[753] See Notes 5 and 6.

=20.= This superabundance of evidence relating to the const.i.tution of the New Testament canon in the fourth century is a result of the anti-Christian persecution of that period. At the beginning of the century in question, the oppressive measures of Diocletian, emperor of Rome, were directed not alone against the Christians as individuals and as a sect, but against their sacred writings, which the fanatical and cruel monarch sought to destroy. Some degree of leniency was extended to those persons who yielded up the holy books that had been committed to their care; and not a few embraced this opportunity of saving their lives. When the rigors of persecution were lessened, the churches sought to judge their members who had weakened in their allegiance to the faith, as shown by their surrender of the scriptures, and all such were anathematized as traitors. Inasmuch as many books that had been thus given up under the pressure of threatening death were not at that time generally accepted as holy, it became a question of first importance to decide just which books were of such admitted sanct.i.ty that their betrayal would make a man a traitor.[754] Hence we find Eusebius designating the books of the Messianic and apostolic days as of two cla.s.ses:--(1) Those of acknowledged canonicity, viz:--the gospels, the epistles of Paul, Acts, I John, I Peter, and probably the Apocalypse. (2) Those of disputed authenticity, viz:--the epistles of James, II Peter, II and III John, and Jude. To these cla.s.ses he added a third cla.s.s, including books that were admittedly spurious.[755]

[754] See Tregelles' "Historic Evidence of the Origin ... of the Books of the New Testament," p. 12--.

[755] See Eusebius, "Ecclesiastical History," iii, 25.

=21.= As stated, the list published by Athanasius, which dates from near the middle of the fourth century, gives the const.i.tution of the New Testament as we now have it; and at that time all doubts as to the correctness of the enumeration seem to have been put to rest; and we find the Testament of common acceptance by professing Christians in Rome, Egypt, Africa, Syria, Asia Minor, and Gaul. The testimony of Origen, who flourished in the third century, and that of Tertullian, who lived during the second, were tested and p.r.o.nounced conclusive by the later writers in favor of the canonicity of the gospels and the apostolic writings. Each book was tested on its own merits, and all were declared by common consent to be authoritative and binding on the churches.

=22.= If there be need to go farther back, we may note the testimony of Irenaeus, distinguished in ecclesiastical history as Bishop of Lyons; he lived in the latter half of the second century, and is known as a disciple of Polycarp, who was personally a.s.sociated with the Revelator, John. His voluminous writings affirm the authenticity of most of the books of the New Testament, and define their authorship as at present admitted. To these testimonies may be added those of the Saints in Gaul, who wrote to their fellow-sufferers in Asia, quoting freely from gospels, epistles, and the Apocalypse;[756] the declarations of Melito, Bishop of Sardis, who journeyed to the East to determine which were the canonical books, particularly of the Old Testament;[757] and the solemn attest of Justin Martyr, who embraced Christianity as a result of his earnest and learned investigations, and who suffered death for his convictions. In addition to individual testimony, we have that of ecclesiastical councils and official bodies, by whom the question of authenticity was tried and decided. In this connection may be mentioned the Council of Nice, 325 A. D.; the Council of Laodicea, 363 A. D.; the Council of Hippo, 393 A. D.; the third and the sixth Councils of Carthage, 397 and 419 A. D.

[756] See Eusebius, book iv.

[757] Eusebius iv, 26.

=23.= Since the date last named, no dispute as to the authenticity of the New Testament has claimed much attention; surely the present is too late a time, and the separating distance today is too vast, to warrant the reopening of the question. The New Testament must be accepted for what it claims to be; and though, perhaps, many precious parts have been suppressed or lost, while some corruptions of the sacred texts may have crept in, and errors have been inadvertently introduced through the incapacity of translators, the volume as a whole must be admitted as authentic and credible, and as an essential part of the holy scriptures.[758]

[758] Compare John v, 39.

=24. Cla.s.sification of the New Testament.=--The New Testament comprises twenty-seven books, conveniently cla.s.sified as:--

(1.) Historical 5 (2.) Didactic 21 (3.) Prophetic 1

=25.= (1.) =The Historical Books= include the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. The authors of these works are spoken of as the evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; to Luke is ascribed the authorship of the Acts.

=26.= (2.) =The Didactic Books= comprise the epistles; and these we may arrange thus: (_1._) _The Epistles of Paul_, comprising (_a_) his doctrinal letters addressed to Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Hebrews; (_b_) his pastoral communications to Timothy, t.i.tus, and Philemon. (_2._) _The General Epistles_ of James, Peter, John, and Jude.

=27.= (3.) =The Prophetic Works=, consisting of the Revelation of John, commonly known as the Apocalypse.

THE BIBLE AS A WHOLE.

=28. Early Versions of the Bible.=--Many versions of the Old Testament and of the combined Testaments have appeared at different times. The Hebrew text with the Samaritan duplication of the Pentateuch, and the Greek translation, or the Septuagint (LXX), have been already noted.

Revisions and modified translations competed for favor with the Septuagint during the early ages of the Christian era; Theodotian, Aquila, and Symmachus each issued a new version. One of the first translations into Latin was the _Italic version_, probably prepared in the second century; this was later improved and amended, and then became known as the _Vulgate_; and this is still held by the church of Rome to be the authentic version. This version included both Old and New Testaments.

=29. Many Modern Versions in English=, some fragmentary, others complete, have appeared since the beginning of the thirteenth century.

