Their minutely analysed by modern German critics, who of Hebrew-Chaldaic literature down to the middle of the 2d c. B. C. By an artificial arrangement under the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, the number of books has been limited among the Jews to 22. These writings were spoken of in the time of Christ, and for some indefinite period before his time, as graphé, Scripture, or Holy Scripture, or, as the Law and the Prophets.' Sometimes the Psalms and the remaining holy writings (hagi The Samaritans, who were at enmity with the ographa) are distinctively noticed. The usus lo- Jews, recognised only the five books of Moses, and quendi of the New Testament (Matt. xi. 13, xxii. a corrupt version of the book of Joshua, as canonical. 40; Acts xiii. 15; Luke xxiv. 44, &c.) is evidence On the other side, the Egyptian Jews, for whom the of this. The Law comprised the Pentateuch, or the Alexandrine version of the Old Testament was first five books. The Prophets were subdivided into made, received as canonical several writings which earlier and later: the former including the books of were rejected, or subordinated as apocryphal (see Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings; and the latter Apocrypha), by the Jews of Palestine. The primitive containing the three great prophets, Isaiah, Jere- church, in the period which elapsed before the canon miah, and Ezekiel-as well as the twelve minor of the New Testament was completed, referred to prophets. The third division of the Old Testament the Old Testament for proof of doctrines; but, on embraced the hagiographa, consisting of the books account of the prevalent ignorance of the Hebrew of Job, Proverbs, Psalms, the Song of Solomon, and Chaldee languages among the early Christians, Ecclesiastes, Ruth, Lamentations, and Esther, to- the Alexandrine Greek version was the authority gether with the books of Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, employed. As this included the apocryphal books, and 1 and 2 Chronicles. With regard to the order rejected by the Jews of Palestine, the earliest of these several books, the Alexandrine translation, Christian Fathers made the same use of these writthe Fathers of the Church, and Luther, on one side, ings as of the others; but the growth of criticism differ from the Jews; again, among the Jews, the during the next two centuries was fatal to their Talmudists differ from the Masoretes, while a differ- reputation, or at least to their authority. We do ence is also found between Spanish and German not find, however, that they were formally designated MSS. Hence have sprung the different arrange-apocryphal' until the time of Jerome (5th c.), ments of the books of the Old Testament. though the Greek Church, in the previous century, had approximated to this mode of viewing them, by affirming them to be not canonical, but only edifying, and also by issuing lists or catalogues of those books which were recognised as canonical. In the Latin Church, on the other hand, these writings were received as canonical after the 4th c., though Jerome, Hilarius, Rufinus, and Junilius wished to distinguish them from the canonical books by the name of libri ecclesiastici. The Protestants, at the Reformation, returned to the distinction originally made by the Palestinian Jews between the Hebrew Scriptures of the Old Testament and the apocryphal works included in the Alexandrine version and the Latin Vulgate. Luther, in his translation of the B., included the Apocrypha as 'books not to be placed on a level with the canonical Scriptures; but profitable for reading.' The Council of Trent, which seemed to think that the only safe path for Catholicism to pursue was the exact opposite of that on which Protestantism moved, declared that whoever denied the canonical character of the Apocrypha should be anathema. The Septuagint is generally adduced in proof of the existence of these books in a collected form as early as 285 B.C., but an examination of the Aristean fiction (see ARISTEAS and SEPTUAGINT) is sufficient to shew that at that period no more than the Pentateuch was translated into Hellenistic Greek. The earliest indubitable notice is found in the prologue to the Alexandrine translation of the book of Jesus, son of Sirach, written by his grandson probably about 130 B.C., which demonstrates that the Law and the Prophets then existed in a collective form; but this language does not prove that the third division was then concluded, though neither does it disprove it. This conclusion is first definitely ascertained from the catalogue given by Josephus, who flourished after the middle of the first century of the Christian era, while Philo, who flourished 41 A. D., quotes casually from nearly the whole of them. As regards the genuineness and authenticity of the Old Testament, there has been much discussion in modern times. The generally received opinion is, that the various books were originally written wholly or chiefly by the persons whose names are affixed The NEW TESTAMENT, or the collection of canonito them, except Judges (Samuel), Ruth (Samuel), cal scriptures containing the history and doctrines Esther (Mordecai), Kings and Chronicles (Ezra of Christianity, may be divided into three chief and Jeremiah), and perhaps Job (Moses?); but sections: 1. The historical books, or the four gosthat these MSS. having perished in the destruction pels, and the Acts of the Apostles. 