THE CANON

We have considered the subject of Revelation, objectively as an apocalypse or divine unveiling of the truth, and subjectively as the faith received by man; and we have further considered the divine-human manner in which this revelation was committed to writing through the inspiration of the Spirit; it remains for us to complete this study by considering more in detail the specific character of, the Bible as containing the divinely authorized documents of the Christian faith. This leads us directly to a study of the Canon of Holy Scripture, which we must regard not only as the Christian rule of faith and practice, but also as the ultimate critical standard of religious thought. 

By the canonicity of a book is meant its right to a place in the collection of sacred writings. The word canon (kanwn) means literally, a straight rod, or a measuring reed. It is used in both an active and a passive sense-active as a test or standard of measurement, passive as applied to that which has been measured. In this dual sense, the word canon is applied to Holy Scripture. In the objective sense, the canonical books are - those which have measured up to the standard tests. In a subjective sense, these measured or canonical books become the Rule of Faith in the Church. This seems to be the meaning of Gal. 6:16 where the Apostle Paul pronounces a benediction upon as many as walk according to this rule. Semler and others held that the word canon originally meant simply a list and was employed by early ecclesiastical writers to designate a catalogue of things that belonged to the Church. In this sense it was applied to a collection of hymns to be sung on festival occasions, and in some instances to the list of the names of church members. It was particularly applied to the publicly approved catalogue of all the books that might be read in the Church for edification and instruction. In this sense it is thought to discriminate between the canonical books which might be read authoritatively in the Church, and the apocryphal which might be read for instruction but not as a standard or rule of faith. Bicknell agrees with this, pointing out that the word canonical (kanonizein) was sometimes applied to a single book, but indicates that it soon came to be used in the more general sense as a standard to which an appeal could be made (Cf. BICKNELL, Thirty-Nine Articles, p. 176). 

The word canon is first found in the writings of Amphilochius (380), though Athanasius uses the word canonical in his Festal Epistle (367). Since the time of Jerome, the term canon has been used in both the objective and subjective senses, the one dependent upon the other. The word Biblia has been in use since the fifth century and signifies a collection of books par excellence. It was probably first used by Chrysostom. 

Before taking up a more detailed study of the development of the canon, the following observations are necessary. 

1. The canonicity of a book was not settled by the authority of the primitive Church, but by its testimony. This is an important distinction. As the church does not rest its belief in miracles on the authority of the early Christians, but on their witness and attestation, so in the matter of the Gospels and Epistles, it was not their decision as to the inspiration of the contents that renders them authoritative now, but their testimony as to their apostolic authorship. "The authority of the first Christians," says Dr. Shedd, "is no higher than that of any other Christians, but their testimony is" (SHEDD, Dogm. Th., I, p. 142).      

Dr. Shedd refers to a statement by Coleridge to this effect, that "we receive the books ascribed to John and Paul as their books, on the judgment of men for whom no miraculous discernment is pretended. shall we give these less credence than to John and Paul themselves? The modern Church does not receive John's Gospel and Paul's Epistles as canonical, on the 'judgment' or decision of the primitive Church respecting their contents, but on their testimony respecting their authorship." SHEDD, Dogm. Th., p. 142.

 

2. The tests which the early Christians applied to the books circulated among the churches were simple, being limited generally to apostolic origin or authorization. It was held as an unquestioned fact that the Lord committed to the apostles alone the authority to direct the Church, and therefore all that was demanded was a certain knowledge of apostolic authority. For this reason the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke were never questioned, for they were understood to have been written - by the authority of St. Peter and St. Paul. When authorship was uncertain, the so-called Regula Fidei, or "rule of faith" as indicated above was brought to bear, and in addition to this the testimony of those churches that held these documents. But this harmony with the rule of faith, and this testimony of the individual churches, were always regarded as subordinate though sufficient tests. 

 

3. The human element in the formation of the canon needs to be given proper consideration also. In this respect there is a parallel between the Holy Scriptures and Him of whom they testify. This parallel we have already indicated, but must now give it further emphasis. As there is in the Person of our Lord a divine and a human side, united in the one life of the God-man; so in the sacred Scriptures there is divine revelation, law and promise on the one side, and human apprehension and representation on the other. As in the doctrines concerning the Person of Christ there was Docetism on the one hand which minified the humanity of Christ in order to exalt His deity, so there was on the other hand, Socinianism which magnified His humanity at the expense of His divinity. The Scriptures have likewise had their Docetists and their Socinians, an exaltation which amounted almost to bibliolatry on the one hand and a rationalism on the other, which had as its avowed purpose and attempt to reduce the Bible wholly to a human plane. Van Oosterzee says that at every step the impartial reader must exclaim, "How divine!" and again "How human!" As a failure to grasp and hold the great truth that the Personal Word incarnate was both divine and human led to heretical opinions, so any undue emphasis upon either phase of the Scriptures to the detriment of the other will prove disastrous, to both correct doctrine and genuine experience. 

 

  

 

THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON

 

The Old Testament Scriptures were arranged in three main divisions, (I) The Law (Torah); (II) The Prophets (Nebiim); and (III) The Writings (Kethubim), the latter being generally known as the Hagiographa. The first division included the Pentateuch; the second was divided into the Former or Earlier Prophets which included the historical books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings; and the Latter Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Twelve; the third division included the Psalms, Proverbs and Job, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, the Chronicles, and the five "rolls" or Megilloth-Songs of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes and Esther. Since the Psalms formed the first book in the third division, the Scriptures are sometimes referred to as the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms (Matt. 11:13, Luke 16:16, Acts 26:22, Rom. 10:5). 

 

The beginnings of the Old Testament canon are shrouded in mystery. We are told that Moses before his death wrote a book of the law, which he commanded the Levites to put in the side of the ark, that it may be there for a witness against thee (Deut. 31:26). In this book of the law it is enjoined upon every future king that it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: and it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life (Deut. 17:18, 19). Later it is recorded that Joshua made a covenant with the people and wrote these words in the book of the law of God (Joshua 24:26). This appears to have been an addition to that which was in the keeping of the Levites. Still later Samuel, previous to the establishing of the people under the kingship of Saul, told the people the manner of the kingdom, and wrote it in a book, and laid it up before the Lord (I Sam. 10:25). Under the reforms of Jehoshaphat (c. 914 B.C.) there was a purification of worship which took away the elements of Baalim and exalted the worship of Jehovah. At this time under the direction of the king, the princes together with certain Levites and priests taught in Judah and had the book of the law . . . . with them, and went about throughout all the cities of Judah, and taught the people (II Chron. 17:9). 

