[1] The books of Samuel, Kings, Ezra and Nehemiah, and Chronicles,
were by the Jews each treated (and written) as one book, and were not
divided by them into two till the 16th century, through Christian
influence.
[2] For a discussion of the word "Massoretes" see W. Bacher (_J.Q.R._
vol. iii. pp. 785 f.), who maintains that the original pronunciation
of these words was [Hebrew: masoreth] and [Hebrew: momarah].
[3] The actual date of the introduction of vowel points is not known,
but it must in any case have been later than the time of Jerome, and
is probably to be assigned to the 7th century. Of the systems of
punctuation which are known to us, the more familiar is the Tiberian,
or sublinear, which is found in all printed editions of the Hebrew
Bible. The other system, the Babylonian or superlinear, is chiefly
found in certain Yemen MSS. For yet a third system of vocalization
see M. Friedlaender, _J.Q.R._, 1895, pp. 564 f., and P. Kahle in
_Z.A.T.W._ xxi. (1901), pp. 273 f. Probably the idea of providing
vowel points was borrowed from the Syrians.
[4] This represents the Western tradition as opposed to the Eastern
text of ben Naphtali. For the standard copies such as the _Codex
Hillelis_ referred to by later writers see H.L. Strack, _Proleg.
Critica_, pp. 14 f.
[5] Cf. F.C. Burkitt, _Fragments of the Books of Kings according to
the Translation of Aquila_.
[6] The Talmudic story of the three MSS. preserved in the court of
the temple (_Sopherim_, vi. 4) sufficiently illustrates the tentative
efforts of the rabbis in this direction.
[7] W. Robertson Smith, _Old Testament and the Jewish Church_, pp. 69
f.
[8] For these _Tiqqune Sopherim_ or "corrections of the scribes" see
Geiger, _Urschrift_, pp. 308 f.; Strack, _Prolegomena Critica_, p.
87; Buhl, _Canon and Text of the Old Testament_, pp. 103 f. In the
_Mekilta_ (Exod. xv. 7) only eleven passages are mentioned. Less
important are the _Itture Sopherim_, or five passages in which the
scribes have omitted a _waw_ from the text.
[9] _Text of the Books of Samuel_, pp. xxxix. f.
[10] According to Josephus (_Ant._ xi. 7. 8) the temple on Mt.
Gerizim was set up by Manasseh in the reign of Darius Codomannus,
i.e. about 332 B.C. It is possible that he is correct in placing the
building of the temple at the later date, but probably he errs in
connecting it with the secession of Manasseh, which, according to
Nehemiah, occurred a century earlier; it has been suggested that he
has confused Darius Codomannus with his predecessor, Darius Nothus.
[11] e.g. Ex. xx. 17, 19 ff.; Num. xx. f.; Deut. xxvii. 4.
[12] 1 Kings xx. 7-17; 2 Kings xxiii. 12-17, ed. by Mr (now
Professor) F.C. Burkitt in _Fragments of the Books of Kings according
to the Translation of Aquila_ (Cambridge, 1897), and Ps. xc. 6-13;
xci. 4-10, and parts of Ps. xxiii. by Dr C. Taylor in _Sayings of the
Jewish Fathers_ (2nd ed., 1897).
[13] On the question of Theodotion's date, Schuerer (_Geschichte des
juedischen Volkes_, Bd. iii. p. 324) argues very plausibly for his
_priority_ to Aquila on the grounds, (1) that Irenaeus mentions him
before Aquila, and (2) that, after Aquila's version had been adopted
by the Greek Jews, a work such as that of Theodotion would have been
somewhat superfluous. Theodotion's work, he suggests, formed the
first stage towards the establishment of a Greek version which should
correspond more closely with the Hebrew. Moreover, this theory
affords the simplest explanation of its disappearance from Jewish
tradition.
[14] Only one MS. of the Septuagint version of Daniel has survived,
the _Codex Chisianus_.
[15] _Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek_, p. 51.
