Outlines of Old Testament Study,

Historical and Critical.
E. E. Whitfield.
Biographical Note
'Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it.'

London: G. Morrish, 20 Paternoster Square. 1883.
Oxford: By E. Pickard Hall, M.A., and J. H. Stacy, Printers to the University.

Contents
Introduction
1. Of the 'Bible,' and the 'Old Testament' in particular
    § 1. Designations of Old Testament Scripture
    § 2. Of what the Old Testament consists
    § 3. The Division and Order of the Old Testament Books
    § 4. The Titles of the several Books
2. The Canon of the Old Testament to the times of the Maccabees
    § 1. Difference between Inspiration and Canon
    § 2. Roman Catholic idea of the formation of the Bible
    § 3. History of the Old Testament Books previous to the Captivity
    § 4. The Captivity and the succeeding period
3. The Hebrew Canon in the first Christian century
    § 1. According to Josephus
    § 2. According to Philo
    § 3. The well-grounded credit attached to the Hebrew Scriptures
4. The Samaritan Canon; the Alexandrian Bible
    § 1. The Samaritans
    § 2. The Alexandrians
    § 3. Difference between the Canonical Books and the Apocrypha
5. Evidence of the New Testament
6. The Patristic and Mediaeval Canon
    § 1. The Fathers to the time of Jerome
    § 1. Hieronymus, or Jerome
    § 1. The Middle Ages
7. The Canon of the Modern Church
    § 1. The Protestant Canon
    § 2. The Tridentine Canon
    § 3. The Canon of the Greek Church
8. The British and Foreign Bible Society; the study of the Apocrypha; Rationalism and Romanism
9. The Study of the Hebrew Language
    § 1. History of the Language
    § 2. Direct Study of Hebrew
10. The Hebrew Text of the Old Testament
11. Of the Old Testament Manuscript Bible; the Masora
12. Of the Ancient Versions; those of Jewish or Semi-Jewish origin; later Jewish opinion
    § 1. The Septuagint
    § 2. New Testament Citation
    § 3. Other Greek Versions
    § 4. The Targums
    § 5. The Rabbins
    § 6. Arabic Versions
    § 7. Modern Jewish opinion
    § 8. The Samaritan Pentateuch
13. Of Christian Versions
    § 1. The Syriac
    § 2. The Latin, and Douay
14. Of English Versions to the end of the Sixteenth Century
    § 1. Wycliffe's
    § 2. Tyndale's
    § 3. Coverdale's
    § 4. Matthew's
    § 5. The Great Bible
    § 6. The Genevan Bible
    § 7. The Bishops' Bible
15. Of the Modern English Bible
    § 1. The Authorised Version
    § 2. The Revised Verson
16. Of Modern European Versions, &c.
    § 1. Continental Translations
    § 2. Critical Helps
    § 3. Conclusion

Preface.

At a time when the Hebrew Scriptures are undergoing 'historical' analysis, when what are called 'traditional' views concerning them are upon their trial, when also the subject of a revised translation of the Bible for general use affords anxiety to many, and when the books of the Apocrypha, kept in the background for very many years, will shortly regain some prominence — a sketch of Old Testament studies may be of help to such Christian readers as shall wish to acquire a general knowledge of these matters, of the literary history of 'the oracles of God,' and of the claim, if such there be, of other writings to like reverence. If also this embrace hints for the study of the sacred language, it may be of service to not a few who would, like Luther, prize a little knowledge of Hebrew.

Modern enlightenment has to a large extent taken these studies out of the exclusive control of professional theologians on the one hand, and of professional critics on the other; so that the general reader, whatever be his walk in life, need no longer feel that he is altogether dependent upon either.

Specialists there must be, for advance of knowledge, in this as in other departments of research; whilst with the majority of readers, to which class I myself belong, Biblical criticism can only be a πάρεργον (parergon), and yet the subject is of importance, because we need to understand, even when we cannot solve, problems which engross the learned world — ecclesiastical theories as they affect the authority of Scripture, and the 'higher criticism' of which we hear so much.

While the reader must expect to find lack of sympathy on my part not only with much of the current ecclesiastical treatment of the Old Testament, but also with the common neologian idea that the Bible is to be interpreted after the same method as a Greek or Latin classic, let it not be supposed that this will in any wise hinder an endeavour to produce appreciation of sound learning or just sentiment wherever it is to be found. Use then will be freely made by way of quotation of the results of others whenever it is believed they will assist a search for the truth in these questions and, on the other hand, the reader shall usually be supplied with the words of any writer whose views are combated, or at least with a reference to the Work in which they would be found. A few representative writers of all schools will engage our attention.

While acknowledging my indebtedness to the labours of the late J. N. Darby, whose praise indeed is not of men, I would not lose sight of the great lesson of his life, more engraved upon one's mind than all others, — the example he set of reading the Scriptures 'without note or comment.' It may be that the following pages will encourage some in an effort so to read the Old Testament, and in the language in which it was written.

I am under happy obligations to friends for their advice in respect of topics for the present sketch.
E. E. Whitfield.
Oxford, March 1883.

Introduction

To engage in the critical study of the Old Testament, we will invite the reader to start from the same point as Professor Robertson Smith, with a conviction that 'in the Bible God and man meet together . . . assured that the Bible does speak to the heart of man in words that can only come from God, that no historical research can deprive him of this conviction.'* Again, as Mr. Smith says, 'if the Bible sets forth the personal converse of God and man, it is absolutely essential to look at the human side . . . To try to suppress the human side of the Bible in the interests of the purity of the Divine Word, is as great a folly as to think that a father's talk with his child can be best reported by leaving out everything which the child said, thought and felt.' All this is true; but it remains to be seen what is the 'human side' of Scripture, of which solely in general neologian critics allow any bonâ fide recognition.** The lines along which the Professor and the present writer travel soon diverge.
{*Smith's 'Lectures on Biblical Criticism' (1881), pp.18 sqq.
** Cf. J. N. Darby's 'Inspiration and Revelation,' in Bible Witness and Review,' iii. p.60. How unworthy is Mr. Smith's view of God, when he comes to details, has been shown by another in the same volume (pp.446 sqq.).}

We must not be surprised if a professional scholar like Mr. Smith says, 'The whole business of scholarly exegesis lies with this human side'; but we feel how solemn a thing it is to undertake an investigation of what is the divine and what the human element in Scripture, to point out where, each begins and where it ends. Not only have we here to do with holy men (2 Peter 1:2 ) as writers, nor yet merely with inspired writings (2 Tim. 3:16), but we are concerned also with 'holy letters' (2 Tim. 3:15). 'Jehovah's words are pure words' (Ps. 12:6). We care not if critics slight words of a Psalm as the language of poetry, which some either extol or lower as suits their purpose. Although leaving room for the whole work of textual criticism, which may restore a reading or amend a text that has suffered from the hand of man, we dare not forget that the materials which lie before us have that character which any 'child' (2 Tim.), unspoilt by a pretentious education, understands by 'sacred.' Does not then Biblical criticism demand for its pursuit a reverence greater than we feel it necessary to accord to any however elevated yet merely human composition? Must not methods of analysis be employed in this study which are peculiar to it? We need not disdain the help of such methods as are applicable to ancient books in general, but is that always adequate? Different as will our study of the Old Testament in result be found from that of Professor Robertson Smith, the desire of the present writer nevertheless is to promote a systematic study of the earlier portion of the Bible; not by such 'safe and edifying exegesis' as Mr. Smith conceives his opponents alone will tolerate, but by what is technically called criticism, by gathering into small compass the subjects deemed of most importance amongst Hebrew scholars.

In studying Old Testament criticism, we must direct our attention to the names by which the Jewish Scriptures have at different times been known; to the language in which they were composed; to the sources from which our printed copies have been derived; and to the materials used by translators in arriving at the meaning as well as the wording of the Text. The elements, in fact, out of which grew the Old Testament of our common English Bible will be our subject; and so a considerable portion of what German writers of 'Einleitungen' call 'General Introduction,' particularly that which possesses an interest for English readers.

It will be necessary to inquire with some detail into the canonical character of the Old Testament writings. Many questions interesting in themselves, yet of a speculative character, will be discarded, such as the Chronology of the Old Testament; neither will Geography, Natural History, Hebrew Antiquities, general manners and customs, Ancient History, hieroglyphics or cuneiform inscriptions illustrative of the Old Testament Scriptures, come here into account. Upon all such subjects there are indeed well-known works, easy of access, and the consideration of any of these branches of Biblical study would in no wise further our present object. And so, in general, with questions of interpretation. Of divine names the writer could only reproduce the teaching of J. N. Darby in his apologetic writings, and in particular what would be found in the 'Irrationalism of Infidelity.' Little will be said of New Testament citation, which connects the two great divisions of the Bible, it being better to give hints for the examination of quoted passages than to state any theory; then readers can work out this part of the subject for themselves, if they will observe and consider the bearing of facts which the Text itself always yields to an attentive perusal.

We shall not take up the criticism of the separate Books, as for instance, to consider the titles of the Psalms; or the larger question of historical sequence as affecting interpretation: this would be to enter upon 'Special Introduction.' We would here, once for all, indicate that, to employ the language of Schaff's Encyclopaedia (Art. 'Biblical Theology'), our study will be based upon 'the necessarily close connection between the two Testaments,' and will 'repudiate a biblical theology that makes too much account of historical sequence: in other words, that refuses to see the Old Testament in the New, and the New in the Old.' Questions affecting the New Testament in particular will not be treated of otherwise than incidentally.

Chapter 1. Of the 'Bible,' and the 'Old Testament' in Particular.

§ 1. Designations of Old Testament Scripture.

The first question that presents itself in this inquiry is, the usual name of the collective revelation of God of which the Old Testament does but form a part. The common designation of the whole of sacred Scripture is 'The Bible,' a name derived from ecclesiastical Latin, and meaning 'The Book.' Plumptre says, 'Mediaeval Latin mistook the neuter plural [Biblia] for a feminine singular,' which appears to have been first used in the thirteenth century. The first portion of this, with which we are now concerned, regularly called 'The Old Testament,' we find in the interval between the close of the Hebrew Canon and the Birth of Christ described by 'The Law, and the Prophets, and the rest of the Books' (Prologue to Ecclesiasticus or Book of Jesus son of Sirach).

In the inspired Gospels and Epistles of the New Testament it is spoken of as follows:
  1. 'The Scriptures' (Matt. 22:29). The singular is applied only to single passages: cf. 2 Peter 1:20. Observe that the embodiment in writing of the Word of God is alluded to by this name. We moderns use it in a printed form, and are apt to forget the origin of a title so familiar to us.
  2. 'The Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms' (Luke 24:44).
  3. 'Holy Scriptures' (Rom. 1:2).
  4. 'Sacred Letters' (2 Tim. 3:15).

In the early Church of the East we meet with it under the names of:
  'The Old Covenant' (cf. 2 Cor. 3:4).
  'Books of the Old Covenant.'
  'Ancient Scripture.'
  'The Old Testament (or Instrument).'

§ 2. Of what the Old Testament consists.

The Old Testament is the collection of books, written almost entirely in Hebrew, which have come down to us from the ancient Jews and the first Christians, stamped with Jewish reception and New Testament citation. Hebrew, by us the most cherished of what since the time of Eichhorn has been called the Semitic family of languages, may be called the mother-tongue of the Israelites, which they derived from the Patriarchs. Abram, if we may judge by comparative philology combined with the words of a Prophet, would seem when he entered the land to have adopted the 'language of Canaan' (Isa. 19:18),which would thus become the Hebrew language. He would have the less difficulty in doing so if, as seems probable, it were a Semitic dialect. There is no indication of Abram's having employed an interpreter in Canaan, as his descendants at a later period were obliged to do in Egypt (Gen. 42:23). Renan gives as examples of Canaanite names of men or towns, being pure Hebrew, Abimelech, Adoni-bezek, Kirjath-sepher, Kirjath-jearim. Munk includes Melchisedek in his list. The Hebrews do not seem even to have translated names, but sometimes changed them: see Num. 32:38. Such oft-recurring words as God in the form El, of Baal, king, priest, sacrifice, pillar, are Canaanitish or Phoenician. The usual language of Laban, possibly akin to the mother-tongue of Abram himself, who was however a native of Babylonia, was not Hebrew, but Aramaic. This appears from Gen. 31:47. Renan* makes Hebrew the language also of the old stock, but only by treating this passage as unhistorical. The 'Chaldee,' which has come down to us as the original Text of Ezra 4:8 - 6:18, and Ezra 7:12-26, Daniel 2:4 - 7:28, and Jeremiah 10:11, by mistake called 'Syriac' in the A.V. of Dan. 2:4, was the language the Jews of the Captivity brought with them from Babylon; it is another of the Aramaic dialects, and must not be confounded with the language of the Chaldeans spoken of in Dan. 1:4. This Chaldee seems to have been a principal ingredient in the vernacular of Palestine in the time of our Lord, though in the New Testament called 'The Hebrew dialect,' because spoken by Hebrew, as distinct from Hellenist or Greek-speaking Jews. The 'holy nation,' then, began and, in a sense, ended with a language not that of the long period during which it rightly took its place before the rest of the nations as the people of God. We shall resume the consideration of the history of the Hebrew language in a separate chapter.
{* Renan, 'Histoire des langues sémitiques,' p.108 (2nd ed.).}

The number of the Old Testament Books, which, we may here say, conduct us over a period of 1200 years at the least, is given by Josephus* — representing Palestinian ideas — as twenty-two, being the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet; by the Talmud — representing rather the opinions of Babylonian Jews — as twenty-four: cf. amongst others, Leeser's Translation (Jewish) of the Old Testament. Some information will be given afterwards as to the old Jewish authorities. In the number twenty-four, Ruth and Lamentations were reckoned as separate Books. The Christian 'Fathers' that give lists of the Books generally reckon twenty-two. The number thirty-nine in the English Bible is due to the obvious fact that the Books of Ruth, 2 Samuel, 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles, Nehemiah, Lamentations, and each of the Minor Prophets are counted separately.
{* His works may be consulted in the useful translation by Whiston, as published in a cheap form by Messrs. Routledge. The reader may here refer to p.681 of that edition (Against Apion).}

§ 3. The Division and Order of the Old Testament Books.

The order in which the Books appear in modern Bibles is based upon that of the Septuagint as far as the Canticles; but the arrangement of the Prophets — Daniel with Lamentations excepted — is that of the common Hebrew Bible.

Luke 24:44 supplies a classification of the Books acknowledged by our Lord. The 'Law' (in Hebrew, Torah) has long by Christians been called the Pentateuch, or five-fold book, a title borrowed from Greek. The later Jews called each Book Chumash, Fifth Part, and the whole five, Chumshin.

The Prophets' (Heb. Nebiim) were divided by the Jews into the 'earlier' and 'latter'; the earlier comprising Joshua, Judges, and the Books of Samuel and Kings, now together generally called the 'Historical Books,' to which, it may be, reference is made in Zech. 7:7, 12 (see the Heb.); and the latter, Isaiah to Malachi, omitting Lamentations and Daniel. Of 'the latter' Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel were called 'the greater;' and the order observed in our Hebrew Bibles of the Books bearing their names is that of the Spanish Hebrew MSS. The Talmudic or old Rabbinical arrangement places Jeremiah first. The other Prophets are called 'minor.'

All the rest of the Books, except Daniel, are supposed to have constituted the 'Psalms' (The Hagiographa, or 'Holy Scriptures', κατ εξοχην (kat exoken.)) in this classification. It is thought that the Lord, according to a Jewish custom, referred to a series of Books by naming only the first of such series, which would at the same time explain Matt. 16:14, 27:9: see 'Irrationalism of Infidelity' p.322.* The ancient Hebrew hymnal, 'the Book of Psalms' (Acts 1:20), in the modern Hebrew Bible does come, as in the German MSS., at the head of the 'Hagiographa,' the name by which these Books, together with Daniel, are generally known amongst critics. Mr. Smith (Smith's Lecture VI, p.165.), in objecting to this view, cannot deny that the 'Psalms' may here at least be taken as representing the class of Books to which they belong. The division of the Psalms into five Books, respectively ending at Psalms 41, 72, 89, 106, 150, is of Jewish authority.** The Miscellaneous Books are by the Jews designated Chetubim, or Writings;*** and Hagiographa, which is taken from Patristic Greek, means sacred writings. Of these again, Ruth, Canticles, Lamentations, Esther and Ecclesiastes are called Megilloth, Rolls (cf. Hebrew of Ps. 40:3; Jer. 36:14).
{* Cf. Fürst, Canon des Alten Testaments,' p.55.
** Ibid. pp.64, 67, 68 note.
*** Ibid. p.54: 'Very often in the Talmud and Midrash.' In what is called the Palestinian Talmud, they together bear the name of 'Wisdom': ibid.}

Different reasons are assigned for the Talmudic Jews having placed the Book of Daniel amongst the Hagiographa. A Jewish explanation is that the Book begins in a different way from other prophetical Books, which is quite true: compare J. N. Darby's 'Synopsis of the Books of the Bible.' But of the essentially prophetical character of the Book, Matt. 24:15 should satisfy every Christian, even of the Arnold school; the testimony of Josephus (Ant. x. 11) every Jew.* This Jewish annalist is indeed explicit as to the doctrine that the succession of prophets ceased with the reign of Artaxerxes, or roughly, 450 years B.C. hence, if the Book of Daniel had been composed in the Maccabean period, as neologians contend, it is certain that the Palestinian Jews would have assigned it no place at all in the Canon; but this will be better understood when we unfold that part of our subject.
{* Routledge's 'Josephus,' p.253. Ib. p.261.}

The chronological order of the Books must be ascertained, if desirable or possible, from the Books themselves. Sometimes an incidental expression reveals the period to which the Book belongs: e.g. in Joshua 11:21. As to the order of the separate prophecies of Jeremiah in particular, the reader should observe the different arrangement of Jer. 15:15, 51:64, found in the Septuagint from that in which they are presented in the Hebrew, and should read the remarks of Mr. Darby in his 'Synopsis' (Jer.).* Transpositions are also observable in the LXX of Proverbs.
{* Cf. the comment in 'Bible Witness,' iii. p.428, on Professor Smith's preference for the recension of the LXX: 'We suppose he did not tell his hearers that Jer. 33:14-26 must then be struck out of their Bibles, for it is wanting in the LXX, and is said to have been supplied by Origen.'}

Occasionally the reader may think he detects in the Hebrew a transposition of a passage from one part of a Book to another: spiritual consideration in such cases will decide for a simple acquiescence in what we have received.

§ 4. The Titles of the several Books.

The titles of the Mosaic Books in the English Bible are taken from the Septuagint. For 'Exodus' in particular, cf. the Greek of Luke 9:31. The Hebrew headings are respectively: —
  'Beginning.'
  'These are the names.'
  'And [he] called*.'
  'In the wilderness.'
  'These are the words**.'
We find them already in Jerome's day (Prologue to 2 Kings). But it is clear that they could not be original titles, and that they result from the disintegration to which the Torah was subjected by those concerned in the translation called the Septuagint. The convenience thus afforded to interpretation is very apparent.
{* In the Jewish 'Mishna' Leviticus is spoken of as the 'Law of the Priests,' Torath Kohannim.
** The Mishna also calls Deuteronomy Copy or Duplicate of the Law, Mishneh Hattorah (cf. Deuteronomy 17:18).}

The rest of the titles for the most part follow the Hebrew. In the respective headings adopted by our translators of 1 and 2 Samuel, the additions 'otherwise called, The First Booke of the Kings' and 'otherwise called, The Second Booke,' &c., and of 1 and 2 Kings, commonly called, 'The Third Booke of the Kings' and 'commonly called, The Fourth Booke,' &c., are dictated by the Greek titles.* The Books of Chronicles were so called first by Jerome.** 'Journals' would best represent the Hebrew designation. The Greek titles mean Supplements. 'Ecclesiastes' is from the Greek.
{* Fürst says, 'The Talmudic Canon knew nothing of four Books of the Kings' (p.13). These Books would seem to have been originally one (p.14).
** In the Vulgate the titles of the Septuagint are retained for these two Books, also originally one, with the Hebrew titles added.}

A discussion of the authorship of the several Books not marked by names would lead us into too wide a field, affording scope for conjecture, which it is desirable to avoid. Again, the consideration of the materials employed by the several writers, as of 'historical' Books in particular, would raise questions possessing an importance too great to admit of any adequate outline being given of them. The reader is referred to Mr. Darby's critical writings in general for help upon the 'document-hypothesis', as it is called, of which rationalistic writers are full.

Chapter 2. The Canon of the Old Testament to the Times of the Maccabees.

§ 1. Difference between Inspiration and Canon.

It is necessary to distinguish between the inspiration and the Canon of Scripture. 'Canon' as applied to Scripture and that first, by Christians, in the fourth century after Christ, means a rule (Heb. בְּלַל) or standard. In result it may and does coincide with inspiration. But the one is a question of reputation, determined by historical evidence for collective human judgment in the past upon the inspiration of these writings; to which standard, of course, ecclesiastical sentiment — shifting indeed with the times — attaches itself; the other is of positive divine authority, to which heart and conscience under moral conviction yield their assent. The ecclesiastical argument that our possession of the New Testament is a debt we owe to the historical Church, and that we must abide by traditional interpretation, rests upon a confusion of these two things. The credibility to which the Scriptures are entitled has been put for the responsibility we are under to listen to them; the lamp that bears the light for the light itself; the interpreter for the Book that gives him his employment. This argument has only to be shaped by a Jew into a weapon against the interpreters of Christianity, and the fatal error it covers must at once be felt by the most ardent opponent within the Church of the individual application of Scripture. A missionary of the Catholic type, even of the mild form called 'Anglican,' cannot in heathen lands, as in the England of the nineteenth century, appeal to the general acknowledgment rendered to the Scriptures. He can alone depend upon the innate power of either the Old or the New Testament to convict the conscience and to subdue the will of man. While, as Mr. Robertson Smith truly says, 'No man's spiritual life is so large, so perfectly developed, . . . . that it can be used as a measure of the fulness of the Bible'* — where the Canon comes in — nevertheless, as the same critic also remarks, a Christian's 'persuasion' of the truth of Scripture 'cannot be derived from external testimony.'**
{* Smith's Lecture I, p.9.
**Ibid. p.4.}

It is in taking up this subject, or what is called 'The Rule of Faith,' that we enter the battle-field of the Creeds of Christendom. What other subject can be of such moment? Upon the decision we come to in this matter evidently must depend our apprehension of the 'safe way,' where we must find, or in which we must place, our eternal interests. Assistance in the formation of a right judgment as to this is offered us by the Romanist on the one hand, and by the Rationalist on the other.

