Hebrew character for it, which||book mentions (chap. xii, v. 22) hath since that time been retain-jaddua as high priest, and Darius ed only by the Samaritans, among Coddamannus as king of Persia, whom it is preserved to this day. who were at least a hundred years Prideaux is of opinion that Ezra later than Ezra. It may be addmade additions in several parts ofed, that, in the first book of Chrothe Bible, where any thing ap-nicles, the genealogy of the sons peared necessary for illustrating, of Zerubbabel is carried down for connecting, or completing the so many generations as must nework; in which he appears toessarily bring it to the time of have been assisted by the same Alexander; and consequently this spirit in which they were first book, or at least this part of it, written. Among such additions could not be in the canon in Ezare to be reckoned the last chap-ra's days. It is probable the two ter of Deuteronomy, wherein Mo-books of Chronicles, Ezra, Neses seems to give an account of hemiah, Esther, and Malachi, his own death and burial, and the were adopted into the Bible in the succession of Joshua after him.time of Simon the Just, the last of To the same cause our learned the men of the great synagogue. author thinks, are to be attributed The Jews, at first, were very many other interpolations in the reserved in communicating their Bible, which created difficulties scriptures to strangers; despising and objections to the authenticity and shunning the Gentiles, they of the sacred text, no ways to be would not disclose to them any solved without allowing them. of the treasures concealed in the Ezra changed the names of seve-Bible. We may add, that the ral places which were grown ob-people bordering on the Jews, as solete, and, instead of them, put the Egyptians, Phoenicians, Arabs, their new names by which they&c. were not very curious to were then called in the text. Thus know the laws or history of a it is that Abraham is said to have people, whom in their turn they pursued the kings who carried Lot hated and despised. Their first away captive as far as Dan; where-acquaintance with these books as that place in Moses's time was was not till after the several capcalled Laish, the name Dan being|tivities of the Jews, when the sinunknown till the Danites, long af-gularity of the Hebrew laws and ter the death of Moses, possessed ceremonies induced several to themselves of it. The Jewish ca-desire a more particular knownon of scripture was then settled ledge of them. Josephus seems by Ezra, yet not so but that seve-surprised to find such slight footral variations have been made in steps of the scripture history init. Malachi, for instance, could terspersed in the Egyptian, Chalnot be put in the Bible by him, dean, Phoenician, and Grecian. since that prophet is allowed to history; and accounts for it hence, have lived after Ezra; nor could that the sacred books were not Nehemiah be there, since that as yet translated into Gregk

or other languages, and conse-||D, E, F, G, placed in the mar quently not known to the writers gin, at an equal distance from of those nations. The first ver-each other, according to the length sion of the Bible was that of the of the chapters. The subdivision Septuagint into Greek, by order of of the chapters into verses, as they that patron of literature, Ptolemy now stand in our Bibles, had its Philadelphus; though some main-original from a famous Jewish tain that the whole was not then rabbi named Mordecai Nathan, translated, but only the Penta-about 1445. This rabbi, in imiteuch; between which and the tation of Hugo Cardinalis, drew other books in the Septuagint ver-up a concordance to the Hebrew sion, the critics find a great diver-Bible, for the use of the Jews. sity in point of style and expres- But though he followed Hugo in sion, as well as of accuracy. his division of the books into chap

III. BIBLE, modern Divisions ters, he refined upon his invenof. The division of the scriptures tions as to the subdivision, and into chapters, as we at present contrived that by verses; this behave them, is of modern date. ing found to be a much more conSome attribute it to Stephen Lang-venient method, it has been ever ton, archbishop of Canterbury, in since followed. And thus, as the the reigns of John and Henry III. Jews borrowed the division of the But the true author of the inven-books of the holy scriptures into tion was Hugo de Sancto Caro, chapters from the christians, in commonly called Hugo Cardinalis, like manner the christians borrowbecause he was the first Dominicaned that of the chapters into verses that ever was raised to the degree from the Jews. The present order of cardinal. This Hugo flourish-of the several books is almost the ed about A. D. 1240: he wrote same (the Apocrypha excepted) as a comment on the scriptures, and that made by the council of Trent. projected the first concordance, IV. BIBLE, rejected Books of which is that of the vulgar Latin The apocryphal books of the Old Bible. The aim of this work Testament, according to the Robeing for the more easy finding inanists, are the book of Enock out any word or passage in the (see Jude xiv) the third and scriptures, he found it necessary fourth books of Esdras, the third to divide the book into sections, and fourth books of Maccabees, and the sections into subdivisions; the prayer of Manasses, the Tesfor till that time the vulgar Latin tament of the twelve Patriarchs, Bibles were without any division the psalter of Solomon, and some at all. These sections are the other pieces of this nature. The chapters into which the Bible hath apocryphal books of the New ever since been divided; but the Testament are the epistle of St. subdivision of the chapters was Barnabas, the pretended epistle not then into verses, as it is now. of St. Paul to the Laodiceans, seHugo's method of subdividing veral spurious gospels, Acts of them was by the letters A, B, C, the apostles, and Revelations ; the

