NOTES.
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 Phœnician, 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).