Arguments for the Later Date,A.D.60 or 61.—(α) St Paul, at the time of his arrest, two years before Felix’s recall, addresses him as “for many years past a judge for this nation” (Acts xxiv. 10, 27). It is certain that Felix succeeded Cumanus inA.D.52, for Tacitus mentions Cumanus’s recall under that year, Josephus immediately before the notice of the completion of Claudius’s twelfth year [January,A.D.53], Eusebius probably under Claudius II, that is, between September 51 and September 52 (for the meaning of the regnal years in theChronicleof Eusebius see the present writer’s article inJournal of Theological Studies, January 1900, pp. 188-192). It is argued that “many years” cannot mean less than six or seven, so that St Paul must have been speaking at earliest in 58 or 59, and Felix will have left Judaea at earliest in 60 or 61. But this argument overlooks the fact that Felix had been in some position which might properly be described as that of “judge for this nation” before he became governor of all Palestine inA.D.52. In the words of Tacitus, Felix was at the time of that appointmentiampridem Iudaeae impositus(Annals, xii. 54); he certainly supposes Felix to have been already governor of Samaria, and apparently of Judaea too, and only recognizes Cumanus as governor of Galilee; and Josephus, though he says nothing of this, and treats Cumanus as the sole procurator down toA.D.52, implies that Felix had been in some position where the Jewish authorities could judge of his fitness when he tells us that the high priest Jonathan used to press on Felix, as a reason for urging him to govern well, the fact he that had asked for his appointment to the procuratorship (Ant.xx. viii. 5). If Felix had acted in some position of responsibility in Palestine before 52 (perhaps for some time before), St Paul could well have spoken of “many years” at least as early as 56 or 57.(β) Josephus enumerates after the accession of Nero (October 54) a long catalogue of events which all took place under the procuratorship of Felix, including the revolt of “the Egyptian” which was already “before these days” at the time of St Paul’s arrest, two years from the end of Felix’s tenure. This suggests, no doubt, that the Egyptian rebelled at earliest in 54-55, and makes it probable that St Paul’s arrest did not take place before (the Pentecost of)A.D.56; and it implies certainly that the main or most important part of Felix’s governorship fell, in Josephus’s view, under Nero. But as two years only of Felix’s rule (52-54) fell under Claudius, this procedure would be quite natural on Josephus’s part if his recall were dated in 58 or 59, so that four or five years fell under Nero. And there is no need at all to suppose that all the incidents which the historian masses under his account of Felix were successive: events in Emesa, Chalcis, Caesarea and Jerusalem may easily have been synchronous.The arguments, then, brought forward in favour ofA.D.60 or 61 do not do more than bring the rule of Felix down to 58 or 59.Arguments for an Early Date,A.D.55 or 56.—(α) Eusebius’sChronicleplaces the arrival of Festus in Nero 2, October 55-56, and Eusebius’s chronology of the procurators goes back probably through Julius Africanus (himself a Palestinian) to contemporary authorities like theJewish kingsof Justus of Tiberias. But (i.) Nero 2 is really September 56-September 57; (ii.) it is doubtful whether Eusebius had any authority to depend on here other than Josephus, who gives no precise year for Festus—Julius Africanus is hardly probable, since we know that his chronicle was very jejune for the Christian period—and if so, Eusebius had to find a year as best he could.60(β) Felix, on his return to Rome, was prosecuted by the Jews for misgovernment, but was acquitted through the influence of his brother Pallas. Pallas had been minister and favourite of Claudius,but was removed from office in the winter following Nero’s accession, 54-55. Felix must therefore have been tried at the very beginning of Nero’s reign. But this argument would make Felix’s recall—if Festus came in summer, as Acts xxv. 1, xxvii. 1, 9, seem to prove—to fall actually under Claudius. And, in fact, it would be a mistake look upon Pallas’s retirement as a disgrace. He stipulated that no inquiry should be made into his conduct in office, and was left for another seven years unmolested in the enjoyment of the fortune he had amassed. There is, therefore, every likelihood that he retained for some years enough influence to shield his brother.Of these arguments, then, the first, so far as it is valid, is an argument for the summer, not ofA.D.55 or 56, but ofA.D.57 as that of the recall, while the second will apply to any of the earlier years of Nero’s reign.
Arguments for the Later Date,A.D.60 or 61.—(α) St Paul, at the time of his arrest, two years before Felix’s recall, addresses him as “for many years past a judge for this nation” (Acts xxiv. 10, 27). It is certain that Felix succeeded Cumanus inA.D.52, for Tacitus mentions Cumanus’s recall under that year, Josephus immediately before the notice of the completion of Claudius’s twelfth year [January,A.D.53], Eusebius probably under Claudius II, that is, between September 51 and September 52 (for the meaning of the regnal years in theChronicleof Eusebius see the present writer’s article inJournal of Theological Studies, January 1900, pp. 188-192). It is argued that “many years” cannot mean less than six or seven, so that St Paul must have been speaking at earliest in 58 or 59, and Felix will have left Judaea at earliest in 60 or 61. But this argument overlooks the fact that Felix had been in some position which might properly be described as that of “judge for this nation” before he became governor of all Palestine inA.D.52. In the words of Tacitus, Felix was at the time of that appointmentiampridem Iudaeae impositus(Annals, xii. 54); he certainly supposes Felix to have been already governor of Samaria, and apparently of Judaea too, and only recognizes Cumanus as governor of Galilee; and Josephus, though he says nothing of this, and treats Cumanus as the sole procurator down toA.D.52, implies that Felix had been in some position where the Jewish authorities could judge of his fitness when he tells us that the high priest Jonathan used to press on Felix, as a reason for urging him to govern well, the fact he that had asked for his appointment to the procuratorship (Ant.xx. viii. 5). If Felix had acted in some position of responsibility in Palestine before 52 (perhaps for some time before), St Paul could well have spoken of “many years” at least as early as 56 or 57.
(β) Josephus enumerates after the accession of Nero (October 54) a long catalogue of events which all took place under the procuratorship of Felix, including the revolt of “the Egyptian” which was already “before these days” at the time of St Paul’s arrest, two years from the end of Felix’s tenure. This suggests, no doubt, that the Egyptian rebelled at earliest in 54-55, and makes it probable that St Paul’s arrest did not take place before (the Pentecost of)A.D.56; and it implies certainly that the main or most important part of Felix’s governorship fell, in Josephus’s view, under Nero. But as two years only of Felix’s rule (52-54) fell under Claudius, this procedure would be quite natural on Josephus’s part if his recall were dated in 58 or 59, so that four or five years fell under Nero. And there is no need at all to suppose that all the incidents which the historian masses under his account of Felix were successive: events in Emesa, Chalcis, Caesarea and Jerusalem may easily have been synchronous.
The arguments, then, brought forward in favour ofA.D.60 or 61 do not do more than bring the rule of Felix down to 58 or 59.
