Nevertheless the idea of a strict and pure New Testament canon (see CANON) is not discernable in the church in Justin Martyr's time. There is no positive evidence in favor of its existence; but this is not to be wondered at, for the consciousness of freedoin in the Holy Spirit, which penetrated the Christians of the 1st c.; the opposition of what in continental theology are termed the Petrine and Pauline (q. v.), i. e., the Judaising and anti-Judaising parties, which does unquestionably appear to have existed; the still living tradition of the apostles; the difficulty of diffusing aposcism; the vacillation in determining the point where the apostolic men ceased; the use in the worship of God of the Old Testament, and, in particular churches, of casual Christian writings not now looked upon as canonical: all these causes together operated in hindering, till the middle of the 2d c., a formal collection of New Testament writings of any compass or critical value, though it seems quite clear that they existed separately, and were regarded as the most authoritative records of the new dispensation. The earliest trace of such a collection (the ten Pauline epistles without the pastoral epistles) appears after the middle of the 2d c. in opposition to that gnostic perversion of primitive Christianity which had been introduced by Marcion of Pontus.

received as canonical several writings which were rejected, or the gospels are found in Papias (died 163), in Justin Martyr (died subordinated as apocryphal (see Apocrypha), by the Jews of 166 A.D.), in his pupil Tatian (died 176), in Athenagoras (died 180), Palestine. The primitive church, in the period which elapsed be- and in Theophilus, who wrote about the year 180. None of these fore the canon of the New Testament was completed, referred to writers, however, name the authors from whom they quote, though the Old Testament for proof of doctrines; but, on account of the Papias-the earliest, but not the most trustworthy of them-bears prevalent ignorance of the Hebrew and Chaldee languages among direct and minute testimony of the existence of gospels by St. the early Christians, the Alexandrine Greek version was the Matthew, St. Mark, St. John, the catholic epistles, and the Apocauthority employed. As this included the apocryphal books, re-alypse, whence it has been concluded that the authenticity of the jected by the Jews of Palestine, the earliest Christian Fathers apostolic memoirs was not then settled, and perhaps not even inmade the same use of these writings as of the others; but the vestigated; but anonymous quotation seems to have been a chargrowth of criticism during the next two centuries was fatal to acteristic carelessness of the time, for of this kind are 117 of Justin their reputation, or at least to their authority. We do not find, Martyr's references to the Old Testament. The great fact on which however, that they were formally designated 'apocryphal' until a constructive Christian criticism leans in regard to the evidence of the time of Jerome (5th c.), though the Greek Church, in the pre- these writers is, that they do not speak of the gospels or apostolic vious century, had approximated to this mode of viewing them, by memoirs as things which had only recently made their appearance, affirming them to be not canonical, but only edifying, and also by but as well known and long established. Justin even states that issuing lists or catalogues of those books which were recognized | the apostolic memoirs' were regularly read in the churches for as canonical. In the Latin Church, on the other hand, these writ- the edification of believers-a fact which clearly indicates their ings were received as canonical after the 4th c., though Jerome, superior sanctity and general reception. The Tübingen school Hilarius, Rufinus, aud Junilius wished to distinguish them from contend that these apostolic memoirs could not have been the cathe canonical books by the name of libri ecclesiastici. The Prot-nonical gospels, but must rather have been the primitive evangeliestants, at the Reformation, returned to the distinction originally | cal records out of which the canonical gospels were formed; but it made by the Palestinian Jews between the Hebrew Scriptures of cannot be said that the crititism of Baur and his followers, in spite the Old Testament and the apocryphal works included in the Alex- of its profound and searching character, has seriously imperilled the andrine version and the Latin Vulgate. Luther, in his translation claim to apostolic antiquity put forth on behalf of the New Testaof the B., included the Apocrypha as books not to be placed on ment Scriptures. 