2. The didactic of the first temple, when Nebuchadnezzar took Jeru-and pastoral writings, which include the Epistles of salem, the members of the Great Synagogue (q. v.)—Paul to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephewhich included Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, and afterwards Simon the Just-50 years after the building of the second temple, acting in accordance with a divine commission, rewrote the Old Testament; or rather made a recension of other existing copies, to which were subsequently added the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Thus the canon was concluded. This was the belief of the Jews themselves at a later period; the Pirke Aboth (Sayings of the Fathers), one of the oldest books of the Talmud, as well as other Jewish records, distinctly assert it. It is, however, simply a tradition, and though possibly true, is necessarily incapable either of demonstration or refutation. In the absence of any direct and conclusive evidence on this point, the contents of the Old Testament have been sians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, the Epistle to the Hebrews (which does not state the writer's name), the two Epistles of Peter, the three epistles of John, the Epistles of James and Jude. 3. The prophetical section, consisting only of one book, the Apocalypse, or Revelation of St John the Divine. The primitive Christians referred for proof of doctrine, &c., only, so far as we are aware, to the Old Testament, and quotations from it by the apostolic Fathers are numerous enough; but we find few clear and certain references to the didactic portions of the New Testament. The reason of this appears to be, that the lapse of time had hallowed the Old Testament, and given to it that superior authority which springs from venerable age. The generation which immediately records out of which the canonical gospels were formed; but it cannot be said that the criticism of Baur and his followers, in spite of its profound and searching character, has seriously imperilled the claim to apostolic antiquity put forth on behalf of the New Testament Scriptures. succeeded that of the apostles-and indeed, so far as we can see, the same may be said of the apostles themselves-did not consider the apostolic writings of equal importance as writings with the sacred books of the Old Testament. Besides, most of the epistles were of little use in controversy, for the earliest heretics denied the apostleship of St Nevertheless, the idea of a strict and pure New Paul; while both parties admitted the authority of Testament canon (see CANON) is not discernible in the Septuagint, and found in it their common the church in Justin Martyr's time. There is no weapons of argument. Nevertheless, we occasion- positive evidence in favour of its existence; but this ally find references to the didactic portions of the is not to be wondered at, for the consciousness of New Testament, such as those to Romans, 1st freedom in the Holy Spirit, which penetrated the Corinthians, Ephesians, Hebrews, and James, in Christians of the 1st c.; the opposition of what in Clemens Romanus; to 1st Corinthians and Ephesians, continental theology are termed the Petrine and in Ignatius; to Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2d Cor- Pauline (q. v.), i. e., the Judaising and anti-Judaising inthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Timothy, 2d parties, which does unquestionably appear to have Timothy, 1st Peter, and 1st John, in Polycarp. existed; the still living tradition of the apostles; Still more uncertain are the references of the apos- the difficulty of diffusing apostolic writings sent tolical Fathers to the gospels. The notices found only to particular churches; the absence of critiin Barnabas, Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, and cism; the vacillation in determining the point Polycarp are only sufficient to indicate that all the where the apostolic men ceased; the use in the great facts of Christ's life were known to the worship of God of the Old Testament, and, in parchurches, and that the doctrinal significance of ticular churches, of casual Christian writings not these had begun to be realised. They do not, now looked upon as canonical: all these causes however, demonstrate the existence of written together operated in hindering, till the middle of gospels, but they prove that Christianity rests on the 2d c., a formal collection of New Testament a historic basis. Their silence in relation to the writings of any compass or critical value, though it written gospels now constituting a portion of the seems quite clear that they existed separately, and canon of the New Testament, is at first sight were regarded as the most authoritative records of singular; but when we