§ 2. Roman Catholic idea of the formation of the Bible.

We will turn to Catholic sources to notice a tract bearing the title, 'What is the Bible? Is yours the right Book?' by W. H. Anderdon, Priest of the Society of Jesus' (1874). This is, if we mistake not, addressed to such as ourselves. Upon the first page we read, 'The Catholic is the true Bible-Christian. Others accept parts; he accepts the whole. . . . They believe some of the Books to be inspired: he, every one of the Books.' Upon p.5: 'The Word of God, and the Word of God only, is the religion of Catholics,' and 'The Bible, according to St. Paul (referring to Rom. 10:14-18, 2 Thess. 2:14), is one of two elements that make up the word of God. It is the only element, according to the popular system now in England.' Upon p.6: 'What is the Bible? . . . Is the book of Judith, Bible? Are the books of the Maccabees? . . . or Bel and the Dragon? . . . or the last seven chapters of Esther?' which writings we are told on page 7 are 'Old Testament Scriptures of the second Canon, equal in authority with,' such as are 'printed in the English Protestant version . . . but rejected by the compilers of the Protestant Bible, who disliked some doctrines contained in them.' These last words refer, we suppose, to such passages as Eccles. 3:30; 2 Maccab. 14:43 sqq. Mr. Anderdon invites each to ask himself, 'How can I tell, without danger of fatal error, which of the writings' he has specified, including the Epistle to the Hebrews, 'is inspired, and therefore deserving of a place in the Canon of Scripture? How am I to accept, how am I to reject? By what rule, what test? Is it to be an external test, or does it depend on evidence arising out of the writings themselves?' Upon page 8 he says, 'Unless some infallible authority had given us the Bible, we should never have been able to put it together for ourselves out of these various treatises.' The reader will be able to judge if this agrees with the language of Mr. Anderdon's superiors at the Vatican Council, of which we shall speak more particularly afterwards.

Upon p.9 of this tract is the following statement 'The Bible contains no list, nor hint of a list, of its own ingredients.' Now in reading such tracts of Jesuits it is necessary to keep clearly in mind that the great object they have is to establish a difference of their own invention between the 'Bible' and the 'Word of God.' Not content with such difference as arises from scriptural use of 'Word of God' for a Divine testimony — as regularly in the Acts of the Apostles — they seek to blend this with Tradition or the Voice of the Church. To show how vain is their distinction, we need but refer to Mark 7:13, in the Rhemes Version (1582): 'defeating the word of God for your own tradition which you have given forth.' The annotation upon this text by the authorities of the College at Rhemes is a sample of the turn that is given to such passages by 'Catholics' and of the instruction this version is designed to afford: 'Traditions of Heretikes . . . Howsoever they bragge of Scriptures, al their manner of administration and ministerie is their own tradition and invention without al Scripture and Warrant of God's Word.' In the annotation to the parallel passage of Matthew, headed 'Commandments of men,' we read: 'which at the least be frivolous, unprofitable and impertinent to pietie or true worshipe.' This annotation* warns its reader against the 'Protestants' perverse application' of the passage. It defends 'fastes, festivities,' &c., as 'made by the Holy Ghost joyning with our pastors in the regiment of the faithful.'
{* Much modified in the modern approved Dublin edition.}

To Catholics we may justly say, 'Wel do you frustrate the precept of God that you may observe your own tradition' (Mark 7:9, Rhemes version). Upon p.10 of his tract Mr. Anderdon says, 'The Bible never was intended by its divine author to be an exclusive rule of faith. To say The Bible and the Bible only is the religion of Protestants is an unconscious form of declaring the religion of Protestants has not sufficient foundation.' He goes on to use a favourite argument (see the Rhemes note on Titus 1:14*) drawn from the common practice of baptizing children, from the observance of the Lord's Day in place of the Sabbath, and the departure of Christendom from Acts 15:19, 20, 28, 29.
{* This note disappears in the Dublin edition.}

As to what he says upon page 12 of this tract, we may observe, no one questions the historical precedence of an oral over a written testimony; but let us be sure that what is offered us in this shape is a successional legacy of 'faithful men' (2 Tim. 2:2). On pp.19 sqq. of this tract are the following, perhaps startling, assertions: 'To take the Bible on trust, is to accept a tradition'; upon p.20, 'You know it to be the right book, simply by the traditions of the Catholic Church which gave the book to you'; upon p.21, 'Your Bible is not the whole of the right Book, because your forefathers, by the mere rule of their private judgment, or private dislikes . . . put a fraud upon you, three hundred years ago, which you have never yet seen through. And so they lied to the Holy Ghost, in a matter of more importance than did Ananias and Sapphira, and have long since accounted for their lie. Who would not be sorry to encounter either clause of the malediction, Apoc. 22:18, 19?'

Much of what this Jesuit says we could leave to 'Reformed' Jews — of whom we shall have to speak — to deal with; but we believe the reader will find in the following pages enough wherewith to answer his questions and statements. For the present we content ourselves with quoting from Westcott,* for whose words at the close of his valuable treatise we may well be thankful. He says, 'There is not the slightest evidence to show that the collection of the Sacred Books, as the depositaries of doctrine, was ever the subject of a general conference of the Churches. The Bible was formed, even as the Church itself was formed, by the action of that Holy Spirit which is the life of both.'
{* Westcott, 'Bible in the Church, p.293.}

§ 3. History of the Old Testament Books previous to the Captivity.

Let us see if Westcott's remarks are borne out by an investigation of the history of the Old Testament Canon. We have first to ascertain the history of the different series of Books that make up the collection, and mainly from the inspired records. The archives of the Israelites are referred to in Ex. 17:14, 34:27; Num. 33:2; Deut. 31:26 (cf. Deut. 17:18); Joshua 24:26; 1 Sam. 10:25; 2 Kings 22:8; 2 Chron. 20:34; 26:22, &c.; Esther 9:32. The following passages may be referred to for original records no longer in existence: Num. 21:14; Joshua 10:13; 1 Chron. 29:29; 2 Chron. 9:29, 12:15, 33:18, 19. They had their use for a time: there can have been nothing in them of enduring importance, but what is enshrined in the historical Books of the Hebrew Canon. For the New Testament cf. John 20:30-31, from which we learn the designedly fragmentary character of the Gospel histories.

Isa. 34:16 is of interest. We do not see why Westcott (p.298) should say the Book of the Lord there means the Law alone, as that which before the Captivity was specially 'open to all and authoritative.' The 'Book of the Law,' when that alone is meant, is spoken of with precision: see 2 Chron. 17:9; cf. 34:30, the 'Book of the Covenant.' Westcott is here in company with Davidson and Smith.

Daniel 9:2 (cf. Amos 7:14) suffices for the belief that the schools of the Prophets had no such exclusive custody of prophetic documents as some writers upon this subject suppose: we may believe that prophetic writings equally were open to all, even if they did not command as much reverence as the rolls of the Pentateuch. It may be correct with some to say that 2 Kings 22:8 is the only passage in which a so-far complete collection of Scriptures is spoken of prior to the Captivity, but not from the same passage to infer that no such official collection of other parts of the Old Testament had been made: Westcott seems certainly right in believing some collections of the words of the Prophets had been made, from the manner in which Jeremiah appeals to the writings of his predecessors. To this Oehler also had called attention, 'The Psalms,' as Pusey says, 'being intended for devotional use in the Temple, must have been early collected.'* The Proverbs, as we learn from Proverbs 25:1, were copied out by the 'men of Hezekiah.'
{* Pusey, Lectures on Daniel,' iv. p.317.}

§ 4. The Captivity and the succeeding period.

The judgment that fell upon the people must have placed the sacred books in jeopardy. We cannot however follow Plumptre when he says, 'The great wrench given to the national life in the Babylonian captivity brought with it, we may well believe, the destruction and mutilation of the greater part of this literature.' ('Bible Educator,' iv. p.318.) There is no ground for this notion. The Jews must have carried their sacred books everywhere with them: see Acts 15:21. There would seem to have been no ruthless treatment of the Israelitish archives by Babylonian conquerors, any more than by Assyrian. The record of the conduct of Cyrus in the Book of Ezra indicates consideration, from whatever motives, upon the part of Elamite monarchs — who would be fair samples of eastern rulers — for the religion of a subject race, similar to that which we meet with in the Romans.* Whatever the treatment to which at the Captivity they were subjected, it is clear that the Hebrew Scriptures survived in a substantial condition, from the reference in Dan. 9:2 (cf. Ezek. 20:11, 5:6). As to the passage in Daniel, Oehler (art. 'Canon' in Herzog's Encyclopdia.) is surely mistaken in thinking the expression there used lacks precision. Westcott justly says, 'The title here applied to the prophetic writings — "the books" (Dan. 10:2) — shows that when the Book of Daniel was written the collection was definitely marked out and known.'(p.299.)** Westcott does not determine the date of the Book. Believing as we do that it was Daniel's own work, and that at least chaps. 1-9 preceded Ezra's reformation, we cannot follow the Cambridge Professor in saying, 'The Law alone seems to have formed the Jewish Bible up to the Captivity.' (Ibid. p.297.) No proof has been afforded of the common assertion that Ezra, the great Synagogue, or elders of the congregation,*** and the last prophets, collected and revised the Books which, when completed, made up the Old Testament as we possess it. While it is demonstrable that Ezra, for one, was a man singularly adapted for such a work — at least so far as the 'Law' is concerned — can it be correct to assert as Davidson, following his German guides, that 'The man who first gave public sanction to a portion of the national literature was Ezra, who laid the foundation of a Canon'? ('Canon of the Bible,' p.23.) We believe that, not by any bold stroke of one man, but by a gradual process long at work had the foundation of the Canon been laid. That, as this ready scribe of Rationalism says, Ezra 'edited the Law,' would result from Ezra 7:6, 10, 12, and other passages of the Book called by his name; but to speak of 'making the first canon or collection of books, and giving it an authority which it had not before,' is wide of the mark. Davidson goes on to say, 'As to Ezra's mode of redaction, we are left for the most part to conjecture.' (Ibid, p.25.) But this is indeed the stock in trade of writers of the class to which Davidson belongs. We firmly believe that Ezra revived the reverence of the people for the Law, against which they had so grievously sinned; and that to the absorption of the Jewish mind at this epoch with the Mosaic Code is the fact due that the Samaritans, in setting up a rival religion, contented themselves with acquiring a copy of the Pentateuch as their sacred book. Westcott, on the other hand, is one of those who regard the Samaritan Canon as a proof of the limitation, at the time of the Exile, of the Jewish Bible to the Law.
{* The conduct of Antiochus, the Syrian king, an account of which we possess in 1 Macc. 1, seems quite exceptional. Cf. Josephus, Jewish War, vii. 5, 7; Life, 75.
** Dr. Tregelles ('Authenticity of Daniel,' p.45) seems in his explanation of בספרים to have overlooked Jer. 29:1, where the singular and not the plural is used for 'letter.'
*** Reference seems made to them in Ezra 10:16, and their names we may have in Neh. 10:27.}

If there is not enough in Daniel or Ezekiel upon which to build the assumption that the prince and the priest were equally solicitous with 'the priest, the scribe,' for the inspired records, it is matter of history that the Babylonian schools of a later date were amongst the chief nurseries of sacred learning. We repeat that Dan. 9:2 is evidence of the well-defined character all the earlier writings had amongst the 'children of the Captivity,' before this supposed redaction by Ezra could have been accomplished.

The idea that to this faithful man was revealed afresh all that had been written before, which he then rewrote, seems to have come from love of the marvellous, if not derived from 2 Esdras 14:38-48, in reading which it is well to be cautious.

It is however highly probable that the Books received authoritative revision from time to time and with particular care after the Captivity, under the superintendence, if not by the solicitude alone, of Ezra himself, who, a scribe, was also one of the inspired penmen, and would bestow, as we believe, special attention upon the Pentateuch. What would otherwise often seem to be interpolation thus obtains full justification: cf. 'Irrationalism of Infidelity,' p.216. That there was 'a gradual formation' — of the whole collection — 'fixed not by external authority, but by silent' conviction of men of faith, seems to us the only view worthy of acceptance.

2 Maccabees 2:13, if it is to be trusted, as most seem to think, throws light upon the further history of Old Testament Scripture. It speaks of 'the writings and commentaries of Neemias; and how he, founding a library, gathered together the acts of the Kings, and the Prophets, and of David, and the Epistles of the Kings concerning the holy gifts.'*
{* The reader would find the Scriptural evidence for the formation of the Canon collected in Pusey's Sixth Lecture on Daniel, pp.308-350.}

To the final stage in the history of the Canon before Christian times allusion is probably made in the Prologue of Ecclesiasticus, already referred to. It will of course remind the reader of Luke 24:44. It connects itself with Josephus' account of the canonical Books, which it is well to state here, although in historical order it belongs to a later section: it places us at the end of the first Christian century.

Chapter 3. The Hebrew Canon in the First Christian Century.

§ 1. According to Josephus.

The evidence of this writer, who was born about 37 A.D., is not at all welcome at the bar of modern rationalism. He reckons, as we have already said (chap. 1 § 2), twenty-two Books, made up of the five Books of the Law, thirteen Prophets, and four Poetical Books. The Prophetical Books in his classification are, according to the received opinion —
  1. Joshua.
  2. Judges and Ruth.
  3. Books of Samuel.
  4. Books of Kings.
  5. Books of Chronicles.
  6. Ezra and Nehemiah.
  7. Esther.
  8. Isaiah.
  9. Jeremiah.
  10. Ezekiel.
  11. Daniel.
  12. The Minor Prophets as one whole.
  13. Job.

The Poetical Books would be —
  Psalms.
  Proverbs.
  Ecclesiastes.
  Canticles.

What assistance do we get from 'free critics,' or 'scientific' writers (Cf. chap. ii. § 1.) — to turn to such in estimating this evidence? Davidson, after indulging his rationalism by the remark that 'the idea of an immediate divine authority does not appear to have dominated the mind of the great Synagogue in the selection of books,' is confronted by Josephus' explicit assurance that the Books of which he speaks 'have been justly credited as divine,' in his own day no more nor less than previously, τὰ δικαίως θεῖα πεπιστευμένα (ta dikaios theia pepisteumena). This, he says, was instilled into every Jew from his birth. (Josephus, Contra Apion, chap. 1.) Observe that he says, not δεδογμένα (dedogmena), but 'credited,' 'believed.' On turning to the 'Canon of the Bible' (Davidson, p.74) to clear our ideas, we find the credibility of the witness impeached in the following terms: 'His authority is small,' 'he wrote for the Romans.' We ask, Then why did he pitch his standard so high? We are silenced by, 'One who believed that Esther was the youngest book in the Canon, who looked upon Ecclesiastes as Solomon's and Daniel as an exile production, cannot be a competent judge.' Well, Josephus and his judge shall change places: we prefer to be guided by the ruling of this Jew. To the self-sufficiency which sets up witnesses or dismisses them in the fashion of this pseudo-criticism, beset with prejudice, we cannot close our eyes, but we do turn a deaf ear. Another Jew, who was only a great sceptic of the seventeenth century, says, 'The Canon was the work of the Pharisees' to which sect Josephus belonged. In Spinoza we have a Jewish witness after this critic's own heart; there is no doubting his testimony 1700 years more or less after the event! Yet Davidson himself holds it is a mistake to attribute to the other Jewish faction the rejection of a single Book of the Canon we are asked to believe they had no hand in shaping, so far as it is a question of the Canon being then still open. This critic casts a slur upon Josephus because his conduct was not that of a patriot. How then can he be looked upon as a mere spokesman of the Pharisees? We regret that Professor Robertson Smith (Lect. VI) should take a similar view to Davidson's of the testimony of Josephus. He seems to have contributed nothing fresh to the discussion.

§ 2. According to Philo.

With Josephus we obtain the testimony of a Palestinian Jew, a 'Hebrew.' Have we a similar witness amongst the Jews of the Dispersion, the 'Hellenists'? An indirect witness, whose veracity is without reproach, is found in the Alexandrian Philo, of a character, Pusey well says (Pusey's 'Daniel,' p.295.), the most opposite to that of Josephus. Variety of evidence may always be appreciated. Philo was already growing old when Josephus was born. He appears to reckon exactly the same number of Books as Josephus, and strange to say, living always amidst Egyptian influences, he quotes only from the Books of the Hebrew Canon, using of course the Septuagint Version. No one is foolish enough to suppose he was not acquainted with the books of the Apocrypha. We may conclude that there was no Alexandrian 'Canon' in the strict sense.

§ 3. The well-grounded credit attached to the Hebrew Scriptures.

As to the authenticity of these Old Testament writings, it will be well to quote one of many helpful remarks of Dr. Payne Smith: 'The forgery of writings did not begin until books were made marketable commodities.'* The activity of the Egyptian Jews in the two last centuries before Christ doubtless borders upon it.
{* Ellicott's Commentary on Old Testament, Introd. to the Pentateuch.}

And next, as to the principle of selection. We must demur to Plumptre's statement, which seems little in advance of Davidson's views, that 'what we have in fact is an anthology of the wider religious literature' ('Bible Educator,' iv. p.318); if by that be meant choice extracts which Jewish scribes first admired and then revered. Such an expression would do scant justice to the exquisite diction of Isaiah, and on the other hand, be entirely inappropriate to the constrained style of Haggai. No: these ancient Israelites and Jews had a trust which we can thankfully acknowledge they fulfilled. Even if we suppose, as Kuenen and Smith invite us to do,* that some rapprochement existed between spiritual prophecy and the priesthood after the Exile greater than before, the Scribes — whose interests seem to have been identical with those of the Priests, as later the Pharisees — none the less evidently had divine instincts: 'they multiplied the copies' (Kuenen p.174) of, e.g. Malachi, who, if he did use different language from that of Isaiah, or Amos, or Micah, as to sacrifice, certainly did not flatter the priests themselves. Men recognised through spiritual sentiment the voice of God in Ecclesiastes and in Canticles amongst the rest of the sacred oracles. It was not left to Rabbi Akiba, as Mr. Smith represents (Lecture VI. p.173), to establish their canonicity. Later criticism amongst the Jews has neither deprived us of such Books as Esther, nor effectually added any, as Baruch. But indeed, when doubts in the days of the Talmud were mooted as to certain Books, it was only, Oehler rightly says, as to whether they should retain their place in the Canon: there they were.** Spiritual men had been able in early times to discriminate between the wheat and the chaff (cf. Jer. 23:28 with 1 Cor. 14:37), and so Josephus, we have seen, could speak of 'the Books which have been justly credited as divine.' We shall afterwards draw out the distinctive features of the Hebrew canonical Books, and the Apocrypha of the Alexandrian Bible.
{* Kuenen, Hibbert Lectures, 1882, No. iii. Smith, Lecture X.
** Cf. Fürst's 'Canon,' pp.57-58.}

Before passing on, let us take but two characteristics of Sacred Scripture, for which the reader would search with no result in Greek or Latin classics that have long formed the taste of men of letters. We would invite attention to the thoughtful remarks of the late Isaac Taylor,* who points out 'a remarkable difference' in the manner in which the sacred writers present marvellous occurrences from that employed by profane authors. He says: 'The marvellous events reported by the Greek and Roman authors may, with few exceptions, be classed under two heads; namely — allegory and poetical combinations, which were so obviously fabulous as to ask for no credence, and to demand no scrutiny; or they were mere exaggerations, distortions or misapplications of natural objects of phenomena. But the Jewish historians and poets do not describe as actually existing, any such allegorical prodigies: and their descriptions of real animals are either simply exact, or they are evidently poetical (like those in the books of Job), but they are not fabulous. They do not throw a supernatural colouring over ordinary phenomena, or convert plain facts into prodigies. The supernatural events they record — as matters of history, are such deviation from the standing order of natural causes, as leaves us no alternative between peremptory denial of the veracity of the writers, or a submission to their affirmation of divine agency.'
{* Isaac Taylor, 'Transmission of Ancient Books,' pp.116 sqq (ed. 1879).}

The Antiquities preserved in the Assyrian Galleries of the British Museum* suggest the other characteristic to which we allude. Any reader of the Hebrew prophets is struck with the extent to which denunciation of Assyrian or Babylonian violence and corruption is carried by them, and some pause to ask themselves if it is possible that, as with 'classical' writers, the picture drawn is an exaggeration from national hate. As Taylor says,** we have but to walk up and down, gazing in awe upon these monstrous sculptures 'to know that the answer is at hand. The Hebrew writers . . . have not calumniated those remorseless tyrants even the men of these colossal busts and these bas-reliefs, when they recount their deeds of blood, their spoliations and their oppressions.'
{* Engravings of some in the Louvre Collection may be seen in the useful 'Histoire des anciens Peuples de l'Orient,' by Ménard (1882).
**'Transmission of Ancient Books,' p.212.}

Chapter 4. The Samaritan Canon; The Alexandrian Bible.

§ 1. The Samaritans.*

In the last chapter we considered the Hebrew Canon. To speak now of the Samaritan: it was and is confined to the Pentateuch. As the last editor of De Wette's 'Introduction' says (Schrader's De Wette, § 19.), the Samaritans, who took as their sacred book the 'Law,' the authority of which had in that day been firmly established, would be afterwards disinclined, from the hostility that existed between them and their neighbours, to accept any other Scriptures that acquired equal authority among the Jews. And the same writer — who seems here to follow Geiger — is right in thinking there is no sufficient ground for the assertion that the Jewish sect of the Sadducees was responsible for an attempt to confine the Canon to the Pentateuch. Josephus, in speaking of their tenets, does not hint at anything of the kind.** The Talmud says passages in the Prophets were discussed by both parties.
{* Some account of this people would be found in Josephus, (Antiquities, xi.).
** Jewish War, ii Antiquities, xiii, xviii.}

§ 2. The Alexandrians.