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 NEW TESTAMENT, or the collection of canonical scriptures containing the history and doctrines of Christianity, may be divided into three chief sections: 1. The historical books, or the four gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles. 2. The didactic and pastoral writings, which include the Epistles of Paul to the Ro-tolic writings sent only to particular churches; the absence of critimans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, the Epistles 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 hipse of time had hallowed the Old Testament, and given to it that superior | authority which springs from venerable age. The generation The Muratorian Canon in the West, and the Peshito (q. v.) in which immediately succeeded that of the apostles-and indeed, so the East, both belonging to this period, which has been called the far as we can see, the same may be said of the apostles them-Age of the Apologists,' furnish important evidence in regard to selves-did not consider the apostolic writings of equal im- the New Testament canon, for both refer to nearly every book portance as writings with the sacred books of the Old Testament. now received as authoritative, the exceptions being, in the former, Besides, most of the epistles were of little use in controversy, for the Epistle of James, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and 2 Peter; in the earliest heretics denied the apostleship of St. Paul; while both the latter, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and the Apocalypse. parties admitted the authority of the Septuagint, and found in it the close of the 2d, and in the beginning of the 3d c., Irenæus, their common weapons of argument. Nevertheless, we occasion- Clemens Alexandrinus, and Tertullian bear testimony to the recally find references to the didactic portions or the New Testament, ognition of the four gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the thirsuch as those to Romans, 1st Corinthians, Ephesians, Hebrews, teen Pauline epistles, the 1st Epistle of Peter, the 1st Epistle of and James, in Clemens Romanus, to 1st Corinthians, and Ephe- | John, and the Apocalypse, as canonical writings. But they do sians, in Ignatius; to Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2d Corinthians, even more than bear testimony to their recognition--they appeal Galatians, Philippians, 1st Timothy, 2d Timothy, 1st Peter, and to antiquity for proof of the authenticity of the books which they 1st John, in Polycarp. Still more uncertain are the references of used as Christian Scriptures. On this point, Tertullian is espethe apostolical Fathers to the gospels. The notices found in cially precise, and his most convincing argument on behalf of the Barnabas, Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, and Polycarp are only surety of the gospels' is, that the very heretics bear witness to suflicient to indicate that all the great facts of Christ's life were them. They did not, it is admitted, acknowledge the whole of known to the churches, and that the doctrinal significance of these the New Testament canon, but this is explicable on the hypothehad begun to be realized. They do not, however, demonstrate the sis, which is justified by investigation, that the portions rejected existence of written gospels, but they prove that Christianity rests were those that seemed alien to their own opinions. Two distinct on a historic basis. Their silence in relation to the written gospels collections of writings are now noticed—the Instrumentum Ecannow constituting a portion of the canon of the New Testament, is gelicum, containing the four gospels; and the Instrumentum Aposat first sight singular; but when we reflect that the facts of the tolicum, containing the Acts of the Apostles, along with the PaulSaviour's life and teaching were apparently quite familiar to the ine and other epistles. Respecting several parts of the New churches-so familiar, indeed, that no explanation was needed in Testament canon, differences of opinion prevailed in early times, alluding to them-we see that the necessity of the apostolic nor was the war of criticism closed until the 6th c., for fathers quoting from the Evangelists ceases. It is contended, that considerable difference of opinion existed in regard to the any specific quotations would have been a work of supererogation; value of the testimony of the early apologetic authors. Origen whereas, in the case of the didactic epistles, which were written doubted the authority ot the Epistle to the Hebrews, of the Episoriginally for the benefit of particular churches, and conditioned tle of James, of Jude, of the 2d of Peter, and the 2d and 3d of by their special circumstances, and the contents of which, there- John; while, at the same time, he was disposed to recognize as fore, could not be so well or widely known, quotations or allusions canonical certain apocryphal scriptures, such as those of Hermas might more naturally be looked for. But evidence of this negative and Barnabas, which were decidedly rejected by the Church. The character for the existence of the evangelical records, however Apocalypse was treated as a dubious part of the canon down to prebable, is very uncertain, and its uncertainty is increased by the the 7th c. The learned and circumspect Father, Eusebius, in the use made of writings which, at a later period, were rejected as 4th c., in a passage of his Church History, distinguishes three apocryphal. classes of New Testament Scriptures: 1. Universally received Scriptures (homologoumena), the four gospels, the Acts of the