[16] Hence the name _Hexapla_. In some books, especially the
poetical, the columns were increased to eight by the addition of the
_Quinta_ and _Sexta_, but the _Octapla_, as the enlarged work was
called, was not apparently a distinct work. The _Tetrapla_, on the
other hand, was a separate edition which did not contain the first
two columns of the _Hexapla_.
[17] Lagarde's projected edition of the Lucianic recension was
unfortunately never completed; the existing volume contains Genesis-2
Esdras, Esther. It may be noted here that the Complutensian Polyglott
represents a Lucianic text.
[18] Hastings's _Dict. of the Bible_, iii. pp. 54 ff.
[19] _The Old Testament in Greek_, by A.E. Brooke and N. McLean, vol.
i. pt. 1 (1906)
[20] His arguments are stated briefly (and in order to be refuted) by
Jerome in his commentary on _Daniel_.
[21] In what follows the actual quotations are from his English work;
some of the summaries take account of the brief expansions in his
later Latin version.
[22] See particularly B. Stade, _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_
(1887-1888); J. Wellhausen, _Die Kleinen Propheten_ (1892); B.I.
Duhm, _Jesaia_ (1892); T.K. Cheyne, _Introduction to the Book of
Isaiah_ (1895); K. Marti, _Jesaja_ (1900), and _Das Dodekapropheton_
(1904).
[23] _The Old Testament in the Jewish Church_ (1881); _The Prophets
of Israel_ (1882).
[24] For details see an article in the _Zeitschr. fuer d. altest.
Wissenschaft_ for 1889, pp. 246-302, on "Alttestamentliche Studien in
Amerika," by G.F. Moore, who has himself since done much
distinguished and influential critical work.
[25] To avoid any possibility of overstating the case, it is
necessary to refer here to the fact that Tethmosis (Thothmes) III. in
the 16th century B.C. mentions two Palestinian places named
respectively Jacobel and Josephel, and Sheshonk in the both century
B.C. mentions another called "The field of Abram." From these names
alone it is impossible to determine whether the places derived their
names from individuals or tribes.
[26] Or according to some MSS., 167.
[27] Shem, the father of Arphaxad, is aged 100 at the time of the
Flood, and lives for 600 years.
[28] Disregarding the "two years" of Gen. xi. 10; see v. 32, vii. 11.
[29] Taking account of the reading of LXX. in Ex. xii. 40.
[30] See further Driver's essay in Hogarth's _Authority and
Archaeology_ (1899), pp. 32-34; or his _Book of Genesis_ (1904, 7th
ed., 1909), p. xxxi. ff.
[31] 1 Petrie, _Hist. of Egypt_, i. (ed. 5, 1903), p. 251; iii.
(1905), p. 2.
[32] See Merenptah's account of the defeat of these invaders in
Maspero, op. cit. pp. 432-437; or in Breasted's _Ancient Records of
Egypt_ (Chicago, 1906), iii. 240-252.
[33] Namely, 40 years in the wilderness; Joshua and the elders
(Judges ii. 7), x years; Othniel (iii. 11), 40 years; Ehud (iii. 30),
80 years; Barak (v. 31), 40 years; Gideon (viii. 28), 40 years;
Jephthah and five minor judges (x. 2, 3, xii. 7, 9, 11, 14), 76
years; Samson (xvi. 31), 20 years; Eli (1 Sam. iv. 18), 40 years;
Samuel (vii. 2), 20 years; Saul, y years; David, 40 years; and
Solomon's first four years--in all 440 + x + y years.
[34] Namely, Moses (in the wilderness), Joshua, Othniel, Ehud,
Deborah, Gideon, Jephthah, Samson, Eli, Samuel, Saul and David.
[35] The "300 years" of Judges xi. 26 agrees very nearly with the sum
of the years (namely, 319) given in the preceding chapters for the
successive periods of oppression and independence. The verse occurs
in a long insertion (xi. 12-28) in the original narrative; and the
figure was most probably arrived at by computation upon the basis of
the present chronology of the book.
