Page images
PDF
EPUB

66. The Pushtoo version of the New Testament, begun by Dr. Leyden, and finished by individuals employed by the Serampore missionaries, was printed in 1818. The version of the Old Testament, in the same language, is in progress.

67. The Punjabee or Sikh version of the entire Bible has been prepared and printed by the same individuals.

68. The Russian versions.-Into a Polish dialect of the Russian, a translation of the Pentateuch, and other parts of the Scriptures, was made by Dr. F. Scorina, and published, 1517-1525. A version of the entire Bible was made by Dean Glück towards the close of the seventeenth century, but the MS. was destroyed at the siege of Marienburg, in 1702. In consequence of the establishment of the Russian Bible Society, a modern version has been prepared by proper persons, selected for the undertaking, of which the Four Gospels appeared in 1819; the Gospels and Acts in 1820; and the entire New Testament in 1823. A translation of the Psalms was printed in 1822, and the first eight books of the Old Testament were printed in 1824, but have never been published, in consequence of the interference of those who are inimical to the spread of the Scriptures. These last mentioned were made from the original Hebrew.

70. The Romanese version.—In the Churwelsche dialect of this language, the Bible was published in 1657; and in that of Ladin in 1719.

71. Into the Samogitian language, a version of the New Testament was made by a Roman Catholic_bishop, at the request of the Russian Bible Society, and printed in 1820.

72. The Sanscrit, or learned language of India, possesses a version of the entire Scriptures, executed by the Serampore missionaries, and printed between the years 1808 and 1818.

73. A Serbian version of the New Testament was prepared for the Russian Bible Society, and printed in 1825.

74. The Spanish versions are various. The earliest, done from the Vulgate, was printed at Valencia, 1478. Pinel's version of the Old Testament, for the use of the Jews, was printed at Ferrara in 1553. There are also the versions of De Reyna, 1569; San Miguel, 1793, 1794; and Arnata, begun in 1823, and not yet completed.

75. The Swedish versions are two:

that made from Luther's version, and published in 1541; and the revised version, undertaken by order of the king in 1774. The latter translation, though executed in accordance with the more enlightened critical principles of the period at which it was made, has never gained the approbation of the Swedish public, and has not superseded the more early authorised version.

76. The Taheitian version, executed by the London Society's missionaries, comprises most of the books of the New Testament, and several of those of the Old. The rest are in progress.

77. The Tamul versions are also two in number: that executed by the German missionaries, the New Testament of which was printed at Tranquebar, 1715; and the Old Testament at the same place, 1723-1728; and another by Fabricius, also a German missionary, and printed at Madras, 1777.

78. The Tatar versions exist in different dialects; but none of them contain more than a single book or two, excepting that executed by the Scotch missionaries at Karass, on the north of the Caucasus, and that in the Orenburg-Tatar dialect, both of which comprise the whole New Testament. The former was printed at Karass in 1813; the latter at Astracan in 1820.

79. The Teloogoo or Telinga New Testament, was translated by the missionaries at Serampore, where it was printed in 1818. They also completed a translation of the Pentateuch into the same language.

80. In the Turkish language, there exist three versions of the New Testament. The first was executed by Dr. Lazarus Seaman, and printed in 1666. The second was made by Albertus Bobovsky or Ali Bey, dragoman to the Sultan Mohammed IV., and completed in the forementioned year; but it was not printed till 1819, when it was carried through the press at Paris, at the expense of the British and Foreign Bible Society. In consequence, however, of egregious faults and improprieties having been detected in the style, and in many of the renderings, the committee of that society were ultimately obliged to suppress the edition; and a new impression, purged from the objectionable matter, appeared in 1827. An edition from a revised and corrected copy of Bobovsky's version of the Old Testament also appeared at the same place in 1828. The third

version of the Turkish New Testament was undertaken by Mr. Dickson, one of the Scotch missionaries at Astracan. It is partially based on the Karass New Testament, and that of Bobovsky. A considerable portion of the Old Testament was also completed by the same translator; but, owing to the change of biblical affairs in Russia, no part of either has been published.

81. The Virginian translation of the Scriptures was executed by Elliot, the apostle of the Indians. The New Testament was printed at Cambridge, 1661, and the whole Bible in 1685.

82. The Wallachian New Testament was first printed at Belgrade in 1648; the entire Bible in 1668, at Bukharest.

83. The Welsh version was made in consequence of an act of parliament passed in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. The New Testament appeared in 1567, and the whole Bible in 1588. It has since been revised and corrected, and has gone through many editions.

84. The New Testament has been translated and printed in the Wutch or Multanee dialect, which is spoken on the eastern bank of the Indus.