 

But the outstanding date in the formation of the Old Testament canon, is 621 B.C., when Hilkiah the high priest discovered the book of the law in the temple, during the earlier part of the reign of Josiah. And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord. . . . . And Shaphan the scribe shewed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king (II Kings 22:8, 10). Immediately following this Josiah the king called a great convocation composed of the elders of Judah and Jerusalem, the priests, the prophets and all the people, both small and great, and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant which was found in the house of the Lord. And the king stood by a pillar and made a covenant before the Lord. . . . that were written in this book. And all the people stood to the covenant (II Kings 23:1-3). This is considered a landmark in the history of the canon. While there are references to the law of God as early as Amos (B.C. 759-745) and Hosea (B.C. 743-737), they do not give us the extent of the books which were then included in the canon. (Cf. Amos 2:4 and Hosea 8:12). In commenting on this convocation of Josiah, Sanday says that we have here a solemn religious act, by which the king and the people alike accepted the book read before them as expressing the divine will, and took its precepts as binding upon themselves. This is the essential meaning that, as applied to a book, is contained in the epithet "canonical" which means "authoritative," and authoritative because in its ultimate origin divine (Cf. SANDAY, Bible E. R. E., ii 565). 

 

The next important date concerning the first division of the Old Testament canon is the promulgation of the Law in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (c. 500-450 B.C.). The Law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded to Israel (Neh. 8:1ff) was read before the people, and a covenant was made which was sealed by the princes, Levites and priests (Neh. 9:38, 10:1ff). From a study of Nehemiah chapters 8-10 it seems evident that the Book of Joshua was included with the Pentateuch, or the Hexateuch, substantially as we now have it. There is in this connection also, the testimony of the Samaritan Pentateuch which likewise dates from the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (500-450 B.C.). It is significant, however, that the Samaritans accepted as canonical, only the Pentateuch, which seems to indicate that at this early date when the Jews and Samaritans formed their separate communities, the canon contained only the Pentateuch. We may allow that the first division of the Hebrew Scriptures-that of the Torah or Law, was fully accepted as canonical by 440 B.C. 

The story of the Samaritans is told in II Kings 17:6, 24, 26, 27, 28, 33. The king of Assyria brought these people to Palestine to take the place of the Jewish captives which had been carried away to his own land. Later, owing to their belief that the God of Israel was against them, a captive Jewish priest was sent to teach them, but the people combined Jehovah worship with that of their own gods. When Nehemiah restored Jerusalem, hostility arose between them and the Jews. Green says, "that after being repulsed by the Jews, the Samaritans, to substantiate their claim of being sprung from ancient Israel, eagerly adopted the Pentateuch which was brought to them by a renegade priest." But this fact witnesses to our Pentateuch as existing in its present form as far back as the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. 

 

The second or Prophetico-Historical section of the Old Testament canon, commonly known as the "Prophets," was likewise gradual in its development. Bicknell thinks that the reason Ezra and Nehemiah, as well as Chronicles were not included in this second division was due to the possibility that when these books were composed, the canon was at least well on its way to being closed. Also that the free manner in which the Chronicler treats the text of Samuel and Kings, together with the strange variations in the Septuagint translation of Samuel, seems to indicate that these books were not fully recognized as canonical by the year 300 B.C. The earliest reference to the "Prophets" as a definite collection of writings is found about 200 B.C. There is a reference in Ecclesiasticus (c. 180 B.C.) to the "twelve prophets" as being parallel to Jeremiah and Ezekiel (Ecclus. 49:10), and a reference in Daniel which quotes Jeremiah as authoritative (Dan. 9:2). We may regard this portion of the canon, therefore, as being closed about 200 B.C. 

 

The third division or Hagiographa is even more obscure. As the name indicates, this division contained writings of a diverse character. The earliest reference made to it is in the prologue to Ecclesiasticus (130 B.C.) where the expression The Law, the Prophets and the other writings" is used. In I Maccabees (7:17) Psalm 79 is referred to as Scripture. We may regard this section of the canon as being closed about 100 B.C. Wakefield thinks that the canon of Old Testament Scripture originated somewhat in the following manner. When the Jews returned from Babylon and re-established divine worship, they collected the inspired books which they      

 

"There is no sufficient reason," says Pond, "for supposing that any of the canonical books of Scripture have been lost. We can hardly reconcile it with our ideas of the wisdom and the goodness of God, that He should suffer such an event to take place nor is it likely that He has. Mention is indeed made in the Old Testament of certain books which are no longer extant; such as "the book of Jasher" (Josh. 10:13) and "The book of the Wars of the Lord" (Numbers 21:14). But there is no evidence that either of these was ever included in the Jewish canon, or was entitled to be there. And the same remark may be made respecting "The book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel" so often referred to in the first Book of the Kings. This was not the Book of Chronicles which we have in our Bibles, but the authorized records of the kingdom of Israel, made and kept by the kings' scribes It was the register of what we would call the Secretary of State. The three thousand proverbs of Solomon, and his songs which were one thousand and five together with his works on botany and natural history, would no doubt: be very entertaining, if we had authentic copies of them but there is no evidence that these works ever claimed inspiration or were ever admitted into the sacred canon of the Jews.-POND, Lectures on Christian Theology, p. 53.

 

still possessed, and in this manner began a sacred library as before they had done with the Law. To this collection they afterward added the writings of Zechariah, Malachi, and other distinguished prophets and priests, who wrote during the captivity or shortly after; and also the Books of the Kings, Chronicles, and other historical writings, which had been compiled from the ancient records of the nation. The collection thus made was ever afterward considered complete, and the books composing it were called the Holy Scriptures; or the Law and the Prophets. Sometimes also they used the threefold division as we have previously pointed out, referring to the Scriptures, as "the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms." 

Jewish authorities recognized the canon of the Old Testament as we now have it, as being in existence at the time of Christ. Josephus says, "We have only twenty-two books which are to be trusted as having divine authority, of which five are the books of Moses. From his death to the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, the prophets, who were the successors of Moses, have written thirteen books. The remaining four contain hymns to God, and documents of life for human edification" (Against Apion 1:8). Our present Bible makes twenty-four by separating Ruth from Judges, and Lamentations from Jeremiah. Philo of Alexandria never quotes from an apocryphal book, although he does quote from nearly all the books of the Hebrew canon. We may regard the action taken by the Council of Jamnia 90 A.D. as the final stage in the fixing of the Jewish canon. After the fall of Jerusalem, Jamnia became the center for Palestinian Judaism, and the action taken there included in the canon all the books in the English Old Testament and no others (Cf. BICKNELL, Thirty-Nine Articles, p. 178). 

 

The highest witness to the canon of the Old Testament as divinely inspired, is for the church, to be found in the fact that it was ratified by our Lord and His apostles. The importance of such supreme testimony cannot be overestimated, in establishing the Old Testament Scriptures as the sufficient and infallible Oracles of God, for the preparatory dispensation. It is just this,. in fact, that seals the Jewish canon as Christian Scriptures to be united with those which should afterward be given by the same Spirit, thus completing the objective canon of all the sacred Scriptures of the two dispensations. Of this evidence Dr. Pope writes that their divine origin is guaranteed to the Church by the fact "that the Saviour has given His authenticating testimony to the whole body of them in their integrity. That sanction, First, makes the Old Testament the revelation of Christ. As it testified of Him so He testifies of it. He took it into His hands, and blessed it, and hallowed it forever as His own. As revelation is Christ, and Christ is the subject of the Old Testament, the Old Testament is of necessity the revelation of God. Knowing better than any human critic can know all its internal obscurities, He sealed it nevertheless for the reverence of His people. The canon of the ancient oracles, precisely as we hold them now, no more no less, he sanctified and gave to the Church as the early preparatory records of His own Gospel and kingdom. That sanction, Second, assures us that the New Testament is His own authoritative completion of the Scriptures of revelation" (POPE, Compend Chr. Th., pp. 39, 40). 

