James E. Talmage

Article 8.—We believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly....

1. Our Acceptance of the Bible.—The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accepts the Bible as the first and foremost of her standard works, chief among the books which have been proclaimed as her written guides in faith and doctrine. In the respect and sanctity with which the Latter-day Saints regard the Bible, they are of like profession with Christian denominations in general, but differ from them in the additional acknowledgment of certain other scriptures as authentic and holy, which others are in harmony with the Bible, and serve to support and emphasize its facts and doctrines. There is, therefore, no specifically "Mormon" treatment of the Bible to be presented. The historical and other data, upon which is based the current Christian faith as to the genuineness of the biblical record, are accepted as unreservedly by the Latter-day Saints as by the members of any sect; and in literalness of interpretation this Church probably excels.

2. Nevertheless, the Church announces a reservation in the case of erroneous translation, which may occur as a result of human incapacity; and even in this measure of caution we are not alone, for biblical scholars generally admit the presence of errors of the kind, many of them self-apparent. The Latter-day Saints believe the original records to be the word of God unto man, and, as far as these records have been translated correctly, the translations are regarded as equally authentic. The English Bible professes to be a translation made through the wisdom of man; in its preparation the most scholarly men have been enlisted; yet not a version has been published in which even the unlearned cannot perceive errors. However, an impartial investigator has cause to wonder more at the paucity of errors than that errors are to be found at all.

3. There will be, there can be, no absolutely reliable translation of these or other scriptures, unless it be effected through the gift of translation, as one of the endowments of the Holy Ghost. The translator must have the spirit of the prophet if he would render in another tongue the prophet's words; and human wisdom leads not to that possession. Let the Bible then be read reverently, and with prayerful care, the reader ever seeking the light of the Spirit that he may discern between truth and the mistakes of men.

4. The Name "Bible."—In present usage, the term Holy Bible designates the collection of sacred writings otherwise known as the Jewish scriptures, containing an account of the dealings of God with the human family; which account is confined wholly, except in the record of ante-diluvian events, to the eastern hemisphere. The word Bible, though singular in form, is the English representative of a Greek plural, Biblia, signifying literally the books. The use of the word probably dates from the fourth century, at which time we find Chrysostom[731] employing the term to designate the scriptural books then accepted as canonical by the Greek Christians. It is to be noted, that the idea of a collection of books predominates in all early usages of the word Bible; the scriptures were, as they are, composed of the special writings of many authors, widely separated in time; and, from the striking harmony and unity prevailing throughout these diverse productions, strong evidence of their authenticity may be adduced.

5. The word Biblia was thus endowed with a special meaning in the Greek, signifying the books, that is to say the holy books as distinguishing the sacred scriptures from all other writings; and the term soon became current in the Latin, in which tongue it was used from the first in its special sense. Through Latin usage, perhaps during the thirteenth century, the word came to be regarded as a singular noun signifying the book; this departure from the plural meaning, invariably associated with the term in the Greek original, led up to the popular error of regarding the Bible as having been a unified volume from the first. Hence we meet with the reputed derivation of the word from the Greek singular noun Biblos meaning the book, but this is declared by a preponderance of good authority to be founded on a traditional misconception. It may appear that the derivation of a word is of trifling importance; yet in this case, the original form and first use of the title now current as that of the sacred volume must be of instructive interest, as throwing some light upon the compilation of the book in its present form.

6. It is evident that the name Bible is not of itself a biblical term; its use as a designation of the Jewish scriptures is wholly external to those scriptures themselves. In its earliest application, which dates from post-apostolic times, it was made to embrace most if not all the books of the Old and the New Testament. Prior to the time of Christ, the books of the Old Testament were known by no single collective name, but were designated in groups as (1) the Pentateuch, or five books of the Law; (2) the Prophets; and (3) the Hagiographa, comprising all sacred records not included in the other divisions. But we may the better consider the parts of the Bible by taking the main divisions separately. A very natural division of the biblical record is effected by the earthly work of the Savior; the written productions of pre-Christian times came to be known as the Old Covenant; those of the days of the Savior and the years immediately following, as the New Covenant.[732] The term testament gradually grew in favor until the designations Old and New Testaments became common.

THE OLD TESTAMENT.

