Class 4.-Compilations and Collections.

work, but rather too diffuse for Scholia. In the Scholia on the Old Testament Rosenmuller has not meddled with the historical books. CLASS 4.-COMPILATIONS AND COLLECTIONS.

On the FOURTH CLASS, containing compilations and critical collections, a few words must suffice. Among the compilations may be ranked what are termed Catenæ of the. Greek and Latin Fathers: these consist of a connected series of different writers on the same text. The work of Galafridus, or Walafridus Strabus, already described, is of this kind; it contains a Catena or connected series of the expositions of all the Fathers and Doctors prior to his time. A very valuable Catena on the Octateuch, containing the comments of about fifty Greek Fathers, has been published at Leipsig 1792, in 2 vols. folio, it is all in Greek, and therefore of no use to common readers. The work of Venerable Bede, already noticed, is professedly of the same kind.

Father De la Haye, in what was called the Biblia Magna, 1643, 5 vols. folio, and afterwards Biblia Maxima, 1660, 19 vols. folio, besides a vast number of critical Dissertations, Prefaces, &c.. inserted the whole notes of Nicholas de Lyra, Menochius, Gagneus, Eustius, and the Jesuit Tirin. Several minor compilations of this nature have been made by needy writers, who, wishing to get a little money, have without scruple or ceremony borrowed from those whose reputation was well established with the public; and by taking a little from one, and a little from another, pretended to give the marrow of all. These pretensions have been rarely justified; it often requires the genius of a voluminous original writer to make a faithful abridgment of his work; but in most of these compilations the love of money is much more evident than the capacity to do justice to the original author, or the ability to instruct and profit mankind. To what a vast number of these minor compilations has the excellent work of Mr. Matthew Henry given birth! every one of which, while professing to lop off his redundancies, and supply his deficiencies, falls, by a semi-diameter of the immense orb of literature and religion, short of the eminence of the author himself.

The most important collection of Biblical critics ever made was formed under the direction of Bishop Pearson, John Pearson, Anthony Scattergood, and Francis Gouldman, printed by Cornelius Bee, London, 1660, in 9 vols. folio, under the title of CRITICI SACRI, intended as a companion for the Polyglot Bible, published by Bishop Walton, in 1657. This great work was republished at Amsterdam, with additions, in 12 vols. folio, in 1698. Two volumes called Thesaurus Dissertationum Elegantiorum, &c., were printed as a supplement to this work, at Amsterdam, in 1701-2. Of this supplement it may be said, it is of less consequence and utility than is generally supposed, as the substance of several treatises in it is to be found in the preceding volumes. The work contains a vast variety of valuable materials for critics, chronologists, &c. The principal critics on the Old Testament, contained in the foreign edition of this great collection, which is by far the most complete, are the following: Sebastian Munster, Paul Fagius, Francis Vatablus, Claudius Badwellus, Sebastian Castalio, Isidore Clarius, Lucas Brugensis, Andrew Masius, John Drusius, Sextinus Amama, Simeon de Muis, Philip Codurcus, Rodolph Baynus, Francis Forrerius, Edward Lively, David Hœschelius, Hugo Grotius, Christopher Cartwright, Cornelius a Lapide, and John Pricæus.

Besides the above, who are regular commentators on the Old Testament, there are various important Dissertations and Tracts, on the principal subjects in the law and prophets, by the following critics: Joseph Scaliger, Lewis Capellus, Martin Helvicus, Alberic Gentilis, Moses bar Cepha, Christopher Helvicus, John Buteo, Matthew Hostus, Francis Moncæius Peter Pithœus, George Rittershusius, Michael Rothardus, Leo Allatius, Gaspar Varrerius, William Schickardus, Augustin Justinianus, Bened. Arias Montanus, Bon. Corn. Bertramus, Peter Cunæus, Caspar Waser, and Edward Brerewood.

On the New Testament the following commentators are included: Sebastian Munster, Laurentius Valla, James Revius, Desiderius Erasmus, Francis Vatablus, Sebastian Castalio, Isidore Clarius, Andrew Masius, Nicolas Zegerus, Lucas Brugensis, Henry Stephens, John Drusius, Joseph Scaliger, Isaac Casaubon, John Camero, James Capellus, Lewis Capellus, Otho Gualtperius, Abraham Schultetus, Hugo Grotius, and John Pricæus. Dissertations on the most important subjects in the New Testament inserted here were written by Lewis Capellus, Nicolas Faber, William Klebitius, Marquard Freherus, Archbishop Usher, Matthew Hostus, I. A. Van-der-Linden, Claudius Salmasius under the feigned name of Johannes Simplicius, James Gothofridus, Philip Codurcus, Abraham Schultetus, William Ader, John Drusius, Jac. Lopez Stunica, Desider. Erasmus, Angelus Caninius, Peter Pithœus, Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople, Adriani Isagoge cum notis Dav. Hœschelii, B. C. Bertram, Anton. Nebrissensis, Nicholas Fuller, Samuel Petit, John Gregory, Christ. Cartwright, John Cloppenburg, and Peter Dan. Huet. Those marked in italics are not included in the critics on the Old Testament. The Thesaurus Dissertationum Exegeticarum, published as a supplement to this work by Theod. Hasœus and Conrad Ikenius, in 2 vols. folio, contains upwards of one hundred and fifty additional writers. Such a constellation of learned men can scarcely be equalled in any age or country.

Mr. Matthew Poole, whose English comment has been already noticed, conceiving that the CRITICI SACRI might be made more useful by being methodized, with immense labour formed the work well known among divines by the title of Synopsis Criticorum, a general view of the critics, viz., those in the nine volumes of the Critici Sacri mentioned above. The printing of this work began in 1669, and was finished in 1674, 5 vols. folio. Here the critics no longer occupy distinct places as they do in the Critici Sacri, but are all consolidated, one general comment being made out of the whole, the names of the writers being referred to by their initials in the margin. To the critics above named Mr. Poole has added several others of equal note, and he refers also to the most important versions, both ancient and modern. The learned author spent ten years in compiling this work. In point of size, the work of Mr. Poole has many advantages over the Critici Sacri; but no man who is acquainted with both works will ever prefer the synopsis to the original.

