The Sept. presents the following titles of these last: ¥a\uoi, napoipiai, a,,,,.,,, *Aff/ti« aofidrotv, 'EkkXv- otaorric, U.apa\tiir6ixtva (i. e. things omitted, as being supplementary to the books of Kings). The Latin ver- sion imports xane of the titles, and translates others; Psalmi, Proverbia, Threni, Canticum Canticorum, Ee- clesiastes, Paralipomenon, and tlie.se in their translated form have determined the received titles of the look in our English Bibles— Eeclesiastes, in which the Greek title is retained, and Chronicles, in which the Hebrew
and not the Greek title is translated, being exceptions. The Sept. presents also some striking variations in the order of the books (we follow the Sixt. ed. — MSS. differ greatly). Both in this and in the insertion of the (ivrtXtyofiti'a, which we now know as the Apocry- pha, among the other books, we trace the absence of that strong reverence for the Canon and its traditional order which distinguished the Jews of Palestine. The Law, it is true, stands first, but the distinction between the greater and lesser prophets, between the Prophets and the Hagiographa, is no longer recognised. Daniel, with the Apocryphal additions, follows upon Ezekiel ; the Apocryphal 1st or Cd look of Esdras comes in as a 1st, preceding the canonical Ezra. Tohit and Judith are placed after Nehemiah, Wisdom (Eotpia 2a\o[iii>v) and Ecclesiasticus (Socti'cr Saofiv) after Canticles, Ba- ruch before and the Epistle of Jeremiah after Lam- entations, the twelve lesser prophets before the four i greater, and the two books of Maccabees at the close ; of all. The common Vulg. follows nearly the same or- der, inverting the relative position of the greater and lesser prophets. The separation of the doubtful hooks under the title of Apoerj'pha in the Protestant versions [ of the Scriptures left the others in the order in which , wc now have them. See Septuagint ; Vulgate.
4. The history of the arrangement of the 1 ooks of the 1 New Testament presents some variations, not with- out interest, as indicating differences of feeling or modes of thought. The four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles uniformly stand first. They are thus to the New what the Pentateuch was to the Old Tes- tament. They do not present, however, in them- | selves, as the books of Moses did, any order "of suc- \ cession. The actual order does not depend upon the rank or function of the writers to whom they are as- signed. The two not written by apostles are pre- ' ceded and followed by one which was, and it seems as if the true explanation were to be found in a traditu n- al belief as to the dates of the several Gospels, accord- ing to which Matthew's, whether in its Greek cr He- brew form, was the earliest, and John's the latest. The arrangement once adopted would naturally con- firm the belief, and so we find it assumed by Irenaeus, Origen, Augustine. The position of the Acts as an intermediate book, the sequel to the Gospels, the prel- ude to the Epistles, was obviously a natural one. After this we meet with some striking differences. The order in the Alexandrian, Vatican, and Ephraem MSS. (A, B, C) gives precedence to the catholic Epis- tles, and as this is also recognised by the Council of Laodicea (Can. 60), Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. iv, 35), and Athanasius (Epist. Fist. ed. Bened. i, £61), it would appear to have been characteristic of the East- ern churches. Lachmann and Tischendorf (7th ed.) fol- low this arrangement. (The Sinaitic MS. places Paul's Epistles even before the Acts.) The Western ( hureh, on the other hand, as represented by Jerome. Augus- tine, and their successors, gave priority of position to the Pauline Epistles; and as the order in which these were given presents, (1.) those addressed to churches arranged according to their relative importance, (2.) those addressed to individuals, the foremost place was naturally occupied by the Epistle to the Romans. The tendency of the Western Church to recognise Rome as the centre of authority may perhaps, in part, account for this departure from the custom < f the Etst, The order of the Pauline Epistles themselves, however, is generally the same, and the only conspicuously dif- ferent arrangement was that of Marcion, who aimed at a chronological order. In the four MSS. above re- ferred to, Hebrews comes after 2 Thessalonians (in that from which Cod. B was copied it seems to have stood between Gal. and Ephes.). In those followed by Je- rome, it stands, as in the English Bihle and the Textus Receptus, after Philemon. Possibly the absence of Paul's name, possibly the doubts which existed as to his being the sole author of it, possibly its approximation to
BIBLE
801
BIBLE
the character of the catholic Epistles, may have de- termined the arrangement. The Apocalypse, as might be expected from the peculiar character of its contents, occupied a position by itself. Its comparatively late recognition may have determined the position which it has uniformly held as the last of the sacred books.
IV. Division into Chapters and Verses. — As soon as any break is made in the continuous writing which has characterized in nearly all countries the early stages of the art, we get the germs of a system of division. But these divisions may be used for two distinct pur- poses. So far as they are used to exhibit the logical relations of words, clauses, and sentences to each oth- er, they tend to a recognised punctuation. So far as they are used for greater convenience of reference, or as a help to the memory, they answer to the chapters and verses of our modern Bibles. At present we are concerned only with the latter.