7. Its Origin and Growth.—At the time of our Lord's ministry in the flesh, the Jews were in possession of certain scriptures which they regarded as canonical or authoritative. There can be little doubt as to the authenticity of those works, for they were frequently quoted by both Christ and the apostles, by whom they were designated as "the scriptures."[733] The Savior specifically refers to them under their accepted terms of classification as "the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms."[734] The books thus accepted by the people in the time of Christ are sometimes spoken of as the Jewish canon of scripture. The term canon, now generally current, suggests not books that are merely credible, authentic, or even inspired, but such books as are recognized as authoritative guides in profession and practice. The term is instructive in its derivation. Its Greek original, kanonkanon, signified a straight measuring rod, and hence it came to mean an authoritative standard of comparison, a rule, or test, as applied to moral subjects as well as to material objects.

8. As to the formation of the Jewish canon, or the Old Testament, we read that Moses wrote the first part of it, viz. the Law; and that he committed it to the care of the priests, or Levites, with a command that they preserve it in the ark of the covenant,[735] to be a witness against Israel in their transgressions. Fore-seeing that a king would some day govern Israel, Moses commanded that the monarch should make a copy of the Law for his guidance.[736] Joshua, successor of Moses, as leader and law-giver of Israel, wrote further of the dealings of God with the people, and of the Divine precepts; and this writing he evidently appended to the Law as recorded by Moses.[737] Three centuries and a half after the time of Moses, when the theocracy had been replaced by a monarchy, Samuel, the approved prophet of the Lord, wrote of the change "in a book, and laid it up before the Lord."[738] And thus we see the law of Moses was augmented by later authoritative records. From the writings of Isaiah, we learn that the people had access to the "Book of the Lord;" for the prophet admonished them to seek it out, and read it.[739] It is evident, then, that in the time of Isaiah the people had a written authority in doctrine and practice.

9. Nearly four centuries later (640-630 B. C.), while the righteous king Josiah occupied the throne of Judah as a part of divided Israel, Hilkiah the high priest and father of the prophet Jeremiah found in the temple "a book of the law of the Lord,"[740] which was read before the kings.[741] Then, during the fifth century B. C., in the days of Ezra, the edict of Cyrus permitted the captive people of Judah, a remnant of once united Israel, to return to Jerusalem,[742] there to rebuild the temple of the Lord, according to the law[743] of God then in the hand of Ezra. From this we may infer that the written law was then known; and to Ezra is usually attributed the credit of compiling the books of the Old Testament as far as completed in his day, to which he added his own writings.[744] In this work of compilation he was probably assisted by Nehemiah and the members of the Great Synagogue,—a Jewish college of a hundred and twenty scholars.[745] The book of Nehemiah, which gives a continuation of the historical story as recorded by Ezra, is supposed to have been written by the prophet whose name it bears, in part at least during the life of Ezra. Then, a century later, Malachi,[746] the last of the prophets of note who flourished before the opening of the dispensation of Christ, added his record, completing, and virtually closing the pre-Christian canon, with a prophetic promise of the Messiah and of the messenger whose commission would be to prepare the way of the Lord.

10. Thus, it is evident that the Old Testament grew with the successive writings of authorized and inspired scribes from Moses to Malachi, and that its compilation was a natural and gradual process, each addition being deposited, or, as the sacred record gives it, "laid up before the Lord," in connection with the previous writings. Undoubtedly there were known to the Jews many other books, not included in our present Old Testament; references to such are abundant in the scriptures themselves, which references prove that many of those extra-canonical records were regarded as of great authority. But concerning this we will enquire further in connection with the Apocrypha. The recognized canonicity of the Old Testament books is attested by the numerous references in the latter to the earlier books, and by the many quotations from the Old Testament occurring in the New. About two hundred and thirty quotations or direct references have been listed; and in addition to these, hundreds of less direct allusions occur.

11. Language of the Old Testament.—It is highly probable, almost certain indeed, that nearly all the books of the Old Testament were originally written in Hebrew. Scholars profess to have found evidence that small portions of the books of Ezra, Daniel, and Jeremiah were written in the Chaldee language; but the prevalence of Hebrew as the language of the original scriptures has given to the Old Testament the common appellation, Hebrew or Jewish canon. Of the Pentateuch, two versions have been recognized,—the Hebrew proper and the Samaritan,[747] the latter of which was preserved in the most ancient of Hebrew characters by the Samaritans, between whom and the Jews there was lasting enmity.

