli it at all. Chs. vii.,xiv., 
 XV. [H. Ginsberg, Leben und Charakterbild Baruch Spinoza's, L. 1876 ; 
 R. Willis, Benedict de Spinoza, Lond. 1870 ; F. Pollock, Spinoza, his Life and 
 Philosophy/, Lond. 1880 ; James Martineau, Spinoza, Lond. and N. Y. 1882, 
 2d ed. 1883. Editions of Spinoza's works by Paulas, Jena, 1802-3, Gfrdrer, 
 Stuttg. 1830, Bruder, L. 1843-46, and by J. Vloten and J. P. N. Land, Hague 
 1882 if., superseding all others. Spinoza's works were translated into Ger- 
 man by B. Auerbach, Stuttg. 1840, 5 vols., and into French by Saisset, Par. 
 1842, 'id ed. 1861.] 
 
 (L. Meyer, a Dutch physician) Philotophia Scripturce interpres, exercitatio 
 paradoxa, 1666, ed. Semler, 1776 ; cf. Rosenmiiller, Handb., IV. 54. Here 
 reason does not appear as judge of a book with which it has nothing to do, 
 but is commissioned to find everywhere in the Scriptures, considered as the 
 word of God, truths agreeable to itself. 
 
 Cf. L. Wolzogen, De scripturarum interprete ad exercitatorem paradoxum, 
 Utr. 16G8 ; G. B. Bilfinger, De Spinosce methodo explicandi S. S., Jena, 
 1739. 
 
 565. While the dogmatists ^A'ere thus making a monopoly of 
 the interpretation of the Scriptures, and rendering the occu- 
 pation either a very dangerous or a very mechanical one, there 
 
PHILOLOGICAL AND ARCH^OLOGICAL STUDIES. 585 
 
 was also a considerable number of learned men who, from 
 timidity or fancy, amused themselves with the shell of this 
 study, and either did not care to seek for the kernel, or were 
 unable to find it. Some of them devoted themselves with 
 painstaking industry to the investigation of the sacred lan- 
 gu;ig'es, compared the classics passage by passage, studied the 
 Semitic dialects, examined the Oriental versions, and, as usual, 
 thought from each newly-discovered or more thoroughly inves- 
 tigated source to solve at once all the problems of the science. 
 Out of the vast masses of scattered notes grew lexicons, gram- 
 mars, and other philological helps, and although they did not 
 get along without quarreling even in this field, yet there was 
 less at stake than in the theological battles, and the work 
 could be carried on with greater calmness, and consequently 
 with greater results. 
 
 In view of the special purpose of this division of our work we may omit 
 the fuller description of the literature in this and the following section. 
 Cf. Gesenius, Gesch. der kebr. Sprache, L. 1815 ; Meyer, Gesch. der Schrifter- 
 kldrung, III., 1 ff., IV., 1 ff. ; Winer, N. T. Grammar, Introduction ; and 
 above, § 44 if. 
 
 From the end of the sixteenth century on Hollanders, Frenchmen, and 
 Englishmen wrote Observationes of a purely philological nature upon isolated 
 passages, especially of the N. T., mostly upon the basis of their reading in 
 the Greek classics, some also in the Oriental languages and the Rabbins. 
 The most famous, most of whose works are printed together in the Critici 
 sacri (§ 567), are : J. v. d. Driesche (Drusuis, f 1612), at Franeker ; L. 
 de Dieu (f 1642), at Leyden ; J. Cappelle (f 1624), at Sedan ; L. Cappelle, 
 his brother (f 1658), at Saumur (see on the latter M. Nicolas in the Strassb. 
 Revue, VIII. 257) ; I. Casaubon (f 1614), at Geneva and London ; J. Scaliger 
 (f 1609), at Leyden ; D. Heinsius (f 1655), at Leyden ; E. Leigh and J. 
 Doughtey (f 1671), at London ; L. Bos (1717), at Franeker ; much later, 
 J. Eisner, Reformed preacher at Berlin (f 1750) ; J. Alberti at Leyden 
 (f 1762) ; E. Palairet at London (f 1765), and many others. 
 
 In the hands of the Lutherans this study soon became petty pedantry, 
 attempts being made to explain the Greek language of the N. T. by com- 
 parison with some single author and thus set aside the Hebraisms so odious 
 to orthodoxy : G. Raphelius, at LUneburg, 1715 if., from Hei'odotus, Xeno- 
 phon, Polybius, and Arrian ; C. H. Lange, 1732, from Dionysius Halicar- 
 nassxis and Lucian ; C. F. Muntlie, 1755, from Diodorus ; J. H. v. Seelen, 
 1719 ff., from Plutarch and Hesiod ; G. W. Kirchmaier, 1732, from Polybius ; 
 J. C. Messerschmid, from Cebes (in the Bibl. brem., IV.) ; T. Eckhard, 1733, 
 from Aristophanes ; C. Porschberger, 1744, from Theocritus ; G. R. Salchlin, 
 1745, from Pindar ; D. Peucer, 1752, from Callimachus ; C. L. Bauer, 1773, 
 from Thucydides ; C. G. Haymann, 1772, fx-om Apollodorus ; D. C. Grimm, 
 1776, from Diodorus ; an unknown author in the Bibl. brem. nov., V., from 
 Artemidorus ; H. Scboltz, Johannea ex Theocrito, 1735, etc. 
 
 A peculiar school was founded by the Orientalist A. Schultens (f 1750), 
 at Leyden, who attempted to transform the whole lexicon and exegesis of the 
 O. T. with the aid of the Arabic (Job, Proverbs, etc.). Cf. J. H. Verschuir, 
 De interpr. V. T. gramm. hoc seculo ad perfect, educta, Diss., p. 185 ; Diestel, 
 § 450 ; F. Miihlau, in the Zeitschr.f. luth. Theol, 1870, I. 
 
 566. Others chose for the subject of their activity the sacred 
 
586 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 people and their history. Instead of religious instruction, they 
 sought in the Bible hints respecting the life and manners of the 
 Hebrews. Travelers brought them trustworthy information of 
 the celebrated land and its character. They did not even spare 
 the pains to search the otherwise so little attractive books 
 of the Jews for reminiscences of the conditions of the ancient 
 period. The religious and civil order was restored as it had 
 been established by Moses and administered by David; animals 
 and plants were catalogued and determined; their dwellings, 
 clothing, and food were described to the smallest detail, and 
 Israel's whole domestic life, more complete, orderly, and cleanly 
 than it perhaps ever was in reality, arose like a ghost called up 
 from the region of the dead, — a monument of astonishing, 
 often undigested, learning, but a still unexhausted mine for a 
 generation to which a more remunerative task has fallen. 
 
 The following may serve as a small selection of the moi-e famous 
 names : — 
 
 For Archaeology as a whole : Ben. Arias Montanus (de la Sierra, f 1598) ; 
 P. Cunaeus, at Leydeu (f 1G17) ; M. Leydekker, at Utrecht (f 1721); A.G. 
 Wiihuer, at Gottingeu (f 17G2). 
 
 For Chronology : J. Scaliger ; Denys Petau, a Jesuit at Paris (f 1652) ; 
 J. Ussher (Usserius, f 1655), Archbishop of Ai-magh in Ireland ; A. des 
 Vignoles, at Berlin (f 1744). 
 
 For History : F. Spanheim, at Leyden (f 1701) ; J. F. Buddeus (§ 560) ; 
 H. Prideaux, at Norwich (f 1724). 
 
 For Geography : S. Bochart, at Caen (f 1667) ; H. Reland, at Utrecht 
 (t 1718) ; Vitringa (§ 557). 
 
 For Natural History : Bochart ; J. J. Scheuchzer, at Ziirich (f 1733) ; 
 O. Celsius, at Upsala (f 1756). 
 
 For Antiquities proper : Th. Goodwin, at Oxford (f 1643) ; J. G. Carpzov, 
 at Leipzig (f 1767); C. Ikcn, at Bremen (f 1753). Religious : J. Spencer, 
 at Cambridge (f 1693) ; J. Lund, at Tundern, in Schleswig (f 1686) ; H, 
 Reland, Drusius, Vitringa, J. Braun (§ 557); H. Witse, at Leyden (f 1708); 
 J. Trigland, at Leyden (f 1706) ; Th. Dassov, at Wittenberg and Kiel 
 (t 1721). Political and civil : J. Selden, at Loudon (f 1654) ; W. Schickard, 
 at Tubingen (f 1635), etc. 
 
 Such materials were applied directly to the exegesis of the N. T., among 
 others, by J. Lightfoot, at Cambridge (f 1675), 0pp., 1686 fP., 3 vols, fol.; 
 C. Schottgen, at Dresden (f 1751), Horoe hebr. et talm., 1733 ; J. A. Danz, at 
 Jena (f 1727), etc. 
 
 The often disturbing theological presuppositions, the insufficient observa- 
 tion of nature at that time, the grotesque trifling of many, especially those 
 not mentioned here, cannot outweigh the considerable and hardly won 
 merits of the rest. Most of those mentioned are Reformed, scarcely any 
 Catholics. 
 
 A more detailed statement of titles of books (which may be found in the 
 manuals of Hebrew Archreology, also in Diestel, § 458 ff.), and a continu- 
 ation of the catalogue for the later period of the biblical literature is not in 
 place here. It was the purpose to name those who prepared the way for 
 giving the theological use of the Scriptures a new direction, not historical in- 
 vestigators as such. Cf. also G. F. Gudius, De Jurisconsultorum mentis in 
 S. S., L. 1729 ; J. H. a Seelen, De medicorum mentis in S. S. (Meditt., II., 
 699). 
 
HISTORICAL TENDENCY. 587 
 
 567. Perhaps, -without suspecting it, these patient hod-car- 
 rievs of the science were preparing the material for a firmer 
 building than that which the scholasticism of the seventeenth 
 century had too hastily declared complete. True, their works 
 have many of them been forgotten, but their more useful re- 
 sults have in a hundred ways become the common property 
 of many. While dogmatic interests still had their influence, 
 and through the pietistic controversies were even obtaining a 
 new power, the jaassion for historical collection, coupled with 
 a milder judgment of those of different views, was already 
 beginning, and that outside of Germany, to have its effect in 
 the field of Scripture interpretation. There came, in a sphere 
 by no means narrow, a time of stagnation, the precursor of a 
 greater revolution, and those who were least touched by the 
 spirit of prophecy turned their attention to the past. 
 
 Such collections were : Critici sacri sive clariss. virorum . . . in hiblia annott. 
 et tractatus, collected by J. Pearson and others, Lond. 1G60, 9 vols, fol., as 
 a supplement to the London Polyglot ; contains only Reformed and Catholic 
 expositors, because all confessional polemic, without which the Luthex"ans 
 could not write on the Bible at all, was designed to be avoided in the work. 
 Reprinted and enlarged at (Amsterdam and) Frankfort, 1695, 9 vols, fol., 
 ed. N. Giirtler. 
 
 Synopsis critlcoruyn aliorumque S.S. interpretum, Lond. 16G9 and freq.; last 
 at Franlcf. 1712, 5 vols, fol., by Matth. Poole (Polus); contains the former 
 critics and numerous others, among them Lutherans, no longer printed com- 
 plete and consecutively, but worked in together in extract, verse by verse, 
 with the names in the margin. 
 
 The so-called English Polyglot, a commentary which first appeared at the 
 Hague, 1742 ff., in French and Dutch, made up from distinguished English 
 exegetes, with a somewhat more decided emphasis on the dogmatic element, 
 though not on the confessional, immediately translated into German by R. 
 Teller, at Leipzig, J. A. Dietelmaii" at Altdorf, and J. Brucker at Augsburg. 
 L. 1749-70, 19 vols. 4°. 
 
 C. Starke's Synopsis hiUiothecce exegeticce, oder kurzgefasster Auszug, etc., 
 L. 1733 ft'., 8 vols. 4°, although its ultimate design is to pay homage to the 
 spirit of Pietism, collects industriously and without polemic a great number 
 of now forgotten interpreters of all churches and scliools. 
 
 Here also we may reckon J. C. Wolf at Hamburg (f 1739), C^irce philol. 
 et crit. in N. T., Bas. 1741, 5 vols. 4°. 
 
 568. So arose, from quiet beginnings, yet amid violent but 
 senseless wrangling, a historical tendency in the study of the 
 Bible, which from decade to decade bore riper fruit. The 
 results in knowledge which were thereby won we account of 
 less value ; we rate higher the coming to maturity of many 
 fruitful ideas, and the dying out of bygone forms of the science 
 caused thereby. The doctrine of the supernatural inspiration 
 of Scripture underwent a modification at first imperceptible, 
 but rich in results for hermeneutics. The incoming of anti- 
 biblical latitudinarianism demanded other weapons than the 
 
588 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 battered and rusty ones from tlie armory of scholastic ortho- 
 doxy, and the clamor of the stragglers of the old school was 
 lost in the urgent call to new and more important battles. 
 
 The new historical tendency, still outwardly orthodox, but inwardly 
 altogether at variance with the ecclesiastical system, is represented in its 
 theory by J. A. Turretin (at Geneva, f 1737), De S. S. inter pretanche methodo, 
 Utr. 1728, printed without his consent, and disowned ; (Restit. et auxit 
 W. A. Teller, 177(3) against inner illumination, the passion for emphases, 
 and the analogy of the faith, and besides the first attempt at a ISpecial 
 Hermeneutics (p. 371 : Est a7iimus in ea quibus scrihehant tempora et loca 
 transferendus et videndum qucenam in eorum qui turn vivebantanimo oriri potu- 
 erint idece. . . . Animus vacuus ad Scr. legendam ajferendus, instar tabuke rasce, 
 etc.). Also posthumous University lectures on Romans and Thessalonians, 
 1739 ff. ; Cogitationes et dissertationes, Gen. 1737, 3 vols. 4° ; 0pp. theol., 
 Leov. 1774, 3 vols. 4°. F. Schaller, Essai sur Turr., Colm. 18G1 [H de Bude, 
 Francois et J. Alphonse Turretini, Laus. 1880, 2 vols.]. His contemporary 
 and countryman, S. Werenfels, at Basle (f 1740. Ojjp., 1782, 3 vols.), was 
 more prudent and cautious : Lectiones hermeneuticcej De scopo inierpretis ; 
 although he indulged in hearty sarcasm on the methods of the dogmatists : 
 Epigr. CO : Hie liber est in quo sua qucerit dogmata quisque, invenit et pariter 
 dogmata quisque sua. 
 
 Here are to be classified, above all, the exegetical writings of the 
 archfeologists named in § 566, except so far as they belong to the Coeceians, 
 and their sympathizers among the Reformed ; e. g., B. Walaeus, Ueber die 
 histor. Biicher des N. T., 1652. 
 
 I. de Beausobre (§ 487), at Berlin (f 1738), Remarques hist. crit. et phil. 
 sur le N. T., La Haye, 1742 (also containing his life) ; J. L. v. Mosheim, at 
 Gottingen (f 1755), the celebrated church historian (see LUcke, Narratio de 
 J. L. Mosheim, 1837), on John, Corinthians, Pastoral Epistles, printed mostly 
 after his death ; C. A. Heumann, at Gottingen (1765), who honorably sac- 
 rificed his position to his lapse from strict Lutheranism, but would only 
 make it known to the world in his will ; Erkl. des N. T., 1750, 12 Pts., un- 
 completed ; De exegesi historica (in his Nova syll., I). 
 
 J. D. Michaelis (§ 18), who did not succeed, notwithstanding his best ef- 
 forts, in remaining orthodox, because his learning became too broad and he 
 too proud of it ; Deutsche Uebers. des A. T. mit Anmerkk. fiir Ungelehrte, 
 1769 ff., 13 vols. 4° ; N. T., 1790 ff., 6 vols. 4° ; writings on Hebrew 
 Antiquities ; paraphrases and commentaries on the Epistles, Ecclesiastes, 
 Jeremiah, etc. ; Orient, u. exeget. Bibliothek, 1771-91, 33 vols., and many 
 smaller writings, mostly on biblical subjects ; cf. also § 18. Autobiography, 
 with notes and additions by Schulz, Heyne, and Hassencamp, 1793 ; cf. 
 Eichhorn's Bibl, III. 827 ; Ewald, Jahrb., 1848, p. 26. Against Michaelis, 
 from the one side (§ 581), J. Tobler, Anmerkk. zur Ehre der I'dbel, 1771 £f., 
 8 vols. ; from the other (§ 575), C. F. Bahrdt, Kritiken iiber Michaelis Bibel- 
 ubers., 1773. — In the spirit of Michaelis, rather indifl^erent and cautious than 
 orthodox, many others treated the special questions in the literary history of 
 the Bible (mostly O. T.). 
 
 Contemporaneously there arose also the still very immature idea of a 
 Biblical Theology : A. F. Biisching (the Polyhistor at St. Petersburg and 
 Berlin (f 1793), see his Autobiography, 1789), Epitome theol. chr. e soils ss. 
 II. concimiatce et ab omnibus rebus et verbis scholasticis purgata, 1756 ; C. A. 
 Dijderlein, Von den hohen Vorziigen der bibl. Theol. vor d. scholastischen, 1758. 
 
 Equally noteworthy is the gi"owing silence of polemic, even against the 
 Catholic Church, especially in relation to all matters closely connected with 
 the theology of the Scriptures. Cf . § 595. How among the Protestants 
 
WOLFIAN PHILOSOPHY. 589 
 
 themselves Orthodoxy was forced into a purely defensive position, see § 581 
 f. — During the middle third of the eighteenth century the number of able 
 and intelUgent theologians at the German Universities was extraordinarily 
 small, and the more distmguished (perhaps Baumgarten and Pfaff excepted) 
 shone only as historians. An important sign of the revolution of the theo- 
 logical spirit of the age, the new University of Gottingen, which soon be- 
 came prominent, gave the key-note for the primacy of historical learning in 
 theology also. 
 
 569. Hand in band with the gradual wearing away of dog- 
 matic rigor in exegesis went a similar change in method. The 
 practical design of exposition, combined with the empty ver- 
 bosity of the current style of writing, brought into existence 
 a flood of paraphrases, in which scientific precision and the 
 energy of the biblical speech were both alike wanting. Their 
 great number was not an accidental phenomenon. It showed 
 that the time of purely polemic treatment of the Scriptures 
 was past, and that men desired to let the Apostles speak for 
 themselves. Moreover they were altogether sincere in tliis 
 desire, and did not take note that in this paraphrastic form 
 the Apostles in reality often spoke but very little. 
 
 Paraphrasing, which had already been in favor earlier, a reaction against 
 formal learning and philological word-sifting, came into vogue first in Eng- 
 land, after the beginning of the eighteenth century : S. Clarke, Gospels, 
 1701 ; J. Locke, several Pauline Epistles, 1709 ; J. Peirce, the same, 1733 ; 
 G. Benson, all the Epistles, 1734 ; Th. Pyle, Epistles and Acts, 1725 ; Ph. 
 Doddridge, The Family Expositor, on the whole N. T., etc. Most of these 
 were frequently reprinted and transplanted to German soil, where at that 
 time the English literature was attentively followed and imitated. The 
 spirit and contents of these works and those like them was very various, 
 sometimes analytic of the thouglit, sometimes rather edificatory and diffuse, 
 sometimes even abusing the form to the introduction of peculiar views. For 
 the last cf . among others the N. T. translated " according to the sense " of 
 the original, by Tim. Pliiladelphus (Kayser), 1733, 4 vols. 
 
 570. The Wolfian philosophy, which many had embraced in 
 the want of a better substitute for the former scholasticism, had 
 accustomed theologians, before they suspected in it any danger 
 to orthodoxy, to consider religious matters from the point of 
 view of their reasonableness, and invited to their mathematical 
 demonstration. Thus there came into exegesis a fashion of 
 hairsplitting analysis and dreary tabulation which repelled 
 the spirit without helping the intellect. But this dialectic 
 tendency did not strike root, any more thnn the opposite, 
 which blended philosophy and mysticism. Grammar and ar- 
 cha3ology weie already more important elements in exegetical 
 activity than dogmatics. For typology the age was altogether 
 too sober and poor in imagination, and what was taught theo- 
 retically concerning it resembles an unwilling retreat, and soon 
 ended in its lying down to die. 
 
 Upon Wolfian methods proceeded (beside many dogmatic theologians, see 
 
590 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 Sclirockh, N. Kirchengesch., VIII. 26) C. WoUe, at Leipzig (f 17G1), Her- 
 meneutlca N. T. certisKimis defcecatce philosophke principus corrohorata, 1736 
 (for the first time the N. T. specially) ; combining this method with a 
 liking for historical research and pietistic reminiscences, S. J. Baumgarten, 
 at Halle (f 1757), Unterricht von Auslegung der h. S., 1742 and freq. ; Aus- 
 fuhrlicher Vortrag der Hermeneuiik, 1769 ; Auslegung der evang. u. epist. Pe- 
 rikopen des Joh., Paulus, Jac, separately, 1750 ft'., the exegesis analyzed and 
 figured out to insipidity. J. H. Benner, at Giessen, Sylloge thesium herm., 
 1753. — H. van Alphen, at Utrecht, Specimma analytica in epp. Pauli, Traj. 
 1742, is perfectly empty, petty analysis. — The decided Wolfians busied 
 themselves only with dogmatics, not with exegesis (a fact to be kept in mind). 
 Cf. Tholuck, Gesch. des Rationalismus, § 119 ft. 
 
 C. A. Crusius, at Leipzig (f 1775), Hypomnemata ad theol. propheticam, 
 1764 ft., 3 vols. ; a Messianic exposition of the O. T. based upon philosoph- 
 ical views, but presenting only ode side of his system, which was designed to 
 commend the orthodox faith to the reason without estranging it from the 
 spiritual nature. Cf. F. Delitzsch, Crusius als Schriftausleger, in lUgen's 
 Zeitschr., 1844, IV., and Gesch. der prophet. Theol., p. 1 ft. 
 
 J. G. Tollner, at Frankfoi't a. d. O. (f 1774), Grundriss einer erwiesenen 
 Hermeneutik der h. S., 1765 ; Gottl. Eingebung der h. S., 1771, attempted, both 
 in the writings mentioned and in his dogmatic works, to set forth at the out- 
 set, by the aid of reason, certain formulas respecting the orthodox faith, so 
 that Orthodoxy should find in reason its justification. Cf. Ernesti, Bibl., XII. 
 31 ; Stiiudlin, Gesch. der Moral, p. 763. 
 
 C. G. Hofmann, at Wittenberg (f 1774), Institt. theol. exegeticce, 1754. 
 Equally averse from dialectics and from typomania, he in theory limited 
 the use of reason, and in effect looked for salvation from linguistic knowl- 
 ledge, jjsychology, and method. He had made his first appearance as an 
 opponent of the Pietists and Herrnhuters [Moravians]. 
 
 The first to return again to typological matters was C. M. Pfaff, at 
 Ttibingen (f 1760), a herald of peace in the Protestant Church, De theologies 
 typicce recta conformatione, 1723 ; J. A. Cramer, at Kiel (f 1788), denied it 
 dogmatic importance, and made it subservient to simple edification (Psalmen, 
 IV. 129 ft.) ; J. D. Michaelis (§ 568), Entwurf der typischen Gottesgelahrtheit, 
 1753, haggled over the material and aim of the science, and, himself thor- 
 oughly devoid of taste, feared to offend against taste by Cocceian excess. 
 J. W. Ran, at Erlangen (f 1807), Freimuthige Unterss. uber die Typologie, 
 1784, attempted to show its baselessness. In general, however, the ideas 
 respecting the so-called deeper sense of Scripture were obscure, and the 
 principles contradictory in statement, even on the orthodox side. Cf. also 
 Benson, Paraphr., I. 1 ; C. E. Weismann, Pro sensu spirituali V. T., Tiib. 
 1735 ; G. L. Oeder, Conject., p. 511 ff. 
 
 671. After the theological principles of former times had 
 thus lost their energy, and simultaneously a manifold intel- 
 lectual life, independent of religious ideas, in part, indeed, 
 opposed to them, had sprung up among the German people, 
 the time necessarily came at last when the new should try its 
 young strength in creation and transformation in this particu- 
 lar field also. True, no authority was longer recognized save 
 that of the mind, but custom, and, yet moi'e, the German genius 
 itself, maintained the authority of the Bible, notwithstanding 
 the attacks of an extreme but wholly impotent party. Exe- 
 gesis continued to be a science of the new period, but went 
 
ERNESTI. 591 
 
 over, simply changing her mistress, from the service of the 
 Church to that of the school, and became, witliout will of 
 her own, an accessory in the most opposite endeavors. But 
 the fact that the Church no longer had the power to expel 
 formally elements which were alien and dangerous to her was 
 at once a sign of the revolution which had taken place, and a 
 pledge of her universal destiny. 
 
 The revolution concerned chiefly the distinction between revelation and 
 the origin of the Scriptures, Old and New Testament, religion and theology. 
 
 J. O. Thiess, Elnl. in die neuere Geschichte der Religion, Kirche, u. the.ol. 
 Wissenschaft, Sclilesw. 1797 ; J. A. H. Tittmann, Pragmat. Gesch. der Theol. 
 u. Religion in d. prot. Kirche in d. zweiten Halfte des achtzehnten Jalirh., B. 
 1805 ; C. W. Flugge, Hist. krit. Darstellung des bisherigen Einjiasses der Icant- 
 ischen Philosophie auf die ivissenschaftliche u. praktische Theol. , Hann. 1796 f., 
 2 Pts. ; A. Tholuck, Abriss einer Gesch. der Umwiilzung welche seit 1750 auf 
 dem Gebiete der Theol. in Deutschland stattgefunden (^Verm. Schriften, II. 1 ff.) ; 
 C. F. A. Kahnis, Der innere Gang des deutschen Proteslantismus seit der Mitte 
 des vorigen Jahrh., L. 1854: ; A. Saintes, Hist, critique du rationallsme, P. 
 1843. 
 
 J. C. L. Gieseler, R'dckblick auf die theol. u. kirchl. Richtungen u. Entwick- 
 lungen der letzten fUnfzig Jahre, Gott. 1837 ; A. Neander, Das verfiossene 
 halbe Jahrh., etc., in the Berl. Zeitschr., 1850, I. ff. ; F. C. Baur, Kirchen- 
 gesch, des lOten Jahrh., Tiib. 1862, p. 99 ff. 
 
 H. J. Rose, The State of Protestantism in Germany, 2d ed. 1829, which also 
 contains a series of essays of similar contents by P. A. Stapfer, from the 
 Archives du Christianisme, 1824 ff. ; O. T. Dobbin, German Rationalism in its 
 Early Indications, in Kitto's Journal of Sacr. Lit., I. ; his Influence of Modern 
 Philosophy on Christianity, ibidem, II. ; E. Dewar, German Protestantism, 
 Oxf. 1844. 
 
 572. But this revolution did not come about, like so many 
 others, through the sudden and overwhelming victory of a 
 principle sharply opposed to that hitherto in force. Revolu- 
 tions in the realm of mind do not so take place. The change 
 goes forward gradually, and is all the more lasting for that 
 reason. Thus we find on the threshold of this period a school 
 of men who were accessible to the new ideas, without allowing 
 themselves to be carried away by them. At their head stood 
 Johann August Ernesti, and their activity began at Leipzig. 
 Rather philologists than theologians, and the former under- 
 stood in the sense of classical culture and purity, they brought 
 to the interpretation of the Scriptures rather taste and con- 
 scientiousness than spiritual depth and philosopliical views. 
 Much admired in their time as the antipodes of the artificial 
 style that was departing, they have long since ceased to satisfy 
 our age with their rhetorical superficiality. Fresh and bold in 
 the beginning of their glory, and falling in with tlie opinions 
 in vogue, having no theological formula on their standard, 
 they were soon outstripped, and, almost more neutral than 
 conservative, not only had no claim to enduring influence, but 
 
592 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 were obliged to look on wliile their weapons, according to the 
 usual course of things, were made use of by a more violent 
 party. 
 
 J. A. Ernesti, at Leipzig (f 1781), Insdtutio interpretis N. T., L. 17G1, 5th 
 ed. 1809 [E. tr. by Terrot, in the Biblical Cabinet, Edinb. 1834] ; Neue 
 theol. Bibliotliek, 1760-1779 ; Diss, pro grammatica interpr. II. ss., 1749 ; De 
 vanitate philosophantium in interpr. II. ss., 1750 ; De difficultate interpr. gramm., 
 1755 ; other works in his 0pp. pJiil. et theol. His Anmerkk. zum N. T., 1786, 
 and Lectiones in Ep. ad Hebr., 1795, are University lectures printed fi-om 
 notes after his death. (Cf. W. A. Teller, Ernesti's Verdienste um Theologie u. 
 Religion, L. 1783 ; Semler, Zusdtze zu Teller, Halle, 1783 ; B. F. Schmieder, 
 Ernestiana, 1782 ; J. v. Voorst, De Ernest io optimo post Grotium duce interpr. 
 N. T., Leyd. 1804 ; Eckstein, in the Halle Enajkl, I. 37.) — For his vague 
 and imperfect views on inspiration, see the Bibl., III. 469. It is character- 
 istic of liini that he throughout regards hernieneutics as the highest depart- 
 ment of theology, and makes the philological element in it more prominent 
 than all others. 
 
