Our Bible is divided into two parts. Such a division is necessary because of the difference in its subject-matter. The first part is Jewish; the second part Christian. The language of Christ implied that he was introducing a new order of things (e.g. Mt. 5:17-18, 26:28; Lu. 22:20, cf. Jno. 1:17), and hence it was natural for the writings which developed out of his system to be gathered into a body distinct from the old.

      The former of these parts is known as the Old Testament; and the latter, the New Testament. These names arose out of the conceptions of the New Testament writers. Fundamental in the Jewish system is the Covenant idea. The mutual relationship between God and Israel was fixed by the Covenant between them. Hence Paul speaks of the books of Moses as the "Old Covenant" (2 Cor. 3:14). This term would naturally come to include all of the Jewish writings in exactly the same way that the term Law did (Jno. 10:34; 1 Co. 14:21).

      It was also natural for the Christian writings to become known as the New Covenant, for this term was applied to the Christian system by both Christ (Lu. 22:20) and Paul (2 Co. 3:6). But the Greek word for Covenant also means Testament, and in a well-known passage in Hebrews it is difficult to decide whether the word should he translated by Covenant or by Testament (Heb. 9:15-18). In the Latin, Testament was the meaning assigned in this and other passages, so that when a Latin translation of the New Testament was made the Greek word was uniformly translated testamentum. Hence the Jewish and Christian writings came to be known as the Old and New Testaments. These names were adopted as early as the second century after Christ and have remained in constant use ever since.

The Authors and Dates of Books.

      The books which constitute the Bible were written at various times and by many authors. the period from the writing of the first of these books to that of the last cannot have been less than thirteen centuries. Most of this time was spent in producing the books of the Old Testament. It came into existence slowly. The date of many of these books and the names of their authors are now alike unknown. In many cases the conjectures of earlier ages are our sole source of information and these conjectures are historically improbable. In other cases we know the name of the author and approximately the date when his book was written. According to the Jewish manner of reckoning, their scriptures, our Old Testament, consisted of twenty-four books. Josephus mentions only twenty-two books (Against Apion, 1:8), but 4 Esdras and other Jewish authorities know of twenty-four. Origen and Jerome give the number of books in the Jewish scriptures as twenty-four. Josephus probably considered Ruth to be a part of Judges, and Lamentations a part of Jeremiah. Origen says this was done in his day (Euseb., VI. 25).

      There were five books of Law (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy); eight books of the prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Twelve, that is, the Minor Prophets, but counted as one book); and eleven books of the Sacred Writings (Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles). The division of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah into two books each belongs to later times. This added four more books, and these with the eleven additional one, resulting from the resolving of the Minor Prophets into twelve instead of one, brings the, total up to thirty-nine, the number which we now count as composing the Old Testament.

      According to Jewish belief the five books of the Law were written by Moses, and this view was not dissented from till comparatively recent times. Jesus evidently [1] held to this view (Mt. 8:4; Lu. 20:37, 24:27; Jno. 5:46; 7:19). A group of modern scholars have denied the Mosaic authorship and assign these books to a later time than the traditional date. This is one of the fundamental differences between the scholars who adhere to former views and those who designate themselves as modern. The fatter class substitute a plurality of authors for the single one, Moses, advocated by the former group, and hold that the books are the result of a long historical process within which they passed through many rescensions, taking finally the form in which we now possess them. They hold that the earliest books from which were developed our Pentateuch could not have been written prior to the eighth century, while the completed form took shape subsequent to the Exile. Those who hold to the Mosaic authorship believe them to have been written as early as the fourteenth century.

      The books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings, were so named because these persons were prominent in them. Their authors are not known. The books of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel were written by the prophets whose names they bear, and this is true for the most part of the Minor Prophets. The poetical books, like modern hymn books, were compiled from many authors. David certainly wrote a number of the Psalms. The authorship and the date of most of the other books are uncertain. They were all completed at some date between three and four hundred years before Christ.

      The books of the New Testament were written within a hall century. The earliest cannot have been written prior to 50 A. D. and the latest was produced before 100 A. D. Hence unlike the Old Testament, the New Testament was the product of one generation and of the spiritual impulse and uplift which came from the establishment of the religion of Jesus. It is believed that these books were the work of eight authors.