12. The Septuagint.—Passing over the Peshito or early Syriac version of the Old Testament as of minor significance, we recognize as the first important translation of the Hebrew canon that known as the Septuagint.[748] This was a Greek version of the Old Testament, translated from the Hebrew at the instance of an Egyptian monarch, probably Ptolemy Philadelphus, about 286 B. C. The name Septuagint suggests the number seventy, and is said to have been given because the translation was made by a body of seventy-two elders (in round numbers seventy); or, as other traditions say, because the work was accomplished in seventy, or seventy-two days; or, according to yet other stories, because the version received the sanction of the Jewish ecclesiastical council, the Sanhedrin, which comprised seventy-two members. Certain it is that the Septuagint (sometimes indicated by the numerals LXX) was the current version among the Jews in the days of Christ's ministry, and was quoted by the Savior and the apostles in their references to the old canon. It is regarded as the most authentic of the ancient versions, and is accepted at the present time by the Greek Christians and other eastern churches. It is evident, then, that from a time nearly three hundred years before Christ, the Old Testament has been current in both Hebrew and Greek: this duplication has been an effective means of protection against alterations.

13. The Present Compilation recognizes thirty-nine books in the Old Testament: these were originally combined as twenty-two books, corresponding to the letters in the Hebrew alphabet. The thirty-nine books as at present constituted may be conveniently classified as follows:

14. (1.) The Books of the Law.—The first five books in the Bible are collectively designated as the Pentateuch (pente—five, teuxos—volume); and were known among the early Jews as the Torah, or the law. Their authorship is traditionally ascribed to Moses,[749] and in consequence the "Five Books of Moses" is another commonly used designation. They give the history, brief though it be, of the human race from the creation to the flood, and from Noah to Israel; then a more particular account of the chosen people through their period of Egyptian bondage; thence during the journey of four decades in the wilderness to the encampment on the farther side of Jordan.

15. (2.) The Historical Books, twelve in number, comprise the following: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I and II Samuel, I and II Kings, I and II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. They tell the story of the Israelites entering the land of promise, and their subsequent career through three distinct periods of their existence as a people:—(1) as a theocratic nation, with a tribal organization, all parts cemented by ties of religion and kinship; (2) as a monarchy, at first a united kingdom, later a nation divided against itself; (3) as a partly conquered people, their independence curtailed by the hand of their victors.

16. (3.) The Poetical Books number five: Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon. They are frequently spoken of as the doctrinal or didactic works, and the Greek designation Hagiographa (hagios—holy, and graphe—a writing) is still applied.[750] These are of widely different ages, and their close association in the Bible is probably due to their common use as guides in devotion amongst the Jewish churches.

17. (4.) The Books of the Prophets comprise the five larger works of Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Lamentations of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, commonly known as the works of the Major Prophets; and the twelve shorter books of Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, known to Bible scholars as the books of the Minor Prophets. These give the burden of the Lord's word to His people, encouragement, warning and reproof, as suited their condition, before, during, and after their captivity.[751]

18. The Apocrypha comprise a number of books of doubtful authenticity, though such have been at times highly esteemed. Thus, they were added to the Septuagint, and for a time were accorded recognition among the Alexandrine Jews. However, they have never been generally admitted, being of uncertain origin. They are not quoted in the New Testament. The designation apocryphal (meaning hidden, or secret) was first applied to the books by Jerome, because, said he, "the church doth read [them] for example of life and instruction of manners, but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine." The Roman church professes to acknowledge them as scripture, action to this end having been taken by the council of Trent (1546); though the doubt of the authenticity of the works seems still to exist even among the Roman Catholic authorities. The sixth article in the Liturgy of the Church of England defines the orthodox views of the church as to the meaning and intent of Holy Scripture; and, after specifying the books of the Old Testament which are regarded as canonical, proceeds in this wise:—"And the other books (as Hierome [Jerome] saith) the church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:—The Third Book of Esdras; The Fourth Book of Esdras; The Book of Tobias; The Book of Judith; The rest of the Book of Esther; The Book of Wisdom; Jesus, the Son of Sirach; Baruch the Prophet; The Song of the Three Children; The Story of Susanna; Of Bel and the Dragon; The Prayer of Manasses; The First Book of Maccabees; The Second Book of Maccabees."