 S. F. N. Morns, at Leipzig (f 1792), Super Henneneutica N. T, acroases 
 acad., L. 1797 f., 2 vols. ; Dissert, theol., 1798, 2 vols. University lectures 
 on Luke, John, the Acts, and most of the Ejjistles, edited after his death 
 by different persons, and of varying value, according to the source. J. G. 
 C. Hopfner, Leben und Verdienste S. F. N. Mori, 1793. 
 
 J. A. Dathe, at Leipzig (f 1791), a Latin version of the O. T., 1773 ff. and 
 freq., 6 vols, witli notes ; Opuscula, 1796. Elogium Dathii, L. 1791. J. F. 
 Fischer, at Leipzig (f 1799), tlie grammarian and lexicographer of the 
 school. J. C. Doderlein, at Jena (f 1792), its systematic theologian, exe- 
 getical treatment of Isaiah and the poetical books of the O. T. ; Theol. Bibl., 
 1780-91 ; Theol. Journal, 1792. See Amnion, in Hiinlein's Journal, I. 1. 
 
 J. G. Rosenmiiller, at Erlangen and Leipzig (f 1815), Scholia in N. T., 
 Nurnb. 1777, 6th ed. 1831. See J. C. Dolz, Leben J. G. Rosenmilller's, 
 1816. E. F. C. Rosenmtiller (son of the former, f 1835), at Leipzig, Scholia 
 in V. T., 1788-1835, 24 vols., 3d ed. partially completed, to Samuel-Esther. 
 Extract from it (vols. I.-XVIL), 6 vols. 1828 IE. ; archjeological writings ; 
 Exeget. Handb. far die bibl. Beioeisstellen, 1795, uncompleted. 
 
 Springing from the Ernestian school, but going beyond them in dogmatic 
 liberalism : J. A. Nosselt, at Halle (f 1807), Anweisung zur Bildung ange- 
 hender Theologen ; Pt. II. : Von der exeget. Theologie, 1786, and freq. ; Opus- 
 cula ad interpr. S. S., 1785 f., 2 vols. ; Exercitt. ad S. S. interpr., 1803 (cf. 
 Niemeyer, Leben NiisseWs, 1809 ; Gabler, Journal fur auserlesene Lit., V. 
 70); and C. G. Kiilmol, at Leipzig and Giessen (f 1841), De subtilitate in- 
 terpretationem gramm. commendante, 1788 ; Einiges iiber Stiicke des A. T. 
 (Hosea, Psalms, Messianic prophecies, 1792-99), but especially Comm. in II. 
 N. T. historicos, 1807 ff., 4 vols., 4th ed. 1843, and Ep. ad Hebr., 1831. The 
 former is philologically untrustworthy and theologically unsteady, the latter 
 certainly more thorough but already behind the times. 
 
 Strongly of the opposite tendency, C. C. Tittmann (f 1820), at Witten- 
 berg and Dresden, Opuscula, 1803 ; Comm. on John, 1810 (at first separate 
 programmes, 1786 ff.). The preface is a hermeneutical confession of faith, 
 not without polemic. — F. S. Winterberg, De interpr. unica, etc., in Velthu- 
 sen's Sylloge, IV. 
 
 573. The magical word which, however gradually and hesi- 
 tatingly, was to bring about the final emancipation of the 
 theology of the Scriptures from the yoke of tradition, was 
 spoken by a man whom nature had made neither for a party 
 
SEMLER. 593 
 
 leader nor for a prophet. This man was Joliann Salomo Sem- 
 ler, A thorough Pietist, a man of books from the school up, 
 he was drawn rather by the current of the time than by the 
 power of genius, rather by instinct than consciously, to the 
 head of a nioveuient which he was too weak to lead, and whose 
 future course he had not the ability to foresee. At heart in- 
 clined reverently to preserve that which was venerable, he led 
 the most deadly attack against all tradition. Absorbed in tbe 
 endless contention of the moment, he ai'rived at no definite 
 position for the future. His tireless and unsystematic learn- 
 ing gave him no leisure, as his unwieldy knowledge gave him 
 no means, of causing a new structure to rise from the ruins of 
 the old. If his thoughts have descended to his posterity as 
 principles, it is due not to his intellect but to their intrinsic 
 truth, and it is only because the later generation did not mis- 
 understand them, as he did, that it remembered his name. 
 
 On Seinler see §§ 18, 342, 411. Autobiography, H. 1781 f., 2 vols. Eich- 
 horn, Lehen Semler's, in his Bibl, Pt. V. ; Nosselt, Narratio de S. ejusque 
 meritis in interpr. S. S., in his paraphrase of the First I^pistle of John ; cf. 
 Nienieyer's Leben Nosselt's, II. 194 if. ; Thohick, Vermischte Schriften, II. 
 39 ff. ; H. Schmid, Theologie Semler's, Nordl. 1858. 
 
 Individuals are never creators, but only symptoms of revolutions. With- 
 out desiring to depreciate the uuportaiice of Semler, it should not be forgot- 
 ten that he did not open a new path for his age, but simply attempted to 
 formulate the critical ideas which were everywhere coming into view, and to 
 create for them a more solid basis. Turretin had said more than he began 
 with a generation before him (§568); the apparently growing uncertainty 
 of the text (§ 407 ff.) had given the death-blow to the belief in verbal in- 
 spiration, and to the method of emphases, at a time when both were still in 
 their glory; more gifted minds, such as Lessing (§ 341), had uttered as a 
 revelation what Semler only arrived at by laborious investigation and clumsy 
 demonstration ; and the latter became the famous man that he was chieily 
 because the theologians everywhere else, and particularly in his own neigh- 
 borhood, had failed to keep up with the intellectual development of the 
 nation. For his own opinion of his relation to his predecessors and contem- 
 poraries with respect to Biblical Theology see his Life, II. 121. 
 
 His writings belonging under this head : Vorbereitung zur theol. Hermeneu- 
 tik, 1760 ff., 4 vols. ; De mi/sticarum interpr. studio hodie parum utili, 1760 ; 
 Apparatus ad liberalem N. T. interpretationem, 1767; . . . V. T., 1773 ; Neuer 
 Versuch die Auslegung und Anwendung des N. T. zu befordern, 1786 ; para- 
 phrases and notes on John, Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Catholic Epis- 
 tles, 1769 fE., sejjarately. Dogmatic, historical, and apologetic writings. 
 Editions of earlier works of kindred character, with prefaces, notes, addi- 
 tions (R. Simon, Wetstein, etc.). 
 
 Startled by the vagaries of younger contemporaries (§ 575) he shrank 
 back at last from his work, and almost came to doubt his science altogether. 
 See Semler's letzte Aeusserungen fiber religiose Gegenstande, etc., 1791, in three 
 different editions simultaneously by A. H. Niemeyer, F. A. Wolf, and J. O. 
 Thiess. Semler's letztes Glaubensbekenntniss, ed. C. G. Schiitz, Kon. 1792. 
 
 574. This truth, which was by no means so clearly nnd con- 
 sciously expressed by Semler as we are accustomed to express 
 
 33 
 
594 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 it to-day, was based upon the historical point of view from 
 which lie considered the Sci'iptures, as something which had 
 come into existence in time, and which was not to be compre- 
 hended from the stand-point of our own times and wa3'S of 
 thinking. But his perception of this was only partial. He 
 heralded the discovery that the Church doctrine had been de- 
 veloped from the apostolic teaching gradually and not without 
 admixture of foreign elements ; but his unphilosophical judg- 
 ment Avas as unable to comprehend the spirit of this develop- 
 ment as was his rule of the sound human reason to understand 
 the original gospel of Christ. Amid the multitude and dust 
 of his books his heart failed to find expression ; the moral ele- 
 ment of faith began to be separated from the religious and 
 spiritual under pretext of pui'ifying the latter ; everything 
 going beyond this was regarded as conscious or unconscious 
 accommodation to Jewish ideas. It was to be the task of the 
 historical exegesis to prove this, but the rule which was to 
 guide the expositor, in the place of the ecclesiastical analogy 
 of the faith, he could naturally find only in himself. 
 
 With this view of the church doctrine, not so much theoretically as actu- 
 ally, the departure from the dogmatics of the Reformers was completed. 
 The history of doctrines, an almost new science, became the centre of 
 theological investigations, but its own sight was perverted because of its 
 starting-point. Semler recognized, indeed, the different tendencies in the 
 apostolic age and church, but he estimated them very superficially, and not- 
 withstanding his own varied inner experiences could not transport himself 
 into the realm of thought of the primitive period. See his Lehen, by Eich- 
 horn, p. 59 ff. 
 
 The thought which unites the theology of Semler with that of his like- 
 minded contemporaries, pupils, and followers exhausts itself in the reduc- 
 tion of Christianity to a new doctrine, whose aim is the hapi^iness of man- 
 kind through virtue. The distinction, beyond this, consists in the subjective 
 religious and moral constitution of the individual theologians or philosophers. 
 Moreover Christ 4\a\ei cvtoIs rhv K6-yov KaOws ijdvi'avTO a/coueir, Mk. iv. 33. 
 Itaque satis patet Uhrorum N. T. interpretationeni esse prcecipue historicam atque 
 descrihere illius temporis res gestas, studia, instituta Christianis eo tempore col- 
 Ugendis et conjirmandis aptissima quce non omnino ad nos traduci cuncta pos- 
 sunt, etc. Instit. brevior. ad liberal, erud. tkeoL, 1765, p. 52 f. 
 
 Semler left behind him no peculiar school, but those to be mentioned in 
 the next following sections, all, to a greater or less extent, learned from him, 
 made use of him, or built upon him more broadly. 
 
 575. While these new views, supported by a learning al- 
 ready mighty, even in its imperfection, were winning their 
 way in Germany, which had long been prepared for them, 
 English and French writers had begun, in shallow unbelief 
 and with an ignorance which despised all history, to ridicule 
 all biblical knowledge. And so it could not fail that in Ger- 
 many also, where Science, by her earnest investigation, was 
 shaking with mighty hand the decayed structure of the six- 
 teenth century, the unbidden spirits of disorder should press 
 
THE ILLUMINATION. 595 
 
 in to help. Yet they were neither so numerous nor so danger- 
 ous as their foreign models. At the first, however violent or 
 contemptuous they might be, their source was seldom hatred 
 of the divine in itself, or a jealous misunderstanding of it. In 
 their too hasty demolition, they decried, in the name of the 
 Illumination, the Christianity of the Church as priestcraft, and 
 with cynical insolence brought forward its own records as wit- 
 nesses against it. They talked of the Bible in the common, 
 vulgar tone, and allowed themselves to speak in an intoxica- 
 tion of conceit of the enjoyment of the tree of knowledge, and 
 without shame at their own nakedness. 
 
 Retrospect of the history of Deism and Naturalism in England and 
 France ; cf. § 341. G. V. Lechler, Geschichte des etigliachen Deismus, Stuttg. 
 1841 ; Winer, Tkeol. Lit., 3d ed., I. 377 If. Here cf. by way of example, Th. 
 Woolston (f 1733), Discourse on the Miracles of our Saviour, 6th ed. 1729, 
 the gospel history as an allegory ; see Rosenmiiller, Hist, int., I. 248 ; (Vol- 
 taire) La Bible enjin expliquee par plusieurs aumoniers de S. M. le roi de 
 Prusse, Gen. 1776 ; (Von Holbach) Histoire critique de J. C. (1770?) with 
 the motto : " Ecce homo. Pudet me generis humani cujus mentes et aures talia 
 ferre potuerunt. Augustine." 
 
 Related, explaining the gospel history as an astronomical symbol : (C. E. 
 Wiinsch) Horus, oder astrognost. Endurtheil ilher die Ojfenb. Joh., die mess. 
 Weissagungen und iiber Jesum und seine Jiinger, 1783 ; Dupuis, Origine de 
 tous les cultes, P. 1795, 3 vols. 4°, containing, III. 185 : Examen d'un ouvrage 
 phrygien contenant la doctrine apocal. du soleil equinoxial du printemps sous le 
 symbole de Vagneau. Warmed over again by the Jew F. Nork in many writ- 
 ings, 1835 ft". 
 
 Against Christianity as the absolute religion, with attacks upon the moral 
 character of its founder : H. S. Reimarus (f 1765) and the Wolfenbiittel 
 Fragments (in Lessing's Beitrdge, III., IV., 1774, and later separately), a 
 complete text of which not until 1851 f., in Niedner's Zdtschr. (unfinished). 
 D. F. Strauss, H. S. Reimarus, L. 1862. 
 
 The opposite tendency, reduction of Christian theology to a system of 
 ethics, philanthropy, Jesuit hunting : F. Nicolai, bookseller in Berlin, and his 
 Allg. deufsche Bibllothek, 1765-1807; C. T. Damm, at Berlin (f 1774), Uebers. 
 des N. T., 1764 ff., 3 vols. 4°; C. F. Bahrdt (son of J. F. Bahrdt, § 581), a 
 theological adventurer, not without gifts ; see his Selbstbiographie, 1790, 4 
 vols. ; D. Pott, Leben Bahrdt's, 1790, unfinished (f 1792); Glaubensbekennt- 
 niss, 1779 ; Brief e iiber die Bibel im Volkston, Halle, 1782, 6 vols. ; Ausfilh- 
 rung des Plans und Zwecks Jesu, B. 1783, 12 vols. ; Analyt. Erkl. der Epp., 
 1787, 3 vols. ; earlier, exegetical monographs on the O. T. He is more 
 widely known by his translation of the N. T., Die neuesten Offenbarungen 
 Gottes in Erzdhlungen und Briefen, Riga, 1773, 3d ed., B. 1783 ; an exquisite 
 satire upon it (printed anonymously, Giessen, 1774) in Goethe's works. His 
 O. T. under the title Die kleine Bibel, 1780, is not a translation but a poetical 
 pot-pourri, and professes to give the cream of Hebrew history and literature. 
 J. M. Goze, Beweis dass die Bahrdt'sche Uebers. eine vorsdtzliche Verfdlschung, 
 etc., Hamb. 1773. See in general Gehren, in the Halle Encykl., I. 7. (C. 
 Venturini, preacher in Brunswick) NatUrllche Geschichte der grossen Pro- 
 pheten von Nazareth, 1800 ; Geschichte des Urchristenthums, 1807; together, 6 
 vols. Writings of C. C. v. Langsdorff, of Heidelberg, 1827 ff. 
 
 E. F. C. Oertel, at Anspach, Gospel and Epistle of John, 1795 ; Ep. to the 
 Romans, 1793 ; " translated free from Hebraisms and philosophically tested 
 for the restoration of the pure Christianity of reason." 
 
596 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 676. The phenomena just described, however, remained only- 
 isolated, and there separated themselves from the fieer thuiking 
 theologians a school ot" rationalists, who set themselves at work 
 in scientific ways and methods to combat the old system. 
 Exegesis was one of their principal weapons for defense and 
 even for attack. A so-called psychological interpretation pro- 
 cm"ed anew fur the gospel accounts the right to a place in the 
 natural order of things, though often, it must be confessed, 
 simply replacing the miraculous by the extravagant; a so-called 
 historical, made the prophets to predict what was past; finally, 
 a so-called notiological, otherwise and less pretentiously called 
 that of the sound human reason, brought the Apostles them- 
 selves into the number of the Rationalists. For the most 
 worthless part of Sender's legacy had been the first to be ap- 
 propriated. Since faith was lost, men comforted themselves 
 with the assumption that it had never existed; and it was the 
 fate of this rationalism, which counted among its disciples 
 men otherwise worthy of honor, never to be able to get out of 
 the role of negation, and to carry this lack of power, or lack 
 of skill, as one may choose to call it, with them from dogmatics 
 into exegesis. 
 
 In general tlie rationalistic tendency of that period obtained a mighty im- 
 pulse both from Sender and from Kant (§ 577), but it was neither a product 
 of the latter's j^hilosophy nor an heir of the spirit of historical investi- 
 gation of the former, who had left so much to do and to test, most of all in 
 that which he had himself already tested and done. Rationalism had no 
 inclination whatever toward historical views of things, on the contrary a 
 peculiar necessity for theorizing, in which, however, it got scarcely farther 
 than clearing the grouiul, seldom to laying new foundations and building 
 upon them. Its appeal to the Bible proceeded from self-deception, if not 
 from something worse. It had no aspiration after the ideal. For the so- 
 called higher criticism there was neither prejiaratory knowledge nor acute- 
 ness sufficient ; in material things there was some good subordinate work 
 done. Yet fairness demands tliat we should not forget that this reduction 
 of the biblical history and teaching to general laws of experience and 
 thought was to the minds of most a defense of them against malicious at- 
 tacks, or at least a safeguard against unfavorable judgments, and that not- 
 withstanding all its inner weakness it was strong enough to avert a greater 
 danger. Cf. (J. F. Rohr) Brlefe ilber den Rationalismua, Zeitz, 1813. 
 
 W. A. Teller (son of R. Teller, § 567 ; f 1804), at Helmstadt and Berlin, 
 Worterhuch des N. T. zur Erklilrung der chrlstl. Lehre, 1772 and freq., etlii- 
 cizing in contents ; dogmatic writings ; additions to Turretin, § 568 ; Ueher 
 die neuere Schriftauslegung, 1801. (See Tholuck, in Herzog's Encyld.) [F. 
 Nicolai, Geddchtnissschrift aaf Teller, 1807.] 
 
 H. E. G. Paulus, at Jena and Heidelberg (f 1851), beside many smaller 
 writings, also dogmatic and philosophical, very unimportant, upon the O. T., 
 in particular, Phdolog. krit. u. histor. Commentar iiher das N. T., 1800 ff., 
 Pts. I.-IV. (Gospels) ; Exeget. Handbuch iiher die drei ersten Em., 1830, 3 vols.; 
 Lehen Jesu, 1828; Epp. of John, 1829 ; Galatians and Romans, 1831; Hebr., 
 1833 ; Ueher bihlhche Theologie, in the Oppos. Schrift., 1829, II. ; Skizzen aus 
 meinem Leben, 1839. C. A. v. Reicldiu-Meldegg, Paulus und seine Zeit, 
 Stuttg. 1853, 2 vols. 
 
RATIONALISM. 697 
 
 J. O. Thiess, at Kiel (f 1810), Das N. T. oder die he'd. Biicher der Christen 
 neu ilbersetzt mit einer durchaus anwendbaren Erlicirung, 1794 ft'., Pts. I.-IV.; 
 Neuer krit. Commentar iiher das N. T., 1804, Pts. I., II. ; Selhsthiographie, 
 1801 f. J. C. K. Eckenuaiin, at Kiel (f 1836), Erkldrung aller dunkeln Stellen 
 des N. T. (a paraphrase), 1806 ft'., 3 vols.; Theol. Beitrdge, 1790 fl:., 6 vols. 
 
 Exeget. Handb. des A. T. (by Hcipfiier or Naclitigal ?), 1797 ft., 8 vols., un- 
 finished ; (F. L. Roper) Exeget. Handb. des N. T., 1788 ft., 19 vols., frequently 
 printed ; (G. C. Horst, J. L. W. Scherer, L. C. Rullmann, and other Hessian 
 clergymen) Bibelcommentar zum Handgebrauch fur Prediger und Laien nach 
 den jetzigen Interpretationsgrundsdtzen, 1799 ft'., 7 vols. ; Der Schriftforscher, 
 zur Belebung eines grundlichen Bibelstudiums und Verbreitung der reinen ver- 
 schonernden Religion, by J. L. W. Scherer (f 1825), 1803-1805 ; his Wei- 
 hungen der Propheten, 1804 ; Weissagungen des N. T., 1803 ; James, 1799, 
 and others. J. J. Stolz, at Bremen (f 1821), Erlduterungcn zum N. T., 1796 
 f., 6 vols. W, C. Thurn, Reine Uebers. der Bergrede Jesu nach den Grund- 
 sdtzen der praktischen Vernun/t, 1799. C. G. Hensler, at Kiel (f 1812), writ- 
 ings on the O. T. and some of the Epistles. 
 
 H. Corrodi, at Zurich (f 1793), and others, Beitrdge zur Beforderung des 
 verniinfiigen Denkens in der Religioti, 1780-1794. (On him see Maurer, in the 
 Beitrdge, Heft 19.) W. F. Hezel, at Giessen and Dorpat (f 1824), Schrift- 
 forscher, 1790 ft. ; Bibel mit Anmerkk., 1781 ff., 10 vols. ; Canticles, John, 
 Hebrews, Psalms, and other books ; Geist der Philos. u. Sprache der alten 
 Welt, 1795. H. P. C. Henke (f 1809), at Helmstiidt ; see § 579 ; Opuscula, 
 1802, and his Leben by Bollmann and Wolff, 1816. J. A. Bolten, at Altona 
 (t 1807), the N. T., 1792 ff., 6 vols., under several special titles. J. F. C. 
 Loffler, at Berlin, Frankf . a. d. O., and Gotha (f 1816), Kleine Schriften, 1817, 
 3 vols. 
 
 J. Schulthess, at Ziirich (f 1836), Exeget. theol. Forschungen, 1815 ff., 
 8 vols. ; Theol. Annalen u. Nachrichten, 1826-1831 ; J. V. Henneberg, pastor in 
 Gotha (t 1831), commentaries on the narrative of the passion, Matthew, etc., 
 1829 ff. ; G. F. Dinter (f 1831), at Kouigsberg, Schullehrerbibel, 1824 and 
 freq., which aroused much controversy; see Allg. Lit. Zeitung, 1825, III., 
 633 ; Fuhrmann's Handb., 1836, p. 157. 
 
 Collections of explanations of mii'acles, 1800 ff., mostly by unknown 
 authors. — The dogmatic and ethical writings were properly philosophical 
 treatises or systems set with a selection of favorable biblical quotations. 
 Just so the beginnings of a biblical theology which were made at that time, 
 i. e., the first attempts to construct the Pauline system, Ritter, Leun, Cludius, 
 Bohme, see § 59. By the last (at Altenburg, f 1840) also : Religion Jesu, 
 1825 ; Religion der Apostel, 1829 ; commentary on Romans, 1806 ; on He- 
 brews, 1825 ; and a " Neue " Theorie der Auslegungskunst (in Scherer's 
 Schriftforscher, II. 1), which naively admits that exegesis arrives objectively 
 only at probabilities, and consequently must be comjjleted by subjective 
 philosophic methods. 
 
 677. Partly to satisfy its sense of consistency, but partly 
 also mistaking its vocation, the philosophy which prevailed at 
 the end of the last century attempted to render the Bible, to 
 which, so far as its dogmatic and historical contents were con- 
 cerned, it was perfectly indifferent, more fruitful by means of 
 a peculiar exegesis. Proceeding from the postulates of the 
 practical reason, and relying on the saying of the Apostle, that 
 all Scripture inspired by God is profitable for instruction and 
 improvement, it demanded from every letter of a written reve- 
 lation a meaning in harmony with the laws discovered by itself 
 
598 HISTOEY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 and pointing directly to them. Whether Kant's design was 
 in this ethical exposition to bring into favor a modernized alle- 
 gorical interpretation, or whether he confounded the interpre- 
 tation of Scripture with its application, is a question upon 
 which there are differing opinions. Certain it is that the 
 proposed hermeneutical rule found no favor even with the 
 rationalists, who were already traveling another road, and was 
 wrecked by the spiritless use made of it in practice. This 
 attempt to rear a new structure on the ruins of the old was 
 also a failure. 
 
 Immanuel Kant, at Koiiigsberg (f 1804), Die Religion innerhalh der 
 Grenzen der hlossen Vernunft, 1793 [E. tr. Religion loithin the Boundary of 
 Pure Reason, Edinb. 1838]. Kinship of the principle with the old tropology, 
 for which the critical philosophy was too nnpoetical and poor in imagination. 
 — It is unnecessary to discuss here its further relations to theology (§ 571). 
 [See, on Kant's religious views : Piinjer, Die Rellgionslehre Kants, Jena, 
 1874 ; P. Bridal, La Phihisophie de la Religion de Kant, Laus. 1876. Biog- 
 raphy : J. H. W. Stuckenberg, A Life of Kant, Lond. 1882. See also Schafi- 
 Herzog Encycl., Art. KantJ] 
 
 The great number of those who took pains to controvert Kant's herme- 
 neutical rule is remarkable, since the most of them had already unconsciously 
 made use of it (in a sense, at least), and were constantly practicing it : 
 J. G. Rosenmiiller, ]\Iethodol., p. 67 ff. ; his Histor. interpr., I. 250 ; Nosselt, 
 Animadv. in sensum S. S. moralem, 1795 ; Eckermann's Beitrdge, III. 3, IV.; 
 Paulus and Amnion, in Hiinlein's Journal, VIII. 749, IX. 143 ; A. C. Stauss, 
 Utrum philosophica Kantii Scr. interpr. admitti possit f Vit. 1795 ; Schmidt, in 
 his Bibl., I. 588 ; (C. W. Hebenstreit) Obss. ad moralem interpr. S. S., 1796 ; 
 various essays in Henke's Mag., II. 623, V. 261, VI. 140 ; N. Mag., I. 377; 
 Stiiudlin's Beitrdge, V, 336 ; Augusti's Neue Blatter, I. 3, p. 63 ; Monatsschrift, 
 III. 109 ; Bauer, Hermeneutica V. T., p. 45 ; Meyer, Hermeneutik des A. T., 
 II. 631 ; H. Planck, Interpr, philon., p. 68 ; Halm, in the Studien, 1830, II. 
 301 ; G. N. Molin, De morali, etc., Abo, 1805. 
 
 In accord with him, an anonymous writer in Hiinlein's Journal, III. 461 ; 
 another in Augusti's Neue Blatter, III. 1, p. 42. C. W. Penzenkuffer, in 
 Henke's Mag., III. 379 ; his Beitrdge zur Erkldrung der Stellen iiber das 
 iryevfia oiyiov, 1796. — His contemporaries were evidently too thoroughly pos- 
 sessed by the conviction of the possibility of ex|}laining the biblical miracles 
 naturally to be inclined to accept the spiritualizing hermeneutics. Cf. in 
 general Fliigge (§ 571), I. 98 if. 
 
 Closely related in results, though of very different origin : F. H. C. La- 
 sinsky, at Bacharach (f 1836), Die Offenh. des Lichts im Freudenworte der 
 vier Evangelisten, 1836, 2 vols. 
 
 In J. G. Fichte's Anvmsung zum seligen Leben, 1806 [translated by W. 
 Smith, in Popular Writings of J. G. Fichte, Lond. 1847-1849, 2 vols., ncwed. 
 1871], the attempt was made incidentally (p. 170 ff.), and without necessity 
 in the system, to draw Jesus and John into the interest of transcendental 
 idealism, but neither theology nor the public took any notice of it. See V. 
 F. Baur, Verhciltniss der wissenscliaftlichen und praktischen Theolog, p. 171. 
 [O. Pfleiderer, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Stuttg. 1877 ; F. Zimmern, /. G. 
 Fichte's Religions - Philosophie, B. 1878 ; R. Adamson, Fichte, Edinb. and 
 Lond. 1881.] 
 
 578. Before the critical philosophy had fairly exhausted its 
 powers in extracting everywhere, after its fashion, the prac- 
 
KANT — HERDER. 599 
 
 tical good from the shell of the letter, aesthetic taste, in the 
 freshness of youth, hud freed itself from the fetters of the 
 schools, and had made for itself a path which the systema- 
 tizers and the men of science could not follow. It was Johann 
 Gottfried Herder, more poet than theologian, but for that rea- 
 son only the more lovely, who understood how to open this 
 door of the sanctuary, the longest closed. How much he gave 
 up of the old faith, or accepted of the new, may be difficult to 
 say ; but, notwithstanding all the uncertainty of his results, 
 all the looseness of his method, all the defects of his historical 
 and linguistic knowledge, he was, in consequence of his relig- 
 ious fervor and pure imagination, his warm feeling for nature 
 and his fiery eloquence, the best apologist in the sense of his 
 time. His interpretations may all be improved upon now, but 
 the delight and the inspiration which they caused live on in- 
 destructible in the soul. His mind, in which manifest earnest- 
 ness was united with dreamy enthusiasm to combine the best 
 in opposite ways of thinking, could find admirers but no disci- 
 ples. 
 
 If it were necessary to seek a predecessor for Herder, we should think, 
 before all, of Klopstock, the author of the Messiah, whose theology was still 
 firm externally, but internally no longer had any real stability. 
 