The Alexandrian collection took in more Books than the Hebrew: this may be seen from the Septuagint in its complete form. The accretions called 'external,' 'extraneous' in the Talmud,* are to us known by the name of Apocrypha, meaning either, books with a hidden, mystical meaning,** or, books that are kept back, though not lightly esteemed.*** In modern Greek, the meanings of apokruphos seem to be secret, hidden, occult. We might perhaps compare the relation between these writings and those of our Old Testament to that between the Patristic and the New Testament writings.
{* Heb. Chizonim: see Fürst, Canon des A. T., 97, 150, and Buxtorf's Talmudic Lexicon, חיצון.
** So Coverdale, Plumptre, &c.
*** Heb. Genuzim; but the Talmudists meant by such none of the books by us called Apocrypha: cf. Fürst, pp.91-96, 148.}

Some books of the Apocrypha were translated into Greek or Latin from Hebrew or Aramaic; others were written originally in Greek. They were never accepted by the Palestinian Jews, though some were of Palestinian origin. Josephus is a primary witness for the Hebrew (or Palestinian) Canon: we have seen the form it takes in his hands. (Cf. chap. iii. § 1.) It is not that the books of the Apocrypha contain nothing worth reading. Wisdom 2:23 would set right the materialism of our own day; 11:5 of the same book in the Greek ought to put to shame the opponents of the doctrine of endless torment, who boast of their much learning.* But the leaders of the nation at the centre of its life had divine instincts to which under God we owe the purity of the Hebrew Canon.
{* The writer owes these references to an address by Mr. R. B. Girdlestone, Principal of Wycliffe Hall.}

§ 3. The difference between the Canonical Books and the Apocrypha.

As to the broad line between the 'Holy Scriptures' and the writings called Apocrypha, we may be thankful for 2 Tim. 3:15-17, where we get (1) salvation, (2) instruction in righteousness, (3) perfection (see even the Vulgate, 'Clementis VIII. auctoritate edita,' in loco). To speak of but one book of the Apocrypha, that of 2 Maccabees: the Jews were restrained from accepting a book as inspired which virtually commended a man for cutting short his own life (see 14:43). The Douay note does its best to save the credit of the passage. How could such a production promote sound morals? The difference between what is divine and what is human is within the comprehension of a child that compares the last two verses of this book with the last two verses of the Gospel of John. Clearly in writings of this kind, Jews of the stamp of the Palestinian Gamaliel, of the Alexandrian Philo, could not think they had eternal life (John 5:39). But what was uppermost in the mind of an Alexandrian Jew, 'mighty in the Scriptures,' after he became a Christian? To show from 'the Scriptures' that Jesus was Christ (Acts 18). There was that running through the inspired writings which the others left aside: they testified in one way or another of Jesus. It matters not whether we examine Genesis or Joshua, the Song of Solomon, Esther or Daniel: all alike direct our hearts to Him (Luke 24:27); they looked on to the fulness of time, when God should send forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the Law, to redeem them that were under the Law, when Jesus should come to save His people from their sins. But for the mass such Scriptures as Isa. 5:20, 59:9, had no voice: compare John 1:5, 11.

Next we may say, as a characteristic of 'Holy Scriptures,' that they afford us certainty: Luke 1:4. No conflict with history is discoverable in any of them, while all the historical Books of the Canon leave every parallel record of the past far behind in every respect. Apparent discrepancies only trouble superficial or rationalistic readers; but the careful and, devout student of Scripture is not disconcerted if he find a king of Judah like Jehoshaphat spoken of as such in one chapter, and as 'King of Israel' in another chapter of the same Book (2 Chron.): he is sensible of a divine motive for the difference.

On the other hand, the most flagrant errors are discernible in the Apocrypha. Take only Baruch 1:2, compared with Jer. 43:6, 7. Of Tobit we may say that it carries its own condemnation upon almost every page.

How soon the Church belied the possession of the mind of Christ may be seen from the ancient MSS. of the LXX — which are of Christian origin — the Sinaitic, Vatican, and Alexandrian. While they assure us by their contents of Holy Scripture, these documents afford evidence of the early ecclesiastical use of the Apocrypha, which can only have helped on the departure from the truth as it is in Jesus. We shall return to this subject in subsequent chapters.

Chapter 5. Evidence of the New Testament.

We have next to place ourselves in New Testament days. It becomes us to be careful, to take off the shoes from our feet on the holiest of ground. How fresh the atmosphere here breathed; how bright the light; how happy those who live in it, and here find at the same time their joy and their security! May they that know its sweetness as well as its power, that know whom they have believed, the Christ of the New Covenant (Luke 22:20, 1 Cor. 11:25 — Revd. Vers.) turn to account each word and thought. If the Scriptures of old testify of Him, how must not these be full of what He is! May they shed light for the reader upon that which before was at the best dim; may they impart a vigour to his faith in the oracles inherited from Israel. Let us not forget that salvation is of the Jews. 'If the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be but life from the dead?' 'And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive-tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partake of the root and fatness of the olive-tree, boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.' 'They also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in; for God is able to graft them in again.'

What is the testimony* of the New Testament to those Books that the Jews have held so dear, have kept inviolate amid all their 'blindness' to God's ways, to the revelation of Himself at Bethlehem, in the Temple, at the Cross? 'The Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.' It is meet that those who engage in the critical study of His Word should be sensible of this grace, to be humble, and to learn this truth, it may be in the Old Testament, that we may rid ourselves of bondage to human sentiment. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty; not that of which, to his shame, the sceptic boasts, the freedom that either knows no restraint in its self-destructive course, or, if it does, finds no just excuse for its capricious treatment of the Word of God. Should any reader have been captivated by the influence such breadth of imagination can exercise over the deceitful heart of man, he might learn a lesson from the history of a man to whose lucid writings concerned with verbal criticism the writer would gladly acknowledge his obligations; one who began his career as a Biblical scholar by a self-confidence which attacked the Law of Moses, and ended it by trusting alone in the Saviour's grace; one of whom it has been said, every year he lived brought with it growth of conscience, and led him somewhat nearer to Christ: we mean Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette.** May the reader indeed be able to begin where the German Professor had to end!
{* If any reader of this need to be convinced of the 'Historic Evidence of the Authorship and Transmission of the Books of the New Testament', itself, let him study the little work of Dr. Tregelles with this title.
** The writer relies on the statement of Dr. Tregelles ('Authenticity of Daniel,' p.63), who knew De Wette well. But an interesting progress of divine truth in the mind of this German critic is discernible in the successive editions he put forth of his 'Einleitungen.'}

Let us pass through this part of our survey of the subject mindful of the incapacity indeed of our minds for the deep things of God, whose Spirit searches all. We may ponder the words of Augustine cited in the Preface to our English Bible: 'It is better to make doubt of those things that are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain.' The writer of the Preface goes on to say, 'As it is a fault of incredulity to doubt of those things that are evident, so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left questionable can be no less than presumption.' Much is there in Biblical criticism especially which helps us to realise that the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judges all things. If we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God, we are in a position to know the things that are freely given to us of God.

There is indeed little necessary to say about New Testament authority. The Greek Scriptures themselves together are a 'Gnomon,' a guide to which we shall take heed if in search of positive instruction, of the Truth. Cf. Tregelles' 'Authenticity of Daniel,' p.78, note.

The New Testament by its citations from the Old affords evidence of the highest kind for most of the Books of the Old Covenant ; that is, we meet with a consistent recognition of the Palestinian Canon. Every reader must verify this for himself.* The late Lord Hatherley** wrote, 'The whole soul of every writer of the New Testament is, in fact, imbued with the Old, and may be said in very truth to have assimilated the Old Testament as a part of itself.' The Canonical Books of the Jews to which no reference is made in the New Testament, are none the less verified as Holy Scripture alike by the Hebrew collection and by the Septuagint. We reserve such remarks as it may be well to make upon New Testament citation, concerned with the settling of the Text, for a subsequent part of our subject, but may here commend to the reader's attention the following passages of the New Testament of which the original source is doubtful Luke 11:49, 51; John 7:38; Eph. 5:14; James 4:5. We take the following from Lord Hatherley's little work (ibid. p.40.), upon the testimony borne by Christ in His quotations from the Old Testament to the truth of its records: 'Never did it occur to any of those who were with Him from the beginning of His teaching, nor afterwards to him who was chosen from amongst the pupils of Gamaliel to be Christ's chosen witness to the Gentiles, that all these varied testimonies' — to the collection of which the book from which we quote is devoted — 'of word and deed on the part of our Lord to the inspired truth and the prophetic power of the Scripture, means no more than would a citation by St. Paul to Titus of one of the Cretan poets.' 'Assuredly the two Testaments must stand or fall together; assuredly if the Old Scriptures be devoid in any part of truth, our Lord's testimony to them must (shocking as it is to say so) be untruthful; and if so, then indeed the moral world is again a chaos, and the Christian's hope a dream.'
{* As this little Book is merely auxiliary, it is needless for the writer here to collect the many-sided evidence of the Evangelists and Apostles for the Old Testament Scriptures.
**William Page, Lord Hatherley, 'Continuity of Scripture,' Pref. p.xxxvi. (4th ed.).

There seems no real ground for believing that any of the Apocrypha are quoted or used in the New Testament. The reader may consult Gough's 'New Testament Quotations collated with the Scriptures of the Old Testament' (pp.276-284). Expressions common to both may indeed occur; but that is only something which is illustrated by the history of all literature. Jude 14, 15, to which Davidson refers, treating it as a quotation from the book spoken of by Tertullian, seems to be analogous to 2 Tim. 3:8, which appears really to be an inspired confirmation of what is found in a Targum, one of the Jewish paraphrases of which something will be said at a later stage. Another possible explanation is that the passage in Jude rests upon the same footing as Acts 20:25, that is to say, was part of the revelation the Apostle had. Jude does not say 'as it is written,' or use any expression to signify he referred to a document, the early existence of which we do not however deny.

Chapter 6. The Patristic and Mediæval Canon.

§ 1. The Fathers to the time of Jerome.

We have now to watch the Jewish writings as they circulated amongst early Christians, in particular the so-called Fathers. Of the first Christians the Old Testament was of course the one written guide, until the New Testament Scriptures were disseminated and gained acceptance. As most could use the Old Testament only in Greek, they were accustomed to the books comprised in the Septuagint. Hence some of the 'Fathers' often cite the Apocrypha as though canonical. De Wette gives references to Irenaeus, second century; Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, both of whom lived into the third century; Cyprian, third century.

Origen, also of the third century, though acquainted with the Hebrew Canon, did not depart from the Alexandrian Bible. He refers to the books of the Maccabees as possessed of 'scriptural authority,' quotes Wisdom and Tobit, calls Ecclesiasticus 'the Divine Word,' and so on.

The Churches of Syria were blessed with legitimate Scripture; for the Peshito Version in its original form — that is, the first Syriac Bible — followed the Hebrew Canon.

With the Synod of Laodicea (363), we meet with a better appreciation on the part of Greek-speaking Christians of the difference between the two classes of Books. Amongst the proceedings of this Synod is a specification of the 'Canonical Books of the New and of the Old Covenant.' This extends to all the Books that compose our present Bible, with slight difference of names, but takes in Baruch (Greek), which no Protestants accept, notwithstanding that Coverdale included this book in the first edition of his English Bible. If Oehler be right, Baruch was omitted in the old Latin translation of the Laodicean Canon. Westcott, however, supports the view of some German critics, that the list of Books given was a later addition. Although this assembly seems to have been composed of Arians, its decree was ratified by a council held at Constantinople in 692. Athanasius, who was living at the time of the Synod, held similar language; Cyril of Jerusalem, his contemporary, in offering advice to catechumens (cf. Greek of Luke 1:4), recommended the reading of Canonical Books alone. The language employed by Cyril is most precise.

Although the whole of the Canonical Books were by most Easterns undisputed, doubts were felt by some as to the Book of Esther, because of the hesitation of isolated Jews, as Rabbi Samuel in the second century, in allowing it a place in the Canon. But indeed, as a recent writer of a school-book says of the New Testament, 'The very fact that some of the Books were at first regarded with doubt in the early Church, only shows what great care and caution were exercised in the matter of admitting books into the Canon' — which of course is as true of Jews as of Christians, perhaps more so, in respect of the Old Testament — 'and thus affords an additional guarantee of the genuineness of the Canon as we now receive it.'

Thirty years later the Council of Carthage did a similar good work for Western Christendom; but we do not find the practice of Latin Christians as good as their theory. Hilary in France and Ruffinus in Italy* set a good example, marred by the inconsistency of the former, but it was not followed. Hilary is only another example of the weakness of early Christian leaders, for while in his Prologue to the Book of Psalms he gives a list of inspired Books based upon the Hebrew Canon, he elsewhere treats some parts of the Apocrypha as Scripture. That he was not at all clear upon the point is shown by his supposing that Tobit and Judith made up the number twenty-four which some followed; whereas the difference of two Books was in fact made up by Ruth and Lamentations being taken separately.
{* Cf. Westcott, 'Bible in the Church,' pp.78 sqq.}

At this time we meet with the expression 'ecclesiastical books.' It was applied to those books which, though regarded as not inspired, were considered worthy of perusal: they did in fact contribute to the Church lectionaries. The ancient MSS. of the LXX, as we have said, are evidence of the practice (cf. chap. iv. § 3). To this class appear to have been consigned the books of the LXX called in the Talmud 'extraneous' (ibid. 2).

By 'apocryphal,' as far back as we have been able to trace the word, and down to the fourth century, were meant such books as had grown up since the Alexandrian Bible was completed. The reader may consult Sophocles' Lexicon of Roman and Byzantine Greek, under ἀπόκρυφος (apokruphos), where references are given to Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. We shall have to return to the discussion of its meaning when speaking of Jerome.

In the Western Church the older Greek books continued to hold their ground as though canonical. At the provincial Council of Hippo (393) amongst Canonical Books were reckoned 'five Books of Solomon, Tobit, Judith, two Books of the Maccabees'.* Augustine, who lived into the fifth century, seems never to have freed himself from the hold these writings had upon men's minds. This eminent theologian made a distinction between the 'divine' and 'canonical' writings: By 'divine,' Augustine meant the larger collection of books.**
{* We shall see that a Roman Cardinal of the highest eminence, and at a critical period, condemned the act of this Synod.
** See note in Westcott, Bible in the Church,' p.173.}

§ 2. Hieronymus, or Jerome.

Jerome, however, who died in 420, helped somewhat to clear away the confusion. He was raised up to do for Biblical criticism what Athanasius did for doctrine. Jerome called these 'ecclesiastical' books 'Apocrypha,' by which name they are known amongst Protestants. It is important, as a matter of historical criticism, to notice the passage in which he uses the word with, we think, great perspicuity, because Plumptre, in a Commentary on the Old Testament, says that Luther for the first time affixed 'to the so-called ecclesiastical books the title of Apocrypha.'* But the account given by this same scholar, usually a careful guide, in the 'Bible Educator,' was the exact truth. Jerome, in his Prologue to 2 Kings, after enumerating, according to the then still current Jewish computation, the twenty-two Books of the Hebrew Text, says, 'Quicquid extra hos est, inter Apocrypha ponendum' — Whatever there is beyond these must be placed amongst the Apocrypha. De Wette** (whom Davidson follows) supposes a misuse by Jerome of this word: the German critic, apparently thinking that ἀπόκρυφος (apokruphos) had been applied only to what was spurious. Sophocles' Lexicon s.v. will show that Epiphanius — by whom the one contemporaneous with Jerome must be meant — uses ἀπόκρυφος of these books added in the Alexandrian Bible. Cyril of Jerusalem clearly uses the word of the books we call Apocrypha, for he says, Read the divine writings, 'read nothing τῶν ἀποκρύφων (ton apokruphon)' — of the Apocrypha — and proceeds to give a list of the θειαὶ γραφαί (theiai graphai), divine writings, from which our Apocrypha are excluded. We have but to consult his exact words to see he speaks the language of authority, and does not give a mere opinion: he is a mouthpiece of 'the Church.'*** Moreover, these same books that Jerome calls 'Apocrypha' Ruffinus,**** who was another of his contemporaries, speaks of as 'ecclesiastical' in the sense in which Jerome himself speaks of them in his Preface to the Books of Solomon. Liddell and Scott's explanation of ἀπόκρυφος will thus find illustration. They say: 'sometimes spurious, forged; sometimes merely unrecognised, uncanonical.' Compare the note in Westcott's Bible in the Church,' p.46. The reader who uses his work should notice that at pp.146, 158, 175, this able writer fails to observe the rule he had formed in distinguishing between 'Apocrypha' and 'apocryphal books.'
{* Ellicott's 'Commentary on Old Testament,' General Introd. p.xxii.
**De Wette, 'Introduction,' ed. Schrader, §§ 30, 31.
*** The passage from Cyril is given in De Wette's Introduction, 8th edition, p.55.
**** In Westcott, 'Bible in the Church,' p.179.}

That Jerome himself elsewhere uses the word in the sense of unauthenticated or spurious, is nothing against the view we have taken, as Davidson thinks: it is rather proof of Jerome's having known what he was about. But this learned 'Father' fares little better at the hands of Davidson (p.200) than the Jewish historian to whom reference has been made. In his work of undoing mediaeval corruption, to which Jerome's conservative treatment of the Latin Bible lent support, Luther did but act according to the better judgment of Rome's best scholar, who had not sufficient boldness himself to follow it. Noldeke* says truly of this Father, 'With all his gifts and knowledge, he was not a man of character.'
{* 'Alttestamentliche Literatur,' p.266.}

§ 3. The Middle Ages.

The lax principles of Augustine continued through the Middle Ages to go side by side with the more rigid doctrine of Jerome. Westcott says (p.219), 'The later Greek Fathers universally exclude the Apocrypha from their lists of the books of the Bible and still constantly use them with respect in their own writings.'

Chapter 7. The Canon of the Modern Church.
§ 1. The Protestant Canon.

Luther, thanks be to God, followed by the rest of the Reformers, reverted to the Hebrew Canon, detached the writings added to the Alexandrian and Latin versions from the Hebrew Books, and applied to the former the general name of Apocrypha, which, as already explained, was derived from Jerome. But the Lutheran bodies, following the example of the great Reformer, who set a high value upon some of the Apocrypha, have not been so rigorous in their rejection of these books as have been the 'Reformed' communions. No 'Puritans' have gone further than the Presbyterians in their condemnation of the Apocrypha. In the 'Westminster Confession' (art. 111) we read as follows: The Apocrypha 'are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved or made use of than other human writings.' Dr. Payne Smith's words bring out the essential weakness of the Apocrypha: 'All in them which is distinctive is at variance with Holy Scripture, and diverges into ideas and doctrines irreconcileable with the past and barren for the future.' ('Bible Educator,' ii. p.374.) With this compare the remarks of Taylor in his Work on Ancient Books: 'Bad imitations of the style of the Scriptures — some of the Old Testament, have been attempted . . . and are such as afford the most striking illustration that can be imagined of the difference in simplicity, dignity and consistency, which one should expect to find, severally, in the genuine and the spurious.' ('Transmission,' pp.186 sq.)

But the use such books serve may not be so apparent. Taylor says: 'The preservation of these latter worthless productions to modern times, is an extraordinary fact, and it affords proof of a state of things, the knowledge of which is important in questions of literary antiquity — namely, that there were many copyists who wrote and went on writing mechanically whatever came in their way, without exercising any discrimination. Now there is more satisfaction in knowing that ancient books have come down through a blind and unthinking medium of this sort, than there would be in believing that we possess only such things as the copyists, in the exercise of an assumed censorship, deemed worthy to be handed down to posterity.'

Professor Robertson Smith (Lect. V, p.141) rates the Apocrypha at their true value, which he says is 'simply that of documents for the history of the connection of the Old and New Testament.' This scholar aptly refers to Zech. 13 for a prediction of the near approach of a time 'when prophecy should have ceased' (cf. Josephus), and to the last verse of Malachi as affording no expectation of 'a succession of prophets such as is foretold in Deuteronomy.'

Anglicans generally have followed rather in the wake of Lutherans in respect of the Apocrypha. But in England, from the days of Tyndale, there has been a clear apprehension of the true difference between the two sets of Books. What Westcott (p.266) says of the German Bible does not, happily, apply to our own. 'The Lutheran Church has no recognised definition of canonicity, and no express list of the Sacred Books. Usage alone has determined finally the subordinate position of the Apocrypha to the Old Testament.'

It may be well, however, to give the Title in the Lutheran Bible of these books: 'Apocrypha, that is, books which are not held of equal value with Holy Scripture, and nevertheless are useful and should be read.' Associated with lingering attachment to these books has sometimes been, as with Luther, a perhaps natural tendency to make light of inspired Scripture. It is a sad reflection that Rationalism has been fostered in the schools of the Reformation. 'Corruptio optimi pessima.' But the free examination to which the Hebrew Books have been subjected by German critics, from Semler to Wellhausen, has only assisted believers in cleaving fast to what in every particular has so well stood the test, that they can with the more intelligence be assured of the inspiration of Esther, Canticles and Daniel, as of that of Genesis, Joshua, or Isaiah. They read the 'Evangelical Prophet' as one undivided Book, and they value Scripture all the same, whether written by prophet, priest, or king.

§ 2. The Tridentine, or modern Roman Catholic Canon.

Until the Church of Rome went so far as dogmatically to raise the Apocrypha to the same level as the Books of the Hebrew Canon, it would seem that Jerome's views retained some hold upon the more enlightened theologians of that communion. Westcott (p.253) cites Cardinal Cajetan, Luther's opponent at Augsburg in 1518, who in his 'Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament' (1532), inscribed to Clement VII, says, 'The language of Councils and Doctors must alike be revised by the judgment of Jerome.' But with ripening opposition to the Reform movement, the Council of Trent (1546) canonized all the contents of the Vulgate as now issued, including that is, the Apocrypha, with the exception of 3 and 4 Esdras (as they are usually called), and the Prayer of Manasses.*
{* A concise account of the discussions will be found in the pages of Westcott (255-257).}

Although there are not wanting Romanist writers who distinguish between the 'First' and the 'Second' Canon, the Vatican Council of 1870 has confirmed the decree of 1546. Those that boast of having an historical Christianity, even they have to put themselves right with history! The inconsistencies of Rome are as extraordinary as her alleged miracles. At the outset of these 'dogmas' of the last Council, we meet with the astounding words, 'Pius episcopus servus servorum Dei,' of which the author of a recent Commentary on Matthew's Gospel of the Anglican School well says: The most outrageous violations of Church rule begin with the confession of its true principle.'