VII. BIBLES, Polyglott.-Bibles printed in several languages, exhibiting, in general, the text of the different versions on the same page, or at least on the two open pages of the volume, are called Polyglotts, from oλus, many, and the -Attic γλωττα, a language.

1. The earliest attempt of the kind was made by Aldus, the celebrated Venetian printer; but it contains only the first fifteen verses of the first of Genesis. The Psalter, by Justinian, Genoa, 1516, in Hebrew, Arabic, Greek, Chaldean, and Latin, is the first Polyglott of any biblical book. His example was followed by Potken, who, in 1518, published the Psalter in Hebrew, Greek, Ethiopic, and Latin.

2. The first Polyglott of the whole Bible was the Complutensian, so called from its having been printed at Camplutum, in Spain, 1502-1517, and published in 1522, in 6 vols. folio. It contains the Hebrew, Latin Vulgate, and Greek, of the Old Testament, and the Greek and Latin Vulgate of the New. It was undertaken and superintended by Cardinal Ximenes, whom it cost about 50,000 ducats, though only six hundred copies were printed. It contains the

first printed, though not the first published, edition of the Greek New Testament.

The Royal Polyglott, printed at Antwerp, 1569-72, in 8 vols. fol. It was published at the expense of Philip II. of Spain, and edited by Arius Montanus. In addition to the texts in the Complutensian, this edition exhibits part of the Targum, and the Syriac version of the New Testament, with literal Latin translations.

4. The Parisian Polyglott, published by Le Jay, 1628-45, in 10 vols. large fol., adds to the former the Samaritan Pentateuch and version, the Syriac version of the Old Testament, and an Arabic translation both of the Old and New. It also gives a Latin version of each of the Oriental texts.

5. The London Polyglott, published 1657, in 6 vols. folio, contains, besides the texts of all the former Polyglotts, the Psalms, Song of Solomon, and the New Testament in Ethiopic, and the Gospels in Persic. It also contains the Chaldee Paraphrase in a more complete state than any of the preceding works. It was edited by Brian Walton, afterwards bishop of Chester, and generally has accompanying it the invaluable Heptaglott Lexicon by Castell, a work which is indispensable to those who would consult the Oriental texts to advantage, since the Latin translations in the Polyglott itself are not to be depended on. To the first volume are prefixed important prolegomena; and the last is entirely occupied with various readings, and other critical matters.

6. Reinecii Polyglott, Leipsic, 1750, in 3 vols. folio, contains the Old Testament in Hebrew, Greek, Seb. Schmidt's Latin translation, and Luther's German; and the New Testament in ancient and modern Greek, the Syriac, the same Latin and German versions. It is very accurately printed, cheap, and convenient.

7. Bagster's Polyglotts. -For elegance, accuracy, and convenience, the productions of Mr. Bagster's press far surpass all preceding editions of Polyglott Bibles. They are so printed that any selection of texts may be had at the option of the purchaser. There are, however, two principal works of this description: the Quarto Polyglott, 1821, containing the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and English texts of the Old Testament; and the Greek, Syriac, Latin, and Eng

lish of the New: and the Folio Polyglott, in 1831, one of the most splendid volumes ever published, containing the Bible in the Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, Latin, English, French, German, and Italian languages.

BIBLICAL CRITICISM is the science by which we arrive at a satisfactory acquaintance with the origin, history, and present state of the original text of Scripture. In the wide extent of its investigations, it embraces the languages in which the Scriptures were originally written, together with the cognate or kindred dialects; the materials used for writing; the composition, collection, and preservation of the different books; the age, character, and relationships of MSS.; the ancient versions; the various readings; the printed editions; and the various philological and historical means to be employed in order to determine what the text was as it proceeded from the original penmen. It has been divided into two kinds: lower criticism, which is more of a verbal and historical nature, and is confined to the words, or the collocation of the words, as they stand in the manuscript or printed texts, the ancient versions, and other legitimate sources of appeal; and higher criticism, which consists in the exercise of the judgment in reference to the text, on grounds taken from the nature, form, method, subject, or arguments of the different books; the nature and connexion of the context; the relation of passages to each other; the known circumstances of the writers, and those of the persons for whose immediate use they wrote. Of the two the former is obviously the more important, as it presents a firm basis on which to rest our investigations: the latter, lying more open to conjecture and variety of opinion, may easily be abused, and has indeed been carried to a most unwarrantable length by many German critics.

