world." It has done much in foreign lands; and,
with the assistance of scholars both in Europe
and America, was eufrajjcd in revising the Author-
ized Version. In 1SS3 the Bible convention hchl
bv the Baptists at Saratoga, X. Y.. decided that
the American Baptist Publication Society should
henceforth do the work of publication and circu-
lation for the American and Foreign Bible So-
ciety and the American Bible Union, which still
maintain their legal existence on account of
certain legacies and other funds. The most of
the money goes for the distribution of the Scrip-
tures. The Bible Union revised the entire New
Testament and portions of the Old — the Penta-
teuch, Job. Psalms, and portions of other books.
The original revision was itself revised, and the
Old Testament parts again revised, and tho.se
not previously revised are undergoing revision.
BIBTJIA PAU'PERTJM: (Lat., Bible of the poor). A sort of picture-book of the Middle Ages, giving, on from forty to fifty leaves, the leading events of human salvation through Christ, each picture being accompanied by an illustrative text or sentence in Latin. A similar and contemporaneous work on a more extended scale, and with the legend or text in rhyme, was called Speculum Humanw Salnifioiiix. i.e. the "Mirror of Human Salvation." The redemption by Christ is the central idea of this collection, so that the Old Testament subjects are chosen for their typical signilicance. Before the Reforma- tion these two books were very popular among both the clergy and the laity. Owing to this general popularity the printed copies were soon worn out. and are now very rare. Many manuscripts of it and of the Mirror of Salvation, several as old as the Thirteenth Century, are preserved in different languages. The pictures of this series were copied in sculptures, in wall and glass painting, altar-pieces, etc., and thus became of importance in the art of the Middle Ages. In the Fifteenth Centuri', the Biblic Pau- perum was perhaps the first book that was print- ed in the Netherlands and Germany, first with blocks, and then with types. The chief proof for the discovery of printing in Haarlem rests on the first impressions of the Speculum Humanw Salralionis. The Biblia Pauperum has been sev- eral times reprinted in facsimile, e.g. London, 1884 (by Unwin, with preface by Dean Stanley). See Coster.
BIBXICAI, CRITICISM. Under this term are incluiied two distinct departments of biblical investigation, commonly termed Lower or Tex- tual Criticism and Higher Criticism, each of which is defined according to the object in view. ( 1 ) Textual CRiTicis.t has for its object the determination of the true text of the biblical writings, i.e. the text as it stood in the auto- graphs. Since these are no longer extant, the textual critic must carefully examine the various existing witnesses to the text, such as manu- scripts in the language of the autof.'raphs. manu- scripts of versions, especially of the more ancient ones, and quotations found in the writings of an- cient authors. On the basis of such an examina- tion, conducted in accordance with certain well- defined principles, the critic .seeks to reconstruct the text of the autographs. The principles gov- erning textual critici.sm are the same for all an- cient writings, biblical or secular. The differ- ence between the textual criticism of the Old and New Testaments is due mainly to the dif- ferent character and quantity of the evidence for the respective texts. For the New Testa- ment the jMSS. are more numerous, and in many inst-'inces nearer the autographs than is the case for the Old Testament. But the principles are essentially the same in both cases. For the prin- ciples of textual criticism, as applied to tlie New Testament, see Bible, New-Testament Text.
(2) Higher Criticisji, also called Historical or Literary Criticism, has for its object the de- termination of questions concerning the dates, authorship, genuineness, composition, and char- acter of the biblical writings. If it seems to find that some of the books of the Bible are of composite origin, it seeks to ascertain the facts as to the sources from which they were derived, i.e. their age, original form, and general char- acter and worth. These and similar questions ai'e important, and, as biblical .science stands to-day, imperatively demand answers. It is true that tradition fuinishes answers to such questions; but modem biblical study is not con- tent to take the dicta of tradition, unsupported by other evidence. The evidence which it is the object of higher criticism to obtain is almost entirely internal, furnished by the writings un- der investigation. It may be difficult to procure; but, once obtained, it is final. It is almost need- less to say that higher criticism is not confined to biblical study, being recognized as indispensa- ble to the proper investigation of all ancient lit- erary productions.
Conclusions reached by different critics in re- gard to the same biblical writings are often quite diverse. This is because the critic not only makes use of certain methods by which main facts, elemental facts, are brought to light, but also seeks to interpret these facts, and thus reach Ids conclusions. It is in the interpretation of the facts that the bias of the critic is manifested. Theoretically, there should be no such bias ; prac- tically, it is unavoidable. It is admitted on all sides that criticism must be free and untram- meled. It should have no hostility to or par- tiality for traditional opinion, philosophical theories, or dogmatic systems. Since critics are but human, this ideal is never reached in actual practice. A distinction should therefore be made between the principles underlying the methods of Higher Criticism, by the use of which facts are ascertained, and the presuppositions according to which the bearing of such facts is determined. Strictly speaking, the term 'Higher Criticism' should be indicative mainly of the methods; for these are common to all critics.
The most convenient classification of the methods of the Higher Criticism is the threefold one into literary, historical, and theological (cf. A. C. Zenos, The Elements of the Hifiher Criti- cism ) . That is. in order to form a judgment as to the date, authorship, and general character of a writing, the critic is careful to observe all the phenomena of a literary, historical, and theo- logical character that the writing presents.
In using the literary' method, all peculiarities of style, such as vocabulary, idioms, and literary forms, are noted. It is sometimes found that different sections in the same book differ in marked degree from each other in these respects, and the question at once arises whether these dif- ferences point to different authorship of such