      The earliest was probably Paul's first Epistle to the Thessalonians, though according to one theory as to the date of James, it is barely possible that this small book is earlier. I Thessalonians is usually thought to have been written in 52 A. D. This, Paul's earliest book, was followed in order by II Thessalonians, in 53 A. D.; I Corinthians, II Corinthians and Galatians in 57 A. D.; Romans the next year; Philippians, Philemon, Colossians and Ephesians in 62 A. D.; I Timothy and Titus in 67 A. D., and II Timothy in 68 A. D. These may not be the exact years of the writing of these epistles, but this is their relative order and the approximate date of their composition.

      Somewhere near 65 A. D. Mark wrote the Gospel which bears his name. It is believed on the testimony of Papias, an early Christian Father, to be substantially the Gospel of Peter, for whom Mark acted as secretary. Somewhat later, our first Gospel was written. Papias says that Matthew wrote the Oracles (Logia) of Jesus in Hebrew, but our first Gospel was evidently composed in Greek. For this and other reasons it is thought to be a rescension of Matthew's work. His name is not inappropriately attached to it. A few years after this the third Gospel was written by Luke, "the beloved Physician," from material which he carefully collected from those who had been eye-witnesses of the scenes described (Luke 1:1-4). It is evident that he was not a personal follower of the Lord. He also wrote Acts of Apostles (Acts 1:1).

      The fourth Gospel was written late, probably not much before 100 A. D. by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (Jno. 21:20, 24). Gallons of ink have been consumed in the discussion as to which disciple this was. While many stoutly deny this, the identification of him with John, the son of Zebedee, has never lacked noble names. Since the opening of the twentieth century the Unitarian. James Drummond; the Anglican, William Sanday, and the Catholic, Theodore Calmes, have written in advocacy of this position.

      The same hand that wrote the Gospel unquestionably penned the I, II, and III Epistles of John. The author of the book of Revelation was also named John, and although the style and language are very different from those of the Gospel and the Epistles, these do not present insurmountable obstacles to the belief that the author was one and the same person. All of these Johannine writings were among the latest if not the very latest of the New Testament books.

      The Epistle of James was written by James, the brother of the Lord, the bishop of Jerusalem. The Epistle of Jude was written by his brother (Jude 1). Both books were late, though their dates can be determined with no precision. The Epistles of Peter must have been written late in the life of that apostle. Of the genuineness of the first Epistle there is scarcely any doubt, but the marked differences in style, language, and thought [2] between it and II Peter have led many scholars both ancient and modern to doubt the Apostolic origin of the latter. It must be admitted that of all New Testament books it is the least satisfactorily attested.

Inspiration.

      One factor in the producing of these writings which must be considered is inspiration. In the past a wrong method has been employed in determining the nature of this. It has been customary to define carefully what inspiration is and then explain the inspiration of the sacred writers and their productions in conformity with this theory. A better method is to collect the facts which the Bible states and clearly implies and induct the theory of inspiration from these. What, then, are the facts? There are certain persons mentioned in both the Old and the New Testaments who believed themselves to be guided in their utterances by the Spirit of God. Repeatedly it is said that "The Lord spoke unto Moses." Isaiah states that his book records the "vision" or the "burden" which the prophet "did see" (Is. 1:1, 13:1) and he represents himself as speaking on behalf of God. To Jeremiah "the word of the Lord came" (Jer. 1:2). Ezekiel tells of a vision which appeared to him and he was made to eat a book, a symbolical representation of the fact of his inspiration (2:8 to 3:3). He was then addressed in the following words, "Son of man, all my words that I shall speak unto thee receive in thy heart and hear with thine ears. And go, get thee to them of the captivity . . . and speak unto them and tell them" (3:10, 11). Micah speaking of himself says, "I truly am full of power by the Spirit of the Lord, and of judgment and of might, to declare unto Jacob his transgression and to Israel his sin" (3:8).

      Other prophets were conscious of the same power (Nah. 1:1; Hab. 1:1; Hag. 1:1; Zech. 1:1; Mal. 1:1). Paul repeatedly claims that he speaks for the Lord (Acts 27:23; 1 Cor. 2:16 cf. I Pet. 4:11). In a preeminent degree this was true of Christ. He spoke for God. This inspired utterance of prophet, apostle, and the Christ naturally passed to their writings. This is the view which Christ and the New Testament writers take of the Old Testament (Mark 12:36; Matt. 1:22, 15:4; Acts 1:16; Rom. 3:2, 9:25; Heb. 1:1). There was also a growing conviction that the New Testament writings too possessed this inspiration (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet 3:15-16). It is evident therefore that we are to attach to the holy men and to their writings an inspiration from God. In this practically all believers are agreed, but there has been large disagreement in the effort to define the mental state of those inspired and the degree and nature of the authority which the inspiration communicated to them.