Arguments for an Early Date,A.D.55 or 56.—(α) Eusebius’sChronicleplaces the arrival of Festus in Nero 2, October 55-56, and Eusebius’s chronology of the procurators goes back probably through Julius Africanus (himself a Palestinian) to contemporary authorities like theJewish kingsof Justus of Tiberias. But (i.) Nero 2 is really September 56-September 57; (ii.) it is doubtful whether Eusebius had any authority to depend on here other than Josephus, who gives no precise year for Festus—Julius Africanus is hardly probable, since we know that his chronicle was very jejune for the Christian period—and if so, Eusebius had to find a year as best he could.60
(β) Felix, on his return to Rome, was prosecuted by the Jews for misgovernment, but was acquitted through the influence of his brother Pallas. Pallas had been minister and favourite of Claudius,but was removed from office in the winter following Nero’s accession, 54-55. Felix must therefore have been tried at the very beginning of Nero’s reign. But this argument would make Felix’s recall—if Festus came in summer, as Acts xxv. 1, xxvii. 1, 9, seem to prove—to fall actually under Claudius. And, in fact, it would be a mistake look upon Pallas’s retirement as a disgrace. He stipulated that no inquiry should be made into his conduct in office, and was left for another seven years unmolested in the enjoyment of the fortune he had amassed. There is, therefore, every likelihood that he retained for some years enough influence to shield his brother.
Of these arguments, then, the first, so far as it is valid, is an argument for the summer, not ofA.D.55 or 56, but ofA.D.57 as that of the recall, while the second will apply to any of the earlier years of Nero’s reign.
In the result, then, the arguments brought forward in favour of each extreme fail to prove their case, but at the same time prove something against the opposite view. Thus the point that Josephus catalogues the events of Felix’s procuratorship under Nero cannot be pressed to bring down Felix’s tenure as far as 60 or 61, but it does seem to exclude as early a termination as 56, or even 57. Conversely, the influence of Pallas at court need not be terminated by his ceasing to be minister early in 55; but it would have been overshadowed not later than the year 60 by the influence of Poppaea, who in the summer of that year61enabled the Jews to win their cause in the matter of the Temple wall, and would certainly have supported them against Felix. Thus the choice again appears to lie between the years 58 and 59 for the recall of Felix and arrival of Festus.
If St Paul was arrested in 56 or 57, and appealed to Caesar on the arrival of Festus in 58 or 59, then, as he reached Rome in the early part of the year following, and remained there a prisoner for two full years, we are brought down to the early spring of either 61 or 62 for the close of the period recorded in the Acts. That after these two years he was released and visited Spain in the west, and in the east Ephesus, Macedonia, Crete, Troas, Miletus, and perhaps Achaea and Epirus, is probable, in the one case, from the evidence of Romans xv. 28, Clem.ad Cor. v. and the Muratorian canon, and, in the other, from the Pastoral Epistles. These journeys certainly cannot have occupied less than two years, and it is more natural to allow three for them, which takes us down to 64-65.
Early evidence is unanimous in pointing to St Peter and St Paul as victims of the persecution of Nero (Clem,ad Cor. v. vi., Dionysius of Corinthap. Eus.H.E. ii. 25, &c., combined with what we know from Tacitus of the course of the persecution, and from Gaius of Rome,ap. Eus. ii. 25, of the burial-places of the two apostles); and tradition clearly distinguished the fierce outbreak at Rome that followed on the fire of the city in July 64 from any permanent disabilities of the Christians in the eye of the law which the persecution may have initiated. There is, therefore, no reason at all to doubt that both apostles were martyred in 64-65, and the date serves as a confirmation of the chronology adopted above of the imprisonment, release and subsequent journeys of St Paul.
Investigation, then, of that part of the book of Acts which follows the death of Agrippa, recorded in chap. xii.—i.e. of that part of the apostolic age which follows the year 44—has shown that apparent difficulties can be to a large extent set aside, and that there is nowhere room betweenA.D.44 and 64 for doubt extending to more than a single year. The first missionary journey may have begun in 47 or 48; the arrival of Festus may have taken place in the summer of 58 or of 59; the two years of the Roman imprisonment recorded in the last chapter of Acts may have ended in the spring of 61 or 62; and the dates which fall in between these extremes are liable to the same variation. The present writer leans to the earlier alternative in each case, 47, 58, 61; but he willingly concedes that the evidence, as he understands it, is not inconsistent with the later alternative.
But if the events ofA.D.44-64 can thus be fixed with a fair approximation to certainty, it is unfortunately otherwise with the events ofA.D.29-44. Here we are dependent (i.) on general indications given in the Acts; (ii.) on the evidence of the Epistle to the Galatians, which, though in appearance more precise, can be and is interpreted in very different ways.
(i.) The book of Acts is divided, by general summaries from time to time inserted in the narrative, into six periods: i. 1-vi. 7, vi. 8-ix. 31, ix. 32-xii. 24, xii. 25-xvi. 5, xvi. 6-xix. 20, xix. 2l-xxviii. 31. Of these the three last extend respectively from the death of Herod to the start for Europe in the second missionary journey (A.D.44 to the spring of 50 [51]), from the start for Europe to the end of the long stay at Ephesus (A.D.50 [51] to the spring ofA.D.55 [56]), and from the departure from Ephesus to the end of the two years’ captivity at Rome (A.D.55 [56] to the beginning ofA.D.61 [62]). It will be seen that these periods are of more or less the same length, namely, six (or seven) years, five years, six years. There is, therefore, some slight presumption that the three earlier periods, which together cover about fifteen years, were intended by so artistic a writer as St Luke to mark each some similar lapse of time. If that were so, the preaching of the apostles at Jerusalem and organization of the Church at the capital—the preaching of the seven and the extension of the Church all over Palestine—the extension of the Church to Antioch, and the commencement of St Paul’s work—might each occupy five years more or less, that is to say, roughly,A.D.29-34, 34-39, 39-44. The conversion of St Paul, which falls within the second period, would on this arrangement fall somewhere between five and ten years after the Crucifixion. Such conclusions are, however, of course general in the extreme.