The third chapter of the 'Schema,' or draft decree, discussed in the second sitting, and bearing the title 'De divinae revelationis fontibus in S. Scriptura et Traditione,' was adopted on the 7th April, and being finally put to the vote on the 12th of the same month was, according to Dr. Manning ('True Story of the Vatican Council,' p.95), carried by a large majority. The following are the material words of the decree in its definition of the Canon, as given by Friedrich*: 'Iterum declaramus et definimus eosdem libros omnes cum omnibus suis partibus quemadmodum in decreto oecumenici concilii Tridentini continetur pro sacris et canonicis suscipiendos esse.' Then follow these words: 'Sacri autem et canonici credendi sunt non quod humana tantum ope scripti auctoritate tamen Ecclesiae in canonem s. s. Scripturarum relati sint . . . sed eo quod Spiritu sancto inspirante conscripti fuerunt, ideoque sunt Scripturae divinitus inspiratae quae habent Auctorem Deum,' the sense of which has been aptly given by Dr. Littledale** as follows: 'The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament' — to speak alone of them — 'are held as sacred and canonical, not because they have been approved by the Church's authority, but because having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author, and have been delivered as such to the Church itself!' This Council seeks almost to excel that of Trent in its desire to break from the past for in chapter 2, Wisdom (13:1-9) is appealed to in condemnation of Rationalism before the writings of any Prophet or Apostle. We may sorrow for Dr. Manning's*** congratulation of his Church. If the Vatican Council had met and parted without any act beyond this one decree, it would have applied a direct and searching remedy to the intellectual aberrations of the nineteenth century.'
{* Friedrich's 'Documenta ad illustr. Concil. Vat.' t.ii. p.6 (1871).
** Littledale, 'Plain Reasons against joining the Church of Rome,' p.13.
***Manning, 'True Story of the Vatican Council,' p.135.}

As far as we can ascertain, the new party called 'Old Catholics,' still adhere to the Tridentine Canon of Scripture.

§ 3. The Canon of the Greek Church.

The Greek Church seems still to follow the lax practice of the Greek Fathers. What Dr. Harold Browne says, in a well-known work, of the ancient Churches of the East, 'who with us reject the Apocrypha,' is likely to mislead. Since a synod held at Bethlehem in 1672, the Greek Church has consistently kept up the incorporation in the Bible of the Apocrypha: cf. Winer, Symbolik, i. The authorised edition of the Russian Bible contains these books, even 3 and 4 Esdras and yet it is not correct to say, with De Wette (Introd. §36), that the Greek Church (as a whole) has canonized the Apocrypha, for the Russian Longer Catechism does not recommend the reading of the old ecclesiastical books until it has distinguished clearly between them and the Hebrew Scriptures. Then it says of the former, 'They have been appointed of the Fathers to be read by proselytes who are preparing for admission into the Church.'* The Catechism grounds this statement upon Athanasius, Ep. xxxix. It will be remembered that Cyril of Jerusalem gave happier advice to such so-called proselytes. Westcott says of the unsettled state of the Canon amongst even orthodox Orientals: 'In no one of the Eastern Churches was there any fixed judgment or consistent tradition as to its contents.'
{* Blackmore, 'Doctrine of the Russian Church,' pp.38 sq.}

Chapter 8. The British and Foreign Bible Society; The Study of the Apocrypha; Rationalism and Romanism.

§ 1. The Bible Society.

Some account of the means that have been employed by our Protestant countrymen of diffusing the Scriptures may be of interest. We shall confine ourselves to one great organisation, which lies near to the heart of every enlightened British Christian, — the British and Foreign Bible Society. It was founded in 1804, to provide English Bibles and Testaments in the Authorised Version, 'without note or comment,' for circulation in the British dominions, and Bibles in other languages as opportunity should present itself.* Through this strictly Protestant Society, the Bible has been carried to every quarter of the globe. It has been translated into 240 languages and dialects. To Turkey alone, the land of so many religions, the Bible is sent in thirty languages. Daily, 5000 copies are despatched in all directions from the Bible House. The English edition can be purchased for the sum of sixpence.**
{* Mr. Spottiswoode, in his evidence before the House of Commons Committee in 1859, stated that one result of the establishment of the Society was that every one had agreed to adopt the Authorised Version. Other Bibles (as Belsham's Unitarian) had previously competed with it.
** The American Bible Society, founded in 1816, provides Bibles, chiefly imported from Great Britain, for the population of the United States, Canada, &c., and carries on a similar good work to that of the British Society.}

An interesting account of the circulation of the Bible in some Roman Catholic countries where Romanist translations drive all others out of the field, may be seen in a Report. 'The Vulgate itself is not circulated by the Society, but half a dozen versions made from it.' 'It was the reading of the Vulgate,' it is here truly said, 'which opened Luther's eyes to the truth, and brought him out of Rome. It was Wickliffe's translation of it into English, completed just five hundred years ago, which sowed the seeds of Protestantism in England.' And so Figueiredo's version is distributed in Portugal, of which the Report says, 'There is not the slightest doubt it is doing the work of the Lord, both enlightening minds and converting sinners.'*
{* Report of the Bible Society for Sept. 1881.}

Of the Vulgate as a vehicle of truth in the Middle Ages, the following remarks of Cutts seem to be correct: 'It is one of the vulgarest of vulgar errors that the Scriptures were kept in Latin in the Middle Ages to keep them from the people; on the contrary they were circulated in Latin that everybody who could read might read them.'* This would only enhance the wickedness of the policy of the modern Romish Church, in respect of the hindrances imposed upon the reading of the Bible by the laity.
{* 'The Fathers for English Readers. S. Jerome,' p, 166.}

A writer in Herzog's Encyclopaedia remarks, 'The British Society has given birth to almost all the Bible Societies in Europe and America.'

The Society has of course had many an obstacle thrown in its way. Many have been the prejudices against it. Nothing has so harassed its operations as the question of the Canon: gladly do Roman Catholics snatch at the rejection by Protestants of the Apocrypha to disparage the Bible this Society circulates. Down to the year 1822, either the Apocrypha was included in the Book issued by it for use in Roman Catholic countries, or the circulation of the same was assisted by the Society. The consciences of the Committee were roused by the Edinburgh Auxiliary to feel the evil this must work.

Since 1827 one of the Regulations has been that no part of the funds of the Society shall be applied to the dissemination of any but the canonical Scriptures; so that no colporteur employed by it carries a single copy of the Apocrypha for sale.

Amongst those Continental societies which we regret to say still circulate the rejected books, is the Protestant Bible Society of Paris.

It does not appear that the Synods of the Greek Church, in Russia at least, are hostile to the spread of Bibles which omit the Apocrypha: Russian provincial governors have assisted the distribution of the Protestant Bible. The English are apt to think harshly of the Russian people, from a political animus, which alas continues to be mutual. As would appear from what we have said of the Catechism, the ecclesiastical leaders do not withhold the Bible from the people: Bibles in the vulgar tongue may be found in the cottages of the peasantry in all parts. Thus the Greek Church, of which the subjects of the Czar are the most considerable and influential members, has been faithful to the past in a greater degree than the Roman. The earnest words of John Chrysostom (fourth century) have never lost their power: 'There can be no proof of the true faith and of Christianity, neither can there be other refuge of Christians that desire to know the truth, but the Holy Scriptures. . . . Formerly it was manifested in several ways which was the Church of Christ, but now there is no way of knowing which is the true Church of Christ save only by Scripture.' He further says, 'Heretics have in their schism all things which belong to Christ in truth,' amongst all else 'Christ Himself. How then can any one wishing to know which is the true Church of Christ in such a confusing likeness do so save only by the Scriptures?' (Homily XLIX, on Matt. 24).

§ 2. The Study of the Apocrypha.

Such an acquaintance with the Apocrypha as would probably satisfy most of our readers may be obtained from a paper in the 'Bible Educator' (iv. pp.245-249). Plumptre there draws attention to a well-worn saying, which is a text of 1 Esdras 4:41. The more learned reader might refer with advantage to Schaff's Encyclopedia, where the 'Literature' of the subject is set out.

Davidson seeks to exalt books of the Apocrypha by lowering those of the Canon, which will not surprise. The fact that Paul quotes heathen poets, but leaves these other books to their obscurity, is lost upon Davidson. He thinks to find omissions in Canonical Books which vitiate their supremacy. He says, 'The doctrine of immortality clearly expressed in the Book of Wisdom is not in Ecclesiastes, neither is God once named in the Book of Esther.' ('Canon of the Bible,' p.263.) Has this writer never learned the drift of these Books of Scripture which he thus impeaches? How would immortality fit a discourse from beginning to end upon what takes place 'under the sun'? What need can there be in the history of the Jewish princess of any mention of Elohim, Jehovah, or other Divine name? The present mysterious providence of God — without any name in the Hebrew — for the people of His inheritance, a people destined after judgment and suffering to be the executors of His government yet on earth, is the one theme. To this immortality, as such, bears no special relation. Warburton could not find the doctrine of immortality in the Pentateuch: why does not Davidson in this connection assail the Mosaic Books? People even who are rationalistic weary of the senseless attacks upon, for instance, the Fifth Book of the Law, just as they feel how equally groundless are the onslaughts upon the Fourth of the Gospel.

§ 3. Rationalism and Romanism tend to the same result.

The analogy between Romanist uncertainty and Rationalist incredulity, or the similarity of the tactics employed by the votaries of superstition on the one hand, and of negative criticism on the other, has often been pointed out, and by none better than by the late Dr. McCaul.* This learned man has said, 'The Rationalist and the Romanizer appear at first sight to be at the greatest possible distance from each other. But they have a common bond of union, and a common interest, the overthrow of the authority of the Bible — and they have a common spirit of bitter persecution, and they have a similarity of object, the establishment of their own authority. The Romanist says, Believe the Church, that is, the Priest. The Rationalist, Believe the Theologian. By neither is the laity allowed an opinion. Naturally. The only source whence the majority of laymen can form an independent and reasonable opinion on matters of religion is the Bible. The Romanist says, It is unintelligible without the Church. The Rationalist, that it cannot be understood without Theology, and adds that even if it could, it is no authority. The laity must therefore submit to authority on one side or other, or give themselves over to unbelief, or worldliness, or both. Both equally lead to spiritual bondage.' He further says: 'The Deistic writers in England were the forerunners of the Rationalists in Germany. But Rationalism is in all countries the offspring of the natural enmity of the carnal mind to God. When driven out from the darkness of superstition, unregenerate men cannot bear the presence and interposition of the Almighty. Popery interposed Christ's vicar and the Virgin Mary, and saints, and angels, and martyrs. Rationalists interpose the works of God, nature, reason, and philosophy, to escape direct communication with their Creator. The hope of the former is the subjugation of the world under Christ's representative, and therefore the advent of Christ indefinitely postponed to leave room for the Church. Of the latter, the continuance of the world for ever as it is at present. Ever new discoveries in science — ever new developments of the intellectual powers — immutability of the laws of nature — and therefore no advent at all — no resurrection — no judgment. God for ever excluded from his own world to make way for the supremacy of intellect.' Cf. Herzog's article in his Encyclopaedia on 'Bible Reading by the Laity,' &c., from which it appears that 'Semler and Lessing and other Protestant Rationalists have taken similar ground' — to the Romish — 'against allowing the laity to read the Bible' (Schaff).
{* McCaul, 'Thoughts on Rationalism,' &c. pp.62-66.}

As Dr. Manning well remarks,* ours is 'the century of unbelief.' With much that he says of Rationalism in his 'True Story' we cordially agree. But however true it may be that before the Reformation men 'believed the voice of the Church,' history is against him when he says that from the sixteenth century 'it was left for each to say what is the voice of the Bible.' He here proclaims one half of the truth; records of the past supply the other.
{* 'True Story of the Vatican Council, pp.124-135.}

Before leaving this part of the subject we venture to quote from Lord Hatherley* some further words of value in respect of rationalistic theories: 'The Bible has been continuous in its historical object, in its predictions, and in their fulfilment in Christ. The Bible has been continuous in its moral object... . It has been continuous in its spiritual object. . . . The fruits of this wondrous Book have been no less continuous, namely, a gradual advancement in morals,' &c. 'If there be one characteristic of the Bible by which it may be most briefly contrasted with every other work intended to affect the lives and conduct of men, it is this: that it is historically not argumentatively didactic. It does not tell men merely what they ought to be, and leave them there, but teaching them how and for what purpose they were created, it tells them also historically that they have hopelessly fallen from that condition; it tells them historically that they could only be restored by one standing outside their corruption yet partaking of their essence, that such an one could only be God himself; and historically also that such a Saviour has appeared,... and further historically also, that He our Redeemer, has risen from the grave, and ascended into heaven. . . . Much has been said about leaving young people to their unbiassed judgment. But if this had been intended by the Author of our being, we should not have been ushered into the world as infants, but as full-grown men or women. Authority must and ever will form every human mind. Well is it for us if that authority be divine. Well is it for us that we can listen to the living Word, Whose words are spirit and life.'
{* 'Continuity of Scripture,' p.136-7.}

Chapter 9. The Study of the Hebrew Language.

Attention may next be bestowed upon the language in which for critical purposes the Old Testament has to be studied; upon the manuscripts and the editions in which it has come down to us, together with the traditional accompaniments to the Text which we owe to the vigilance, whether always well directed or not, of learned men among the Jews.

§ 1. History of the Language.

The history of the Hebrew language may be studied in Renan's 'Histoire,' pp.105-178. We may repeat that, looking at the remains we possess of the Phoenician, the language of the Old Testament writings appears to have been that of the peoples of Canaan. It closely resembles the Punic inscriptions of a people that traced their origin to Tyre and Sidon, the Inscriptions of Siloam and Sinai, and the language of the 'Moabite Stone.' Information as to these antiquities must be sought elsewhere. Cf. Euting's Table of Semitic characters in Bickell's Hebrew Grammar. That the Phoenician alphabet was a modification of the Egyptian hieroglyphics seems highly probable: see Rougé's 'Mémoire' (1874). We meet with it under the name of 'Jewish' in 2 Kings 18:26, Neh. 3:23. Arabic is the leading type of the languages to which the Hebrew is related. The Aramaic dialects, including Syriac, belong to the same group.

As written from the earliest Christian times, what is called the 'Assyrian' or 'square' character is employed for it. This must have been used as early as the days of our Lord's ministry, as it is only in the 'square' character that the letter Yod (jot) is so small (cf. Matt. 5:18).* The Maccabean coins seem to prove that one character was used in literature, another in every-day life.
{* Cf. Fürst, 'Canon,' p.118.}

The characteristics of the Hebrew of different Books can alone be learned from close study of the original. Scholars of rationalistic tendencies have attempted to assign dates to some Books according to the kind of Hebrew in which they are written: this is always a precarious test. The fact that some Books of the Old Testament contain even many Aramaisms, is no proof of their late composition; because the writer may have been accustomed (as Jonah, for instance, in Galilee) to provincialism, or may himself have been one speaking the language of the lower orders. Every country or nation presents examples of such variation. It is recognised by Ewald (Lehrbuch, § 2), who refers to Amos. Isaiah and Micah were contemporaries, but the individuality of their style is easily seen. Dialects also must be taken into account. We have mention of one, the Ephraimitic, at an early period (Judges 12:6). But probably the importance of dialects in the history of the language was not great, from the narrow geographical limits of Palestine.* For discrimination of this kind direct acquaintance with the Hebrew must be obtained.
{* Cf. some observations in the 'Bible Witness,' iii, p.439.}

§ 2. Direct Study of Hebrew.

Here we would urge upon every earnest student of Scripture the importance of possessing some, perhaps only elementary, knowledge of the 'sacred language.' Let not any be deterred by the difficulties attending self-tuition; all should be encouraged by the case of no less a man than Erasmus, who, as regards Greek, speaks of himself as αὐτοδίδακτος (autodidaktos), self-taught. His contemporary, the great Reformer, with the 'little knowledge of Hebrew' of which he somewhere speaks, set about translating the Old Testament into his mother-tongue for national use. Many are the inaccuracies in detail of Luther's version; but no one who examines it from beginning to end can fail to be impressed with the happy way in which he caught the genius of the Hebrew.* He never acquired a profound knowledge of the language; his energies were called forth in controversy rather than in study. We know what Erasmus did for the New Testament, for which a knowledge of Greek is necessary if one would properly understand certain passages. We may compare in the Greek Testament Acts 9:7, and 22:9. To the English reader there seems to be a discrepancy: as he cannot turn to the Greek, he must depend upon a Commentary. A glance at the original removes all doubt; but any translation fails sufficiently to bring out the fact that the two passages only say the same thing in different ways. In the first the genitive or partitive case of 'voice' is employed; in the second we have the accusative. In ch. 9 Paul's companions are represented as hearing the voice only in a measure; in chap. 22 the meaning is, they might as well not have heard it at all, because they did not understand it, did not catch what was said. Bengel's comment as usual is good. 'They saw therefore a light (cf. 26:13 sq.) but not Jesus himself; they heard a mere voice, not a voice with the words,' and we are referred to John 12:29 for a parallel case.** A knowledge of the Greek would render reference to a commentary unnecessary, to say nothing of new translations, where disappointment would await the reader. With respect to the Old Testament, it does not take many verses of Genesis for the reader to find out that 'a little knowledge of Hebrew' is desirable. How much depends upon one's knowledge of the emphatic word in a sentence of Scripture! It is a common mistake to take 'me' in Isa. 6:8 as the word upon which to lay stress, but, if anything, 'send' is the word to fix upon: cf. Rom. 10:15. 'Me' in this verse of Isaiah is only a 'verbal suffix.'
{* The writer can fully endorse this remark, made in an academical address by Mr. R. B. Girdlestone.
** For the above example, taken from the Acts, the writer is indebted to Mr. Girdlestone.}

Again, the order of words is of importance: an idiomatic translation fails often to preserve this.

The beauties that are alone within the cognizance of the student of Hebrew it would take volumes to particularise.

  (α) Grammars.

A knowledge of Biblical Hebrew may by an English student be sufficiently well acquired in Tregelles' 'Heads of Hebrew Grammar,' and Ewald's 'Introductory Grammar' (3rd English edition, 1870), with some general reference to Gesenius' smaller Grammar (now in its 23rd edition) for the Accidence, or Forms. In the Syntax, Driver's 'Hebrew Tenses' (by a member of the Old Testament Revision company) would be found specially helpful; as for these there have been no rules quite satisfactory, and yet the subject demands particular study. The old doctrine of 'Vav conversive' some refuse altogether; others, as Ewald, accept it in a modified sense, calling it 'Vav consecutive': cf. G. V. Wigram, 'Memorials,' vol. ii. pp.103-107, 163-167, with Ewald, pp.163-168, 229-231, or Driver, pp.86-88. 'Perfect and Imperfect' will perhaps be found more convenient designations for these so-called Tenses than 'Perfect' and 'Future,' because what used to be called by all the Future has to combine both Present and Future.

For practice in the forms, an Oxford Professor recommends A. B. Davidson's 'Introductory Grammar'; a leading Cambridge scholar bestows his preference on Mason's Exercise Book. But we think many of our readers would derive most satisfaction from the use of the following Book: 'Hebrew Grammar, with Exercises selected from the Bible, by Ada S. Ballin and F. L. Ballin' (1881). This guide to Hebrew is both scientific and practical. The examples are accompanied by references to the Hebrew Bible, according to the numbering of the verses there. The Misses Ballin call the two tenses by, we think, their right names, which cannot be said of some more pretentious writers. These authoresses also give both the Portuguese (received) Jewish, and the German Jewish pronunciation of words.

Bickell's 'Outlines of Hebrew Grammar' by Curtiss, already referred to, contains some useful sections on Punctuation and the Accents, contributed by Delitzsch.

To the above grammars of Hebrew should be added one of Biblical Chaldee: Bagster's 'Chaldee Reading Lessons' are useful, as also the Paradigms in Baer's edition of the 'Texts of Ezra and Daniel.'

  (β) Lexicons.

For the vocabulary of Biblical Hebrew and Chaldee the best Lexicon in English is Tregelles' edition of Gesenius; those acquainted with German should use Gesenius' 'Handworterbuch,' 8th edition by Muhlau and Volck (1878). Gesenius' 'Thesaurus' (in Latin) is a κτῆμα ἐς ἀεί (ktema es aei). As to pronunciation, we may rest content with the Masoretic, which, to use Ewald's words, is 'in general the finest and most correct' (p.39, English edition). The Spanish and Portuguese Jews are supposed to have preserved this best.* The Hellenistic is regarded by Gesenius as a 'dialectic difference.'
{* Their pronunciation agrees with that of Oriental Jews.}

  (γ) Concordances.

In connection with the Vocabulary comes the Concordance. 'The Englishman's Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament,' edited by the late G. V. Wigram, would supply the student with much that he needs; but B. Davidson's 'Concordance' (Bagster) is another most useful work to a learner of Hebrew; and for synonyms, the consideration of which determines the comparative power of words, Wilson's 'English, Hebrew, and Chaldee Concordance' is another primary help to the study of Biblical Hebrew. It contains in an appendix a list of so-called paronomasias, examples of a rhetorical figure in which Hebrew is rich. Dr. Wilson was justified in his belief that his work 'is the nearest approach to a complete Concordance of every word in the original that has yet been made.' He also says in his Preface: 'The knowledge of the Hebrew language is not absolutely necessary to the profitable use of this work; and it is believed that many devout and accurate students of the Bible, entirely unacquainted with it, will derive great advantage from frequent reference to these pages. . . . The present undertaking has been pursued under the growing conviction of the plenary inspiration of the language of the sacred Scriptures. There may be some who speak with contempt of the letter of the Old Testament; but those who have examined it most closely will not fail to discover rays of light, which will, in "the glory of the days of Jesus," burst forth with a refulgence which will disclose to us yet hidden treasures in the Scriptures. . . . At a time when the authority and character of the Sacred Record is sadly assailed on various grounds; when devout attention is denounced as Bibliolatry, and other standards of opinion referred to, it is a paramount duty in all that cleave to the Word of God, to "search the Scriptures" more intelligently. And it is believed that a more reverent attention to the Old Testament would be the means of reviving a more spiritual apprehension of many great and overwhelming truths, in the present day too much lost sight of.' The student may well trust himself to such a guide.