reflect that the facts of the new dispensation. The earliest trace of such a the Saviour's life and teaching were apparently quite collection (the ten Pauline epistles without the familiar to the churches-so familiar, indeed, that pastoral epistles) appears after the middle of the no explanation was needed in alluding to them-we 2d c. in opposition to that gnostic perversion of see that the necessity of the apostolic fathers quoting primitive Christianity which had been introduced from the Evangelists ceases. It is contended, that by Marcion of Pontus. The Muratorian Canon in any specific quotations would have been a work of the West, and the Peshito (q. v.) in the East, both supererogation; whereas, in the case of the didactic belonging to this period, which has been called the epistles, which were written originally for the bene-Age of the Apologists,' furnish important evidence fit of particular churches, and conditioned by their in_regard to the New Testament canon, for both special circumstances, and the contents of which, refer to nearly every book now received as authoritherefore, could not be so well or widely known, tative, the exceptions being, in the former, the quotations or allusions might more naturally be Epistle of James, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and looked for. But evidence of this negative character 2 Peter; in the latter, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 for the existence of the evangelical records, however John, and the Apocalypse. In the close of the probable, is very uncertain, and its uncertainty is 2d, and in the beginning of the 3d c., Irenæus, increased by the use made of writings which, at a Clemens Alexandrinus, and Tertullian bear testilater period, were rejected as apocryphal. First, in mony to the recognition of the four gospels, the the second half of the 2d c., more distinct references Acts of the Apostles, the thirteen Pauline epistles, to the gospels are found in Papias (died 163), in the 1st Epistle of Peter, the 1st Epistle of John, and Justin Martyr (died 166 A.D.), in his pupil Tatian the Apocalypse, as canonical writings. But they do (died 176), in Athenagoras (died 180), and in even more than bear testimony to their recognitionTheophilus, who wrote about the year 180. None they appeal to antiquity for proof of the authenticity of these writers, however, name the authors from of the books which they used as Christian Scripwhom they quote, though Papias-the earliest, but tures. On this point, Tertullian is especially precise, not the most trustworthy of them-bears direct and his most convincing argument on behalf of the and minute testimony to the existence of gospels by surety of the gospels' is, that the very heretics St Matthew, St Mark, St John, the catholic epistles, bear witness to them.' They did not, it is admitted, and the Apocalypse, whence it has been concluded acknowledge the whole of the New Testament that the authenticity of the apostolic memoirs was canon, but this is explicable on the hypothesis, not then settled, and perhaps not even investigated; which is justified by investigation, that the porbut anonymous quotation seems to have been a tions rejected were those that seemed alien to characteristic carelessness of the time, for of this their own opinions. Two distinct collections of kind are 117 of Justin Martyr's references to the writings are now noticed-the Instrumentum EvanOld Testament. The great fact on which a con- gelicum, containing the four gospels; and the structive Christian criticism leans in regard to Instrumentum Apostolicum, containing the Acts of the evidence of these writers is, that they do not the Apostles, along with the Pauline and other speak of the gospels or apostolic memoirs as things epistles. Respecting several parts of the New Testawhich had only recently made their appearance, ment canon, differences of opinion prevailed in early but as well known and long established. Justin times, nor was the war of criticism closed until the even states that the apostolic memoirs' were 6th c., for considerable difference of opinion existed regularly read in the churches for the edification in regard to the value of the testimony of the early of believers a fact which clearly indicates their apologetic authors. Origen doubted the authority superior sanctity and general reception. The of the Epistle to the Hebrews, of the Epistle of Tübingen school contend that these apostolic James, of Jude, of the 2d of Peter, and the 2d memoirs could not have been the canonical gospels, and 3d of John; while, at the same time, he was but must rather have been the primitive evangelical disposed to recognise as canonical certain apocryphal scriptures, such as those of Hermas and Barnabas, which were decidedly rejected by the Church. The Apocalypse was treated as a dubious part of the canon down to the 7th c. The learned and circumspect Father, Eusebius, in the 4th c., in a passage of his Church History, distinguishes three classes of New Testament Scriptures: 1. Universally received Scriptures (homologoumena), the four gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the fourteen Pauline epistles, the 1st Epistle of John, the 1st of Peter, and, with a certain reservation, the Apocalypse of John. 2. Scriptures not universally received, or not received at all. These he calls 'disputed' (antilegomena), and subdivides them into such as were generally known and approved by most-viz, the epistles of James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John; and such as were spurious' (notha)-viz., the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd, the Apocalyse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Institutes of the Apostles, and the Gospel of the Hebrews. 