 

  

 

THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON

 

The formation of the canon of the New Testament Scriptures was likewise a gradual process, extending over a considerable period of time. It runs through the entire ante-Nicene period and may be said to have been closed at the end of the fourth century - every vestige of doubt concerning any of the books having disappeared by that time. The earliest stage in the formation of the New Testament canon, is to be found in the collections of writings made by the local churches, and in some instances by churches within a given area. That there was an early collection of the Pauline Epistles is indicated in II Peter 3:16 where it is stated that in all his epistles, there are some things hard to be understood.

 

In Col. 4:16 the author requests that when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea. There is evidence also that the epistle to the Ephesians was at first a circular letter, for in the two oldest MSS the words "at Ephesus" (1:1) are omitted. On this basis these words were added because the epistle was finally lodged at Ephesus. Some have thought, also, that the Epistle to the Romans was used as a circular letter without the addition of the last chapters. It may be readily understood how each church would preserve its own epistles and thereby, almost unconsciously, began the growth of the New Testament canon. 

The Earliest Canons. The earliest mention of a definite canon is that of Marcion (140 A.D.). He collected St. Paul's Epistles, rejecting the Pastoral Epistles, and adding a mutilated version of St. Luke's Gospel. Regarded as a heretic by the Church, he recorded only those epistles which seemed to accord with his heretical opinions, and made changes in the Gospel of Luke to substantiate his positions. The other three Gospels were rejected. The Muratorian Canon was formed about 200 A.D., a fragment which contained a list of the books regarded as authoritative in Rome. This includes the four Gospels, Acts, all the Epistles of St. Paul, the Apocalypse, two Epistles of St. John, St. Jude, and the first Epistle of St. Peter. Hebrews, St. James, and one, probably the third Epistle of St. John, are omitted. The second       

 

The only books of the New Testament which have been accounted lost, are an Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, supposed to precede what we are accustomed to regard as his first epistle; and his Epistle to the Laodiceans (Col. 4:16). But the epistle of which Paul speaks in I Cor. 5:9 was undoubtedly the very epistle which he was then writing. The passage is badly translated in our version; not "I wrote unto you in an epistle," but "I have written unto you in the epistle"; that is, in this epistle - the very writing which I now send. . . . . The Epistle to the Laodiceans has been justly regarded as no other than the Epistle to the Ephesians. As Ephesus was the chief city of proconsular Asia, this epistle may have been designed for all the churches In the province; among which was the church of the Laodiceans. There was an Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans extant in the fifth century; but it was manifestly a forgery, and never had a place in the sacred canon.-POND, Lectures on Christian Theology, p. 53.

 

Epistle of St. Peter is regarded as doubtful. Hermas is to be read privately but not in the Church. Dr. Shedd thinks that the reference made here is to a conception that was gradually forming in the minds of Christians, that of a New Testament as a companion to the Old Testament, and therefore the books of the New Testament are cited as Scripture. 

The Early Catalogues of Scripture. At a very early period, catalogues or lists of the books of the New Testament were drawn up by different persons. The earliest of these was that of Origen (210 A.D.), who for some reason omits the Epistles of James and Jude, while acknowledging them in other parts of his writings. The next is that of Eusebius (315) A.D., who makes a distinction between the homologoumena and the antilogoumena which we shall treat in our next section. The catalogue of Athanasius is of the same date as that of Eusebius, and exactly corresponds with our present canon. Bicknell places this catalogue at even an earlier date than that of Eusebius (307 A.D.), and states that the canon of Epiphanius in his work on Heresies is also identical with our own. The catalogue of Cyril of Jerusalem (340 A.D.) and that of the Council of Laodicea (364 A.D.) contain all the New Testament books except the Apocalypse, which is rejected also by Gregory Nazianzen (375 A.D.) and Amphilochius of Iconium. Philostrius, Bishop of Brescia (380 A.D.) leaves out both the Apocalypse and the Epistle to the Hebrews; but Jerome (382 A.D.), Ruffinus (390 A.D.) and Augustine (394 A.D.) contain the full lists of the New Testament books as acknowledged. It may be mentioned in this connection also, that the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS belong to the middle of the fourth century (c. 325-350 A.D.). The former contains all the books except Philemon, Titus, I-II Timothy, Hebrews and the Apocalypse. The latter contains all the Gospels, all the Epistles and the Apocalypse. 

 

The Homologoumena and the Antilogoumena. The catalogue of Eusebius as previously mentioned, gives a list of all the books as accepted by his contemporaries, but arranges them in two classes as the acknowledged books, homologoumena (omologoumena), and the disputed books, antilogoumena (antilogomena); to which he adds a third class also, the spurious or rejected books, notha (noqa). In the first class, he places the following: the four Gospels, Acts, the Epistles of St. Paul, I Peter and I John, and with some hesitation mentions the Apocalypse. In the second class are the following: St. James, St. Jude, II and III John and II Peter. Here he again mentions the Apocalypse. Hebrews is not mentioned, but it is probably classed with the Epistles of St. Paul. He admits, however, that the authorship is disputed by the Roman Church. In the last class he mentions the Acts of Paul, Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Didache or so-called "Teachings of the Apostles." It seems, also, that the Apocalypse is included, though this is doubtful. It will be seen from this that the Apocalypse was not as yet fully classified. It should be observed that the seven books classified as antilogoumena were not rejected books, but subjected merely to suspended judgment, some because the authorship was not certain, as in the case of the Epistle to the Hebrews, some were written to the Christians at large and were not under the protection of any particular church, while others were addressed to individual men, and on that account were not readily accepted. In later times the antilogoumena were sometimes classified as Deutero-Canonical. In the third class mentioned above, the rejected books were not regarded as spurious in the sense of not being truthful, but only as not having sufficient warrant for canonicity. A few of these small treatises were received in the earlier church with great veneration, as written by men who had been companions to the Apostles. Among these were the epistles of Clement of Rome, Barnabas and Hermas. They were included in the earliest Codices, where they still may be found, but only as supplements. 