The science of biblical criticism should be assiduously cultivated by all who venture to interpret the Bible: for in attempting to expound a work of such high antiquity, which has passed through a variety of copies, both ancient and modern, written and printed, copies which differ from each other in very numerous instances, they should have some reason to believe that the copy or edition which they undertake to interpret, approaches as nearly to the original, as it can be

brought by human industry, or human judgment. Or, to speak in the technical language of criticism, before they expound the Bible, they should procure the most correct text of the Bible. This principle, which is justly deemed important in reference to mere human productions, must necessarily commend itself as of paramount and indispensable importance in its application to the Scriptures. Without attending to it, we never can be satisfied that what we interpret, really is what it professes to be-the word of God.

The object of this science is not to expose the word of the Lord to the uncertainties of human conjecture (a charge which has sometimes been brought against it); for there is no principle which it more firmly resists than conjectural emendation, or emendation not founded on documentary evidence. Its object is not to weaken, much less to destroy the edifice, which "for ages has been the subject of just veneration," but to show the firmness of the foundation on which the sacred edifice is built, and prove the genuineness of the materials of which it is constructed. See Marsh's Lectures, pp. 24, 26.

BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION, the science of teaching or expounding the meaning of the Bible. Strictly speaking, it is either grammatical, when the meaning of words, phrases, and sentences is made out from the usus loquendi, and the context; or historical, when the meaning is illustrated and confirmed by historical arguments, whichserve to evince that no other sense can be put upon the passage, whether regard be had to the nature of the subject, or the genius and manner of the writer. It presupposes a knowledge of Biblical criticism, and an acquaintance with ancient geography, chronology, the civil, religious, and political history, the manners, customs, &c. of the Jews and of the surrounding nations, and especially with the doctrinal and preceptive contents of the Bible itself as a whole, and of its different parts in particular. As the same method, and the same principles of interpretation are common both to the sacred volume, and to the productions of uninspired men, it follows, that the signification of words in the Holy Scriptures must be sought precisely in the same way in which the meaning of words in other works usually is, or ought to be sought.

Hence also it follows, that the method of investigating the signification of words in the Bible is no more arbitrary than it is in other books, but is in like manner regulated by certain laws, drawn from the nature of languages. And since no text of Scripture has more than one meaning, we must endeavour to find out that one true sense precisely in the same manner as we would investigate the sense of Homer or any other ancient writer; and in that sense, when so ascertained, we ought to acquiesce, unless, by applying the just rules of interpretation, it can be shown that the meaning of the passage has been mistaken, and that another is the only just, true, and critical sense of the place. In order to assist in determining what is this one meaning, the following rules have been laid down:1. Ascertain the usus loquendi, or the notion affixed to a word by the persons in general by whom the language either is now or formerly was spoken, and especially in the particular connexion in which such notion is affixed. 2. Retain the received signification of a word, unless weighty and necessary reasons require that it should be abandoned. 3. Where a word has several significations in common use, that must be selected which best suits the passage in question, and which is consistent with an author's known character, sentiments, and situation, and the known circumstances under which he wrote. 4. Although the force of particular words can only be derived from etymology, yet too much confidence must not be placed in that frequently uncertain science. 5. The distinctions between words which are apparently synonymous should be carefully examined and considered. 6. The epithets introduced by the sacred writers are also to be carefully weighed and considered, as all of these have either a declarative or explanatory force, or serve to distinguish one thing from another, or unite these two characters together. 7. General terms are used sometimes in their whole extent, and sometimes in a restricted sense; and whether they are to be understood in the one way or in the other, must depend on the scope, subject-matter, context, and parallel passages. 8. The most simple and obvious sense is always the true one. 9. Since it is the design of interpretation to render in our own language the same discourse which the sacred authors originally wrote in Hebrew or Greek, it is evident that an in

terpretation, or version, to be correct, ought not to affirm or deny more than the inspired penmen affirmed or denied at the time they wrote: consequently we must always take a sense from Scripture, and not bring one to it. 10. No interpretation can be just, which brings out of any passage a sense that is repugnant to the ascertained nature of things.

The subsidiary means for ascertaining the sense of Scripture are the usus loquendi, context, scope, subject-matter, philological and doctrinal parallelisms and analogies, historical circumstances, quotations and exegetical commentators. Stuart's Ernesti; Horne's Introd. to the Scriptures.