Perhaps no city in the world can boast of having produced, in so short a period, so many important works on the sacred writings as the city of London; works which, for difficulty, utility, critical and typographical correctness, and expense, have never been excelled. These are, 1. The Polyglot, 6 vols. folio; begun in 1653, and finished in 1657. 2. The Critici Sacri, in 9 vols. folio, 1660. 3. Castell’s Heptaglot Lexicon, compiled for the Polyglot Bible, 2 vols. folio, 1669. 4. The Synopsis Criticorum, 5 vols. folio; begun in 1669, and finished in 1674. These works, printed in Hebrew, Chaldee, Samaritan, Syriac, Arabic, Æthiopic, Persian, Greek, and Latin, forming 22 vast vols. folio, were begun and finished in this city by the industry and at the expense of a few English divines and noblemen, in the comparatively short compass of about twenty years! To complete its eminence in Biblical literature, and to place itself at the head of all the cities in the Universe, London has only to add a new and improved edition of its own POLYGLOT, with the additional versions which have come to light since the publication of the original work.

To the above list might be added those who have illustrated the sacred writings by passages drawn from Josephus and the Greek and Roman classics, among which the following are worthy of particular regard: Jo. Tobiæ KREBSH Observationes in Nov. Testam. è Flav. JOSEPHO, 8vo., Lips. 1754. Geo. Dav. KYPKE Observationes in Novi Fœderis Libros, ex auctoribus, potissimum Græcis, &c., 2 vols. 8vo., Vratislaviæ, 1755. Georgii RAPHELII Annotationes in Sacram Scripturam, &c., Lugd. 1747, 2 vols. 8vo. Krebs throws much light on different facts and forms of speech in the New Testament by his quotations from Josephus. Kypke does the same by an appeal to the Greek writers in general. And Raphelius gives historical elucidations of the Old, and philological observations on the New Testament, drawn particularly from Xenophon, Polybius, Arrian, and Herodotus.

To these might be added several excellent names who have rendered considerable services to sacred literature and criticism by their learned labours: Sir Norton Knatchhull’s Observations, Hallett’s Critical Notes, Bowyer’s Conjectures, Leigh’s Annotations, &c., &c.; to whom may be added those who have illustrated innumerable passages, obscure and difficult, in lexicons and dictionaries for the Hebrew Bible and Greek Testament: Buxtorf, Cocceius, Mintert, Pasor, Schoettgenius, Stockius, Krebs, Calmet, Leusden, Robinson, Michaelis, Edward Leign, Schulz, Dr. Taylor, Schleusner, and Parkhurst, a particular account of whom would far exceed the limits of this preface; but Schleusner, as a lexicographer for the New Testament, is far beyond my praise.

I have already apprized the reader that I did not design to give a history of commentators, but only a short sketch; this I have done, and am fully aware that different readers will form different opinions of its execution; some will think that writers of comparatively little eminence are inserted, while several of acknowledged worth are omitted. This may be very true; but the judicious reader will recollect that it is a sketch and not a complete history that is here presented to his view, and that the important and non-important are terms which different persons will apply in opposite senses, as they may be prejudiced in favour of different writers. I have given my opinion, as every honest man should, with perfect deference to the judgment of others, and shall be offended with no man for differing from me in any of the opinions I have expressed on any of the preceding authors or their works. I could easily swell this list with many foreign critics, but as far as I know them I do not in general like them; besides, they are not within the reach of common readers, though many of them stand, no doubt, deservedly high in the judgment of learned men. Having said thus much on commentaries in general, it may be necessary to give some account of that now offered to the public, the grounds on which it has been undertaken, and the manner in which it has been compiled. At an early age I took for my motto Proverbs 18:1: Through desire a man, having separated himself, seeketh and intermeddleth with all wisdom. Being convinced that the Bible was the source whence all the principles of true wisdom, wherever found in the world, had been derived, my desire to comprehend adequately its great design, and to penetrate the meaning of all its parts, led me to separate myself from every pursuit that did not lead, at least indirectly, to the accomplishment of this end; and while seeking and intermeddling with different branches of human knowledge, as my limited means would permit, I put each study under contribution to the object of my pursuit, endeavouring to make every thing subservient to the information of my own mind, that, as far as Divine Providence might think proper to employ me, I might be the better qualified to instruct others. At first I read and studied, scarcely committing any thing to paper, having my own edification alone in view, as I could not then hope that any thing I wrote could be of sufficient importance to engage the attention or promote the welfare of the public. But as I proceeded I thought it best to note down the result of my studies, especially as far as they related to the Septuagint, which about the year 1785 I began to read regularly, in order to acquaint myself more fully with the phraseology of the New Testament, as I found that this truly venerable version was that to which the evangelists and apostles appear to have had constant recourse, and from which in general they make their quotations. The study of this version served more to illuminate and expand my mind than all the theological works I had ever consulted. I had proceeded but a short way in it before I was convinced that the prejudices against it were utterly unfounded, and that it was of incalculable advantage toward a proper understanding of the literal sense of Scripture, and am astonished that the study of it should be so generally neglected. About nine years after this, my health having been greatly impaired by the severity of my labours, and fearing that I should soon be obliged to relinquish my public employment, I formed the purpose of writing short notes on the New Testament, collating the common printed text with all the versions and collections from MSS. to which I could have access. Scarcely had I projected this work when I was convinced that another was previously necessary, viz., a careful perusal of the original text. I began this work, and soon found that it was perfectly possible to read and not understand. Under this conviction I sat down determining to translate the whole before I attempted any comment, that I might have the sacred text the more deeply impressed on my memory.