 

Conciliar Action. The first conciliar action concerning the establishment of the canon, was taken by the Synod of Carthage, which formally ratified the canon as it now stands. This date according to Bicknell is either 397 A.D. or 419 A.D. This decision was confirmed by the Trullan Council in 692 A.D. As previously stated, the action of these councils did not authorize the present canon of Scripture, but only confirmed what had already been accepted by general usage. "So we may sum up the history of the Canon," says Bicknell, "as the gradual work of the collective consciousness of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit. It was a task of not only collecting but sifting and rejecting. . . . . It was a work in which all members of the body played their part. The devotional taste of the multitude was guided and corrected by the learning and spiritual enlightenment  

       

The final ratification was brought about by the pressure of persecution directed against the sacred writings; but there ought to be no doubt that this was under the special supervision of the Holy Ghost. The parallel (with the formation of the Old Testament canon) is so far complete. But there were some peculiarities In the case of the new collection. The gospel was diffused over the world, and every church was the guardian of its own holy books, while every province of early Christendom had its own special selection of Scriptures; there were also numberless heresies, multiplying their spurious productions. These two circumstances tended to make the concurrence of the Christian Church in the final acceptance of the New Testament writings a more remarkable fact than the unanimity of the Jewish Church In regard to the Old Testament."-POPE, Compend. Chr. Th., I, p. 199.   The four Gospels were from the first distinguished from the apocryphal. Justin Martyr (163 A.D.) speaks of "memoirs" of Christ as the work of the evangelists. Irenaeus (202 A.D.) cites passages from all four of the canonical Gospels. Clement and Tertullian (220 A.D.) do the same. Tatian (172 A.D.), and Ammonius (200 A.D.), arranged harmonies of the four Gospels. Theodoret (457 A.D.) found two hundred copies of Tatian's harmony in the Syrian churches, which he took away from them, because of some heresy it contained. Neander supposes that Tatian mixed some things with the canonical Gospels from the apocryphal. Origen (250 A.D.), writes a commentary on Matthew and John. These facts prove the general acceptance of the four Gospels as canonical, prior to 250 A.D. Yet there was no action of the church in a general council to this effect.-Cf. SHEDD, Dogm. Th., p. 146.   As an evidence of the genuineness of the New Testament writings, we may cite quotations from Clement as early as the first century. Also from Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Athenagoras and Theophilus of Antioch. Eusebius collected this testimony, especially that of the ecclesiastical writers of the first three centuries, from Ignatius to Origen, and published it as early as 325 A.D.). It may be found in his History (III, xxv; VII, xxv) and also in his work entitled Demonstratio Evangelica.   Another evidence of the genuineness of the canonical books of the N. T. is found in the early versions. The Peshito Syriac translation was made about 175 A.D. and the Old Latin (Itala) about the same time. The two Egyptian versions were made about 250 A.D. and the Ethiopic about 350 A.D.

   of its leaders. Their decisions approved themselves to the mind and conscience of the whole Church." - BICKNELL, The Thirty-Nine Articles, p. 182. As the Old Testament canon was not closed until the Spirit of inspiration was withdrawn, so when the time was fully come, we may believe that the same Spirit closed the volume of the New Testament.   

The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. As previously stated, the Jewish canon was regarded as complete by about 100 B.C. However edifying books continued to be written, and were widely used and quoted, but were not regarded as on the same plane with the canonical Scriptures. But this was true only in Palestine. The Hellenistic Jews, especially those of Alexandria took an entirely different attitude. They not only adopted a different arrangement of the books but included among them many later writings, these for the most part being the books now regarded as apocryphal. Thus the early Christian Church as it extended its borders beyond Palestine, found itself confronted with a greater and lesser canon. Since many of these were uninformed, the great body of the Church went on using the Greek Bible and the Alexandrian canon. But Jerome and other learned men who understood the Hebrew language recognized that there was a narrower and truer canon. This Jerome accepted and defended. He was opposed by Augustine, through whose influence in the Councils of Hippo (393 A.D.) and of Carthage (397 A.D.), the apocryphal books were declared to be canonical Scripture, and were thereafter quoted as such by later writers. 

 

The word Apocrypha, which came to be applied to the extra-canonical books in the second century, has a number of different meanings. Originally it meant "hidden," and referred to either a secret origin or a secret authority. But the idea of an esoteric teaching was repugnant to the spirit of Christianity, and soon came to mean heretical or spurious. As used by Jerome, however, it simply meant noncanonical. It is in this sense that the Apocrypha is now understood. Protestantism rejected the Apocrypha and accepted the Jewish rather than the Alexandrian canon, the Jewish Scriptures rather than the Septuagint. 

 

The Pseudepigrapha as the name implies was a collection of spurious writings outside both the canonical Scriptures and the Apocryphal books, and never having had any reception in the Jewish or Christian Church. Athanasius, as did the earlier church fathers, distinguished between the canonical (omologoumena), those worthy of being read, though not canonical, (antilogomena), and the fictitious works of heretics (noqa). In the first class he placed the twenty-two Hebrew books which make the Jewish canon, in the Second, what we call the Apocrypha, and in the Third, the pseudepigrapha. The Greek Church retains the same order. 

 

What is commonly called the New Testament Apocrypha is a collection of spurious writings, which were never published in connection with the canonical Scriptures. They were, however, in part at least, gathered      

 

Enoch Pond in his Lectures on Christian Theology gives the following arguments against the inspiration of the apocryphal books. (1) They are not found in the Hebrew Bible. They were written originally not in Hebrew but in Greek-a language which was not common among the Jews perhaps not known among them, until after the Old Testament was closed. (2) These apocryphal books have never been received into the sacred canon of the Jews. They are ancient Jewish writings but have never been regarded by that people as Inspired. (3) The apocryphal books are never quoted or referred to in the New Testament as possessing any divine authority. (4) The internal evidence is decisive. (5) The writer of the Maccabees disclaims inspiration. He says, "I will here make an end of my narrative. If I have done well, it is what I desired; but if slenderly and meanly, it is what I could attain unto."   As internal evidence against the apocryphal books, Pond cites the following: "They inculcate false doctrine, and a false and unchristian morality. In the Second of the Maccabees we read, "It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from their sins (12:44-45). The writer of the same book both justifies and commends suicide, "when he was ready to be taken, he fell upon his own sword, choosing to die nobly, rather than fall into the hands of the wicked" (14:41, 42). In several places in the Apocrypha, atonement and justification are represented as being secured by works. "whoso honoreth his father, maketh atonement for his sin" (Ecclus. 3:3). "Alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin" (Tobit 12:9). - POND, Lect. Chr. Th., p. 48.   The addition of Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah by Origen and others was occasioned by their being appended to the genuine writings of that prophet in the MSS of the Septuagint. This too will account for the fact that Ambrose, Augustine, and others after them, In the Latin Church, who used the Septuagint, spoke of the apocryphal books as canonical, because they were placed with the canonical books, as being in the same language. - SUMMERS, Syst. Th., I, pp. 503, 504.

 

up and published under the title "Apocryphal Books of the New Testament." There is no evidence that can be claimed for them as inspired writings, and they have never been accepted by the Church as any part of the Scriptures. 