THE NEW TESTAMENT.

19. Its Origin and Authenticity.—Since the latter part of the fourth century of our present era, there has arisen scarcely a single question of importance regarding the authenticity of the books of the New Testament as at present constituted. From that time until the present, the New Testament has been accepted as an unquestioned canon of scriptures by all professed Christians.[752] In the fourth century, there were generally current several lists of the books of the New Testament as we now have them; of these may be mentioned the catalogues of Athanasius, Epiphanius, Jerome, Rufinus, and Augustine of Hippo, and the list announced by the third Council of Carthage. To these may be added four others, which differ from the foregoing in omitting the Revelation of John in three cases, and the same with the Epistle to the Hebrews in one.

20. This superabundance of evidence relating to the constitution 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 sanctity that their betrayal would make a man a traitor.[753] Hence we find Eusebius designating the books of the Messianic and apostolic days as of two classes:—(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 classes he added a third class, including books that were admittedly spurious.[754]

21. As stated, the list published by Athanasius, which dates from near the middle of the fourth century, gives the constitution 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 pronounced 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 IrenÆus, 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 associated 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;[755] the declarations of Melito, Bishop of Sardis, who journeyed to the East to determine which were the canonical books, particularly of the Old Testament;[756] 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.

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.[757]

24. Classification of the New Testament.—The New Testament comprises twenty-seven books, conveniently classified as:—

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, Titus, 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 constituted 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 God, 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 multitude 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.[758] 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 analysis, 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.

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 God. 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 God, 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 brass. 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."[759] 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.

33. In a vision, Nephi, the son of Lehi, learned of the future of God's plan regarding the human family; and saw that a book of great worth, containing the word of God and the covenants of the Lord with Israel, would go forth from the Jews to the Gentiles.[760] 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 brass; and, moreover, their scribes embodied long quotations therefrom in their own growing record.[761] 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.

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 principal events of the Savior's life and death, with striking fidelity and detail. This testimony is recorded of Nephi,[762] Benjamin,[763] who was both prophet and king, Abinadi,[764] Samuel the converted Lamanite,[765] 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.[766]

NOTES.

1. John Chrysostom, one of the Greek "Christian Fathers," flourished during the latter half of the fourth century; he was patriarch of Constantinople, but was deposed and exiled some time before his death which occurred in 407. His use of the term biblia to designate the scriptural canon is among the earliest applications of the sort yet found, He entreated his people to avail themselves of the riches of inspired works in this wise:—"Hear, I exhort, all yet in secular life, and purchase biblia, the medicine of the soul." Speaking of the Jewish Christians, he says, "They have the biblia, but we have the treasures of the biblia; they have the letters, we have the letters and the understanding."

2. The Samaritan Copy of the Pentateuch.—In his valuable course of lectures on Bible subjects, Elder David McKenzie presents the following, with references to the writings of Horne:—"Nine hundred and seventy years before Christ, the nation of Israel was divided into two kingdoms. Both retained the same book of the law. Rivalry prevented either of them from altering or adding to the law. After Israel was carried into Assyria, other nations occupied Samaria. These received the Pentateuch. (II Kings xvii, 26-28.) The language being Hebrew or Phoenician, whereas the Jewish copy was changed into Chaldee, corruption or alteration was thus made impracticable, yet the texts remain almost identical."

3. Versions of the Bible or of Parts Thereof.—The Septuagint:—"Various opinions have been put forth to explain its appellation of Septuagint; some say that Ptolemy Philadelphus requested of Eleazer the High Priest a copy of the Hebrew scriptures, and six learned Jews from each tribe (together seventy-two), competent to translate it into Greek; these were shut up in the isle of Pharos, and in seventy-two days they completed their task: as they dictated it, Demetrius Phalereus, the king's chief librarian, transcribed it: but this is now considered a fable. Others say that these same interpreters, having been shut up in separate cells, wrote each one a translation; and so extraordinarily did they all coincide together in words as well as sentiment, that evidence was thus afforded of their inspiration by the Holy Spirit; this opinion has also been set aside as too extravagant. It is very possible that seventy-two writers were employed in the translation; but it is more probable that it acquired the name of Septuagint from having received the approbation of the Jewish Sanhedrin, which consisted of seventy-two persons. Some affirm it to have been executed at different times; and Horne says it is most probable that this version was made during the joint reigns of Ptolemy Lagus and his son Philadelphus, about 285 or 286 B. C."