 J. G. Herder, at AVeimar (f 1803), Theol. Werke, 12 vols., freq. ; includ- 
 ing, among other things : Aelteste Urkunde des Menschengeschlechts, 1774 ; 
 Briefe Jacohi und Judd, 1775 ; Lieder der Liebe, die dltesten und schunsten aus 
 dem Morgenlande, 1778 ; Maran Atha, das Buck von der Zukunfl des Herrn 
 (Revelation of John), 1779 ; Briefe das Studium der Thcologie betreffend, 
 1780, 2 vols. ; Vom Geiste der Hebr. Poesie, 1782, 2 vols. ; Vom Erloser der 
 Menschen nach den drei ersten Evv., 1796 ; Vom Gottes Sohn der Welt Heiland 
 nach Joh., 1797. 
 
 Herder's Leben, by C. L. Ring, Carlsr. 1832 ; cf. Doring, in Ersch and 
 Gruber's Encykl., II. 6 ; L. G. Kopp, Etude sur H. considere comme theologien, 
 Str. 1852. His influence has been felt more and longer in the treatment of 
 the O. T. J. E. Dibbits, Herder als Theolog inz. als verklaarder v. d. Bybel, 
 Utr. 1863 ; A. Werner, in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschr., 1871, III. [Caroline 
 Herder (his wife), Erinnerungen an Herder ; E. Herder (his son), Lebens- 
 bild. A new edition of Herder's works ajipeared in Berlin, 1877 flf., 32 
 vols.] 
 
 J. G. Eiehhorn (§ 19), Comment, in Apocalypsin, 1791; Job, 1800 ; Prophets, 
 1816, 3 vols. His writings, full of philological criticism and erudition, place 
 him rather among the men of the following section. See especially his Vor- 
 schldge zur Hermeneutik, in the Bibliothek, IV. 330. 
 
 It is remarkable'that from these two coryphaei sprang two opposite inter- 
 terpretations of the Apocalypse, at variance to a certain degree with their 
 respective literary ideals, both alike erroneous, and each defended by numer- 
 ous disciples, — a falsely historical one from Herder (and so still, among 
 others, F. J. ZuUig, 1834 ; J. G. Tinius, 1839 ; A. Frantz, 1838), and a 
 falsely idealized one from Eiehhorn (F. W. Hagen, 1796 ; Exeget. Handb., 
 1802 ; F. H. Lindemann, 1816 ; F. A. L. Matth^i, 1828 : E. F. C. OerteL 
 1835). 
 
 Here also belong C. W. JustI, at Marburg (f 1846. E. Henke, Memoria 
 Justii), Nationalgesange der Hebr., 1803, 3 vols. ; Blumen althebraischer Dicht' 
 
600 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 kunst, 1809, 2 vols. ; Sionitische Harfenklange, 1829 ; Joel, Amos, Micah, 
 Nahum, Habakkiik, 1792 ff., 5 vols. ; Job, 1840. F. W. C. Umbreit, at 
 Heidelberg (f 1800. See UUmann and Riehm, in the Studien, 1802, III.), 
 Kohekt, 1818, 1820, 1849, tbree different works ; Canticles, 1823, 1839 ; Job, 
 1824, and freq. ; Proverbs, 1826 ; Prophets, 3841 ff., 4 vols., and many es- 
 says in the Studien and Kritiken, with a well-defined tendency to blend the 
 element of religious edification with the poetical. 
 
 579. From these various tendencies, in part antagonistic, in 
 part shading off one into another, and all alike wenk from a 
 common uncertainty of principles, there finally struggled forth 
 a hermeneutical principle which claimed the supremacy, and 
 for a long time actually maintained it almost without opposi- 
 tion ; the principle of the grammatico-historical interpretation. 
 As for all literature, so also for the understanding of the sacred 
 writings, there was demanded a thorough linguistic knowledge 
 and an acquaintance with the horizon of the writer in religious 
 and arch ecological respects, which was to be obtained from 
 historical study. In comparison with recent practices this de- 
 mand was a very moderate one, and no party either could or 
 would longer deny it. The question was not whether it should 
 be regarded as established, but whether it should be regarded 
 as sufficient. 
 
 C. A. G. Keil, at Leipzig (f 1818), De historica II. ss. interpretatione ejusque 
 necessitate, 1788 ; Lehrbuch der Hermeneutik des N. T. nach Grundsdtzen der 
 gramm.-histor. Interpretation, 1810 ; Vertheidicjung der gramm.-hist. Interpre- 
 tation, in his Analekten, 1. 1 ; Opuscula, 1821, 2 vols. J. J. Griesbach (§ 412), 
 Vorlesungen iiber die Hermeneutik des N. T., 1815. C. D. Beck (at Leipzig ; 
 f 1832), Monogrammata hermeneutices, 1803. G. W. Meyer (§ 59 ; at Got- 
 tingen and Erlangen ; f 1816), Hermeneutik des A. T., 1799, 2 vols. J. G. 
 Gabler (son), De hist. II. N. T. interpretationis indole, 1823. J. E. R. Kauffer 
 (at Dresden), Regeln zum Verstandniss der h. S., in the Scichs. Studien, I. 1. 
 G. Seyffarth, in Bertholdt's Jowma/, XV. 113. 
 
 W. N. Freudentheil, De codice s. more in reliquis antiquis lihris solenni in- 
 genue interpretando, Chemn. 1791 ; J. Asboth, De interpr. cod. s. ad communia 
 interpretandi principia revocata, Gott. 1791. 
 
 S. G. Bretschneider (at Wittenberg and Gotha ; f 1848), Histor. dogma- 
 tiscTie Auslegung des N. T., 1806, in which what might be called the Jewish 
 analogy of the faith was given the place which the older hermeneutics had 
 given to the Christian. 
 
 Amono- periodicals in which this point of view was in the main advocated, 
 thongh in some cases with a stronger leaning toward rationalism (§ 576), 
 may be mentioned (beside the well-known Allg. Lit. Zeitung, published at 
 Jena, 1785-1803, at Halle, 1804-1849, in its theological articles) the Theolog. 
 Journal (Neue, Neueste, Kritische, etc.) edited under changing titles by Hiin- 
 lein. Amnion, and Paulus, 1793-1798 ; by Gabler, 1798-1811 ; by Amnion 
 and Bertholdt, 1813-1823 ; by Winer and Engelhardt, 1824:-18'19. — Amialen 
 der theolog. Literatur, by Hassencamp, afterward by Wachler, 1789-1823 ; 
 Gottingische Bihliothek, by Schleusner and Sfaudlin, 1795-1801. — il/a^razm 
 (afterward Museum) fiir Religionsphilosophie, Exegese u. Kirchengeschichte, by 
 Henke, 1794-1806.— Augusti's Theol. Blatter, 1796-1800; Theol. Monats- 
 schrift, 1801-2. — Analekten fiir das Studium der exeget. u. systemat. Theologie, 
 by Keil and Tschirner, 1813-1822. — Eichhorn's Repertorium fiir bibl. u. mar- 
 
GRAMMATICO-HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION. 601 
 
 genl. Literatur, 1777-1786 ; his Allg. Bibl. der bibl. Literatur, 1787-1801 ; 
 Neues Repertorium, by Pauliis, 1790-1791 ; his Memorahilien fur Religionsge- 
 schichte u. Bibelstudium, 1791-1796, and many smaller collections. 
 
 580. For aside from the fact that the hermeneutical formula 
 propounded bad no point of contact whatever with either the 
 religious needs of the church or the scientific needs of the 
 school, the management of it gave room for doubt whether an 
 impartial apprehension of the historical point of view was pos- 
 sible on the part of such expositors, since their exegesis was 
 too closely connected with their already completed theological 
 system. In reality it was chiefly a rationalism in pliilological 
 matters not always conscientious, in historical questions not al- 
 ways unprejudiced, and either thrusting religious things into 
 the background or emptying them of their meaning, which 
 adopted this formula. It thought too much about the Jews 
 and knew too little of Christ. Yet in the first part of our 
 century it had been so thoroughly transfused into the flesh and 
 blood of the Protestant theology of Germany that it in part did 
 not recognize, and in part has outlived, the victory of the sys- 
 tems coming after it. And the way was prepared for this vic- 
 tory by its own principle, which for the most part it so poorly 
 followed, of objective interpretation ; it likewise dug the grave 
 of its explanations of the miracles by the hypothesis of myths. 
 
 J. B. Koppe, at Gottingen (f 1791), Novum Testamentum perpetua annota- 
 tione illustratum, 1778-1826, most of it in several editions, but unfinished. 
 By the founders only a few epistles ; continuations and improvements by J. 
 H. Heinrichs, at Burgdorf, D. J. Pott, at Gottingen (f 1838), T. C. Tychsen, 
 at Gottingen (f 1831), and others. There are lacking the four Gospels, the 
 two Epistles to the Corinthians, 2 Peter, John, and Jude. — S. G. Lange, at 
 Jena and Rostock (f 1823), Joh. Schriften, 1795 £f., 3 vols. 
 
 J. F. Schleusner, at Gottingen and Wittenberg (f 1831), Lexicon in N. T., 
 1792, and freq., the exegetical manual of the half-taught scholars of that 
 time. Cf. my article in Herzog's Encykl. 
 
 C. F. Amnion, at Erlangen, Gottingen, and Dresden (f 1847); his dog- 
 matic and polemic writings belong in part to the opposite camp, while the 
 exegetical and historical maintain a tolerably decided rationalism ; the lat- 
 ter belong to the beginning and end of his literary career, the former to the 
 middle. Bihl. TheoL, 1792, 3 vols. ; Lehen Jesu, 1842 ff., 3 vols. ; Fortbil- 
 dung des Christenthums zur Weltreligion, 1833 f., 4 vols. ; Opuscula, 1793 ; 
 Nova 0pp., 1803. 
 
 G. P. C. Kaiser, at Erlangen (f 1850), Die bihl. Theologie, oder Judaismus 
 und Christianismus nach der gramm.-hist. Interpretations-methode und nach einer 
 freiniUthigen Stellung in die kritisch vergleichende Utiiver.mlgeschichte der Re- 
 ligionen und in die universale Religion, Erl. 1813 f., 3 vols. (The third vol- 
 ume confesses a conversion of the author to supernaturalism ; cf. § 583.) 
 
 G. L. Bauer, at Altdorf and Heidelberg (f 1806), Theol. des A. T., 1796 ; 
 additions thereto, 1801 ; Dicta classica V. T., 1798 ; Moral des A. T., 1803, 
 2 vols. ; Biblische Theol. des N. T., 1800, 4 vols. ; Moral des N. T., 1804, 2 
 vols.; Breviarium theol. bibl., 1803 ; Entwurf einer Hermeneutik des A.u. N. T., 
 1799; Hermeneutica V. T., 1797; Kleine Propheten, 1786; Scholia in V. T. 
 (begun by J. C. F. Schultz), 10 vols., 1783 ff., unfinished ; introductory crit- 
 ical writings on the O. T., Geschichte des hebr. Staats, 1800. 2 vols. 
 
602 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 J. A. L. Wegscheider, at Halle (f 1849), as a systematic theologian the 
 standard-bearer of rationalism : Institutiones th. dogm., 1815, 8tli ed. 1844 ; 
 Einl. ins Ev. Joh., 1806 ; 1 Timothy, 1810. D. Schulz, at Breslau (f 1854), 
 Hebr... 1818. 
 
 H. A. Schott, at Jena (f 1835), Gal. and Thess., 1834 ; In Jesu sermones 
 de reditu, 1820 ; Opuscula, 1817, 2 vols. (His Leben, by Danz, 1836, and by 
 A.. G. Hoffmann, in Illgen's Zeitschr., VI. 2.) 
 
 In place of the explanations of the miracles (§ 576) the idea of the myth 
 begins to come in, at first applied only to the early begimiiugs of the his- 
 tory : F. W. J. Schelling, Antiquissimi de origine malorum philoaopliematis ex~ 
 plic, 1792 ; idem, Ueber Mythen, Sagen, und Philosopheme der iiltesten Welt, 
 in Paulus' Memor., V. J. G. Eichhorn's Urgeschichte {Repert., IV.) edited 
 by J. P. Gabler, at Jena (f 1826 ; cf. the Jenaer Opp.-Schr., X.), with in- 
 troduction and notes, 1790 ff., 3 vols. P. Buttmann, various essays in the 
 Berl. Monalsschr., 1804 f. G. L. Bauer, Hebr. Mythologie des A. u. N. T. 
 mil Parallelen aus der Mythologie anderer Volker, 1802. De Wette (§ 587), 
 Kritik der israelit. Geschichte, 1805. 
 
 It was certainly a very remarkable delusion, however, to persuade one's 
 self (or others) that he was still thinking and writing about the Bible pre- 
 cisely as Luther did : J. F. Krause, Utrum theologi recc. qui S. S. ititerpreta- 
 tionem ad rationem revocant a Lutheri mente defecerint .^ Reg. 1817. 
 
 681. Weak in their means and little satisfactory in their re- 
 sults as most of the endeavors just described appear to us to- 
 day, in their own time their advance vras resistless, and their 
 dazzling brilliancy overwhelming. Not the least cause of their 
 victory was the fact that the spirit had departed from among 
 the defenders of the old ideas. To the frivolous tribe of free 
 thinkers, and to sound historical criticism as well, there was 
 opposed an apologetics which was biting out its last teeth on the 
 shell and never tasted the kernel; to the most empty-headed 
 Illumination nonsense and at the same time to a deeply ethical, 
 world-conquering philosophy, a dogmatics into whose shrunken 
 corpse even the mightiest of the watchmen of Zion could no 
 longer infuse the breath of life. The men of tradition disap- 
 peared from one university after another and gave place to the 
 disciples of progress. The theological revolution was finished 
 before the political had begun. The few who here and there 
 remained retained their place in literature by concession and 
 indecision. 
 
 The separate features of this picture may be gathered from the critical 
 journals of conservative tendency since the middle of the last century (F. 
 W. Kraft and others, Nachr. von neuen Biichern, and Neue theol. BibUothek, 
 1741-1759 ; E. A. Bertling and others, Danziger Berichte, etc., 1764-1781 ; 
 J. A. Hermes and H. M. A. Cramer, Allg. BibUothek der theol. Lit., 1784— 
 1787), which at first were startled at isolated heterodox phenomena, but did 
 not regard it as yet of pressing importance to combat them, afterward took 
 up the unequal battle with the feeling of insufficient knowledge, finally con- 
 tented themselves with a confession of the church doctrine for themselves, 
 but otherwise allowed each one to hold his faith in peace ; also from the 
 writings of the apologists, among whom T. C. Lilienthal (Gute Sadie der gottl. 
 Offenb., 1750-1782, 17 vols.) is the most complete and the most old-fashioned, 
 
OLDER TUBINGEN SCHOOL. 603 
 
 the opponent of the Wolfenbiittel Fragmentist the most learned but not al- 
 ways candid, J. M. Goze, of Hamburg (f 1786), the fairest and the rudest, 
 still living to-day by the fame of his opponent (G. R. Rope, /. M. Goze, eine 
 Rettung, Hamb. 1860 ; against him, A. Boden, Lessing und Goze, L. 1862), 
 J. F. Kleuker, at Kiel (f 1827), the most prudent and pious (cf. § 20. Bihl. 
 Sympathien oder Betrachtungen iiber die Evv., 1820, unfinished ; cf. H. Rat- 
 jen, /. F. Kleuker, Gcitt. 1842) ; also some others toward the close of the 
 century, already indebted in many ways to the new ideas ; see the following 
 section. 
 
 The Society for the Defense of Christianity, founded in 1785, at Hague, 
 has called forth down to the present day many well-meant, even learned 
 writings in the realm of biblical knowledge, without staying the course of 
 thmgs, in more recent times without even opposing it. The Prussian relig- 
 ious edict of 1788 had to be repealed after a few years, after having given 
 conclusive proof that the secular arm can neither check the power of the 
 spirit if it is strong, nor help it if it is weak. 
 
 The conservative interpreters and exegetes of this period, as a school no 
 longer at war with the Pietists since the end of Losclier's journals (§ 560), 
 contended against neology in the sweat of their face, more to ease their con- 
 sciences than because it could be of much use, frequently coarsely, more 
 often ready to make concessions, or in a gloomy and perplexed spirit, and 
 little understanding the times : I. E. Pfeift'er, at Erlangen (f 1787), Institu- 
 tiones hermen., 1771 ; J. B. Carpzov, at Helmstiidt (f 1803), De interprete 
 grammatico, 1750 ; Primce Unece hermen., 1790 ; Comm. on Hebr., Rom., 
 Cath. Epp., since 1750 ; J. F. Bahrdt and J. F. Burscher, at Leipzig, G. T. 
 Zacharise, at Gdttingen and Kiel (f 1777), Bihl. TheoL, 1771, 4 vols. ; Epp., 
 6 vols.; Einl. in die Auslegungskunst, 1778 ; G. Less, at Gottingen (f 1797), 
 Regeln der Auslegung fur das A. T. (in his Vermischte Schriften, 1781); F. I. 
 Schwarz, De Socinianismo recentt. interpr., L. 1784. For later writers, see 
 the following section. 
 
 582. Firmest of all amid the ruins of the old orthodox 
 system stood a small body of theologians who had the courage 
 to defy the storm and to remain true to the doctrines of their 
 predecessors. This was the older Tiibingen school. To save 
 the sinking ship they threw overboard, it is true, a good part 
 of her ballast, but now the old theory of inspiration, which 
 was the hold of their last anchor, the belief in supernatual 
 revelation, began to give way ; and the hostile forces began to 
 sport with the unsteady craft. Nowhere had they made more 
 concessions than in the disputed points of exegetical theology ; 
 but to no one's satisfaction, and least of all to their own 
 strengthening. In the firm and reverent conviction of the 
 inseparable connection of their dogmatics with the contents of 
 the Scriptures, and either unequal to speculation or distrusting 
 it, they made the science a systematic collection of biblical 
 passages, and enjoyed the reputation of sincerity combined 
 with limited mental power, at a time when the latter was often 
 overestimated and the former was rare. 
 
 With respect to grammatical arbitrariness they had no ground for re- 
 proaching their opponents, and with reference to prophecies, types, and 
 dogmatic proof-texts they were for the most part as uncertain exegetically 
 
604 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 as they were unsettled theoretically between tradition and concession. Con- 
 tent to have proved that a passage might liave the traditional orthodox 
 sense, they were often too little concerned to prove that it must have it. 
 Cf. Strauss, Streitschriften (§ 591), Heft 1, 1837 ; Winer, Preface to his 
 N. T. Grammar ; E. Reuss, in the Halle Allg. Lit. Zeitung, 1841, III. 167. 
 [See, on the older Tiibingen School, Schaff-Herzog Encycl., III., p. 2398.] 
 
 J. F. Reuss (t 1777 ; see an Ehrendenkmal of him, Tiib. 1777), controver- 
 sial writings against Semler and the theory of accommodation ; G. C. Storr 
 (f 1805), De sensu historico, 1778 ; Ep. to the Hebr., 1789 ; 0pp. ad inlerpr. 
 S. S., 1796, 3 vols., containing among other things notes on the Gospels and 
 minor epistles ; Doctrlnce chr. pars theoretica e ss. II. repetiia, 1793 and freq. 
 
 J. F. Flatt (t 1821), Vorless. uber die paul. Epp., 1825 ff. ; Opusc. acad., 
 1826 ; E. G. Bengel (grandson of J. A. Bengel ; f 1826), Opusc. acad., 1834 ; 
 see Denkw. zur Erinnerung, etc., 1826 ; Archiv, VIII. 723 ; J. C. F. Steudel 
 (f 1838 ; see on him Tiib. Zeitschr., 1838, 1.), Ueher die Behandlung der Sprache 
 der h. S. als einer Sprache des h. G., 1822 ; Blicke in die alttest. OJfenb., in the 
 Tub. Zeitschr., 1835, I., II. ; Ueber Auslegung der Propheten, ibid., 1834, I. ; 
 Ueber das Ev. Joh., ibid., 1835, I. ; Ueber Tnspiratioii der App., ibid., 1832, 
 II., III. ; exegetical dissertations on many single doctrines in the same 
 magazine ; Theol. des A. T., 1840. J. E. Osiander, on Cormthians, 1847, 
 1858. 
 
 Flatt and Susskind, Magazin fur christl. Dogmatik u. Moral, 1796-1812. 
 Bengel, Archiv fiir die Theol., 1815-1826. Steudel, Tilbinger ZeitschriftfUr 
 Theol., 1828-1840, into which, however, the altogether dissimilar element of 
 the new (Baur) Tubingen school soon found its way to a considerable extent, 
 § 344. Studien der WUrtemb. Geistlichkeit, edited by C. B. Klaiber, afterward 
 by C. H. Stirm, 1827-1848. 
 
 Outside of Wurtemberg also, but much more isolated, there appeared 
 about the middle of the century many other theologians who as respects 
 their spirit might be placed here, although less active in the particular field 
 of Biblical science, and differing among themselves according as the spirit of 
 dogmatic reasonableness or of popular edification was the more prominent. 
 F. V. Reinhard, at Wittenberg and Dresden (f 1812), systematic theologian 
 and pulpit orator, 0pp. academica, 1808, 2 vols. ; Gestdndnisse, 1810 ; Rein- 
 hard's Leben, by Politz, 1813. 
 
 G. C. Knapp, at Halle (f 1825 ; see Niemeyer's Epicedien to his Ande7iken), 
 Scripta varii argumenti, 1805, 2 vols.; Biblische Glaubenslehre (written 1797), 
 1840. M. Weber, at Wittenberg and Halle (f 1833), many exegetical 
 treatises. 
 
 G. F. Seller, at Erlangen (f 1807), De vaticiniis, etc., 1783 ff. ; Opuscula, 
 1793 ; Weissagung u. Erfiillung in der h. S., 1794 ; Hermeneutik, 1800 ; 
 Gemeinniitzige Betrachtungen der neuesten Schriften, etc., 1776-1800 ; Theol.- 
 kritische Betrachtungen, etc., 1779-1786 ; F. H. C. Schwarz, at Heidelberg 
 (t 1837), Jahrb. der Theol, 1824-1827. 
 
 J. J. Hess, at Zurich (f 1828), Ueber die beste Art die h. S. zu studiren in 
 Betracht der gegenwdrtigen Lage des Christenthums, 1778 ; Geschichte der Is- 
 raeliten, 1776 ff., 12 vols. ; Bibliothek der h. Geschichte, 1791, 2 vols. ; Vom 
 Reiche Gottes, VJl'i: ; Geschichte Jesu, 1768 and freq.; Geschichte der Apostel, 
 1788 and freq. 
 
 Against the rationalistic explanations of the miracles in particular : W. T. 
 Lang, in Flatt's Mag., IX., X., XI. H. L. Heubner, Miracc. interpr. gr. 
 hist., Witt. 1807. C. G. lingerer, Essai critique sur Vinterpr. naturelle des mir., 
 Str. 1842. J. H. Pareau, De mythica s. cod. interpretatione, Traj. 1824. 
 
 583. Yet they were not the only ones who set themselves 
 against the prevailing tendency. From without their ranks 
 
CONFLICT WITH RATIONALISM. 605 
 
 also, and from various sides, came voices wliicli gave loud 
 warning of the danger that must come from an apprehension 
 of the contents of the Scriptures which aimed to be purely- 
 historical, and had no religious interest in them. The proof 
 of this danger was not difficult to find in the instinctive 
 tendency of the age to bring down Christianity into the 
 sphere of a doubtful popularity, whereby the chai-acter of its 
 founder and his Apostles was easily set in a wrong light, and 
 the latter with fancied impartiality were placed upon the 
 same level with their contemporaries. In opposition to this 
 tendency the originality of the teaching of Jesus and of the 
 Christian idea was more sharply emphasized, and the histor- 
 ical exposition, that is to say, that which was commonly so 
 called, was attacked as in itself alone insufficient to fathom its 
 full meaning. This opposition, in part still dependent upon 
 the philosophy of the age, and rather recoiling from the 
 consequences which naturally developed from the system of 
 their opponents than contending with them in respect to 
 the fundamental principles of all interpretation, gave rise to 
 several mediating attempts, which dignified themselves with 
 various unhappily chosen names, but were connected in general 
 by their common apologetic coloring. 
 
 C. F. Staucllin, at Gottingen (f 1826), De interpr. hist. II. N. T. non vnice 
 vera, 1807 ; Ueber die bios histor. Auslegung cler Biicher des N. T., in 
 Bertholdt's Journal, I. 4, II. 1, 2. Himself a rationalist by gradual conver- 
 sion, he had a faint idea of the necessity of a spiritual contact between the 
 interpreter and the author, and called ithis the philosophical interpretation. 
 See his Selbsthiographie, edited by J. T. Hemsen, 1826. Similarly, J. G. I. 
 Berger, at Gottingen (f 1803), in his Versuch einer moral. Einl. ins N. T. 
 (1797 ff., 4 vols.). Preface to the second part. 
 
 Very timidly wheeling into line, C. V. Hauff, at Cannstatt (f 1832), 
 Briefe iiber den Werth schriftlicher Religionsurkunden und das Studium dersel- 
 ben, Stuttg. 1809 ff., 3 vols. 
 
 C. W. Stein ( Ueber den Begriff und obersten Grundsatz der histor. Interpr. 
 des N. T., L. 1815) places regard to the intellectual and moral character of 
 Jesus and the Apostles by the side of the other hermeneutical rules as 
 a guide. 
 
 C. L. W. Stark, at Jena (f 1818), Beitrdge zur Hermeneutik, 1817 f., I., II.: 
 " The interpreter must be pervaded by the same sense of the nearness of God 
 and of a direct elevation of his mental powers by the inspiration of God, as 
 were Jesus and the Apostles." 
 
 G. G. P. Kaiser (§ 580), System der neutest. Hermeneutik, Erl. 1817. 
 
 F. H. Germar, at Augustenburg (Z)te panharmonische Interpretation der h. 
 S., L. 1821; Beitrag zur allgem. Hermeneutik und deren Anwendung auf die 
 Theologie, Alt. 1828 ; Die Mangel der sogen. gramm.-hist. eigentlich aber der 
 Takt-Interpretation, H. 1834 : Kritik der modernen Exegese, in the Journal fur 
 Prediger, XCV.), demands the thorough harmonj"- of the meaning discovered 
 in Scripture, in so far as it is to be regarded as a revelation of God, with 
 the utterances of Christ and " with all else which is true and certain." 
 
 Formulas so hesitating and indefinite forced no concessions from rational- 
 ism, either in theory or practice. Schulthess, Vergleichung zwischen gramr 
 
60G HISTOEY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 matischer, histoinscher, und panharmonischer Interpretation, in his Theol. Nachr., 
 1829, III. 335 ff. An anonymous writer in Winer's Journal, IV. 333 ff. re- 
 duces the content of the formula, in accordance with the conception of the 
 sacredness and inspiration of Scripture, to the canon that the exegetical 
 result to be obtained must be worthy of God and befitting the destiny of 
 man, tliat is, must correspond to the generally accepted laws of thought and 
 action. 
 
 For the estimation of the endeavors described here and in § 579, cf. also 
 J. D. Schulze, in Augusti's Monatsschr., I. 334 ; Hartmann, Verhindung des 
 A. u. N. T., p. 700 )S..; Baumgarten-Crusius, in the Jenaer Opp.-Schrift, I. 
 1 if.; Olshausen, in the Studien, 1829, IV.; Liicke, in the Studien, 1830, II.; 
 Uiihn, ibidem ; Tholuck, Liter. Anzeiger, 1833, No. 22 f., 1836, No. 15 ff.; 
 Billroth, Preface to Corinthians ; Matthies, Preface to Ephesians. 
 
 584. Wholly independent of these movements of the theo- 
 logical spirit of the age, almost as much removed from the 
 old ideas as they were inaccessible to the new, the Mystics 
 attempted in more than one way to find in the Scriptures the 
 key to and warrant for a future which they, full either of fear 
 or of disgust for the world and its state, busied themselves 
 with describing and living beforehand. Some expected im- 
 provement from a mighty stroke of the Lord, and listened 
 anxiously and impatiently to the din of the great events of the 
 time, to the tumultuous downfall of states and churches, as to 
 the precursors of the near consummation. The Apocalypse 
 was the central point of their biblical studies, and their 
 bewildering extravagance is perhaps the best psychological 
 commentary on the enigmatical book. The Suabian prophet 
 gave them his arithmetic, the modern Babel the Antichrist; 
 experience might contradict his reckoning, but could not 
 weaken faith in his rule. Others set to work themselves, in 
 calm devoutness, to found the new Jerusalem, and resolved the 
 book which predicts it, as well as all the rest of the sacred 
 books, into allegories, in a way which bears witness at once to 
 their purity of heart and to their dimness of understanding. 
 