 

Later History of the Canon. As may be inferred from our discussion of the Apocrypha, the question of the canon was for a long time an open and perplexing one in the mediaeval Church. In 1441 A.D. the Council of Florence passed a decree which declared most of the apocryphal books to be canonical. At the time of the Reformation when the lines were being drawn so closely between the Roman Catholic Church and Protestantism, the Council of Trent in 1546 abolished all differences between the books and declared them all canonical. This action being taken by a council reputedly few in number and in opposition to former catalogues, attempts were made by some of the later Romanist theologians to soften the position by distinguishing between Protocanonical and Deuterocanonical books, or a higher and a lower canon. The Greek Church, after many attempts to separate the apocryphal books from the canon, finally adopted the Apocrypha as canonical at a Jerusalem Synod under Dositheus in 1672 A.D. Protestantism universally rejected the Apocrypha as canonical. Luther, however, admitted the apocrypha as valuable for edification, but the Swiss Reformers were more rigorous in their rejection. The English Church is conciliatory and 

       

The books of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha are classified in various ways. The following is the usual classification:   The Old Testament Apocrypha: I Esdras, II Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Additions to Esther,    wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (or Wisdom of Sirach), Baruch, Epistle of Jeremy, Song of the Three Children, The Story of Susana, Bel and the Dragon, The Prayer of Manassah, I-II-III-IV Maccabees.   The New Testament Apocrypha: The Gospel of the Birth of Mary, The Protevangelium of James, The Gospel of the Infancy, the Gospel of Nicodemus (or Acts of Pilate), The Acts of Paul and Thecla.   The Pseudepigrapha: The Book of Jubilees, The Letter of Aristeas, The Books of Adam and Eve, The Martyrdom of Isaiah, I Enoch (Ethiopic), The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, The Sibylline Oracles, The Assumption of Moses, II Enoch (or the Book of the Secrets of Enoch, Slavonic), II Baruch (or the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch), III Baruch (or the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch), The Psalms of Solomon, Pirke Aboth, the Story of Ahikar, and The Fragments of a Zadokite Work.

regards as fully canonical, only those books of whose authority there was never any doubt, but admits public reading of some parts of the Apocrypha. The earlier Arminians adopted both the canonical books and the Apocrypha as Scripture, but the Methodist bodies everywhere, in common with the Westminster Confession, wholly rejected the apocryphal books as canonical. 

 

THE CANON AS A RULE OF FAITH 

The objective canon of Scripture in the sense of the accepted and approved connection of writings, becomes in turn the rule of faith in its application to the Christian Church. Here we define the objective canon as including the canonical books of both the Old and the New Testament, exclusive of the apocryphal books. These latter we regard on the human plane as comparable with other uninspired writings. They are of value from the historical standpoint, and their content in most instances, 15 edifying. We judge them as to their worth solely on the plane of human effort and ability, and in no sense view them as a rule of faith. The New Testament, however, declares itself as the consummation of Scripture, filling out or completing the revelation made through the Old Testament. This brings us directly to one of the earliest problems of the primitive church-that of the relation between the Old and the New Testament.

      

ARTICLE VI of the English Church is as follows: Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an Article of Faith, or be thought requisite necessary to salvation. (Here follows a list of the canonical books.) All the books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive and account them Canonical. And the other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine. (Here follows a list of the apocryphal books.)   Mr. Wesley in arranging the Twenty-Five Articles of Methodism uses the Sixth Article of the Anglican Confession, but omits all reference to the apocryphal books. He also substituted the names "The Book of Ezra" and "The Book of Nehemiah" for the I and II Books of Esdras as they are called In the Anglican Confession. In the last sentence, he omits the word "them" before "canonical."   ARTICLE IV. Church of the Nazarene: "We believe In the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures by which we understand the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testament, given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation; so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith."

    The Relation of the Old Testament to the New Testament. One of the first problems to rise in the early Church was that of its relation to Jewish Law. The Jews themselves were reluctant to give up any portion of their regulations, and the Gentiles were loath to receive them. Then, too, the historical perspective, having as yet little or no meaning to the Church, the backwardness of certain parts of the Old Testament constituted a real difficulty for the Christian conscience. It was on this ground of unchristian morality that Marcion and his adherents rejected the Old Testament. The problem became acute when the Apostle Paul declared that it was not necessary for the Gentiles to become Jews before becoming Christians. His Epistle to the Galatians is his declaration of independence as it concerns Judaism in itself. This rough but strong statement is given to the Church in its polished and perfected form in the Epistle to the Romans. The great apostle likewise declared his independence of paganism, in a like rugged and strong epistle - that to the Colossians. This we have in its finished form in the Epistle to the Ephesians. The controversy became so acute, that a council of the elders was called at Jerusalem, over which the Apostle James presided. The Pharisees demanded that the Gentiles be circumcised and keep the law of Moses. Peter, arguing from his experience at the household of Cornelius, and Paul and Barnabas citing the miracles and wonders which had been wrought of God, James rendered the final verdict in these words: Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God; but that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day (Acts 15:19-21). This was a victory for the liberal party, but the problem has been persistent in every succeeding age of the Church.   

At the opening of the Reformation Period, the problem came to the front again. Here it took a twofold form - that of minifying the Old Testament on the one hand, and an attempt to enforce the minute Jewish ceremonial regulations on the other. The earliest attempt in the English Church to settle this problem was the TEN ARTICLES of 1536, which passed rapidly through other statements and was given a more definite expression in the FORTY-TWO ARTICLES of 1553. The present ARTICLE VII of the Anglican Confession was formed by Archbishop Parker out of two of the earlier articles of 1553, and was directed against Romanism on the one hand, and the errors of the Anabaptists on the other. This represents, not only the conclusions of English Protestantism, but is in accord with all Protestantism. As finally settled, the solution took the form of three declarations. First, the Old Testament was not to be considered contrary to the New Testament, but to be regarded as an earlier and preparatory stage for Christianity We are to view the Old Testament as a progressive unfolding of God's revealed will, and that at each stage men and their actions are to be judged m accordance with the accepted standards of their times and m harmony with the amount of divine light accorded them. Second, God's promises to the Jews carried with them, not only promises of material blessing, but of spiritual light and salvation. They were not therefore to be regarded as "transitory," but as revelations on various levels and in varying degrees, of the one Messianic hope which found its perfect fulfillment in Christ (Cf. Heb. 1:1). Third, the question of the relation of the Church to Jewish Law was solved, by making a distinction between civil and ceremonial law on the one hand and moral law on law on the other. This is admittedly a radical distinction, for to the Jew every part of the law was equally      

 

ARTICLE VII, Anglican Confession: The Old Testament is not contrary to the New, for both in the Old and New Testaments everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and man, being both God and man. wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look for only transitory promises. Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching ceremonies and rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil Precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.