Chapter 10. Of the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament.

The Hebrew Text has of course been inherited by us from the ancient Jews. The Text which has long been the common working-book of students is that of Van der Hooght (1703), revised by Hahn, Theile, and others. No one seems yet to have dealt with the criticism of the Old Testament Text in the same masterly way as has been done for the New Testament by Griesbach, Lachmann, and their followers. It is wise not to depart from the 'Masoretic Text:' so thought even the free critic De Wette. Some compensation for the want of a standard critical Text is to be found in the carefully edited Texts of Baer, already alluded to, brought out under the auspices of Professor Delitzsch. They are furnished with useful critical notes, and ample use has been made both of MSS. and Editions. The following are all that have as yet appeared: Genesis, Ezra and Nehemiah (with Daniel), Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, and the Minor Prophets.

It will be well in this place to say a little of the Editions, that is, the printed copies of the Hebrew Bible, of course in the main founded upon Manuscripts, of which we have yet to speak. Until the vast stride made in printing, the Bible necessarily was available only in a written form. Nothing belonging to ways and means contributed more to the spiritual enlightenment of modern times than the development of the art by which, of all books, copies of The Book can be multiplied and issued in a form and at a price to suit the wants or means of all classes of readers.* As it will be convenient to the student to have the materials with one or other of which he should work at the Hebrew described in a continuous list, we shall next shortly speak of the chief critical editions of the Old Testament.
{* An instructive pamphlet on this subject has been written by Mr. E. Pickard Hall, of the Clarendon Press, the title of which is 'Printing: its Parentage, Progress, and Practice.'}

The first complete printed Hebrew Bible was that published at Soncino in 1488. But the strictly critical editions begin with:—

The Complutensian Polyglott (1517) brought out under the auspices of Cardinal Ximenes at Alcala in Spain. It contains the Hebrew with the LXX and Latin in parallel columns. For its characteristic readings see Delitzsch's 'Complutensische Varianten.'

Bomberg's Rabbinical Bible of 1526 was edited by Jacob ben Chajjim. This is the Hebrew Text settled by the Masora — or Massorah, the body of Jewish traditional textual criticism — rather than by MSS. It has however been the staple of later editions. It contains Rabbinical commentaries opposite to the original Text, and what is called 'the Great Masora,' besides some variant readings.

Buxtorf's Rabbinical Bible (1618) is useful for the Targums, and for the commentaries of the Rabbins. It, like Bomberg's Bible, contains the Masora and lists of readings. The editor was the most learned Christian Hebraist of his day.

Walton's Polyglott (1657) contains the Hebrew, and amongst other versions, the Greek, Latin, Samaritan, and Syriac, with the Targum, in parallel columns, and lists of variations to which we shall have to refer again. Walton says he has followed the Texts of the Complutensian and the Paris Polyglott (1645).

Norzi's edition (1745) represents a revision of the Text by one whom De Rossi, the chief Christian textual critic, has called 'that greatest of Jewish critics.'

Kennicott 1776-1780: the opus magnum of the well-known pioneer of Old Testament textual criticism.

What is known as Mendelssohn's Bible, now just half-a-century old, is the chief Jewish revision of the Text. It is the best edition of the whole Hebrew Bible that a scholar can at present possess.

A useful book for the Hebrew, LXX, and Vulgate combined, is Stier and Theile's Polyglott but the Text there employed for the LXX is not a good one: in using the book recourse should still be had to a critical Text of that Version.

The beautifully printed 'Biblia Sacra Polyglotta' of Bagster contains the Hebrew Text, with the Greek and Latin, and also the common English, German, French (Ostervald), Italian and Spanish versions, side by side, and the Samaritan Pentateuch in Hebrew characters at the end of the first volume. We shall notice modern versions in a later chapter.

Chapter 11. The Old Testament Manuscript Bible; The Masora.

We must not further delay speaking of the history of the Text in the hands of scribes. Old Testament criticism was yet in its infancy when the Sopherim, or scribes, put forth their activity, down to about the sixth century after Christ. This was what has been called the age of the Talmud. The critical work of these scribes is of little account.

The consonants alone represent the Hebrew Text. Relics of the past, such as Inscriptions, Stones and Coins, have only consonants. As late as Jerome's day the Text was still unpointed. The Talmud, closed in the fifth or sixth century, never alludes to vowel-points: it gives instances of the different ways in which words were vocalised. In the appendices to Baer's editions will be found lists of ancient readings, which relate only to the consonants, and are called respectively 'Oriental' (or Babylonian) and 'Western' (or Palestinian) readings. On the other hand, in Walton's Polyglott, besides the Rabbinical Bibles and Baer's editions, we meet with lists associated respectively with the names of Ben Naphtali (Babylonian) and Ben Asher (Palestinian), which relate to the vowels and accents, and are said to belong to the eleventh century (A.C.)

The vowels had in the meantime been added by the Masorites, or authors of the Masora, who were Jewish critics between the sixth and tenth centuries. After the close of the Talmud, their work began in the Jewish Academies, as at Tiberias. Aben Esra says, 'We have received the whole punctuation from them:' see Bacher's 'Abraham Ibn Esra als Grammatiker' (1880), p.37 note. Another system of vocalisation appears to have obtained in the Babylonian schools, exhibited in the ancient MS. of which a facsimile was published by Strack in 1875. It is called the 'Codex of St. Petersburg.'

The Masorites then, amongst other things, laboured honestly to fix the pronunciation of the Text when Hebrew was becoming a dead language. This appears to have been their earliest and their best work. They must also have invented the elaborate system of accents which, besides being phonetic symbols, provide an analysis of the sentence, showing what words go together. The interpreter is rash who departs from them without very good reason. Amongst the minative with which the Masorites occupied themselves was the counting of words and letters; the attention of the reader is directed to the middle word of a book, and so on. They took note of every 'jot and tittle.' The points must have been intended as the permanent expression of the traditional pronunciation. Notwithstanding that they have been subject to much controversy from the days of Buxtorf (seventeenth century), all scholars agree in following them in the main. Thrupp says, 'Nothing can be more remote from the truth than that we are at liberty to supply vowels to the text at our own unfettered discretion'; and De Wette, 'On the whole, the Masoretic text is a much better witness for punctuation than the often ignorant versions and hasty critics.'* The accents stand upon the same footing.
{* Thrupp, art. in 'Smith's Bible Dictionary.' De Wette, 'Introduction.'}

We must now consider the history and condition of the Text represented by the MSS. The existing MSS. are based upon a strictly Jewish arrangement of the Text belonging to Christian times. Upon this 'Recension' — if the expression be correct have we to depend; so that there is no such variety of MS. evidence for any Hebrew readings of Old Testament texts as may be obtained for Greek readings in the New Testament writings. This doubtless damps the ardour of critics, which finds vent in an often too free use of versions: this is all that they have to fall back upon. The Text must for the most part have acquired a fixed form before the birth of Christ, as Aquila and the other Greek translators, of whom we shall have more to say, depart from it less than do the LXX. Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel, the Targumists, or Chaldee Paraphrasts, also follow it very closely. The essential agreement of the Hebrew MSS. of the Old Testament is beyond comparison greater than that of Greek MSS. of the New. The former do on the whole give the same Text, that is, the Text which underlies the Masora: it is in the truest sense substance of tradition (cf. chap. 10). The Jews have so far been faithful to their trust. We may contrast with it the corrupt state of Mahommedan texts of which Arabic scholars complain. A proof of the general accuracy of the Hebrew Text we possess is afforded by the variation that exists between parallel passages, in which the temptation to alter would be strong: cf. Pss. 14 and 53; Ps. 18 and 2 Sam. 22. The state of the Greek Text of the New Testament in this respect stands on a much lower level.

The Sopherim followed rules for copying the Text prescribed by the Talmud. They appear to have been most scrupulous in retaining what doubtless they felt were errors of transcription made in earlier days. Of such errors the following are the chief:

1. Where the sight of the copyist deceived him.

(a) He would sometimes confound similar letters:
  נ and כ that is b and k.
  ד and ר that is d and r.
  ו and י that is v and j (y).
  ט and ש that is t and s (or sh).

Or he would transpose a letter: in Ezra 2:46 we have Samlai, but in Neh. 7:48 Salmai.

(b) Whole words: cf. 2 Sam. 6:2 with 1 Chron. 18:16.

(c) Sentences: cf. 1 Chron. 16:30-32 and Ps. 96:9-11. Letters, words, or whole sentences were left out: cf. 1 Chron. 9:5 and Nehem. 11:5 Gen. 36:11-12 and 1 Chron. 1:36; Joshua 21:23 and 1 Chron. 6:53-54; and especially from what is called omoioteleuton, or a similar ending of two sentences, as in 2 Sam. 23:9-11, compared with 1 Chron. 11:13.

2. The copyist's hearing might be defective; when his eye was off the exemplar he would sometimes change letters into others of like sound. Take 1 Sam. 22:18, comparing the textual with the marginal reading. To the two classes of readings they represent we shall devote a special section. In 1 Sam. 17:34 for זה several MSS. have שה. The confusion between לא and לו falls under this head.

3. His memory might fail, as with אדני put for יהוה or vice versâ. According to Baer, on Ps. 30:9, there are 134 passages in which the Masorites would substitute אדני for יהוה. Again, a parallel passage might come into the mind to mislead. As we have said, this last finds but little illustration.

4. Sometimes an abbreviation was misunderstood, as, י֥֜  which might mean either 'Jehovah,' or 'my.' Jer. 6:11 is a passage to which most manuals of criticism refer for an illustration of this: compare the Hebrew and the LXX. Again, a marginal note was occasionally incorporated in the Text.

As to spelling, we cannot do better than repeat a remark made by Dr. Payne Smith: 'Fixity of spelling is a modern idea, the result of printed books.' Two forms of a name may occur in one verse: see 2 Chron. 23:5, and cf. 2 Kings 8:21, 11:2, 12:2; Jer. 28:12 (Heb.) This of course connects itself with what has been said as to the transposition of letters. The unusual size or shape of letters sometimes in the Text is an indication doubtless of various readings, and so with Gen. 23:2, of which the Jews have as usual a puerile explanation.*
{* The writer is indebted to Mr. Girdlestone for this last remark.}

Very little has been fixed on the Jews (and that not quite certainly) of intentional corruption of the Text. 'The servile minuteness,' to use the words of the late Isaac Taylor ('Transmission,' pp.176-8), of the Jewish copyists in transcribing the Hebrew Scriptures' and 'unexampled exactness afford security enough for the safe transmission of the text; and if there were any grounds for the suspicion that the Rabbis, to weaken the evidence adduced against them by the Christians, wilfully corrupted some particular passages, we have other securities, as we shall see, against the consequences of such an attempt' (p.178). The following passage from Taylor is as interesting as it is important: 'The Hebrew nation has almost throughout the entire period of its history, been divided both by local separation, and by schism. Probably the Israelites of India, and certainly the Samaritans, have been the keepers of the books of Moses, apart from the Jews, during a period that reaches beyond the date of authentic profane history. Throughout times somewhat less remote the Jews have not only been separated by distance, but divided by at least one complete schism — that on the subject of the Rabbinical traditions, which has distinguished the sect of the Karaites from the mass of the nation.' Again: 'As to the Jewish Scriptures . . . . evidence reaching far beyond the mere proof of antiquity and genuineness is ample and precise enough to establish the integrity of nearly the entire text of the books in question. These writings were not simply succeeded by a literature of a similar cast, but they actually created a vast body of literature altogether devoted to their elucidation; and this elucidation took every imaginable form of occasional comment upon single passages — of argument upon certain topics, requiring numerous scattered quotations and of complete annotation, in which nearly the whole of the original author is repeated. From the Rabbinical paraphrases, and from the Works of the Christian writers of the first seven centuries, the whole text of the Scriptures might have been recovered, if the original had since perished.' (p.182).

It will at this stage be convenient to speak of the two sets of readings by which a reader of the Hebrew Bible is confronted at the outset of his studies. They are technically called Chetivs or textual, and Keris or marginal readings. As transmitted to us side by side, they are further evidence for the scrupulous dealing of the Jews with the Text. As to the respective vocalisation of the Chetiv and Keri, see Gesenius' smaller Grammar, § 17.

The Keris are due to the Masorites. The materials they employed in their work would seem to have been traditional, but they evidently compared MSS., and used their own discrimination to a large extent. Citations from the Talmud seem to be usually according to the Keri. For this reason perhaps it is that Kennicott puts a high value on the Keris. The learned Dr. John Lightfoot believed they represented the readings of copies going back to the time of the Captivity (see his English Works, 1684).* Modern critics, however, generally follow De Rossi's views as to the marginal readings. Gesenius amongst the Germans, speaks of the 'false critical judgment' by which easier and more euphonious readings were preferred to harsh and archaic forms, in violation of the rule, proclivi scriptioni proestat ardua. The present writer believes Dr. Payne Smith right in saying (Comm. on Jeremiah) that whenever the Chetiv gives a fair sense, it is to be preferred; and that 'there was a tendency with scribes to substitute the Keri, not merely because it was regarded as an authoritative correction, but as being suggested by the memory, the Keri being always read in the synagogue.'
{* Mr. Darby says (Synopsis, ii. 490, 'The Keri is generally, I believe, the best authority when there are variations in the Hebrew,' but in his own Translations he has in fact inclined to the Chetiv.}

The Masora may be studied under the guidance of Ginsburg, who is the chief recent authority in England. Buxtorf's 'Tiberias' is an older (1620), but not yet quite antiquated, work. Steinschneider, a Jewish scholar, speaks of it as 'the most thorough book by a Christian upon the Masora.'

To speak next of the copies in particular.

Like the Jews themselves, the MSS. are scattered far and wide: some, being the Synagogue rolls, are in the custody of Jewish congregations of all lands; others, being private copies, in our great British libraries. The Jews regard the Spanish copies as of most value; De Rossi and his followers prefer the Italian and German. However this may be, De Rossi seems right in regarding those MSS. of greatest excellence which are ancient (see his 16th canon), and doubtless it is satisfactory when they agree with the ancient versions (56th canon).

According to Schrader there would be no MS. older than that preserved at St. Petersburg, and called 'Codex Petropolitanus,' of the tenth century; but there seems no reason to doubt that the MS. preserved in the Synagogue at Aleppo, which the Jews of that place allege is Ben Asher's own copy,* ranks first for antiquity.** It has not yet been collated. Strack is our chief authority upon this manuscript. As to the ancient MSS. of which, as far as is with certainty known, we still possess only a record, see Kennicott, 'Dissertatio Generalis,' §§ 54, 55, or Horne's Introduction. Vicissitudes from Divine judgment or from persecution would account for the loss of the autographs of Old Testament and New Testament writings. Church history tells the story of the dire destruction of the Christian Books. The oldest MSS. of the Old and of the New Testament alike are copies. The reader may consult Westcott for the ordeal through which the Christian Books passed in early days. — De Rossi, although he considered his No. 634 to be of the eighth century, says that Hebrew MSS. of the twelfth century are 'very ancient:' this will afford an indication of the recent character of existing copies.
{* One of the celebrated ancient codices mentioned in Horne's Introduction.
** The writer has taken the opinion of M. Neubauer, of the Bodleian Library, upon this point.}

In lieu of Kennicott's large edition, the handy Hebrew Bible of Döderlein and Meissner (1793) might be used with advantage, because it is furnished with variant readings taken from both Kennicott and De Rossi, who together collated about 1500 MSS. and more than 400 printed documents. Kennicott's opinions can be learned from his 'Dissertation,' De Rossi's from the Prolegomena to his 'Varia lectiones Vet. Test.' (1784– 88). The most recent writer on the subject of the Text and of MSS. is Strack.*
{* 'Prolegomena critica in Vetus Test. Hebr.' 1873.}

The Text of the Pentateuch is divided according to subject-matter into so-called Parashahs, or sections; some major, others minor; they are in MSS. and Editions alike respectively denoted by the letters and at the beginning. In the Prophets and Hagiographa there is a similar division, called Haphtarahs. Both of these divisions are referred to in the 'Mishna.' Where triple letters occur, it is to denote the combination of these sections with the paragraphs used for the Sabbath 'lessons.'

Our present division of chapters is of Christian origin, but the Jews have accepted it. It goes back to the thirteenth century, and has been variously attributed to Hugh de St. Cher — author of a Concordance to the Vulgate — and to Stephen Langton. Bomberg's Bible of 1526 was the first edition in which it was adopted. It will be seen that no kind of authority attaches to the chapter-division, which sometimes displays a most unhappy lack of discrimination. Dr. Payne Smith, speaking of Genesis 2 says, 'In the divisions of our Bible into chapters, with a carelessness only equalled by that perversity which has formed the ninth chapter of Isaiah out of the end and the beginning of two incongruous prophecies, the seventh day's rest is separated from the account of the six working days, and thus the very purpose of the narrative is concealed.' (Ellicott's 'Commentary,' Introduction to Genesis.)

Of less importance is the division into verses. In the prose Books they are marked by the Pesukim, of which also the Mishna speaks. Not only do the ancient Versions, however, differ as to them, but the Talmud, it seems, never speaks of any sign being employed for verse-divisions; hence it is probable that the Soph Pasuk (:) is of later growth; though it is earlier than the punctuation and accents, because found in unpointed MSS. In poetical Books and passages we find special divisions by verses, which appear in the oldest MSS.

Of the English Bibles which appeared in the sixteenth century, the Genevan was the first to contain verse-divisions. The Bishops' Bible' followed it in this respect, as did our present 'Authorised Version,' which dates from the beginning of the next century: the verse-numbers there follow those of the Vulgate, not the Hebrew. We shall in a subsequent chapter describe English Bibles.

Chapter 12. Of the Ancient Versions; New Testament Citation; Later Jewish Opinion.

In determining to some extent the Text, but more especially the meaning of the Hebrew, very considerable and most important help may be derived from the ancient Versions. As regards the use to which they may be applied in settling the Text, we may begin with a quotation from Westcott: 'The problem of the true relation of the Masoretic text, represented in all known Hebrew MSS. with the exception of isolated readings, to the text represented by the Samaritan Pentateuch, and by the older versions (Greek and Syriac) has not yet been solved.' So much is this felt that some critics decline to render any homage whatever to the Versions for textual purposes. With Westcott's statement agrees a remark made by the late Mr. Darby to the writer: 'No one, either Jew or Christian, understands the matter.' The same student of Scripture writes: 'The ancient versions have so far more authority in the Old Testament that no Hebrew MS. is so old by many centuries as the oldest of the New.'* Cf. Payne Smith on Gen. 4:8. The bad state, however, of the Texts — of the LXX and Vulgate especially — mar their usefulness so that, as Westcott says, the Text of the Versions would often need to be first settled. With well edited Versions, De Rossi's Fifty-sixth Canon is reliable and useful: where the extant MSS. disagree, the Versions primarily determine which should be followed. But, again, the former absence of a printed Hebrew Text, added to frequent interpolation, weakens the authority of these Versions, except so far as they combine — while really independent of each other — to support a particular reading.
{* J. N. Darby, Dialogue (p.26) on Williams' Essay upon Bunsen's Biblical Researches.}

De Rossi may well be followed in his opinion that a reading which no existing MS. supports must be considered as at least doubtful (Canon 69). Carpzov before him had with prudence laid down that where there is a general agreement of MSS. we must not yield to the temptation of following any adverse Translation. This may, however, be modified by the evidence of Jerome, of whom Thrupp goes so far as to say that 'a reading received by him, and sanctioned or countenanced by the Targum, is preferable to the united testimony of all MSS. whatever.'

It will be convenient to begin our notice of the Versions by taking first those which are, it is believed, of strictly Jewish origin.

§ 1. Of the Septuagint.

The history of the Translation conventionally called the Septuagint (Ἑβδομήκοντα hebdomekonta, Septuaginta), which is so important because of the use made of it in the New Testament, is not quite clear from doubts, and must be sought elsewhere, as in the Prolegomena to Tischendorf's edition. The way in which Plumptre* supposes it was put together seems highly probable. It is generally regarded as having been made for the use of the Hellenistic Jews settled in Egypt: an intimate knowledge is displayed of that country. There seems little doubt from the latest researches, that whatever be the origin of the title by which it is known, the whole or the greater part of the translation was already in existence in the second century B.C.: some have placed it still earlier. There was thus time for the use of it to have become common amongst Greek-speaking Jews of Palestine. Plumptre (referring to Walton's 'Prolegomena') writes: 'The authority of the version was never acknowledged by the Jews of Palestine. To them this translation of the sacred book into the language of the heathen seemed an act of sacrilege, a sin as great as the worship of the golden calf. They appointed a day of fasting and humiliation to be held annually for this profanation, as they did for the destruction and desecration of the Temple.'** Though the authority of the Septuagint might be impugned by Palestinian Jews, nevertheless it seems to have been largely used even by such as Josephus***: Noldeke says that in course of time it was by some Jews regarded as inspired.
{* 'Bible Educator,' iv. p.319.
**Ellicott's 'Old Testament Commentary,' General Introd. p.xviii.
*** Cf. an article by Siegfried in the first number for the present year of Stade's 'Zeitschrift für die A. T. Wissenschaft.'}

It seems reasonable to suppose, with Westcott, that as used by Palestinian Jews, it would undergo revision from the Hebrew.