[36] The real Biblical date, Ussher in Gen. xi. 26 interpolating 60
years, because it is said in Acts vii. 4 that Abraham left Haran
_after_ his father Terah's death (Gen. xi. 32), and also (as
explained above) interpreting wrongly Ex. Xii. 40.
[37] Hilprecht's dates (_The Bab. Expedition of the University of
Pennsylvania_, vol. i. pt. i. 1893, pp. 11, 12; pt. ii. 1896, pp. 23,
24, 43, 44).
[38] Petrie's dates, _Hist. of Egypt_, vol. i. (ed. 5, 1903), pp. 20,
30, 233, 251, 252; vol. iii. (1905), pp. 2, 235, 261-7, 296-360.
Other authorities, however, assign considerably lower dates for the
dynasties prior to the 18th. Thus Breasted (_Hist. of Egypt_, 1906,
pp. 22 ff., 221, 597) agrees with Ed. Meyer in giving, for reasons
which cannot be here explained, for the beginning of the 1st dynasty
c. B.C. 3400, for the 4th dynasty c. B.C. 2900-2750, and for the rule
of the Hyksos c. B.C. 1680-1580; and in his _Researches in Sinai_,
1906, p. 175, Petrie proposes for Menes B.C. 5510, and for the 4th
dynasty B.C. 4731-4454. See EGYPT (_Chronology_).
[39] So Sayce, Rogers (_Hist. of Bab. and Ass._, 1900, i. 318 f.) and
others. The date rests upon a statement of Nabu-na'id's, that
Sargon's son, Naram-Sin, reigned 3200 years before himself. Lehmann
holds that there are reasons for believing that the engraver, by
error, put a stroke too many, and that 2200 should be read instead of
3200.
[40] The real Biblical date.
[41] Rogers, i. 373-375. Many monuments and inscriptions of other
kings in Babylonia, between 4000 and 2000 B.C., are also known.
[42] The lists of the Babylonian and Assyrian kings are not
continuous; and before 1907, from the data then available (see the
discussion in Rogers, op. cit. i. 312-348), Khammurabi, the sixth
king of the first Babylonian dynasty, was commonly referred to such
dates as 2376-2333 B.C. (Sayce) or 2285-2242 B.C. (Johns). But
inscriptions recently discovered, by showing that the second dynasty
was partly contemporaneous with the first and the third, have proved
that these dates are too high; see L.W. King, _Chronicles Concerning
Early Bab. Kings_ (1907), i. 93-110; and the article BABYLONIA,
_Chronology_. The data B.C. 2130-2088 is that adopted by
Thureau-Dangin, after a discussion of the subject, in the _Journal
des Savants_, 1908, p. 199; and by Ungnad in the _Orient.
Litt.-zeitung_, 1908, p. 13, and in Gressmann's _Altorientalische
Texte und Bilder zum A.T._ (1909), p. 103.
[43] King, op. cit. i. 116, ii. 14.
[44] The dates of the kings are, in most cases, those given by
Kautzsch in the table in his _Outline of the Hist. of the Literature
of the O.T._ (tr. by Taylor, 1898), pp. 167 ff.; see also A.R.S.
Kennedy, "Samuel" in the _Century Bible_ (1906), p. 31. The dates
given by other recent authorities seldom differ by more than three or
four years.
[45] The figures after a king's name indicate the number of years
assigned to his reign in the O.T. For Saul, see 1 Sam. xiii. 1, R.V.
[46] The date of Sheshonq depends on that fixed for Rehoboam. Petrie
places the accession of Rehoboam in 937 B.C.