 The effects of Bengel's apocalyptic ideas had never really died out (§ 561) ; 
 but with the increasing importance of the political events of 1789 if. they 
 put forth a great number of new blossoms, especially in southwestern Ger- 
 many, Alsace and Switzerland included. The scholar has no conception, from 
 the little of it which comes to his notice, of the mass of this literature, which 
 is still daily increasing ; the people are overwhelmed with it. The best 
 known names are : M. F. Sender, 1794 ; H. P. Ansehmink, 1796 ; J. H. 
 Jung-Stilling, 1799 (f 1817) ; G. L. Hurter, 1800 ; J. G. Klein, Str. 1802 ; 
 J. J. Hess, of Zurich, 1809 ; R. Salzmann, Str. 1810 ; H. G. Oberlin (son), 
 1813 ; C. Armbruster, 1814 ; W. F. Gerken, 1814 ; C. F. Leutwein, 1821; 
 A. F. Riihle v. Lilienstern, 1824 ; J. L. F. Weigenmaier, 1827 ; F. Sander, 
 1829 ; E. Bahnmaier, 1830 ; J. F. v. Meyer, of Frankfurt, 1833 ; E. F. 
 Hopfner, 1833 ; J. G. Tinius, 1836 f. ; F. Bannholzer, 1837 ; F. Lencke, 
 1839 ; C. Albreeht, 1840, beside numberless anonymous writers. 
 
 In France and England also apocalyptic studies were carried on very dil- 
 igently, but rather in the older orthodox antipapal direction. But recent 
 times and extravagance (Darby) do homage to the arithmetical faith there 
 
MYSTICS — S WEDENBORG. 607 
 
 also ; F. de Rougemont, Neuch. 1866 ; B. W. Newton, Lond. 1844 ; more 
 seldom Catholicism (J. A. Boost, Darmst. 1835 ; J. L. Vaisse, P. 1852), 
 Yet the literature is but slightly kiiowu to rue. 
 
 Emmanuel Swedenborg (of Stockholm ; f 1772) and his followers also 
 make much of the Revelation of John, but the book is rather the point of 
 departure of their dogmatic formulas than the subject of their exegesis. Of 
 his writings the following belong chiefly here : Arcana ccelestia in Genes, et 
 Exod., Lond. 1749 ff., 8 vols. 4° ; De nova Hierosolyma, 1758. To the phi- 
 losophers of his time a curiosity, to the critics of our own an enigma, it was 
 not until our own days that this remarkable man, whose head harbored a 
 strange mixture of rationalism and whimsicality, attained authority and in- 
 fluence, especially in Wiirtemberg, France, and America. (See C. Hang, 
 in the Wiirtemb. Studien, XIV.) Oegger, Dictionnaire de la langue de la na- 
 ture (P. 1831), a Swendenborgian hermeueutics in lexical form. L. Hof- 
 acker, Die Joh. Offenb., 1839. Cf. J. Hamberger, in Herzog's Encykl. 
 
 585. In spite of all these attempts to turn the course of af- 
 fairs into a different channel, or perhaps precisely because in 
 these the weakness of the older views made itself more cleai'ly 
 manifest, the new, on the surface of the science, attained more 
 and more undisputed supremacy. The spirit of the age, the 
 opposition to which had itself destroyed its right to be by 
 its concessions, had arrived at a turning-point, a point where 
 more serious questions than those of learning arose before it, 
 which it was neither prepared to solve nor bold enough to 
 undertake. But in the depths, and unsuspected, another cur- 
 rent had already grown strong, and the opportunity to bring it 
 to the surface was not long in coming. In the train of the 
 political restoration of Germany and Europe came the religious 
 and theological also. Rationalism, which had already begun 
 to regard itself as the sole occupant of the field, many thought 
 even without Christianity, was astonished to see the opponents 
 it had supposed conquered enter the lists anew, and, after a 
 hard-fought battle, without having given up a single weapon, 
 to see the certificate of death displayed over its living body. 
 Its downfall was like a legal trial and condemnation rather than 
 a defeat in battle. 
 
 The details of this subject, thus far the most important in the history of 
 the nineteenth century, belong to Church History. Here it may suffice, in 
 order to furnish the motive of the particulars given in the following sections, 
 to call attention to the fact that the restoration in question did not proceed 
 from a single starting-point nor have a single direction, which fact, together 
 with the other that it was only gradually that the new divergences of science 
 came to consciousness and took liold upon life, shows how little this move- 
 ment obtained its real vitality as a trust-gift of tradition from the orthodoxy 
 of the seventeenth century, which was dead of marasmus senilis. Tliis also 
 enables us to comprehend the process of clarification, which has already be- 
 gun to separate its constituents. 
 
 Cf . beside the above-mentioned writings on the modern period in general : 
 C. Schwarz, Zur Geschichte der neuesten Theol., 1856, 3d ed. 1864 ; F. Nip- 
 pold, Handh. der neuesten Kirchengesch., Elberf. 1867 ; F. C. Baur, Kircken- 
 gesch. des 19ten Jahrh., Tiib. 1862. 
 
608 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 586. The reaction addressed itself now rather to the restora- 
 tion of the theory of dogmatics, again to the strengthening of 
 the religious and church life and the consciousness of commun- 
 ion, and according as the one element or the other predominated 
 its relations without became more cold and repellent or more 
 generous and winning, within firmer or looser. But amid all the 
 diversity a common character may be everywhere detected in 
 the principles of exegesis. It was to become again theological. 
 The necessity was maintained with emphasis of going beyond 
 the ordinary historical point of view, because the New Testa- 
 ment writers, notwithstanding all conceivable connection with 
 their time, were yet the beai'ers of a new spirit, which was it- 
 self above that time and raised them above it. It was de- 
 manded, therefore, the demand being stated in manifold forms, 
 that the interpreter should enter into this spirit, have a sympa- 
 thy for the contents of the Scriptures recognized as a divine 
 revelation, but especially that exegesis should be governed by 
 the idea of the Church, and by a religious interest in the reali- 
 zation of that idea. 
 
 This appears at least to have been the point of departure of the " theologi- 
 cal " hermeneutics, but it was not long an adequate formula for all the ten- 
 dencies to be described in the following. The hermeneutical principle was 
 not essentially modified, it is true (compared with that accepted during the 
 period of rationalism), but its relation to the traditional ecclesiastical dog- 
 matics changed from school to school, from decade to decade, continually 
 advancing toward a stricter conception of doctrine. The distinction between 
 the Church as it appears in history and its ideal, and the concession that 
 science should rule the former, was not handed down to the second gener- 
 ation. Men soon began to claim for what they comprehended and disjiensed 
 the predicate of completeness, and called their exegesis the biblical, the 
 faithful, the spiritual, each denying legitimacy to others. 
 
 With the return to the faith of the fathers came also a return to their 
 writings. While the rationalists had quoted nothing but their own sound 
 reason, even among themselves, the commentaries were now overloaded with 
 extracts from Reformers and Church Fathers, like catenae, and the custom 
 became so contagious that to-day almost every exegete copies all his pre- 
 decessors (by preference with exclamation points), and the latest commen- 
 tary as a rule renders all earlier ones unnecessary. 
 
 Cf. Kollner's Preface to his Comm. on Romans ; Theile, in Ersch and 
 Gruber's Encykl., Art. Interpres (II. 19). 
 
 587. At the head of this movement, in time as in spirit, 
 stood Friedrich Schleiermacher. Although not out of sympathy 
 with the critical endeavors of the century, and even paving 
 the wa}!^ for them, he found within himself a yet deeper need, 
 and a yet stronger power, to satisfy the claims of the spiritual 
 nature. He pointed to the religious feeling as the source of 
 faith and the bond of union in the Church, and showed that the 
 devout uplifting of the individual is sustained by that of the 
 whole and takes its rise in it. A powerful dialectic fortified 
 
THE EESTORATION — SCHLEIERMACHER. 609 
 
 this fundamental thought and made it the central pomt of a 
 theology complete on all sides, before whose intellectual con- 
 sistency exegesis was obliged to bow, notwithstanding the com- 
 pleteness of a system of hermeneutics which was designed to 
 protect it. His pupils and friends divided, some following 
 rather the impulse of the heart and of faith, others the necessity 
 of thought and investigation. Yet the former left the desire 
 for investigation untrammeled to everyone, and the latter did 
 not forget the final goal of all science of God and the Scrip- 
 tures ; but all sought the one thing instead of wrangling over 
 subordinate points, and tried to find amid the dissonances of the 
 letter the higher harmony of all revelation. 
 
 D. E. F. Schleiermacher, at Berlin (f 1834), Darstellung des iheol. Studi- 
 ums, 1811 and freq. ; Glaubenslehre, 1821 and freq. ; Lehen Jesu, 18G4. 
 Among writings belonging particularly under this head, the collected works 
 (1834 tf.) were to contain his exegetical lectures beside, but they have not 
 appeared ; a doubtful specimen in the Studien, 1832, III. ; Hermeneuttk und 
 Kritik mit besonderer Beziehung auf das N. T., 1838 (cf. §§ 19, 128, 184). 
 Characteristic aversion from the O. T. See on him Llicke, in the Studien, 
 1834, IV. ; Sack, ibid., 1835, IV. ; Rienacker, ibid., 1848, I. ; G. Baur, ibid., 
 1859, III., IV. ; Baumgarten-Crusius, Schleiermacher^ s Denkungsart und Ver- 
 dienst, 1834 ; P. Goy, in the Strassburg Revue, 3me Serie, IV., V. ; Nip- 
 pold, Neueste Kirchengesch., 213 ff. Schleiermacher's Briefwechsel, 1858 ff. 4 
 vols, [translated, in part, by Fx-ederica Rowan, Lond. 18G0, 2 vols. See also 
 W. Dilthey, Leben Schleiermacher's, B. 1867]. 
 
 C. G. F. Liicke, at Bonn and Gottingen (f 1855), Grundriss der neutest. 
 Hermeneutik und ihrer Geschichte, 1817 ; Commentar zu den johann. Schriften, 
 1820 ff. and freq., Pts. I.-IV. [twice revised and reprinted, 1840 and 1856 ; 
 partly translated into English, 1837]. J. G. Riitze, Die hochsten Principien 
 der Schrifterkldrung, 1824. L. Usteri, at Berne (f 1833), PawZm. Lehrbegriff 
 (§ 59), in the first three editions. J. L. S. Lutz, at Berne (f 1844 ; see C. B. 
 Hundeshagen, Lutz, ein Charakterbild), Bibl. Hermeneutik, 1849 ; Bibl. Dog- 
 matik, 1847. The two works taken together are a liberal-minded attempt to 
 reconcile faith and science, church and school. 
 
 A. Neander, at Berlhi, (f 1850), Ap.-Gesch. (§ 31) [E. tr. Planting and 
 Training of the Christian Church, Lond. 1851 ; also N. Y.] ; Paulus und 
 Jacobus, 1840 ; commentaries on particular epistles, from lectures. See 
 Scherer, in the Strassb. Revue, I. 213 ; Kling and Hagenbach, in the Studien, 
 1851, II., III. ; C. UUmann, ibid., 1857, I. ; O. Krabbe, Charakteristik Me- 
 ander's, 1852 [J. L. Jacobi, Erinnerungen an August Neander, Halle, 1882]. 
 Commentaries by F. H. Rheinwald, at Bonn and Berlin (f 1844), on Philip- 
 pians ; L. Pelt, at Kiel, on Thessalonians ; Beitrug zur Hermeneutik, in the 
 Kiel Mitarbeiten, I. 4 ; J. E. Huther, at Schwerin, on Colossians, Pastoral 
 Epistles, etc., in Meyer's N. T. (§ 592). C. Frommann, at Jena and St. 
 Petersburg, Joh. Lehrbegriff", 1839. 
 
 L. F. O. Baumgarten-Crusius, at Jena (f 1843), Bibl. TheoL, 1828 ; Opus- 
 cula, 1836 ; Evang. Joh., 1843. Also, but very meagre, posthumous uni- 
 versity lectures on the Synoptists and some epistles. (See Eichstadt, in TW- 
 gen's'Zeitschr., 1844, I.; Von Colin, in the^%. Lit. Zeitung, 1829, I. 161.) 
 
 W. M. L. De Wette, at Berlin and Basle (f 1849), Bibl. Dogmatik, 1813, 
 
 and freq. ; Opuscula, 1830 ; Kurzgefasstes exeget. Handb. zum N. T., 1835 ff. 
 
 (the posthumous editions mostly of a different and even wholly antagonistic 
 
 spirit) ; Psalmen, 1811, and freq. Cf . also §§ 19, 498, 505, 580. See on 
 
 39 
 
610 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 him the special essays of Schenkel, 1849 ; Hagenbach, 1850 ; Liieke, in the 
 Studien, 1850, III. ; Colani, in the Strassb. Revue, I. 87; E. Reuss, in the 
 Allg. Lit. Zeitmig, Nov. 1849 [Wiegand, W. M. L. De Wette, Erf. 1877; R. 
 Stiihelin, W. M. L. De Wette nach seiner theolog. Wirksamkeit u. Bedeutung 
 gesckildert, Bas. 1880]. — W. Benecke, at Heidelberg (f 1837), on Romans, 
 1834. 
 
 Here also may be placed, in accordance with its general tendency, the 
 Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1828 ff., under the management of C. UUmann 
 and F. W. C. Umbreit (§ 578), of Heidelberg, in which, however, beside 
 those mentioned in this section and those in sympathy with them, many of 
 those under §§ 589 and 593 have had part. Continued by others essentially 
 in a freely conservative spmt. 
 
 588. It could not but be that a theology which, notwith- 
 standing its thoroughly Christian tone, yet gave so great in- 
 fluence to the inner voice of the individual, would fail to sat- 
 isfy those who sought before all things a fixed and immovable 
 foundation, and were unwilling to go again through the ex- 
 periences of recent times. They could obtain this foundation 
 only by a reckless revival of the past, a positive ecclesiastical 
 system of faith. And although science must of course work 
 on upon her own structure, it must be established, in order to 
 stand firm, upon Bible, confession, and church order, as upon 
 three harmoniously arranged pillars. A positive word easily 
 gains adherents, and the sons of the rationalists returned with 
 as much alacrity to the standard of orthodoxy as their fathers 
 had marshaled themselves under the banner of rational Chris- 
 tianity. True, everything did not become as it was before, 
 nor did exegesis, which could not reject the new in the lump, 
 but must build better defenses for the old. Precisely upon 
 this point, passing over all which does not concern our special 
 history, grave differences have already broken out again in this 
 very circle, which, as always, the age will suffer to exhaust 
 themselves according to their degree of strength, in order after- 
 ward to reconcile them by the higher adjustment of new forms 
 of thought. 
 
 Inasmuch as the theological and ecclesiastical questions which have called 
 out noteworthy differences among the defenders of orthodoxy in our times 
 only gradually came into prominence, and the position of parties was thereby 
 changed in many ways, the grouping (§§ 588-590) is very difficult, and in 
 succeeding years will become unsatisfactory, if it is not so already. Since, 
 however, we are here considering neither Old Lutheranism nor Unionism 
 with or without separate confession, but exegesis, in its relation to theology 
 in general, particular names may perhaps be differently grouped than in 
 practical life. All those to be mentioned here and many of like opinions 
 were united at their first appearance, and doubtless still are, by a common 
 opposition to rationalism and a decided leaning upon the symbolic doctrine 
 as the basis of their theology. For the rest I remark that the literary in- 
 formation in the notes from this point on will doubtless seem to the experi- 
 enced reader more fragmentary than heretofore, partly because it is inad- 
 missible to attempt to assign to contemporaries their final places, partly 
 
THE RESTORATION — HISTORICAL CRITICISM. 611 
 
 also, and especially, because the mass of material at hand is much too great. 
 The more names I should mention, the more unjust might seem my judg- 
 ment of those not mentioned. 
 
 E. W. Hengstenberg, at Berlin (f 1869), apologetico-critical writings on 
 the Pentateuch, Daniel, Zechariah, etc., 1831 £f. [E. tr. on Daniel and Zeeh- 
 ariah, T. & T. Clark, 1858] ; Psalms, 1842 ff., 4 vols. [E. tr. Edinb. 1844- 
 1848] ; Ecclesiastes, 1859 [E. tr. Phila. 1860] ; Apocalypse, 1849 ; Gospel of 
 John, 1861, 3 vols. Evang. Kirchenzeitung, since 1827. Cf. Scherer, Heng- 
 stenberg considere comme exegete du N. T., in the Revue de Th'ol., II. 65. 
 [Bachmann, Hengstenberg nach s. Leben u, Wirken, Gutersloh, 1876-1879, 2 
 vols.] See also the following section. 
 
 A. Tholuck, at Halle, on Romans, 1824 [4th ed. 1842 ; E. tr. T. & T. 
 Clark, 1848] ; John, 1827 [7th ed. 1857 ; E. tr. by C. P. Krauth, Phila. 
 1859] ; Sermon on the Mount, 1833 [3d ed. 1844 ; E. tr. T. & T. Clark, 
 1860, new ed. 1869] ; Hebrews, 1836 [3d ed. 1850 ; E. tr. Edinb. 1852] ; 
 all frequently reprinted. Psalms, 1843 [E. tr. by J. I. Mombert, 1859]. 
 Lit. Anzeiger, 1830-1849 ; Vermischte Schri/ten, 1839, 2 vols. Cf. § 589. 
 
 H. A. C. Hlivernick, at Geneva and Konigsberg (f 1846), see § 20. Com- 
 mentary on Ezekiel, 1843 ; Daniel, 1838 ; Tkeol. des A. T., 1848. A. Hahn, 
 at Leipzig and Breslau (f 1863), Fiir und wider die gangbaren hermeneutischen 
 Principien, in the Studien, 1830, II. A. L. C. Heydenreich, at Herborn 
 (t 1858), on 1 Cor., 1825 ; Pastoral Epp., 1827. J. C. W. Augusti (§ 579), 
 in his latest writings : Dogm. Einl. in die h. S., 1832. G. A. Harless, at 
 Erlangen, Leipzig, Dresden, Munich, on Ephesians, 1833. W. Bohmer, at 
 Breslau, on Colossians, 1835. C. F. Bahr, at Carlsruhe, on Colossians, 1833 ; 
 Symbolik des mos. Cultus, 1837, 2 vols. C. W. Wiedenfeld, De homine S. S. 
 interprete, 1835. Berlin Repertorium der tlieol. Literatur, edited by H. Renter 
 (formerly by Rheinwald) since 1833 ; without definite party tendency, and 
 with the cooperation of the pupils of Neander. 
 
 Of specifically Lutheran, anti-unionistic tendency : ZeitscTirift fUr hither. 
 Theologie, by H. E. F. Giiricke, at Halle (see § 20), and A. G. Rudelbach, 
 at Gluckau (f 1862), containing, 1840 ff., essays by the latter on Inspiration. 
 F. Delitzsch, at Rostock, Erlangen, Leipzig, on Genesis, 1852, and freq. ; Can- 
 ticles, 1851 ; Habakkuk, 1843; Psalms, 1859 ; Geschichte der prophet. Theol. 
 seit Crusius, 1845. C. P. Caspari, now at Christiania, on Isaiah, Micah, Oba- 
 diah. J. H. Kurtz, at Mitau and Dorpat, on Genesis ; a history of Israel ; 
 Symbolik des mos. Cultus, etc. C. F. Keil, at Dorpat (cf. § 20), on Chronicles, 
 1833 ; Kings, 1846 ; Joshua, 1847. The same, in comiection with Delitzsch, 
 a commentary, nearly complete, on the whole O. T., 1861 ff. [E. tr. of Keil 
 and Delitzsch on the O. T., complete in 27 vols., T. & T. Clark]. W. Neu- 
 mann, on Jeremiah, 1856. T. Kliefoth, at Schwerin, on Ezekiel, 1864 ; Daniel, 
 1869. In N. T. exegesis, exclusive of minor essaj's : F. A. Philippi, at Ros- 
 tock, on Romans [E. tr. from 3d ed., T. & T. Clark, 1879, 2 vols.]. C. E. 
 Luthardt, at Erlangen and Leipzig, on John [E. tr. from 2d ed. by Gregory, 
 T. & T. Clark, 1879, 3 vols.]. Delitzsch, on Hebrews [E. tr. Edinb. 1868, 
 2 vols.], T. Schott, at Erlangen, on Romans, Peter, and Jude, 1861, 1863. 
 
 Among Reformed theologians : W. Steiger, at Geneva (f 1836), on 1 Pe- 
 ter, 1832 ; Colossians, 1835. J. H. A. Ebrard, at Zurich, Erlangen, Speyer, 
 on Hebrews, 1851 ; Dogmatik, 1852 ; on the Apocalypse, 1853. 
 
 689. The deepest wounds which the grammatico-historical 
 criticism had inflicted upon the system were with respect to 
 the Old Testament and its relations to the New. While the 
 Gospel, especially as set forth by Paul and John, easily pro- 
 tected itself against rationalistic mutilation, the apostolic 
 church doctrine of this relation, in whatever way it might be 
 
612 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 conceived, seemed no longer reconcilable with the results of 
 historical study. Here, accordingly, was the field in which 
 a Avliolly new apologetics must be attempted, and in which, 
 with the same purpose of reconciling faith and science, the 
 defenders of orthodox principles went different ways at first. 
 Some held fast to the traditional idea of a special miraculous 
 illumination of the prophetic vision respecting the things of 
 the future, maintaining the Lutheran dogma in its strictness 
 with the arts of an adroit but precarious exegesis. Others, 
 leaning more or less toward Calvinistic ideas, had recourse to 
 a less strict conception of inspiration and prophecy. Still 
 others plunged into extravagant typological discussions, from 
 wliicli came finally the theory of the deeper sense of Scripture, 
 heralded as the richest discovery of modern hermeneutics, but 
 in reality a reminiscence of the oldest and most childish. 
 
 Hengstenberg, Christologie des A. T. und Commentar iiher die mess. Weis- 
 sagungen (1829) 1853, 3 vols. [E. tr. T. & T. Clark, 1854-58]. Hiivernick, 
 Einl. ins A. T., I. 142. A. E. Weiss, Examen des citations de I' A. T., Str. 
 1841. 
 
 Tholuck, Das A. T. im Neuen, App. to Commentary on Hebrews, 1836 ; 
 Ueher Inspiration, in the Berlin Deutsche Zeitschrift, 1850. Roos, Wissen- 
 schaftl. und kirchl. Standpunkt fur die Erkldrung der mess. Psalmen, in the 
 Wurtemb. Studien, 1848, II. 
 
 Cf. on the matter itself and the divergence of the two tendencies : Um- 
 breit, in the Studien, 1828, II., 1830, I. ; Steudel, in the Tub. Zeitschr., 1830, 
 II. ; Fritzsche, in the Prediger journal, Pt. 76 ; Augusti, Dogm. Einl., p. 
 218 ff. ; Bleek, in the Studien, 1835, II., and on Heb. i. 5 ff . ; J. H. Dangler, 
 Examen des citations messianiques, Str. 1851. 
 
 J. A. Kanne, at Erlangen (f 1824), Christus im A. T., 1818, 2 vols, (a 
 monument of IBabylonian confusion of tongues); F. G. Lisco, Das Ceremo- 
 nialgesetz des A. T. und seine ErfUllung im Neuen, 1842 ; J. H. Kurtz, Das 
 mos. Offer, 1842. In homiletic form especially G. Menken, F. W. and G. 
 D. Krummacher, and others. Cf. E. Reuss, Die neueste Typologie, in the 
 Allg. Lit. Zeitung, 1844, I. 145. 
 
 H. Olshausen, at Konigsberg and Erlangen (f 1839), Ein Wort fiber tiefem 
 Schriftsinn, 1824 ; Die bibl. Schriftauslegung, 1825 ; Biblischer Commentar iiber 
 das N. T., 1830 ff., Pts. I.-IV., since continued by others [translated for 
 Clark's For. Theol. Library, 1847-1849, 4 vols., and revised by Prof. A. C. 
 Kendrick, N. Y. 1856-1858, 6 vols.] ; Opuscula, 1834. R. Stier, pastor in 
 Westphalia, afterward in Saxony (f 1862), Andeutungen filr glduhiges Schrift- 
 verstdndniss, 1824 ff., 4 vols., the separate volumes under different titles ; Sie- 
 benzig Psalmen, 1834 ; Die Stufen und das Ziel der Bibelauslegung (in Tholuck's 
 Anzeiger, 1836, No. 57); more recently several works for the practical ex- 
 position of the N. T. [See his Leben, by his sons, Wittenb. 1868, 2d ed. 
 1871.] — In both of them decided polemic against Hengstenberg ; recogni- 
 tion of the results of historical exegesis ; vir6voia. Against them Steudel, in 
 Bengel's Archiv, VII. 403, VIII. 483. Hengstenberg, E. Kirchenzeitung, 
 March, 1832, and against him Olshausen in the April number. 
 
 A peculiar symptom of this last phase of interpretation, however incon- 
 sistent with its principle, is the inclination to explain the miracles (an 
 explanation rather mystical than natural) by referring them either to mag- 
 netic powers, or to accelerated natural processes, or to unusual states of 
 
THE RESTORATION — HISTORICAL CRITICISM. 613 
 
 soul. Cf. beside Olshausen on the Gospels, and others, J. P. Lange, at 
 Zurich and Bonn, Leben Jesu, 1844 if., 5 vols. [E, tr. Ediub. 1864, 6 vols.] 
 
 590. Over against all these attempts to solve the great 
 problem of the relation of the two revelations, which either did 
 violence to the letter and to the understanding, or appeared 
 dangerous from their very consistency, another has more re- 
 cently been placed, which perhaps should be recognized by 
 both speculative philosophy and believing theology as their 
 legitimate child. Prophecy and fulfillment are no longer to be 
 brought into harmony by precarious and desperate verbal jug- 
 glery, but from the higher standpoint of a broad outlook over 
 the whole of history. The history of mankind is the revelation 
 of Christ in the world ; evei-y separate event, even without the 
 sphere of the people of God, points to him, either as a type of 
 his person and life, or as a progressive establishment of com- 
 munion between God and man, or as a continued hint of the 
 future goal of this progress. The New Testament in its 
 historical form is only the normative centre and point of rest 
 in the great unfolding of the prophecies which preceded it and 
 are given in it. Upon this theory, it is true, in order to orient 
 theology by history, history is first made theology, and in the 
 carrying out of the rich thought there is still very much patch- 
 work to be found, but it is certainly a step forward, and 
 therefore itself a prophecy which cannot fail of fulfillment. 
 
 The idea itself is in germ older. It is hinted at on the one side by Crusius 
 (§ 570) and on the other by the Hegelian philosophy (Billroth, § 591), not to 
 speak of other accordances ; see especially Delitzsch, Gesch. der prophet. 
 Theologie (§ 588), p. 177 fP. 
 
 Still nearer, J. T. Beck, at Basle and Tiibingen, Ueher messianische Weis- 
 sagung als geschlchtl. Problem und pneumatische Schriftauslegung, in the Tub. 
 Zeitschr., 1831, III. ; Versuch einer pneumatlsch-hermeneut. Entwicklung von 
 Rom. ix., 1833 ; Propddeutische Entwicklung der christl. Lehrwissenschaft, 1838, 
 at the beginning. 
 
 Principal work : J. C. C. Hofmann, at Rostock and Erlangen, Weissagung 
 und Erfilllung im A.u. N. T., 1841 f., 2 vols.; Der Schriftbeweis, 1852 ; Die 
 h. Schrift N. T. zusammenhangend untersucht, 1862 ff. [down to 1878, all 
 the Epistles, except those of John, and the Gospel of Luke, 14 vols.]. Pro- 
 fessing the same principles, M. Baumgarten, at Kiel and Rostock, Theol. 
 Commentar zum A. T., 1843, 2 vols. (Pentateuch) ; in later essays also 
 Delitzsch. Also C. A. Auberlen, Dan. u. Apoc, 1854. 
 
 Cf. Hengstenberg, E. Kirchenzeitung, June, 1843 ; E. Reuss, in the Halle 
 Allg. Lit. Zeitung, 1847, I. 193. — Critical review of all modern theories of 
 the relation of the Old and New Testaments and of prophecy and quotation, 
 by A. Kayser, in the Strassb. .Reyue, VII., VIII. M. Hartmann, Les propheties 
 messianiques et leurs interpretes modernes, Str. 1857. A. Hirschgartner, Ex- 
 amen des citations, etc., Geneva, 1858. 
 
 If the former rationalistic exposition was characterized by its shallow 
 insipidity, the present constructive exegesis, on the other hand, oftentimes 
 falls into the habit and tone of an unhealthy exuberance and an affected pro- 
 fundity which are opposed, no less than the former, to historical truth, to 
 
614 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 the spirit of the Bible, and to sound taste. Cf. Hupfeld, Die heutige theoso- 
 phische odcr mythologlsche Theologie u. Schrifterkldrung, in the Berlin Zeitschr. 
 fiir chrisil. Wissenschaft, Aug. 1861. Diestel, p. 698 ft". 
 
