WTY-4 Is the Bible Authentic?

CHAPTER IV IS THE BIBLE AUTHENTIC?

What belongs to the Bible? The question is very pertinent and timely. We find that many people today are doubtful about an answer. Why, for instance, does the Protestant Church exclude the Apocryphal books, which, by the Romanist Church, are reputed to be canonical? Have they ever be­longed to the Bible? If so, why and by what authority were they elimi­nated from the sacred volume? Is there any truth in the allegation heard so often in these days that a council, called in the first centuries to determine which books should go into the Bible and which should not, decided by but a majority of one in favor of the books that are now re­ceived by the Protestant Church?

Formation of the Old Testament Canon By way of introduction it would probably be in place to explain in a few words how it came that the Bible was divided into the Old and New Testaments, and called by these names. At the time of Christ the Old Tes­tament was either called “Scripture” (John 7:38), or “The Scriptures” (Matthew 21:42). Scripture it was called when the Old Testament was referred to as one book; Scriptures, when reference was had to the vari­ous manuscripts that constituted the book. Moreover, Christ would call it “law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms” (Luke 24:44). The name “Old Testament” has been derived from passages like 2 Corinthians 3:14. Paul here says that “at the reading of the Old Testa­ment/’ or covenant, the veil that cov­ers the eyes of the Jews “remaineth unto this day/’ The term “New Tes­tament” has been gotten from such passages as Hebrews 9:15; Hebrews 12:24; where Christ is designated as the "Mediator of a new covenant,” or testament. The Greek word employed in these texts signifies both covenant and testament and is in some Latin Bibles translated “testamentum”

Formation and Preservation of the Old Testament A very steadfast tradition of the Jews ascribes the formation and pres­ervation of the Old Testament before the Exile to Moses and the prophets. This tradition is supported by Scrip­ture itself. We read in Deuteronomy 31:9 : “And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests, the sons of Levi.” And Deuteronomy 31:25-26 : “Moses commanded the Levites . . . Take this book of the law, and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of Jehovah your God.” Samuel also is said (1 Samuel 10:25) to have “laid up the book before Jehovah.” And 2 Kings 22:8, Hilkiah the priest is said to have “found the book of the law in the house of Jehovah.” Isaiah for corroboration of his own proph­ecies points the people to this book when he says: “Seek ye out of the book of Jehovah, and read; no one of these shall be missing, none shall want her mate” (Isaiah 34:16). Daniel tells us that he “understood by the books the number of the years of the desolation of Jerusalem.” Who Closed the Old Testament?

According to their own testimony the books of the Old Testament (as also of the New) are of divine-human origin. In other words: they are in­spired of God but have been reduced to writing by men. As has become clear already, they were composed not at one certain period of the world’s history, but in various times and ages. They are continued revelations from the time of Moses until about the year 300 B. C. The question that now obtrudes itself is: Who collected all these various and separate books into one body, and when was it done? The Jews in the Talmud (Pirke Aboth) assert that after Moses and the elders the books were guarded by the prophets, until, at last, the canon was closed by Ezra and Nehemiah and the men of the Great Synagogue. There is no reason why this testimony should be doubted; since it is, as we have seen above, even supported by Scripture. Furthermore, when the Jews returned from the Exile the need was almost imperative that a competent body of men declare what books belonged and what books did not belong to the canon.

Again, the men of the Great Syna­gogue were the last of the prophets. If with them the time of prophecy was to cease, who should fix the canon if they neglected to do it? The fact that the separate books are not ar­ranged according to the time in which they were written, that is chronolog­ically, but with reference to their con­tents, renders it almost impossible to believe that the canon closed itself, as some have said, but postulates the mediation of some qualified man or body of men. It is highly probable, therefore, that the men of the Great Synagogue had a God-wrought con­viction that they were the last of the prophets, and, therefore, for the welfare and benefit of the people, deter­mined, and fixed the canon. Had they left this work undone it could not very well be explained why such books as Sirach did not find their way into the canon.