book of Hermas, entitled thella very ancient Armenian version Shepherd; Jesus Christ's letter to of the whole Bible done from Abgarus; the epistles of St. Paul the Greek of the LXX by some to Seneca, and several other pieces of their doctors, about the time of the like nature; as may be seen of Chrysostom. This was first in the collection of the apocryphal printed entire, in 1664, by one writings of the New Testament of their bishops at Amsterdam, made by Fabricus. Protestants, in quarto, with the New Testawhile they agree with the Roman ment in octavo.

catholics in rejecting all those as 2. BIBLE, Bohemian. The Bouncanonical, have also justly re-hemians have a Bible translated jected the books of Topit, Judith, by eight of their doctors, whom Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, they had sent to the schools of and 1st and 2d Maccabees. Wirtemberg and Basil on pur

V. BIBLE, Translations of pose to study the original lanWe have already mentioned the guages: it was printed in Morafirst translation of the old Testa-via in 1539.

ment by the LXX (2.) Both 3. BIBLE, Croatian. A transOld and New Testaments were lation of the New Testament into afterwards translated into Latin by the Croatian language was pubthe primitive christians; and while lished by Faber Creim, and others, the Roman empire subsisted in in 1562 and 1563.

Europe, the reading of the scrip- 4. BIBLE, Gaelic. A few years tures in the Latin tongue, which ago, a version of the Bible in the was the universal language of that Gaelic or Erse language was pubempire, prevailed every where; lished at Edinburgh, where the but since the face of affairs in Eu- gospel is preached regularly in rope has been changed, and so that language in two chapels, for many different monarchies erect- the benefit of the natives of the ed upon the ruins of the Roman Highlands.

empire, the Latin tongue has 5. BIBLES, Georgian. The inby degrees grown into disuse; habitants of Georgia, in Asia, whence has arisen a necessity of have long had a translation of the translating the Bible into the re- Bible in their ancient language; spective languages of each people; but that language having now beand this has produced as many come almost obsolete, and the different versions of the scriptures Georgians in general being very in the modern languages as there ignorant, few of them can either. are different nations professing the read or understand it.

christian religion. Of the princi- 6. BIBLE, Gothic. It is genepal of these, as well as of some rally said that Ulphilas, a Gothic other ancient translations, and the bishop, who lived in the fourth earliest and most elegant printed century, made a version of the editions, we shall now take notice whole Bible, except the book of in their order. Kings, for the use of his country1. BIBLE, Armenian. There is men; that book he omitted, be

cause of the frequent mention of the archbishop of Canterbury that the wars therein, as fearing to in-it would seem a shameful thing for spire too much of the military a nation to publish a Bible transgenius into that people. We have lated by such a despicable hand nothing remaining of this version as King: however, the manuscript but the four Evangelists, printed was not lost, for it went to press in quarto, at Dort, in 1665, from in 1685, and was afterwards puba very ancient manuscript. lished.

7. BIBLE, Grison. A trans- 11. BIBLE, King James's. See lation of the Bible into the lan No. 24. guage of the Grisons, in Italy, was 12. BIBLE, Malabrian. In completed by Coir, and published 1711, Messrs. Zeigenbald and in 1720. Grindlar, two Danish missiona

8. BIBLE, Icelandic. The Inha-ries, published a translation of the bitants of Iceland have a version New Testament in the Malabrian of the Bible in their language, language, after which they prowhich was translated by Thorlak,ceeded to translate the Old Testaand published in 1584.

ment.