I accordingly began my translation, collating the original text with all the ancient and with several of the modern versions, carefully weighing the value of the most important various readings found in those versions, as well as those which I was able to collect from the most authentic copies of the Greek text. A worse state of health ensuing, I was obliged to remit almost all application to study, and the work was thrown aside for nearly two years. Having returned to it when a state of comparative convalescence took place, I found I had not gone through the whole of my preliminary work. The New Testament I plainly saw was a comment on the Old; and to understand such a comment, I knew it was absolutely necessary to be well acquainted with the original text. I then formed the plan of reading consecutively a portion of the Hebrew Bible daily. Accordingly I began to read the Old Testament, noting down on the different books, chapters, and verses, such things as appeared to me of most importance, intending the work as an outline for one on a more extensive scale, should it please God to spare my life and give me health and leisure to complete it. In this preliminary work I spent a little more than one year and two months, in which time I translated every sentence, Hebrew and Chaldee, in the Old Testament. In such a work it would be absurd to pretend that I had not met with many difficulties. I was attempting to illustrate the most ancient and most learned book in the universe, replete with allusions to arts that are lost, to nations that are extinct, to customs that are no longer observed, and abounding in modes of speech and turns of phraseology which can only be traced out through the medium of the cognate Asiatic languages. On these accounts I was often much perplexed, but I could not proceed till I had done the utmost in my power to make every thing plain. The frequent occurrence of such difficulties led me closely to examine and compare all the original texts, versions, and translations, as they stand in the London Polyglot, with some others not inserted in that work; and from these, especially the Samaritan, Chaldee Targums, Septuagint, and Vulgate, I derived the most assistance, though all the rest contributed their quota in cases of difficulty. Almost as soon as this work was finished I began my comment on the four gospels, and notwithstanding the preparations already made, and my indefatigable application early and late to the work, I did not reach the end of the fourth Evangelist till eighteen months after its commencement. Previously to this I had purposed to commit what I had already done to the press; but when I had all my arrangements made, a specimen actually set up and printed, and advertisements circulated, a sudden rise in the price of paper, which I fondly hoped would not be of long continuance, prevented my proceeding. When this hope vanished, another work on the Scriptures by a friend was extensively announced. As I could not bear the thought of even the most distant appearance of opposition to any man, I gave place, being determined not to attempt to divide the attention of the public mind, nor hinder the general spread of a work which for aught I knew might supersede the necessity of mine. That work has been for some time completed, and the numerous subscribers supplied with their copies. My plan however is untouched; and still finding from the call of many judicious friends, and especially of my brethren in the ministry, who have long been acquainted with my undertaking and its progress, that the religious public would gladly receive a work on the plan which I had previously announced, I have, after much hesitation, made up my mind; and, in the name of God, with a simple desire to add my mite to the treasury, having recommenced the revisal and improvement of my papers, I now present them to the public. I arm glad that Divine Providence has so ordered it that the publication has been hitherto delayed, as the years which have elapsed since my first intention of printing have afforded me a more ample opportunity to reconsider and correct what I had before done, and to make many improvements.

Should I be questioned as to my specific object in bringing this work before the religious world at a time when works of a similar nature abound, I would simply answer, I wish to do a little good also, and contribute my quota to enable men the better to understand the records of their salvation. That I am in hostility to no work of this kind, the preceding pages will prove; and I have deferred my own as long as in prudence I can. My tide is turned; life is fast ebbing out; and what I do in this way I must do now, or relinquish the design for ever. This I would most gladly do, but I have been too long and too deeply pledged to the public to permit me to indulge my own feelings in this respect. Others are doing much to elucidate the Scriptures; I wish them all God’s speed. I also will show my opinion of these Divine records, and do a little in the same way. I wish to assist my fellow labourers in the vineyard to lead men to HIM who is the fountain of all excellence, goodness, truth, and happiness; to magnify his law and make it honourable; to show the wonderful provision made in his GOSPEL for the recovery and salvation of a sinful world; to prove that GOD’S great design is to make his creatures happy; and that such a salvation as it becomes God to give, and such as man needs to receive, is within the grasp of every human soul.

He who carefully and conscientiously receives the truths of Divine revelation, not merely as a creed, but in reference to his practice, cannot fail of being an ornament to civil and religious society. It is my endeavour therefore to set these truths fairly and fully before the eyes of those who may be inclined to consult my work. I do not say that the principles contained in my creed, and which I certainly have not studied to conceal, are all essentially necessary to every man’s salvation; and I should be sorry to unchristianize any person who may think he has Scriptural evidence for a faith in several respects different from mine. I am sure that all sincere Christians are agreed on what are called the essential truths of Divine revelation; and I feel no reluctance to acknowledge that men eminent for wisdom, learning, piety, and usefulness, have differed among themselves and from me in many points which I deem of great importance. While God bears with and does us good, we may readily bear with each other. The hostility of others I pass by. The angry and malevolent are their own tormentors. I remember the old adage: “Let envy alone, and it will punish itself.”

Of the COPY of the sacred text used for this work it may be necessary to say a few words. It is stated in the title that the text “is taken from the most correct copies of the present authorized version.” As several use this term who do not know its meaning, for their sakes I shall explain it. A resolution was formed. in consequence of a request made by Dr. Reynolds, head of the nonconformist party, to King James I., in the conference held at Hampton Court, 1603, that a new translation, or rather a revision of what was called the Bishops’ Bible, printed in 1568, should be made. Fifty-four translators, divided into six classes, were appointed for the accomplishment of this important work. Seven of these appear to have died before the work commenced, as only forty-seven are found in Fuller’s list. The names of the persons, the places where employed, and the proportion of work allotted to each class, and the rules laid down by King James for their direction, I give chiefly from Mr. Fuller’s Church History, Book 10., p. 44, &c. Before I insert this account, it may be necessary to state Dr. Reynold’s request in the Hampton Court conference, and King James’s answer. Dr. Reynolds. “May your Majesty he pleased that the Bible be new translated, such as are extant not answering the original?” [Here he gave a few examples.]

Bishop of London. “If every man’s humour might be followed, there would be no end of translating.”

The King. “I profess I could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think that of all, that of Geneva is the worst. I wish some special pains were taken for a uniform translation, which should be done by the best learned in both universities, then reviewed by the bishops, presented to the privy council, lastly ratified by royal authority, to be read in the whole Church, and no other.”

The bishop of London in this, as in every other case, opposed Dr. Reynolds, till he saw that the project pleased the king, and that he appeared determined to have it executed. In consequence of this resolution, the following learned and judicious men were chosen for the execution of the work.

WESTMINSTER.-10.

THE PENTATEUCH: THE STORY FROM JOSHUA TO THE FIRST BOOK OF THE CHRONICLES EXCLUSIVELY.

Dr. ANDREWS, Fellow and Master of Pembroke Hall in Cambridge; then Dean of Westminster, afterwards Bishop of Winchester.