 

sacred. Nor could it have been made unless our Lord himself had first abrogated that part of it which belonged solely to the earlier economy. Thus that which was in Judaism as a logical accident and necessary to its earlier expression, is to be superseded by other and more spiritual forms of expression, though through all there abides the truth eternal. His direct statement as to His own relation of superiority to the law and his avowed purpose of lifting it to higher forms of expression (Cf. Matt. 5:38, 39, 43, 44); his assertion of lordship over even the Sabbath (Cf. Mark 2:28); and his references to the new cloth and the old garment (Mark 2:21, 22) and the new wine and the old wineskins, are sufficient proof that He anticipated new and higher forms of expression, for the truth to be revealed through the Holy Spirit. The Council of Jerusalem (A.D. 51) claimed the specific direction of the Holy Ghost, which Jesus had promised should be given as a Spirit of truth (Acts 15:28); and the decision was so definite as to what was to be retained, that there should be no doubt as to its intended abrogation. To this also, St. Paul's epistles to the Galatians and to the Romans bear direct evidence, declaring that the ritual and ceremonial law was abolished by One who had the authority so to do. 

 

This may be summed up as follows: The civil portions of the Law belonged to Israel as a nation. Since Christianity was regarded as a religion of universal import, these civil restrictions could not possibly be binding upon the Church. The new and spiritual Israel demanded new and universal laws, for in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28). This new law must be applicable to all nations, all peoples, all degrees of civilization and culture, and without distinction as to sex. It can therefore be nothing less than the law of faith (Cf. Rom. 3:21-28). Likewise, also, the ceremonial rites found their offices in the proper instruction of those who observed them. They admittedly pointed forward to Christ as their perfect fulfillment. Hence St. Paul argues that when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world; but when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons (Gal. 4:3-5). Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by' faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster (Gal. 3:24, 25). 

 

As respects the moral law, Christ did not abolish it, but declared his intention to deepen and vitalize it. And this He did because as such, the moral law is God's will for all men, and not necessarily entangled with the accidents of religious ceremonies or civil obligations. It belongs to the nature of man-is the law of His true being and could not be abrogated without the destruction of the human in its higher spiritual aspects. Then again the Christian is inspired by the new law of love as an inner impulsive power, and this exceeds a forced obedience to an outwardly imposed law. Hence there are many injunctions in the Scriptures, exhorting men to walk worthy of their profession by loving obedience to the moral law (Cf. Rom. 13:9, Eph. 6:2, James 2:10). 

 

 

EVIDENCES OF THE RULE OF FAITH 

 

Having given in brief, the evidences which support the claims of the several books of the Bible to canonicity, we must now make mention of those which are urged in favor of the Scriptures as the authoritative rule of faith and practice in the Church. These evidences properly belong to the field of Apologetics, which on account of its wide range of research and investigation is now generally regarded as a separate branch of theological science. Due to the assaults of infidelity in the past, and the attacks of destructive criticism in modern times, this field is peculiarly difficult. It should demand the attention of only those more mature students who have had the proper scholastic preparation for this work, and who in addition have access to the literature of modern research. This literature will be found in the numerous Introductions to Biblical Science, the various histories of the Canon and the general field of Apologetics. It is evident that the limited scope of this work prevents any extended treatment of the subject. Furthermore, we deem the objections of unbelief as of little worth to the student of theology generally. They do not usually arise from honest intellectual inquiry, but from an evil heart of unbelief. They are always short4ived, and therefore frequently replaced by newer and equally contradictory hypotheses. The development of modern historical research, and the recent discoveries in philology and archaeology, have in each instance served to strengthen and confirm the faith of the Church in the authenticity of the sacred Scriptures. Again, we have endeavored in our previous discussion of the Scriptures, to show that their life is not bound up solely with historical evidences, but is to be found also in the testimonium Spiritus Sancti, or the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit dwelling within the hearts of true believers through the atoning work of Jesus Christ, is found to be the same Spirit who breathes in the pages of the Holy Scriptures. Hence the strongest evidence for the authority of the Scriptures is to be found in the fact 'that the Spirit of Inspiration, to whom we are indebted for the authorship of the Bible, is Himself the Divine Witness to its genuineness and authenticity. 

 

Classification of Evidences. The evidences offered in support of the claims of the Bible as the authoritative rule of faith and practice in the church, are usually classified as External, Internal and Collateral. External evidences are so-called because they are regarded as external to the Bible, such as miracle and prophecy. These we have previously treated in connection with the subject of Revelation. Internal evidences are those found within the book itself and consists in the arguments for the genuineness, authenticity and integrity of the Holy Scriptures. By Collateral evidences are meant those miscellaneous matters which cannot be properly classified as either External or Internal evidences, and yet are of sufficient importance to demand attention. Here are usually classified such evidences as the rapid expansion of Christianity during the first three centuries, and the beneficial influences of Christianity. upon mankind wherever accepted. Reference is sometimes made also to presumptive evidences, by which are meant those arguments which tend to dispose the mind toward the presentation of other evidences. The evidences are further classified as Rational and Authenticating. By a Rational argument is meant the endeavor to convince the mind of the truth of the proposition presented. It has to do with the truth or falsity of a proposition. By an Authenticating argument is meant an attempt to prove that the teacher is divinely commissioned, and may have no further bearing upon the truth of the proposition itself. However, if the claims of the teacher to divine inspiration can be supported by an authenticating argument, this is at least presumptive evidence that the doctrines taught are likewise divinely inspired and therefore true. 

 

In substantiation of the claims of the Old Testament to genuineness and authenticity we may mention: (1) The Antiquity of the Old Testament. Josephus quotes such writers as Manetho and Apollonius as agreeing that Moses was the leader of the Hebrew people when they left Egypt. Strabo, Pliny, Tacitus, Juvenal and others mention Moses; and Justin Martyr affirms that nearly all of the ancient historians, poets, philosophers and lawgivers refer to him as the leader of Israel and the founder of the Jewish state. (2) The Septuagint. The Old Testament was translated into Greek for the use of the Alexandrian Jews about 287 B.C. This translation is known as the Septuagint and is proof positive that the Pentateuch existed at that time. But it must be admitted that if the Pentateuch existed at that date, it must      

 

Older works on Apologetics. Cf. Nelson, The Cause and Cure of Infidelity; William Lee, The Inspiration of Holy Scripture: Its Nature and Proof; Rawlinson, The Historical Evidences of the Truth of the Scripture Records; Gleig, The Most Wonderful Book in the World (New Ed. 1915); Horne, Introduction to the Holy Scriptures. Cf. also works on evidences by Paley, Whately, McIlvaine, Conybeare, Cudworth and Lardner.

