Their testimony is chiefly valuable as _corroborative_. "Patristic citations _alone_ have very little weight; such citations, even when in accordance with a version, have but little more; but when a citation _is_ in accordance with some ancient MSS. and translations, it possesses great corroborative value. It is as _confirming_ a reading known independently to exist, that citations are of the utmost importance. If alone, or nearly alone, they may be looked at as mere casual adaptations of the words of the New Testament." Tregelles in Horne, vol. 4, ch. 34.

11. The _application_ of the above sources of criticism to the sacred text demands very extensive research and much sound judgment. "Canons of criticism," as they are called are valuable in their proper sphere; but, as Westcott remarks (_ubi supra_), "they are intended only to guide and not to dispense with the exercise of tact and scholarship. The student will judge for himself how far they are applicable in every particular case; and no exhibition of general principles can supersede the necessity of a careful examination of the characteristics of separate witnesses, and of groups of witnesses."

We bring this subject to a close by an enumeration of the last six of the thirteen rules laid down by Westcott.

8. "The agreement of ancient MSS., or of MSS. containing an ancient text, with all the ancient versions and citations marks a certain reading."

9. "The disagreement of the most ancient authorities often marks the existence of a corruption anterior to them."

10. "The argument from internal evidence is always precarious." This canon he ill.u.s.trates by several examples: "If a reading is in accordance with the general style of the writer, it may be said on the one side that this fact is in its favor, and on the other that an acute copyist probably changed the exceptional expression for the more usual one," &c.

11. "The more difficult reading is preferable to the simpler." This canon rests on the obvious ground that a copyist would be more apt to subst.i.tute an easy reading for a difficult than the reverse.

12. "The shorter reading is generally preferable to the longer." Because of all corruptions of the text, additions from parallel pa.s.sages, or to meet its supposed wants, are the most common.

13. "That reading is preferable which explains the origin of the others."

CHAPTER XXVII.

FORMATION AND HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON.

1. Respecting the canon of the New Testament there are two distinct but related fields of inquiry. The first has reference to the _origin and gradual acc.u.mulation, of the materials_ which enter into the canon; the second, to the _collection of these materials_ into a volume or series of volumes possessing coordinate authority with the books of the Old Testament, and const.i.tuting with them the sum of written revelation. The first of these questions has been already discussed in great measure. In Chs. 2-4, the genuineness, uncorrupt preservation, authenticity, and credibility of the four gospels were shown at some length; in Ch. 5 the same was done in respect to the Acts of the Apostles and the acknowledged epistles; in Ch. 6 was considered the position of the disputed books in respect to the canon; and in Ch. 7 the inspiration of the canon was demonstrated. Connected with these inquiries were some general notices respecting the date of the several books of the New Testament; but the fuller consideration of this latter question is reserved for the second division of the present Part--that of Particular Introduction. It will be sufficient to state here in a general way that, if we leave out of account the writings of the Apostle John, the remaining books of the New Testament were written somewhere between A.D.

45-70 (according to the commonly received opinion, between A.D. 50-70); while the most probable date of John's writings is A.D. 70-100. The composition of the books of the New Testament, then, spreads itself over a period of about half a century.

2. Turning our attention, now, to the second question, that of the collection and arrangement of these writings in a volume or series of volumes coordinate in authority with the books of the Old Testament, we have a succession of periods, not sharply separated from each other, but each of them possessing, nevertheless, its prominent characteristics in relation to the canonical writings.

3. First in order is the _apostolic age_, extending to about A.D. 100, especially the first half of it when many of the apostles still survived. This is the period of the _composition_ of the books of the New Testament, but we have no certain evidence that they were then collected into a whole. The writings of apostles and apostolic men had of course the same authority as their spoken word: that is, an authority that was supreme and decisive, according to the principle laid down by the Saviour: "He that receiveth you, receiveth me; and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me." Matt. 10:40. But so long as the churches had the presence of the apostles they could not feel, as we do now, the need of an authoritative written rule of faith and practice; nor is there any proof that the apostles themselves understood in the beginning of the gospel G.o.d's purpose to add, through them, a second part to the canon of revelation that had been for so many centuries closed. A considerable number of years elapsed after the ascension before it was thought necessary to give to the churches under apostolic sanction a written account of our Lord's life and teachings. The Acts of the Apostles were not composed till about A.D. 61-63. The apostolic epistles were for the most part written on special occasions and to meet special exigencies, the greater number of them not till between A.D.