First, in the second half of the 2d c., more distinct references to

In

Apostles, the fourteen Pauline epistles, the 1st Epistle of John, and unscrupulously falsified by the Jews. That there are errothe 1st of Peter, and with a certain reservation, the Apocalypse neous readings, nobody doubts. The real task devolving on a of John. 2. Scriptures not universally received, or not received student of this branch of theological science is to explain these on at all. These he calls disputed' (antilegomena), and subdivides natural principles, and by collating the various recensions, to enthem into such as were generally known and approved by most deavor to obtain a pure text, or as close an approximation to that -viz., the epistles of James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John; and as may be possible. The following is a tolerably complete classisuch as were spurious' (notha)-viz., the Acts of Paul, the fication of the causes of errors. 1. Errors arising from imperfect Shepherd, the Apocalyse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, the In- sight or occasional inattentiveness; as when transcribers substituted stitutes of the Apostles, and the Gospel of the Hebrews. 3. one letter for another similar in appearance, transposed letters, Heretical forgeries, such as the gospels of Peter, Thomas, Mat- words, and sentences, and omitted the same; of which there are thias, which Eusebius pronounces to be altogether absurd and various examples. 2. Errors arising from imperfect hearing, of impious.' which there are not many examples. 3. Errors arising from defecThe Western Church, which was more conservative and less tive memory; as when a transcriber fancied that he knew certain critical than the Eastern Church, completed the canon with greater words, phrases, or clauses, on account of their having occured berapidity. Although the eastern Council of Laodicea (360—364), fore; of these there are occasional examples. 4. Errors arising in determining the canon of the New Testament, excluded the from defective judgment; as when words were wrongly divided, or Apocalypse, the western synods of Hippo-Regius (393), Car- abbreviations wrongly resolved; also from the custodes linearum thage (397), the Roman bishop, Innocent I. (in the beginning of the (i. e., the letters which filled up the occasional vacant space at the end 5th c.), and the Concilium Romanum under Gelasius I. (494), rec- of lines) and marginal remarks being sometimes incorporated with ognized the entire canon of the New Testament as we find it in the text. These not unfrequently happen. 5. Errors arising from the present day. The doubts entertained by individuals respect- a well-meant desire on the part of the transcriber to explain or ing some parts of the canon had become exceptional and unim-amend a text, really or apparently obscure. In this respect the portant at the close of the 7th c. Owing to the want of Greek Samaritans are greatly to blame. A very knotty point is the consholarship, as also, perhaps, to the growing idea of an infallible ditions of the text before and at the close of the canon. The opinchurch papacy, there was no criticism worthy of the name during ion of Eichhorn, De Wette, and others is, that while the books cirthe middle ages. Doubts, therefore, respecting the Epistle to the culated singly in a sphere of uncertain authority, they were greatly Hebrews and the Epistles of James and Jude were first revived, corrupted; in support of which, considerable evidence is adduced, after a long quietude, at the time of the Reformation. Erasmus but still the probabilities are, on the whole, against such a suppodenied the apostolic origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 2 Peter, sition, and it is better to suppose that the conflicting accounts of and the Apocalypse. Luther ventured to declare the Epistle to the same events which are to be met with, especially in the historithe Hebrews and the Apocalypse 'apocryphal.' Melanchthon, cal books, arise not from the carelessness or corruptions of copyists, Gerhard, and Chemnitz went in the same direction, and even Cal- but rather from the original authors or compilers having consulted vin denied the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews. differing