 Standing alone and likely to remain so, G. M. Redslob, at Hamburg 
 (^Apocali/psis, Blatter fiir pneu7n. Christenthum und myst. Schrifterkldrung, L. 
 1859 ; Die Evv. als geheime kanonische Gesetzgebung in Form von Denkw. aus 
 dem Leben Jesu, 1869), wlio sets aside the traditional history and puts in its 
 place one not miraculous certainly, but all the more mysterious. 
 
 591. Wlietlier this liistorico-pbilosophical theory is the final 
 word of a strict and positive theology, or the first of a more 
 mild and conciliatory one, must soon be decided. It is certainly 
 better fitted to set the Church at rest than that which the 
 speculative philosophy of our day has offered, in its own name, 
 partly as the correct interpretation of the faith of the Bible, 
 partly as a substitute for it. At first, when it began to occupy 
 itself with the doctrinal writings of the Apostles, it clearly 
 recognized the distinction between its own theology and the 
 religious idea, as it was concerned in the founding of the Church, 
 yet declared openly that it proposed to itself the task of pointing 
 out the inner connection between the two, and of changing 
 and elevating the form of thought of the Apostles, considered 
 as something subjective, of which they themselves were not yet 
 fully conscious, into the form of the idea. But afterward, when 
 it took up the gospel history with the same design, it melted 
 away under its hands, a splendid mirage over a vast desert, 
 and as it were in childish anger over a broken plaything and 
 over the vehement rebuke called out, it became disgusted with 
 its occupation, and rejoiced thereafter only in the work of 
 destruction. 
 
 The Hegelian theory of the interpretation of Scripture is briefly developed 
 by W. Vatke, at Berlin, in a review in the Berl. Jahrb., Nov. 1830 ; cf. his 
 Religion des A. T., 1835; by G. C. R. Matthfei, at Gcittingen (f 1872), Neue 
 Auslegung der Bihel, 1831, and Ev. Joh., 1837 (earlier, Religionsglaube der 
 Apost., 1826, 2 vols.), but less concisely ; more clearly by G. Billroth, at 
 Leipzig (f 1835), in the preface to his commentary on Corinthians, 1833. 
 Here belong also Bruno Bauer's (at Berlin) earlier writings : Religion des 
 A. T., 1838 ; Zeitschr. fiir speculative Theologie, 1836 f.; L. Usteri's Entioick- 
 lung des paulin. Lehrhegriffs (§ 587), from the fourth edition on ; C. S. Mat- 
 thies, at Greifswald (f 1856), commentaries on Gal., Eph., Phil., 1833 f. ; 
 Propddeutik der neutest. Theol., 1836, p. 176 ff. Yet in these exegetical 
 works the application of the principle is everywhere sober, little destructive, 
 and often only to be read between the lines. 
 
 It may serve for the consolation of the uninitiated to say that for the 
 direct, devout understanding of the Scriptures, by which the religious life is 
 nourished, and for which the Apostles originally Avrote, such theological 
 exposition is in no way necessary. For the rest, just as biblical and symbol- 
 ical expressions could be made to serve in the mass as a dress for the ideas 
 of this philosophy, so, conversely, many of these ideas passed over into the 
 flesh and blood of orthodoxy; and not orthodoxy but rationalism of the old 
 stamp was its most violent opponent. 
 
HEGEL. 615 
 
 The second phase was opened by D. F. Strauss, then at Tubingen, Leben 
 Jesu, 1835 f., 2 vols., and freq. (see especially the concluding treatise) 
 [E. tr. by George Eliot, Lond. 1846, 3 vols., N. Y. 1850], his Glaubenslehre, 
 1840, and the critical works of Bruno Bauer on the Gospels, 1840 ff.,4 vols.; 
 Theol. Erklanmg der Em., 1852 ; Kritih der paulin. Brief e, 1852. The myth- 
 ical treatment of the gospel history (upon which the school itself delivered 
 an opinion, see J. Schaller, in Bauer's Zeitsckr., III.) was in reality what 
 gave to the old rationalistic treatment its death-blow, which it felt so heavily 
 that it never spoke again. Explanations of miracles, which seem to be a neces- 
 sity of the human reason, were henceforth a substitute for orthodox exegesis 
 (§ 589). Apologetics soon felt, in contest with this criticism (Steudel, 
 Klaiber, W. Hoffmann, Osiander, — Tholuck, Harless, Sack, Ebrard, Nean- 
 der, J. Muller, — Ullman, Kern, Theile, W. Grimm, — Hug, Mack, Kuhn, 
 and many others), or at least caused others to feel, the necessity of a trans- 
 formation of itself and together therewith of theological and exegetical sci- 
 ence in general. Strauss, Streitschriften fur Vertlieidlgung des Lebens Jesu und 
 zur Charakteristik der gegenwdrtigen Theologie, 1833, 3 Pts. 
 
 692. The reconstructive theology has won notable and en- 
 durmg victories in the field of doctrine and church affairs. It 
 has also commended to biblical research a becoming modesty 
 and aided it to come to self-consciousness. Yet it would seem 
 as if, in this time of ferment and transformation, the systems, 
 weakened by their very number, were destined to attain au- 
 thority the less as they claim it the more exclusively. For 
 while the theorists of thought and faith cannot unite their 
 convictions and their exegesis closely enough, other expositors 
 strive to dispossess themselves of all dogmatic interest and to 
 treat the content of Scripture simply as something histori- 
 cally given, as to whose theological value no opinion from 
 them, as purely historical investigators, is either fitting or 
 should be demanded. Several of them have undertaken the 
 unpleasant but thankworthy task of subjecting to a new test, 
 upon more rational principles than had before been followed, 
 the whole philological basis of exegesis, and of bringing sacred 
 philology up to the level to which profane had attained. It is 
 a sign of the times that controversy can be carried on now over 
 rules of syntax with equal vehemence and in relation to the 
 same passages over which our fathers were concerned for the 
 salvation of their souls. 
 
 For the purely philological works of this tendencj' and school (mostly by 
 Saxon scholars and all in either mental or traditional connection with Er- 
 nesti) on the N. T. see above, § 47. The following are exegetical : G. B. 
 Winer, at Erlangen and Leipzig, on Galatians, 1821 and freq. ; his Exeget. 
 Studien, 1827, with contributions from several. F. A. Bornemann, at Meissen 
 (t 1850), on Luke, 1830. C. F. A. Fritzsche, at Rostock and Giessen (f 1847), 
 on Matth., Mark, 1826, 2 vols., Romans, 1836 ff., 3 vols., 2 Cor. 1825 ; Opusc. 
 acad., with contributions by C. F. Fritzsche, the father, at Halle (f 1851), 
 and O. F. Fritszche, the brother, at Zurich, 1838. C. G. W. Theile, at Leip- 
 zig (f 1854), on James, 1833. (The latter originally published as Pt. XVIIL 
 of a colossal commentary on the N. T. of which a preliminary notice was is- 
 
616 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 sued in 1829, and wliich was designed to render all previous exegetical lit- 
 erature unnecessary.) 
 
 H. A. W. Meyer, at Hoya, afterward at Hannover (f 1873), Das N. T. 
 mit Uehers. und Commentar, Gott. 1832 f. In the later volumes, in the suc- 
 ceeding editions (extending, in part, to the fifth [to the sixth of Matthew, by 
 himself, of Mark and Luke by B. Weiss]), and particularly in the continua- 
 tions by other hands, written in a more theological and positive spirit. [E. 
 tr. of the whole Commentary, except Revelation, Edinb. 1873-1882, 20 vols. 
 A biographical sketch, by his son, will be found prefixed to the first volume 
 on Matthew.] 
 
 The controversial writings of C. E. A. Fritzsche and others against Tho- 
 Inek's commentaries (Romans, 1831 ; Hebrews, 1840) ; against De Wette, 
 Allg. Lit. Zeitung., 1837, II. 377, are characteristic, elevating grammar and 
 syntax to the throne of all science, indifferent to everything else, and in the 
 well-known tone of " humanistic " urbanity. 
 
 Of essentially philological spirit is also the Hermeneutik des N. T. of C. G. 
 Wilke, at Dresden (f 1856), 1843, 2 vols. ; RhetoriJc des N. T., 1843 ; the 
 works seek their peculiarity not in a scholastic principle, but in their 
 (minutely accurate) schematic method and in abstract formulas ; introdu- 
 cing besides as a doctrinal guide a new kind of analogia Jidei, " Pauline 
 Messianism." The author afterward became a Catholic. 
 
 That work just as efl'ective and even more so has been carried on at the 
 same time in the O. T., and with great results, needs no reminder save the 
 fame of Gesenius and Ewald and their pupils. But to give details of it is 
 out of place in a history of the theological use of the Scriptures. In so far 
 as the works of the writers just mentioned, as well as those of Hitzig, 
 Bertheau, Fuch, Knobel, Thenius, J. Olshausen, Dillmann, and others, es- 
 pecially in the (now completed) Exeget. Handb. des A. T., are occupied 
 essentially with the exaltation of historical facts and the establishment of 
 historical views, they belong in the category of the exegetes of the following 
 section. 
 
 593. Many others, on tlie contrary, who felt neither call nor 
 desire to maintain a purely external relation to the text, made 
 its essential contents the subject of their exegetical studies, 
 and endeavored, making freedom from prejudice the first her- 
 meneutical rule, to keep themselves equally removed from 
 rationalistic mutilation of dogma and ecclesiastical zeal there- 
 for. The latter endeavor was to most probably not a difiicult 
 one, and with some might go almost to the length of a studied 
 indifference ; but that they succeeded in tlie first better than 
 their predecessors at the beginning of the century is certainly 
 shown by the fact that a change has come about in the relation 
 of the philosophic spirit of the age to the Bible. The doctrinal 
 writings of these latter are worthy monuments of the former 
 period, protected by the historic sense from the perversions 
 of the current theological taste ; but the essential coldness of 
 the enlightened of this age is almost a more hazardous sign for 
 the future of the dogmatic use of Scripture than was the vul- 
 gar heat of the enlighteners in the preceding. 
 
 The number of those to be mentioned here (cf. the preceding and the fol- 
 lowing sections) seemed at the first likely to become considerable ; for the 
 present, however, it is at a standstill, though the work is not yet finished. It 
 
HISTORICAL CRITICISM. 617 
 
 is noteworthy that thus far it is the (Pauline) Epistles which have been chosen 
 by preference for treatment from this standpoint, which is precisely the field 
 in which the dogmatizing exegetes had already done effective work (§ 587 
 &.). Doubtless also the complete and clear theology of Paul particularly 
 invited to objective treatment. Nor have the Johannean writings been neg- 
 lected by this school. On the other hand, all the world, even the youth, feels 
 the need of a commentary such as there should be on the Synoptic Gospels. 
 
 L. I. Riickert, at Zittau and Jena (f 1871), on Rom., Cor., Gal., Eph., 
 1831 ff. ; Magazin fur Exegese, 1838 ; Christl. Philosophie, 1825, 2 vols. 
 Dogmatic works, both more general (Theologie, 1851) and more special (on 
 the Supper, the Church). J. G. Reiche, at Gottingen (f 1863), on Rom., 1833. 
 E. Kollner, at Gottingen and Giessen, on the same Ep., 1834. F. C. Meier, 
 at Giessen (f 1841), on Eph., 1834. F. Bleek, at Bonn, on Hebrews, 1828, 
 Gospels, 1862, Col. and Eph., 1865. F. H. Kern, at Tiibingen (f 1842), on 
 James, 1838, and many others. — D. v. Colin, at Breslau (f 1833), Bibl. 
 TkeoL, 1836, 2 vols. H. Hupfeld, at Halle (f 1866), on the Psalms, 1855 ff. 
 C. H. Graf, at Meissen (f 1869), on Jeremiah, 1862, and those mentioned in 
 the last note under the preceding section. W. Grimm, at Jena, and O. F. 
 Fritzsche, at Ziirich, on the O. T. Apocrypha, 1851 ff. H. Ewald, on Paul, 
 1857 ; Johannean writings, 1861, 2 vols. ; Hebr., James, 1870 ; Sieben Send- 
 schreiben (the remaining ones, regarded as spurious), 1871. 
 
 For criticism of this tendency see Tholuck's Liter. Anzeiger, 1833, No. 22 
 f. ; Billroth and Matthies (§ 691), in the prefaces to Corinthians and Ephe- 
 sians. 
 
 C. B. Hundeshagen, Das Princip der freien Schriftforschung im Verhdltnisse 
 zur Kirclie und zu den Symbolen, Darmst. 1852. 
 
 594. However that may be, this purely historical investiga- 
 tion of the Scriptures is certainly still a Protestant science. 
 And if it has become the highest point of view of tlie philosophi- 
 cal theology to recognize the revelations of God to mankind 
 in their large connection and in their development, it is a 
 further task of the historical theology, which it cannot refuse, 
 to comprehend the human side of this development, the advan- 
 cing perception in the bearers of revelation, no longer merely 
 in its isolated phenomena, but as a whole, at once natural 
 and guided by Providence. Toward both these ends thus 
 far only attempts have been made, and the first steps taken, 
 still stumbling and uncertain ; it will be a long time yet be- 
 fore the two parallel pathways are built and can be combined 
 into one highway of theology. Until then we should rejoice 
 at every advance, discreetly use and pardon even the mis- 
 takes, and go on, each in the path which lies before him ; it has 
 been wisely arranged that the direction shall always turn finally 
 toward the goal. 
 
 Since the revolution (§ 571 ff.) many theories have been put forth respect- 
 ing Biblical Theology, its conception, scope, method, and value, in all the 
 theological encyclopedias, in the introductions to all important works, and in 
 special writings : J. P. Gabler, De justo discrimine th. bibl. et dogm., 1787 ; 
 C. C. E. Schmid, De th. bibl, 1788 ; C. W. Stein, in the Analekten, 1816, I.; 
 A. G. F. Schirmer, Die bibl. Dogmatik in ihrem Verhalten zum Ganzen der 
 Theologie ; Gesenius, Art. Bibl, Dogmatik, in Ersch and Gruber's Encykl., I. 
 10 ; Fleck, in the Prediger journal, Vol. LXXXVI. ; Schmid, in the Tub. 
 
618 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 Zeitschr., 1838, IV. ; Schenkel, in the Studien, 1852, I. — Most of the prac- 
 tical attempts thus far, however, bear strongly the impress of the schools, 
 and thei-efore have been classified in the appropriate sections above. 
 
 A. Immer, Hermeyieutik des N. T., Wittb. 1873. 
 
 The Hegelian philosophy, notwithstanding its subjectivity, gave a mighty 
 impulse to the historical way of looking at things, and in estimating its in- 
 fluence one must not allow himself to be guided altogether by the imme- 
 diate results of its application (§591). It has not always made claim to 
 furnish the material of history also, as it were ; where it has given leading 
 ideas for the finding of the spirit lying within history, certainly not all the 
 discoveries Jiiade have been precarious or illusory (§ 344) ; and it will have 
 an influence even where no direct mental contact with it as a system has 
 taken place, as has been the case with the Kantian pliilosophy also. Even 
 the highest mountams of error are finally leveled, but not a grain of truth 
 is lost. 
 
 We must also mention here the growing literature on the life of Jesus 
 (cf. § 581). It certainly can as yet make no claim to the credit of having 
 solved the problem ; perhaps, indeed, the best works show most clearly of 
 all that it is insoluble ; yet the literature shows in general that the science 
 understands the demands which are properly put upon it, and no longer 
 seeks to be rid of them so easily as formerly. 
 
 595. The German Catholics have been protected, by their 
 more circumscribed position, from many of the vagaries of the 
 Protestant exegesis. But these limitations have not prevented 
 them from taking part in the scientific movement of the cen- 
 tury. True, the still infallible church holds them under her jeal- 
 ous guardianship, yet she prevents no one from appropriating 
 the attainments and methods of the advanced age, and bringing 
 honor to herself by his knowledge and the application of it. 
 The fluctuations of the schools in the field of Biblical Theology 
 are naturally much less prominent, and in particular are not so 
 much magnified by controversy as among us ; yet science has 
 not been wholly untouched by the spirit of the age even here. 
 Outside of Germany, however, there is properly nothing to be 
 said of Catholic Biblical Theology. Where the Romish clergy 
 has no opposing Church set over against it, it seems to be sunk 
 in the mental indolence of eternal peace ; but elsewhere, Avliere 
 conflict calls it out, it at least does not draw its strength from 
 learned investigations. 
 
 Toward the close of the last century the spirit of liberalism and independ- 
 ence aroused or cherished by Joseph II. manifested itself also in the her- 
 meneutical and exegetical labors of many Catholics, partly by neglect of the 
 theological and specifically confessional hues of argument, and adoption of 
 the standpoint of Ernesti, partly even in quiet participation in the illuminative 
 (rationalistic) tendencies of the time. The relation between Protestant and 
 Catholic theologians during this period, and even somewhat later, was a 
 friendly one ; books were dedicated back and forth, official congratulations 
 were written by faculties on the occasion of festivals in the other party, 
 Catholic essays might seek publication in Protestant journals, and Catholic 
 seminary students heard exegesis under Protestant professors by the author- 
 ity of a Catholic government (Reichlin-Meldegg's Paulus, I. 374). 
 
 S. Seemiller, at Ingolstadt (f 1798), Institt. ad interpr. S. S., 1779. J. J. 
 
HISTORICAL CRITICISM- CATHOLICS. 619 
 
 Monsperger, at Vienna, Instit. herm. V. T., 1781. C. Fischer, at Prague, 
 (t 1791), Instit. herm. in N. T., 1788 ; cf. § 488. A. Arigler, at Vienna, 
 Hermeneutica biblica generalis, 1813. F. G. Mayer, at Linz, Listit. interpretis 
 s., 1789, and pliilological treatment of Matthew, John, and some Epistles. 
 
 J. Jahn (§ 21), Encheiridion Jiermeneuticce generalis, 1812, and freq. ; exe- 
 getical works on the O. T., for which he was ecclesiastically tried and in 
 accordance with the spirit of that time mildly censured. Nachtrdge to his 
 theological works, 1821. Against him and his school : De necessitate incau- 
 tos prceveniendi adv. artem nonnuUorum professorum hermeneutices qui sub re- 
 spectu interpr. novarum S. S. naturalismum evulgare ac revelationis ideam delere 
 conantur, Rome, 1818. (J. Tumpacher), Vindicice J. Jahn, L. 1822 ; Werner, 
 p. 273. 
 
 J. B. de Rossi, at Parma (f 1809), celebrated as a Hebraist, O. T. critic, 
 and authority in Jewish literature : Sinopsi delta Ermeneutica sacra, 1819 
 (^Meinorie storiche sul Dr. de Rossi, Parma, 1809). 
 
 The one who went farthest over into the rationalistic ranks was M. Weck- 
 lein, Liberalior V. T. interpr., 1806, who, after Wetstein, made the Greek 
 and Roman classics the best aids of exegesis, not for the language but for 
 the religious ideas of the O. T. Against him J. H. Kistemaker (see below), 
 De nova exegesi, etc., 1806. 
 
 Die h. Schr. A. T., edited (with translation and commentary) by D. v. 
 Brentano, at Kempten (f 1797), continued by T. A. Dereser, at Strassburg, 
 Freiburg, and Breslau (f 1817), 1797 &. Later editions, also N. T. (1828, 
 4 vols.), edited by J. M. A. Scholz (§ 21), in a stricter spirit. B. M. Schnap- 
 pinger, at Freiburg (f 1832), Commentar zum N. T., 1797, 4 vols. P. A. 
 Gratz, at Tiibingen and Bonn, on Matth., 1821. More for practical edifica- 
 tion : C. Schwarzel, at Freiburg (f 1809), Uebers. u. Auslegung des N. T., 
 Ulm, 1802 ff., 6 vols, (only the Gospels). 
 
 With more definite reference to the Catholic principle, analogia Jidei and 
 ecclesiastical tradition, yet in the application of it often very discreet, and 
 giving wider scope to the philological basis of interpretation : Theoria her- 
 meneutices s., Dill. 1811. S. Hayd, at Freiburg, Introd. herm. in N. T., 1777. 
 J. B. Gerhauser (f 1825 ; § 21), in the second part of his Bibl. Hermeneutik. 
 J. M. A. Lolinis, at Giessen, GrundzUge der bibl. Hermeneutik und Kritik, 
 1839. — For proof that the decree of the Council of Trent (§ 552), as a 
 purely disciplinary matter, did not greatly restrict freedom, and for the con- 
 ception of interpretation as a " diplomatist " working in the interest of the 
 Church, see p. 151. Cf. also Glaire, § 21. M. Arneth, Die Unterschiede 
 zwischen der bios rationellen und der katholischen Schriftauslegung, Linz, 1816. 
 J. H. Kistemaker, at Miinster (f 1834), on some Psalms, Canticles ; Gos- 
 pels, Acts, Epistles. A. Maier (§ 21), in many parts free, fresh, and inde- 
 pendent. Also commentaries on John, Romans, and Hebrews. 
 
 Strictly Catholic, with decided emphasis on the confessional standpoint in 
 the field of Biblical Theology : J. Alzog, at Posen and Freiburg, Explicatio 
 catholicorum systematis de interpr. S. S., Miinster, 1835. C. Unterkircher, at 
 Trent, Hermeneutica biblica generalis, Innsbr. 1834, p. 256 : the Scriptures 
 the norma dogmatum only in so far as the magisterium ecclesicB entrusted with 
 the care of doctrine has so established it. J. Ranolder, at Fiinfkirchen, 
 Herm. bibl. principia rationalia, chr. et catholica, 1838. V. Reichel, at Koni- 
 gingriitz, Introd. in herm. bibl., W. 1839. A. Schmitter, Grundlinien der bibl. 
 Hermeneutik, Reg. 1844 : the Church and the Fathers stand above other 
 means of interpretation as supernatural. G. J. B. Giintner, Herm. biblica 
 generalis, Prague, 1848, and freq. H. Klee, at Bonn and Munich (f 1840), 
 ou John, Romans, Hebrews, 1829 ff. L. Reinke, at Miinster, and B. Welte, 
 at Tubingen, works on the O. T. F. Windischmann, on Galatians, 1843. M. 
 J. Mack, on the Pastoral Epistles, 1835. 
 
 The journals which have contributed most to the scholarly and theologi- 
 
620 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 cal discussion of the Scriptures are : J. L. Hug's (§ 21 j Zeitschr. fur die 
 GeistUchkeit des Erzb., Freiburg, 1828-1834. Neue Zeitschr. fur Theol. (by 
 the Professors at Freiburg), 1839-1848. Theol. Quartalschr. (by the Pro- 
 fessors at Tiibingen), since 1819. The first, especially in its earlier years, 
 laid little stress ui^on the specifically Catholic element. On Hug in par- 
 ticular see Maier, in the Freiburg Zeitschr., 1846, I. ; Werner, p. 527. 
 
 In tlie Catholic manuals of hermeneutics of all shades there is a constant 
 chapter De seiisu multiplici, in which there is either undertaken a brief re- 
 duction of it to allegory, parable, religious symbolism, and apostolic typol- 
 ogy, or at least the patristic methods are explained in their principle, and 
 commended, perhaps with cautions : N. Le Gros, Tr. de S. S. sensu multi- 
 plici, Vind. 1780. L. A. Hassler, Sendschreiben des huchstdhlichen an seine 
 Briider den allegorischen vnd moralischen Bihelsinn, with the motto : Solamen 
 miseris socios habuisse malorum, — in his Exeget. Andeutungen, 1821. 
 
 596. A retrospect of the events in the realm of Biblical The- 
 ology during the last eighty years, whether one regard them 
 as necessary phases of development or as lamentable errors, 
 shows that Germany has attained an unquestioned supremacy 
 over all other countries in this field of thought and knowl- 
 edge. This supremacy is certainly not due to any particular 
 party, but is the natural result of the free movement of all 
 parties, whose manifold and intricate conflicts have been the 
 source of endless transformations for themselves, and of con- 
 tinual refreshment for science. Doubtless, also, among the 
 more cultivated peoples, the Germans until recently had the 
 most leisure to spend in learned pursuits of this kind. The 
 writer of the History of Exegesis might pass over the works of 
 other countries without detriment to its value, since they fol- 
 low scarcely any path not previously trodden by one of the 
 schools already described, and for the most part seem to have 
 taken up the role of imitation intentionally. 
 
 England, France, and Holland, the Reformed churches in general, in the 
 seventeenth century stood without dispute far in advance of the German 
 Lutherans in all historical and philological knowledge. Why have they 
 since remained stationary or retrograded ? In France the fact is explained 
 simply by the civil extinction of Protestantism ; the prevailingly political 
 and commercial activity may have contributed elsewhere ; the boldness of 
 naturalism doubtless in many cases deterred theology from taking advan- 
 tage of its learning for the benefit of dogmatics ; but may it not be that 
 while, on the one hand, the spiritual element which dwells indestructibly in 
 Lutheranism finally broke through the limitations of the intellect, and con- 
 tinued to do so, on the other the absence of this element and the strict doc- 
 trinal and ecclesiastical discipline just as natural to Calvinism, which more 
 and more precluded, in particular, a human and natural treatment of the 
 written word, made these limitations more and more rigid from generation 
 to generation ? Lack of movement leads to death. But recent decades 
 have begun to bring an improvement. 
 
 Moreover, we scarcely hear anything of what is accomplished in this field 
 elsewhere, and are able to judge of the whole only from single examples. 
 Since the actual or imagined necessity of reading or translating foreign exe- 
 getical \^Titings has ceased in Germany, the book-trade no longer brings 
 them to us regularly. Cf. § 347 f. 
 
HISTORICAL CRITICISM — ENGLAND — HOLLAND. 621 
 
 597. Tn general, however, it may be said of the Biblical The- 
 ology of the non-German Protestant countries that it occupies 
 a conservative standpoint, and even when it contends against 
 opponents, finds them only in the scholastic field, or at least 
 knows them only at a distance and by hearsay. England and 
 Holland still furnish the most contributions ; the latter in 
 more learned form, and representing the studies of the schools ; 
 the former rather applied to life and designed for the use of 
 the pulpit. Accurate philological research is honored in both 
 places, but in the former often introduced as a foreign com- 
 modity and always used simply as a means, in the latter, on 
 the contrary, indigenous, but often itself apparently the final 
 aim of the work. Denmark we might almost count in with 
 Germany, as we have done with Switzerland. Her best re- 
 sults are immediately translated. The farther north, which is 
 illuminated by stars of the first magnitude in so many sciences, 
 is enveloped in darkness with respect to ours. 
 
 What has been said of England is true also of North America. If a mere 
 list of titles would suffice it might be made out from English catalogues, 
 which show that the (external) ricluiess is very great. 
 
 The larger works extant belong mostly in the field of practical theology 
 in consequence of their jjopular historical (e. g., J. Bellamy, O. T., 1818) or 
 even edificatory (e. g., Matthew Henry and Th. Scott, N. T. ; A. Barnes, 
 Isaiah, Job, N. T., 1832 ; J. B. Sumner, Gospels, 1834) treatment of the 
 text ; among the smaller ones are some with philological annotations (e. g., 
 E. Valpy, N. T., 1816, and freq. ; S. T. Bloomfield, N. T., 1830, and freq. ; 
 W. Trollope, N. T., 1837; E. Card well, N. T., 1837; H. Robinson, Acts, 
 1824), others with scholarly comments (e. g., S. Lee, Job, 1837; G. Holden, 
 Proverbs, 1819 ; Moses Stuart, Romans, 1833 ; Hebrews, 1827), and some 
 of a special dogmatic and controversial character (R. Haldane, Romans, 
 1816). Many others are mentioned above. Especially characteristic, in 
 view of tlie complete lack of freedom in practice and utter dependence upon 
 tradition, is the painful accuracy in the regulation of method and in the 
 theory of hermeneutics, e. g., in Home's Introduction, II. (§ 347). A com- 
 mentary on Romans by J. W. Colenso (§ 347), 1861. A great work under- 
 taken by several writers under official patronage : The Speaker's Bible has 
 recently begun to appear ; see the Studien, 1872, IV. [Edited by Canon 
 Cook ; O. T., 6 vols., completed in 1876 ; N. T., 4 vols., 1881, London, 
 Murray.] 
 