(ii.) A nearer attempt to date at least the chronology of St Paul’s earlier years as a Christian could be made by the help of the Galatian Epistle if we could be sure from what point and to what point its reckonings are made. The apostle tells us that on his conversion he retired from Damascus into Arabia, and thence returned to Damascus; then after three years (from his conversion) he went up to Jerusalem, but stayed only a fortnight, and went to the regions of Syria and Cilicia. Then after fourteen years (from his conversion? or from his last visit?) he went up to Jerusalem again to confer with the elder apostles. Now, if either of these visits to Jerusalem could be identified with any of the visits whose dates have been approximately settled in the chronology ofA.D.44-64, we should have a fixed point from which to argue back. Unfortunately, even less agreement exists on this head than on the question whether the fourteen years of the last-mentioned visit are to be reckoned from the conversion or from the previous visit. Most critics, indeed, are now agreed that the fourteen years are to be calculated from the conversion; and most of them still hold that the visit of Galatians ii. is the same as the council of Acts xv., partly, no doubt, on the ground that the latter visit was too important and decisive for St Paul to have omitted in giving even the most summary description of his relations with the twelve. This ground would, however, be cut away from their feet if it were possible to hold (with J.V. Bartlet,Apostolic Age, 1900, and V. Weber,Die Abfassung des Galaterbriefs vor dem Apostelkonzil, Ravensburg, 1900) that the epistle was actually written just before the council,i.e. in the winter of 48-49 [49-50]. In that case, of course, the two visits of Galatians i. and ii. would be those of Acts ix. 26 and xi. 30. The fourteen years reckoned back from the latter (c.A.D.46) would bring us toA.D.32-33 as the latest possible date for the conversion. With the older view, on the other hand, the fourteen years reckoned from the council inA.D.49 [50] would allow us to bring down the conversion toA.D.36. The new view clears away some manifest difficulties in the reconciliation of the Epistle and the Acts, and the early date for Galatians in relation to the other Pauline epistles is not so improbable as it may seem; but the chronology still appears more satisfactory on the older view, which enables the conversion to be placed at least three years later than on the alternative theory. But it is clear that the last word has not been said, and that definite results for this period cannot yet be looked for.
To sum up: an attempt has been made, it is hoped with some success, to provide a framework of history equipped with dates from the time of St Peter’s arrest by Herod Agrippa I. at thePassover ofA.D.44 down to the martyrdom of St Peter and St Paul in the persecution of Nero,A.D.64-65. For the previous period, on the other hand, fromA.D.29 toA.D.44, it appeared impossible in our present state of knowledge to state conclusions other than in the most general form.
Authorities.—The views stated in this article are in general (though with some modifications) the same as those which the present writer worked out with more fulness of detail in Hastings’Dictionary of the Bible, i. (1898) 403-424. Of older books should be mentioned:—Ideler,Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie(2 vols., 1825); Wieseler,Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters(1848); Lewin’sFasti Sacri(1865). Important modern contributions are to be found in Prof. (Sir) W.M. Ramsay’s various works, and in Harnack’sChronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius, i. 233-244. Mention should also be made of an article, containing much useful astronomical and Talmudical information, by Mr J.K. Fotheringham, “The Date of the Crucifixion,” in theJournal of Philology, xxix. 100-118 (1904). Mr Fotheringham is of opinion that the evidence from Christian sources is too uncertain, and that the statements of the Mishnah must be the starting-point of the inquiry: taking then the phasis of the new moon as the true beginning of Nisan, he concludes that Friday cannot have coincided with Nisan 14 in any year, within the periodA.D.28-35, other thanA.D.33 (April 3rd). But in one of the two empirical tests of the value of these calculations that he was able to obtain (loc. cit.p. 106, n. 2), the new moon was seen a day earlier than his rules allowed. This being so, it would be premature to disregard the convergent lines of historical evidence which tell againstA.D.33. Among the latest German works may be cited the chapter on New Testament chronology in theNeutestamentliche Zeitgeschichteof Dr Oscar Holtzmann (2nd ed., 1906), pp. 117-147: regarded as a collection of historical material this deserves every praise, but the mass is undigested and the treatment of the evidence arbitrary. As might be expected, Dr Holtzmann’s conclusions are clear-cut, and alternatives are rigidly excluded: the Crucifixion is dated on the 7th of AprilA.D.30, and St Paul’s arrest (with the older writers) at PentecostA.D.58.
Authorities.—The views stated in this article are in general (though with some modifications) the same as those which the present writer worked out with more fulness of detail in Hastings’Dictionary of the Bible, i. (1898) 403-424. Of older books should be mentioned:—Ideler,Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie(2 vols., 1825); Wieseler,Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters(1848); Lewin’sFasti Sacri(1865). Important modern contributions are to be found in Prof. (Sir) W.M. Ramsay’s various works, and in Harnack’sChronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius, i. 233-244. Mention should also be made of an article, containing much useful astronomical and Talmudical information, by Mr J.K. Fotheringham, “The Date of the Crucifixion,” in theJournal of Philology, xxix. 100-118 (1904). Mr Fotheringham is of opinion that the evidence from Christian sources is too uncertain, and that the statements of the Mishnah must be the starting-point of the inquiry: taking then the phasis of the new moon as the true beginning of Nisan, he concludes that Friday cannot have coincided with Nisan 14 in any year, within the periodA.D.28-35, other thanA.D.33 (April 3rd). But in one of the two empirical tests of the value of these calculations that he was able to obtain (loc. cit.p. 106, n. 2), the new moon was seen a day earlier than his rules allowed. This being so, it would be premature to disregard the convergent lines of historical evidence which tell againstA.D.33. Among the latest German works may be cited the chapter on New Testament chronology in theNeutestamentliche Zeitgeschichteof Dr Oscar Holtzmann (2nd ed., 1906), pp. 117-147: regarded as a collection of historical material this deserves every praise, but the mass is undigested and the treatment of the evidence arbitrary. As might be expected, Dr Holtzmann’s conclusions are clear-cut, and alternatives are rigidly excluded: the Crucifixion is dated on the 7th of AprilA.D.30, and St Paul’s arrest (with the older writers) at PentecostA.D.58.
(C. H. T.)