documents. But biblical criticisın, for reasons both political and ecclesiastical, From recent investigations, it appears clear that the strict dogsoon became dormant, and so remained for nearly two centuries, matic Jews of Palestine and Babylon were generally far more when it was revived by a liberal Catholic writer, Richard Simon careful in their preservation of sacred records than the Sama(died 1712), who first conceived the plan of an historico-critical ritans and the Alexandrines, the latter of whom were remarkintroduction' to the B.; afterwards, the labors of Lowth, Semler, able for their free, philosophizing, non-textual spirit. In the Herder, Griesbach, Michaelis, Eichhorn, and others, gave a new schools of learning in Jerusalem at the time of Christ, preimpulse to scriptural exegesis. In Germany, we may name among sided over by Hillel, who had come from Babylon, and Shammai, writers on the conservative and orthodox side, the Catholic divines and in those which flourished elsewhere in Palestine, after the fall Jahn and Hug, with the Protestant writers, Hengstenberg, Häver- of the metropolis, for instance, at Lydda, Cæsarea, Tiberias, &c., as nick, Guerike, Delitzsch, and Caspari: on the other side, Berthold, also in the academies of Sora, Pumpeditha, and Nahardea, near the De Wette, Credner, Reuss; and since the publication of the Life Euphrates, at a later period, the text of the Old Testament was deof Jesus by Strauss, the New Tübingen school,' with F. Baur fined with great care, first by the Talmudists, who seem to have ad(q. v.) at his head has questioned the authenticity and apostolical an-hered very closely to the ancient text, and after the completion of tiquity of all the New Testament scriptures, except the four larger the Talmud at the close of the 5th c. by the Masorites. See MASEpistles of Paul-to the Romans, the Corinthians (1st and 24), SORAH. This care wes at first bestowed only on the consoand the Galatians. The critical labors of Ewald (especially on the nants of the Hebrew text. The Masoretic vowel system, which Old Testament), of Hilgenfeld, and of Keim have exerted impor- sprang from that already existing among the Syrians and Arabians, tant influence. was developed from the 7th to the 10th centuries at Tiberias. By But, as might have been expected, the effects of the strife could the 11th c. it appears to have been completed, while the Spanish not always remain confined to Germany. They have been felt rabbis of the next century seem ignorant of its then recent origin. more or less over all Protestant countries, England, Holland, and (For proof of this, see Davidson's Text of the Old Testament ConAmerica, and even Catholic France, which has no theology to considered, 1856.) After the 11th c., the Masoretic text, with its pertend for, shows the influence of the new movement. Renan (q.v.), fected system of vowels and accents, became the standard authority who in his Vie de Jésus excited a vivid sensation, has followed up among Jewish scholars. The comparative values of the different his first work by a series of volumes on the early history of Chris- readings in the various MSS. had by that time been carefully detianity. In England, during the 18th c., several valuable apolo-termined, and the chief business of copyists, henceforth, was to getic works were published, such as Lardner's Credibility of the make faithful transcripts. 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 the 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 now that its deep and vital relations to the ground-work of men's actual and possible beliefs have begun to be felt, these very practical tendencies are manifestly asserting themselves, and we may confidently anticipate that a large measure of attention on the part both of the clergy and laity will soon be given to this most important of all branches of knowledge. EDITIONS OF THE BIBLE: HISTORY OF THE TEXT.-As both the Old and the New Testament were written in ancient languages, and transcribed in times when philological criticism hardly existed, the examination and comparison of various editions, with a view to obtain the greatest possible purity of text, forms an important part of theological study.