Christ and the Canon Did the Old Testament, as it ex­isted in the days of the Savior, receive His sanction ? We are able to answer this important question with a joyful “Yes!” Christ received and sanc­tioned what He usually called the “Scriptures,” regarded them as the “word of God” and as of binding authority. Ever and again He ap­peals to them. From them He draws all His ammunition in the conflict with earth and hell. He knows of no better weapon to foil and defeat not only His human adversaries, but even him that walks about as a roaring lion.

Here are some of his utterances: “The Scriptures cannot be broken.” “Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life.” “All things must needs be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.” “It is written!” It is a fact beyond dispute that our Savior sanctioned in the most explicit terms a class of writings held among the Jews, speaking of them as “the word of God which must be fulfilled.” He who believed in “Moses and the prophets,” He declared, would soon also believe in Him. Is Our Old Testament Identical With Christ’s? This is another burning question. If it can be shown to our satisfaction that His Old Testament agreed with that which we have now in our homes, then I insist that as Christians we should ask no more questions. The following considerations prove that the Scriptures which Christ con­firmed and sanctioned were the same as those contained in our Old Testa­ment.

1. The Septuagint version (that is, a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek) which was begun in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, about 280 B. C., and com­pleted not long after, contains all the present canonical books. Some Apo­cryphal writings it is true, have since been bound with the Septuagint, but it is at least doubtful whether they made any part of it in the days of Christ.

2. Josephus, who lived in the First Century, and also Origen, give account of the sacred books of the Jews. They indeed speak of but twenty-two books, whereas our Old Testament has thirty-nine; but the number twenty-two was obtained by joining some of the books together; as Judges and Ruth; Ezra and Nehemiah; Jere­miah and the Lamentations and all the minor prophets. The idea was to have the number of books of the Old Testament answer to the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet.

3. Since the time of Christ Jews and Christians have been spies upon each other; so that, if either party had attempted to disturb the canon of the Old Testament, instant expo­sure would have been the consequence.

We may accordingly be assured that the Old Testament which Christ sanctioned and that which we now possess agree entirely. Consequently, the authority and authenticity not only of the Old Testament in general, but of each and every book comprised in it, is settled beyond a peradventure.

Apocryphal Writings In connection with the canonical books of the Old Testament the Ro­manist Church has received the so- called apocryphal books and accords them the same reverence. The ques­tion naturally arises why the Protes­tant Church rejects these writings. I mention three of the many reasons that could be given.

1. They are not found in the He­brew Bible. They were originally written not in Hebrew, but in Greek, a language which was not in vogue among the Jews until long after the canon of the Old Testament was closed.

2. They contain many things which are fabulous, absurd, and false. In the Second Book of the Maccabees, for example, we read: “It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from their sins” (2Ma 12:43; 2Ma 12:45). The Romanist Church needs this passage to prove the doctrine of the Mass. Again, in Tob 12:9, it is declared: “Alms delivereth from death and shall purge away all sins.” This statement militates against the Scripture doctrine of the atonement. Many more texts of such a nature could be cited.

3. Christ, as also the apostles, though quoting scores of times from almost all canonical books, entirely ignore the apocryphal writings, which goes to show that they regard them not as possessing divine authority.

It follows that, though some of the apocryphal books possess a high value, considered as ancient Jewish writings which throw light upon the history and manners of the East, they have no claim to be admitted into the sacred canon, or to be regarded as of divine authority. Luther’s definition is correct. They are, for the most part, good to read, but are not to be received, as on a par with the holy Scriptures. The New Testament Canon

Having considered the formation, extent, and preservation of the Old Testament, we now turn to the New. Though we have the Gospels as the first part of our New Testament, they were not written first, but last. The Epistles appeared before any Life of Christ was composed. The apostles, to begin, preached the way of salvation, going from place to place. The young congrega­tions that were everywhere founded had the gospel at the outset only in its oral promulgation. Nothing had been reduced to writing. The oral tradition sufficed as long as men were living “who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word.” The Epistles Appear In the course of time the congrega­tions multiplied. The apostles were no more able personally to attend to all of them. Accordingly men, quali­fied as teachers, acted as the substi­tutes of the apostles. But now the door was also thrown wide open to all kinds of heresy. Many untrust­worthy persons arose, who though claiming divine authority for what they said, palmed off questionable doctrine, such as that the resurrec­tion had already happened, that Christ was not really risen from the dead, that one must remain in an un­married state and abstain from cer­tain kinds of food, which latter teach­ings Paul in 1 Timothy 4:1, brands as doctrines of “seducing spirits and demons.”