About 1380 A. D., Wycliffe presented an English translation of the New Testament, made from the Vulgate; the Old Testament was afterward added. About 1525 A. D., Tyndale's translation of the New Testament appeared; this was included in Coverdale's Bible, printed in 1535, which const.i.tuted the first version of the complete Bible. Matthew's Bible dates from 1537; Taverner's Bible from 1539, and Cranmer's Great Bible from the same year. In 1560 the Geneva Bible appeared; in 1568 the Bishops' Bible, the first English version having chapter and verse divisions; and in 1611 the so-called Authorized English Version, or King James' translation, this being a new translation of Old and New Testaments from the Hebrew and Greek, made by forty-seven scholars at the command of King James I. This has superseded all earlier versions, and is the form now in current use among Protestants. But even this latest and supposedly best version was found to contain many and serious errors; and in 1885 a revised version was issued, which, however, has not yet been accorded general acceptance.

=30. Genuineness and Authenticity of the Bible.=--However interesting and instructive these historical and literary data of the Jewish scriptures may be, the consideration of such is subordinate to that of the authenticity of the books; for as we, in common with the rest of the Christian world, have accepted them as the word of G.o.d, it is eminently proper that we should inquire into the genuineness of the records upon which our faith is so largely founded. All evidences furnished by the Bible itself, such as its language, historical details, and the consistency of its contents, unite in supporting its claim to genuineness as the actual works of the authors to whom the separate parts are ascribed. In a mult.i.tude of instances, comparisons are easy between the biblical record and contemporary history not scriptural, particularly in regard to biography and genealogy, and, in all such cases, striking agreement has been found.[759] Further argument exists in the individuality maintained by each writer, resulting in a marked diversity of style; while the wondrous unity pervading the whole declares the operation of some single guiding influence throughout the ages of the record's growth; and this can be nothing less than the power of inspiration which operated upon all who were accepted as instruments in the Divine Hand to prepare this book of books. Tradition, contemporary history, literary a.n.a.lysis, and above and beyond all these, the test of prayerful research and truth-seeking investigation, unite to prove the authenticity of this wondrous volume, and to point the way, defined within its covers, leading men back to the Eternal Presence.

[759] See Note 7.

=31. Book of Mormon Testimony regarding the Bible.=--As declared in the eighth of the Articles of Faith now under consideration, the Latter-day Saints accept the Book of Mormon as a volume of sacred scripture, which, like the Bible, embodies the word of G.o.d. In the next lecture the Book of Mormon will receive our special attention; but it may be profitable to refer here to the collateral evidence furnished by that work regarding the authenticity of the Jewish scriptures, and of the general integrity of these latter in their present form. According to the Book of Mormon record, the Prophet Lehi, with his family and some others, left Jerusalem by the command of G.o.d, about 600 B. C., during the first year of King Zedekiah's reign. Before finally forsaking the land of their nativity, the travelers secured certain records, which were engraved on plates of bra.s.s. Among these writings were a history of the Jews and some of the scriptures then accepted as authentic.

=32.= Lehi examined the brazen record--"And he beheld that they did contain the five books of Moses, which gave an account of the creation of the world, and also of Adam and Eve, who were our first parents; and also a record of the Jews from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah; and also the prophecies of the holy prophets, from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah; and also many prophecies which have been spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah."[760] This direct reference to the Pentateuch and to certain of the Jewish prophets is valuable external evidence concerning the authenticity of those parts of the biblical record.

[760] I Nephi v, 10-13.

=33.= In a vision, Nephi, the son of Lehi, learned of the future of G.o.d's plan regarding the human family; and saw that a book of great worth, containing the word of G.o.d and the covenants of the Lord with Israel, would go forth from the Jews to the Gentiles.[761] It is further stated that Lehi's company, who, as we shall see, were led across the waters to the western continent, whereon they established themselves and afterward grew to be a numerous and powerful people, were accustomed to study the scriptures engraved on the plates of bra.s.s; and, moreover, their scribes embodied long quotations therefrom in their own growing record.[762] So much for Book of Mormon recognition of the Old Testament, or at least of such parts of the Jewish canon as had been completed when Lehi's migrating colony left Jerusalem, during the ministry of the prophet Jeremiah.

[761] See I Nephi xiii, 21-23.

[762] I Nephi xx-xxi; II Nephi vii-viii; xii-xxiv.

=34.= But further, concerning the New Testament scriptures this voice from the western world is not silent. In prophetic vision, many of the Nephite teachers saw and fore-told the ministry of Christ in the meridian of time, and recorded predictions concerning the princ.i.p.al events of the Savior's life and death, with striking fidelity and detail. This testimony is recorded of Nephi,[763] Benjamin,[764] who was both prophet and king, Abinadi,[765] Samuel the converted Lamanite,[766] and others. In addition to these and many other prophecies regarding the mission of Christ, all of which agree with the New Testament record of their fulfillment, we find in the Book of Mormon an account of the risen Lord's ministrations among the Nephite people, during which He established His Church with them, after the pattern recorded in the New Testament; and, moreover, He gave them many instructions in words almost identical with those of His teachings among the Jews in the east.[767]

[763] I Nephi x, 4-5; xi-xiii; xiv; II Nephi ix, 5; x, 3; xxv, 26; xxvi, 24.

[764] Mosiah iii; iv, 3.

[765] Mosiah xiii-xvi.

[766] Helaman xiv, 12.

[767] III Nephi ix-xxvi; compare for New Testament references with Matthew v-vii etc.; and for Old Testament mention with Isaiah liv; Malachi iii-lv.

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 a.s.syria, 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 a.s.signed 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 _a.n.a.lysis 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. Ma.n.u.script Copies of the New Testament.=--Three ma.n.u.scripts 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 ma.n.u.script 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._ Irenaeus, 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 Irenaeus 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 princ.i.p.al 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 a.n.a.logy a.s.sumed by Irenaeus 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.]