EXTERNAL FORM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
1. The writings of the New Testament fall into three _main divisions_;
the _historical_, the _epistolary_, and the _prophetical_, the latter
including only the Apocalypse. This distinction is not to be understood
in an absolute sense; since, as every reader knows, there are
prophetical passages in the historical books, and both historical and
prophetical in the epistles; but it gives with accuracy the general
character of each division. In outward form the Apocalypse is
epistolary, being addressed, with the apostolic greeting, to the seven
churches of Asia, and containing messages to each. But its contents,
after the first three chapters, are so wholly prophetical, that it is
entitled to stand by itself in any general division.
2. The _order_ of these _main divisions_ is natural and appropriate. The
gospel, as was remarked at the outset (Chap. 1, No. 1), is not a mere
system of philosophy or ethics, but rests on a basis of historic facts.
On these its whole system of doctrines and duties is built; so that to
destroy the foundation would be to destroy the superstructure also. It
is suitable, therefore, that the record of the facts should hold the
first place. The apostolic epistles, which unfold the doctrines and
duties involved in the gospel, and make a practical application of them
to all the manifold relations of life, naturally follow the historic
record. The mighty system of prophecies contained in the book of
Revelation, which stretches over the whole future history of the church
to the end of time, forms an appropriate close to the entire collection
of writings.
3. Equally appropriate is the order of the two _subdivisions_ of the
historic part--first, the four Gospels, containing the history of our
Lord's life; secondly, the Acts of the Apostles. In the general
arrangement of the epistles, the thirteen which bear the name of Paul
stand first in order. The seven so-called catholic epistles occupy the
last place. Intermediate between these two subdivisions stands the
epistle to the Hebrews, which is anonymous, though generally ascribed to
Paul. The epistles which bear the name of Paul fall into two
groups--nine addressed to _Christian churches_, which occupy the first
place; then four to _particular persons_. Of these last, the first
three, being addressed to Timothy and Titus, the apostle's companions in
travel and in the gospel ministry, are appropriately named from their
contents the _pastoral_ epistles. The letter to Philemon, a private
member of the church in Colosse, naturally stands last of all.
We add from Bleek (Introduc. to New Test., secs. 18 and 254) the
following additional notices:
The present order of the Gospels is very ancient. Only in some
manuscripts of the Old Latin version, in one Greco-Latin
manuscript (the so-called Codex Bezae or Cambridge Codex), and
in the manuscript of the Gothic version, the two apostles
Matthew and John stand first; then the two companions of
apostles, Luke and Mark, or sometimes Mark and Luke. In the very
ancient Curetonian-Syrian manuscript the order is Matthew, Mark,
John, Luke.
The Acts of the Apostles stand in some manuscripts after the
Pauline or after the catholic epistles.
In the oldest Greek manuscripts, and generally in the greatest
number of Greek manuscripts which contain the whole New
Testament, the catholic epistles stand before the Pauline; an
arrangement which some modern editors, as Lachmann and
Tischendorf, have followed. In many manuscripts, the oldest
Greek included, the epistle to the Hebrews stands after 2
Thessalonians, immediately before the pastoral epistles. Luther
placed together, at the end of his version, the epistles to the
Hebrews, the epistles of James and Jude, and the Apocalypse. But
this arrangement rested on no authority of manuscripts. It was
only an expression of his private judgment respecting their
canonical authority, which he placed below that of the other
books of the New Testament.
4. We have seen (Chap. 13, No. 4) that in the arrangement of the books
of the Old Testament, the order of time is followed only very partially.