 Of the older Dutch exegetes it may be asserted with truth that they are 
 disciples of Ernesti, perhaps of somewhat more steadfast orthodoxy, so far as 
 doctrine comes into view with them at all ; certainly less prejudiced in favor 
 of the confessional theology than the English, and freer in distinguishing it 
 from the biblical. A. des Amorie v. d. Hoeven, Oratio de germano theologo 
 ss. II. interpretc. Delft, 1828 ; J. H. Pareau, Institutio interpretis V. T., Traj. 
 1822 ; L. G. Pareau, Hermeneutica cod. s., Gron. 1846. More recently this 
 has changed, and the activity in this field has become very varied, but more 
 and more inaccessible to foreigners. — Of the extended and theologically im- 
 portant commentaries unfortunately but few are thoroughly known to me ; 
 a great number written in Dutch are to be found in the catalogues. Latin 
 writings on shorter books (Taco Roorda, at Groningen, on Jeremiah ; Juyn- 
 boU, at Leyden, on Amos ; T. A. Clarisse, at Leyden, on the Psalms of De- 
 
622 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 ffrees ; J. H. v. d. Palm, at Leyden, on Ecelesiastes ; L. C. Valckenaer, lec- 
 tures on various books of the N. T. ; W. A. v. Hengel, annotations on the 
 same and on Ronians and Philippians ; E. A. Borger, on Galatians ; J. v. 
 Voorst, on Matthew ; and many others), but especially numerous academic 
 monoo-raphs of considerable extent upon special questions and single chap- 
 ters, frequently reach us ; many of these have been cited above in their ap- 
 propriate places. 
 
 H. M. Clausen's (at Copenhagen) Hermeneutik des N. T. (German, 1841) 
 is in o-reat part historical in contents, hesitating in its theory, in style and 
 method Germar's (§ 583). The theological parties are very sharply opposed 
 there. 
 
 598. In France, after a long night, it seems to be about to 
 dawn. True, the Protestant people there were never without 
 the Bible, and it has been commended to them by their teach- 
 ers with sufl&eient urgency and richly expounded for consola- 
 tion and edification. But of a scientific theological study and 
 use of it there was for a long time nothing to say, and exegesis 
 and its related sciences were in Geneva a subordinate matter, 
 in Montauban unknown. Occasional translations from the 
 German and English scarcely found readers, or repelled them 
 altogether by their foreign spirit. Yet these and the first in- 
 dependent works of younger theologians were sacrificed to a 
 hope which did not wholly fail of its reward. The academic 
 instruction has been improved. A new generation is prepar- 
 ing itself to combine happily zeal for science with zeal for the 
 Church ; it may some day bring to the older workers at a dis- 
 tance welcome aid for the common task. Until then it is 
 double joy to see the newly planted garden, however slowly, 
 grow green and thrive, if one has himself handled the spade. 
 
 The literature is as yet easily surveyed ; of. § 348. For dogmatics and 
 ethics, so far as the theological use of the Scriptures is concerned, little has 
 yet been done. The foundation of the first has been laid by E. Scherer, 
 ProUgomhies a la dogmatique de VEglise ref., 1843 ; but it has thus far been 
 carried out (by J. J. Cheneviere, at Geneva (f 1871), Essais de TheoL, 
 1830 ff. ; Dogmatique, 1840, and A. Coquerel, at Paris, Le christianisme ex- 
 pe'rimental, 1847; Ckristologie, 1857) only in a spirit which does not bring it 
 within the scope of our history. 
 
 Exegetical studies (Introduction, Hermeneutics, ArchfEology, and Inter- 
 pretation) obtained their impulse from Geneva, through J. E. Cellerier 
 (t 1862), cf. § 20. (Manuel d'hermeneutique biblique, 1852 ; Ep. de Jaques, 
 1850 ; Esprit de la le'gisl. mosa'ique, after Michaelis ; apologetic writings.) 
 They were in the spirit of Ernesti and the Dutch scholars, adding to the 
 grammatical principle of interpretation the theological and apologetic as its 
 necessary complement. M. Nicolas (now at Montauban), Essai d'herme- 
 neutique, 1838, after Cellerier and Twesten. A. Sardinoux (now at the same 
 place), on Galatians, 1837; A. Rilliet, at Geneva, on Philippians, 1841 ; H. 
 Oltramare, at Geneva, on Romans, 1843, with an introductory hermeneutic 
 theory, on which see Allg. Lit. Zeitung, 1846, I. 865 ; E. Arnaud, at Bor- 
 deaux and Crest, § 498, on Jude, 1851, Comra. sur le N. T., 1863, 4 vols., 
 popular ; L. Tliomas, at Geneva, on 1 John, 1849 ; E. de Pressense, at Paris, 
 Hist, des trois premiers siecles, 1858 £f., 5 vols. [E. tr. by Annie Harwood, 
 
HISTORICAL CRITICISM — FRANCE. 623 
 
 The Earhj Days of Christianity, Lond. and N. Y. 1870 &., 4 vols.] ; all under 
 the influence of German science. Also a translation of Neander's Ap. Gesch. 
 by F. Fontanes, of Nimes, and of his practical commentary on several epis- 
 tles. More decidedly in the spirit of historical criticism, exegetical essays in 
 the Strassb. Revue, by J. Steeg, A. Reville, and others. 
 
 In contrast with this school, in strict Calvinistic or ultra-conservative spirit, 
 translations from the English, at Paris and Toulouse (Hodge and Haldane 
 on Romans, Henry and Scott on Psalms, the latter on Matthew, Acts, Ro- 
 mans); from the German, especially at Neufchatel (Olshausen, Tieferer 
 Schriftsinn, and portions of his commentary ; Schroder, on Genesis). A col- 
 lection of scholia : S. Descombaz, Guide biblique, 1856, 3 vols. 
 
 Not much that is new and original has thus far appeared from this coun- 
 try : J. H. Grand-Pierre, Essais sur le Pentateuque, 1844, a solution of knotty 
 points, after the fashion of Lilienthal or Michaelis. Monneron, on Corin- 
 thians, 1851, is a paraphrase. F. Godet, of Neufchatel, on John, 1864 ['2d 
 ed. 1877; E. tr. in 3 vols., T. & T. Clark, 1877; 3d ed. of the original, 1881] ; 
 Luke, 1871 [E. tr., T. & T. Clark, 1875] ; Etudes bibliques sur I' A. T., 1873. 
 A. de Mestral, of Lausanne, on Genesis, 1863. (Astie, at Lausanne) on 
 John, 1863. A. Monod, on Ephesians, 1867. F. de Rougemont, on Ecclesi- 
 astes, 1844. H. Lutteroth, at Paris, a still unfinished commentary on Mat- 
 thew, 1860 e. Several works on the Psalms by C. Bruston, 1865, 1873, 
 especially distinguished by bold criticism of the text. Important articles in 
 the theological supplement of the Revue Chretienne and of the Paris Revue de 
 theologie begun in 1870. On the other hand a new edition of Calvin's com- 
 mentary on the N. T. in the old French translation, P. 1855, 4 vols. 8°. 
 
 In advance of the time there came from Strassburg scholarly exegetical 
 works on the O. T. : J. G. Dahler (f 1832), on Jeremiah, 1825 ; J. D. F. 
 Burger (f 1845), on Zechariah, 1841. Numerous academic occasional writ- 
 ings have been introduced in their appropriate place. As to how far dog- 
 matics and criticism are considered in them, cf. § 348. In more recent 
 times only H. W. Kienlen, on the Apocalypse, 1870. 
 
 On the Catholic side there is nothing of importance to mention here (cf. 
 § 499), for the works of E. Renan (Job, 1859 ; Canticles, 1860 ; Vie de 
 Jesus, 1863, 13th ed. 1867; Les Apotres, 1866 ; St. Paul, 1869 ; L' Antechrist, 
 1873) are wholly outside this sphere. Numerous other attempts at transla- 
 tion, especially of the poetic books of the O. T., without exegetical value. 
 
 599. But until the fruits of the greater work which has been 
 committed by God to the human mind, and upon whicli bibli- 
 cal scholars have already long been engaged, with painful labor 
 and noble art, have come to maturity, let the lesser, easier, 
 and more immediately remunerative still be commended to 
 every Christian. It is the duty of science to see difficulties, 
 the office of reason to cherish doubt, the prerogative of the 
 understanding never to be satisfied with what it has ; the more 
 the subject with which they have to do contains elements 
 which do not spring from earth, the less is there an end of 
 questioning and discussion. But that is not the fault of the 
 Bible. It gives to every one, and has always given, that 
 which he can always use and should first of all seek, consola- 
 tion, instruction, discipline, and hope. The unlearned multi- 
 tude have obtained more good from it than the learned scliools, 
 because, following the hermeneutics of nature, they do not at- 
 
624 HISTORY OF EXEGESIS. 
 
 tempt to enjoy it all at once. For that is beyond human 
 power. For every day its care ; for every time its text ; there 
 are texts for all times. The devout heart finds it out from 
 amid the mass, and with its meaning consoles itself for the 
 rest. Of such it is said, " Blessed are they that have not seen 
 and yet have believed ! " 
 
 In this book, with a few unavoidable departures, the author has held fast 
 to the design of recounting the history of the scientific theological use of the 
 Scriptures. He has avoided bringing in the practical and popular use of 
 them, beside many other reasons, chiefly because he is not sufficiently famil- 
 iar with its history. This may be a defect ; but it may be doubted whether 
 such a history could be written without continually runumg back into the 
 other. There are manuals of popular hermeneutics, there are practical com- 
 mentaries in great numbers, with and without tliese ambiguous names ; it 
 would be easy to show that they likewise uphold the tenets of their particu- 
 lar schools. I would gladly see the material relating to the subject worked 
 up into a history of the progress, not of Christianity toward the universal 
 religion, but of mankind toward the Church. But who shall write it ? 
 
 Nevertheless, amid the clamorous confusion of the present, and the tumult 
 of party wrangling, daily growing wilder, in which those standing in the 
 closest relations to one another are in the bitterest controversy over things 
 which even scholars scarcely understand, and to which the multitude is 
 altogether indifferent, it is a consoling fact that more and more are coming 
 to the conviction, and expressing it, that religious science, like the Church, is 
 not for theologians alone, and that if the school is to be a helj) to Cliristianity 
 and the Cliurcli, it must allow the Church a more active part in the work than 
 this cloister learning and Puseyism among us does or admits. In tliis respect 
 Germany must see to it that she is not outstripped again. (E. Reuss, L'Eglise 
 et UEcole, 1854.) 
 
 In place of all others we mention here but one book, very recent and least 
 of all conscious of the goal hinted at in it, the Bihelwerk of C. C. J. Bunsen, 
 1858 ff., a sign of the times, but also a pledge for the future. 
 
 600. Thus the history of the theological use of the Scriptures 
 shows that the Church for but a short time received the will of 
 her Lord and the teaching of his disciples through brief and 
 simple instruction, and that Christian theologians have been 
 laboring for seventeen hundred years since to fix by learning 
 and speculation the meaning of certain pages which were writ- 
 ten for the unlearned and simple-minded. True, there were 
 always preachers whose childlike souls perceived what the in- 
 tellect of the scholar never saw, and struck the note which the 
 Apostles had struck ; but their number was small, their fame 
 and influence never the greatest. The loudest word in the 
 science of the Scriptures has always been spoken by those who 
 have thought that the truth could be discovered and established 
 by the rules and definitions of scholastic philosophy. In a first 
 period they lost themselves in the vast labyrinths of allegory, 
 decking the Word with the motley tinsel of their conceits ; in 
 the second they allowed themselves to be bound in the shackles 
 of the systems, and crushed the life out of it with the iron con- 
 
SUMMARY. 625 
 
 sistency of their logic. Their laws, mostly designed to make 
 exegesis responsible for the caprices of dogmatics, her mistress, 
 stand side by side unreconciled to-day ; the clearest passages 
 are differently explained ; the hermeneutic formula able to 
 unite all voices is not yet found, and the impossibility of 
 finding it, which is becoming more and more evident, is an 
 earnest warning uttered by history to those who forget that 
 they should be servants, not of the letter which killeth, but of 
 the spirit which maketh alive. 
 40 
 
INDEX 
 
 (the figdees refer to sections.) 
 
 Abbreviations, 375. 
 Abdias, 2G8. 
 Abelard, Peter, 533.' 
 Abgar, 26G. 
 
 Abraliam Aben Ezra, 539. 
 Abravaiiel, 539. 
 Accents, in MSS., 37G. 
 Accidental Alterations, 364 ff. 
 Acts, Apocrypliai, 267 f. 
 
 Gnostic, 2G1. 
 
 of Peter, 253 ff. 
 
 of Pilale, 258. 
 
 of the Apostles, 202 ff. 
 Additions to tlie N. T. Boolis, 238 ff. 
 
 to the Gospels, 238 ff. 
 
 to Marli's Gospel, 240. 
 
 to Fourth Gospel, 239. 
 ^thiopic Canon, 326. 
 Afghan Version, 495. 
 African Versions, 495. 
 Aitton, H. A., 419. 
 Albanian Version, 496. 
 Alberti, J., 565. 
 Albert of Regensburg, 533. 
 Albifjenses, 330, 465. 
 Albrecht, C. 584. 
 Alcuin, 456, 528. 
 Alexander Ales., 534. 
 Alexandrian Exegesis, 504, 509 ff. 
 
 Philosophy, Relation to Christian- 
 ity, 25. 
 
 School, 510. 
 
 Text, 370. 
 
 Version (LXX.), 45, 283. 
 Alford, H.,419. 
 
 Allegorical Interpretation, 504, 506 ff. 
 Alogi, 327. 
 Alphen, H. van, 570. 
 Alphonsus To-tatus, 3-31, 541. 
 Alterations, Accidental, 364 ff. 
 
 Designed, 357 ff. 
 
 Dogmatic, 361 f . 
 Alter, F. C, 411. 
 Alulf of Tournay, 526, 
 Alzog, J., 595. 
 Amanuenses, 76, 351. 
 Ambrose, 362, 517. 
 Ambrosiaster, 520. 
 Amharic Version, 442. 
 Amnion, C. F., 577, 580. 
 Ammonius, 385. 
 Amphilochius, 316, 32u. 
 
 Amyraut, M., 555. 
 Anastasius, 328, 362. 
 Andreas and Arethas, 527. 
 Angelonius, 528. 
 Anglican Confession, 332, 333. 
 Anglo-Saxon Version, 462. 
 Augrianus, Michael, 535. 
 Anschmink, H. P., 584. 
 Anselm of Laon, 529. 
 Antilegomena, 314, 317. 
 Antioch, 57. 
 
 Antiochian School, 320, 518. 
 Antonius Nebrissensis, 543. 
 Anton, Paul, 559. 
 Antwerp Polvglot, 403. 
 Apelles, 245,"292. 
 Apocalypse, of John, 156 ff. 
 
 of Peter, 310. 
 Apocalypses, Apocryphal, 274. 
 
 Gnostic, 202. 
 Apocalyptic Exegesis, 561, 584. 
 Apocrypha, Extra-biblical, 293. 
 
 Meaning of the term, 318. 
 
 of the N. T., 243. 
 
 of the 0. T., 317, 319, 333, 349. 
 
 of the O T. quoted in N. T., 283. 
 Apocryphal Apocalypses, 274. 
 'Gospels, 262ff. 
 
 Legends in the Koran, 263. 
 Apollinaris, 294. 
 Apollos, 153. 
 Apostles, 1, 28 ff. 
 Apostles' Creed, 279. 
 Apostolic Canons, 278. 
 
 Church, 31 ff., 37. 
 
 Constitutions, 277, 312, 317. 
 
 Didaskalia, 277. 
 
 Fathers, 287 ff. 
 
 Preaching, 36, 50 ff. 
 
 Theology, 29, 32. 
 Apostolos, 300. 
 Apparatus Criticus, 391. 
 Aquinum, Thomas of, 533 f. 
 Arabic Conquest, 371. 
 
 Versions, 437 ff., 491. 
 Aramaisms, 46. 
 Arboreus, J., 551. 
 Archa?ology, Biblical, 566. 
 Arcularius, D., 555. 
 Arians, 327, 362. 
 Arigler, A., 595. 
 Armbruster, C, 584. 
 
628 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Armenian Canon, 326. 
 
 Versions, 432, 491, 495. 
 Arminians, 340, 5U3. 
 Armorican Version, 489. 
 Arnaiid, E., 348, 508. 
 Arnauld, A., DG2. 
 Arnctli, M., 595. 
 Artemonites, 3G2. 
 Asboth, J., 579. 
 Astie, 598. 
 
 Athanasius, 320, 516, 517. 
 Athenagoras, 294. 
 Atto of Vercclii, 527. 
 Auberlen, C. A., 590. 
 August!, J. C. W., 588. 
 Augustine, 323, 325, 450, 452, 517. 
 Autograplis, 351. 
 
 Bahnmeier, E., 584. 
 Biilir, C. F., 588. 
 Bahrdt, C. F,, 487, 568, 575. 
 Buhrdt, J. F., 581. 
 Balduin, F., 555. 
 Banliolzer, F., 584. 
 Bardesanes, 292. 
 Barnabas, 50, G4. 
 
 Epistle of, 234, 287, 293, 317. 
 
 Gospel of, 203. 
 Barnes, A., 597. 
 Bashmuric Version, 430. 
 Basil, 510. 
 
 Basilides, 245, 292, 508. 
 Basque Version, 489. 
 Baudrv, Abbe de, 348. 
 Bauer," Br., 591. 
 Bauer, C. L., 505. 
 Bauer, G. L., 577, 580. 
 Baumgarten, M., 590. 
 Baumgarten, S. J., 409, 570. 
 Baumgarten-Crusius, 587. 
 Baur,'F. C, 19, 23, 344. 
 Baur, V. F., 577. 
 Beaubrun, 5G2. 
 Beausobre, Is. de, 568. 
 Bebel, B., 554. 
 
 Editions, 401. 
 Beck, C. D., 579. 
 Beck, J. T., 590. 
 Bede, 527. 
 Bellamy, J., 597. 
 Bellarmine, R., 337, 552. 
 Belgic Confession, 332, 333, 335. 
 Benecke, W., 587. 
 Bengel, E., 5G1. 
 Ben gel, E. G., 582. 
 Bengel, J. A., 410, 561. 
 Benner, J. H., 570. 
 Benson, G., 509. 
 Bentley, R., 409. 
 Berchorius, Petriis, 535. 
 Berger, C. G., 561. 
 Berger, J. G. L, 583. 
 Berleburg BH)le, 487, 559. 
 Bernard of Clairvaux, 535. 
 Berruver, I. J., 552. 
 Beza,"404, 549. 
 Bezan Editions, 404. 
 Bible Societies, 349, 494 ff. 
 Bible Text, Articles on, 351. 
 
 Biblical Philology, 565. 
 
 Theology, 594. 
 Bibliotheca Breniensis, 557. 
 Bilingual Manuscripts, 381. 
 Billroth, G., 590, 591. 
 Birch, A., 411. 
 Biscayan Version, 489. 
 Bishops, 37. 
 Bishops' Bible, 475. 
 Blcek, F., 593. 
 Bloomfield, S. T., 419, 597. 
 Bochart, S., 500. 
 Bodenstein, A., 334. 
 Bohemian Confession, 332. 
 
 Versions, 407 f., 477 f., 488. 
 Buhme, 576. 
 Bohmer, J. G., 501. 
 Bohmer, W., 588. 
 Boissonnade, J. F., 419. 
 Bolten, J. A., 570. 
 Bonaventura, 534, 535. 
 Bonifas, F., 348. 
 Boost, J. A., 584. 
 Borger, E. A., 597. 
 Bornemann, F. A., 592. 
 Bos, L., 505. 
 Braun, J., 557, 560. 
 Breathings in Manuscripts, 376. 
 Breeches Bible, 475. 
 Breitliaupt, J. J., 558. 
 Brenius, D., 550. 
 Brentano, Dom. v., 595. 
 Brentz, J., 548. 
 Bretschneider, S. G., 579. 
 Breviary, 380. 
 Brightman, Th., 561. 
 Brosset, 419. 
 Brothers of Jesus, 56. 
 Bruston, C, 598. 
 Brylinger Famil^y (Editions), 403. 
 Bucer (Butzer), 549. 
 Buddeus, J. F., 500, 506. 
 Bugenhagen, J., 548. 
 Bullinger, H., 549, 501. 
 Bunsen, C. C. J., 599. 
 Burger, J. D. F., 598. 
 Burgos, Paulus of, 541. 
 Burmann, F., 557. 
 Burscher, J. F., 581. 
 Biisching, A. F., 5G8. 
 Buttmann, Ph., 410, 580. 
 Butzer, M. (Bucerj, 549. 
 
 Csedmon, 4G2. 
 
 Cffisarea, Epistles (of Paul) from, 114. 
 
 Librar3' of, 365. 
 Caius, 313. 
 
 Cajetan, Cardinal, 331, 543. 
 Ca'lixtus, G., 555. 
 Callcnberg, J. II., 491 ff. 
 Calligraphers, 351. 
 Calniet, A., 552. 
 Calov, A., 340, 555. 
 Calvin, J., 333, 3-35, 474, 549 f. 
 Calvinistic Exegesis, 549 f. 
 Camerarius, J., 548. 
 Canon, 316, 346. 
 
 History of the, 281 ff. 
 
 in the Middle Ages, 329 £f. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 629 
 
 Canon of Marcion, 291. 
 
 of the Latin Church, 322. 
 
 of the lieformers, 332 ff. 
 Canonical Books, 316. 
 Canons, Apostolic, 278, 321. 
 Canstein, 484. 
 Canticles, 536. 
 Capito, W. F., 549. 
 Cappelle, J., 565. 
 Cappelle, L., 565. 
 
 Carcaplientian Version (Syriac), 427. 
 Cardwell, E., 597. 
 Carlstadt, A., 334. 
 Carpocrales, 245, 292, 
 Carpzov, J. B., 581. 
 Carpzov, .T. G., 566. 
 Carthaginian Councils, 324. 
 Casaubon, I., 505. 
 Caspari, C. P., 588. 
 Cassiodorus, 328, 456, 522, 526. 
 Castalio, S., 487, 549. 
 Catalan Version, 496. 
 Catenae, 531. 
 Cathari, 330, 465. 
 Catharinus, A., 551. 
 Catholic Church, 288, 296, 
 
 Criticism, 21. 
 
 Epistles, 142 ff., 301. 
 
 Exegesis, 551 f., 595. 
 
 Pseudepigrapha. 264 ff. 
 
 Versions, 478 if.', 488, 499, 
 Cellerier, J. E., 598. 
 Celsius, O., 566. 
 Celtic Versions, 489. 
 Central Asiatic Versions, 495. 
 Centuries, Magdeburg, 333. 
 Cerinthus, 245. 
 Chapters, 386. 
 
 Charlemagne, 328, 456, 463, 528. 
 Chastillon, S., 487, 549. 
 Chemnitz, M., 339, 5.55. 
 Chenevi^re, J. J., 598. 
 Childhood, Gospels of the, 265. 
 Chimonius, G. F., 561. 
 Chinese Versions, 492, 495. 
 Chladni, M., 560. 
 Christian!, W. B., ,561. 
 Chrysoloras, Manuel, 530. 
 Chrvsostom, 320, 4;i4, 519. 
 Church, Catholic, 288, 296. 
 
 Fathers, Exegesis of, 509 ff. 
 
 Fathers, Quotations in (Canon), 294. 
 
 Fathers, Quotations in (Criticism), 
 394. 
 
 Government, Apostolic, 37, 130. 
 Chytrjeus, D., 555. 
 Circulation of the N. T., 284 f. 
 Citations, 294, 394. 
 Clarius, Isid., 551. 
 Clarke, S., 569. 
 Clarisse, T. A., 597. 
 Classics, Studv of, 542. 
 Claudius of Turin, 527. 
 Clausen, H. N., 597. 
 Clement of Alexandria, 293, 297 f ., 509, 510. 
 
 of Rome, 1st Ep. to Cor., 235, 287, 
 293, 317. 
 
 of Rome, 2d Ep. to Cor., 273. 
 aementines, 254 ff., 292. 
 
 Clementine Vulgate, 482. 
 Clerc, J. le (ClericusK 563. 
 Cocceius, J., -557. / / -^ 
 Codices, 352 f., 372 f., 392. 
 
 Bilingues, 381. 
 
 Latinizantes, 360. 
 
 Rescripti, 373. 
 Colenso, J. W., 347, 597. 
 Colines S. de (Colinajus), 402. 
 Colin, D. von, 593. 
 Colossians, Epistle to, 118 ff. 
 Comestor, Petrus, 466, 533. 
 Companions of Paul, 08. 
 Compilation, 527. 
 Complutensian Polyglot, 399. 
 Confessio Anglica, 332, 333. 
 
 Belgica, 332, 333, 335. 
 
 Bohemiana, 332. 
 
 Dosilhei, 338, 490. 
 
 Gallica, 332, 333. 
 
 Helvetica, I., 332, 546. 
 
 Helvetica, II., 332, 333, 335, 546. 
 
 Scotica, 546. 
 
 Wirtembergica, 335. 
 Conformation of the Text of the Gospels, 
 
 358. 
 Conjectures (Criticism), 398. 
 Conservative Criticism, 20. 
 Constantinople, Council of, 328. 
 Constantinopolitan Text, 370. 
 Constitutions, Apostolic, 277, 312. 
 Coptic Versions, 430, 491. 
 Coquerel, A., 598. 
 Corinth, 93. 
 
 Church of, 93. 
 Corinthians, Epistles to, 93 ff. 
 
 Third Ep. to, 272. 
 Corrections, 357. 
 Correctoria Bililica, 456. 
 Corrodi, H., 570. 
 Cosmas, 328. 
 Council of Carthage, 324. 
 
 Constantinople, 328. 
 
 Florence, 325. 
 
 Hippo, 324. 
 
 Jerusalem, 65. 
 
 Laodicea, 321. 
 
 Nica?a, 328. 
 
 Trent, 3-J6, 482, 552. 
 Courcelles, E. de (Curcellseus), 407. 
 Cramer, J. A., 570. 
 Credner, C A., 19. 
 Crell, J. 556. 
 Crell, S., 556. 
 Creolese Version, 492. 
 Crinsoz, 561. 
 Crispin, J., 403. 
 Critical Apparatus, 391. 
 Critici Sacri, 565, 567. 
 Croatian Version, 489. 
 Cruciger, C., 548. 
 Crusius, C. A., 570, 590. 
 Cuna>us, P., 566. 
 Ciirsive Character, 375. 
 Cyprian, 313, 516. 
 Cyril, 446. 
 
 Cvrillic Character, 446. 
 Cvril of Jerusalem, 320, 516, 517. 
 Cyril Lucar, 338, 490. 
 
630 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Dahler, J. G., 598. 
 
 Dalmatian Version, 489. 
 
 Danish Versions, 467, 472, 485, 487, 497. 
 
 Damni, C. T., 575. 
 
 Dannhawer, J. C, 553. 
 
 Danz, J. A., 572. 
 
 Darby, 584. 
 
 Dassov, T., 555, 566. 
 
 Dathe, J. A., 572. 
 
 Declaratio Tiiorun., 333, 546. 
 
 Decretum Gelasii, 324. 
 
 De DieiT, L., 565. 
 
 Deism, 575. 
 
 Delitzsch, F., 588. 
 
 Dereser, T. A., 595. 
 
 De Rossi, J. B., .595. 
 
 De Sacy, Le Maistre, 562. 
 
 Descombaz, S., 598. 
 
 Designed Alterations, 357 £E. 
 
 De Soto, Dom., 551. 
 
 D'Espence, C, 551. 
 
 Deusing, H., 557. 
 
 Deuterocanonical Books, 317. 
 
 Deutschmann, J., 554. 
 
 De Wette, W. M. L., 19, 580, 587. 
 
 Deyling, S., 560. 
 
 Dickinson, A., 419. 
 
 Dicta aypa(l>a, 167. 
 
 Probantia, 554. 
 Didaskalia, Apostolic, 277. 
 Diderot, 341. 
 Didvmus, 320, 517. 
 Dietelmair, J. A., 340. 
 Dietrich, C, 339. 
 Dieu, L. de, 565. 
 Dilherr, M., 555. 
 Dinter, G. F., 576. 
 Diodore of Tarsus, 518. 
 Diognetus, Epistle to, 294. 
 Dionysius Carthus., 331. 
 
 of Alexandria, 312, 513. 
 
 of Corinth, 294. 
 
 of Rickel, 541. 
 
 AiopOuxreiS, 357. 
 
 Diplomatics, Works on, 352. 
 
 Disciples of Jesus, 28 ff. 
 
 Discourses of the Apostles, 50 £E. 
 
 Doddridge, Ph., 569. 
 
 Diiderlein, G. A., 346, 568. 
 
 Doderlein, J. C, 572. 
 
 Dogmatic Alterations, 361 f. 
 
 Doring, Matthias, 541. 
 
 Dorsch, J. G., 554, 555. 
 
 Doughtev, J., 565. 
 
 D'Outrein, J., 557. 
 
 Driessen, A., 557. 
 
 Drusius, 565, 566. 
 