Text of the Old Testament. The first duty of an impartial critic of this question is to lay aside both of the extreme and utenable 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

The earliest printed editions of the Hebrew B. bear a close resemblance to the MSS. They are without titles at the commencement, have appendices, are printed on parchment with broad margin, and large ill-shaped type the initial letters being commonly ornamented either with wood-cut engravings or by the pen. These letters, however, are often absent. With vowels, the editions in question are very imperfectly supplied. Separate parts of the B. were first printed.' The Psalms appeared in 1477, probably at Bologna; the Pentateuch at Bologna in 1482; the Prophets in 1486; the Hagiographa in 1487. To most of these were subjoined the rabbinical commentary of Kimchi. The whole of the Old Testament appeared in small folio at Soncino, 1488, and appears to have been followed by the edition of Brescia (1494), which was used by Luther in his translation of the Old Testament. The Biblia Polygotta Complutensia (1514-1517), the Biblia Rabbinica of Bomberg, edited by Rabbi Jacob-Ben-Chajim (Venice, 1525-1526), which has been adopted in most of the subsequent editions-the Antwerp Biblia Polyglotta (8 vols., 15691572), also the editions by Hutterus (Hamburg, 1587, and frequently reprinted), Buxtorf (Basel, 1611), and especially 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 greatly corrupted, and contrasted it unfavorably with that of the Samaritan Pentateuch. The chief advocates of this view were Vossius, Whiston, Morin, and Capel

lus. 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 re-up into two great wholes-the Latin and Greek, and when, thereturn 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.

material difference exists, or in all probability ever did exist, in New Testament MSS. The general Christian consciousness, which was the real guardian of their integrity, had been grounded too deeply in the facts, doctrines, and ethics of a historic Christianity to follow in the wake of sectarian or heretical modifications of the truth. It instinctively turned, as it were, from a sense of affinity to those apostolic records, the tone of which most closely corresponded to its own spiritual character and development, and thus unconsciously prevented any incongruous changes from being effected in the mass of MSS. Of these MSS., upwards of 1400 are known to scholars, and have been collated, and no essential discrepancy has been detected. Of course, it can be urged that all the MSS. belong to a period when the Church had gathered itself fore, a general conformity in MSS., as in other things, is only to be expected; but the fragments which are found in the earliest Church Fathers exhibit substantially, though not verbally, the same text, and we may therefore fairly infer that this unintentional harmony in part argues the general harmony of the earlier and later MSS.

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 were also sub-corrupt mixture of both. Griesbach himself preferred the Alexjected, from a very early period, to a stichometrical division, according to the peculiarities of Hebrew versification. In order to facilitate the reading and understanding of the prose books, a division into logical periods was also made, which is mentioned in the Mishna (q. v.) while in the Gemara (q. v.) its authorship is ascribed to Moses. From it sprang our present division of the Scriptures into verses. It is highly probable that these divisions were long handed down orally. Our present division of the Old Testament into chapters is a later invention, and, though accepted by the Jews, is of Christian origin; it may be dated as far back as the 13th c., some assigning it to Cardinal Hugo, others to Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury. It was first employed in a concordance to the Vulgate, whence it was borrowed by Rabbin Nathan in the 15th c., who made a similar concordance to the Hebrew Bible. Nathan's divisions are found in Bomberg's Hebrew B. of 1518. Verses were first introduced into editions of the Hebrew B. by Athias of Amsterdam, 1661, but were employed in the Vulgate as early as 1558. The first English B. divided into verses was published at Geneva in 1560.

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 considerablə 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 classes. After these came Griesbach, who, following out the idea, propounded his famous threefold division of the MSS. into Western, Alexandrian, and Byzantine. The first two he considers the oldest; the third, a andrian; he believed that the Byzantine transcribers had taken great liberties with the text, and held that a few Alexandrian MSS. outweighed, in critical value, a large number of the other. The accuracy of Griesbach's division has subsequently been questioned by many eminent German scholars, each of whom has in turn favored the world with a theory of his own in regard to the probable value of the various families of MSS. Recently, Lachmann has applied, with excessive strictness, a principle first hinted by Bentley, viz., that no weight ought to be attached to any MSS. except those written in the old or Uncial (q. v.) character. The exact value of each manuscript is still a matter of dispute; but a great deal has been done to place the knowledge of the various lines of evidence within the reach of all scholars. Tischendorf carefully examined the most important of the uncial MSS., and published them separately somewhat after the fashion of a fac-simile. He also published a fac-simile of the Codex Sinaiticus, which he found in a monastery in Mount Sinai. Scrivener has collated a considerable number of cursives, and collated again the Codex Beza. And great attention is being paid to quotations from the Fathers. Rönsch, for instance, has given all the quotations from the New Testament in Tertullian, and Tischendorf made large use of them in his last or eighth edition.