The Vulgate.—"There was a very ancient version of the Bible translated from the Septuagint into Latin, but by whom and when is unknown. It was in general use in the time of Jerome, and was called the Itala or Italic Version. About the close of the fourth century, Jerome began a new translation into Latin from the Hebrew text, which he gradually completed. It at last gained the approbation of Pope Gregory I, and has been used ever since the seventh century. The present Vulgate, declared authentic by the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century, is the ancient Italic version, revised and improved by the corrections of Jerome and others; and is the only one allowed by the Church of Rome."

The "Authorized Version."—"Certain objections having been made to the Bishops' Bible at the Hampton Court conference in A. D. 1603, King James I directed a new translation to be made. Forty-seven persons, eminent for their piety and biblical learning, were chosen to this end; they were divided into six committees, two to sit at Oxford, two at Cambridge, and two at Westminster; and each committee had a certain portion of the scriptures assigned to it. They began their task in A. D. 1607, and the whole was completed and in print in A. D. 1611. This is called the Authorized English Version and is the one now in use."—From Analysis of Scripture History, by Pinnock; pp. 3, 5; (6th ed.).

4. The Prophetical Books of the Old Testament are arranged with little or no regard to their chronological order, the extent of the contained matter placing the larger works first. The chronological arrangement would probably be Jonah, Joel, Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah, Nahum, Zephaniah:—all of these prophesied previous to the captivity; then follow Jeremiah, Habakkuk, Ezekiel, and Daniel, who wrote during the captivity; then Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, after the return of the Jews from captivity.

5. Manuscript Copies of the New Testament.—Three manuscripts of New Testament writings now in existence are regarded as authentic. These are known as the Vatican (now in Rome), the Alexandrian (now in London), and the Sinaitic (now in the St. Petersburg library). The last named or Sinaitic is considered to be the oldest copy of the New Testament in existence. The manuscript was discovered in 1859 among the archives of a monastery on Mount Sinai, hence its name. It was found by Tischendorf, and is now in the imperial library at St. Petersburg.

6. Concerning the Genuineness of Parts of the New Testament.—In answer to objections that have been urged by critics in the matter of genuineness or authenticity of certain books of the New Testament, the following array of testimony may be considered. The items are presented here as collated by Elder David McKenzie, and as used by him in his instructive lectures on the Bible.

(I) The Four Gospels.—1. Matthew. Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, was a hearer of the Apostle John. With respect to St. Matthew's Gospel, Eusebius quotes him as saying:—"Matthew composed the Oracles In the Hebrew tongue, and each one interpreted them as he could."—(Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii, 39.)

2. Mark. Of Mark's writing, Papias also says:—"Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remembered, without, however, recording in order what was either said or done by Christ. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor follow Him, but afterward attended Peter, who adapted his instructions to the needs of his hearers, but had no design of giving a connected account of the Lord's oracles (or discourses)."—(Bishop Lightfoot's translations, in "Contemporary Review," August, 1875.)

3. Luke. Internal evidence shows that Luke's Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles were composed by the same author. St. Paul speaks of Luke as a physician; and Dr. Hobart, in 1882, published at London a treatise on "The Medical Language of St. Luke," and points out the frequent use of medical terms in Luke's writings, permeating the entire extent of the third Gospel, and the Acts of the Apostles. Even M. Renan makes a similar admission. He says:—"One point which is beyond question is that the Acts are by the same author as the third Gospel, and are a continuation of that Gospel. One need not stop to prove this proposition, which has never been seriously contested. The prefaces at the commencement of each work, the dedication of each to Theophilus, the perfect resemblance of style and of ideas, furnish on this point abundant demonstrations." "A second proposition is that the author of the Acts is a disciple of Paul, who accompanied him for a considerable part of his travels."—(M. Renan, "The Apostles"; see preface.)