Dr. OVERALL, Fellow of Trinity Coll., Master of Kath. Hall, in Cambridge; then Dean of St. Paul’s, afterwards Bishop of Norwich.

Dr. SARAVIA.

Dr. CLARKE, Fellow of Christ Coll. in Cambridge, Preacher in Canterbury. Dr. LAIFIELD, Fellow of Trin. in Cambridge, Parson of St. Clement Danes. Being skilled in architecture, his judgment was much relied on for the fabric of the Tabernacle and Temple.

Dr. LEIGH, Archdeacon of Middlesex, Parson of All-hallows, Barking. Master BURGLEY.

Mr. KING.

Mr. THOMPSON.

Mr. BEDWELL, of Cambridge, and (I think) of St. John’s, Vicar of Tottenham, near London.

CAMBRIDGE.-8.

FROM THE FIRST OF THE CHRONICLES, WITH THE REST OF THE STORY, AND THE HAGIOGRAPHA, VIZ., JOB, PSALMS, PROVERBS, CANTICLES, ECCLESIASTES.

Master EDWARD LIVELY

Mr. RICHARDSON, Fellow of Emman., afterwards D. D., Master, first of Peter-house, then of Trin. College.

Mr. CHADERTON, afterwards D. D., Fellow first of Christ Coll., then Master of Emmanuel.

Mr. DILLINGHAM, Fellow of Christ Coll., beneficed at ——— in Bedfordshire, where he died a single and a wealthy man.

Mr. ANDREWS, afterwards D. D., brother to the Bishop of Winchester, and Master of Jesus Coll.

Mr. HARRISON, the Rev. Vice-master of Trinity Coll.

Mr. SPALDING, Fellow of St. John’s in Cambridge, and Hebrew Professor therein.

Mr. BING, Fellow of Peter-house, in Cambridge, and Hebrew Professor therein.

OXFORD.-7.

THE FOUR GREATER PROPHETS, WITH THE LAMENTATIONS, AND THE TWELVE LESSER PROPHETS.

Dr. HARDING, President of Magdalen Coll.

Dr. REYNOLDS, President of Corpus Christi Coll.

Dr. HOLLAND, Rector of Exeter Coll. and King’s Professor. Dr. KILBY, Rector of Lincoln Coll. and Regius Professor. Master SMITH, afterwards D. D., and Bishop of Gloucester. He made the learned and religious Preface to the Translation.

Mr. BRETT, of a worshipful family, beneficed at Quainton, in Buckinghamshire.

Mr. FAIRCLOWE.

CAMBRIDGE.-7.

THE PRAYER OF MANASSES, AND THE REST OF THE APOCRYPHA.

Dr. DUPORT, Prebend of Ely, and Master of Jesus Coll.

Dr. BRAINTHWAIT, first Fellow of Emmanuel, then Master of Gonvil and Caius Coll.

Dr. RADCLYFFE, one of the Senior Fellows of Trin. Coll.

Master WARD, Emman., afterwards D. D., Master of Sidney Coll. and Margaret Professor.

Mr. DOWNS, Fellow of St. John’s Coll. and Greek Professor. Mr. BOYCE, Fellow of St. John’s Coll., Prebend of Ely, Parson of Boxworth in Cambridgeshire.

Mr. WARD, Regal, afterwards D. D., Prebend of Chichester, Rector of Bishop-Waltham, in Hampshire.

OXFORD.-8.

THE FOUR GOSPELS, ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, APOCALYPSE.

Dr. RAVIS, Dean of Christ Church, afterwards Bishop of London. Dr. ABBOTT, Master of University Coll., afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury.

Dr. EEDES.

Mr. THOMSON.

Mr. SAVILL.

Dr. PERYN.

Dr. RAVENS.

Mr. HARMER.

WESTMINSTER.-7.

THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL, AND THE CANONICAL EPISTLES.

Dr. BARLOWE, of Trinity Hall. in Cambridge. Dean of Chester, afterwards Bishop of Lincoln.

Dr. HUTCHENSON.

Dr. SPENCER.

Mr. FENTON.

Mr. RABBET.

Mr. SANDERSON.

Mr. DAKINS.

“Now, for the better ordering of their proceedings, his Majesty recommended the following rules, by them to be most carefully observed.

1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops’ Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.

2. The names of the prophets, and the holy writers, with their other names in the text, to be retained, as near as may be, according as they are vulgarly used.

3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, viz., the word Church not to be translated Congregation, &c.

4. When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most eminent fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place, and the analogy of faith.

5. The division of the chapters to be altered either not at all, or as little as may be, if necessity so require.

6. No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.

7. Such quotations of places to be marginally set down, as shall serve for the fit reference of one scripture to another.

8. Every particular man of each company to take the same chapter, or chapters; and having translated or amended them severally by himself, where he thinks good, all to meet together, confer what they have done, and agree for their part what shall stand.

9. As any one company hath despatched any one book in this manner, they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously; for his Majesty is very careful in this point.

10. If any company, upon the review of the book so sent, shall doubt or differ upon any places, to send them word thereof, note the places, and therewithal send their reasons; to which if they consent not, the difference to be compounded at the general meeting, which is to be of the chief persons of each company, at the end of the work.

11. When any place of special obscurity is doubted of, letters to be directed by authority, to send to any learned in the land, for his judgment in such a place.

12. Letters to be sent from every bishop to the rest of his clergy, admonishing them of this translation in hand; and to move and charge as many as, being skilful in the tongues, have taken pains in that kind, to send his particular observations to the company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford.

13. The directors in each company to be the Deans of Westminster and Chester for that place and the King’s Professors in Hebrew and Greek in each university.

TINDAL’S,

MATTHEWS’,

14. These translations to be used, when they agree COVERDALE’S, better with the text than the Bishops Bible, viz., WHITCHURCH, GENEVA.

“Besides the said directions before-mentioned, three or four of the most ancient and grave divines in either of the universities, not employed in translating, to be assigned by the vice-chancellor, upon conference with the rest of the heads, to be overseers of the translations, as well Hebrew as Greek, for the better observation of the fourth rule above specified.