3. Heretical forgeries, such as the gospels of Peter, Thomas, Matthew, which Eusebius pronounces to be 'altogether absurd and impious.' They have been felt more or less over all Protestant countries, England, Holland, and America, and even Catholic France, which has no theology to contend for, shews the influence of the new movement. Renan (q. v.), who in his Vie de Jésus excited a sensation as vivid, though not as lasting, as Strauss in his Leben Jesu, has followed up his first work by another. In England, during the 18th c., several valuable apologetic works were published, such as Lardner's Credibility of the Gospel History, and Paley's Hora Paulina. In the early part of the 19th c. appeared Horne's Introduction to the Study of the Scriptures, which has been frequently reprinted. Since then, Tregelles, Davidson, Westcott, and numerous other scholars, have entered the field; and it is not too much to affirm, that, among the more earnest class of British theologians, there exists at this moment a keener spirit of impartial inquiry, as regards the foundations of biblical criticism, than Britain has ever previously witnessed. The practical tendencies of the Anglo-Saxon mind long restrained it from interfering in what seemed to be a mere maze of unprofitable speculation; but The Western Church, which was more con- now that its deep and vital relations to the groundservative and less critical than the Eastern work of men's actual and possible beliefs have Church, completed the canon with greater rapi- begun to be felt, these very practical tendencies are dity. Although the eastern Council of Laodicea manifestly asserting themselves, and we may con(360—364), in determining the canon of the New fidently anticipate that a large measure of attention Testament, excluded the Apocalypse, the western on the part both of the clergy and laity will soon synods of Hippo-Regius (393), Carthage (397), the be given to this most important of all branches of Roman bishop, Innocent I. (in the beginning of knowledge. the 5th c.), and the Concilium Romanum under EDITIONS OF THE BIBLE: HISTORY OF THE TEXT. Gelasius I. (494), recognised the entire canon of-As both the Old and the New Testament were the New Testament as we find it in the present written in ancient languages, and transcribed in day. The doubts entertained by individuals respect- times when philological criticism hardly existed, the ing some parts of the canon had become excep- examination and comparison of various editions, tional and unimportant at the close of the 7th c. with a view to obtain the greatest possible purity of Owing to the want of Greek scholarship, as also, text, forms an important part of theological study. perhaps, to the growing idea of an infallible church papacy, there was no criticism worthy of the name during the middle ages. Doubts, therefore, respect ing the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Epistles of James and Jude were first revived, after a long quietude, at the time of the Reformation. Erasmus denied the apostolic origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 2 Peter, and the Apocalypse. Luther ventured to declare the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse apocryphal.' Melanchthon, Gerhard, and Chemnitz went in the same direction, and even Calvin denied the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews. But biblical criticism, for reasons both political and ecclesiastical, soon became dormant, and so remained for nearly two centuries, when it was revived by a liberal Catholic writer, Richard Simon (died 1712), who first conceived the plan of an historico-critical introduction' to the B.; afterwards, the labours of Lowth, Semler, Herder, Griesbach, Michaelis, Eichhorn, and others, gave a new impulse to scriptural exegesis. In Germany, we may name among writers on the conservative and orthodox side, the Catholic divines Jahn and Hug, with the Protestant writers, Hengstenberg, Hävernick, Guerike, Delitzsch, and Caspari: on the other side, Berthold, De Wette, Credner, Reuss; and since the publication of the Life of Jesus by Strauss, the New Tübingen school,' with F. Baur (q. v.) at its head, has questioned the authenticity and apostolical antiquity of all the New Testament scriptures, except the four larger Epistles of Paul-to the Romans, the Corinthians (1st and 2d), and the Galatians; while more recently, Bruno Bauer (q. v.) has even denied the authenticity of the Epistle to the Galatians. But, as might have been expected, the effects of the strife could not always remain confined to Germany. | Text of the Old Testament.