Of the translators Hävernick well says, 'They did not scrupulously follow the original text.'* This should be considered in connection with the study of New Testament citations. 'They failed from want of skill, and from intentional alterations or emendations. Thus it has a varied hue according to the different persons engaged upon the translation. The variations may be referable to the use of corrupted codices,** but the love of novelty among the Alexandrians lies at the root of these divergences, which cannot be charged upon the conservatism of Palestinian Jews.'*** The reader may here further listen to Professor Robertson Smith: 'When the Septuagint was composed, the Hebrew language was either dead or dying, and the mother-tongue of the translators was either Greek or Aramaic.' (Smith, Lect. IV. p.87.)
{* Hävernick, 'Introduction' (Alexander's Translation).
** Cf. Fürst, p.141.
*** Fürst considers that the seven chapters added in Esther were in fact in the original Hebrew, but only as a sort of Midrash (Scholia); the same of the additions in Daniel: see 'Canon,' p.140.}

That the translation was made, not from the old or Samaritan, but from the square character, would appear from the frequent confusion of Vav and Yod; whereas the corresponding Samaritan Ba and Yud are dissimilar from each other.* The best part of the Septuagint, as might be expected, is the Pentateuch. Jerome says that these Books agree with the Hebrew more than do the others. They are very literal, although there are said to be about 2000 places different from the Hebrew Text. Next to the Pentateuch in point of excellence comes the Book of Proverbs; this too is natural from Greek proclivities. Jeremiah is perhaps best done of the Prophets: his connection with Egypt would account for this. As to the Text used by the translators, Mr. Smith puts this accurately enough in saying, 'the Hebrew, without omitting anything in the Greek, has a number of additional clauses and sentences' (Lect. IV. p.113.) Amos and Ezekiel are also well done; Isaiah is bad; Daniel so much that it has rarely been used. Cf. Pusey on Daniel, pp.378 sqq. A peculiarity of Esther is the introduction into the Greek of 'God' and 'Lord' for which the Hebrew original of this Book has no equivalent.
{* The writer derived this hint from Mr. Girdlestone.}

The oldest of the MSS. of the LXX go back to the fourth or fifth century, being the 'Sinaitic,' 'Vatican' and 'Alexandrian,' familiar to New Testament students; hence they are older than any Hebrew MSS., nevertheless are, as we have said, all Christian documents. The Sinaitic in the Old Testament is fragmentary; amongst its contents are the whole of Nehemiah and Esther, and most of Jeremiah.

The Text of the Complutensian Polyglott comes nearest to the Hebrew.

By 'the LXX' De Rossi ordinarily refers to the Vatican Codex, which it is thought represents the original version. What is called the 'Alexandrian' Text misleads so far, as indeed often it contains readings drawn from the 'Hexapla' of Origen.

Tischendorf's sixth edition (1880) is at present the best printed Text of the LXX, but that by Holmes and Parsons is a storehouse of various readings. Lagarde has made a start with a standard critical edition, and the Syndics of the Cambridge Press have undertaken a similar work.

In the use of the LXX, Trommius' Concordance would be of great service. Upon the link formed by the LXX between the vocabulary of the Old and that of the New Testament we must not here dwell.

§ 2. New Testament Citation.

We may here take the question of New Testament Citation, and transcribe some remarks of Mr. Darby. He says: 'When the Septuagint gives the sense, they (the New Testament writers) use it.'* In other words, the inspired Christian writers follow the LXX when it sufficiently suits their purpose; not that they attach greater accuracy to this version than to a literal translation of the Hebrew passage: it would be a mistake to assume that we may read the LXX into the Hebrew. Mr. Darby further says: 'Half their quotations are faithfully rendered from the Hebrew, and if there are passages which differ from the present Hebrew text, the researches of the learned have proved that they are borne out by the testimony of the oldest translations. In many instances they give the meaning without confining themselves to the exact words.'
{* 'Inspiration of the Scriptures,' p.38.}

A thorough knowledge of the exact relation between the New Testament Text,* the LXX, and the Hebrew, may be obtained from Gough's 'New Testament Quotations' already referred to, by the help of whose lists the student can work from the hints above quoted from Mr. Darby, who also contributed to Gough's book. The New Testament citations from the Old are fully set out and classified in Horne's 'Introduction'; but at the end of Gough's work will be found some useful notes. We shall only notice a few typical passages, confining ourselves to Matthew's Gospel.
{* For reference to the Greek Text of the New Testament the reader should provide himself with Gebhardt's collation (1880 of the Texts of Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort.}

Matt. 2:6; cf. Micah 5:2. The Evangelist gives the sense rather than the exact words of either the Hebrew or the Septuagint. In this instance the literal rendering of the Hebrew does in fact agree with the LXX.

Matt. 4:15, 16, is another instance in which Matthew gives neither the Hebrew nor the LXX exactly cf. Isa. 9:12.

Matt. 8:17; cf. Isa. 53:4. Matthew follows the Hebrew. The LXX wrongly anticipates in verse 4 what is taught in verses 5, 6, 10, 12. The Lord bore the infirmities and carried the sorrows of His people, before Jehovah laid their iniquity upon Him.

Matt. 9:13 and 12:7. In either passage the citation is from Hosea 6:6, but in the one the use made of it is different from that in the other.

Matt. 13:14, 15; see Isa. 6:9 and cf. parallels, Mark 4:12, Luke 8:10. The first Evangelist follows the LXX; the second and third incline rather to the Hebrew.

Matt. 21:16; cf. Ps. 8:2. The Lord quotes from the LXX. This is one of several instances in which the Saviour did not quote the Hebrew, and disposes of a remark we think made somewhere by Jerome that He always did follow the original Text. 'Praise' here is instead of 'strength' (Heb.).*
{* The writer has in these instances availed himself of some comments by Mr. Sadler on this Gospel.}

In the Epistle to the Hebrews — a good Book wherewith to test any theory — if we look at Horne's list, we find the quotations are about equally divided between the Hebrew and the LXX. It should be noted that such important passages as 2:13 and 10:5-7 are from the LXX of Isa. 8:18 and Ps. 40:6-8 respectively.

The occasional amplification from the New Testament of passages in the LXX must not be neglected; cf. Ps. 14 in the Vatican Text with Rom. 3 and the Hebrew, where we have plain evidence of Christians having tampered with the Greek Text of the Old Testament.

Special attention should be given in this connection to what are called the 'Messianic passages' of the Old Testament; for instance, to Ps. 22:16 and Zech. 11:12. Hengstenberg's 'Christology of the Old Testament' and 'The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah according to Jewish Interpretation with Introduction by Pusey' (1877) would be helpful in this study. It ranges itself rather under interpretation.

This leads us to a subject which has received less attention from the learned world than it deserves. The reader has probably often asked himself, What language did the Lord and the Apostles use? It is a question not easily answered. Scholars have for the most part assumed that Aramaic was the language that underlies the discourses of the Lord in the Gospels; and of the Apostles in the Book of the Acts; but some have held that Greek was the usual language they employed. Of the first view Professor Sanday may be taken as a recent representative; Professor Roberts is an exponent of the other. The only solution of the difficulty is to suppose the Lord and his immediate followers were bilingual, speaking both Aramaic and Greek; employing the one language in the midst of the less cultivated portion of the community, the other ofttimes in parts of the country such as 'Galilee of the nations,' or in intercourse with Hellenist Jews even in Jerusalem. There is a modern analogy familiar to English people acquainted with Wales or the Channel Islands, where a host of the upper grade addressing his guest will use the English tongue, and afterwards may turn to address his servant in the vernacular of the lower orders. Who could suppose that in Luke 2 the angels addressed the shepherds in any language but Aramaic? It is as little likely such could speak Greek as English peasants in olden time would speak Norman-French. That Greek was not in the time of our Lord the usual language of the common people in Syria (at least), would lie in the fact of the need being early felt amongst the Christians of an Aramaic translation of the New Testament as much as the Old. The translation then made we possess substantially in the Peshito version. It is a fact that the Lord spoke from heaven to Saul of Tarsus in 'the Hebrew dialect' (Acts 26:14) which Paul himself used, as well as Greek, according to the circumstances in which he was placed, or according to his object: cf. Acts 21:37, 40. Greek — like modern French in diplomacy — was the medium of communication between at least the upper classes of the Jews and their rulers. On the other hand, when Peter conversed in the hall of judgment, he must have used Aramaic, because of the reference to his provincial accent.

This subject has a bearing as well on New Testament citation from the Old as on New Testament textual criticism. To speak only of the latter, it would seem as if in Luke 2:14 the question of the choice between ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία and ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας. (anthropois eudokia and anthropois eudokias) should be governed to some extent by the comparative suitability of these readings to the native idiom.*
{* Here again the writer is under obligations to Mr. Girdlestone.}

Further hints as to citation will be found scattered throughout Mr. Darby's writings.

§ 3. Other Greek Versions.

The three following Greek versions, like the LXX, are all believed to be of Jewish origin. The authors would seem to have been Jewish Proselytes.

Aquila's version, of the second century A.C., is of great critical value because it is extremely literal. When the Jews gave up using the LXX, they accepted Aquila's translation instead. Hence you will find Lightfoot (seventeenth century) saying that the Talmud quotes Aquila's alone of the Greek versions.

Theodotion's version, posterior to Aquila's, was a fresh revision of the LXX, following the Hebrew still more closely. Origen made considerable use of it for his Hexapla (i.e. Book in six columns) when supplying such words to the Greek Bible from the Hebrew as the LXX had failed to represent. The translation of Daniel by Theodotion Christians have used in lieu of the LXX, as far back as Jerome's time. See the Prolegomena, pp.xlvii sqq. of Tischendorf, in whose edition the LXX of Daniel follows the Books of the Maccabees.

Symmachus' translation is more free than the versions of which we have already spoken. The author evidently aimed at clearness and elegance.

The readings of these three Greek translators may be found in Field's edition of the Hexapla (1867-74).

§ 4. The Targums.

Confining ourselves still to Jewish sources, we have to notice the Targums or Chaldee Paraphrases of the several Books of the Old Testament. These are early witnesses for Jewish interpretations; and some are in Babylonian, others in Palestinian Aramaic. That of the Pentateuch ascribed to Onkelos is of considerable value. The Targum ascribed to Jonathan ben Uzziel of the historical Books is also useful; his paraphrase of the Prophets is less exact. These Targums were in existence at or shortly after the birth of Christ. The first employment of such helps to the elucidation of the original Text has been placed in Ezra's time (Neh. 8:7, 8). Lagarde's are the best critical editions. Etheridge has translated Onkelos, and what is called the Jerusalem Targum of the Pentateuch; the one affording an example of the Babylonian, the other of the Palestinian dialect. There are several of less note upon other Books, which are often curious for their interpretations, but afford little help in determining the Text. Walton's Polyglott may be consulted, and the grammar of the Targums may be studied in Winer's Manual, translated from the second edition* by Riggs, to which the Reading Book by the same German scholar, edited by Fürst, but of which there is no English edition, is a good companion. The Targum of Jonah, which affords a good example of the language of the Targums generally, is printed in Wright's Book of Jonah, parallel with Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions of the same Book, and is furnished with a glossary. The best Lexicon to the Targums is by Levy.
{* A third edition of the German has recently appeared under the care of Bernard Fischer.}

Some books of the Apocrypha, as Tobit, have also come down to us in Chaldee versions.

§ 5. The Rabbins.

This brings us to post-biblical Jewish authority.

The great repository of Jewish opinion is the Talmud, to which we have already referred. It is a very complex congeries of ceremonial ordinances, moral tales, poetry, philosophy, grounded upon tradition. It forms the text-book of the Rabbinical Jews, and is divided into two parts, the Mishna (repetition, cf. Deuteronomy) or Text, written in a corrupted form of Hebrew, belonging to the second or third century A.C., and the Gemara (completion) or Commentary, written in Aramaic of a developed type, which is referred to the fourth and fifth centuries. The Jews commonly mean by 'Talmud' the Commentary alone, for this is in most esteem: an illustration of the strange but common fact that Commentaries in time override the authority of the Text they profess merely to explain. We may compare amongst the Hindoos the Mitakshara superseding the Institutes of Manu, in Islam the Hedaya being looked to rather than the Koran. So powerfully did the study of the Mishna operate upon the relations between Jews and Christians, that the Emperor Justinian thought fit to issue an edict (Novel 146) in which he enjoined the Jews to use the Scriptures in Greek or other languages, the better to understand them, and to discontinue their employment of the Mishna δευτέρωσις (deuterosis), which he described as 'an invention of men speaking from the earth alone and possessed of nothing divine.' This was in the year 553.

The Jewish Commentary again divides into the Palestinian, dating from the fourth, and the Babylonian, dating, if Deutsch were right, from the fifth century, representing the traditions respectively most in favour among the Jews of Palestine and of Babylonia.

Extracts from the Talmud have been translated into English by De Sola and Raphall, by Barclay and by Hershon;* but these, while giving a good idea of the style and spirit of the whole, little, if at all, assist an investigation of the Text of the Old Testament as such.
{* There is also a French translation by Schwab of the Jerusalem Talmud.}

A bonâ fide quotation, however, in the Talmud is regarded as equal to a manuscript of the century to which the quotation may be shown to belong. It should be remembered that the Talmud generally follows the Keri. A good collection of its readings may be seen in Davidson's Digest.

The Rabbinical commentators such as Rashi (eleventh century), Maimonides (eleventh century), Ibn Ezra and Kimchi (thirteenth century), and Abarbanel (fifteenth century), generally follow the common Text. Ibn Ezra's and Kimchi's annotations are of most value: the influence of Kimchi's may be seen in our Authorised Version. They are in Rabbinical Bibles, as Buxtorf's, at the side of or underlying the text. Samples of such comments, with a vocabulary, may be found in Winer's 'Talmudic and Rabbinic Chrestomathy' and Bernard's 'Selections from Maimonides,' containing a Digest of Rabbinical phrases and abbreviations, is a most useful book. The language of the Mishna and Gemara has been shortly described by Renan, 'Histoire' (pp.157-61). There is no good English book upon the grammar of either, but there is one in German for the Mishna, by Geiger; and Samuel David Luzzatto, Professor at the Rabbinical Institute of Padua, wrote in Italian a Grammar of the Babylonian Gemara (1865), of which there has appeared a German edition by Kruger.

The best Lexicon for the Talmud and Rabbinic is Buxtorf's, edited by Fischer. Ibn Ezra on Isaiah has been translated by Friedlander, Kimchi on Zechariah by McCaul; whilst the commentaries of the latter on the Psalms and on Isaiah are available in Latin. The 'Yalkut' on Zechariah, being a collection of Rabbinical 'Hints' for interpretation, has been translated by King (1882). This last contains interesting appendices, 'A' being on 'Messiah ben Joseph' (see Gen. 49:22-26), and 'B' on 'The Jerusalem of the World to come' (cf. Ezek. 41), with elucidation of Eph. 2:14, 20-22.

Christian authorities cannot always be relied upon for the vocalisation of unpointed Hebrew, such as the Rabbinical regularly is. Instances of mistake made by the celebrated Buxtorf have been pointed out to the present writer by a Jewish instructor. The Lexicon under Jewish editorship (1869-1874) will be found more correct.

§ 6. Arabic Versions.

The Sahidic and Erpenian Arabic versions are also Jewish works. That of the Pentateuch by Rabbi Saadiah (tenth century) is useful. The Erpenian, so called from a Dutch scholar who brought it to light, which dates from the thirteenth century, is the more literal.

A sufficient knowledge of the grammar of Arabic for the purposes of Biblical study can be obtained from Bagster's Reading Lessons. Lane's Lexicon, the fruit of life-long labour, is the one key to the whole vocabulary of the language, which is unusually rich, that scholars of any nationality possess; but Gesenius' Hebrew Dictionaries give also the corresponding Arabic words, from which the great lexicographer often determines the root, and accordingly the meaning of the Hebrew. Walton can be referred to for Arabic versions, which, as other versions in his Polyglott, are there accompanied by a Latin translation.

§ 7. Modern Jewish opinion.

Of modern Jewish versions into English there is one well known, the work of Benisch; in German a good one edited by the learned Zunz, in which Daniel and Ezra are the work of Fürst, and Chronicles that of Zunz himself; and we have besides the translation of the Pentateuch by Mendelssohn, a Jewish sage of the last century, to be found in his Collected Writings.

Before we leave these Jewish helps, it may be interesting to the reader, unacquainted with the fact, to know of the turn that has been given to Jewish thought by the 'Reform' Movement. The Reformed Jews have from about the year 1840 thrown off bondage to the 'mediaeval synagogue,' as they say* — practically also to the Talmud — and have reshaped the principles of the Karaites of earlier days, taking their stand upon Scripture rather than tradition. We believe that our Lord has already imparted some life into the dry bones of 'Lo-Ammi'; that out of this break from Rabbinism will issue the fruit of the Spirit's work 'at the end of days.' The published discourses of the ecclesiastical chief of the movement betoken the spirit that is at work. May the Lord direct it to its full fruition, preserve these sons of Israel from the pitfalls of rationalism, teach them yet more of Himself, and confirm them for the hour of trial that is yet to be.
{* Cf. Prof. Marks's Memoir of Sir F. H. Goldsmid, p.51.}

§ 8. The Samaritan Pentateuch.

Of the Samaritan Pentateuch age and author are alike unknown. It is written in a Semitic dialect, and continues to be the sacred book of the remnant of this ancient people, settled at Nablus, the ancient Shechem or Sychar, described by Stanley as 'the most beautiful spot in Central Palestine.'* The reader may here recall the interesting verses in chap. 5 of Ecclesiasticus (25, 26 of Authorised Version; in Vulgate and Douay 27, 28), where mention is made of this people, 'no nation,' which the writer hated, the 'foolish people that dwell in Sichem.' The author of 'Sinai and Palestine' says: 'In the humble synagogue at the foot of the mountain (Gerizim) the Samaritans still worship — the oldest and smallest sect in the world' (p.240), and refers to the 'sacred spots where they alone of all the Jewish race yearly celebrate the Paschal sacrifice' (p.241). Dr. T. Robinson says of their ancient copy of the Pentateuch, that 'it is kept with great care, being only brought out on the day of Atonement. In some parts it appeared scarcely legible, and was mended at the bottom with a new piece of parchment. The priest, or as he is called, the high priest, declared it to have been written by Abishua, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron.'** Gesenius, who is our principal authority upon the subject, considers it to belong to the first Christian century.
{* Stanley, 'Sinai and Palestine,' pp.233-4 (ed. 1881).
**Robinson's 'Wanderings in Scripture Lands,' 1870, pp.253 sq.}

Of the Text that underlies this ancient copy of the Torah, it is enough to suppose that the copyists, like the 'LXX,' made use of MSS. with additional glosses and notes which they embodied as seemed convenient in the text formed by them. Where the Samaritan and Hebrew agree, it is strong testimony that the reading is authentic. The same remark would apply to the LXX. It is in the agreement of either with the Hebrew that the Samaritan and LXX have such critical value as they may possess, and then (as Thrupp says of the LXX) their evidence is of real worth as compared with later authority.

The Samaritan is included in Walton's Polyglott, transcribed from the Paris Polyglott of 1645 in which it had first appeared, but its variant readings may be seen in Davidson, or in Bagster. In Gen. 2:2, it goes with the LXX, Syriac, &c., in reading 'sixth'; in which we have an illustration of the tendency to adopt easier and apparently less offensive readings, and so in Gen. 2:18, again with the LXX and even Aquila, it has, 'Let us make,' apparently to agree with 1:26. But Jehovah Elohim is the speaker in chap. 2.

The English reader would find ample information as to the Samaritan in the Introduction by J. W. Nutt to his recent edition of a Samaritan Targum, and, if he wish to acquire exact knowledge of the language, should use Petermann's 'Short Grammar, Chrestomathy and Glossary' in the series entitled 'Porta linguarum Orientalium,' a real boon to Biblical students. This Professor had begun a critical edition of the Samaritan, but lived only long enough to bring out the Text of Genesis; that of Exodus has appeared since his death.

Chapter 13. Of Christian Versions.

It remains to speak of Versions of Christian origin.

§ 1. The Syriac.

The ancient Syriac was one of the languages akin to Hebrew, and is the more interesting because it would seem to have come very near to the dialect employed by our Lord and the Apostles, 'the Hebrew dialect' or Palestinian Aramaic, which very possibly was, as Professor Roberts amongst others thinks, a mixture of Chaldee and Syriac; some accordingly call it 'Syro-Chaldaic.'

The Peshito Version of the second century is that of principal value. When independent of the LXX, as being literal, it is useful. It is one of the parallel versions in Walton. The Syriac may be studied by the help of Bagster's 'Reading Lessons'; and if any reader advance so far in the language as to require a lexicon, he will find the Thesaurus of Dr. Payne Smith the best book to use. But we would refer to what has been said under 'Arabic.'

§ 2. The Latin.

Of the Latin versions, that called Old Latin by Pope Gregory (styled the Great), follows the LXX (Vat.), and hence it is, as ancient, very useful in restoring the more ancient reading of that version. It appears to have been called 'Itala,' from a reading of Augustine's 'Christian Doctrine,' ii. 2, 15: In ipsis autem interpretationibus Itala ceteris praeferatur,' where 'usitata' is now read by some. The version was in fact no more in the usual Italian than in the African Latin. The late Dr. Wiseman's theory of an African origin for this version probably goes too far.* We possess only fragments of the 'Itala.' For most material, see the Benedictine edition by Sabatier (1749). The Old Latin has held its ground in ecclesiastical use in Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the books of the Maccabees. It was called 'Vulgata' by Jerome.
{* Cf. Hammond's 'Textual Criticism applicable to the New Testament,' pp.49 sq.}

The Latin version made from the Hebrew by Jerome (fourth century) gradually supplanted the Old Latin in ecclesiastical use. It is of value just as he is a witness for the Hebrew Text of his own day. He did a similar work for the Latin to Origen's for the Greek, but himself was the more learned. The Codex Amiatinus (sixth century) is the oldest copy we have of his version. Heyse and Tischendorf have used it for their edition of the Latin Bible (1873).* Jerome's version of the Psalms never came into public use: it may be seen in the edition of the Psalter by Tischendorf, Baer and Delitzsch (1874). Much interesting information upon Jerome's work as a translator will be found in Cutts's book before cited.
{* Tregelles has printed the New Test, of Cod Amiat. in his critical Greek edition.}

The Vulgate is Jerome's version, called by this name from the days of Gregory (the Great), 200 years after its author. Cutts well says ('Jerome,' p.168): 'The Latin Bible which passed gradually into use under the name of Jerome was a strangely composite work. The Books of the Old Testament, with one exception (the Psalter), were certainly taken from his version from the Hebrew but this had not only been variously corrupted, but was in many particulars, especially in the Pentateuch, at variance with his later judgment.' It has been altered from time to time down to the end of the sixteenth century, when the Clementine Vulgate, which is the 'authorised' edition, first appeared. It is to this edition De Rossi refers when speaking of the Vulgate in the body of his book. — The Concordance of Dutripon would be of service in the use of the Vulgate.