“And now after long expectation and great desire,” says Mr. Fuller, “came forth the new translation of the Bible (most beautifully printed) by a select and competent number of divines appointed for that purpose; not being too many, lest one should trouble another; and yet many, lest many things might haply escape them. Who neither coveting praise for expedition, nor fearing reproach for slackness, (seeing in a business of moment none deserve blame for convenient slowness,) had expended almost three years in the work, not only examining the channels by the fountain, translations with the original, which was absolutely necessary, but also comparing channels with channels, which was abundantly useful in the Spanish, Italian, French, and Dutch (German) languages. These, with Jacob, rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well of life; so that now, even Rachel’s weak women may freely come both to drink themselves and water the flocks of their families at the same.

“Leave we then those worthy men now all gathered to their fathers and gone to God, however they were requited on earth, well rewarded in heaven for their worthy work. Of whom, as also of that gracious KING that employed them, we may say, Wheresoever the Bible shall be preached or read in the whole world, there shall also this that they have done be told in memorial of them.” Ibid. p. 57, &c.

The character of James I. as a scholar has been greatly underrated. In the Hampton Court conference he certainly showed a clear and ready comprehension of every subject brought before him, together with extensive reading and a remarkably sound judgment. For the best translation into any language we are indebted under God to King James, who was called a hypocrite by those who had no religion, and a pedant by persons who had not half his learning. Both piety and justice require that, while we are thankful to God for the gift of his word, we should revere the memory of the man who was the instrument of conveying the water of life through a channel by which its purity has been so wonderfully preserved. As to politics, he was, like the rest of the Stuart family, a tyrant. Those who have compared most of the European translations with the original, have not scrupled to say that the English translation of the Bible, made under the direction of King James I., is the most accurate and faithful of the whole. Nor is this its only praise; the translators have seized the very spirit and soul of the original, and expressed this almost everywhere with pathos and energy. Besides, our translators have not only made a standard translation, but they have made their translation the standard of our language; the English tongue in their day was not equal to such a work, “but God enabled them to stand as upon Mount Sinai,” to use the expression of a learned friend, “and crane up their country’s language to the dignity of the originals, so that after the lapse of 200 years the English Bible is, with very few exceptions, the standard of the purity and excellence of the English tongue. The original from which it was taken is, alone, superior to the Bible translated by the authority of King James.”[1] This is an opinion in which my heart, my judgment, and my conscience, coincide.[2]

This Bible was begun in 1607, but was not completed and published till 1611; and there are copies of it which in their title pages have the dates 1612 and 1613. This translation was corrected, and many parallel texts added, by Dr. Scattergood, in 1683; by Dr. Lloyd, bishop of London, in 1701; and afterwards by Dr. Paris, at Cambridge; but the most complete revision was made by Dr. Blayney in the year 1769, under the direction of the vice-chancellor and delegates of the University of Oxford, in which, 1. The punctuation was thoroughly revised; 2. The words printed in italics examined and corrected by the Hebrew and Greek originals; 3. The proper names, to the etymology of which allusions are made in the text, translated, and entered in the margin; 4. The heads and running titles corrected; 5. Some material errors in the chronology rectified; and 6. The marginal references re-examined, corrected, and their number greatly increased. Copies of this revision are those which are termed above the most correct copies of the present authorized version; and it is this revision re-collated, re-examined, and corrected from typographical inaccuracies in a great variety of places, that has been followed for the text prefixed to these notes. But, besides these corrections, I have found it necessary to re-examine all the italics; by those I mean the words interspersed through the text, avowedly not in the original, but thought necessary by our translators to complete the sense, and accommodate the idioms of the Hebrew and Greek to that of the English language. See the sixth rule, p.

17. In these I found gross corruptions, particularly where they have been changed for Roman characters, whereby words have been attributed to God which he never spoke.

The Punctuation, which is a matter of no small importance to a proper understanding of the sacred text, I have examined with the greatest care to me possible: by the insertion of commas where there were none before; putting semicolons for commas, the better to distinguish the members of the sentences; changing colons for semicolons, and vice versa; and full points for colons, I have been in many instances enabled the better to preserve and distinguish the sense, and carry on a narration to its close, without interrupting the reader’s attention by the intervention of improper stops.

The References I have in many places considerably augmented, though I have taken care to reprint all that Dr. Blayney has inserted in his edition, of which I scruple not to say, that as far as they go, they are the best collection ever edited, and I hope their worth will suffer nothing by the additions I have made.

After long and diligently weighing the different systems of Chronology, and hesitating which to adopt, I ultimately fixed on the system commonly received; as it appeared to me on the whole, though encumbered with many difficulties, to be the least objectionable. In fixing the dates of particular transactions I have found much difficulty; that this was never done in any edition of the Bible hitherto offered to the public, with any tolerable correctness, every person acquainted with the subject must acknowledge. I have endeavoured carefully to fix the date of each transaction where it occurs, and where it could be ascertained, showing throughout the whole of the Old Testament the year of the world, and the year before Christ, in which it happened. From the beginning of Joshua, I have introduced the years before the building of Rome till the seven hundred and fifty-third year before Christ, when the foundation of that city was laid, and also introduced the Olympiads from the time of their commencement, as both these eras are of the utmost use to all who read the sacred writings, connected with the histories of the times and nations to which they frequently refer. And who that reads his Bible will not be glad to find at what time of the sacred history those great events fell out, of which he has been accustomed to read in the Greek and Roman historians? This is a gratification which the present work will afford from a simple inspection of the margin, at least as far as those facts and dates have been ascertained by the best chronologists.

In the Pentateuch I have not introduced either the years of Rome or the Olympiads, because the transactions related in the Mosaic writings are in general too remote from these eras to be at all affected by them; and I judged it early enough to commence with them at the time when Israel was governed by the Judges. But as the exodus from Egypt forms a very remarkable era in the Jewish history, and is frequently referred to in the historical books, I have entered this also, beginning at the 12th of Exodus, A. M. 2513, and have carried it down to the building of Solomon’s temple. This, I conceive, will be of considerable use to the reader. As to Marginal Readings, I could with very little trouble have added many hundreds, if not thousands; but as I made it a point of conscience strictly to adhere to the present authorized version in the text, I felt obliged by the same principle scrupulously to follow the Marginal Readings, without adding or omitting any. Had I inserted some of my own, as some others have done, then my text would be no longer the text of the authorized version, but an altered translation; for the Marginal Readings constitute an integral part, properly speaking, of the authorized version; and to add any thing would be to alter this version, and to omit any thing would be to render it imperfect. When Dr. Blayney revised the present version in 1769, and proposed the insertion of the translations of some proper names, to the etymology of which reference is made in the text, so scrupulous was he of making any change in this respect that he submitted all his proposed alterations to a select Committee of the University of Oxford, the Vice-chancellor, and the Principal of Hertford College, and Mr. Professor Wheeler; nor was even the slightest change made but by their authority. All this part, as well as the entire text, I must, therefore, to be consistent with my proposals, leave conscientiously as I found them, typographical errors and false italics excepted. Whatever emendations I have proposed, either from myself or others, I have included among the Notes.

