=1. John Chrysostom=, one of the Greek "Christian Fathers,"
flourished during the latter half of the fourth century; he was
patriarch of Constantinople, but was deposed and exiled some time
before his death which occurred in 407. His use of the term
_biblia_ to designate the scriptural canon is among the earliest
applications of the sort yet found, He entreated his people to
avail themselves of the riches of inspired works in this
wise:--"Hear, I exhort, all yet in secular life, and purchase
_biblia_, the medicine of the soul." Speaking of the Jewish
Christians, he says, "They have the _biblia_, but we have the
treasures of the _biblia_; they have the letters, we have the
letters and the understanding."
=2. The Samaritan Copy of the Pentateuch.=--In his valuable
course of lectures on Bible subjects, Elder David McKenzie
presents the following, with references to the writings of
Horne:--"Nine hundred and seventy years before Christ, the nation
of Israel was divided into two kingdoms. Both retained the same
book of the law. Rivalry prevented either of them from altering
or adding to the law. After Israel was carried into Assyria,
other nations occupied Samaria. These received the Pentateuch.
(II Kings xvii, 26-28.) The language being Hebrew or Phoenician,
whereas the Jewish copy was changed into Chaldee, corruption or
alteration was thus made impracticable, yet the texts remain
almost identical."
=3. Versions of the Bible or of Parts Thereof.=--_The
Septuagint_:--"Various opinions have been put forth to explain
its appellation of _Septuagint_; some say that Ptolemy
Philadelphus requested of Eleazer the High Priest a copy of the
Hebrew scriptures, and six learned Jews from each tribe (together
seventy-two), competent to translate it into Greek; these were
shut up in the isle of Pharos, and in seventy-two days they
completed their task: as they dictated it, Demetrius Phalereus,
the king's chief librarian, transcribed it: but this is now
considered a fable. Others say that these same interpreters,
having been shut up in separate cells, wrote each one a
translation; and so extraordinarily did they all coincide
together in words as well as sentiment, that evidence was thus
afforded of their inspiration by the Holy Spirit; this opinion
has also been set aside as too extravagant. It is very possible
that seventy-two writers were employed in the translation; but it
is more probable that it acquired the name of _Septuagint_ from
having received the approbation of the Jewish Sanhedrin, which
consisted of seventy-two persons. Some affirm it to have been
executed at different times; and Horne says it is most probable
that this version was made during the joint reigns of Ptolemy
Lagus and his son Philadelphus, about 285 or 286 B. C."
_The Vulgate._--"There was a very ancient version of the Bible
translated from the Septuagint into Latin, but by whom and when
is unknown. It was in general use in the time of Jerome, and was
called the _Itala_ or _Italic Version_. About the close of the
fourth century, Jerome began a new translation into Latin from
the Hebrew text, which he gradually completed. It at last gained
the approbation of Pope Gregory I, and has been used ever since
the seventh century. The present Vulgate, declared authentic by
the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century, is the ancient
Italic version, revised and improved by the corrections of Jerome
and others; and is the only one allowed by the Church of Rome."
_The "Authorized Version."_--"Certain objections having been made
to the _Bishops' Bible_ at the Hampton Court conference in A. D.
1603, King James I directed a new translation to be made.
Forty-seven persons, eminent for their piety and biblical
learning, were chosen to this end; they were divided into six
committees, two to sit at Oxford, two at Cambridge, and two at
Westminster; and each committee had a certain portion of the
scriptures assigned to it. They began their task in A. D. 1607,
and the whole was completed and in print in A. D. 1611. This is
called the _Authorized English Version_ and is the one now in
use."--From _Analysis of Scripture History_, by Pinnock; pp. 3,
5; (6th ed.).
=4. The Prophetical Books= of the Old Testament are arranged with
little or no regard to their chronological order, the extent of
the contained matter placing the larger works first. The
chronological arrangement would probably be Jonah, Joel, Amos,
Hosea, Isaiah, Micah, Nahum, Zephaniah:--all of these prophesied
previous to the captivity; then follow Jeremiah, Habakkuk,
Ezekiel, and Daniel, who wrote during the captivity; then Haggai,
Zechariah, and Malachi, after the return of the Jews from
captivity.
=5. Manuscript Copies of the New Testament.=--Three manuscripts
of New Testament writings now in existence are regarded as
authentic. These are known as the _Vatican_ (now in Rome), the
_Alexandrian_ (now in London), and the _Sinaitic_ (now in the St.
Petersburg library). The last named or Sinaitic is considered to
be the oldest copy of the New Testament in existence. The
manuscript was discovered in 1859 among the archives of a
monastery on Mount Sinai, hence its name. It was found by
Tischendorf, and is now in the imperial library at St.
Petersburg.
=6. Concerning the Genuineness of Parts of the New
Testament.=--In answer to objections that have been urged by
critics in the matter of genuineness or authenticity of certain
books of the New Testament, the following array of testimony may
be considered. The items are presented here as collated by Elder
David McKenzie, and as used by him in his instructive lectures on
the Bible.
(_I_) _The Four Gospels._--_1. Matthew._ Papias, Bishop of
Hierapolis, was a hearer of the Apostle John. With respect to St.
Matthew's Gospel, Eusebius quotes him as saying:--"Matthew
composed the Oracles In the Hebrew tongue, and each one
interpreted them as he could."--(Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii, 39.)
_2. Mark._ Of Mark's writing, Papias also says:--"Mark having
become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately everything
that he remembered, without, however, recording in order what was
either said or done by Christ. For neither did he hear the Lord,
nor follow Him, but afterward attended Peter, who adapted his
instructions to the needs of his hearers, but had no design of
giving a connected account of the Lord's oracles (or
discourses)."--(Bishop Lightfoot's translations, in "Contemporary
Review," August, 1875.)