 Druthmar, Christianus, 528. 
 
 Du Fossci, 562. 
 
 Du Moulin, 339. 
 
 Duncan, W., 419. 
 
 Du Pin, L. E., 337. 
 
 Dupuis, 575. 
 
 Dutch Versions, 467 f., 472, 478, 485, 487. 
 
 Early Church, Composition, 53. 
 
 Churches, Organization, 37. 
 Eschat.ological Ideas, 26. 
 Gospels, 186 ff. 
 
 East Indian Versions, 492, 495. 
 
 Ebrard, J. H. A., 588, 591. 
 
 Ecclesiastici Libri, 317. 
 
 Eckermann, J. C. K., 346, 576, 577. 
 
 Eckhard, T., 565. 
 
 Edelmann, 341. 
 
 Editions of the Greek Text, 395 ff. 
 
 Egyptians, Gospel of, 245. 
 
 Egyptian Versions, 430. 
 
 Eichhorn, J. G., 19, 578, 580. 
 
 Elders, 37. 
 
 Eisner, J., 565. 
 
 Elzevirs, 406. 
 
 Engelmann, 528. 
 
 English Bible Societies, 349. 
 
 Polyglot, 567. 
 
 Theology, 347, 597. 
 
 Versions, 467, 475, 478, 485, 487 f., 
 497 f. 
 Ephesians, Epistle to. 118 ff. 
 Ephesus, Residence of Paul at, 87. 
 Ephreni Syrus, 517. 
 Epiphanius, 320, 508. 
 Episcopius, S., 563. 
 Epistles, Catholic, 141 if. 
 
 Forged, 140. 
 
 of the Cesarean Imprisonment, 114 ff. 
 
 Pauline, 73 ff. 
 Erasmian Editions, 401. 
 Erasmo-Stephanic Family (Editions), 403. 
 Erasmus, 331, 400, 469, 543. 
 Ernesti, J. A., 572. 
 Errors of the Ear, 364. 
 
 of the Eye, 364. 
 Espence, C. d', 551. 
 Essenism, Relation to Christianity, 25« 
 Ess, L. yan, 418. 
 Esther, Book of, 319. 
 Esthonian Version, 489. 
 Est, W., 552. 
 Ethiopic Canon, 326. 
 
 Versions, 431. 
 Eucherius, 517, 525. 
 Eugene IV., 331. 
 Eusebius, 313 f., .385, 434, 513. 
 Euthalius, 328, 377, 383, 385. 
 Ewald, H., 593. 
 Exegesis, Alexandrian, 504. 
 
 Apocalyptic, 561. 
 
 Calyinif-tic, 549 f. 
 
 Catholic, 551. 
 
 History of, 501 ff. 
 
 of the Apostles, 505. 
 
 of the Jews, 503 f., 5.39. 
 
 of the Reformers, 544 ff. 
 Exposition of the O. T., 502. 
 Extracts, 526. 
 Ezra, R. Abr. Aben, of Toledo, 539. 
 
 Faber Stapulensis, J. (Le ¥evre), 473, 480, 
 
 543. 
 Fathers, Quotations in, 294, 394. 
 Fehr, S. B., 561. 
 Fein, G. F., 561. 
 Felix, 113.. 
 Fell, J., 407. 
 Ferus, J., 551. 
 Fichte, J. G., .577. 
 Ficinus, Marsilius, 542. 
 
INDEX, 
 
 631 
 
 Finnish Version, 489. 
 Fischer, C, 595. 
 Fitzner, H., 561. 
 Flacius, M., 54G, 547, 548. 
 Flatt, J. F., 582. 
 Fleck, 594. 
 Fleming, Robt., 561. 
 Flemish Version, 488. 
 Florence, Council of, 325. 
 Floras Magister, 526. 
 Forgeries, 361 f. 
 Formula Concordise, 332, 546. 
 
 Consensus Helv., 339. 
 Fosse?, Du, 562. 
 Franke, A. H., 558. 
 Frantz, A., 578. 
 Frantz, W., 553. 
 Freethinkers, 341. 
 French Exegesis, 598. 
 
 Theology, 348. 
 
 Versions, 465 f., 468, 473 f., 480, 486, 
 488, 497 ff . 
 Freudentheil, W. N., 579. 
 Friedlieb, J. H., 418. 
 Fritzsche, C. F., 592. 
 Fritzsche, C. F. A., 592. 
 Fritzsche, 0. F., 592, 593. 
 Froben, John, 400. 
 Frommann, C., 587. 
 Frtireisen, J. L., 560. 
 
 Gabler, J. G., 579. 
 
 Gabler, .J. P., 580, 594. 
 
 Gaelic Version, 489. 
 
 Gagnev, J., 551. 
 
 Gaillard, F., 419. 
 
 Gail, J. B., 419. 
 
 Galatian Churches, 83 f. 
 
 Galatians, Epistle to, 83 ff. 
 
 Gallic Confession, 332. 
 
 Gasparin, A. de, 348. 
 
 Gaussen, L., 348. 
 
 Gehringer, J., 418. 
 
 Geier, M., 555. 
 
 Gelasii Decretum, 324. 
 
 Genevan Versions, 474, 486. 
 
 George of Trapezus, 530. 
 
 Georgian Version, 433, 491. 
 
 Gerbert, M., 552. 
 
 Gerhard, J., 334, 339, 553, 555. 
 
 Gerhard v. Maestricht, 407. 
 
 Gerhauser, J. B., 595. 
 
 Gerken, W. F., 584. 
 
 German Versions, 463 ff., 469 ff., 472, 479, 
 
 483, 487, 488, 497 ff. 
 Germar, F. H., 583. 
 Gerson, 541. 
 Gesenius, 594. 
 Glagolitic Character, 446. 
 Glaire, J. B., 337. 
 Glass, S., 553, 555. 
 Glosses, 359, 529. 
 Glossographers, 530. 
 Gnosis, 72, 115 f., 129. 
 Gnostic Acts, 261. 
 
 Apocalypses, 262. 
 
 Canon ,'291 f. 
 
 Gospels, 245 f., 262. 
 Gnosticism, 72, 244, 290, 508. 
 
 Godeau, A., 562. 
 Godet, F., 598. 
 Gomar, F., 555. 
 Goodwin, Th., 566. 
 Gospel of Barnabas, 263. 
 
 of John, 213 ff. 
 
 of John, Additions to, 239. 
 
 of Luke, 201 ff. 
 
 of Marcion, 246. 
 
 of Mark, 187, 189 f. 
 
 of Mark, Additions to, 240. 
 
 of Nicodemus, 259. 
 
 of Peter, 199. 
 
 of the Hebrews, 198. 
 Gospels, 171 ff., 178. 
 
 Apocryphal, 262 ff. 
 
 Gnostic, 245 f., 262. 
 
 of the Childhood, 265. 
 
 Synoptic, 179 ff. 
 Gothic "V'ersion, 444 f. 
 Gotze, G. H., 554. 
 Gi'.ze, J. M., 575, 581. 
 Graf, C. H., 593. 
 Grammatical Interpretation, 547. 
 Grammatico-Historical Interpretation, 579. 
 Grandpierre, J. H., 598. 
 Tpa^^, 285, 303. 
 Gratz, P. A., 418, 595. 
 Greek Church, Canon of, 338. 
 
 Versions by, 490. 
 Gregory Barhebraeus, 329. 
 Gregory of Nazianzus, 320, 516. 
 
 of Nyssa, 516. 
 Gregory Thaumaturgns, 513. 
 Gregory the Great, 328, 455, 517, 525. 
 Gregory VII., 447. 
 Gregory XVI., 499. 
 Greenlandic Version, 492. 
 Grenier-Fajal, O. de, 348. 
 Gretser, J., 552. 
 Griesbach, J. J., 412, 579. 
 Grimm, D. C, .565. 
 Grimm, W., 346, 591, 593. 
 Gros, N. le, 595. 
 Grotius, H., 563. 
 
 Grusinic Version (Georgian), 433,491. 
 Guibert of Nogent, 535. 
 Guilliaud, C, 551. 
 Giintner, G. J. B., 595. 
 Gurike, H. E. F., 588. 
 Giirtler, N., 557. 
 Guyars des Moulins, 466, 468. 
 Guyon, Madame, 560. 
 
 Haag, F., 348. 
 
 Hafenreffer, M.. 339. 
 
 Hagen, F. W., 578. 
 
 Hahn, A., 414, 577, 588. 
 
 Haldane, E., 597. 
 
 Harclean Version (Syriac), 428. 
 
 Hardouin, J., 552. 
 
 Harless, G. A., 588, 591. 
 
 Harmonies of the Gospels, 179. 
 
 Harmonistic Conformation, 358. 
 
 Hartmann, M., 590. 
 
 Hartsoeker, C, 563. 
 
 Harwood, E., 409. 
 
 Hase, 346. 
 
 Hassler, L. A., 595. 
 
632 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Hauff, C. v., 583. 
 Hiiveniick, H. A. C, 588, 589. 
 Haj-mann, C. (j., 565. 
 Haymo of Ilalberstadt, 328, 528. 
 Hebenstreit, C. \V., 577. 
 Hebraisms, 40. 
 Hebrew Archreolosy, 566. 
 Hebrews, Epistle to, 151 ft., 302, 308, 312 f., 
 322, 328. 
 Gospel of, 198. 
 Hebrew Versions, 493. 
 Hegel, 590, 591, 594. 
 Hesesippus, 294 f. 
 Heidegger, J. H., 555. 
 Heinrichs, J. H., 580. 
 Heinsius, D., 565. 
 Heliand, 403. 
 Hellenism, 41, 44 ff., 504. 
 Hellenistic Greek, 42 ff. 
 Helmont, Van, 561. 
 Helvetic Confession, I., 332, 546. 
 Helvetic Confession, II., 332, 333, 335, 546. 
 Hemminij, N., 548. 
 HengeJ, \V. A. van, 597. 
 Hengstenberg, E. VV., 588 ff. 
 Henke, E., 578. 
 Henke, H. P. C, 346, 576. 
 Henneberg, J. V., 576. 
 Henry, Matthew, 597. 
 Hensler, C. G., 576. 
 Heracleon, 508. 
 Herder, J. G., 578. 
 Herental, Peter of, 535. 
 Heretics, 291 f. 
 Hernias, 275, 294, 317. 
 
 'EpnT)i'evTri';, 49. 
 
 Herv<5 of Mans, 535. 
 Hess, J. J., 582, 584. 
 Hesychius, 306, 307, 530. 
 Hetzer, L., 472. 
 Heubner, H. L., 582. 
 Heumann, C. A., 568. 
 Heunisch, C, 501. 
 Heydenreich, A. L. C, 588. 
 Hezel, W. V., 576. 
 Hilary of Pictavium, 322. 
 Hinckelmann, A., 554. 
 Hindu Versions, 492, 495. 
 Hindustani Version, 492. 
 Hippo, Council of, 324. 
 Hippolytus, 292, 313, 513. 
 Hirschgartner, A ., 590. 
 Historical Bibles, 401, 464 f. 
 
 Exegesis, 518 ff. 
 
 Literature, 103 ff. 
 Hlstorv of Exegesis, 501 fi. 
 
 of the Canon, 281 ff. 
 
 of the Literature, 24 ff. 
 
 of the Text, 351 ff. 
 
 of tiie Versions, 421 ff. 
 Hoe, M., 501. 
 Hoeven, Van d., 597. 
 Hofacker, L., 584. 
 Hoffmann, W., 59L 
 Hofmann, C. G., 570. 
 Hofmann, .L C. C, 346, 590. 
 Holbach, Von, 575. 
 Holcott, Robert, 535. 
 Holden, G., 597. 
 
 Homilies, Clementine, 254 ff. 
 Honiffioteleuton, 364. 
 Homologoumena, 314. 
 Hi.pfner, E. F., 584. 
 Horch, J. H., 559. 
 Home, T. H., 347, 597. 
 Horst, G. C, 576. 
 Hrabanus Maurus, 328, 528. 
 Hug, J. L., 21, 307, 412, 591, 595. 
 Hugo of St. Caro, 329, 380, 529. 
 Hugo of St. Victor, 329, 535. 
 Humanists, 390, 543. 
 Hundeshagen, C. B., 593. 
 Hunnius, A., 555. 
 Hupfeld, H., 590, 593. 
 Hurler, G. L., 584. 
 Huss, John, 541. 
 Huther, J. E., 587. 
 Hutter, E., 405. 
 Hymns, 102. 
 Hystaspes, 274. 
 
 Icelandic Versions, 472, 485. 
 
 Ignatius, 287, 289. 
 
 Iken, C, 500. 
 
 Illumination, The, 575. 
 
 Illyrian Version, 496. 
 
 Immer, A., 594. 
 
 Indian Versions, East, 492, 495. 
 
 Indian Versions, N. American, 495. 
 
 Inner Mission, 349. 
 
 Innocent I., 324. 
 
 Innocent III., 405. 
 
 Inscriptions, 383. 
 
 Inspiration, 285. 
 
 Instrumentum, 300, 303. 
 
 Interchanges of Svnonvms, 364. 
 
 Irena-us, 292, 293, 297 ff., 359, 302, 422, 508, 
 
 514 f. 
 Irish Version, 489. 
 Isaac, R. Solomon, 539. 
 Isidore of Pclusium, 516. 
 Isidore of Seville, 319, 328, 452, 455, 517, 
 
 527. 
 Islam, Rise of, 435 f. 
 Itacism, .363, 371. 
 Itala, 452. 
 Italian Versions, 467 f., 476, 478, 488. 
 
 Jahn, J., 595. 
 Jallaguior, P., 348. 
 James, 56. 
 
 Epistle of, 143 ff.. .308, 312, 319. 
 
 King, Version, 485. 
 
 Protevangelimn of, 265. 
 Jansenists, 562. 
 Jansenist Versions, 488. 
 Jerome, 319, 323, 358, 359, 365, 367, 450, 
 
 454, 517, 522. 
 Jerusalem, Council of, 65. 
 
 Version (Syriac), 429. 
 Jesaioe Visio, 274. 
 Jesuits, 5.52. 
 Jesus Christ, 24 ff. 
 
 Method of Teaching, 27. 
 Jewish Christian Gospels, 197 ff. 
 
 Christian Literature, 252 ff. 
 
 Christianity, 52 ff. 
 
 Exegesis, 503, 539. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 633 
 
 Jewish Versions, 493. 
 Jews in tlie Middle Ages, 539. 
 Joachim of Floris, 536. 
 John, Apocalypse of, 156 ff. 
 
 Disciples of, 222. 
 
 Epistles of, 227 ff., 312. 
 
 Gospel of, 213 ft". 
 
 Gospel of. Additions to, 239. 
 
 of Damascus, 328. 526. 
 
 of Salisbuiy, 329, 533. 
 
 the Apostle, 161, 226. 
 
 the Presbyter, 161. 
 John VIII., 447. 
 Jonas, Justus, 548. 
 Judaism, 70. 
 
 Jude, Epistle of, 233, 312, 319. 
 Julian of Eclanum, 521. 
 Julius Africanus, 518. 
 Jung-Stilling, J. H., 584. 
 Junilius, 328. 
 Justi, C. W., 578. 
 Justin Martvr, 293, 294, 506. 
 
 Gospels of, 199. 
 Juynboll, 597. 
 
 Kahnis, 346. 
 
 Kaiser, G. P. C, 580, 583. 
 
 Kanne, J. A., 589. 
 
 Kant, Imm., 57G, 577. 
 
 Karkaphentian Version, 427. 
 
 Kauffer, J. E. R., 579. 
 
 Kavser, A., 590. 
 
 Keil, C. A. G., 579. 
 
 Keil, C. F., 588. 
 
 Kern, F. H., 591, 593. 
 
 Kienlen, H. W., 598. 
 
 Kimchi, R. David, 539. 
 
 King James' Version (English), 485. 
 
 Kirchmaier, G. W., 565. 
 
 Kistemaker, J. H., 595. 
 
 Klaiber, 591. 
 
 Klee, H., 595. 
 
 Klein, J. G., 584. 
 
 Kleuker, J. F., 580. 
 
 Kliefoth, Th., 588. 
 
 Knapp, G. C., 414, 582. 
 
 Koifrj, 42 f . 
 
 Kollner, E., 593. 
 Koppe, J. B., 410, 580. 
 Koran, 440. 
 
 Apocryphal Legends in, 263. 
 Krause, J. F., 580. 
 Krist, 463. 
 Kromayer, M., 561. 
 Krummacher, F. W., 589. 
 Krummacher, G. D., 589. 
 Kuhn, 591. 
 Kiiliniil, C. G., 572. 
 Kurtz, J. H., 588, 589. 
 Kyrillos Lukaris, 338. 
 
 Lachmann, C, 416. 
 Lactantius, -303, 313. 
 Lambert, F., 549. 
 Lampe, F. A., 555. 
 Lanfranc, 527. 
 Lang, W. T., 582. 
 Lange, C. H., 565. 
 Lange, J., 558. 
 
 Lange, J. P., 589. 
 
 Lange, S. G., 580. 
 
 Langsdorff, C. C. v., 575. 
 
 Language of the Apostles, 40 ff. 
 
 Laodicea, Council of, 321. 
 
 Laodicean Canon, 321. 
 
 Laodiceans, Epistle to, 271, 329. 
 
 Laplandic Version, 489. 
 
 Lasinsky, F. H. C, 577. 
 
 Latin Canon, 322 ff. 
 
 Latin Versions, 449 ff. 
 
 Latinisms, 44. 
 
 Laurentius Valla, 542. 
 
 Le Buy, J., 561. 
 
 Le Clerc, J. (Clericus), 563. 
 
 Lectionaries, 384. 
 
 Lee, S., 597. 
 
 Le Fevre, J., 473, 480, 543. 
 
 Le Gros, N., 595. 
 
 Leigh, E., 565. 
 
 Lencke, F., 584. 
 
 Lentulus, 259. 
 
 Leo Allatius, 338. 
 
 Leo XII., 499. 
 
 Leontius of Byzantium, 320, 328. 
 
 Less, G., 581. 
 
 Lessing, G. E., 341, 573. 
 
 Lettish Version, 489. 
 
 Leusden, J., 406. 
 
 Leutwein, C. F., 584. 
 
 Leydekker, W., 566. 
 
 Leyser, P., 555. 
 
 Ligatures. 375. 
 
 Lightfoot, J., 566. 
 
 Li'lienthal, T. C, 581. 
 
 Limborch, Ph. y., 563. 
 
 Lindemann, F. H., 578. 
 
 Lisco, F. G., 589. 
 
 Literature, History of the, 24 £f. 
 
 Lithuanian Version, 489. 
 
 Liturgical Additions, 362. 
 
 Liturgies, Apostolic, 276. 
 
 Local Coloring, 365. 
 
 Loch, v., 416. 
 
 Locke, John, 569. 
 
 Loffler, J. F. C, 576. 
 
 Lohnis, J. M. A., 595. 
 
 Lombard, Peter, 529. 
 
 London Polyglot, 407. 
 
 Loscher, V. E., 554, 560. 
 
 Liiseke, C. A., 561. 
 
 Low-German Versions, 472. 
 
 Lucar, 338. 
 
 Lucas, F., 552. 
 
 Lucas, J. C, 561. 
 
 Lucian, 366, 367. 
 
 Liicke, C. G. F., 587. 
 
 Luke, 201 ff., 211. 
 
 Gospel of, 201 ff. 
 Lund, J., 566. 
 Lusitanian Versions, 489. 
 Luthardt, C. E., 588. 
 Luther, 332, 333, 334, 470 f., 483, 547 f. 
 Lutheran Theologians, 553 f., 567 £., 588. 
 Lutteroth, H., 598. 
 Lutz, J. L. S., 587. 
 Lyra, Nicolas of, 329, 541. 
 
 Mace, 409. 
 
634 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Mack, 591, 595. 
 Maestriclit, Gerhard of, 407. 
 Maier, A., 595. 
 Magdeburg Centuries, 333. 
 Magister, Thomas, 530. 
 Magyar Versions, 4(i7, 489. 
 Mai, J. H., 5G0. 
 Major, S., 555. 
 Majus, J. H., 554. 
 Malay Versions, 492, 495. 
 Maldonato, J., 552. 
 Maltese Version, 489. 
 Mammotrectus, 541. 
 Manichreans, 327. 
 
 Manuscripts, Character in ■which written, 
 375. 
 Description, 392. 
 Form, 374. 
 Material, 373. 
 Punctuation, 376 ff. 
 Manx Version, 489. 
 Marchesini, J., 541. 
 Marcion, 246, 362, 508. 
 Marcion's Canon, 291. 
 Marck, J., 557, 561. 
 Mariana, J., 552. 
 Mark, Gospel of, 187, 189 ff. 
 Mark, Gospel of. Additions to, 240. 
 Marlorat, A., 549. 
 Marsilius Ficinus, 542. 
 Martianay, J., 552. 
 Martin, D., 486. 
 Masch, 409. 
 Matthrei, C. F., 413. 
 Matthxi, F. A. L., 578. 
 Matthaii, G. C. R., 590. 
 Matthew, Gospel of, 186, 191 ff. 
 Matthies, C. S., 591. 
 Mayer, F. G., 595. 
 Mediaeval Exegesis, 522 ff. 
 Meier, F. C, 593. 
 Melanchthon, Ph., 334, 547 f. 
 Melito, 294. 
 
 Memphitic Version, 430. 
 Mendpeans, 222. 
 
 Mendoza, A. de Escobar v, 552. 
 Menken, G., 589. 
 Menochius, J. St., 552. 
 Menzer, C, 339. 
 Mesrob, 432. 
 
 Messerschmid, J. C, 565. 
 Messianic Expectations, 29, 52, 155. 
 Mestral, A.de, 598. 
 
 Methodicus, 446. 
 
 Methodius, 312, 513. 
 
 Method of Jesus' Teaching, 27. 
 
 Metrophanes Kritopoulos, 338. 
 
 Meyer, G. W., 577, 579. 
 
 Meyer, H. A. W.. 592. 
 
 Meyer, J. F. v., 584. 
 
 Merer, L., 564. 
 
 Michaelis, C. B., 559, 560. 
 
 Michaelis, J. D., 18, 568, 570. 
 
 Michaelis, J. H., 559. 
 
 Middle High-German Versions, 464, 469. 
 
 Mill, J., 407. 
 
 Mirandula, Picus de, 542. 
 
 Mirus, A. E., 553. 
 
 Missions, Ancient, 35. 
 
 Missions, Modern, 492. 
 
 Mixed Editions, 405. 
 
 Modern Greek Versions, 490. 
 
 Modern Versions, 460 ff. 
 
 Mohammedanism, 435 f. 
 
 Moldavian Version, 490. 
 
 Moldenhawer, 406. 
 
 Molin, G. N., 577. 
 
 Monneron, 598. 
 
 Monod, A., 598. 
 
 Monsperger, J. J., 595. 
 
 Montanus, B. A., 566. 
 
 Morus, S. F. N., 572. 
 
 Moses of Chorene, 432. 
 
 Mosheim, J. L. von, 568. 
 
 Mothe-Guyon, J. M. Bouvi^res de la, 562. 
 
 Midler, J., 591. 
 
 Miinthe, C. F., 565. 
 
 Muralt, E. von, 416. 
 
 Muratorian Canon, 302, 310. 
 
 Musculus, W. F., 335, 549. 
 
 Mystical Exposition, 509 ff. 
 
 Mystics, 535 f., 584. 
 
 Myths, 580, 591. 
 
 Nadir Shah, 441. 
 
 Napier, J., 561. 
 
 Neander, A., 587, 591. 
 
 Nepos, 312. 
 
 Nestorians, 327, 362, 427. 
 
 Neumann, W., 588. 
 
 New Testament Pseudepigrapha, 247 ff. 
 
 Newton, B. W., 584. 
 
 Newton, Isaac, 561. 
 
 Nicaja, Council of, 328. 
 
 Nicephorus Callisti, 329. 
 
 Nicephorus of Constantinople, 319, 328, 
 
 531. 
 Nicetas, 531. 
 
 Nicodemus, Gospel of, 259. 
 Nicolai, F., 575. 
 Nicolas, M., 598. 
 Nicolas of Lyra, 329, 541. 
 Nigrinus, G.', 561. 
 Nitzsch, 346. 
 Noachian Precepts, 66. 
 Nork, F., 575. 
 Nosselt, J. A., 572, 577. 
 Nd^a, 311, 314. 
 Notker Labeo, 328, 463. 
 Novatians, 313, 327. 
 
 Oberlin, H. G., 584. 
 Observationes Philologicae, 565. 
 Occidental Text, 370. 
 CEcolampadius, J., 333, 335, 549. 
 Qilcumenius, 531. 
 Odo of Clugny, 526. 
 Oegger, 584. 
 
 Old Catholic Movement, 337. 
 Old High-German Versions, 463. 
 Old Testament, 281 f . 
 Olearius, G., 555. 
 Olearius, J., 553, 560. 
 Olivetan, Pierre Robert, 474. 
 Olshausen, H., 589. 
 Oltramare, H., 598. 
 Olympiodorus, 527. 
 Ophites, 292. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 635 
 
 Order of the N". T. Books, 302. 
 
 Oriental Versions, 42U ff. 
 
 Origen, 311, 318, 305, 3GG, 367, 511 fi. 
 
 Oertel, E. F. C, 578. 
 
 Osiander, J. E., 582, 591. 
 
 Osterwald, J. F., 48G. 
 
 Otfried, 463. 
 
 Outrein, J. d', 557. 
 
 Paleography, 352 f., 372 S. 
 Palairet, E., 565. 
 Palestinian Language, 40. 
 Palimpsests, 373. 
 Palm, J. H. van der, 597. 
 Palmer, E., 419. 
 Pamphilus, 3G5, 513. 
 Pantienus, 422, 510. 
 Papias, 175, 186, 187, 287. 
 Papj'rus, 353, 373. 
 Pareau, J. H., 582, 597. 
 Pareau, L. G., 597. 
 Parens, D., 555. 
 Paris Polyglot, 407. 
 Pastoral Epistles, 88 ff., 126 £E. 
 Paterius of Brescia, 526. 
 Patres Apostolici, 285 ff. 
 Patriarchs, Twelve, 257. 
 Patristic Exegesis, 509 ff. 
 Patrizzi, F. X., 419. 
 Paul, Death, 134 f. 
 
 Epistles, 73 ff. 
 
 Imprisonment, 112 ff. 
 
 Journeys, 78 ff . 
 
 Journey to Rome, 125. 
 
 Last Davs, 134. 
 
 Life, 58 "ff. 
 
 Pseudepigrapha, 267, 271. 
 
 Pupils, 68. 
 
 Residence at Ephesus, 87. 
 
 Results of his Teaching, 135. 
 
 Theolog}', 59 ff. 
 Paulus Diaconus, 528. 
 Paulus, H. E. G., 576, 577. 
 Paulus of Burgos, 541. 
 Peirce, J., 509. 
 Pelagius, 521. 
 Pellicanus, C, 549. 
 Pelt, L., 587. 
 Penzenkufier, C. W., 577. 
 Perez, J., of Valencia, 535. 
 Pericopes, 382 ff. 
 Persian Versions, 441, 495. 
 Peshito, 308, 326, 427. 
 Petau, D., 566. 
 Peter, 56, 149. 
 
 Acts of, 253 ff. 
 
 Apocalypse of, 253. 
 
 First Epistle, 147 ff. 
 
 Gospel of, 177, 199. 
 
 Kijpuy/ita, 253. 
 
 Peter of Clugny, 329. 
 Peter of Herental, 535. 
 Petersen, J. E., 561. 
 Petersen, J. W., 561. 
 Petrus Monachus, 330. 
 Peucer, D., 565. 
 Pfaff, C. M., 570. 
 Pfeiffer, A., 340, 553. 
 Pfeiffer, I. E., 581. 
 
 Pharisaism, Relation to Christianity, 25. 
 
 Pharmakides, Theoklitos, 531. 
 
 Phavorinus, 530. 
 
 Philadelphus, T., 569. 
 
 Philastrius, 322. 
 
 Philemon, Epistle to, 124. 
 
 Philippi, F. A., 588. 
 
 Philippians, Epistle to, 131 ff. 
 
 Philology, Biblical, 565. 
 
 Philology, N. T., 47, 592. 
 
 Philoxenian Version (Sj'riac), 428. 
 
 Photius of Constantinople, 527. 
 
 Picus de Mirandula, 542. 
 
 Piedmontese Version, 496. 
 
 Pierius, 365, 513. 
 
 Pietists, 558 f., 562. 
 
 Pilati Acta, 258 f . 
 
 Pin, L. E. du, 337. 
 
 Piscator, J., 555. 
 
 Pius VII., 499. 
 
 Pius VIII., 499. 
 
 Pius IX., 499. 
 