50-70, those of John still later. The Christians of this age drew their knowledge of the gospel mainly from the same sources to which Luke refers in the preface to his gospel; from oral tradition, namely, received directly or indirectly from them "who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word."

4. After the death of the apostles came what may be called the _age of the apostolic fathers_; men who, like Ignatius, Polycarp, and others whose names have not come down to us, had been the disciples of the apostles. Ignatius suffered martyrdom at Rome, A.D. 107 or 116. Polycarp survived beyond the middle of the second century. The literary remains of this period are very scanty, the genuine writings of the apostolic fathers being confined to a few epistles--one of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, seven of Ignatius, one of Polycarp to the Philippians, to which we may add the so-called epistle of Barnabas; since whoever was the author, it does not date from later than the early part of the second century. From these writings we gather in general that the gospels and apostolic epistles were in current use in the churches, but nothing definite in regard to the collection of these writings into a whole.

"With the exception of the epistles of _Jude_, _2 Peter_ and _2, 3 John_, with which no coincidences occur, and 1, 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, t.i.tus, and Philemon, with which the coincidences are very questionable, all the other epistles were clearly known, and used by them; but still they are not quoted with the formulas which preface citations from the Old Testament (The Scripture saith, It is written, &c.), nor is the famous phrase of Ignatius (To the Philadelphians 5: Betaking myself to the gospel, as to the flesh of Christ, and to the apostles, as the eldership of the church) sufficient to prove the existence of a collection of apostolic records as distinct from the sum of apostolic teaching. The coincidences with the gospels on the other hand are numerous and interesting, but such as cannot be referred to the exclusive use of our present written gospels."

Westcott, in Smith's Bible Dict.; Art. Canon. The reason of this, as the writer goes on to show, was that "the details of the life of Christ were still too fresh to be sought for only in written records." There is, however, one remarkable pa.s.sage in the epistle of Barnabas, the _Greek text_ of which has been recently discovered appended to the Sinaitic ma.n.u.script, in which he says (ch. 4): "Let us take care that we be not found as it is written, many are called, but few are chosen." This formula, "as it is written," distinguishes the gospel from which it is quoted as a part of the inspired word; for it is the customary formula employed by Christ and his apostles in accordance with the usage of their age, when they appeal to the Old Testament as of divine authority; and is never applied to writings of mere human authority.

5. Next in order comes what may be called the _period of transition_ between the age of the apostolic and that of the early church fathers.

The most distinguished writer of this period is Justin Martyr. It is now generally conceded that the "Memoirs" of which he so often speaks were our canonical gospels. Chap. 2, No. 7. Besides the abundant use of these he mentions the Apocalypse by name, and ascribes it expressly to the apostle John--"a certain man among us named John, one of the apostles of Christ, prophesied, in the revelation given him, that those who have believed in our Christ will spend a thousand years in Jerusalem," etc.

Dialogue with Trypho, chap. 81. He has also some apparent allusions to the Pauline epistles, but how far he possessed and used a collection of the New Testament writings, we have no means of judging. Towards the middle of the second century, however, events occurred which had a powerful influence, not indeed, for establishing the _authority_ of the apostolic writings (since that existed from the beginning), but for bringing home to the consciousness of the churches their _supreme importance_ as an authoritative rule of faith and practice, and also the necessity of carefully defining their extent as well as their true interpretation. Heretical teachers arose who sowed in the Christian church the seeds of gnosticism. Of these some, as Marcion, rejected on dogmatical grounds a portion of the apostolic writings, and mutilated those which they retained; others, as Valentinus, sought by fanciful principles of interpretation to explain away their true meaning. Chap.

2, No. 12. The reaction upon the churches was immediate and effectual.