That the Marginal Readings, in our authorized translation, are essential to the integrity of the version itself, I scruple not to assert; and they are of so much importance as to be in several instances preferable to the Textual Readings themselves. Our conscientious translators, not being able in several cases to determine which of two meanings borne by a word, or which of two words found in different copies, should be admitted into the text, adopted the measure of receiving both, placing one in the margin and the other in the text, thus leaving the reader at liberty to adopt either, both of which in their apprehension stood nearly on the same authority. On this very account the marginal readings are essential to our version, and I have found, on collating many of them with the originals, that those in the margin are to be preferred to those in the text in the proportion of at least eight to ten.

To the Geography of the sacred writings I have also paid the utmost attention in my power. I wished in every case to be able to ascertain the ancient and modern names of places, their situation, distances, &c., &c.; but in several instances I have not been able to satisfy myself. I have given those opinions which appeared to me to be best founded, taking frequently the liberty to express my own doubts or dissatisfaction. I must therefore bespeak the reader’s indulgence, not only in reference to the work in general, but in respect to several points both in the Scripture geography and chronology in particular, which may appear to him not satisfactorily ascertained; and have only to say that I have spared no pains to make every thing as correct and accurate as possible, and hope I may, without vanity, apply to myself on these subjects, with a slight change of expression, what was said by a great man of a great work: “For negligence or deficience, I have perhaps not need of more apology than the nature of the work will furnish; I have left that inaccurate which can never be made exact, and that imperfect which can never be completed.”-JOHNSON. For particulars under these heads I must refer to Dr. Hales’ elaborate and useful work, entitled, A new Analysis of Chronology, 2 vols. 4to., 1809-10.

The Summaries to each chapter are entirely written for the purpose, and formed from a careful examination of the chapter, verse by verse, so as to make them a faithful Table of Contents, constantly referring to the verses themselves. By this means all the subjects of each chapter may be immediately seen, so as in many cases to preclude the necessity of consulting a Concordance.

In the Heads or head lines of each page I have endeavoured to introduce as far as the room would admit, the chief subject of the columns underneath, so as immediately to catch the eye of the reader.

Quotations from the original texts I have made as sparingly as possible; those which are introduced I have endeavoured to make plain by a literal translation, and by putting them in European characters. The reader will observe that though the Hebrew is here produced without the points, yet the reading given in European characters is according to the points, with very few exceptions. I have chosen this middle way to please, as far as possible, the opposers and friends of the Masoretic system. The controversies among religious people I have scarcely ever mentioned, having very seldom referred to the creed of any sect or party of Christians; nor have I produced any opinion merely to confute or establish it. I simply propose what I believe to be the meaning of a passage, and maintain what I believe to be the truth, but scarcely ever in a controversial way. I think it quite possible to give my own views of the doctrines of the Bible, without introducing a single sentence at which any Christian might reasonably take offence; and I hope that no provocation which I may receive shall induce me to depart from this line of conduct.

It may be expected by some that I should enter at large into the proofs of the authenticity of Divine Revelation. This has been done amply by others; and their works have been published in every form, and, with a very laudable zeal, spread widely through the public; on this account I think it unnecessary to enter professedly into the subject, any farther than I have done in the “Introduction to the four Gospels and Acts of the Apostles,” to which I must beg to refer the reader. The different portions of the sacred writings against which the shafts of infidelity have been levelled, I have carefully considered, and I hope sufficiently defended, in the places where they respectively occur.

For a considerable time I hesitated whether I should attach to each chapter what are commonly called reflections, as these do not properly belong to the province of the commentator. It is the business of the preacher, who has the literal and obvious sense before him, to make reflections on select passages, providential occurrences, and particular histories; and to apply the doctrines contained in them to the hearts and practices of his hearers. The chief business of the commentator is critically to examine his text, to give the true meaning of every passage in reference to the context, to explain words that are difficult or of dubious import, illustrate local and provincial customs, manners, idioms laws, &c., and from the whole to collect the great design of the inspired writer.

Many are of opinion that it is an easy thing to write reflections on the Scriptures; my opinion is the reverse; common-place observations, which may arise on the surface of the latter, may be easily made by any person possessing a little common sense and a measure of piety; but reflections, such as become the oracles of God, are properly inductive reasonings on the facts stated or the doctrines delivered, and require, not only a clear head and a sound heart, but such a compass and habit of philosophic thought, such a power to discern the end from the beginning, the cause from its effect, (and where several causes are at work to ascertain their respective results, so that every effect may be attributed to its true cause,) as falls to the lot of but few men. Through the flimsy, futile, and false dealing of the immense herd of spiritualizers, metaphormen, and allegorists, pure religion has been often disgraced. Let a man put his reason in ward, turn conscience out of its province, and throw the reins on the neck of his fancy, and he may write-reflections without end. The former description of reflections I rarely attempt for want of adequate powers; the latter, my reason and conscience prohibit; let this be my excuse with the intelligent and pious reader. I have, however, in this way, done what I could. I have generally, at the close of each chapter, summed up in a few particulars the facts or doctrines contained in it; and have endeavoured to point out to the reader the spiritual and practical use he should make of them. To these inferences, improvements, or whatever else they may be called, I have given no specific name; and of them can only say, that he who reads them, though he may be sometimes disappointed, will not always lose his labour. At the same time I beg leave to inform him that I have not deferred spiritual uses of important texts to the end of the chapter; where they should be noticed in the occurring verse I have rarely passed them by. Before I conclude, it may be necessary to give some account of the original VERSIONS of the sacred writings, which have been often consulted, and to which occasional references are made in the ensuing work. These are the Samaritan, Chaldaic, Æthiopic, Septuagint, with those of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion; the Syriac, Vulgate, Arabic, Coptic, Persian, and Anglo-Saxon.