-The first duty of an impartial critic of this question is to lay aside both of the extreme and untenable opinions regarding the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, viz.-1st, that it has come down to us in an absolutely faultless condition, by miraculous preservation; and 2d, that it has been wilfully and unscrupulously falsified by the Jews. That there are erroneous readings, nobody doubts. The real task devolving on a student of this branch of theological science is to explain these on natural principles, and by collating the various recensions, to endeavour to obtain a pure text, or as close an approximation to that as may be possible. The following is a tolerably complete classification of the causes of errors. 1. Errors arising from imperfect sight or occasional inattentiveness; as when transcribers substituted one letter for another similar in appearance, transposed letters, words, and sentences, and omitted the same; of which there are various examples. 2. Errors arising from imperfect hearing, of which there are not many examples. 3. Errors arising from defective memory; as when a transcriber fancied that he knew certain words, phrases, or clauses, on account of their having occurred before; of these there are occasional examples. 4. Errors arising from defective judgment; as when words were wrongly divided, or abbreviations wrongly resolved; also from the custodes linearum (i. e., the letters which filled up the occasional vacant space at the end of lines) and marginal remarks being sometimes incorporated with the text. These not unfrequently happen. 5. Errors arising from a well-meant desire on the part of the transcriber to explain or amend a text, really or apparently obscure. In this respect the Samaritans are greatly to blame. A very knotty point is, the condition of the text before and at the close of the canon. The opinion of Eichhorn, De Wette, and others is, that while the books circulated singly in a sphere of uncertain authority, they were greatly corrupted; in support of which, considerable evidence is adduced, but still the probabilities are, on the whole, against such a supposition, and it is better to suppose that the conflicting accounts of the same events which are to be met with, especially in the historical books, arise not from the carelessness or corruptions of copyists, but rather from the original authors or compilers having consulted differing documents. From recent investigations, it appears clear that the strict dogmatic Jews of Palestine and Babylon were generally far more careful in their preservation of sacred records than the Samaritans and the Alexandrines, the latter of whom were remarkable for their free, philosophising, non-textual spirit. In the schools of learning in Jerusalem at the time of Christ, presided over by Hillel, who had come from Babylon, and Shammai, and in those which flourished elsewhere in Palestine, after the fall of the metropolis, for instance, at Lydda, Caesarea, Tiberias, &c., as also in the academies of Sora, Pumpeditha, and Nahardea, near the Euphrates, at a later period, the text of the Old Testament was defined with great care, first by the Talmudists, who seem to have adhered very closely to the ancient text, and after the completion of the Talmud at the close of the 5th c. by the Masorites. See MASSORAH. This care was at first bestowed only on the consonants of the Hebrew text. The Masoretic vowel system, which sprang from that already existing among the Syrians and Arabians, was developed from the 7th to the 10th centuries at Tiberias. By the 11th c. it appears to have been completed, while the Spanish rabbis of the next century seem ignorant of its then recent origin. (For proof of this, see Davidson's Text of the Old Testament Considered, 1856.) After the 11th c., the Masoretic text, with its perfected system of vowels and accents, became the standard authority among Jewish scholars. The comparative values of the different readings in the various MSS. had by that time been carefully determined, and the chief business of copyists, henceforth, was to make faithful transcripts. greatly corrupted, and contrasted it unfavourably with that of the Samaritan Pentateuch. The chief advocates of this view were Vossius, Whiston, Morin, and Capellus. On the other hand, Buxtorf, Arnold Bootius, Wasmuth, and others, defended the absolute purity of the Masoretic text, even to the inspiration of the vowel-points, which Buxtorf, in the preface to his grandfather's Tiberias, gravely asserts to have been first invented by Ezra. This controversy had at least one good result. It led to an extensive examination of Hebrew MSS. in the next century. Kennicott collated 630, 258 throughout, the rest in part; De Rossi, 751, of which all but 17 were collated for the first time. Many still remain uncollated. The result of this elaborate investigation has been to convince scholars that the Masoretic text is substantially correct. All known