The same is true respecting the order of books in the New Testament, a
fact which the biblical student ought always to bear in mind. If we look
to the several divisions and subdivisions of the New Testament writings,
it is obvious that the arrangement is not chronological. It is generally
admitted that the Gospel according to John was written after the death
of Peter and Paul; consequently, after the Acts of the Apostles (which
were written during the life of Paul, Chap. 5, No. 5), after all the
Pauline epistles, and probably after all the Catholic epistles except
those which are ascribed to John himself. The Acts of the Apostles,
again, are of later date than several of Paul's epistles. Finally,
neither the Pauline nor the catholic epistles are arranged in
chronological order. See below, Chap. 30, No. 6. The intelligent student
of the New Testament will avail himself of all the means at his command
to ascertain the date, proximately at least, of each particular book;
that he may thus connect it with the development of Christianity in the
threefold line of doctrine, practice, and polity.
5. The present distinction of large letters (capitals) and small did not
come into use before the ninth century. In conformity with ancient
usage, the manuscripts executed before this period are written in large
disconnected letters (the so-called _uncial_), without any marks of
interpunction, or even division of words. This is called the _continuous
writing_ (_scriptio continua_), in which it is left to the reader's
discretion to make the necessary division of words and sentences; as if
the beginning of the Gospel according to John were written thus in Latin
and English:
_Latin_. _English_.
INPRINCIPIOERATVERBUMET INTHEBEGINNINGWASTHEWORDAND
VERBUMERATAPUDDEUMETDEUSE THEWORDWASWITHGODANDGODW
RATVERBUMHOCERATINPRINCIPI ASTHEWORDTHESAMEWASINTHEBEGIN
OAPUDDEUMOMNIAPERIPSUMFA NINGWITHGODALLTHINGSBYHIMWEREMA
Writers before our Saviour's time do indeed speak of signs of
interpunction; but they seem to have been in use only in the
grammatical schools, and with a limited application to certain
doubtful passages in the ancient writers. That they were unknown
in the older manuscripts of the New Testament is evident from
the discussions that arose among the church fathers respecting
the right division of certain passages, in which they never
appeal to the authority of manuscripts, but argue solely from
the nature of the connection. The reader may see a collection of
examples in Hug's Introduction to the New Testament, § 43, where
are also some curious examples of the wrong division of words.
6. To obviate the inconvenience of this continuous mode of writing,
there was introduced, about the middle of the fifth century, what is
called the _stichometrical_ mode (Greek _stichos_, a _row_ or _line_,
and _metron_, a _measure_). This consisted in arranging in a single line
only so many words as could be read, consistently with the sense, at a
single inspiration.
The invention of stichometry has been generally ascribed to Euthalius, a
deacon in Alexandria, who, in the year 458, set forth a copy of Paul's
epistles stichometrically arranged; but Tregelles is inclined to the
opinion that he borrowed the system from an earlier writer, Pamphilus
the martyr. However this may be, the original conception doubtless came
from the stichometry of Hebrew poetry. Hug (§ 44) and Tregelles (Horne's
Introduct., vol. 4, chap. 4) give an example in Greek from a fragment of
the Pauline epistles. This example (Titus 2:2, 3), when literally
translated into English according to the Greek order of words, reads as
follows:
THEAGEDMENTOBESOBER
GRAVE
SOBERMINDED
SOUNDINTHEFAITH
INLOVE
INPATIENCE
THEAGEDWOMENLIKEWISE
INBEHAVIORASBECOMESHOLYWOMEN
NOTSLANDERERS
NOTGIVENTOMUCHWINE
TEACHERSOFGOODTHINGS
Though the design of stichometry was not interpunction according to the
connection of thought, yet it seems to have led to this result. The
expensiveness of this mode of writing, owing to the waste of parchment,
naturally suggested the idea of separating the lines by a simple point,
thus:
THEAGEDMENTOBESOBER. GRAVE.
SOBERMINDED. SOUNDINTHEFAITH.
INLOVE. INPATIENCE. THEAGED
WOMENLIKEWISE. INBEHAVIORAS
BECOMETHHOLYWOMEN. NOTSLAN
DERERS. NOTGIVENTOMUCHWINE.
TEACHERSOFGOODTHINGS.
As these divisions were mainly _rhythmical_, and often broke the true
connection of thought, men sought to introduce a more logical system of
interpunction. Thus was laid the foundation of our present system;
which, however, was not perfected till after the invention of the art of
printing.
