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. This 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 found first in the Massorah, and is not observed in the rolls of the synagogues. The poetical books also were subjected, 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, 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, Abp. 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 introduced into editions of the Hebrew B. first 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, 1560. New Testament.-The original MSS. of the New Testament were all probably 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 documents must have been subjected by the eager converts, that they could have lasted for any long time. Indeed no authentic notices of them have come down to us, and it is a curious fact that, in the controversies of the 2d c., no appeal is made to the apostolic originals. But the number of copies was very great. The text of these, however, did not always agree. Variations originated, to a considerable extent, from the same causes as operated in the case of the Old Testament. viz., imperfect vision or hearing, misunderstanding, care lessness, or an uncritical judgment on the part of transcribers; but it is natural to suppose that, on account of the greater freedom of spirit and thought which characterized primitive Christianity, compared with Judaism, a latitude of conviction in regard to the value of the letter of Scripture also influenced the churches. The idea of inspiration (q.v.), it is now admitted by the most enlightened theologians, was progressively developed. In the earliest ages it did not exist in any dogmatic form whatever

Christians were content to believe that the evangelists and apostles spoke truth, by the help of the Holy Spirit, without perplexing themselves with the question, whether the words were purely divine or purely human in their origin. They had a gospel to preach, and a world to convert, and were therefore not in a mood to discuss mechanical notions. This also must have operated in producing the textual variations referred to, many of which are of such a nature as to clearly prove that the commentators or transcribers thought themselves at liberty to alter or improve the expression. Nor must the fact be overlooked that the dif ferent culture and tendencies of the Eastern and Western churches also caused very considerable changes. Modern criticism reckons no less than 80,000 variations in the existing MSS. Nevertheless, one fact stands out, solid and incontrovertible, amid all the tiny fluctuations of verbai criticism, viz., that, with one or two exceptions, no 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 an historic Christianity to follow in the wake of sectarian or heretical modifications of the truth. It instinctively turned, as it were by 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 1,400 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 up into two great wholes-the Latin and Greek, and when, therefore, 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.

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 considerable 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 corrupt mixture of both. Griesbach himself preferred the Alexandrian; he believed that the Byzantine transcribers had taken great liberties

with the text, and held that a few Alexandrian MSS. out. weighed, 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 Test. in Tertullian (q. v.), and Tischendorf (q.v.) made use of them in his last or eighth edition.

The whole of the New Testament was first printed in the Complutensian Polyglott, 1514. From 1516 to 1535, five editions appeared at Basel, under the care of Erasmus, but without any great pretensions to critical accuracy. The subsequent numerous editions were, for the most part, founded on the editions of Erasmus or on the Complutensian, or on a collation of both. Among these editions were those of Simon de Colines or Colinæus (Paris, 1543), of the elder Stephens (1546, '49, '50), of the younger Stephens (1569). Beza was the first who, by several collations founded on the third edition by Stephens, made any considerable progress in the critical treatment of the text, and thus supplied a basis for the present received text (textus receptus), which was first printed by Stephens with the Vulgate and critical annotations at Geneva, 1565; afterwards was frequently reprinted by Elzevir (Leyden, 1624) and others. The labors of the English scholar. Walton, in the London Polyglott (1657), of Fell (Oxford, 1675), and especially Mill (Oxford, 1707), were of great importance for the criticism of the New Testament. Bengel exhibited great tact and acumen in his edition of 1734, Wetstein much industry and care in the editions of 1751-2, as also Semler, 1764. But all these recensions were surpassed in value by the labors of Griesbach (1st ed. 1774; 2d and best ed. 1796-1806). The works of Scholz (1830) and Rinck (1830-36), the addition by Lachmann (1831), and the labors of Buttmann (1842-50), are worthy of praise, as are also those of Tregelles (1854-63), Tischendorf (1841-73), and Scrivener (1861). The long-expected edition of the Greek text of the New Testament by Westcott and Hort, with an elaborate introduction, appeared in 1881 (2 vols.), and though it has been sharply attacked by some eminent

critics, has taken the highest place in the estimation of scholars generally.

Among the MSS. of the New Testament, the oldest are not traced back further than the 4th c., and are written in the so-called uncial characters. The modern MSS., dating from the 10th c. downwards, are distinguished by the cursive characters in which they are written. The most important MSS. are the Codex Sinaiticus (at St. Petersburg), the Codex Alexandrinus (in the British Museum), C. Vaticanus (in the Vatican at Rome), C. Ephræmi (in the Imperial Library at Paris), and C. Cantabrigiensis, or C. Beze (given by Beza to the Univ. of Cambridge). On the discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus by Tischendorf at the monastery of St. Catharine, Mt. Sinai, 1844 and 59, some deemed it older than even the Vaticanus; now, both are usually referred (as by Westcott and Hort, 1881) to the middle of the 4th c. C. Ephræmi and C. Alexandrinus are probably of the 5th c., as are two fragments. C. Beza and numerous fragments date from the 6th c.; the 7th c. furnishes but a few fragments. But the MSS. of the 9th and 10th centuries furnish as many as all the preceding ones put together. The cursive MSS., numbering nearly 1,000, range from the 9th to the 16th c.