1The books of Samuel, Kings, Ezra and Nehemiah, and Chronicles, were by the Jews each treated (and written) as one book, and were not divided by them into two till the 16th century, through Christian influence.2For a discussion of the word “Massoretes” see W. Bacher (J.Q.R.vol. iii. pp. 785 f.), who maintains that the original pronunciation of these words wasמסורתandמומרה.3The actual date of the introduction of vowel points is not known, but it must in any case have been later than the time of Jerome, and is probably to be assigned to the 7th century. Of the systems of punctuation which are known to us, the more familiar is the Tiberian, or sublinear, which is found in all printed editions of the Hebrew Bible. The other system, the Babylonian or superlinear, is chiefly found in certain Yemen MSS. For yet a third system of vocalization see M. Friedländer,J.Q.R., 1895, pp. 564 f., and P. Kahle inZ.A.T.W.xxi. (1901), pp. 273 f. Probably the idea of providing vowel points was borrowed from the Syrians.4This represents the Western tradition as opposed to the Eastern text of ben Naphtali. For the standard copies such as theCodex Hillelisreferred to by later writers see H.L. Strack,Proleg. Critica, pp. 14 f.5Cf. F.C. Burkitt,Fragments of the Books of Kings according to the Translation of Aquila.6The Talmudic story of the three MSS. preserved in the court of the temple (Sopherim, vi. 4) sufficiently illustrates the tentative efforts of the rabbis in this direction.7W. Robertson Smith,Old Testament and the Jewish Church, pp. 69 f.8For theseTiqqunē Sopherimor “corrections of the scribes” see Geiger,Urschrift, pp. 308 f.; Strack,Prolegomena Critica, p. 87; Buhl,Canon and Text of the Old Testament, pp. 103 f. In theMekilta(Exod. xv. 7) only eleven passages are mentioned. Less important are theItturē Sopherim, or five passages in which the scribes have omitted awawfrom the text.9Text of the Books of Samuel, pp. xxxix. f.10According to Josephus (Ant.xi. 7. 8) the temple on Mt. Gerizim was set up by Manasseh in the reign of Darius Codomannus,i.e.about 332B.C.It is possible that he is correct in placing the building of the temple at the later date, but probably he errs in connecting it with the secession of Manasseh, which, according to Nehemiah, occurred a century earlier; it has been suggested that he has confused Darius Codomannus with his predecessor, Darius Nothus.11e.g.Ex. xx. 17, 19 ff.; Num. xx. f.; Deut. xxvii. 4.121 Kings xx. 7-17; 2 Kings xxiii. 12-17, ed. by Mr (now Professor) F.C. Burkitt inFragments of the Books of Kings according to the Translation of Aquila(Cambridge, 1897), and Ps. xc. 6-13; xci. 4-10, and parts of Ps. xxiii. by Dr C. Taylor inSayings of the Jewish Fathers(2nd ed., 1897).13On the question of Theodotion’s date, Schürer (Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, Bd. iii. p. 324) argues very plausibly for hispriorityto Aquila on the grounds, (1) that Irenaeus mentions him before Aquila, and (2) that, after Aquila’s version had been adopted by the Greek Jews, a work such as that of Theodotion would have been somewhat superfluous. Theodotion’s work, he suggests, formed the first stage towards the establishment of a Greek version which should correspond more closely with the Hebrew. Moreover, this theory affords the simplest explanation of its disappearance from Jewish tradition.14Only one MS. of the Septuagint version of Daniel has survived, theCodex Chisianus.15Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, p. 51.16Hence the nameHexapla. In some books, especially the poetical, the columns were increased to eight by the addition of theQuintaandSexta, but theOctapla, as the enlarged work was called, was not apparently a distinct work. TheTetrapla, on the other hand, was a separate edition which did not contain the first two columns of theHexapla.17Lagarde’s projected edition of the Lucianic recension was unfortunately never completed; the existing volume contains Genesis-2 Esdras, Esther. It may be noted here that the Complutensian Polyglott represents a Lucianic text.18Hastings’sDict. of the Bible, iii. pp. 54 ff.19The Old Testament in Greek, by A.E. Brooke and N. McLean, vol. i. pt. 1 (1906)20His arguments are stated briefly (and in order to be refuted) by Jerome in his commentary onDaniel.21In what follows the actual quotations are from his English work; some of the summaries take account of the brief expansions in his later Latin version.22See particularly B. Stade,Geschichte des Volkes Israel(1887-1888); J. Wellhausen,Die Kleinen Propheten(1892); B.I. Duhm,Jesaia(1892); T.K. Cheyne,Introduction to the Book of Isaiah(1895); K. Marti,Jesaja(1900), andDas Dodekapropheton(1904).23The Old Testament in the Jewish Church(1881);The Prophets of Israel(1882).24For details see an article in theZeitschr. für d. altest. Wissenschaftfor 1889, pp. 246-302, on “Alttestamentliche Studien in Amerika,” by G.F. Moore, who has himself since done much distinguished and influential critical work.25To avoid any possibility of overstating the case, it is necessary to refer here to the fact that Tethmosis (Thothmes) III. in the 16th centuryB.C.mentions two Palestinian places named respectively Jacobel and Josephel, and Sheshonk in the both centuryB.C.mentions another called “The field of Abram.” From these names alone it is impossible to determine whether the places derived their names from individuals or tribes.26Or according to some MSS., 167.27Shem, the father of Arphaxad, is aged 100 at the time of the Flood, and lives for 600 years.28Disregarding the “two years” of Gen. xi. 10; see v. 32, vii. 11.29Taking account of the reading of LXX. in Ex. xii. 40.30See further Driver’s essay in Hogarth’sAuthority and Archaeology(1899), pp. 32-34; or hisBook of Genesis(1904, 7th ed., 1909), p. xxxi. ff.311 Petrie,Hist. of Egypt, i. (ed. 5, 1903), p. 251; iii. (1905), p. 2.32See Merenptah’s account of the defeat of these invaders in Maspero, op. cit. pp. 432-437; or in Breasted’sAncient Records of Egypt(Chicago, 1906), iii. 240-252.33Namely, 40 years in the wilderness; Joshua and the elders (Judges ii. 7), x years; Othniel (iii. 11), 40 years; Ehud (iii. 30), 80 years; Barak (v. 31), 40 years; Gideon (viii. 28), 40 years; Jephthah and five minor judges (x. 2, 3, xii. 7, 9, 11, 14), 76 years; Samson (xvi. 31), 20 years; Eli (1 Sam. iv. 18), 40 years; Samuel (vii. 2), 20 years; Saul, y years; David, 40 years; and Solomon’s first four years—in all 440 + x + y years.34Namely, Moses (in the wilderness), Joshua, Othniel, Ehud, Deborah, Gideon, Jephthah, Samson, Eli, Samuel, Saul and David.35The “300 years” of Judges xi. 26 agrees very nearly with the sum of the years (namely, 319) given in the preceding chapters for the successive periods of oppression and independence. The verse occurs in a long insertion (xi. 12-28) in the original narrative; and the figure was most probably arrived at by computation upon the basis of the present chronology of the book.36The real Biblical date, Ussher in Gen. xi. 26 interpolating 60 years, because it is said in Acts vii. 4 that Abraham left Haranafterhis father Terah’s death (Gen. xi. 32), and also (as explained above) interpreting wrongly Ex. Xii. 40.37Hilprecht’s dates (The Bab. Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, vol. i. pt. i. 1893, pp. 11, 12; pt. ii. 1896, pp. 23, 24, 43, 44).38Petrie’s dates,Hist. of Egypt, vol. i. (ed. 5, 1903), pp. 20, 30, 233, 251, 252; vol. iii. (1905), pp. 2, 235, 261-7, 296-360. Other authorities, however, assign considerably lower dates for the dynasties prior to the 18th. Thus Breasted (Hist. of Egypt, 1906, pp. 22 ff., 221, 597) agrees with Ed. Meyer in giving, for reasons which cannot be here explained, for the beginning of the 1st dynastyc.B.C.3400, for the 4th dynastyc.B.C.2900-2750, and for the rule of the Hyksosc.B.C.1680-1580; and in hisResearches in Sinai, 1906, p. 175, Petrie proposes for MenesB.C.5510, and for the 4th dynastyB.C.4731-4454. SeeEgypt(Chronology).39So Sayce, Rogers (Hist. of Bab. and Ass., 1900, i. 318 f.) and others. The date rests upon a statement of Nabu-na’id’s, that Sargon’s son, Naram-Sin, reigned 3200 years before himself. Lehmann holds that there are reasons for believing that the engraver, by error, put a stroke too many, and that 2200 should be read instead of 3200.40The real Biblical date.41Rogers, i. 373-375. Many monuments and inscriptions of other kings in Babylonia, between 4000 and 2000B.C., are also known.42The lists of the Babylonian and Assyrian kings are not continuous; and before 1907, from the data then available (see the discussion in Rogers, op. cit. i. 312-348), Khammurabi, the sixth king of the first Babylonian dynasty, was commonly referred to such dates as 2376-2333B.C.(Sayce) or 2285-2242B.C.(Johns). But inscriptions recently discovered, by showing that the second dynasty was partly contemporaneous with the first and the third, have proved that these dates are too high; see L.W. King,Chronicles Concerning Early Bab. Kings(1907), i. 93-110; and the articleBabylonia,Chronology. The dataB.C.2130-2088 is that adopted by Thureau-Dangin, after a discussion of the subject, in theJournal des Savants, 1908, p. 199; and by Ungnad in theOrient. Litt.-zeitung, 1908, p. 13, and in Gressmann’sAltorientalische Texte und Bilder zum A.T.(1909), p. 103.43King, op. cit. i. 116, ii. 14.44The dates of the kings are, in most cases, those given by Kautzsch in the table in hisOutline of the Hist. of the Literature of the O.T.(tr. by Taylor, 1898), pp. 167 ff.; see also A.R.S. Kennedy, “Samuel” in theCentury Bible(1906), p. 31. The dates given by other recent authorities seldom differ by more than three or four years.45The figures after a king’s name indicate the number of years assigned to his reign in the O.T. For Saul, see 1 Sam. xiii. 1, R.V.46The date of Sheshonq depends on that fixed for Rehoboam. Petrie places the accession of Rehoboam in 937B.C.47If these dates are correct, there must be some error in the ages assigned to Ahaz and Hezekiah at their accession, viz. 20 and 25 respectively, for it would otherwise follow from them that Ahaz, dying at the age of [20 + 8 =] 28, left a son aged 25! The date 728 for Hezekiah’s accession rests upon the assumption that of the two inconsistent dates in 2 Kings xviii. 10, 13, the one in ver. 10 (which places the fall of Samaria in Hezekiah’s 6th year) is correct; but some scholars (as Wellhausen, Kamphausen, and Stade) suppose that the date in ver. 10 (which places Sennacherib’s invasion in Hezekiah’s 14th year) is correct, and assign accordingly Hezekiah’s accession to 715. This removes, or at least mitigates, the difficulty referred to, and leaves more room for the reigns of Jotham and Ahaz; but it requires, of course, a corresponding reduction in the reigns of the kings succeeding Ahaz.48Breasted’s dates for these three kings (Hist. of Egypt, 1906, p. 601) are: Shabaka 712-700; Shabataka 700-688; Taharqa 688-663.49See George Smith,The Assyrian Eponym Canon(1875), pp. 29 ff., 57 ff.; Schrader,Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek(transcriptions and translations of Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions), i. (1889), pp. 204 ff.50It may be explained here that the dates of the Assyrian and Babylonian kings can be reduced to yearsB.C.by means of the so-called “Canon of Ptolemy,” which is a list of the Babylonian and Persian kings, with the lengths of their reigns, extending from Nabonassar, 747B.C., to Alexander the Great, drawn up in the 2nd centuryA.D.by the celebrated Egyptian mathematician and geographer Ptolemy; as the datesB.C.of the Persian kings are known independently, from Greek sources, the datesB.C.of the preceding Babylonian kings can, of course, be at once calculated by means of the Canon. The recently-discovered contemporary monuments have fully established the accuracy of the Canon.51Or, in any case, between 734 and 732; see Rost,Die Keilschrifttexte Tiglat-pilesers III., 1893, pp. xii., 39, 81, with the discussion, pp. xxxii.-xxxiv., xxxv.-xxxvi.52This interval does not depend upon a mere list of Eponym years; we have in the annals of Sargon and Sennacherib full particulars of the events in all the intervening years.53The date of this epistle is rather uncertain. Something depends upon the vexed question as to the identity of the Galatian churches. The epistle may be placed conjecturally early in the stay at Ephesus (c.A.D.52-53). It is to be noted that the chronological grouping of the epistles by minute comparison of style is apt to be deceptive; resemblances of this kind are due more to similarity of subject than to proximity in date.54E.g.from the preface to the Acts: “Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians, a very ancient writer, quoted by Eusebius, writes that Peter and Paul obtained the crown of martyrdom by the command of Nero on the same day.” And again: “Some industrious critics have added (to the narrative of Acts) that Paul was acquitted at his first trial by Nero .... This conjecture they make from the 2nd Ep. to Timothy....”55The phrase is Chillingworth’s (1637), who may be described as a Broad High-churchman.56J. Wellhausen,Einl. in die drei ersten Evangelien(1905), p. 57.57If Luke used Josephus, as F.C. Burkitt and others believe, the later date must be taken; otherwise the earlier date is more probable, as in any case it must fall within the lifetime of a companion of St Paul.58It is a curious coincidence that a medieval Jew, R. Abarbanel (Abrabanel), records that the conjunction of these particular planets in this particular constellation was to be a sign of Messiah’s coming. It is just conceivable that his statement may ultimately depend on some such ancient tradition as may have been known to Chaldaean magi.59If the Passover celebration could be anticipated by one day in a private Jewish family (and we know perhaps too little of Jewish rules in the time of Christ to be able to exclude this possibility), the evidence of the synoptic Gospels would no longer conflict with that of St John.60Dr C. Erbes (Texte and Untersuchungen, new series, iv. 1) attempts to interpret the evidence of Eusebius in favour of the later date for Festus as follows: Eusebius’s date for Festus is to be found in Nero 1, by striking a mean between the Armenian, Claudius 12, and the Latin, Nero 2; it is really to be understood as reckoned, not by years of Nero, but by years of Agrippa; and as Eusebius erroneously antedated Agrippa’s reign by five years, commencing it withA.D.45 instead ofA.D.50, his date for Festus is five years too early also, and should be moved to Nero 6,A.D.59-60. The whole of this theory appears to the present writer to be a gigantic mare’s nest: seeJournal of Theological Studies(October 1901), pp. 120-123.61This date appears to be satisfactorily established by Ramsay, “A Second Fixed Point in the Pauline Chronology,”Expositor, August 1900.
1The books of Samuel, Kings, Ezra and Nehemiah, and Chronicles, were by the Jews each treated (and written) as one book, and were not divided by them into two till the 16th century, through Christian influence.
2For a discussion of the word “Massoretes” see W. Bacher (J.Q.R.vol. iii. pp. 785 f.), who maintains that the original pronunciation of these words wasמסורתandמומרה.