      In all theories there is a tendency to gravitate towards one or the other of two extremes. One is literalism, in which the mind of the medium is dominated entirely by the Spirit; his faculties are under suspension and are used by the Spirit as a player uses the strings of a harp. The tendency of this theory is to make the very words and the cast of the sentence of the scriptures to be the subject of inspiration. The other extreme tends towards reducing the inspiration to that degree only which belongs to poetry, works of art and of genius. Both extremes are incorrect. Somewhere between lies the truth, but no theory of inspiration has ever been formed which includes all of the truth or has proven to be all adequate induction of the facts.

      The truth is that no Bible writer attempts to explain the process of inspiration. His sole interest was in the fact that he proclaimed the truths of God. Two points should be noted. First, inspiration did not destroy the individuality of the man. As Augustine said, Inspiratus a Deo sed tamen homo ("Inspired by God, yet a man"). Paul remained Paul and Peter remained Peter. Inspiration did not interfere with the marked personality of Isaiah nor cause him to write a style or "language of the Holy Ghost."

      Second, inspiration did not do away with the necessity of study, research, and investigation in those subjects especially in which investigation could determine the truth. Luke states that in writing a life of Christ, he received his information from those who had been eye-witnesses and further that he submitted it to a careful examination (Luke 1:1-4). Other truths were beyond investigation and these were communicated by revelation.

Canons.

      The idea of the Canon of scripture is that there is a collection of writings marked off as peculiarly sacred and as having divine authority. There is both an Old Testament canon and a New Testament canon. Because the historical process by which it was established is better known, the New Testament Canon is considered first. No New Testament [3] writer betrays any anticipations of a New Testament canon. Inspiration did not reveal that certain books were to be accepted as authoritative and divine and others as human and without authority.

      The forming of the Canon was a purely human process, made necessary by certain difficulties which the early church found besetting its life. The formation of the Canon was most emphatically an historical process which developed gradually and may be marked off into certain definite stages. No council was ever convened to declare what books were canonical and what were not. Almost all of the ancient councils made pronouncements as to what books were to be accepted as canonical, it is true, but these declarations were simply statements of the sentiments of the church on this topic at that time. They mark states of the process and are of interest because they help us to trace the development of the idea of the Canon.

      The first motive for a New Testament canon was the fact, that there was a model for it in the Canon of the Old Testament. Another was to determine what books were to be read in public worship. In some places there was a laxness in this and in others a strictness. The feeling developed that the books which were to he used in the worship of the church should be restricted to those which were authoritative and would edify. But the most impelling reason for the creation of a canon was the controversies which arose between the church and certain heretical Gnostic sects. These sects had numerous books which purported to be divine revelations. The Catholic Church retorted that these books were without authority and very naturally was led to make a list of the books which it believed to be authoritative. All others were naturally excluded. For these reasons the New Testament canon was established. The Old Testament was the scriptures of Christ and the first generation of his followers.

      The writings of the early Christians were not at first recognized as scripture, but early in the second century a distinction made between the writings of the Apostles and other men. There followed lists of these books which were of apostolic origin. The earliest known list is Marcion's (140 A. D.) table of the Pauline Epistles. Irenaeus (185 A. D.) recognizes four and only four Gospels. From near the close of the second century comes the Muratorian Canon, which contains a list of the New Covenant. A few of the New Testament books are omitted. Thus by 200 A. D. the Canon was practically complete, though in certain sections some books were doubted during the third and even as late as the fourth century.

      About 325 A. D. Eusebius, the Father of Church History, describes the New Testament of his time. He names all of the books which now compose our New Testament, stating, however, that James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, were questioned by a small minority. He then gives a list of books that were decidedly rejected. Among them are Hermas, Acts of Paul, Apocalypse of Peter, Barnabas, etc. WHy was one class accepted and the other rejected? As said above, it was not because of the arbitrary verdict of external authority. The selections were made for a reason which is analogous to that process of reasoning by which we decide whether a book is an English classic, except that in the latter case the ground of decision is the literary qualities and the style, while in the former it was the religious value and the apostolic origin. That which commended itself to the church as possessing divine qualities was placed within the Canon. Otherwise it was rejected. As Wescott says, the Canon was fixed by a "divine instinct."

      The origin of the Old Testament Canon is obscure because of lack of knowledge concerning it. No doubt the motives which gave rise to if were similar to those which produced the Canon of the New Testament. From the scanty information at our command it seems probable that the Canon of the Old Testament was permanently fixed much later than one would suppose. A council of Rabbis was held at Jamnia about 90 A. D. and the question was then debated whether Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs were canonical. Esther also was questioned at even a later date than this. Josephus in writing near the end of the first Christian century gives a list of the recognized Jewish sacred books and offers an explanation as to why they were canonized.