 

have existed also in the days of Ezra (c. 536 B.C.), for the circumstances of the Jews in their captivity were such as to preclude its authorship between these two dates. Furthermore, Hebrew ceased to be the living language of the people soon after the time of their captivity, and after that date all important documents appear in either Greek or Chaldee [Aramaic]. Both Ezra and Nehemiah mention "the law of Moses" (Ezra 3:2, Neh. 8:1), which at the request of the people, was brought forth and read by Ezra before the whole congregation of Israel. (3) The Samaritan Pentateuch. In our discussion of the Canon we mentioned the two extant copies of the law of Moses, one received by the Jews, the other by the Samaritans. It is evident that these were both taken from the same original which must therefore, have existed previous to the divided kingdom, this claim being substantiated by the magnificent temple of Solomon and the elaborated ritual which attached to its services. From Moses to David, about four centuries, the circumstances of the period were such as to preclude any possibility of its authorship. When, therefore, it is declared that Joshua       

 

On the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, the following works will be found helpful: Green, The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch (1895), The Unity of the Book of Genesis (1895); Bissell, The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure (1885); Naville, The Higher Criticism in Relation to the Pentateuch (1923); Clay, The Origin of Biblical Traditions (1923); Griffith, The Problem of Deuteronomy (1911) and The Exodus in the Light of Archaeology (1923); MacDill, Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch; Firm, The Author of the Pentateuch (1931); Pilter, The Pentateuch: A Historical Record (1928); Orr, The Problem of the Old Testament (1911); Wiener, The Origin of the Pentateuch (1910), Pentateuchal Studies (1912); McKim, The Problem of the Pentateuch (1906); Bartlett, The Veracity of the Hexateuch (1897).   The works on Archaeology are numerous. There are some very late books on this subject. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament; Barton, Archaeology and the Bible (Sixth Ed. 1933); Clay, Light on the Old Testament from Babel (1906); Conder, The Tel el Amarna Tablets; The Bible and the East; and The Hittites and Their Language; Davies, The Codes of Hammurabi and Moses (1905); Grimme, The Law of Hammurabi and Moses (translated by Pilter); Kyle, The Deciding Voice of the Monuments (1921); Moses and the Monuments (1920); The Problem of the Pentateuch (1920); Naville, The Discovery of the Book of the Law Under Josiah (1911); Archaeology and the Old Testament (1913) Price, The Monuments and the Old Testament (1925); Sayce, The Higher Criticism and the Monuments; The Hittites; Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments; Tompkins, The Life and Times of Joseph in the Light of Egyptian Lore; Urqahart, Archaeology's Solution of Old Testament Problems (1906).

 

wrote the book which bears his name (Joshua 24:26), and which appears to have been an addition to a previous volume known as the "Book of the Law," or the "Book of the Law of Moses" (Deut. 31:24-26), there is no sound reason for denying the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. As to whether Moses had access to previous documents, or whether his inspiration was of the nature of a "vision hypothesis" is a matter of conjecture. St. Luke clearly states that he used historical material in preparing the book which bears his name, and yet the inspiration of this book has never been called in question. That the Pentateuch was compiled by redactors from previously written documents as affirmed by those who hold to the modern "documentary hypothesis" does not appear to be substantiated by the facts. (4) Archaeological Discoveries. Objections were formerly made to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, on the grounds that writing was not yet invented in the time of Moses, and that the moral standards of the decalogue were far in advance of his time. Both of these objections have been disproved by the discovery of the Code of Hammurabi at Susa, Persia, probably the Shushan of the Book of Esther. The date of this Code is about 2250 B.C. It proves conclusively that writing was in vogue at least a thousand years before the time of Moses, It contains two hundred forty-eight laws formulated by the king of Babylon, some of them remarkably like those given by Moses on Mount Sinai, and answers all objections against the moral standards existing in the time of Moses. It has been abundantly proved, however, that the Mosaic Code was not borrowed from the Babylonians. The Tel el Amarna Tablets were found in 1887 and contained cuneiform inscriptions dating back to about 1400 B.C. These tablets represent conditions in Egypt precisely as they are related in Genesis and Exodus, and thus corroborate the testimony as to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Another discovery which has       

 

For further study Cf. Spencer, Did Moses Write the Pentateuch After All? (1901); Firm, The Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch; Thomas, The Organic Unity of the Pentateuch (1904).

 

confirmed the truth of the Pentateuch, is that of the Hittites. Until recently critics have discredited the biblical statements concerning this ancient and powerful people, but the discoveries of archaeology have confirmed the biblical accounts, and added another proof to the authenticity of the Scriptures. One of the most outstanding evidences of archaeology, however, is the discovery of the city of Pithom, where in some parts of the store-chambers there are bricks made with straw, others with stubble, and some without straw but bound together with sticks. This is in exact accordance with the biblical account of the Hebrews during their bondage in Egypt. 

Genuineness and Authenticity of the Scriptures. By genuineness as used in this connection, we understand a reference solely to authorship. A Book is genuine when it is the production of the author whose name it bears. The term is frequently confused with authenticity which refers not to the authorship of a book but to the truth of its content. In this sense a book may be genuine without being authentic, or authentic without being genuine. There is, however, confusion as to the use of the term in theology and various writers attach different meanings to the words in question. It is admittedly difficult to sharply distinguish between the two in any discussion of scriptural evidences, for if a book is not written by the author it acknowledges, then not only is the question of its genuineness involved but that of its authenticity as well. For this reason it is a common practice with many theologians to treat both subjects under one head. 

 

The authenticity of the New Testament has been 

       

Later works on General Apologetics: Cf. Fisher, Grounds of Theistic and Christian Belief (1911); Ingram, Reasons for Faith and Other Contributions to Christian Evidences (1910-1914); McGarvey, Evidences of Christianity (1912); Cairns, The Reasonableness of the Christian Faith; Bissell, The Historic Origin of the Bible (1889) Lindberg, Apologetics: A System of Christian Evidences (1917); Luthardt, Fundamental Moral and Saving Truths of Christianity (3 vols.); Rishell, The Foundations of the Christian Faith (1899); Wright, Scientific Aspects of Christian Evidences (1906); Wells, Why We Believe the Bible (1910); Stewart, Handbook of Christian Evidences; Row, A Manual of Christian Evidences; Ebrard, Christian Apologetics or the Scientific Vindication of Christianity (3 Vols.); Christlieb, Modern Doubt and Christian Belief (2nd Ed. 1874); Robertson, The Bible at the Bar (1934); Shiner, The Battle of Beliefs (1931); Short, The Bible and Modern Research (1932).