[47] If these dates are correct, there must be some error in the ages
assigned to Ahaz and Hezekiah at their accession, viz. 20 and 25
respectively, for it would otherwise follow from them that Ahaz,
dying at the age of [20 + 8 =] 28, left a son aged 25! The date 728
for Hezekiah's accession rests upon the assumption that of the two
inconsistent dates in 2 Kings xviii. 10, 13, the one in ver. 10
(which places the fall of Samaria in Hezekiah's 6th year) is correct;
but some scholars (as Wellhausen, Kamphausen, and Stade) suppose that
the date in ver. 10 (which places Sennacherib's invasion in
Hezekiah's 14th year) is correct, and assign accordingly Hezekiah's
accession to 715. This removes, or at least mitigates, the difficulty
referred to, and leaves more room for the reigns of Jotham and Ahaz;
but it requires, of course, a corresponding reduction in the reigns
of the kings succeeding Ahaz.
[48] Breasted's dates for these three kings (_Hist. of Egypt_, 1906,
p. 601) are: Shabaka 712-700; Shabataka 700-688; Taharqa 688-663.
[49] See George Smith, _The Assyrian Eponym Canon_ (1875), pp. 29
ff., 57 ff.; Schrader, _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_
(transcriptions and translations of Assyrian and Babylonian
inscriptions), i. (1889), pp. 204 ff.
[50] It may be explained here that the dates of the Assyrian and
Babylonian kings can be reduced to years B.C. by means of the
so-called "Canon of Ptolemy," which is a list of the Babylonian and
Persian kings, with the lengths of their reigns, extending from
Nabonassar, 747 B.C., to Alexander the Great, drawn up in the 2nd
century A.D. by the celebrated Egyptian mathematician and geographer
Ptolemy; as the dates B.C. of the Persian kings are known
independently, from Greek sources, the dates B.C. of the preceding
Babylonian kings can, of course, be at once calculated by means of
the Canon. The recently-discovered contemporary monuments have fully
established the accuracy of the Canon.
[51] Or, in any case, between 734 and 732; see Rost, _Die
Keilschrifttexte Tiglat-pilesers III._, 1893, pp. xii., 39, 81, with
the discussion, pp. xxxii.-xxxiv., xxxv.-xxxvi.
[52] This interval does not depend upon a mere list of Eponym years;
we have in the annals of Sargon and Sennacherib full particulars of
the events in all the intervening years.
[53] The date of this epistle is rather uncertain. Something depends
upon the vexed question as to the identity of the Galatian churches.
The epistle may be placed conjecturally early in the stay at Ephesus
(c. A.D. 52-53). It is to be noted that the chronological grouping of
the epistles by minute comparison of style is apt to be deceptive;
resemblances of this kind are due more to similarity of subject than
to proximity in date.
[54] E.g. from the preface to the Acts: "Dionysius, bishop of the
Corinthians, a very ancient writer, quoted by Eusebius, writes that
Peter and Paul obtained the crown of martyrdom by the command of Nero
on the same day." And again: "Some industrious critics have added (to
the narrative of Acts) that Paul was acquitted at his first trial by
Nero .... This conjecture they make from the 2nd Ep. to Timothy...."
[55] The phrase is Chillingworth's (1637), who may be described as a
Broad High-churchman.
[56] J. Wellhausen, _Einl. in die drei ersten Evangelien_ (1905), p.
57.
[57] If Luke used Josephus, as F.C. Burkitt and others believe, the
later date must be taken; otherwise the earlier date is more
probable, as in any case it must fall within the lifetime of a
companion of St Paul.
[58] It is a curious coincidence that a medieval Jew, R. Abarbanel
(Abrabanel), records that the conjunction of these particular planets
in this particular constellation was to be a sign of Messiah's
coming. It is just conceivable that his statement may ultimately
depend on some such ancient tradition as may have been known to
Chaldaean magi.
[59] If the Passover celebration could be anticipated by one day in a
private Jewish family (and we know perhaps too little of Jewish rules
in the time of Christ to be able to exclude this possibility), the
evidence of the synoptic Gospels would no longer conflict with that
of St John.