9. BIBLE, Indian. A transla- 13. BIBLE, Malayan. About tion of the Bible into the North 1670, Sir Robert Boyle procured America Indian language, by El-a translation of the New Testaliot, was published in quarto, atment into the Malayan language, Cambridge, in 1685. which he printed, and sent the

10. BIBLE, Irish. About the whole impression to the East Inmiddle of the sixteenth century.dies.

Bedell, bishop of Kilmore, set on 14. BIBLE, Rhemish. See No. foot a translation of the Old 24.

Testament into the Irish lan- 15. BIBLE, Samaritan. At the guage, the New Testament and head of the oriental versions of the the Liturgy having been before Bible must be placed the Samatranslated into that language:ritan, as being the most ancient the bishop appointed one king to of all (though neither its age. execute this work, who, not un-nor author have been yet ascer derstanding the oriental languages, tained) and admitting no more was obliged to translate it from the for the holy scripture but the five English. This work was received books of Moses. This translaby Bedell, who, after having com-tion is made from the Samaritan pared the Irish with the English Hebrew text, which is a little translation, compared the latter different from the Hebrew text of with the Hebrew, the LXX, and the Jews: this version has never the Italian version of Diodati.been printed alone, nor any where When it was finished, the bishop but in the Polyglots of London would have been himself at the and Paris.

charge of the impression; but his 16. BIBLE, Swedish. In 1534, design was stopped, upon advice Olaus and Laurence published a given to the lord lieutenant and Swedish Bible from the German VOL. I.

M

version of Martin Luther: it was as, first, the Psalms, by Adelm revised in 1617 by order of king bishop of Sherburn, cotemporary Gustavus Adolphus, and was af- with Bede, though by others this terwards almost universally re-version is attributed to king Alceived. fred, who lived two hundred 17. BIBLE, Anglo Saxon.-If years later. Another version of we inquire into the versions of the Psalms, in Anglo Saxon, was the Bible of our own country, we published by Spelman in 1640.shall find that Adelm, bishop of 2. The evangelists, still extant, Sherburn, who lived in 709, made done from the ancient Vulgate, an English Saxon version of the before it was revised by St. Jerome, Psalms; and that Edfrid, or by an author unknown, and pubEcbert, bishop of Lindisferne, lished by Matthew Parker in 1571. who lived about 730, translated An old Saxon version of several several of the books of scripture books of the Bible made by Elfric, into the same language. It is said, abbot of Malmesbury, several likewise, that the venerable Bede, fragments of which were publishwho died in 785, translated the ed by Will. Lilly, 1638; the gewhole Bible into Saxon.-But nuine copy by Edm. Thwaites, in Cuthbert, Bede's disciple, in the 1699, at Oxford. enumeration of his master's works, 18. BIBLES, Arabic. In 1516, speaks only of his translation of Aug. Justinian, bishop of Nebio, the gospel, and says nothing of printed at Genoa an Arabic verthe rest of the Bible. Some say sion of the Psalter, with the Hethat king Alfred, who lived about brew text and Chaldee paraphrase, 890, translated a great part of adding Latin interpretations: the scriptures. We find an old there are also Arabic versions of version in the Anglo Saxon of the whole scripture in the Polyseveral books of the Bible, made glots of London and Paris; and we by Elfric, abbot of Malmsbury have an edition of the Old Testait was published at Oxford in ment entire, printed at Rome, in There is an old Anglo 1671, by order of the congregation Saxon version of the four gos- de propaganda fide; but it is of litpels, published by Matthew Par-tle esteem, as having been altered ker, archbishop of Canterbury, agreeably to the Vulgate edition. in 1571, the author whereof is The Arabic Bibles among us are unknown. Mr. Mill observes, not the same with those used with that this version was made from the christians in the East. Some a Latin copy of the old Vulgate. learned men take the Arabic verThe whole scripture is said by sion of the Old Testament printed some to have been translated into in the Polyglots to be that of the Anglo Saxon by Bede, about Saadias's, who lived about A. D. 701, though others contend he 900: their reason is, that Aben only translated the gospels. We Ezra, a great antagonist of Saahave certain books or parts of the dias, quotes some passages of his Bible by several other translators; version, which are the same with