 

previously discussed and we need not repeat the arguments here. It is sufficient to summarize these arguments as follows:(1) There are quotations from the New Testament found in the writings of the earliest fathers, dating back to the first century and immediately following, such as Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. (2) There is the testimony of the opponents of Christianity such as Celsus in the second century, Porphyry and Hierocles in the third and Julian in the fourth century, all of whom bear witness to the[,.existence of the New Testament in their day. (3) There are the early catalogues of the books of the New Testament. The earliest of these was that of Origen (c. 210A.D.) which lists all of the books of the New Testament except James and Jude and these are mentioned elsewhere in his writings. (4) The Roman historians whose antiquity has never been questioned bear witness to Christ and early Christianity. Suetonius mentions Christ by name, Judaeos impulsore Christo assidue tumultantes Roma expulit (Edit. Var., p. 544); while Tacitus mentions Pilate as procurator of Judea, and refers to Christ as the Founder of the sect of Christians. (Auctor nominis ejus Christus, qui Tiberio imperitante, per procuratoreum Pontium Pilatum supplicio affectus erat. - Annal., 1, 5.) (5) The style of the books in each case is suited to the age and circumstances of the reputed writer, and the characteristic differences are evidence that the work was not that of one person but of many. (6) The character of the writers is evidence in favor of the authenticity of their writings. They were holy men and incapable of forgery or deception. There is a straight-      

 

For further reading cf. Mullins Why Is Christianity True? Stearns The Evidences of Christian Experience (1890); Wright, Scientific Aspects of Christian Evidences (1906) Kreitzmann The New Testament in the Light of a Believer's Research (1934) Marston, New Bible Evidence (1934); Robertson, Luke the Historian in the Light of Research (1920) Machen, The Origin of Paul's Religion (1921) Noesgen, The New Testament and the Pentateuch (1905); Watson, Defenders of the Faith: The Christian Apologists of the Second and Third Centuries (1899); Carrington, Christian Apologetics in the Second Century (1921); Cobern, The New Archaeological Discoveries and Their Bearing on the New Testament (1917); Ramsay, Was Christ Born in Bethlehem? The Bearing of Recent Discoveries on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament.

 

forwardness and frankness about these writers which impostors could not well counterfeit. (7) The writers refer to incidents, persons and places, which can be confirmed by history, and which an impostor would overlook or conceal. They are characterized by an artless simplicity, and relate even those things which no writers of less integrity would mention. It has been truthfully said that in the New Testament we have stronger evidence for the genuineness and authenticity of the books which compose it, than is afforded the books of any other class, sacred or profane. 

 

The Integrity of the Scriptures. Have the sacred books, even though divinely inspired, been transmitted to us in an uncorrupted manner? May we be confident that we are in possession of the truth of the original text? By the integrity of the Scriptures we mean that they have been kept intact and free from essential error, so that we may be assured of the truth originally given by the inspired authors. Here again we must present only a brief summary of the evidences for the integrity of the Scriptures. (1) There is no evidence that the Scriptures have been corrupted. The burden of proof is upon the objectors. Nor need we have any fear as to the result of careful investigation. No proof has ever yet been furnished of essential alterations, and it is certain that

 

Wakefield sums up the evidences from the credibility of the writers as follows:(1) They were men of strict and exemplary virtue. (2) They were in circumstances certainly to know the truth of what they relate. (3) The apostles were not influenced by worldly interests. (4) Their testimony was in the highest degree circumstantial." - WAKEFIELD, Christian Theology, pp. 68-71.   Pond gives the following as the laws of valid testimony:(1) There must be a competent number of witnesses. (2) These witnesses must have had the capacity and the means of forming a correct judgment. (3) They must be persons of unexceptionable moral character. (4) They must be disinterested. (5) Their testimony must be given In plain terms, and must be, on all essential points, a concurrent testimony. (6) It must be of such a nature that the witnesses, if they have falsified, are open to detection. (7) It must be, not contradicted, but (so far as might reasonably be expected) confirmed, by other evidence. (8) It must be followed up, on the part of the witnesses, by a correspondent, consistent course of action. Dr. Pond applies these laws to the Scriptures in an argument of peculiar insight and strength. "Christianity may yet be assailed," he says, "but it will come out of every new trial, as it has out of every previous one, strengthened in its evidences, and not weakened; victorious, and not vanquished." - POND, Christian Theology, pp. 97-105.

 

none can be furnished in the future. (2) There were strong motives for preserving the Old Testament on the part of the Jews. Besides the high veneration in which their sacred books were held, these books contained the articles of their religious faith and the laws of their land. The antagonism which existed between the Jews and the Samaritans would forbid any mutilation of the Pentateuch of which each nation possessed a copy. (3) The multiplication of copies and their wide diffusion by the Levites as early as the times of the Judges and Kings (Deut. 31:11) tended to prevent the alteration of the text. The public reading of the Scriptures in the synagogues every Sabbath day also preserved their purity. In addition to this, the Jews were jealous of their Scriptures and enacted a law making one guilty of inexpiable sin who should presume to make the slightest alteration. (4) The exceeding care of the Jewish copyists would likewise reduce to a minimum any errors in transcribing. They used such further precautions against alterations as ascertaining the number of letters and the middle sections of the several books. (5) In the case of the New Testament there is the agreement of the ancient manuscripts. The chief collators of the New Testament were Erasmus, the editors of the Complutensian and London Polyglots and individual biblical scholars such as Bengel, Wetstein, Griesbach, Matthaei, Schols, Kennicott and De Rossi. Dr. Kennicott examined six hundred and fifteen manuscripts and De Rossi collated seven hundred and thirty-one more making thirteen hundred and forty-six in all. The testimony of Dr. Kennicott was that he had "found many variations, and some grammatical errors; but not one of which affected,      

 

The Jewish copyists were at some periods, excessively, I had almost said superstitiously, exact. They noted the verses where something was supposed to be forgotten, the words which they believed to be changed, and the letters which they regarded as superfluous. They ascertained the middle letter of the Pentateuch, the middle clause and letter of each book, and how many times each letter of the alphabet occurs in all the Hebrew Scriptures. Thus Aleph, they tell us, occurs 42,377 times; Beth, 32,218 times. I mention these facts to show the excessive care and particularity of these ancient copyists, and how unlikely it is that any considerable change could occur under their hands. - POND, Christian Theology, p. 89.

 

in the smallest degree, any article of faith and practice." (6) The numerous quotations from the New Testament found in the writings of the Fathers, not only prove the authenticity of the Scriptures as previously mentioned, but the integrity of the text as well. (7) Closely allied with these are the various helps which have served to preserve the original text. For the Old Testament there are the Targums, the Talmud and the Septuagint. For the New Testament there are the various translations. Here we may mention the Peshito, or Syriac version (c. 150 A.D.); the Itala, or old Latin version (c. 160 A.D.); the Vulgate or Jerome's translation (latter part of the fourth century; the Coptic (or old Egyptian), the Ethiopic and the Gothic, all of the fourth century and the Armenian translation of the fifth century. These translations and recensions confirm both the authenticity and the integrity of the New Testament. Dr. Philip Schaff says that "in the absence of the autographs, we must depend upon copies or secondary sources. But these are fortunately, far more numerous and trustworthy for the Greek New Testament than for any ancient classic."       

 

The Targums are Hebrew paraphrases of the Old Testament, the word Targum meaning "Interpretation." The Talmud is a commentary on the Old Testament, the word Talmud meaning "instruction." The Talmud is composed of two parts, the Mishna which is the text itself In either Babylonian or Palestinian, and the Gemara which is the commentary on the text. These helps are an aid In understanding the text and preserving it. The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Old Testament made in Egypt for the Alexandrian Jews about 287 B.C. though the date is sometimes placed at 280 B.C. and by others at 250 B.C.