[60] Dr C. Erbes (_Texte and Untersuchungen_, new series, iv. 1)
attempts to interpret the evidence of Eusebius in favour of the later
date for Festus as follows: Eusebius's date for Festus is to be found
in Nero 1, by striking a mean between the Armenian, Claudius 12, and
the Latin, Nero 2; it is really to be understood as reckoned, not by
years of Nero, but by years of Agrippa; and as Eusebius erroneously
antedated Agrippa's reign by five years, commencing it with A.D. 45
instead of A.D. 50, his date for Festus is five years too early also,
and should be moved to Nero 6, A.D. 59-60. The whole of this theory
appears to the present writer to be a gigantic mare's nest: see
_Journal of Theological Studies_ (October 1901), pp. 120-123.
[61] This date appears to be satisfactorily established by Ramsay, "A
Second Fixed Point in the Pauline Chronology," _Expositor_, August
1900.
BIBLE, ENGLISH. The history of the vernacular Bible of the English race
resolves itself into two distinctly marked periods--the one being that
of Manuscript Bibles, which were direct translations from the Latin
Vulgate, the other that of Printed Bibles, which were, more or less
completely, translations from the original Hebrew and Greek of the Old
and New Testaments.
Caedmon.
1. _The Manuscript Bible._--The first essays in Biblical translation, or
rather paraphrasing, assumed in English, as in many other languages, a
poetical form. Even in the 7th century, according to the testimony of
Bede (_Hist. Eccl._ iv. 24), Caedmon sang "de creatione mundi et origine
humani generis, et tota Genesis historia, de egressu Israel ex Aegypto
et ingressu in terram repromissionis, de aliis plurimis sacrae
Scripturae historiis, de incarnatione Dominica, passione, resurrectione
et ascensione in coelum, de Spiritus Sancti adventu, et apostolorum
doctrina." It is, however, doubtful whether any of the poetry which has
been ascribed to him can claim to be regarded as his genuine work.
Bede.
The first prose rendering of any part of the Bible--and with these we
are mainly concerned in the present inquiry--originated in all
probability in the 8th century, when Bede, the eminent scholar and
churchman, translated the first portion (chs. i.-vi. 9) of the Gospel of
St John into the vernacular, but no part of this rendering is extant.
His pupil Cuthberht recorded this fact in a letter to a fellow-student,
Cuthwine: "a capite sancti evangelii Johannis usque ad eum locum in quo
dicitur, 'sed haec quid sunt inter tantos?' in nostram linguam ad
utilitatem ecclesiae Dei convertit" (Mayor and Lumby, _Bedae Hist.
Eccl._ p. 178).
9th and 10th century glosses.
The 9th century is characterized by _interlinear glosses on the Book of
Psalms_, and towards its close by a few attempts at independent
translation. Of these "glossed Psalters" twelve MSS. are known to exist,
and they may be ranged into two groups according to the Latin text they
represent. The _Roman Psalter_ is glossed in the following MSS.: (1)
Cotton Vesp. A. 1 (_Vespasian Psalter_); (2) Bodl. Junius 27; (3) Univ.
Libr. Camb. Ff. 1. 23; (4) Brit. Mus. Reg. 2. B. 5; (5) Trin. Coll.
Camb. R. 17. 1 (_Eadwine's Psalter_); (6) Brit. Mus. Add. 37517. The
_Gallican Psalter_ in the following: (1) Brit. Mus. Stowe 2 (Spelman's
text); (2) Cotton Vitell. E. 18; (3) Cotton Tib. C. 16; (4) Lambeth 48;
(5) Arundel 60; (6) Salisbury Cath. 150.[1]
The oldest and most important of these MSS. is the so-called _Vespasian
Psalter_, which was written in Mercia in the first half of the 9th
century. It was in all probability the original from which all the
above-mentioned Old English glosses were derived, though in several
instances changes and modifications were introduced by successive
scribes. The first verse of Psalm c. (Vulg. xcix. 2) may serve as a
specimen of these glosses.
_Roman Text._ _Gallican Text._
MS. Vespasian. A. 1. MS. Stowe. 2.
Wynsumiaeth gode, all eorethe Drymaeth drihtne, eall eorethe;
ethiowiad Dryhtne in blisse; etheowiaeth drihtne on blisse;
ingaeth in gesihethe his in infaraeth on gesyhethe hys
wynsumnisse. on bliethnysse.