3The actual date of the introduction of vowel points is not known, but it must in any case have been later than the time of Jerome, and is probably to be assigned to the 7th century. Of the systems of punctuation which are known to us, the more familiar is the Tiberian, or sublinear, which is found in all printed editions of the Hebrew Bible. The other system, the Babylonian or superlinear, is chiefly found in certain Yemen MSS. For yet a third system of vocalization see M. Friedländer,J.Q.R., 1895, pp. 564 f., and P. Kahle inZ.A.T.W.xxi. (1901), pp. 273 f. Probably the idea of providing vowel points was borrowed from the Syrians.
4This represents the Western tradition as opposed to the Eastern text of ben Naphtali. For the standard copies such as theCodex Hillelisreferred to by later writers see H.L. Strack,Proleg. Critica, pp. 14 f.
5Cf. F.C. Burkitt,Fragments of the Books of Kings according to the Translation of Aquila.
6The Talmudic story of the three MSS. preserved in the court of the temple (Sopherim, vi. 4) sufficiently illustrates the tentative efforts of the rabbis in this direction.
7W. Robertson Smith,Old Testament and the Jewish Church, pp. 69 f.
8For theseTiqqunē Sopherimor “corrections of the scribes” see Geiger,Urschrift, pp. 308 f.; Strack,Prolegomena Critica, p. 87; Buhl,Canon and Text of the Old Testament, pp. 103 f. In theMekilta(Exod. xv. 7) only eleven passages are mentioned. Less important are theItturē Sopherim, or five passages in which the scribes have omitted awawfrom the text.
9Text of the Books of Samuel, pp. xxxix. f.
10According to Josephus (Ant.xi. 7. 8) the temple on Mt. Gerizim was set up by Manasseh in the reign of Darius Codomannus,i.e.about 332B.C.It is possible that he is correct in placing the building of the temple at the later date, but probably he errs in connecting it with the secession of Manasseh, which, according to Nehemiah, occurred a century earlier; it has been suggested that he has confused Darius Codomannus with his predecessor, Darius Nothus.
11e.g.Ex. xx. 17, 19 ff.; Num. xx. f.; Deut. xxvii. 4.
121 Kings xx. 7-17; 2 Kings xxiii. 12-17, ed. by Mr (now Professor) F.C. Burkitt inFragments of the Books of Kings according to the Translation of Aquila(Cambridge, 1897), and Ps. xc. 6-13; xci. 4-10, and parts of Ps. xxiii. by Dr C. Taylor inSayings of the Jewish Fathers(2nd ed., 1897).
13On the question of Theodotion’s date, Schürer (Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, Bd. iii. p. 324) argues very plausibly for hispriorityto Aquila on the grounds, (1) that Irenaeus mentions him before Aquila, and (2) that, after Aquila’s version had been adopted by the Greek Jews, a work such as that of Theodotion would have been somewhat superfluous. Theodotion’s work, he suggests, formed the first stage towards the establishment of a Greek version which should correspond more closely with the Hebrew. Moreover, this theory affords the simplest explanation of its disappearance from Jewish tradition.
14Only one MS. of the Septuagint version of Daniel has survived, theCodex Chisianus.
15Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, p. 51.
16Hence the nameHexapla. In some books, especially the poetical, the columns were increased to eight by the addition of theQuintaandSexta, but theOctapla, as the enlarged work was called, was not apparently a distinct work. TheTetrapla, on the other hand, was a separate edition which did not contain the first two columns of theHexapla.
17Lagarde’s projected edition of the Lucianic recension was unfortunately never completed; the existing volume contains Genesis-2 Esdras, Esther. It may be noted here that the Complutensian Polyglott represents a Lucianic text.
18Hastings’sDict. of the Bible, iii. pp. 54 ff.
19The Old Testament in Greek, by A.E. Brooke and N. McLean, vol. i. pt. 1 (1906)
20His arguments are stated briefly (and in order to be refuted) by Jerome in his commentary onDaniel.
21In what follows the actual quotations are from his English work; some of the summaries take account of the brief expansions in his later Latin version.
22See particularly B. Stade,Geschichte des Volkes Israel(1887-1888); J. Wellhausen,Die Kleinen Propheten(1892); B.I. Duhm,Jesaia(1892); T.K. Cheyne,Introduction to the Book of Isaiah(1895); K. Marti,Jesaja(1900), andDas Dodekapropheton(1904).
23The Old Testament in the Jewish Church(1881);The Prophets of Israel(1882).
24For details see an article in theZeitschr. für d. altest. Wissenschaftfor 1889, pp. 246-302, on “Alttestamentliche Studien in Amerika,” by G.F. Moore, who has himself since done much distinguished and influential critical work.
25To avoid any possibility of overstating the case, it is necessary to refer here to the fact that Tethmosis (Thothmes) III. in the 16th centuryB.C.mentions two Palestinian places named respectively Jacobel and Josephel, and Sheshonk in the both centuryB.C.mentions another called “The field of Abram.” From these names alone it is impossible to determine whether the places derived their names from individuals or tribes.
26Or according to some MSS., 167.
27Shem, the father of Arphaxad, is aged 100 at the time of the Flood, and lives for 600 years.
28Disregarding the “two years” of Gen. xi. 10; see v. 32, vii. 11.
29Taking account of the reading of LXX. in Ex. xii. 40.
30See further Driver’s essay in Hogarth’sAuthority and Archaeology(1899), pp. 32-34; or hisBook of Genesis(1904, 7th ed., 1909), p. xxxi. ff.
311 Petrie,Hist. of Egypt, i. (ed. 5, 1903), p. 251; iii. (1905), p. 2.
32See Merenptah’s account of the defeat of these invaders in Maspero, op. cit. pp. 432-437; or in Breasted’sAncient Records of Egypt(Chicago, 1906), iii. 240-252.
33Namely, 40 years in the wilderness; Joshua and the elders (Judges ii. 7), x years; Othniel (iii. 11), 40 years; Ehud (iii. 30), 80 years; Barak (v. 31), 40 years; Gideon (viii. 28), 40 years; Jephthah and five minor judges (x. 2, 3, xii. 7, 9, 11, 14), 76 years; Samson (xvi. 31), 20 years; Eli (1 Sam. iv. 18), 40 years; Samuel (vii. 2), 20 years; Saul, y years; David, 40 years; and Solomon’s first four years—in all 440 + x + y years.
34Namely, Moses (in the wilderness), Joshua, Othniel, Ehud, Deborah, Gideon, Jephthah, Samson, Eli, Samuel, Saul and David.
35The “300 years” of Judges xi. 26 agrees very nearly with the sum of the years (namely, 319) given in the preceding chapters for the successive periods of oppression and independence. The verse occurs in a long insertion (xi. 12-28) in the original narrative; and the figure was most probably arrived at by computation upon the basis of the present chronology of the book.
36The real Biblical date, Ussher in Gen. xi. 26 interpolating 60 years, because it is said in Acts vii. 4 that Abraham left Haranafterhis father Terah’s death (Gen. xi. 32), and also (as explained above) interpreting wrongly Ex. Xii. 40.