They set themselves at once to define and defend the true apostolic writings as well against Marcion's false and mutilated canon, if canon it may be called, as against the false interpretations of Valentinus, Heracleon and others. The _occasion_ had now come for the recognition of a New Testament canon coordinate in authority with that of the Old Testament, and from this time onward we find the idea of such a canon clearly developed in the writings of the church fathers. What aided essentially in this work was the execution, about this time, of _versions_ of the New Testament books, such as the Old Latin and Syriac; for the authors of these versions must of necessity have brought together the writings, which, in their judgment, proceeded from the apostles and their companions.

6. We find, accordingly, when the _age of the early church fathers_ opens, about A.D. 170, a clearly recognized canon--sometimes described in two parts, the _gospels_ and the _apostles_--which is placed on a level with that of the Old Testament as the inspired word of G.o.d, and cited in common with it as _the Scriptures_, _the divine Scriptures_, _the Scriptures of the Lord_, etc. Both canons are mentioned together as _The entire Scriptures both prophetical and evangelical_; _The prophets, the gospel, and the blessed apostles_; _the law and the prophets, with the evangelical and apostolical writings_; _the Old and the New Testament_; _the entire instrument of each Testament_, etc. _Irenaeus_, against heresies, 2. 46; 5. 20; _Letter to Florinus_ in Eusebius' Hist.

Eccl., 5. 20: _Clement of Alexandria_, Strom., 7, p. 757; _Tertullian_, against heretics, chap. 30. 36: against Marcion, 4. 6, etc. The canon was not, however, completed in its present form; for the right of certain books--the so-called _antilegomena_, chap. 6. 6.--to a place in it remained for a considerable time an open question, which, in its application to particular books was answered differently in the East and the West. See chap. 6. On the other hand, certain writings of the apostolic fathers (as the so-called epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians), being read in certain of the early churches, found their way into some codices of the New Testament. Chap. 6, No. 4.

To the latter part of the second century belong two important canons, that of the Syriac Pes.h.i.to, and the Muratorian canon.

The former of these represents the judgment of the _Eastern_ churches; the latter apparently that of the _Western_.

The canon of the Pes.h.i.to has, of the seven disputed books, _Hebrews_ and _James_. It wants the other five, namely, _2 Peter_, _2, 3 John_, _Jude_, _Revelation_.

The Muratorian canon is in such an imperfect state that its testimony on some points is doubtful. It contains _Jude_ and _Revelation_; perhaps also _2, 3 John_. It wants _Hebrews_, and _2 Peter_, and it adds the apocryphal book called the _Apocalypse of Peter_.

Origen in the third century (as quoted by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., 6. 25) and Eusebius in the fourth, Hist. Eccl., 3. 25, give each a review of the New Testament canon with a statement of the differing judgments as to the disputed books. The details will come up hereafter in connection with the books in question.

The Synodical Council of Loadicea, which was probably held between A.D. 343-381, gives in its 60th canon (the genuineness of which, however, has been called in question by some) a list of the books of the Old and New Testaments. That of the New Testament wants the _Apocalypse_.

The third Council of Carthage, held A.D. 397, contains all the books of our present canon. So also the Latin fathers, as Jerome, Rufinus, etc. But the Syrian churches still adhered to the canon of the Pes.h.i.to.

7. The history of Christian opinion in regard to the canon of the New Testament, of which a very brief outline has been given, has all the marks of naturalness and truthfulness. The Biblical student should carefully remember the two following important considerations:

(1.) The books of the New Testament were not received as a whole, but _separately_ upon the evidence that each gave of its apostolic origin.

Doubts in respect to certain books throw no shadow of suspicion upon the rest, the genuineness and authenticity of which were acknowledged by all from the beginning. The question, therefore, is not concerning the truth of revelation, but simply concerning the claims of certain books to be a part of the record of revelation. However it may be decided in particular cases, the apostolic authority of the universally acknowledged books, which const.i.tute the main body of the New Testament, remains perfectly sure.

(2.) The early diversities of judgment in respect to certain books furnish satisfactory evidence of the freedom of thought and discussion among the primitive Christians, and of the sincerity and earnestness of their investigations. It was precisely because they would not accept any book without full evidence of its apostolic authority, that these diversities of judgment prevailed.