_Jubilate Deo, omnis terra; _Jubilate Domino, omnis terra;
servite Domino in laetitia; Servite Domino in laetitia;
intrate in conspectu eius in introite in conspectu eius
exultatione._ in exultatione._
To the late 9th or early 10th century a work may be assigned which is in
so far an advance upon preceding efforts as to be a real translation,
not a mere gloss corresponding word for word with the Latin original.
This is the famous _Paris Psalter_,[2] a rendering of the first fifty
Psalms (Vulg. i.-l. 10), contained in the unique MS. _lat. 8824_ in the
Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris. The authorship of this version is
doubtful, being by some scholars attributed to King Alfred (d. 901), of
whom William of Malmesbury writes (_Gesta Regum Anglorum_, ii. 123),
"Psalterium transferre aggressus vix prima parte explicata vivendi finem
fecit." This view is, however, denied by others.
Lindisfarne Gospels.
In the course of the 10th century the Gospels were glossed and
translated. The earliest in date is a _Northumbrian Gloss on the
Gospels_, contained in a beautiful and highly interesting MS. variously
known as the _Durham Book_, the _Lindisfarne Gospels_, or the _Book of
St Cuthbert_ (MS. Cotton, Nero. D. 4). The Latin text dates from the
close of the 7th century, and is the work of Eadfrith, bishop of
Lindisfarne (698-721). The English gloss was added about a century and a
half later (c. 950) by one Aldred, whom Dr Charles O'Conor (_Bibl.
Stowensis_, 1818-1819, ii. 180) supposes to have been the bishop of
Durham of that name. The Lord's Prayer is glossed in the following
way:--
_Lindisfarne Gospels._
Matthew vi. 9. Suae ethonne iuih gie bidde fader urer ethu areth
_sic ergo uos orabitis + Pater noster qui es_
ethu bist in heofnum & in heofnas; sie gehalgad noma ethin;
_in caelis; sanctificetur nomen tuum_;
(10) to-cymeeth ric ethin. sie willo ethin suae is in heofne
_adueniat regnum tuum fiat uoluntas tua sicut in caelo_
J in eoretho.
et in terra.
(11) hlaf userne oferwistlic sel us to daeg.
_panem nostrum super-substantiale[m] da nobis hodie._
(12) J forgef us scylda usra suae uoe forgefon scyldgum
_et demitte nobis debita nostra sicut nos dimittimus debitoribus_
usum.
_nostris._
(13) J ne inlaed usih in costunge ah gefrig usich from yfle
_et ne inducas nos in temtationem sed libera nos a malo.[3]_
Rushworth Version.
Of a somewhat later date is the celebrated _Rushworth Version of the
Gospels_ (MS. Bodl. Auct. D. ii. 9), which contains an independent
translation of the Gospel of St Matthew, and a gloss on those of St
Mark, St Luke and St John, founded upon the Lindisfarne glosses. From a
note in the manuscript we learn that two men, Faerman and Owun, made the
version. Faerman was a priest at Harewood, or Harwood, in the West Riding
of Yorkshire, and to him the best part of the work is due. He translated
the whole of St Matthew, and wrote the gloss of St Mark i.-ii. 15, and
St John xviii. 1-3. The remaining part, a mere transcript, is Owun's
work. The dialect of the translation of St Matthew is Mercian.[4]
West-Saxon Gospels.
A further testimony to the activity which prevailed in the field of
Biblical lore is the fact that at the close of the century--probably
about the year 1000--the Gospels were rendered anew for the first time
in the south of England. Of this version--the so-called _West-Saxon
Gospels_--not less than seven manuscripts have come down to us. A note
in one of these, MS. Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, 140, states,
_ego AElfricus scripsi hunc librum in Monasterio Baethžonio et dedi
Brihtwoldo preposito_, but of this AElfric and his superior nothing
further is known.[5]