The 'authorised' edition contains the Tridentine Canon, Jerome's Prefaces, Index of proper names and their meanings, &c.

After the Book of Nehemiah come Tobit and Judith, then Esther, &c.; after the Canticles, Wisdom, followed by Ecclesiasticus; next Isaiah; Baruch follows Lamentations; and after Malachi come the books of the Maccabees; finally, at the end of the New Testament, the Prayer of Manasseh, with 2 and 3 Esdras, as a supplement, reference being made to their exclusion from the Tridentine Canon. — The Preface to the Clementine edition was written by the celebrated Bellarmine.

It will be best in this place to speak of the Douay Version, in use amongst our Roman Catholic countrymen. The Douay Old Testament was taken from the Vulgate and has very much, from the time of its first publication, served as an accompaniment to the Rhemes (or Rheims) Version of the New Testament. A modern representative of the two combined is the following book: 'The Holy Bible, translated from the Latin Vulgate; diligently compared with the Hebrew, Greek, and other Editions, in divers Languages. The Old Testament, first published by the English College at Douay, A.D. 1609 and the New Testament, first published by the English College at Rheims, A.D. 1582, with annotations, &c. The whole revised and diligently compared with the Latin Vulgate.' The 'Approbation' of the authorities, dated 4th May, 1857, comes on the second page. This work is published in Dublin and London (Duffy). As will have appeared earlier in these pages, the notes of the original editions are toned down. There is much one is thankful to see in this book; several renderings in the Old Testament of which the student can avail himself; much besides to deplore.

14. Of English Versions to the End of the Sixteenth Century.

§ 1. Wycliffe's.

To speak of English translations based upon the Vulgate, we need but further refer to that by John Wycliffe, first printed in the present reign (1850), the work of one who, in the opinion of a learned Professor of Modern History,* has done more than any other Englishman to shape the England of the present day.
{* Montagu Burrows, 'Lectures on Wycliffe,' passim.}

Of English translations by Protestants, to which principally reference is made on the title-page of the common English Bible, it is well to know something of the following: —

§ 2. Tyndale's.

William Tyndale's Translation of the Pentateuch and Book of Jonah (circ. 1530). The influence of this celebrated Protestant martyr has been chiefly felt in the New Testament. But his vocabulary seems also to have largely entered into the texture of Matthew's Bible, the first of the so-called Authorised Versions. Froude* says of Tyndale's Bible, 'It is substantially the Bible with which we are all familiar,' which is certainly true of the New Testament. Besides the Pentateuch and the Book of Jonah, which he issued separately, Tyndale translated what were called 'Epistles,' being selections from the Old Testament, which are appended to his translation of the New Testament. He had little to work with besides the Vulgate and Luther's translation of the Pentateuch, the latter of which appeared in 1523. It is generally agreed that he must have translated from the Hebrew Text. Tyndale was burned in 1536. He is said at the stake to have exclaimed, 'The Lord open the king of England's eyes:' his prayer seems to have been answered the next year by Henry's licence being given to the publication of Matthew's Bible.
{* Froude's Hist. of England, iii. p.84.}

§ 3. Coverdale's,

Miles Coverdale's Bible, 1535. The translator did not profess to follow the Hebrew in this his first Bible.

Each of the following Bibles was based more or less upon its English predecessors.

§ 4. Matthew's.

Matthew's Bible, 1537, 1539. This version, to which reference has just been made, is generally attributed to John Rogers, an associate of Tyndale; the Bible, it is said, having been published under a pseudonym. Rogers suffered martyrdom in 1555. As already intimated, the Bible he seems to have edited was the first Authorised Version. The way in which it was taken up by the king may be learned from Westcott's pages. Dr. Charles P. Krauth* graphically remarks: 'It received the approval of that same royal authority which had helped to hunt its chief author to the death.' The same writer further says: 'The king saw to it that the Bible was circulated, and then piously burned men to death for believing it in any respect wherein it did not agree with the king's views. It was rather in spite of the dubious aid given by Henry, than in consequence of it, that God's Word was widely circulated and read.' Westcott** says: 'It is the foundation of the text of our present Bible.' From Matthew's Bible — itself a combination of the labours of Tyndale and Coverdale — all later versions have been successively formed.'
{* 'Biblical Revision,' by Members of the American Revision Committee, pp.13, 15.
** Westcott, 'English Bible,' p.73.}

Amongst the characteristics of Matthew's Bible are the division of the Psalms into five books, after the Hebrew, and the translation of Hallelujah by 'Praise the Everlasting,' in which we may discern the influence of Olivetan's French version (1535). The Pentateuch is substantially Tyndale's; the Prophets, Coverdale's.

§ 5. The Great Bible.

The Great Bible, Crumwell's, first appeared in 1539-1541. Coverdale was chiefly concerned in this translation, which is nearer to the Hebrew than his earlier work. He had the hearty support of Crumwell and of Cranmer. This Bible may be called the second Authorised Version.

Moulton says of it,* 'Whilst much use was made of the Vulgate and of the Complutensian Polyglott, Minster's Latin Version was the authority to which Coverdale chiefly deferred.' Münster's version had appeared in 1534-5. Of the edition of the Great Bible brought out in 1540, Moulton, referring to Isa. 52, remarks: 'We gladly welcome such renderings as "the chastisement of our peace" in the place of "the pain of our punishment" (1539), and "the Lord hath heaped together upon him the iniquity of us all" is a more adequate representation of the prophet's meaning than "through him the Lord hath pardoned all our sins."' This Bible was associated with the name of Cranmer from the year 1540; so that what is sometimes called Cranmer's Bible is only one or other of the later editions of 'Crumwell's Bible.'
{* Moulton on English Bible, in 'Bible Educator.'}

§ 6. The Genevan Bible.

The Genevan Bible was begun in Queen Mary's reign by refugees at Geneva, amongst whom was Whittingham, brother-in-law of Calvin, and was first published in its complete form in the year 1560. It abounds with marginal notes, often caustic, and breathing a Calvinism which proved most offensive to King James I. It adhered more closely than the previous English Bibles to the original form of Hebrew proper names, as Habel for Abel. It was the first English Bible in which we find italics used for words supplied that have no equivalent in the Hebrew.

Since the early editions of the 'Great Bible' were published, there had appeared a Latin version of the Hebrew Bible by Leo Juda (1543), of which doubtless the Genevan translators availed themselves in addition to other earlier helps. Though 'Geneva' appears to follow the Great Bible rather than any other previous English version, an examination of Psalm 90 would show more than eighty departures from that Bible. Of these divergences Moulton says: 'In two out of every three the change is an improvement, and more than fifty of the changes hold their ground in the Authorised Version.' The same writer correctly says, 'The Authorised Version has been very largely influenced by the Genevan Bible, which in that part of the Old Testament not translated by Tyndale was the most thorough and satisfactory of all the early versions.' That it was the Bible of the people is evidenced by the fact that during the reign of Queen Elizabeth no less than seventy editions appeared 'in all sizes from folio to 48mo.'

§ 7. The Bishops' Bible.

The Bishops' Bible 1568, 1572, was the third of such 'Authorised' Versions but it seems never to have endeared itself to the people. Like the Genevan, it gives proper names in a more Hebraic dress than other Bibles. It has in Gen. 4 Habel in text, but Abel in the summary of contents.

Of this Bible Moulton says 'In the Old Testament, Cranmer's Bible was closely followed . . . . What is original in this Version does not often possess any great merit, nor does it appear that the revision of 1572 produced much effect in the Old Testament.'

As late as the time of the Bishops' Bible, the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah were respectively called the 1st and 2nd Books of Esdras. The Song of Solomon is headed, 'The Ballet of Ballettes of Solomon.'

Chapter 15. of the Modern English Bible.

§ 1. The Authorised Version.

The Royal, or present so-called Authorised Version, 1611, was the fruit of a suggestion made to King James I. by Dr. John Reynolds in the Hampton Court Conference of 1604: the king accepted it without hesitation. The story is well told by Thomas Fuller. ('Church History of Britain' (1656).)

'Dr. Reyn.: May your Majesty be pleased that the Bible be new translated, such as are extant not answering the originall, &c.

'B. of Lond. [Bancroft]. If every man's humour might be followed, there would be no end of translating.

'His Majesty. I professe I could never yet see a Bible well translated in English, but I think that of all, that of Geneva is the worst. I wish some special pains were taken for a uniform translation, which should be done by the best learned in both Universities, then reviewed by the Bishops, presented to the Privy Council, lastly ratified by Royall authority, to be read in the whole Church, and no other.

'Bp. of Lond. But it is fit that no marginall notes should be added thereunto.

'His Majesty. That Caveat is well put in, for in the Geneva Translation, some notes are partiall, untrue, seditious, and favouring of traitorous conceits. As when from Exodus 1:19 disobedience to Kings is allowed in a marginall note,' &c.

The King shortly afterwards appointed the translators; but the work was not begun until the year 1607.*
{* The expenses attending it appear to have been borne by the King's Printer, Barker: see Report from the Select Committee of the House of Commons, 1859-60, evidence of Messrs. Childs and Thomson.}

One company, ten in number, sitting at Westminster under the presidency of the excellent Lancelot Andrewes, took the Pentateuch and Books from Joshua to 2 Kings. The ripe Arabic scholarship of Bedwell was secured for this portion of the work.

Another company, eight or nine in all, were appointed to work at Cambridge under the superintendence of Edward Lively, the Regius Professor of Hebrew in that University, who died soon after the plan of the work was formulated. These translators took the remaining historical Books and the Hagiographa.

A third company met at Oxford under the lead of Dr. Harding, Regius Professor of Hebrew. The honoured name of Reynolds, who was President of Corpus College, appears second on the list, but his services were lost to the company by his death in 1607;* that of Miles Smith (to whom we shall refer again) stands fifth; four others made up this company, whose work was from Isaiah to Malachi.
{* We are here reminded of the death of Dr. Alford in 1871, who lived long enough to see the initiation of a similar work which he had much at heart.}

The Apocrypha engaged the labours of seven scholars at Cambridge. The first name on the list is that of Dr. Duport, Master of Jesus College.

Amongst the rules recommended by the King for observance by the translators were the following (Fuller, ibid.): —

'1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the originall will permit.

'2. The names of the Prophets and the Holy Writers with the other names in the text, to be retained as neer as may be, accordingly as they are vulgarly used.

'6. No marginall notes at all to be affixed but only for the explanation of the Hebrew . . . which cannot without some circumlocution, so fitly and briefly be expressed in the text.

'14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible, viz. Tindals, Matthews, Coverdals, Whitchurch, Geneva.'

Amongst other helps, the translators seem to have made large use of Tremellius' Latin version (1579).

Besides a Dedication to the King,* the Bible was accompanied by a Preface addressed to the reader, the writer of which is said by Fuller to have been Dr. Miles Smith.
{* This appears to be left out in Bibles peculiar to the United States. 'One effect of this,' says Dr. Caswall, 'is that the American nation in general is hardly aware that the Bible is a translation at all.' (Evidence before the House of Commons' Committee, 1859.)}

Under the year 1611, Fuller writes: 'And now after long expectation and great desire came forth the new Translation of the Bible . . . wheresoever the Bible shall be preached or read in the whole world, there shall also this that they have done be told in memorial of them.' We may almost say of this Bible, as Macaulay of a book that reflects much of its spirit, that it 'stole silently into the world.' The translators or one of them did speak out in an exquisite 'Preface to the Reader,'* but no names were added. The title of the Bible was, 'The Holy Bible, containing the Old Testament and the New: Newly translated out of the originall Tongues, and with the former Translations diligently compared and Revised.' It is necessary to consult the Preface to see what is meant by these words. There we read: 'Truly we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new Translation nor yet to make of a bad one a good one; but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one principal good one.' That is to say, our present English Version was itself a Revision.
{* Available in Macintosh's Reprint.}

Our translators have been often censured for having introduced needless diversity of renderings, so that the version has appeared to some more a work of art than a vehicle of truth. But the reader should weigh well what the translators say as to this in their preface, and we believe he will take sides with them. 'We have not tyed ourselves to an uniformitie of phrasing or to an identitie of words. . . If the word signified the same thing in both places . . . we were especially carefull, and made a conscience, according to our duetie . . . but that we should expresse the same notion in the same particular word . . . we thought to savour more of curiositie than wisedome, and that rather it would breed scorn in the Atheist, then bring profite to the godly reader. Adde hereunto that nicenesse in words was always counted the next step to trifling, and so was to bee curious about names too: also that we cannot follow a better patterne for elocution than God himselfe: therefore hee using divers words, in his holy writ, and indifferently for one thing in nature: we, if wee will not be superstitious, may use the same libertie in our English Versions out of Hebrew and Greeke for that copie or store that he hath given us.' It is just those who use the modern Concordance that can testify to the conscientious work of these translators; there are very many passages that would be spoiled by uniformity, as there are others that are marred by diversity, of rendering. It is in parallel passages that this difficulty is most felt.

The late Mr. Darby, in his English Translation of the New Testament, sometimes went further in the direction of diversity than even King James's translators: the reader may consult his renderings of Matt. 3:1-10, Luke 3:1-9, Mark 1:1-6, comparing the Greek Text which respectively underlies them and the Authorised Version throughout. In the Old Testament, passages of the 'Law' naturally demand uniformity as a rule: yet even here 'taste,' as Mr. Darby would have said, sometimes rebels against it. May we not say our translators used a wise discrimination in their respective renderings of the same Hebrew word (שמר) in Ex. 23:13 'be circumspect,' ver. 21 'beware' — which two passages have one context — and in Deut. 4:9 'take heed'? It is difficult to improve upon these renderings. It is a mistake to suppose that one English word can be carried through the same Book or even passage: sometimes it would be ambiguous in one connection, though not in another; at other times it would be obscure, if it did not mislead'. We may suppose an English book speaking upon one page of a bull let loose in the streets of Rome, and upon the next page of the Pope having issued a bull. In the one case clearly the word would be used in its natural, in the other in its technical sense; but an English reader would experience no difficulty. In a translation, however, of such book for a Jewish reader, into Biblical Hebrew, we should have to make use of different words. The same process has often to be adopted in translating from the Hebrew of the Old Testament. In the New Testament may be taken as an example of the same thing, the uses of ἐκβάλλω (ekballo) in Matt. 9:25, 33, 38, where the Revisers have wisely adhered to the old respective renderings in each verse.
{* Cf. Scrivener, Paragraph Bible,' Introduction, p.65.}

There were two issues in 1611: cf. Scrivener's Bible, Appendix B. The book preserved at the Clarendon Press in Oxford represents one issue, that kept by the Syndics of the Cambridge Press represents the other. Scrivener and Fry, who have both studied the matter very thoroughly, disagree as to which was the first issue, which indeed is of little importance. The only available book for an ordinary student is the Oxford Reprint of 1833. As originally printed the Authorised Version was in 'black letter,' and for the present italics was then used the Roman type. There are, as far as is known, only eight perfect copies of 1611 in existence. They are preserved in, or are in the possession of,
  The Clarendon Press.
  The Bodleian Library (the Catalogue says, 'first issue').
  New College, Oxford.
  Wadham College, Oxford.
  Cambridge University Library.
  The British Museum.
  The Bible Society.
  Sion College.*
A corrected edition was published in 1613. The readings that had been displaced and those then substituted may be seen in the List of 'Various Readings' prefixed to the Oxford Reprint of 1611 (1833). The edition of 1613 was thenceforth followed by the printers, more or less, for 150 years.
{* The writer is partly indebted for this, as for some other information, to Mr. Timberlake of the Clarendon Press.}

The translators may be said to have done their work remarkably well, when we consider how few helps these excellent men possessed. But Scrivener is fully justified in saying* there is 'great inequality in the execution of the several parts of the version.' The part from Isaiah to Malachi is undoubtedly the best done. There was no Lexicon upon which they could depend but that of the elder Buxtorf, which, according to Steinschneider, appeared in 1607. The Hebrew Concordance, by the same scholar and his son, though preceded by that of Rabbi Isaac Nathan (1524), upon which it was founded, dates only from 1632. The Vulgate the translators could only have possessed in its later form; the Peshito Syriac had not yet been published. In spite of all this, the Old Testament of the Authorised Version is a monument of careful and sober learning.
{* Scrivener, Paragraph Bible,' Introd. p.lxiii.}

As to the English of this version, we may refer to Hallam's critique.* He says: 'In consequence of the principle of adherence to the original versions which had been kept up ever since the time of Henry VIII. it is not the language of James I. It abounds, especially in the Old Testament, with obsolete phraseology and with single words long since abandoned, or retained only in provincial use.' These remarks, however just, in no way affect the intrinsic excellence of the version, to which all classes of readers alike must look. The language is indeed not that of our own day; but in this respect the present Old Testament Revisers would doubtless have to break a lance with the great literary critic, as their colleagues of the New Testament company already have done with Mr. Washington Moon.
{* Hallam, Literature of Europe,' vol. ii. p.366 (3rd ed.).}

For the vocabulary of the Authorised Version, Eastwood and Wright's 'Bible Word-Book' would be found useful.

To the many commendations (collected in Manuals) that have been passed upon the Authorised Version by the very best judges, even amongst Roman Catholics, the American Dr. Krauth,* writing from Pennsylvania, adds one clothed in all the vigour of our mother-tongue. He speaks of 'that remarkable version, which in its aggregations stands almost unique as a miracle of providence and history, the symbol of England itself'; of its having 'so interwoven the very idioms characteristic of the sacred tongue, that Hebraisms and Hellenisms need no comment to the English mind, but come as parts of its simplest, its noblest, its deepest thought and emotion,' and of its having 'made a new translation, as against something old and fading, impossible, for it is itself new, more fresh, more vital, more youthful than anything which has sought to supplant it. We need, and may have, a revision of it. Itself a revision of revisions, its own wonderful growth reveals the secret of the approach to perfection. But by very virtue of its grandly closing one era of struggle it opened another, for in human efforts all great endings are but great beginnings. A revision we may have, but a substitute, not now, — it may be never. The accidents of our Authorised Version are open to change, but its substantial part is beyond it, until the English takes its place among the tongues that shall cease. The New Revision will need little new English. Its best work will be to reduce the Old English of the Old Version to more perfect consistency with the text and with itself. That Version is now, and unchanged in essence will be perhaps to the end of time, the mightiest bond — intellectual, social, and religious — of that vast body of nations which girdles the earth, and spreads far toward the poles, the nations to whom the English is the language of their hearts . . . so long as Christianity remains to them the light out of God, the English Bible will be cherished by millions as the dearest conservator of true faith, the greatest power of holy life in the world.'
{* 'Biblical Revision,' pp.17, 22, 24.}

Is our reader acquainted with the interesting eulogy of the Protestant Bible from the pen of 'Father' Faber?* We shall transcribe a portion, because of the echo we believe it will find in the reader's heart: 'The memory of the dead passes into it. The potent traditions of childhood are stereotyped in its verses. The power of all the griefs and trials of man are hid beneath its words. It is the representative of his best moments, and all that there has been about him of soft and gentle, and pure and penitent, and good, speaks to him for ever out of his English Bible. It is his sacred thing which doubt has never dimmed and controversy never soiled.'
{* Dublin Review (1853), vol. xxxiv. p.466.}

The Version of 1611 was imperfectly edited as it left the hands of the translators: this is seen by the needless variations which exist in the old Bibles one may take up; and these faults are only the more noticeable in Bibles of different dates. Cf. Scrivener's edition, Appendices A and C. After being revised in 1638, it escaped remodelling at the time of the Commonwealth, when a proposal was made for its further revision; but Drs. Blayney and Paris in the last century, respectively employed by the Oxford and Cambridge Presses, introduced changes of spelling, &c., which — as will have appeared from what has been said of Oxford — have been followed in the respective issues of the two Universities. Some of Blayney's alterations were much for the worse; and on the other hand he overlooked many of the most palpable errors in his copy. This Bible indeed had been carelessly printed from the very first:* in the Oxford Reprint of 1833, which is said to be a faithful reproduction of the Clarendon Press copy, no less than twenty words in Exodus 14:10 are printed twice over. But during the last half century much more care has been taken. Mr. E. Pickard Hall says, 'In 1834, by the authority of the two Universities, the Oxford and Cambridge Bibles were carefully collated, which resulted in an agreement that the Oxford Small Pica 8vo. Bible, with references, printed in 1824, with the corrections then marked, should henceforth be the standard for both Universities. From this no deviation whatever is permitted' except as to the marginal notes, which were revised by Mr. Woolcombe in 1838, whose corrections have been since followed. Mr. Hall further says, 'The Oxford Press has no fewer than forty different editions, from the stately folio down to the recently published smallest Bible in the world, measuring only half an inch thick, and weighing under three and a half ounces.'
{* Cf. Mr. Combe's evidence in 1859 as to Blayney's edition, — so long the Oxford standard (Report from Select Committee of the House of Commons).
** E. P. Hall, 'Printing, its History,' &c., p.41.}

The best critical edition is Scrivener's Cambridge 'Paragraph Bible,' which has just run its first decade. Like early editions, down to the year 1629, it embraces the Apocrypha. The Introduction and Appendices to this Work are well worth perusal; whilst the marginal references are better than those of any other edition—not excepting Bagster's—and relate to the Apocrypha as well as the Canonical Books, thus facilitating comparison. Another feature of Scrivener's Bible is that the passages which are cited in the New Testament are printed in a larger type than the rest of the Text, which assists the profitable study of such parts; and in the Books from Genesis to Joshua the varying chronology of the LXX is added alongside of the Hebrew chronology, which has found place in English Bibles for 180 years, since the appearance of the edition of Dr. William Lloyd.