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 docu- The whole of the New Testament was first printed in the Comments must have been subjected by the eager converts, that they plutensian Polyglott, 1514. From 1516 to 1535, five editions apcould have lasted for any length of time. Indeed no authentic peared at Basel, under the care of Erasmus, but without any great notices of them have come down to us, and it is a curious fact that, pretensions to critical accuracy. The subsequent numerous ediin the controversies of the 2d c., no appeal is made to the apostolic tions were, for the most part, either founded on the editions of originals. But the number of copies was very great. The text of Erasmus or on the Complutensian, or on a collation of both. these, however, did not always agree. Variations originated, to Among these editions we may mention those of Simon de Colines a considerable extent, from the same causes as operated in the or Colinæus (Paris, 1543), of the elder Stephen (1546, 1549, and case of the Old Testament, viz., imperfect vision or hearing, mis- 1550), of the younger Stephen (1569). Beza was the first who, by understanding, carelessness, or an uncritical judgment on the part several collations founded on the third edition by Stephens, made of transcribers; but it is natural to suppose that, on account of the any considerable progress in the critical treatment of the text, and greater freedom of spirit and thought which characterized primi- thus supplied a basis for the present received text (textus receptus), tive Christianity, compared with Judaism, a latitude of conviction which was first printed by Stephens with the Vulgate and critical in regard to the value of the letter of Scripture, also influenced the annotations at Geneva, 1565; afterwards was frequently reprinted churches. The idea of inspiration (q. v.), it is now admitted by by Elzevir (Leyden, 1624) and others. The labors of the English the most enlightened theologians, was progressively developed. scholar, Walton, in the London Polyglott (1657), of Fell (Oxford, In the earliest ages it did not exist in any dogmatic form whatever. 1675), and especially Mill (Oxford, 1707), were of great imporChristians were content to believe that the evangelists and apostles tance for the criticism of the New Testament. Bengel exhibited spoke truth, by the help of the Holy Spirit, without perplexing great tact and acumen in his edition of 1734, Wetstein much inthemselves with the question, whether the words were purely dustry and care in the editions of 1751-1752, as also Semler, 1764. divine or purely human in their origin. They had a gospel to But all these recensions were surpassed in value by the labors of preach, and a world to convert, and were therefore not in a mood Griesbach (1st ed. 1774; 2d and best ed. 1796-1806). The works to discuss mechanical notions. This also must have operated in of Scholz (1830) and Rinck (1830-1836), the edition by Lachmann producing the textual variations referred to, many of which are of (1831), and the labors of Buttmann (1842-1850), are worthy of such a nature as to clearly prove that the commentators or tran- praise, as are also those of Tregelles (1854-1863), Tischendorf scribers thought themselves at liberty to alter or improve the ex-(1841-1873), and Scrivener (1861). The long expected edition of pression. Nor must we overlook the fact, that the different cul- the Greek text of the New Testament by Westcott and Hort, with ture and tendencies of the Eastern and Western Churches also an elaborate introduction, appeared in 1881 (2 vols.). caused very considerable changes. Modern criticism reckons no less than 80,000 variations in the existing MSS. Nevertheless, one fact stands out, solid and imperishable, amid all the tiny fluctuations of verbal criticism, viz., that, with one or two exceptions, no

Among the MSS. of the New Testament, the oldest are not traced back further than the 4th c., and are written in the socalled uncial characters. The modern MSS., dating from the 10th c. downwards, are distinguished by the cursive characters in which