In

Euthalius (462) arranged those words that were related to each other by the sense into stichoi or lines. Subsequently, to save space, a colon or point was substituted, until, finally, a complete system of punctuation arose. the 13th c., as we have already seen, the division into chapters took place, and in the 16th the versicular division was perfected by Stephens. The arguments or contents prefixed to the several chapters are also of modern origin.

B. Versions or Translations.-These may be divided into ancient and modern. The ancient translations of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew may be classed as follows: 1. Greek.-The earliest of these is the Alexandrine or Septuagint (q.v.), after which come respectively the translations by Aquila (q.v.), Theodotion, and Symmachus. The whole of these, with fragments of others by unknown authors, were given by Origen in his Hexapla (q.v.). The Versio Veneta, a Greek translation of several books of the Old Testament, made in the 14th c., and preserved in the St. Mark's Library, Venice, was published by Villoison at Strasburg, 1784. Several early versions were also based on the Septuagint; but for that reason do not possess an independent value, being for the most part only translations of a translation. Among these are the old Latin version or Italic (q.v.), though the term Italic is strictly applicable to the New Testament only, improved by Jerome (382): the Syriac, including the Versio Figurata, partially preserved and collated by Jacob of Edessa, in the beginning of the 8th c.; and that by Paul, Bishop of Tela (617): the Ethiopic, made by certain Christians in the 4th c.: the threefold Egyptian (3d or 4th c.), one being in the language of Lower Egypt, and termed the Coptic or Memphiti; another in the language of Upper Egypt, and termed

the Sahdic or Thebaic; and a third, Basmuric, whose locality is uncertain: the Armenian, by Miesrob and his pupils in the 5th c.: the Georgian, of the 6th c.: the Slavonian, commonly ascribed, but for unsatisfactory reasons, to the missionaries Methodius and Cyrillus in the 9th c.: the Gothic, ascribed to Ulphilas, and executed in the 4th c., only some few fragments of which are extant: lastly, several Arabic translations of the 10th and 11th.-2. The Chaldaic translations or Targums. These had an early origin; but, with the exception of those of Onkelos and Ben Uzziel, are unsatisfactory in a critical point of view. See TARGUM.-3. The remarkably literal translation into the Aramaic dialect of the later Samaritans, of the ancient copy of the Pentateuch, possessed by the Samaritans (see SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH).-4. The Church translation, known as the Peshito (q.v.), received by all the Syriac Christians. It was undoubtedly executed from the original Hebrew text, to which it closely adheres. Several Arabic versions were founded on the Peshito.-5. The later Arabic versions, executed during the middle ages, partly from the Hebrew text, and partly from the Samaritan Pentateuch.-6. The Persian translation of the Pentateuch made by a Jew named Jacob, not earlier than the 9th c. -7. The Latin Vulgate (q.v.), from which a considerable number of fragmentary versions were made into that form of English commonly called Anglo-Saxon, the most noted translators being Aldhelm, Bishop of Sherborne, and Bede (8th c.); Alfred (9th c.); and Elfric (10th c.).

Among ancient versions of the New Testament may be noticed three in Syriac: the first is the Peshito, with a twofold secondary translation of the four gospels into Arabic and Persian. It does not, however, contain 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, or the Apocalypse, which, at a later period, were classed among the antilegomena, or disputed books. The second, or Philoxenian, prepared 508, under the direction of Philoxenius, Bishop of Hierapolis. It no longer exists, but a counterpart of it does, in the translation made in the following century (616) by Thomas of Harkel or Heraclea, successor of Philoxenius. The best MS. of this version is one which belonged to Ridley, and is now in the archives of the New College, Oxford. It includes all the books of the New Testament excepting the Apocalypse. The style is slavishly literal. It was edited by White, Oxford, 1778. The third, or Jerusalem-Syriac version, preserved in a Vatican MS., and, according to the subscription annexed to it, executed at Antioch 1031. With the above Syriac version we may class the Ethiopic translation; the Egyptian threefold version, made probably in the latter part of the 3d c., and of considerable critical value; the Armenian, Georgian, Persian, and CopticArabic. Besides these may be mentioned the old Italic; the Vulgate by Jerome; the Gothic translation by Ulphilas (about the middle of the 4th c.), of which the most famous MS. is preserved in the library of Upsal, in Sweden (this has only the four gospels, and not even these in perfect condition); the various Anglo-Saxon versions already