In the opinion of some, the use of the dot, at least to some
extent, was earlier than stichometry. From the eighth or ninth
century punctuation in manuscripts became more common and
systematic. In _cursive_ manuscripts--those that employ the
running hand with large and small letters and the separation of
the words, a style of writing that became the common one from
the ninth century and onward--punctuation also prevails, though
not according to any one established system. Tregelles, _ubi
sup_. Various other particulars interesting to those who study
the Greek text in the original, as those relating to the
accents, the smooth and rough breathing, and the iota subscript,
are here omitted.
7. We come next to consider the _ancient divisions_ made in the
_contents_ of the sacred text. _Chapters_ are very early mentioned, as
by Tertullian and Dionysius of Alexandria. But it is uncertain whether
any thing more is meant than parts or sections of given contents. The
earliest formal division of the four gospels that has come down to us
consists of the _Ammonian sections_ (Greek _kephalaia_, _heads_ or
_chapters_), so named from Ammonius of Alexandria, who, about the middle
of the third century, prepared a harmony of the four gospels--_the
Gospel by four_, as Eusebius calls it. His plan was, to arrange in the
order of Matthew the parallel passages side by side, interpolating those
that were wanting in Matthew. To this end, he divided each of the
gospels into sections the length of which was very various, being wholly
determined by the parallelisms of the other gospels. Of these sections
Matthew contained 355; Mark, 234 (in Wordsworth's Greek Testament, 236
are given); Luke, 342; John, 231 (in Wordsworth's Greek Testament, 232).
The infelicity of this arrangement was that, with the exception of the
first gospel, the true order of the evangelists was broken up--"The
train of sequence of the three was destroyed in respect to the orderly
course of reading," as Eusebius says (Letter to Carpianus, given in
Wordsworth's Greek Testament).
To remedy this evil, Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea, in the following
century connected with these Ammonian sections his _ten canons_. These
are ten tables, arranged according to the order of Matthew, or where
sections are wanting in Matthew, according to the order of the next
evangelist that contains them, in such a way as to show at a glance what
sections of the other evangelists answer to any given section of that
gospel which stands first in order in each canon.
Numbering the four gospels in order--1, 2, 3, 4--the ten canons
of Eusebius contain as follows:
I. Sections common to 1, 2, 3, 4.
II. " 1, 2, 3.
III. " 1, 3, 4.
IV. " 1, 2, 4.
V. " 1, 3.
VI. " 1, 2.
VII. " 1, 4.
VIII. " 2, 3.
IX. " 3, 4.
X. Sections peculiar to one.
A couple of examples will make this matter plain. Turning to
what is now the beginning of the thirteenth chapter of Matthew,
we find (the Greek numerals being exchanged for those in common
use) the sign 131/II that is, the 131st Ammonian section of
Matthew with the second canon of Eusebius. Turning to the table
of the second canon, we find, corresponding to the 131st section
of Matthew, the 36th of Mark and the 76th of Luke, which contain
the parallel passages concerning the sower. Again, connected
with Mark 1:23, is the sign, 14/VIII whence we learn, by
reference to the eighth canon, that the fourteenth section of
Mark answers to the 25th of Luke. By a repetition of the canons
as often as necessary, so as to allow each gospel in turn to
take the lead, Wordsworth has greatly facilitated the work of
comparing parallel passages.
"The Codex Vaticanus B, contains a distribution into sections
wholly peculiar. Of these, St. Matthew contains 170, St. Mark
61, etc. The length of these divisions is very unequal; the
_sense_ being the reason of the breaks occurring when they do.
In the gospels, at least, the sections are perhaps the best that
were ever devised; and this system of capitulary division is
probably the earliest of which we have the means of knowing any
thing." Horne's Introduction, vol. 4, chap. 4, revised edition,
1860.