_3. Luke._ Internal evidence shows that Luke's Gospel and the
Acts of the Apostles were composed by the same author. St. Paul
speaks of Luke as a physician; and Dr. Hobart, in 1882, published
at London a treatise on "The Medical Language of St. Luke," and
points out the frequent use of medical terms in Luke's writings,
permeating the entire extent of the third Gospel, and the Acts of
the Apostles. Even M. Renan makes a similar admission. He
says:--"One point which is beyond question is that the Acts are
by the same author as the third Gospel, and are a continuation of
that Gospel. One need not stop to prove this proposition, which
has never been seriously contested. The prefaces at the
commencement of each work, the dedication of each to Theophilus,
the perfect resemblance of style and of ideas, furnish on this
point abundant demonstrations." "A second proposition is that the
author of the Acts is a disciple of Paul, who accompanied him for
a considerable part of his travels."--(M. Renan, "The Apostles";
see preface.)
_4. John._ Irenæus, Bishop of Lyons, about 177 A. D., a pupil of
Polycarp who was martyred in 155 or 156, relates in a letter to a
fellow-pupil his recollections of what he had heard Polycarp say
about his intercourse with John, and with the rest who had seen
the Lord; and about the Lord, and about His miracles, and about
His teaching. All these he would relate altogether in accordance
with _the Scriptures_. (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist, v, 20.) That
Irenæus meant by "the Scriptures," Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,
is evident from the text. Besides, he urges "not only that four
Gospels alone have been handed down from the beginning, but that
in the nature of things there could not be more nor less than
four. There are four regions in the world, and four principal
winds, and the Church therefore, as destined to be conterminous
with the world, must be supported by four Gospels as four
pillars."--(Contemporary Review, August, 1876, p. 413.) [The forced
analogy assumed by Irenæus between the _four_ Gospels and
the _four_ winds, etc., is of course without foundation, and
its use appears literally absurd; nevertheless the fact that he
noted it furnishes evidence of the acceptance of the four Gospels
in his day.--J. E. T.]
(_II_) _The Pauline Epistles._--The following extracts from the
testimony of the Tübingen critics on four of Paul's epistles, are
instructive.
De Wette says, in his introduction to the "Books of the New
Testament" (123, a.):--"The letters of Paul bear the marks of his
powerful genius. The most important of them are raised above all
contradiction as to their authenticity; they form the solid
kernel of the book of the New Testament."
Baur says, in his "Apostle Paul" (1, 8):--"Not only has no
suspicion of the authenticity of these Epistles even arisen, but
they bear so incontestably the seal of the originality of Paul,
that one cannot comprehend for what reason critics could raise
any objection to them."
Weizsæker writes (Apost. Zeitalter, 1866, p. 190):--"The letters
to the Galatians and the Corinthians are, without doubt, from the
hand of the Apostle; from his hand also came incontestably the
Epistle to the Romans."
Holtzmann says ("Einleit in's N. T.," p. 224):--"These four
Epistles are the Pauline Homologoumena (books universally
received) in the modern acceptation of the word. We can realize,
with respect to them, the proof of authenticity undertaken by
Paley against the free-thinkers of his time."
M. Renan in _The Gospels_ (pp. 40, 41), thus expresses
himself:--"The epistles of Paul have an unequaled advantage in
this history--that is, their absolute authenticity." Of the
Epistles to the Corinthians, the Galatians, and the Romans, Renan
speaks as "indisputable and undisputed;" and adds, "The most
severe critics, such as Christian Baur, accept them without
objection."
=7. Archeological Evidence Confirming the Bible.=--Prof. A. H.
Sayce, M. A., sums up his learned treatise on the testimony of
the ancient monuments, thus:--"The critical objections to the
truth of the Old Testament, once drawn from the armory of Greek
and Latin writers, can never be urged again; they have been met
and overthrown once for all. The answers to them have come from
papyrus and clay and stone, from the tombs of ancient Egypt, from
the mounds of Babylonia, and from the ruined palaces of the
Assyrian kings."
=8. Missing Scripture.=--Those who oppose the doctrine of
continual revelation between God and His Church, on the ground
that the Bible is complete as a collection of sacred scriptures,
and that alleged revelation not found therein must therefore be
spurious, may profitably take note of the many books not included
in the Bible, yet mentioned therein, generally in such a way as
to leave no doubt that they were once regarded as authentic.
Among these extra-biblical scriptures, the following may be
named; some of them are in existence to-day, and are classed with
the Apocrypha; but the greater number are unknown. We read of the
Book of the Covenant (Exo. xxiv, 7); Book of the Wars of the Lord
(Numb. xxi, 14); Book of Jasher (Josh. x, 13); Book of the
Statutes (I Sam. x, 25); Book of Enoch (Jude 14); Book of the
Acts of Solomon (I Kings xi, 41); Book of Nathan the Prophet, and
that of Gad the Seer (I Chron. xxix, 29); Book of Ahijah the
Shilonite, and visions of Iddo, the Seer (II Chron. ix, 29); Book
of Shemaiah (II Chron. xii, 15); Story of the Prophet Iddo (II
Chron. xiii, 22); Book of Jehu (II Chron. xx, 34); the Acts of
Uzziah, by Isaiah, the son of Amoz (II Chron. xxvi, 22); Sayings
of the Seers (II Chron. xxxiii, 19); a missing epistle of Paul to
the Corinthians (I Cor. v, 9); a missing epistle to the Ephesians
(Eph. iii, 3); missing epistle to the Colossians, written from
Laodicea (Col. iv, 16); a missing epistle of Jude (Jude 3); a
declaration of belief mentioned by Luke (i, 1).