      It is therefore practically certain that, with the exception of an occasionally expressed doubt concerning a few books, the Old Testament Canon was fixed before the time of Christ. In the case of the majority it of the Old Testament books this was done much earlier. Probably the familiar division of these books into the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms (or writings) indicates stages in the canonization of the Jewish sacred hooks. This [4] threefold division is earliest mentioned in the prologue to Ecclesiasticus (about 200 A. D.). The formation of the Canon, especially of the books of the Law and of the Prophets at least, must have been largely completed at that time. The Jewish story that Ezra completed the Canon must be set aside as mythical.

Language.

      The Old Testament books were written in Hebrew except portions of Ezra and Daniel, which were in Aramaic, a kindred language. The Old Testament books were translated into Greek when the number of Greek speaking Jews became sufficiently great to demand this. This Greek translation is known as the Septuagint. According to tradition it was made during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus (284-247 B. C.) The translation was certainly complete by the time of the writing of Ecclesiasticus (1:1). Attached to this translation were a number of books which were originally written in Greek. These books compose our present Old Testament Apocrypha, but they were never regarded by the Jews as of equal value to the books of the Old Testament.

      The New Testament books were all written in Greek; one or two of them may have been compiled from memoranda which were written in Aramaic, though it is certain that no one is a translation from an Aramaic original. In the early Christian church both the Old and the New Testament scriptures were usually read in Greek. This is true even in countries where Latin was the usual language, such as Rome itself. In time, however, Christianity found its way into lands where Greek was not freely spoken and a Latin translation became a necessity. The first Latin translation was probably made in Northern Africa. In time this translation became unsatisfactory on account of corruptions which crept into it through the free way in which scribes altered it, and a new translation into Latin became necessary. This was made by Jerome in the last quarter of the fourth century. It was partly a revision of the Old Latin translation and partly a translation from the Greek and Hebrew. The Apocryphal books were translated and embodied in this Latin Bible, which is called the Vulgate.

      The Catholic Council of Trent (1546 A. D.) declared this Latin Vulgate to be "sacred and canonical" and anathematized any one who did not accept it and all the books contained in it This accounts for the fact that the Roman Catholic Bible contains the Apocrypha and that it is the doctrine of this church to accept these books as equally as authoritative as the books of the Old Testament. All Protestant Bibles are translated directly from the Hebrew, which does not contain the Apocrypha. Hence no Protestant church regards the Apocryphal books as scripture.

Manuscripts.

      Until printing was invented, which was in 1454 A. D. the Bible was preserved in hand-written manuscripts upon either parchment, vellum, or papyrus. In making these copies the scribes were seldom accurate and so the earliest, carefully written manuscripts are of great value because presumably they preserve the language more exactly as it was expressed in the original autographs.

      The oldest Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament date from the ninth Christian century. All now in existence are practically identical even almost to the very letters. This shows that the scribes must have been extremely careful in making their copies. To this fact the Talmud bears witness. The variations from our Hebrew Bible of the Samaritan Pentateuch and the old translations show that in earlier times the same care was not exercised. This scrupulous care in making copies of the Hebrew Bible began probably shortly before 100 A. D.). At this time the Rabbis evidently selected the manuscript which seemed to them to be best and all subsequent copies were made from it. The Greek manuscripts of the New Testament and the Septuagint are much older. The total number of such manuscripts runs considerably over a thousand, but many of these are from later times.

      There are two great manuscripts of the entire Bible (though one has suffered the loss of some leaves) which date from the fourth Christian century. One is in the Vatican at Rome and is called the Codex Vaticanus and the other is in St. Petersburg and is called the Codex Sinaiticus because it was discovered in a monastery on Mount Sinai by Tischendorf in 1844 A. D. Both of these manuscripts were written with great care and are of priceless value. There are also two manuscripts of the fifth century, the Codex Alexandrinus, now in England, and the Codex Ephraemi, now in Paris. They are of much less value than the two previously mentioned. The Codex Bezae [5] now in the Cambridge University library, is of the sixth century. It is of questionable value since it differs in many ways from the standard text. Besides these there are a number of fragments of quite early date, one small fragment of the Gospels belonging to the third century, and recently discovered papyrus fragments of this century and even of the second. A recently discovered manuscript of the Gospels now in Detroit and known as the Freer manuscript is early and valuable, probably as early as the fourth century.