BIBLIOMANCY, divination performed by means of the Bible; also called sortes biblicæ, or sortes sanctorum. It consisted in taking passages of Scripture at hazard, and thence drawing indications respecting future events. It was much used at the consecration of bishops, and was a practice adopted from the heathens, who drew the same kind of prognostications from the works of Homer and Virgil. In 465, the council of Varmes condemned all who practised it to be cast out of the church, as did also those of Agde and Auxerre: but in the twelfth century it was employed as a mode of detecting heretics. In the Gallican church, it was long practised at the election of bishops; children being employed, on behalf of each candidate, to draw slips of paper with texts on them, and that which was thought most favourable decided the choice. A similar mode was pursued at the installation of abbots, and the reception of canons; and this custom is said to have continued in the cathedrals of Ypres, St. Omer, and Boulogne, as late as the year 1744. In the Greek church we read of the prevalence of this custom as early as the consecration of Athanasius, on whose behalf the presiding prelate, Caracalla, archbishop of Nicomedia, opened the gospels at the words, "For the devil and his angels," Matt. xxv. 41, but the bishop of Nice, having observed them, adroitly turned over the leaf to another verse, which was instantly read aloud: "The birds of the air came and lodged in the branches thereof," xiii. 32. But this passage appearing irrelevant to the ceremony, the first became gradually known, and caused great disturbance in the church of Constantinople.

Some well-meaning people among Pro

testants practise a kind of bibliomancy in order to determine the state of their souls, or the path of duty; but it is an awful profanation of the sacred volume, and a tempting of the Almighty. It has generally been found, that those who have employed it have been awfully misguided, if not driven to absolute despair. The word of God was never meant to operate as a charm, nor to be employed as a lot-book. No portion of it, however small, is to be detached from its connexion. It can only truly guide and edify, when rightly and consistently understood.

BIDDELIANS, so called from John Biddle, A.M. of the University of Cambridge, and one of the first persons who publicly propagated Socinianism in England. He taught that Jesus Christ, to the intent that he might be our brother, and have a fellow-feeling of our infirmities, and so become the more ready to help us, hath no other than a human nature; and therefore in this very nature is not only a person, since none but a human person can be our brother, but also our Lord and God.

Biddle, as well as Socinus and others of similar sentiments before and since, made no scruple of calling Christ God, though he believed him to be a human creature only, on account of the divine sovereignty with which he was invested. Toulmin calls him the father of the modern Unitarians. He was the author of various small works in defence of his sentiments, which are now scarce.

[ocr errors]

His Scripture Catechism" met with an able refutation from the pen of Dr. Owen. See his Works, vol. viii.

BIDDING PRAYER. It was part of the office of the deacons in the ancient church to be monitors and directors of the people in their public devotions in the church. To this end they made use of certain known forms of words, to give notice when each part of the service began. Agreeable to this ancient practice is the form "Let us pray," repeated before several of the prayers in the English liturgy. Bishop Burnet, in his "History of the Reformation," vol. ii. p. 20, has preserved the form as it was in use before the Reformation, which was this:After the preacher had named and opened his text, he called on the people to go to their prayers, telling them what they were to pray for: "Ye shall pray," says he, "for the king, the pope," &c. After which, all the people said their beads in

a general silence, and the minister kneeled down likewise, and said his: they were to say a paternoster, ave maria, &c. and then the sermon proceeded.

BIGOT, a person blindly, obstinately, and perversely wedded to some opinion or practice, particularly of a religious nature. Camden, perhaps, has hit upon the true original of the word. He relates, that when Rollo, duke of Normandy, received Gisla, the daughter of Charles the Foolish, in marriage, toge ther with the investiture of that dukedom, he would not submit to kiss Charles's foot; and when his friends urged him by all means to comply with that ceremony, he made answer in the English tongue, 'Ne se by God," i. e. Not so by God. Upon which the king and his courtiers deriding him, and corruptly repeating his answer, called him bigot; from whence the Normans were called bigodi, or bigots.

[ocr errors]

There is a vast difference between a bigot, and a man zealous for the interests of true religion. The object of the first is the form of the second, the power of godliness.

BIGOTRY consists in being obstinately and perversely attached to our own opinions; or, as some have defined it, "a tenacious adherence to a system adopted without investigation, and defended without argument, accompanied with a malignant intolerant spirit towards all who differ." It must be distinguished from love to truth, which influences a man to embrace it wherever he finds it; and from true zeal, which is an ardour of mind exciting its possessor to defend and propagate the principles he maintains. Bigotry is a kind of prejudice combined with a certain degree of malignity. It is thus exemplified and distinguished by a sensible writer. "When Jesus preached, Prejudice cried, Can any good thing come out of Nazareth? Crucify him, crucify him, said Bigotry. Why? what evil hath he done? replied Candour." Bigotry is mostly prevalent with those who are ignorant; who have taken up principles without due examination; and who are naturally of a morose and contracted disposition. It is often manifested more in unimportant sentiments, or the circumstantials of religion, than the essentials of it. Simple bigotry is the spirit of persecution without the power; persecution is bigotry armed with power, and carrying its will into act. As it is the effect of ignorance,

« PreviousContinue »