codices confirm it; the oldest of the professedly literal versions, as well as the Targums of the time of Christ, furnish similar satisfactory evidence; and when we consider the bibliolatrous tendencies of the Jews after their return from exile, whatever may have been the case before, we may safely conclude that we now possess the text of the Old Testament much in the same condition as it was at the close of the canon. At first, there were no intervening spaces between Hebrew words; afterwards, small intervals appear to have been occasionally allowed. With the introduction of the square character, the use of small interstices to separate words became general. The Talmud prescribes how much space should be between words in sacred MSS. designed for the synagogue. Various divisions according to the sense were also introduced at an early period. In the Pentateuch there were two, termed respectively open and closed. The former were intended to mark a change in the matter of the text; the latter, slight changes in the sense. Of these, the Pentateuch contained 669, named parshioth (sections). This division is probably as old, or nearly so, as the practice of reading the Law. It is found in the Talmud, while the division into 54 great parshioth is first found in the Massorah, and is not observed in the rolls of the synagogues. The poetical books The earliest printed editions of the Hebrew B. were also subjected, from a very early period, to a bear a close resemblance to the MSS. They are stichometrical division, according to the peculiarities without titles at the commencement, have appen- of Hebrew versification. In order to facilitate the dices, are printed on parchment with broad margin, reading and understanding of the prose books, a diviand large ill-shaped type, the initial letters being sion into logical periods was also made, which is mencommonly ornamented either with wood-cut engrav- tioned in the Mishna (q.v.), while in the Gemara (q.v.) ings or by the pen. These letters, however, are its authorship is ascribed to Moses. From it sprang often absent. With vowels, the editions in question our present division of the Scriptures into verses. are very imperfectly supplied. Separate parts of It is highly probable that these divisions were long the B. were first printed. The Psalms appeared handed down orally. Our present division of the in 1477, probably at Bologna; the Pentateuch at Old Testament into chapters is a later invention, Bologna in 1482; the Prophets in 1486; the Hagio- and, though accepted by the Jews, is of Christian grapha in 1487. To most of these were subjoined origin: it may be dated as far back as the 13th the rabbinical commentary of Kimchi. The whole c., some assigning it to Cardinal Hugo, others to of the Old Testament appeared in small folio at Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury. It Soncino, 1488, and appears to have been followed was first employed in a concordance to the Vulgate, by the edition of Brescia (1494), which was used whence it was borrowed by Rabbin Nathan in the by Luther in his translation of the Old Testament. 15th c., who made a similar concordance to the The Biblia Polyglotta Complutensia (1514–1517), Hebrew Bible. Nathan's divisions are found in the Biblia Rabbinica of Bomberg, edited by Rabbi Bomberg's Hebrew B. of 1518. Verses were first Jacob-Ben-Chajim (Venice, 1525-1526), which has introduced into editions of the Hebrew B. by been adopted in most of the subsequent editions-Athias of Amsterdam, 1661, but were employed the Antwerp Biblia Polyglotta (8 vols., 1569-1572), in the Vulgate as early as 1558. The first English also the editions by Hutterus (Hamburg, 1587, and B. divided into verses was published at Geneva in frequently reprinted), Buxtorf (Basel, 1611), and espe- 1560. cially that by Jos. Athias (Amsterdam, 1661-1667) -all these are celebrated, and have supplied the basis of later editions by Simon, Hahn, Theile, and others. In the 17th c., a vehement controversy arose regarding the integrity of the Hebrew text; one party maintained that the Masoretic text was New Testament.-The original MSS. of the New Testament were probably all written on papyrus, the cheapest, but least durable material that could be obtained for the purpose. It was therefore impossible, considering the constant handling to which the documents must have been subjected by the classes. After these came Griesbach, who, following eager converts, that they could have lasted for any length of time. Indeed no authentic notices of them have come down to us, and it is a curious fact that, in the controversies of the 2d c., no appeal is made to the apostolic originals. But the number of copies was very great. The text of these, however, did not always agree. Variations originated, to a considerable extent, from the same causes as operated in the case of the Old Testament, viz., imperfect vision or hearing, misunderstanding, carelessness, or an uncritical judgment on the part of transcribers; but it is natural to suppose that, on account of the greater freedom of spirit and thought which characterised primitive