      The Vulgate translation was made by Jerome in 384-6 A. D. and the earliest manuscript of it dates from the early eighth century. More than 8,000 manuscripts of the Vulgate are in existence.

      When printing was invented in the fifteenth century the Bible was printed in all languages and the copying of manuscripts ceased. Prior to this the English translation of the Gospel of John made by Bede, the translation of the entire Bible by Wycliffe, and the other early translations of portions of the Bible existed in manuscript only.

The English Bible.

      A number of the European continental countries possessed a printed Bible before England. In Germany, for example, the Bible had been printed eighteen times before Luther's in 1522. The first portion of the English Bible was not printed till 1525; the entire Bible in English was not printed till 1535; and it was not till 1538 that it was printed in England.

      The history of the English Bible began with Tyndale and not with Wycliffe. It was his work more than that of any other man to give its characteristic shape to the English Bible. He studied in both Oxford and Cambridge and his mind became filled with the "new learning" of these times. After leaving the University he was involved in many controversies, in one of which he vowed that if God permit he would make it possible for the ploughboy to know more of the scriptures than was then known by the learned men of England. This determined that his translation should be for the people and not for scholars.

      He had to leave England to carry on his work of translation and in Cologne in 1525 he had printed ten sheets of the New Testament when he was stopped by the authorities. He managed to escape and completed his task in Worms, so that in 1526 the English New Testament was for sale in England. He kept busy preparing further editions of the New Testament and in translating the Old Testament till his death in 1536. Tyndale made his translation from the Greek and Hebrew, though he compared it with the Latin. He was probably assisted by Miles Coverdale, who did at least continue his work after Tyndale's death. It was he that printed the first complete English Bible, which was in 1535. He was not so thorough a scholar as Tyndale and disclaims the distinction of making an original translation. He possessed one gift, however, which amounted to genius. He had all ear for delicacy, beauty and sonority of expression, and to him more than to any other we are indebted for the rhythm and music of our English version.

      There followed in 1537 a translation bearing the name of Thomas Matthew, which is probably all alias for John Rogers. This was not an original translation but a compilation from the work of Tyndale and Coverdale. It is notable for the reason that it was issued "with the kinges most gracyous lycence."

      In 1539 a new edition was issued by Taverner. It was little more than a revision of the work of his predecessors and exerted but little influence. In the same year there was issued the Great Bible, which differs from its predecessors in that it was not merely authorized by royal authority but printed under the direction of the government. It was planned by Cromwell and was printed under the direction of Coverdale. It was the first genuine authorized version of the English Bible.

      There were many other editions of the Bible printed during the second half of the sixteenth century. Among them were the Genevan Bible which was issued by the Calvinistic exiles from England; the Bishops' Bible revised by the Bishops and other learned men of England; and the Reims and Douai version which is Roman Catholic in its origin and was printed to counteract the effect of the numerous Protestant translations. In 1604 was begun the revision of the Bible which was printed in 1611 and is in a supreme sense the authorized version. It was planned by James I and it was the result of an effort to have one uniform translation. The work of translation was left to a committee of forty-seven scholars who were chosen because of their scholarship and without regard to party. All previous translations were drawn upon. Two years [6] and nine months were occupied in completing the revision and nine months more in preparing it for the press. Probably no translation of the Bible into any tongue has been so excellently done. Its worth is almost beyond praise.

      In 1870 the Convocation of Canterbury appointed a committee to consider the subject of revision. This was felt to be necessary because of the changes in the English language and the advance in Greek and Hebrew scholarship. A committee to undertake tile task of revision was appointed which was authorized to invite scholars of other religious bodies to assist. Two companies, one for the revision of the Old Testament and the other for the revision of tile New Testament, were soon at work.

      Similar companies were formed in America to whom the work of the English companies was submitted for consideration. They also made suggestions which were in part adopted and were printed entire as an appendix to the work. In one respect the translation of the New Testament was a marked advance over any previous English translation. It was based upon a reconstructed Greek text which more perfectly represents the original. Eleven years were required to complete the translation of the New Testament and three additional ones for the Old Testament. Much criticism has been expended on the revision but it has surely though slowly established its suitability for public and private use.

      The American company agreed not to publish a version of the Bible embodying their suggestions until after fourteen years had passed. This company maintained its organization and perfected its work so that in 1901 there was issued the American Standard revision embodying all the suggestions made originally by the American Company and some others. This has very largely superseded the original revision of 1881 and 1885.

[DH 1-7.]