4. John. IrenÆus, Bishop of Lyons, about 177 A. D., a pupil of Polycarp who was martyred in 155 or 156, relates in a letter to a fellow-pupil his recollections of what he had heard Polycarp say about his intercourse with John, and with the rest who had seen the Lord; and about the Lord, and about His miracles, and about His teaching. All these he would relate altogether in accordance with the Scriptures. (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist, v, 20.) That IrenÆus meant by "the Scriptures," Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, is evident from the text. Besides, he urges "not only that four Gospels alone have been handed down from the beginning, but that in the nature of things there could not be more nor less than four. There are four regions in the world, and four principal winds, and the Church therefore, as destined to be conterminous with the world, must be supported by four Gospels as four pillars."—(Contemporary Review, August, 1876, p. 413.) [The forced analogy assumed by IrenÆus between the four Gospels and the four winds, etc., is of course without foundation, and its use appears literally absurd; nevertheless the fact that he noted it furnishes evidence of the acceptance of the four Gospels in his day.—J. E. T.]

(II) The Pauline Epistles.—The following extracts from the testimony of the TÜbingen critics on four of Paul's epistles, are instructive.

De Wette says, in his introduction to the "Books of the New Testament" (123, a.):—"The letters of Paul bear the marks of his powerful genius. The most important of them are raised above all contradiction as to their authenticity; they form the solid kernel of the book of the New Testament."

Baur says, in his "Apostle Paul" (1, 8):—"Not only has no suspicion of the authenticity of these Epistles even arisen, but they bear so incontestably the seal of the originality of Paul, that one cannot comprehend for what reason critics could raise any objection to them."

WeizsÆker writes (Apost. Zeitalter, 1866, p. 190):—"The letters to the Galatians and the Corinthians are, without doubt, from the hand of the Apostle; from his hand also came incontestably the Epistle to the Romans."

Holtzmann says ("Einleit in's N. T.," p. 224):—"These four Epistles are the Pauline Homologoumena (books universally received) in the modern acceptation of the word. We can realize, with respect to them, the proof of authenticity undertaken by Paley against the free-thinkers of his time."

M. Renan in The Gospels (pp. 40, 41), thus expresses himself:—"The epistles of Paul have an unequaled advantage in this history—that is, their absolute authenticity." Of the Epistles to the Corinthians, the Galatians, and the Romans, Renan speaks as "indisputable and undisputed;" and adds, "The most severe critics, such as Christian Baur, accept them without objection."

7. Archeological Evidence Confirming the Bible.—Prof. A. H. Sayce, M. A., sums up his learned treatise on the testimony of the ancient monuments, thus:—"The critical objections to the truth of the Old Testament, once drawn from the armory of Greek and Latin writers, can never be urged again; they have been met and overthrown once for all. The answers to them have come from papyrus and clay and stone, from the tombs of ancient Egypt, from the mounds of Babylonia, and from the ruined palaces of the Assyrian kings."

8. Missing Scripture.—Those who oppose the doctrine of continual revelation between God and His Church, on the ground that the Bible is complete as a collection of sacred scriptures, and that alleged revelation not found therein must therefore be spurious, may profitably take note of the many books not included in the Bible, yet mentioned therein, generally in such a way as to leave no doubt that they were once regarded as authentic. Among these extra-biblical scriptures, the following may be named; some of them are in existence to-day, and are classed with the Apocrypha; but the greater number are unknown. We read of the Book of the Covenant (Exo. xxiv, 7); Book of the Wars of the Lord (Numb. xxi, 14); Book of Jasher (Josh. x, 13); Book of the Statutes (I Sam. x, 25); Book of Enoch (Jude 14); Book of the Acts of Solomon (I Kings xi, 41); Book of Nathan the Prophet, and that of Gad the Seer (I Chron. xxix, 29); Book of Ahijah the Shilonite, and visions of Iddo, the Seer (II Chron. ix, 29); Book of Shemaiah (II Chron. xii, 15); Story of the Prophet Iddo (II Chron. xiii, 22); Book of Jehu (II Chron. xx, 34); the Acts of Uzziah, by Isaiah, the son of Amoz (II Chron. xxvi, 22); Sayings of the Seers (II Chron. xxxiii, 19); a missing epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (I Cor. v, 9); a missing epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. iii, 3); missing epistle to the Colossians, written from Laodicea (Col. iv, 16); a missing epistle of Jude (Jude 3); a declaration of belief mentioned by Luke (i, 1).