The SAMARITAN text must not be reckoned among the versions. It is precisely the same with the Hebrew, only fuller; having preserved many letters, words, and even whole sentences, sometimes several verses, which are not extant in any Hebrew copy with which we are acquainted. In all other respects it is the same as the Hebrew, only written in what is called the Samaritan character, which was probably the ancient Hebrew, as that now called the Hebrew character was probably borrowed from the Chaldeans.

1. The SAMARITAN version differs widely from the Samaritan text; the latter is pure Hebrew, the former is a literal version of the Hebreo-Samaritan text, into the Chaldaico-Samaritan dialect. When this was done it is impossible to say, but it is allowed to be very ancient, considerably prior to the Christian era. The language of this version is composed of pure Hebrew Syro-Chaldaic, and Cuthite terms. It is almost needless to observe that the Samaritan text and Samaritan version extend no farther than the five books of Moses; as the Samaritans received no other parts of the sacred writings.

2. The CHALDAIC version or TARGUMS have already been described among the commentators. Under this head are included the Targum of Onkelos upon the whole law; the Jerusalem Targum on select parts of the five books of Moses; the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel also upon the Pentateuch; the Targum of Jonathan upon the prophets; and the Targum of Rabbi Joseph on the books of Chronicles; but of all these the Targums of Onkelos on the law, and Jonathan on the prophets, are the most ancient, and most literal, and the most valuable. See pages 1 and 2 of this preface.

3. The SEPTUAGINT translation of all the versions of the sacred writings has ever been deemed of the greatest importance by competent judges. I do not, however, design to enter into the controversy concerning this venerable version; the history of it by Aristæus I consider in the main to be a mere fable, worthy to be classed with the tale of Bel and the Dragon, and the stupid story of Tobit and his Dog. Nor do I believe, with many of the fathers, that “seventy or seventy-two elders, six out of each of the twelve tribes, were employed in the work; that each of these translated the whole of the sacred books from Hebrew into Greek while confined in separate cells in the island of Pharos;” or that they were so particularly inspired by God that every species of error was prevented, and that the seventy-two copies, when compared together, were found to be precisely the same, verbatim et literatim. My own opinion, on the controversial part of the subject, may be given in a few words: I believe that the five books of Moses, the most correct and accurate part of the whole work, were translated from the Hebrew into Greek in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, about 285 years before the Christian era; that this was done, not by seventy-two, but probably by five learned and judicious men, and that when completed it was examined, approved, and allowed as a faithful version, by the seventy or seventy-two elders who constituted the Alexandrian Sanhedrim; and that the other books of the Old Testament were done at different times by different hands, as the necessity of the case demanded, or the providence of GOD appointed. It is pretty certain, from the quotations of the evangelists, the apostles, and the primitive fathers, that a complete version into Greek of the whole Old Testament, probably called by the name of the Septuagint, was made and in use before the Christian era; but it is likely that some of the books of that ancient version are now lost, and that some others, which now go under the name of the Septuagint, were the production of times posterior to the incarnation.

4. The Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, are frequently referred to. Aquila was first a heathen, then a Christian, and lastly a Jew. He made a translation of the Old Testament into Greek so very literal, that St. Jerome said it was a good dictionary to give the genuine meaning of the Hebrew words. He finished and published this work in the twelfth year of the reign of the Emperor Adrian, A.D. 128.

5. Theodotion was a Christian of the Ebionite sect, and is reported to have begun his translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek merely to serve his own party; but from what remains of his version it appears to have been very literal, at least as far as the idioms of the two languages would bear. His translation was made about the year of our Lord 180. All this work is lost, except his version of the book of the Prophet Daniel, and some fragments.

6. Symmachus was originally a Samaritan, but became a convert to Christianity as professed by the Ebionites. In forming his translation he appears to have aimed at giving the sense rather than a literal version of the sacred text. His work was probably completed about A.D. 200. These three versions were published by Origen in his famous work entitled, Hexapla, of which they formed the third, fourth, and sixth columns. All the remaining fragments have been carefully collected by Father Montfaucon, and published in a work entitled, Hexap1a Origenis quæ supersunt, &c. Paris, 1713. 2 vols. folio. Republished by C. F. Bahrdt, Leips. 1769, 2 vols. 8vo.

7. The Æthiopic version comprehends only the New Testament, the Psalms, some of the minor Prophets, and a few fragments of other books. It was probably made in the fourth century.

8. The Coptic version includes only the five books of Moses, and the New Testament. It is supposed to have been made in the fifth century.

9. The Syriac version is very valuable and of great authority. It was probably made as early as the second century; and some think that a Syriac version of the Old Testament was in existence long before the Christian era.

10. A Latin version, known by the name of the ITALA, Italic or Antehieronymian, is well known among learned men; it exists in the Latin part of the Codex Bezæ at Cambridge, and in several other MSS. The text of the four gospels in this version, taken from four MSS. more than a thousand years old, was published by Blanchini, at Rome 1749, 4 vols. folio, and a larger collection by Sabathier, Rheims, 1743, 3 vols. folio. This ancient version is allowed to be of great use in Biblical criticism.

11. The Vulgate, or Latin version, was formed by Saint Jerome, at the command of Pope Damasus, A.D. 384. Previously to this there were a great number of Latin versions made by different hands, some of which Jerome complains of as being extremely corrupt and self-contradictory. These versions, at present, go under the general name of the old Itala or Antehieronymian, already noticed. Jerome appears to have formed his text in general out of these, collating the whole with the Hebrew and Greek, from which he professes to have translated several books entire. The New Testament he is supposed to have taken wholly from the original Greek; yet there are sufficient evidences that he often regulated even this text by the ancient Latin versions.

12. The Anglo-Saxon version of the four Gospels is supposed to have been taken from the ancient Itala some time in the eighth century; and that of the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, and Job, from the Vulgate, by a monk called Ælfric, in the ninth century. The former was printed at Dort, in conjunction with the Gothic version, by F. Junius, 1665, 4to.; the latter, by Edward Thuaites, Oxford, 1698, 8vo.; but in this version many verses, and even whole chapters, are left out; and the Book of Job is only a sort of abstract, consisting of about five pages.