Christianity, compared with Judaism, a latitude of conviction in regard to the value of the letter of Scripture, also influenced the churches. The idea of inspiration (q. v.), it is now admitted by the most enlightened theologians, was progressively developed. In the earliest ages it did not exist in any dogmatic form whatever. Christians were content to believe that the evangelists and apostles spoke truth, by the help of the Holy Spirit, without perplexing themselves with the question, whether the words were purely divine or purely human in their origin. They had a gospel to preach, and a world to convert, and were therefore not in a mood to discuss mechanical notions. This also must have operated in producing the textual variations referred to, many of which are of such a nature as to clearly prove that the commentators or transcribers thought themselves at liberty to alter or improve the expression. Nor must we overlook the fact, that the different culture and tendencies of the Eastern and Western Churches also caused very considerable The whole of the New Testament was first printed changes. Modern criticism reckons no less than in the Complutensian Polyglott, 1514. From 1516 80,000 variations in the existing MSS. Neverthe- to 1535, five editions appeared at Basel, under the less, one fact stands out, solid and imperishable, care of Erasmus, but without any great pretensions amid all the tiny fluctuations of verbal criticism, to critical accuracy. The subsequent numerous viz., that, with one or two exceptions, no material editions were, for the most part, either founded on difference exists, or in all probability ever did exist, the editions of Erasmus or on the Complutensian, in New Testament MSS. The general Christian or on a collation of both. Among these editions consciousness, which was the real guardian of their we may mention those of Simon de Colines or integrity, had been grounded too deeply in the facts, Colinæus (Paris, 1543), of the elder Stephen (1546, doctrines, and ethics of a historic Christianity to 1549, and 1550), of the younger Stephen (1569). follow in the wake of sectarian or heretical modifica- Beza was the first who, by several collations tions of the truth. It instinctively turned, as it founded on the third edition by Stephens, made any were, from a sense of affinity to those apostolic considerable progress in the critical treatment of the records, the tone of which most closely corresponded text, and thus supplied a basis for the present to its own spiritual character and development, received text (textus receptus), which was first and thus unconsciously prevented any incongruous printed by Stephens with the Vulgate and critical changes from being effected in the mass of MSS. annotations at Geneva, 1565; afterwards was Of these MSS., upwards of 1400 are known to frequently reprinted by Elzevir (Leyden, 1624) and scholars, and have been collated, and no essential others. The labours of the English scholan, Walton, discrepancy has been detected. Of course, it can in the London Polyglott (1657), of Fell (Oxford, be urged that all the MSS. belong to a period when 1675), and especially Mill (Oxford, 1707), were of the Church had gathered itself up into two great great importance for the criticism of the New Teswholes-the Latin and Greek, and when, therefore, tament. Bengel exhibited great tact and acumen a general conformity in MSS., as in other things, is in his edition of 1734, Wetstein much industry and only to be expected; but the fragments which are care in the editions of 1751-1752, as also Semler, found in the earliest Church Fathers exhibit sub-1764. But all these recensions were surpassed in stantially, though not verbally, the same text, and value by the labours of Griesbach (1st ed. 1774; 2d we may therefore fairly infer that this unintentional and best ed. 1796-1806). The more recent conharmony in part argues the general harmony of the tributions to the criticism of the New Testament by earlier and later MSS. Scholz, the Lucubratio Critica (Basel, 1830), and the critical edition by Rinck (2 vols., Leip. 1830-1836), the edition by Lachmann (Berl. 1831), with especial use of oriental MSS., and, subsequently, the labours of Buttmann (1842-1850, Tregelles (1854-1863), Tischendorf (1841-1873), and Scrivener (1861), are also worthy of high praise. Some slight attempts seem to have been made, during the early history of the Church, to obtain a correct text. One Lucian, a presbyter of Antioch, and Hesychius, an Egyptian bishop, are said by Jerome to have undertaken a recension of the New Testament, and both Origen and Jerome himself were of considerable service in this respect. It is to modern criticism, however, that we owe almost everything in regard to the regulation of the text. Bengel and Semler first started the idea of arranging the MSS. of the New Testament into families or Among the MSS. of the New Testament, the oldest are not traced back further than the 4th C., and are written in the so-called uncial characters. The modern MSS., dating from the 10th c. downwards, are distinguished by the cursive char 77 |