37Hilprecht’s dates (The Bab. Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, vol. i. pt. i. 1893, pp. 11, 12; pt. ii. 1896, pp. 23, 24, 43, 44).
38Petrie’s dates,Hist. of Egypt, vol. i. (ed. 5, 1903), pp. 20, 30, 233, 251, 252; vol. iii. (1905), pp. 2, 235, 261-7, 296-360. Other authorities, however, assign considerably lower dates for the dynasties prior to the 18th. Thus Breasted (Hist. of Egypt, 1906, pp. 22 ff., 221, 597) agrees with Ed. Meyer in giving, for reasons which cannot be here explained, for the beginning of the 1st dynastyc.B.C.3400, for the 4th dynastyc.B.C.2900-2750, and for the rule of the Hyksosc.B.C.1680-1580; and in hisResearches in Sinai, 1906, p. 175, Petrie proposes for MenesB.C.5510, and for the 4th dynastyB.C.4731-4454. SeeEgypt(Chronology).
39So Sayce, Rogers (Hist. of Bab. and Ass., 1900, i. 318 f.) and others. The date rests upon a statement of Nabu-na’id’s, that Sargon’s son, Naram-Sin, reigned 3200 years before himself. Lehmann holds that there are reasons for believing that the engraver, by error, put a stroke too many, and that 2200 should be read instead of 3200.
40The real Biblical date.
41Rogers, i. 373-375. Many monuments and inscriptions of other kings in Babylonia, between 4000 and 2000B.C., are also known.
42The lists of the Babylonian and Assyrian kings are not continuous; and before 1907, from the data then available (see the discussion in Rogers, op. cit. i. 312-348), Khammurabi, the sixth king of the first Babylonian dynasty, was commonly referred to such dates as 2376-2333B.C.(Sayce) or 2285-2242B.C.(Johns). But inscriptions recently discovered, by showing that the second dynasty was partly contemporaneous with the first and the third, have proved that these dates are too high; see L.W. King,Chronicles Concerning Early Bab. Kings(1907), i. 93-110; and the articleBabylonia,Chronology. The dataB.C.2130-2088 is that adopted by Thureau-Dangin, after a discussion of the subject, in theJournal des Savants, 1908, p. 199; and by Ungnad in theOrient. Litt.-zeitung, 1908, p. 13, and in Gressmann’sAltorientalische Texte und Bilder zum A.T.(1909), p. 103.
43King, op. cit. i. 116, ii. 14.
44The dates of the kings are, in most cases, those given by Kautzsch in the table in hisOutline of the Hist. of the Literature of the O.T.(tr. by Taylor, 1898), pp. 167 ff.; see also A.R.S. Kennedy, “Samuel” in theCentury Bible(1906), p. 31. The dates given by other recent authorities seldom differ by more than three or four years.
45The figures after a king’s name indicate the number of years assigned to his reign in the O.T. For Saul, see 1 Sam. xiii. 1, R.V.
46The date of Sheshonq depends on that fixed for Rehoboam. Petrie places the accession of Rehoboam in 937B.C.
47If these dates are correct, there must be some error in the ages assigned to Ahaz and Hezekiah at their accession, viz. 20 and 25 respectively, for it would otherwise follow from them that Ahaz, dying at the age of [20 + 8 =] 28, left a son aged 25! The date 728 for Hezekiah’s accession rests upon the assumption that of the two inconsistent dates in 2 Kings xviii. 10, 13, the one in ver. 10 (which places the fall of Samaria in Hezekiah’s 6th year) is correct; but some scholars (as Wellhausen, Kamphausen, and Stade) suppose that the date in ver. 10 (which places Sennacherib’s invasion in Hezekiah’s 14th year) is correct, and assign accordingly Hezekiah’s accession to 715. This removes, or at least mitigates, the difficulty referred to, and leaves more room for the reigns of Jotham and Ahaz; but it requires, of course, a corresponding reduction in the reigns of the kings succeeding Ahaz.
48Breasted’s dates for these three kings (Hist. of Egypt, 1906, p. 601) are: Shabaka 712-700; Shabataka 700-688; Taharqa 688-663.
49See George Smith,The Assyrian Eponym Canon(1875), pp. 29 ff., 57 ff.; Schrader,Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek(transcriptions and translations of Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions), i. (1889), pp. 204 ff.
50It may be explained here that the dates of the Assyrian and Babylonian kings can be reduced to yearsB.C.by means of the so-called “Canon of Ptolemy,” which is a list of the Babylonian and Persian kings, with the lengths of their reigns, extending from Nabonassar, 747B.C., to Alexander the Great, drawn up in the 2nd centuryA.D.by the celebrated Egyptian mathematician and geographer Ptolemy; as the datesB.C.of the Persian kings are known independently, from Greek sources, the datesB.C.of the preceding Babylonian kings can, of course, be at once calculated by means of the Canon. The recently-discovered contemporary monuments have fully established the accuracy of the Canon.
51Or, in any case, between 734 and 732; see Rost,Die Keilschrifttexte Tiglat-pilesers III., 1893, pp. xii., 39, 81, with the discussion, pp. xxxii.-xxxiv., xxxv.-xxxvi.
52This interval does not depend upon a mere list of Eponym years; we have in the annals of Sargon and Sennacherib full particulars of the events in all the intervening years.
53The date of this epistle is rather uncertain. Something depends upon the vexed question as to the identity of the Galatian churches. The epistle may be placed conjecturally early in the stay at Ephesus (c.A.D.52-53). It is to be noted that the chronological grouping of the epistles by minute comparison of style is apt to be deceptive; resemblances of this kind are due more to similarity of subject than to proximity in date.
54E.g.from the preface to the Acts: “Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians, a very ancient writer, quoted by Eusebius, writes that Peter and Paul obtained the crown of martyrdom by the command of Nero on the same day.” And again: “Some industrious critics have added (to the narrative of Acts) that Paul was acquitted at his first trial by Nero .... This conjecture they make from the 2nd Ep. to Timothy....”
55The phrase is Chillingworth’s (1637), who may be described as a Broad High-churchman.
56J. Wellhausen,Einl. in die drei ersten Evangelien(1905), p. 57.
57If Luke used Josephus, as F.C. Burkitt and others believe, the later date must be taken; otherwise the earlier date is more probable, as in any case it must fall within the lifetime of a companion of St Paul.
58It is a curious coincidence that a medieval Jew, R. Abarbanel (Abrabanel), records that the conjunction of these particular planets in this particular constellation was to be a sign of Messiah’s coming. It is just conceivable that his statement may ultimately depend on some such ancient tradition as may have been known to Chaldaean magi.
59If the Passover celebration could be anticipated by one day in a private Jewish family (and we know perhaps too little of Jewish rules in the time of Christ to be able to exclude this possibility), the evidence of the synoptic Gospels would no longer conflict with that of St John.