 PlaciBus, 340. 
 
 Planck, H., 577. 
 
 Plantine Family (Editions), 403. 
 
 Poetry, Earlv Christian, 162. 
 
 Polish Versions, 467, 477 f. 
 
 Polycarp, 287. 
 
 Polyglot, Antwerp, 403. 
 
 Complutensian, 399. 
 
 London, 407. 
 
 Paris, 407. 
 Polynesian Versions, 495. 
 Poole, M., 567. 
 Porschberger, C, 565. 
 Port Royal Version (French), 488. 
 Portuguese Versions, 476, 488. 
 PostiUije, 528 f. 
 Pott, D., 575. 
 Pott, D. J., 580. 
 Prajdicatio Petri, 253. 
 Preaching of Jesus, 26. 
 
 of the Gospel, 36 ff. 
 Pre-Jeromic Latin Versions, 453. 
 Presbyters, 37. 
 Pressens^, E. de, 598. 
 Prideaux, H., 566. 
 Pritz, 409. 
 
 Procopius of Gaza, 527. 
 Propaganda, 491. 
 Prophecies, 589 ff. 
 Prophets, 37. 
 Proselytes, 41, 66. 
 Prosper Aquitanus, 526. 
 Protevangalia, 173, 181, 183. 
 Proto-Mark, 187. 
 Proto-Matthew, 186. 
 Przipcow, S., 556. 
 
 Pseudepigrapha of the N. T., 247 ff., 293. 
 Pseudo-Clementines, 254 ff. 
 Ptolemffius, 245, 508. 
 Public Readings, 282 ff. 
 Pupils of Paul, 68. 
 Purists, 47. 
 Pyle, Th., 509. 
 
 Quaternions, 374. 
 Quenstedt, 340. 
 Quesnel, P., 562. 
 
636 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Quinet, E., 348. 
 Quotations, 2'J4, 394. 
 
 Rabanus Maiinis, 328, 528. 
 Rabbinical Exegesis, 503. 
 Radbert, Paschasius, 528. 
 Radulf of Flavignv, 535. 
 Rambach, J. J., 558, 559. 
 Ranolder, J., 595. 
 Raplielius, G., 565. 
 Rashi, 539. 
 
 Rationalism, 576, 579 f. 
 Ratze, J. G., 587. 
 Rail, J. W., 570. 
 Readings, Public, 281 &. 
 Recensions, 365 f. 
 Reckenberger, J. L., 560. 
 Recognitions (Clementine), 254 f. 
 Redslob, G. M., 590. 
 Reformers, Canon of, 332 ff. 
 
 Exegesis of, 544 £f. 
 Reiche, J. G., 593. 
 Reichel, V., 595. 
 Reimar, H. S., 575. 
 Reinerius, 330. 
 Reinhard, F. V., 346, 582. 
 Reinke, L., 595. 
 Reithmavr, F. X., 418. 
 Reland, H., 506. 
 Remigius of Aiixerre, 528. 
 Renaissance, 549 f. 
 Renan, E., 598. 
 Restoration, 585. 
 Reuss, J. F., 582. 
 Revelation of John, 156 ff. 
 Reville, A., 598. 
 Revival of Learning, 538 ff. 
 Rhffito-Romance Versions, 489. 
 Rheinwald, F. H., 587. 
 Rhemish Version (English), 478. 
 Rhyme-Bibles, 461. 
 Richard of St. Victor, 329, 535. 
 Rilliet, A., 419, 598. 
 Robinson, H., 597. 
 Roell, H. A., 555. 
 Roman Canon, 309. 
 
 Church, 106. 
 
 Imprisonment (of Paul), 125 ff. 
 Romans, Epistle to, 107 ff. 
 Rome, Condition of, in Apostolic Age, 106. 
 Roorda, T., 597. 
 Roos, M. F., 561, 589. 
 Rciper, F. L., 576. 
 Rosenmiiller, E. F. C, 572. 
 Rosenmiiller, J. G., 572, 577. 
 Rossi, J. B. de, 595. 
 Rougemont, F. de, 584, 598. 
 Royal Version (English), 485. 
 Riickert, L. I., 593. 
 Rudelbach, A. G., 588. 
 Rufinus, 322, 513. 
 Riihle von Lilienstern, A. F., 584. 
 Rullman, L. C, 576. 
 Ruprecht of Deutz, 533. 
 Russian Versions, 490, 496. 
 
 Sa, E., 552. 
 
 Sack, 591. 
 
 Sacy, Le Maistre de, 488, 562. 
 
 Sadduceeism, Relation to Christianity, 25. 
 
 Sadolet, J., 551. 
 
 Sahidic Version, 430. 
 
 Sakhlin, G. R., 565. 
 
 Salisbury, John of, 329, 533. 
 
 Salmero, A., 552. 
 
 Salzmann, R., 584. 
 
 Sand, C, 556. 
 
 Sander, F., 584. 
 
 Sardinoux, A., 598. 
 
 Scaliger, J., 565, 566. 
 
 Scandinavian Tlieology, 347. 
 
 Schaller, J., 591. 
 
 Schelling, F. W. J., 580. 
 
 Schenkel, 594. 
 
 Scherer, E., 348, 598. 
 
 Scherer, J. L. W., 576. 
 
 Scheuchzer, J. J., 566. 
 
 Schickard, W., 506. 
 
 Schirmer, A. G. F., 594. 
 
 Schleiermacher, 346, 587. 
 
 Schleusner, J. F., 580. 
 
 Schlichting, J., 556. 
 
 Schmid, C. C. E., 555, 594. 
 
 Schmid, C F.. 340. 
 
 Schmidt, S., 554, 555, 577. 
 
 Schmitter, A., 595. 
 
 Schnappinger, B. M., 595. 
 
 Schneider, J. W., 555. 
 
 Scholasticism, 533 f. 
 
 Scholia, 380, 530. 
 
 Scholtz, H., 565. 
 
 Scholz, J. M. A., 415. 
 
 Schott, H. A., 412, 418, 580. 
 
 Schott, Th., 588. 
 
 Schottgen, C, 566. 
 
 Schultens, A., 565. 
 
 Schulthess, J., 576. 
 
 Schulz, D., 580. 
 
 Schwarz, F. H. C, 582. 
 
 Schwarz, F. I., 581. 
 
 Schwarzel, C, 595. 
 
 Scott, Th., 597. 
 
 Scribes, 351. 
 
 Scrivener, F. H. A., 419. 
 
 Sedulius, 527. 
 
 Seelen, J. H. a, 565. 
 
 Seemiller, S., 595. 
 
 Seidel, C. T., 560. 
 
 Seller, G. F., .582. 
 
 Seitz, J. C, 561. 
 
 Seklen. J., 566. 
 
 Selnekker, N., 555. 
 
 Semi-Bezan Editions, 404. 
 
 Semler, J. S., 18, 342, 411, 573 f., 576. 
 
 Semler, M. F., 584. 
 
 Seneca, Correspondence of Paul and, 273. 
 
 Septuagint, 45, 283. 
 
 Serarius, N., 552. 
 
 Serre, De la, 341. 
 
 Shepherd of Hennas, 275, 294. 
 
 Sibvlline Oracles, 274. 
 
 Sinion, R., 16, 406, 488. 
 
 Simon the Sorcerer, 71, 72. 
 
 Singhalese Version, 492. 
 
 Sixtine Vulgate, 482. 
 
 Sixtus Senensis, 16, 337. 
 
 Slavic Versions, 446 f., 477, 488. 
 
 Sociniaus, 556. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 637 
 
 Sorbonne, 331. 
 
 Spanheim, F., 566. 
 
 Spanisli Versions. 467 f., 476, 489. 
 
 Speaker's Bible, The, 597. 
 
 Spencer, J., 566. 
 
 Spener, P. J., 558 f. 
 
 Spinoza, B., 23, 341, 564. 
 
 Starli, C. L. W., 583. 
 
 Starke, C, 567. 
 
 Staudlin, C. F., 583. 
 
 Stauss, A. C, 577. 
 
 St. Caro, Hugo of, 329, 529. 
 
 Steeg, J., 598. 
 
 Steiger, W., 588. 
 
 Stein, Corn, von (a Lapide), 552. 
 
 Stein, C. W., 583. 
 
 Stephan, E., 410. 
 
 Stephanie Family, 403. 
 
 Stephano-Bezan Family, 405. 
 
 Stephano-PIantine Family, 405. 
 
 Stephen, 33 ff. 
 
 Stephens, Henry, 402 f. 
 
 Stephens, Robert, 387, 402. 
 
 Steudel, J. C. F., 582, 589, 591. 
 
 Stichometrv, 377. 
 
 Stier, R., 589. 
 
 St. Louis, 463. 
 
 Stolz, J. J., 576. 
 
 Storr, G. C, 582. 
 
 Strabo, Walafrid, 529. 
 
 Strauss, D. F., 591. 
 
 Strigel, v., 548. 
 
 Stuart, Moses, 597. 
 
 Study of the Classics, 542. 
 
 St. Victor, Hugo of, 329, 535. 
 
 St. Victor, Richard of, 329, 535. 
 
 Subscriptions, 389. 
 
 Subsidia Critica, 391. 
 
 Suidas, 530. 
 
 Sumner, J. B., 597. 
 
 Superscriptions, 388. 
 
 Sweden borg, Em., 341, 584. 
 
 Swedish Versions, 472, 485, 487. 
 
 Swiss Versions, 472, 485. 
 
 Symbolum Apostolicum, 279. 
 
 Synagogue Readings, 282. 
 
 ^vva^apla, 384. 
 
 Synod of .Jerusalem, 65. 
 Synoptic Gospels, 179 ff. 
 Syriac Canon, 308. 
 
 Versions, 426 ff., 491. 
 Syro-Chaldaic Dialect, 40. 
 
 Tamil Version, 492. 
 
 Tatar Versions, 495. 
 
 Tatian, 199, 292, 463. 
 
 Teller, W. A., 576. 
 
 Tertullian, 293, 297 ff., 303, 362, 514 f. 
 
 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 257. 
 
 Testamentum, 303. 
 
 Text, History of, 351 ff. 
 
 Textual Criticism, 395 ff. 
 
 Works on, 351, 395. 
 Textus Receptus, 403 ff. 
 Thebaic Version, 430. 
 Theile, C. G. W., 418, 591, 592. 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia, 320, 518, 521. 
 Theodoret, 434, 509, 520 f. 
 Theognostus, 513. 
 
 Theological Exegesis, 586. 
 Theophilus of Antioch, 297 f. 
 Theophylact, 531. 
 Thessalonians, Epistle to, 79 ff. 
 Thiess, J. 0., 576. 
 Tholuck, A., 588 f., 591. 
 Thomas Aquinas, 533. 
 Thomas, L., 598. 
 Thomas Magister, 530. 
 Thube, C. G., 561. 
 Thurn, W. C, 576. 
 Til, S. van, 557. 
 Timothy, First Epistle to, 90 fT. 
 
 Second Epistle to, 126 ff. 
 Tinius, J. G., 578, 584. 
 Tirinus, J., 552. 
 Tischendorf, C, 392, 417. 
 Titelmann, F., 551. 
 Titles, 388. 
 TtVAot, 386. 
 Tittmann, C. C, 572. 
 Tittmann, J. A. H., 414. 
 Titus, Epistle to, 88 ff. 
 Tobler, J., 568. 
 Toinard, N., 409. 
 Toland, 341. 
 Tollner, J. G., 570. 
 Tongues, Gift of, 97. 
 Ttinnien, J. H., 561. 
 Tossanus, D., .555. 
 Tradition, 242, 515. 
 
 Gospel, 163 ff. 
 Traditores, 313. 
 Translations, 421 ff, 
 
 (Criticism), 393. 
 Transpositions, 364. 
 Tregelles, S. P., 419. 
 Trent, Council of, 336, 482, 552. 
 Trigland, J., 566. 
 Trollope, W., 597. 
 Trychonius, 517. 
 Tiibingen School, Earlier, 582. 
 
 Later, 19, 344. 
 Turkish Versions, 492, 495, 
 Turrecremata, Job. de, 535. 
 Turreiin, J. A., 568, 573. 
 Twesten, 346. 
 Tychsen, T. C, 580. 
 Typology, 505, 550, 570, 589. 
 
 Ulfilas, 444. 
 Ullmann, C, 587, 591. 
 Umbreit, F. W, C, 578, 587. 
 Uncials, 375. 
 Ungerer, C. G., 582. 
 Unterkircher, C., 595. 
 Ussher, J., 566. 
 Usteri, L., 587, 591. 
 
 Vaisse, J. L., 584. 
 Valckenaer, L. C, 597. 
 Valentinus, 245, 292, 362. 
 Valla, Laurentius, 542. 
 Valpy, E., 419, 597. 
 Van Alphen, H., 570. 
 Van der Hoeven, 597. 
 Van der Palm, 597. 
 Van Ess, L., 418. 
 Van Helmout, 561. 
 
638 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Van Hengel, W. A., 597. 
 Van Til, S., 557. 
 Van Voorst, J., 597. 
 Variants, 355 ff. 
 Vatablus, F., 551. 
 Vater, J. S., 414. 
 Vatke, W., 591. 
 Venturini, C, 575. 
 Vermilius, P., 332. 
 Verses, 387. 
 Versions (Criticism), 393. 
 
 Afghan, 495. 
 
 African Dialects, 495. 
 
 Albanian, 496. 
 
 Amharic, 442. 
 
 Anglo-Saxon, 462. 
 
 Arabic, 437 ff., 491. 
 
 Armenian, 432, 491, 495. 
 
 Armorican, 489, 496. 
 
 Asiatic Dialects, Central, 495. 
 
 Bashmuric, 430. 
 
 Basque, 489. 
 
 Biscayan, 489. 
 
 Bohemian, 467, 468, 477, 478, 488. 
 
 Catalan, 496. 
 
 Catholic, 478 ff., 488, 499. 
 
 Celtic, 489. 
 
 Central Asiatic Dialects, 495. 
 
 Chinese, 492, 495. 
 
 Coptic, 430, 491. 
 
 Creolese, 492. 
 
 Croatian, 489. 
 
 Dahn.atian, 489. 
 
 Danish, 467, 472, 485, 487, 497. 
 
 Dutch, 467, 468, 472, 478, 485, 487. 
 
 East Indian Languages, 492, 495. 
 
 Egyptian, 430. 
 
 English, 467, 475, 478, 485, 487, 488, 
 41)7, 498. 
 
 Esthonian, 489. 
 
 Ethiopic, 431. 
 
 Finnish, 489, 496. 
 
 Flemish, 488. 
 
 French, 465 f.. 468, 473 f., 480, 486, 
 488, 497, 498, 499. 
 
 Gaelic, 489. 
 
 German, 463 f., 469, 472, 479, 483, 
 487, 488, 497, 498, 499. 
 
 German, Luther, 470 ff., 483 f. 
 
 Georgian, 433, 491. 
 
 Gothic, 444 f. 
 
 Greenlandic, 492. 
 
 Harclean (S.yriac), 428. 
 
 Hebrew, 493. 
 
 Hindustani, 492. 
 
 History of, 421 ff. 
 
 Icelandic, 472, 485. 
 
 Illyrian, 496. 
 
 Msh, 489. 
 
 Itala (Latin), 452. 
 
 Italian, 407, 408, 476, 478, 483. 
 
 Jansenist, 488. 
 
 Jerusalem (Syriac), 429. 
 
 Karkaphentian (Svriac), 427. 
 
 Laplandic, 489, 49"6. 
 
 Latin, 449 ff. 
 
 Latin, Itala, 452. 
 
 Latin, Pre-Jeromic, 453. 
 
 Latin, Vulgate, 454 ff., 481 f. 
 
 Versions, Lettish, 489. 
 
 Lithuanian, 489. 
 
 Low German, 472. 
 
 Lusitanian, 489. 
 
 Magvar, 467, 489. 
 
 Malayan, 492. 
 
 Maltese, 489. 
 
 Manx, 489. 
 
 Memphitic, 430. 
 
 Modern, 460 ff. 
 
 Modern Greek, 490, 496. 
 
 Moldavian, 496. 
 
 North American Dialects, 495. 
 
 Oriental, 426 ff. 
 
 Persian, 441, 495. 
 
 Peshito (Syriac), 308, 326, 427. 
 
 Philoxenian (Syriac), 428. 
 
 Piedmontese, 496. 
 
 Polish, 467, 477, 478. 
 
 Polynesian Dialects, 495. 
 
 Portuguese, 476, 488. 
 
 Pre-Jeromic Latin, 453. 
 
 RhjEto-Romance, 489. 
 
 Russian, 490, 490. 
 
 Sahidic, 430. 
 
 Singhalese, 492. 
 
 Slavic, 440 f., 477, 489, 496. 
 
 South American Dialects, 495. 
 
 Spanish, 407 f., 476, 488. 
 
 Swedish, 472, 485, 487. 
 
 Swiss, 472, 485. 
 
 Syriac, 426 ff., 491. 
 
 Syriac, Harclean, 428. 
 
 Syriac, Jerusalem, 429. 
 
 Syriac, Karkaphentian, 427. 
 
 Syriac, Peshito, 308, 326, 427. 
 
 Svriac, Philoxenian, 428. 
 
 Tamil. 492. 
 
 Tatar,' 495. 
 
 Thebaic, 430. 
 
 Turkish, 492, 495. 
 
 Vulgate, 4,54 ff., 481 f. 
 
 Vulgate, Clementine, 482. 
 
 Vulgate, Sixtine, 482. 
 
 Waldensian 465, 496. 
 
 Wallachian, 489. 
 
 Welsh, 489. 
 
 Wendish, 489. 
 
 Windish, 489. 
 Victor of Antioch, 531. 
 Victorinus, 313. 
 Vignoles, A. des, 566. 
 Vincent of Lerinum, 515. 
 Visitation, Tours of, 38. 
 Vitalis a Furno, 535. 
 Vitringa, C, 557, 561, 566. 
 Vives, L., 331. 
 Voltaire, 575. 
 Von Ccilln, D., 593. 
 Von Holbach, 575. 
 Voorst, J. van, 597. 
 Vulgate, 454 ff., 481 f. 
 
 Waeven, J. v. d., 557. 
 Wiihlier, A. G., 566. 
 Wak-eus, B., 568. 
 Walafrid Strabus (Strabo), 529. 
 Walch, J. G., 560. 
 Waldenses, 330, 465. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 639 
 
 Waldensian Version, 465, 496. 
 Wallachian Version, 489. 
 Walton, Brian, 17, 407. 
 Warnefried, Paulas, 528. 
 Wecklein, M., 595. 
 Wegscheider, A., 346, 580. 
 Weigenmever, J. L. F., 584. 
 Weiss, A. E., 589. 
 Wells, E., 409. 
 Welsh Version, 489. 
 Wendish Version, 489. 
 Werenfels, S., 568. 
 Wertheim Bible, 487. 
 Westcott and Hort, 419. 
 Wetstein, J. J., 408, 5G3. 
 Whiston, W., 341, 409. 
 Whitaker, W., 340. 
 White, Jos., 419. 
 Wiclif, J., 467, 541. 
 Wiedenfeld, C. W., 588. 
 Wilke, C. G., 592. 
 Wille, 561. 
 Willirain, 463. 
 Winckelmann, J., 555. 
 Windischmann, F., 595. 
 Windish Version, 489. 
 Winer, G. B., 47, 592. 
 Winterberg, F. S., 572. 
 
 Witse, H., 557, 566. 
 Woken, F., 554. 
 Wolfenblittel Fragments, 575. 
 Woltian Philosophy, 570. 
 Wolf, J. C, 567. 
 Wolle, C, 570. 
 Wollzogen, J. L. v., 556. 
 Woolston, Th., 575. 
 Wordsworth, C, 419. 
 Wiinsch, C. E., 575. 
 WUrtemberg Confession, 335. 
 
 Ximenes, Cardinal, 399. 
 
 Yarchi, 539, 
 
 Zabians, 222. 
 Zachariffi, G. T., 581. 
 Zacharias of Goldborough, 535. 
 Zeger, N., 551. 
 Zehender, J. J., 561. 
 Zigabenus, Enthvniius, 531. 
 Zinzendorf, 487,^559. 
 Zonaras, J., 530. 
 Ziillig, F. J., 578. 
 Ziirich Version, 472, 485. 
 Zwingli, 335, 549. 
 
TWO IMPORTANT BOOKS. 
 
 Smith's Bible Dictionary. 
 
 Comprising its Antiquities, Biography, Geography, and Nat- 
 ural History. By William Smith. Edited by Professors 
 Horatio Balch Hackett and Ezra Abbot, LL. D. In 
 five volumes, 8vo, 3667 pages, with 596 illustrations. Cloth, 
 beveled edges, strongly bound, ^20.00 ; full sheep, $25.00; 
 half morocco, $30.00 ; half calf, extra, $30.00 ; half russia, 
 $35.00 ; full morocco, gilt, $40.00 ; tree calf, $45.00. 
 There are several American editions of SmitJis Dictionary 
 of the Bible, but this edition comprises not only the contents of 
 the original English edition, unabridged, but very considerable 
 and important additions by the editors, Professors Hackett and 
 Abbot, and twenty-six other eminent American scholars. 
 
 This edition has 500 more pages than the English and 100 
 more illustrations ; more than a thousand errors of reference 
 in the English edition are corrected in this ; and an Index of 
 Scripture Passages Illustrated is added. 
 
 No similar work in our own or in any other language is for a moment 
 to be compared with it. — Quarterly Review (London). 
 
 General History of the Christian Religion and 
 
 Church. 
 
 Translated from the German of J. A. W. Neander by Rev. 
 Joseph Torrey, Professor in the University of Vermont. 
 With an Index volume. The set, with Index, 6 vols., $20.00. 
 Index volume separate, $3.00. 
 
 "Neander's Church History" is one of the most profound, carefully 
 considered, deeply philosophized, candid, truly liberal, and independent 
 historical works that have ever been written. In all these respects it 
 stands head and shoulders above almost any other church history in ex- 
 istence. . . . Professor Torrey has executed admirably his part of the 
 task ; and I can say of his translation (what I can say about no other that 
 I have ever seen), I now use the translation constantly in preference to 
 the original. — Professor Calvin E. Stowe, Andover, Mass. 
 
 The present index includes not only the general contents of the vol- 
 umes, but an analytical list of the citations from Christian and pagan 
 authors found in the notes, as well as the citations from Scripture scat- 
 tered through the work. ... It is a noble work, and ought to receive the 
 patronage it merits. — Christian Advocate (New York). 
 
VALUABLE RELIGIOUS BOOKS 
 
 Selected frojii ihe Publications of 
 
 HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN AND COMPANY. 
 
 The Andover Review. 
 
 A new Religious and Theological Review, under the editorial 
 control of Egbert C. Smyth, William J. Tucker, J. W. 
 Churchill, George Harris, Edward Y. Hincks, Profes- 
 sors in Andover Theological Seminary, Andover, Mass., 
 and with the cooperation and active support of their col- 
 leagues in the Faculty, — Professors John P. Gulliver, 
 John P. Taylor, Geo. F, Moore, and Frank E. Wood- 
 ruff. The first number of the Review appeared in Janu- 
 ary, 1884. Published monthly. Terms, ^3.00 a year; single 
 copies, 30 cents. 
 
 The Andover Review, theologically, advocates the prin- 
 ciples and represents the method and spirit of progressive 
 Orthodoxy. 
 
 James Freeman Clarke. 
 
 Ten Great Religions. An Essay in Comparative Theology. 
 With an Index. 8vo, 1^3.00 ; half calf, ^5.00. 
 
 Ten Great Religions. Part II, A Comparison of all Re- 
 ligions. 8vo, ^3.00 ; half calf, ^5.00. 
 
 Common-Sense in Religion. A Series of Essays. i2mo, 
 j^2.oo. 
 
 Joseph Cook. 
 
 Biology. With Preludes on Current Events. Illustrated. 
 Transcendentalism. With Preludes on Current Events. 
 Orthodoxy. With Preludes on Current Events. 
 Conscience. With Preludes on Current Events. 
 Heredity. With Preludes on Current Events. 
 Marriage. With Preludes on Current Events. 
 Occident. With Preludes on Current Events. (A new vol- 
 ume.) 
 
 Orient. With Preludes on Current Events. (A new volume.) 
 {In Press). 
 
 Each volume i2mo, ^1.50. 
 
Rev. M. Creighton. 
 
 History of the Papacy during the Period of the Refor- 
 mation. Vol. I. The Great Schism — The Council of Con- 
 stance, 1378-1418. Vol, II. The Council of Basel — The 
 Papal Restoration, 1418-1464. 2 vols. Svo, ^10.00. 
 
 Professor J. L. Diman. 
 
 The Theistic Argument as Affected by Recent Theories. 
 
 Edited by Professor George P. Fisher. Crown Svo, ;^2.00. 
 Orations and Essays, with Selected Parish Sermons. A 
 
 Memorial Volume, with a portrait, Svo, gilt top, ^2.50. 
 
 Washington Gladden. 
 
 The Lord's Prayer. Seven Essays on the Meaning and 
 Spirit of this universal Prayer. i6mo, gilt top, ^1,00. 
 
 Thomas Hughes. 
 
 The Manliness of Christ. i6mo, gilt top, ^i.oo; paper 
 covers, 25 cents. 
 
 Samuel Johnson. 
 
 Oriental Religions, and their Relation to Universal 
 Religion. 
 
 India. Svo, 802 pages, ^5.00; half calf, ^S.oo. 
 
 China. Svo, iooo pages, i^S.oo ; half calf, ^S.oo. 
 
 Persia. Svo, ^5.00. 
 
 Lectures, Essays, and Sermons. With a portrait and Mem- 
 oir by Rev. Samuel Longfellow. Crown Svo, gilt top, 
 
 Henry C. Lea. 
 
 Sacerdotal Celibacy in the Christian Church, Second 
 Edition, considerably enlarged. Svo, ^4.50. 
 
 Rev. T. Mozley. 
 
 Reminiscences, chiefly of Oriel College and the Oxford Move- 
 ment. 2 vols. i6mo, ^3.00 ; half calf, $6,00. 
 
 Elisha Mulford, LL. D. 
 
 The Republic of God, Svo, ^2.00, 
 
 We do not remember that this country has lately produced a speculative 
 work of more originality and force, . . . The book is a noble one. — The 
 Critic (New York), 
 
Rev. T. T. Munger. 
 
 On the Threshold. Familiar Lectures to Young People 
 on Purpose, Friends, and Companions, Manners, Thrift, 
 Self-Reliance and Courage, Health, Reading and Intellec- 
 tual Life, Amusements, and Faith. i6mo, gilt top, ^i.oo. 
 
 The Freedom of Faith. Sermons, prefaced by an Essay on 
 the New Theology. i6mo, gilt top, ^1.50. 
 
 George Putnam, D. D. 
 
 Sermons by George Putnam, D, D., late Pastor of the 
 First Religious Society in Roxbury, Massachusetts. With 
 fine steel portrait. i6mo, gilt top, ^1.75. 
 
 Edward Robinson, D. D., LL. D. 
 
 Harmony of the Four Gospels, in Greek. 8vo, ^1.50. 
 The Same, in English, i2mo, 75 cents. 
 
 Biblical Researches in Palestine. 3 vols. 8vo, with maps, 
 ^10.00. Price of the maps alone, ^i.oo. 
 
 Physical Geography of the Holy Land. A Supplement 
 to " Biblical Researches in Palestine." 8vo, ^3.50. 
 
 Hebrew and English Lexicon of the old Testament, 
 including the Biblical Chaldee. From the Latin of Wil- 
 liam Gesenius, by Edward Robinson. Twenty-second 
 Edition. 8vo, half russia, ^6.00. 
 
 English-Hebrew Lexicon : Being a complete Verbal Index 
 to Genesius' Hebrew Lexicon as translated by Robinson. 
 By Joseph Lewis Potter, A. M. 8vo, ^2.00. 
 
 Rev. Thomas Scott. 
 
 The Bible, with Explanatory Notes, Practical Obser- 
 vations, AND Copious Marginal References. By Rev. 
 Thomas Scott. 6 vols, royal 8vo, sheep, ^15.00. 
 
 *** For sale by all Booksellers. Sent by mail, post-paid, on receipt of price by 
 the Publishers, 
 
 HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN AND COMPANY, 
 4 Park Street, Boston; ii East Seventeenth Street, New York. 
 

 Date Due 
 
 ^""i 'W 
 
 
 ■ '' . ^h 
 
 ., ^^.fl X 
 
 
 
 -^'M. 
 
 r .>,^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ~'^27-^^\ 
 
 
 *«■ 
 
 ffl/lp ff >ir 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 
 
 jim-r 
 
 S^'W^O 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 ,, 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■'/-?■•■* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ! 
 
 
 
 i; 
 
 
 "' , • , ; 
 
 \ f)