8. Different from the Ammonian-Eusebian sections, and later in their
origin, are the divisions of the gospels called _titles_, because each
of them received a title from one of the first or principal subjects
mentioned in it. They are thought to have been connected with the public
reading of the gospels. Of these, Matthew contains 68; Mark, 48; Luke,
83; John, 18. They are, therefore, larger than the Ammonian sections,
and resemble more nearly our modern chapters.
These _titles_ are called by the Latins _briefs_ (_breves_), and
the tables of their contents _breviaries_ (_breviaria_). They
did not come into common use before the fifth century, and are
commonly annexed to manuscripts along with the Ammonian-Eusebian
sections. But they are the only divisions known to some of the
church fathers, as Euthymius and Theophylact.
9. The divisions of the other books of the New Testament are thought to
be of later origin. Euthalius introduced into a copy, which he sent to
Athanasius the younger, divisions called chapters. He has sometimes been
considered the author of those in the Acts and catholic epistles; but he
probably took them from an older source. Those in the Pauline epistles
he expressly ascribed to "one of the wisest and most Christ-loving of
our fathers." He also gave headings to the chapters, descriptive of
their contents, but collected from previous sources. The Apocalypse was
divided into twenty-four larger sections and seventy-two smaller--a work
ascribed to Andreas of Cæsarea in Cappadocia. Tregelles, in Horne's
Introduction, vol. 4, chap. 4.
10. Our present division of chapters was made in the thirteenth century,
by Cardinal Hugo, from whom proceeded also that in the Old Testament. It
was first introduced into the Latin copies, and afterwards into the
Greek. Our present division of verses was made by Robert Stephens, in
1551. It was preceded by some earlier divisions, as that of Pagninus, in
which the verses were longer than those of Stephens.
Distinct from all the above divisions are the _church-lessons_,
made very early, in imitation of the Jewish Haphtaroth, or
sections from the prophets. Chap. 13, No. 6. The beginning of
these seems to have been in special selections for the church
festivals. But the usage was afterwards extended so as to
include selections for all the Sabbaths and feast-days of the
year. Hence from the fifth century and onward the whole New
Testament was no longer publicly read, as in the primitive days
of Christianity, according to the free judgment of those who
conducted the church-services; but these selected sections
(_pericopae_). Collections of these lessons were called by the
general name of _lectionaries_ (lectionaria). Those from the
gospels or Acts and epistles received special names indicative
of their contents. See Bleek, § 265; Horne's Introduction, vol.
4, chap. 4, end.
11. From the above brief survey, it is manifest that none of the
external divisions of the sacred text rest on any divine authority. They
are the work of uninspired men, and are to be treated accordingly. For
_convenience of reference_, a division of the Scriptures into chapters
and verses is indispensable; and we may well rest contented with that
which now prevails, though it cannot claim perfection. But in the
_interpretation_ of the inspired word we must go behind human divisions,
carefully inquiring after the true connection of thought, according to
the acknowledged laws of interpretation. To give one example out of
many, we must not infer that the last verse of the eleventh chapter of
the book of Revelation belongs to the _preceding_ and not the
_following_ context, because of its separation from the latter in the
division of chapters; but we must determine its true connection
independently of this division.
A very good arrangement is that of _Paragraph Bibles_, in which
the distinctions of chapter and verse are thrown into the
margin, the text being broken into longer or shorter sections
according to the true course of thought. Yet this mode of
division also is human, and cannot be infallible.
12. The _titles_ of the several books of the New Testament did not
proceed immediately from the authors themselves. In form they present
some diversity; for example: _The Gospel according to Matthew_;
_according to Matthew_; _the holy Gospel according to Matthew_, etc.,
the shorter and simpler titles being, as a rule, the more ancient. For
substance, however, the different forms are the same. They represent the
ancient church tradition, and are of very high authority. The
_subscriptions_, on the other hand, which stand at the end of the
epistles of Paul, that to the Hebrews included--are confessedly the work
of later copyists. They are of no authority, and are sometimes
manifestly incorrect.