60Dr C. Erbes (Texte and Untersuchungen, new series, iv. 1) attempts to interpret the evidence of Eusebius in favour of the later date for Festus as follows: Eusebius’s date for Festus is to be found in Nero 1, by striking a mean between the Armenian, Claudius 12, and the Latin, Nero 2; it is really to be understood as reckoned, not by years of Nero, but by years of Agrippa; and as Eusebius erroneously antedated Agrippa’s reign by five years, commencing it withA.D.45 instead ofA.D.50, his date for Festus is five years too early also, and should be moved to Nero 6,A.D.59-60. The whole of this theory appears to the present writer to be a gigantic mare’s nest: seeJournal of Theological Studies(October 1901), pp. 120-123.
61This date appears to be satisfactorily established by Ramsay, “A Second Fixed Point in the Pauline Chronology,”Expositor, August 1900.
BIBLE, ENGLISH. The history of the vernacular Bible of the English race resolves itself into two distinctly marked periods—the one being that of Manuscript Bibles, which were direct translations from the Latin Vulgate, the other that of Printed Bibles, which were, more or less completely, translations from the original Hebrew and Greek of the Old and New Testaments.
1.The Manuscript Bible.—The first essays in Biblical translation, or rather paraphrasing, assumed in English, as in many other languages, a poetical form. Even in the 7th century, according to the testimony of Bede (Hist. Eccl.Cædmon.iv. 24), Cædmon sang “de creatione mundi et origine humani generis, et tota Genesis historia, de egressu Israel ex Aegypto et ingressu in terram repromissionis, de aliis plurimis sacrae Scripturae historiis, de incarnatione Dominica, passione, resurrectione et ascensione in coelum, de Spiritus Sancti adventu, et apostolorum doctrina.” It is, however, doubtful whether any of the poetry which has been ascribed to him can claim to be regarded as his genuine work.
The first prose rendering of any part of the Bible—and with these we are mainly concerned in the present inquiry—originated in all probability in the 8th century, when Bede, the eminent scholar and churchman, translatedBede.the first portion (chs. i.-vi. 9) of the Gospel of St John into the vernacular, but no part of this rendering is extant. His pupil Cuthberht recorded this fact in a letter to a fellow-student, Cuthwine: “a capite sancti evangelii Johannis usque ad eum locum in quo dicitur, ‘sed haec quid sunt inter tantos?’ in nostram linguam ad utilitatem ecclesiae Dei convertit” (Mayor and Lumby,Bedae Hist. Eccl.p. 178).
The 9th century is characterized byinterlinear glosses on the Book of Psalms, and towards its close by a few attempts at independent translation. Of these “glossed Psalters” twelve MSS. are known to exist, and they may be9th and 10th century glosses.ranged into two groups according to the Latin text they represent. TheRoman Psalteris glossed in the following MSS.: (1) Cotton Vesp. A. 1 (Vespasian Psalter); (2) Bodl. Junius 27; (3) Univ. Libr. Camb. Ff. 1. 23; (4) Brit. Mus. Reg. 2. B. 5; (5) Trin. Coll. Camb. R. 17. 1 (Eadwine’s Psalter); (6) Brit. Mus. Add. 37517. TheGallican Psalterin the following: (1) Brit. Mus. Stowe 2 (Spelman’s text); (2) Cotton Vitell. E. 18; (3) Cotton Tib. C. 16; (4) Lambeth 48; (5) Arundel 60; (6) Salisbury Cath. 150.1
The oldest and most important of these MSS. is the so-calledVespasian Psalter, which was written in Mercia in the first half of the 9th century. It was in all probability the original from which all the above-mentioned Old English glosses were derived, though in several instances changes and modifications were introduced by successive scribes. The first verse of Psalmc.(Vulg. xcix. 2) may serve as a specimen of these glosses.
To the late 9th or early 10th century a work may be assigned which is in so far an advance upon preceding efforts as to be a real translation, not a mere gloss corresponding word for word with the Latin original. This is the famousParis Psalter,2a rendering of the first fifty Psalms (Vulg. i.-l. 10), contained in the unique MS.lat. 8824in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris. The authorship of this version is doubtful, being by some scholars attributed to King Alfred (d. 901), of whom William of Malmesbury writes (Gesta Regum Anglorum, ii. 123), “Psalterium transferre aggressus vix prima parte explicata vivendi finem fecit.” This view is, however, denied by others.
In the course of the 10th century the Gospels were glossed and translated. The earliest in date is aNorthumbrian Gloss on the Gospels, contained in a beautiful and highly interesting MS. variously known as theDurham Book,Lindisfarne Gospels.theLindisfarne Gospels, or theBook of St Cuthbert(MS. Cotton, Nero. D. 4). The Latin text dates from the close of the 7th century, and is the work of Eadfrith, bishop of Lindisfarne (698-721). The English gloss was added about a century and a half later (c.950) by one Aldred, whom Dr Charles O’Conor (Bibl. Stowensis, 1818-1819, ii. 180) supposes to have been the bishop of Durham of that name. The Lord’s Prayer is glossed in the following way:—
Lindisfarne Gospels.
Matthew vi. 9. Suae ðonne iuih gie bidde fader urer ðu arðsic ergo uos orabitis+Pater noster qui ésðu bist in heofnum & in heofnas; sie gehalgad noma ðin;in caelis; sanctificetur nomen tuum;(10) to-cymeð ric ðin. sie willo ðin suae is in heofneadueniat regnum tuum fiat uoluntas tua sicut in caeloJ in eorðo.et in terra.(11) hlaf userne oferwistlic sel ús to dæg.panem nostrum super-substantiale[m] dá nobis hodie.(12) J forgef us scylda usra suae uoe forgefon scyldgumet demitte nobis debita nostra sicut nos dimittimus debitoribususum.nostris.(13) J ne inlæd usih in costunge ah gefrig usich from yfleet ne inducas nos in temtationem sed libera nos a malo.3
Of a somewhat later date is the celebratedRushworth Version of the Gospels(MS. Bodl. Auct. D. ii. 9), which contains an independent translation of the Gospel of St Matthew, and a gloss on those of St Mark, St Luke and St John,Rushworth Version.founded upon the Lindisfarne glosses. From a note in the manuscript we learn that two men, Færman and Owun, made the version. Færman was a priest at Harewood, or Harwood, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and to him the best part of the work is due. He translated the whole of St Matthew, and wrote the gloss of St Mark i.-ii. 15, and St John xviii. 1-3. The remaining part, a mere transcript, is Owun’s work. The dialect of the translation of St Matthew is Mercian.4
A further testimony to the activity which prevailed in the field of Biblical lore is the fact that at the close of the century—probably about the year 1000—the Gospels were rendered anew for the first time in the south of England.West-Saxon Gospels.Of this version—the so-calledWest-Saxon Gospels—not less than seven manuscripts have come down to us. A note in one of these, MS. Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, 140, states,ego Ælfricus scripsi hunc librum in Monasterio Baðþonio et dedi Brihtwoldo preposito, but of this Ælfric and his superior nothing further is known.5
The Lord’s Prayer is rendered in the following way in these gospels:—