The following are the chief copies in circulation:
  The Queen's Printers' Bibles, London, Edinburgh, and New York, in various editions 1.
  Oxford Press Bible, in various editions 2.
  Cambridge ditto 3.
  Bagster's Polyglot, with original notes, &c.
  The Societies' Bibles, as the Religious Tract Society's Paragraph Bible, According to the Authorised Version,' with original notes, &c.
{1 The first Edinburgh edition under the Scotch patent would seem to have been an octavo of 1622, the last, Sir D. H. Blair's edition of 1811; the first similar Dublin edition a folio of 1714, the last, Grierson's Bible of 1758.
2 The first Oxford impression seems to have been a quarto of 1675. There is an Oxford Warehouse in New York.
3 The first Cambridge edition appears to have been a folio of 1629.}

The Queen's Printers' Bibles are issued by virtue of patents from time to time renewed.

The Oxford and Cambridge Bibles are 'privileged' productions, the printing and publication of which have been authorised by certain charters and letters patent. Trinity College, Dublin, has, by its charter, similar power — not however exercised — of issuing Bibles to that of the two old English Universities, without prejudice to the circulation in Ireland of the Oxford and Cambridge Bibles. The Oxford Bible is there circulated by the Hibernian Bible Society.

'In Scotland,' Mr. William Chambers writes,* 'the last patent expired in 1839 . . . The Crown appoints a board with authority to grant licences to parties desirous to print editions of the Bible.' Such licences have been taken out by, e.g. Mr. Collins. His Bibles, he says, are 'printed from a comparison of the Scotch and English Authorised Versions,' i.e. within the Instructions of the Privy Council, 1839. The Oxford Bible circulated in Scotland bears the names of Nelson and Sons as publishers.
{* Chambers's Encyclopedia, art. 'Book-trade.'}

In the Parliamentary Report of 1859-60 we are told 'The Patentees have not exercised their legal right of preventing the introduction of Bibles from Scotland, nor of interfering with the publication of the Bible in other languages or translations, or accompanied with notes or references, but have practically restricted themselves to the issue of the Bible, without note or comment, and in the Authorised Version.' Hence the circulation of such books as Bagster's Bibles, which, however, do not purport to be according to the Authorised Version.

The reader is referred for more information upon this head to the 'Report from the Select Committee on the Patent.' As Mr. Copinger* writes, It was recommended by this Committee that the exclusive privilege of publishing the sacred volume should not be reserved. The House of Commons took no action on this recommendation, and the Crown renewed the patent during pleasure.' The existing Patent bears date the 19th January, 1860.
{* Copinger, 'Law of Copyright,' p.134.}

§ 2. The Revised Version.

A proposal for revision had been made in the year 1856, but it was not until 1870 that anything of a national character was attempted. It fell to Dr. Samuel Wilberforce (son of a man who proved his fidelity to the Word of God by such a life of active goodness as is seldom exhibited amongst us) to use the influence his official position afforded him to bring about a systematic revision of our time-honoured English Bible. A Revision Committee was organised, composed of two companies, to one of which was assigned the Old Testament. This company began their work on June 30th of the same year. Two years later both companies associated themselves with a Committee of American Biblical scholars; and we still await the fruit of this Anglo-American Revision of the Old Testament; but the completion has just been announced. Some indication of what may be expected is contained in the following statement of Dr. Philip Schaff ('Biblical Revision,' p.3), the President of the American Committee: 'The object of this Anglo-American enterprise is to adapt King James's version to the present state of the English language, without changing the idiom and vocabulary, and to the present standard of Biblical scholarship, which has made very great advances since 1611, especially during the last thirty years, in Hebrew philology, in Biblical geography and archaeology. It is not the intention to furnish a new version (which is not needed, and would not succeed), but a conservative revision of the received version, so deservedly esteemed as far as the English language extends. The new Bible is to read like the old, and the sacred associations connected with it are not to be disturbed; but within these limits all necessary and desirable corrections and improvements on which the best scholars are agreed will be introduced; a good version is to be made better; a clear and accurate version clearer and more accurate; the oldest and purest text is to be followed; errors, obscurities, and inconsistencies are to be removed; uniformity in rendering Hebrew words and proper names to be sought. In one word, the revision is to give, in idiomatic English, the nearest possible equivalent for the original Word of God . . . It aims to be the best version possible in the nineteenth century, as King James's version was the best which could be made in the seventeenth century.'

The printing, which is very heavy, it is hoped will be finished, and the whole (including, it seems, the Apocrypha) published within the present year.* There has been, we repeat, but one British — as indeed American — company, which is a decided advantage: all the Old Testament Books have thus received the same treatment, and that by men who are leaders of Hebrew study in Great Britain. Their ungrudging labour, whether we accept the result or not, puts all British Christians under obligations to them. The number of those at work in England at the time the second Revision was finished, seems to have been twenty-five: nearly the same number of scholars as were appointed by King James, because the Revision of the Apocrypha is, or was planned to be, the joint work of both companies of each Committee.* Dr. Edward Harold Browne, who is the author of a Reply to Colenso's attack upon the Pentateuch, has been the Chairman of the British Old Testament company. As was that of Lancelot Andrewes, Chairman of the Westminster company in King James's time, the name of the recent Chairman is associated with Ely and Winchester.
{* The expenses of the Revision are defrayed by the two old Universities, who have acquired the copyright.
** Since the completion of the New Testament Revision, the Apocrypha have engaged the attention of only the New Testament company.}

The American company of Old Testament Revisers seems finally to have been composed of fourteen scholars.

As to the chances of the Revision superseding the Authorised Version, one (Dr. J. J. S. Perowne) of the British company has well said: 'In 1611 they gave us not a new Bible, but simply a revision of the old Bishops' Bible, which is the one published by "authority to be read in churches." It has no "authority" whatever. It superseded the Bishops' Bible, simply because the people liked it better. It had no authority from the Crown, or Convocation, or Parliament . . . And so with the forthcoming new Bible, there will be no "authority." If people like it better, if people find it expresses more clearly what they believe to be the will of God, then it will find acceptance in the Church; but no authority in the world would impose upon the English people a Bible they don't like. I feel it will be a very difficult thing for any new Bible to take the place of the grand old Bible which has endeared itself to our hearts for many ages.'

We trust that after the appearance of a 'Revised Version,' British Christians will continue to use the older volume for growth in grace and knowledge of Christ. It has, we believe, provided material for every true Christian sentiment from the time that it became the chief of English classics. More appeal has been made to it in the interests of truth than on the side of error. Dr. Trench, writing in 1858, says: 'With the exception of the Roman Catholics, the Authorised Version is common ground for all in England who call themselves Christians; is alike the heritage of all' (cf. chap. 8 § 1, note 1). One of the American Revisers has spoken of the Old Version as 'a bond of union amongst those who differed materially from each other, a common standard of appeal.' How pregnant are these words!

The anxiety to which Dr. Trench has given expression as to the evil which would be wrought amongs us by the use of divers translations, in the event of a revision failing in its object, would doubtless be allayed if the suggestion of Dr. Christopher Wordsworth, a devoted student of Scripture, were adopted, which is, that for a time the Authorised Version shall continue in full public use, but be accompanied by marginal notes embodying such results of the Revision as meet with general approval. Whatever course be pursued, it will be well to remember the history of the Version at present in use. For several years after the Authorised Version first appeared, the Bishops' Bible continued to be used in public in many parts; and the Genevan Bible was marketable for at least fifty years. Although the Authorised Version did not always speak King James's sentiments, that alone was no barrier to its circulation; but there was for long a powerful prejudice against the New Version. An old friend was not hastily abandoned; spiritual sentiments had been formed, associated alone with texts as they appeared in the earlier Bibles. The Authorised Version had to fight its way to general acceptance. Not until 'Geneva' had long competed with it — up to the close of the reign of Puritanism and the revival of the monarchy — was our common English Bible pronounced to be 'the best of any translation in the world.'

We may here call the reader's attention to a Bible published by the Queen's Printers (1877) under the following title: 'The Holy Bible, according to the Authorised Version, compared with the Hebrew and Greek Texts, and carefully revised; arranged in Paragraphs and Sections, with supplementary notes, references to parallel and illustrative passages, chronological tables and maps,' the design of which is 'to correct what may be considered indisputable errors and inadequate renderings in our present English Bible.' The methods adopted are explained in the Preface.

Westcott ('English Bible,' p.296.) draws attention to the seal of martyrdom upon the old English Bibles. 'Tyndale, who gave us our first New Testament from the Greek, was strangled for his work at Vilvorde; Coverdale, who gave us our first printed Bible, narrowly escaped the stake by exile: Rogers, to whom we owe the multiform basis of our present Version, was the first victim of the Marian persecution; Cranmer, who has left us our Psalter, was at last blessed with a death of triumphant agony.' We live in days of comparative peace and quietness: let us be on our guard against the seductions that underlie such a state of things.

Chapter 16. Modern European Versions, etc.

In entering upon this chapter we would again refer the reader of the English Authorised Version to the Translators' Preface, in which attention is called to the words of Augustine that express the feeling so common amongst Biblical students as to the advantage to be derived from the use of divers translations. 'Variety of translations,' says this Preface, 'is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures.' Augustine's words are worth quoting: 'Plurimum hic quoque juvat interpretum numerositas collatis codicibus inspecta atque discussa.' We shall here speak of some other modern versions useful in the study of the Bible.

§ 1. Continental Translations.

Of Continental versions, that which is of the most historical interest is the German by Luther, 1523-1534, the basis of most other Teutonic Bibles. The best edition seems to be that by Von Gerlach, with Introductions and Notes (1870-4). There is also a Revision of Luther by Meyer, with Introductions and Notes (1835). We must add Bunsen's Bibelwerk' (1858-1870); De Wette's German translation (last edition, 1858), in which there are some useful critical notes; and the Elberfeld version by J. N. Darby (1871).

The Protestant Italian, by Diodati (1607).

The Protestant Dutch, States' Version (1637). Both the Italian and the Dutch are in high estimation.

The Catholic French, by Lemaistre de Sad. (1696). It appears that the only French translation which has been sanctioned by the Pope is an excellent version by the Abbe Glaire (1873). Of Protestant versions in France there is Martin (1707), in Dickenson's Hexaglott Bible (1874-6), and Ostervald (1724), adopted by the British and Foreign Bible Society.* There is also Segond (1880), which must be used with great caution.
{* A revisal (1881) of Ostervald has been issued, under the auspices of the American Bible Society, which is a great improvement upon its predecessors.

The Protestant Spanish by Cassiodoro Reyna, revised by Cypriano de Valera (1602). A new edition, with many modifications, especially in Isaiah, has recently been printed in Barcelona. Of Catholic versions, there is an interesting one from the Vulgate, by Padre Scio de S. Miguel (1797), which has been reprinted by Bagster.* Both these Spanish versions appear to be literal and trustworthy.
{* For Bagster's Polyglott, see above, chap. 11.}

The reader should further consult J. N. Darby's Preface to his English translation of the New Testament, whose own French version of the Old Testament, executed at Pau, is now in course of publication; also Schaff's Encyclopdia, under 'Bible Versions.'

§ 2. Commentaries, and other critical helps.

Patristic. — We may use the works of Origen and Jerome, the only Fathers whose work is of any critical value. Opinions will probably always widely differ as to the value of patristic interpretation. The reader curious to know how the 'Fathers' took any passages, would generally find whatever is of value in Wordsworth's Commentary on the Old Testament.

Of Protestant German books that have largely given an impetus to critical effort amongst ourselves, the student cannot do better than use the following: —

Keil's 'Critical and Historical Introduction to the Canonical and Apocryphal Writings of the Old Testament' (1873), of which there is a translation in Clark's Series.

'Keil and Delitzsch's Biblical Commentary' (Clark). Franz Delitzsch, in the writer's opinion, is the prince of living Hebraists: the Buxtorf of the nineteenth century, he combines the most thorough learning with a devout appreciation of the Divine in Scripture. His Genesis has not yet been translated into English, but Job, Psalms, and Isaiah are available. It is in Isaiah this commentator is at his best; for example, in his wise and beautiful remarks on 4:4, as to the Messianic reign, and in his treatment of ch. 6. His Hebrew New Testament, as also a Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, and 'The Epistle to the Romans illustrated from the Talmud and Midrashim (Expositions),' are prized by all who can use them. The prefaces he has written to Baer's Masoretic texts have already been noticed. — All of Keil's contributions to this series have been translated.

Of Protestant English books representing scholarship employed on the side of revealed truth, help may often be derived from the following: —

Robert Payne Smith on Genesis and on Jeremiah. The one exposition is in the 'Commentary on the Old Testament for English Readers' edited by Ellicott; the other in the so-called 'Speaker's Commentary.' Dr. Payne Smith is one of the most learned of the present Revisers of the Old Testament translation.

George Rawlinson on Exodus, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther: from a scholar who is in the first rank of writers upon ancient history. The Commentary on Exodus is in Ellicott's work, the rest in that edited by Cook. Some interesting papers by Professor Rawlinson were contributed to the 'Bible Educator.' His little book of 'Historical Illustrations' and his work on 'The Religions of the Ancient World' are of great value.

Christian D. Ginsburg on Leviticus. This Commentary is by the author of a Work upon the Masora, and will be found in the first volume of Ellicott on the Old Testament. Dr. Ginsburg has been a member of the Old Testament Revision company. He brings a good deal of light to bear upon Leviticus.

John James Stewart Perowne on the Psalms: everything that could be desired in point of scholarship would be found in this Work. As already intimated, Dr. Perowne has been engaged in the Revision.

Thomas Kelly Cheyne on the Prophecies of Isaiah. This able commentary is by one who seems to be feeling his way to a more conservative exegesis than is favoured by the school of Ewald, to which he has belonged; that is one reason for our including his book in this list. Mr. Cheyne's Hebrew scholarship is of the first order. He has been a member of the Old Testament Revision company.

Edward Bouverie Pusey on the Minor Prophets. This commentary stands quite alone in the English language; but it needs to be read with a good many grains of salt. — The Lectures on Daniel by the same erudite ecclesiastic were perhaps his best contribution to Apologetics. Nearly every word of his concluding remarks in that Work seems written in gold (Pusey's Daniel, pp, 566 sqq.). 'It is not enquiry,' he says, 'but a non-enquiring acquiescence in doubt which is the peril of this day. It costs much to disbelieve; it requires submission to our God and His grace to believe. . . . It is not for the present a day of naked blasphemy. The age is mostly too soft for it. Voltaire's écrasez l'infâme shocks it. Yet I know not whether the open blasphemy of the eighteenth century is more offensive than the cold-blooded patronising ways of the nineteenth. Rebellion against God is not so degrading nor so deceiving as a condescending acknowledgment of His being, while it denies His rights over us. Be not then imposed upon by smooth words. It is an age of counterfeits . . . The battle must be fought. It is half-won when any one has firmly fixed in his mind the first principle that God is all-wise and all-good, and that man's own wisdom, although from God, is no measure for the wisdom of God, and cannot sound its depth . . . You must make your choice. Let it be a real one. But, before you choose, set before you that day in which you shall see unveiled all which you now see in part, and what it will be to find, that they whom you adopted as teachers — critics and criticism which has in no case survived its parents taught you to ignore or deny or disbelieve, or accuse in the name of God, what is indeed the very truth of God. Even in this life those mists which hurry along so vehemently, so darkly, so impetuously, like hosts disarrayed, in yon tumultuous, thronging and seemingly endless flight, part to the eye which watches well, and there opens to it the serene depth of heaven in its own unchanging brightness, calm as ever beyond, uneffaced, undimmed, uninjured by the black earth-born clouds which roll so far below . . . The Christian is as certain of the truth of what rationalism impugns, as of his own existence. For God who gave him his being gave him also his faith . . . To choose not to believe is to disbelieve. To halt between two divided ways is to reject God-given truth.' Elsewhere Dr. Pusey has said that 'personal faith in Jesus was the rock upon which he had taken his stand.' From such an one we might have expected a more ecclesiastical sentence; but in the goodness of God we find men in advance of their own principles. With all his misconception of the Church, Dr. Pusey had a real love for God's Word. Romanist champions could never count him an ally in their foul work of denying the sufficiency of the English Protestant Bible. May those whose views of truth have been shaped by this eminent man still hold fast to the sentiment with respect to the Bible that does pervade his best followers, evidence of which is borne by ten precious pages (87-97) of Dr. Littledale's recent little book upon the errors of Rome. Dr. Dollinger might well be struck, as it appears he was on visiting our land, with the presence of a Bible in every household as a distinguishing feature of English life.

W. H. Lowe's Commentary on Zechariah. This is probably the best student's commentary on any Book of the Old Testament. The writer is a Lecturer upon Hebrew in the University of Cambridge.

Dr. Robert Lowth's Lectures on Hebrew Poetry (1753) possess a permanent value. He was the first to explain the true structure of the poetical passages by what he called 'parallelism of the members.' The rules framed by this learned man have met with general acceptance, and seldom fail to throw light upon the meaning of the most obscure line of poetry in the Hebrew Bible. His work has taken hold of the German mind much more than Herder's 'Spirit of Hebrew Poetry' has aroused enthusiasm amongst English students.

Lowth's Commentary on Isaiah has long been superseded: few of his conjectural emendations of the Text would now be upheld.

Many old critical opinions, such as Horsley's, still not without advocates, would be found in Barrett's 'Synopsis of Criticism upon those passages of the Old Testament in which modern Commentators have differed from the Authorised Version' (1847).

Still older opinion may be gathered from Rosenmüller's 'Scholia' (1827-35) or Matthew Poole's 'Synopsis Criticorum' (1669). Rosenmüller has so exhausted all that is good in early sources that Phillips (Commentary on the Psalms) calls him a mere plagiarist.

Venema's Commentaries or Dissertations on Genesis, Psalms, Jeremiah, Daniel, Malachi (1745-1765), besides some Lectures on Ezekiel (1790), are useful for the old Protestant opinions.

Roman Catholic opinion may be ascertained from the works of Cornelius à Lapide, of the Society of Jesus and Professor at Louvain. He wrote commentaries upon nearly the whole of the Old Testament (1616-1645).

The new Encylopaedia of Schaff (based upon Herzog), two volumes of which have just appeared, will probably take a high place amongst standard works of reference in English.

No other short book of reference for general information is so good as the 'Aids to the Study of the Holy Bible,' published by the Queen's Printers, and serving as a Companion to their 'Revised English Bible.' In particular, reference may be made with advantage to the articles by Hooker, Tristram, Cheyne, Stainer, Green, Sayce, and Lumby.

In the selection of English books, Bagster's catalogues would be found useful those of D. Nutt would serve for foreign books. In the latter catalogues the religious belief of the authors may be gathered from symbols attached to their names.

If the reader have not acquainted himself with the following of Mr. J. N. Darby's writings, to some of which reference has here been made, he should do so in connection with Old Testament study.

Critical Writings of J. N. Darby.
  1. The Irrationalism of Infidelity, being a Reply to Mr. F. W. Newman's 'Phases of Faith.' It may not be known to all readers of Mr. Newman's book that the 'Irish Clergyman' of whom he speaks was Mr. Darby himself.
  2. Dr. Colenso and the Pentateuch: a tract.
  3. Dialogues on 'Essays and Reviews.'
  4. Inspiration of the Scriptures: a tract.
  5. Have we a Revelation from God? In vol. 1 of the 'Bible Witness,' but also published separately. It is a review of an article contributed by Professor W. Robertson Smith to the 'Encyclopedia Britannica.'
  6. Inspiration and Revelation: a Paper in vol. iii. of the 'Bible Witness.'

§ 3. Conclusion.

This terminates our short survey of an immense subject. Will not the reader, with the writer, feel how very little he yet knows amidst what there is to learn? We might well wish that all the labour employed upon other subjects could be diverted into one or other of the many fields of Biblical criticism, connected as this is with the foundations of the faith once delivered to the saints. We may ever remember that our faith is not to stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. Few are they, however, that dig deep enough. Some doubtless are deterred by thinking only of the pitfalls that beset the study. In our own researches, when examining the materials supplied by others, we have ofttimes been obliged to discriminate between 'precious' and 'vile,' between what is certain and what is dubious or false. But some there are who know not the treasures that lie before them. We need a subject spirit; our inquiries otherwise can only be hurtful to our own character. Knowledge in itself, without love, puffeth up: so wrote to Christians versed in criticism one to whose profound learning a Jewish ruler of practised intelligence bore testimony. How painful and yet how instructive the contrast between the godless prince on the throne and the blessed apostle in his bonds!

Let the reader consider well the way in which to take up these inspired writings of the Old Testament, if on the one hand he seek nourishment for his soul and guidance for his conscience, and on the other would provide himself with means of facing the malign attacks of unbelief upon the 'oracles of God' (Rom. 3:2). He may indeed find in these pages material for answering questions which he must have asked himself; and after the perusal of this rapid sketch, may feel his interest in the earlier collection of Scriptures quickened, his love for the Old Testament deepened, if he recognise better the rich inheritance of these many centuries, which itself shall never pass away. These Scriptures 'are they which testify of Me,' said the Saviour. He used a book of Jewish antiquity, obnoxious to all manner of sceptics, to prove for others besides Jews that, 'By every [word] that proceedeth out of the mouth of Jehovah doth man live' (Deut. 8:3). But the reader needs to take care that he become not a hewer of wood and drawer of water. Let him remember that to obtain an acquaintance with the mere letter of the Old Testament or, it may be, with material for 'Apologetics,' is to engage in worse than barren labour: no one ever yet was made a disciple to the kingdom of heaven by such means, or, when already a disciple, grew in grace by the nourishment such studies by themselves afford. Many engaging in these pursuits have run well for a time who became victims of their vain self-confidence. If we take heed to every precept of God, by conformity in our path, we may, but then only, 'understand everything:' our moral state determines our actual intelligence (Prov. 28:5). If His word find a place in our hearts, the Old Testament cannot fail to shed its own light upon what we need to know; and if in such spirit we use the New Testament, the key wherewith to unlock this treasury of truth, we shall, as heaven-taught scribes, bring forth out of our treasure things new and old.

Finally, as says the Preface to the Authorised Version of our English Bible: 'Gentle reader, it remaineth that we commend thee to God, and to the Spirit of his grace, which is able to build further than we can aske or thinke. Hee removeth the scales from our eyes, the vaile from our hearts, opening our wits, that wee may understand his word, enlarging our hearts, yea correcting our affections, that we may love it above gold and silver, yea that we may love it to the end.'