CHAPTER XXVIII.

ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

In the present chapter those versions of the Old Testament also that were made in connection with versions of the New, and in the interest of Christianity, will be briefly considered.

I. LATIN VERSIONS.

1. A peculiar interest attaches to the early Latin versions. The "_Old Latin_" translation of the New Testament, in connection with which one of the Old Testament was executed from the Septuagint, is perhaps the earliest that exists in any language. The Old Syriac alone can rival it in antiquity, and if either may claim the precedence, it is probably the Latin. This version, and afterwards the revision of it by Jerome, was the grand medium through which the Holy Scriptures were known to the Western or Latin churches for more than twelve centuries. It has exercised no small influence on the popular modern versions of Christendom, and it is the great storehouse of theological terms for both Catholic and Protestant Christianity.

The English version of Wiclif (1324-1384) is a literal translation of the current text of the Latin Vulgate. The Psalter of the English Prayer Book is taken from Cranmer's Bible called the "Great English Bible:" and the version of the Psalms follows the Gallican Psalter, the second of the revisions made by Jerome from the Old Latin. See below, No. 4.

2. How early the _ante-Hieronymian_ Latin version (that current before the days of _Hieronymus_, that is, _Jerome_), was executed is unknown; but the writings of Tertullian furnish satisfactory proof that it was in popular use in North Africa (the place where it was made) in the last quarter of the second century. According to the testimony of the ancient church fathers, its text existed in a great variety of forms, and the same variety has come down to us in the old ma.n.u.scripts that contain it.

Some, indeed, have maintained that several independent versions existed.

But the sum of the evidence from both the early fathers and the ma.n.u.scripts goes to show that there was never more than one that could be called independent. The copies of this were subjected to multiplied emendations or revisions from the Greek original, till the text had fallen in the days of Augustine and Jerome into a state of great confusion.

The language of Augustine is very strong: "The translators of the Scriptures from the Hebrew tongue into the Greek can be numbered, but the Latin interpreters can by no means be numbered. For whenever, in the first ages of Christianity, any one had gained possession of a Greek ma.n.u.script, and imagined himself to possess some little skill in the two languages, he ventured to become an interpreter." De Doct. Christ. 2. 16.

According to the received opinion the so-called _Itala_ (_Italian_) was not an independent version, but one of these revisions, apparently made in Italy, and as some think, under ecclesiastical auspices. This, Augustine recommends as more faithful and perspicuous than the rest.

3. The _canon_ of the Old Latin version seems to have wanted, in the New Testament, Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter. In the Old Testament it followed the Septuagint. It contained, therefore, the apocryphal books of that version, to which was also added the second of Esdras. Appendix to Pt.

2, No. 6. The _text_ of this version is known to us from two sources, quotations and ma.n.u.scripts. For our knowledge of the Old Testament we are dependent mainly on the quotations of the early Latin fathers, since only a few fragments remain in the shape of ma.n.u.scripts. The same is true of some parts of the New Testament, particularly the Apocalypse.

But of the gospels as well as other parts of the New Testament, we have some very ancient ma.n.u.scripts which are of high value in textual criticism. The agreement of this version in many characteristic readings with the oldest known Greek ma.n.u.scripts has already been noticed. Chap.

3, No. 3. Such agreement is the strongest possible testimony for the genuineness of the readings in question. Chap. 26, No. 2.

The _Codex Vercellensis_, belonging to the fourth century, and said to have been written by Eusebius, bishop of Vercellae (now Vercelli) in Northern Italy where the ma.n.u.script is preserved, is one of the oldest ma.n.u.scripts of the sacred text in existence. The _Codex Veronensis_ at Verona, the Graeco-Latin _Codex Claromonta.n.u.s_ in the Imperial Library at Paris, the _Codex Vindobonensis_ at Vienna, the _Codex Bobbiensis_ at Turin, and others that might be named, are also very ancient.

Among the codices that contain what is called the _Italic_ version, is the _Brixia.n.u.s_ of the sixth century.