13. The Arabic is not a very ancient version, but is of great use in ascertaining the signification of several Hebrew words and forms of speech.

14. The Persian includes only the five Books of Moses and the four Gospels. The former was made from the Hebrew text by a Jew named Yacoub Toosee; the latter, by a Christian of the Catholic persuasion, Simon Ibn Yusuf Ibn Ibraheem al Tubreezee, about the year of our Lord 1341. These are the principal versions which are deemed of authority in settling controversies relative to the text of the original. There are some others, but of less importance; such as the Slavonic, Gothic, Sahidic, and Armenian; for detailed accounts of which, as also of the preceding, as far as the New Testament is concerned, I beg leave to refer the reader to Michaelis’s Lectures, in the translation, with the notes of the Rev. Dr. Herbert Marsh, and to the General Preface to the Gospels and Acts; and for farther information concerning Jewish and Christian commentators, he is requested to consult Bartoloccius’s Bibliotheca Rabbinica, and the Bibliotheca Theologica of Father Calmet.

In the preceding list of commentators I find I have omitted to insert in its proper place a work with which I have been long acquainted, and which for its piety and erudition I have invariably admired, viz.: “A plaine discovery of the whole Revelation of Saint John; set downe in two Treatises: The one searching and proving the true interpretation thereof: The other applying the same paraphrastically and historically to the text. Set forth by JOHN NAPEIR L. of Marchestoun, younger. Whereunto are annexed certaine Oracles of SIBYLLA, agreeing with the Revelation and other places of Scripture. Edinburgh, printed by Robert Waldegrave, printer to the King’s Majestie, 1593. Cum privilegio Regali, 8vo.

When the reader learns that the author of this little work was the famous Baron of Marchestoun, the inventor of the logarithms, a discovery which has been of incalculable use in the sciences of astronomy, practical geometry, and navigation, he will be prepared to receive with respect what so great a genius has written upon a book that, above all others in the sacred code, seems to require the head and hand of the soundest divine and mathematician. The work is dedicated “to the right excellent, high and mighty Prince James VI., King of Scottes,” afterwards James I., King of England; and in the Epistle Dedicatorie, the author strongly urges him to complete the reformation begun in his own empire, that he might be a ready instrument in the hand of God in executing judgment on the papal throne, which he then supposed to be near the time of its final overthrow. The first treatise is laid down in thirty-six propositions relating to the seals, trumpets, vials, and thunders.

In the third, fifth, and sixth propositions, he endeavours to prove that each trumpet or vial contains 245 years; that the first began A.D. 71. The second A.D. 316. The third A.D. 561. The fourth A.D. 806. The fifth A.D. 1051. The sixth A.D. 1296. The seventh A.D. 1541. See Propos. 6. And in Propos. 10. he shows that, as the last trumpet or vial began in 1541, consequently, as it contains 245 years, it should extend to A.D. 1786. “Not that I mean,” says the noble writer, “that that age or yet the world shall continew so long, because it is said, that for the elect’s sake the time shall be shortened; but I mean that if the world were to indure, that seventh age should continew untill the yeare of Christ, 1786.” Taking up this subject again, in Propos. 14., he endeavours to prove, by a great variety of calculations formed on the 1335 days mentioned by Daniel, chap. 12:11, and the period of the three thundering angels, Rev. 8. and 9., that by the former it appears the DAY OF JUDGMENT will take place in A.D. 1700, and by the latter, in 1688, whence it may be confidently expected that this awful day shall take place between these two periods!

We, who have lived to A.D. 1830, see the fallacy of these predictive calculations; and with such an example before us of the miscarriage of the first mathematician in Europe, in his endeavours to solve the prophetical periods marked in this most obscure book, we should proceed in such researches with humility and caution, nor presume to ascertain the times aud the seasons which the Father has reserved in his own power. I may venture to affirm, so very plausible were the reasonings and calculations of Lord Napeir, that there was scarcely a Protestant in Europe, who read his work, that was not of the same opinion. And how deplorably has the event falsified the predictions of this eminent and pious man! And yet, unawed by his miscarriage, calculators and ready-reckoners, in every succeeding age, on less spacious pretences, with minor qualifications, and a less vigorous opinion,) have endeavoured to soar where Napeir sunk! Their labours, however well intended, only serve to increase the records of the weakness and folly of mankind. Secret things belong to God; those that are revealed, to us and to our children. Writers who have endeavoured to illustrate different prophecies in the Apocalypse by past events, and those that are now occurring, are not included in this censure. Some respectable names in the present day have rendered considerable service to the cause of Divine revelation, by the careful and pious attention they have paid to this part of the subject; but when persons attempt to speak of what is yet to come, they begin to prophesy, and are soon lost.

ADAM CLARKE.

P. S. On Genesis 2:4, I have hinted that our Saxon ancestors have translated the Dominus of the Vulgate by [Anglo-Saxon], [A.-S.], or [A.- S.]. This is not to be understood of the fragments of the translations of the Old and New Testament which have reached our times, for in them Dominus when connected with Deus is often omitted, and the word [A.-S.] substituted for both; at other times they use the Dano-Saxon [D.-S.], both for hwhy Jehovah, and ynda Adonai; and in the New Testament, [D.-S.] is generally used for Kuriov, Lord, at other times, [A.-S.]. It seems to have been applied as a title of respect to men: see Matthew 12:8; 13:27; 18:25, 26, 27, 31, 32, 34; 21:30. Afterwards it was applied to the Supreme Being also; and the title Lord continues to be given to both indifferently to the present day, and sometimes both indifferently even in the same discourse. Thus in the Saxon homily in Dom. 1., Quadr. Bedæ Hist. Ecclesiastes lib. 4., c. 9: [A.-S.]. “Man shall pray to his Lord ([D.-S.D and him alone serve: he only is true Lord ([A.-S.D and true God.” [A.-S.] belongs more especially to the Anglo-Saxon, [D.-S.], to the Dano-Saxon. In Danish [Danish] is generally used for Lord.

———————————————————————