These circumstances necessitated the writing of the Epistles. For one thing, their purpose was to lay a good, solid foundation. Men were to become so thoroughly established in the truth that they might promptly give to anyone that asked them “a reason of the hope” that was in them. For another, they were to overcome and banish false doctrine. Deceivers should find it hard to gain a foothold. “If anyone cometh unto you, and bringeth not this teaching of Christ, receive him not into your house, and give him no greeting; for he that giveth him greeting partaketh in his evil works” (2 John 1:10). The Gospels are Written

Shortly after the appearance of the Epistles the Gospels were given to the church. Because Christ had admon­ished His followers to be vigilant, since the end of the world would come as a thief in the night, the young con­gregations, as also every individual, had day by day been waiting for His return in power and glory. But when after the year 60 A. D. one apostle after the other died and still Christ did not usher in His kingdom, the church must prepare for a time when no instruction could any longer be had from divinely authorized persons. To have waited longer with a publi­cation of the exact life of Christ would have meant to endanger the truth; the more so since many incom­petent persons had already “taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters which had been ful­filled among” the people of Christ (Luke 1:1). There was, accordingly, a deeply felt need that trustworthy eye-witnesses of Christ “trace accur­ately the course of all things from the first.” So the gospels came to be written. The several Evangelists afford us a four-fold picture of Christ: Mat­thew shows in Christ the promised Messiah of the Jews, therefore his many citations from the Old Testa­ment; Mark depicts Him as the King of the World; Luke emphasizes that He is the Savior of sinners; John describes Him as “the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” The Revelation of St. John When the apostolic age drew near its close, the last book of the Bible, the Revelation, was added to those al­ready extant. The church in its earlier days, and always when labor­ing under great difficulties and bend­ing before the storm of savage perse­cution, has realized how great a treasure it possesses in this little book. It is a guide and light in gathering darkness, a source of con­solation and comfort in time of trouble and distress. “Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of the prophecy, and keep the things that are written therein; for the time is at hand” (Revelation 1:3). An Important Question From the foregoing it has become evident that the twenty-seven books of the New Testament have been written by various writers at various times and places, and were sent to various churches. The interesting question that now arises is: Who un­dertook so vast and important a task as to gather all these different manu­scripts and bind them up into one volume? In other words: Who settled the canon? Who said that such and such books were authentic and gen­uine and others were not, that such and such belonged to the Bible and others had no claim to be there? Was the authority of the several books of the New Testament established by decree of any council, or by any formal act of the whole church? The Settling of the Canon The last-named mode is always cited by infidels, and it is said that the men present at the council were prejudiced and biased, selecting from a mass of literature what suited their individual ends, and rejecting what they disapproved. But the story is a fiction of modern unbelief. The assertion can never be proved. There never was such a decree of council. The books were rather received on the testimony of competent witnesses and various well founded evidences. The council of Laodicea, which as­sembled about the year 350 A. D. (Meusel), indeed published a cata­logue of received books; “but its de­cree was not so much legislative as declaratory, setting forth what was and had been the mind of the church in this important matter” (Enoch Pond).

It was impossible that the various books of the New Testament should everywhere have been recognized from the very beginning as authentic, and bound together in one volume, for the reason that they were scattered through many congregations, the one possessing this letter, and the other that. Only in the course of time did the whole church, through an inter­change of the manuscripts, become acquainted with all the Epistles and Gospels written by the apostles or their attendants. Thus we read in Colossians 4:16, that Paul charges his readers: “And when this epistle hath been read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye also read the epistle from Laodicea." From 2 Peter 3:16, we gather that Peter was acquainted with the epis­tles of St. Paul and placed them on a level with “the other scriptures,” pre­supposing that the congregations in Asia to which he wrote had read them. Eusebius tells us that John knew the other three Gospels, sanc­tioned them as authentic, and indicted his own as a supplement to them; which accords entirely with the con­tents of his Gospel. So it happened that about 100 A. D. there existed already a so-called “original canon,” or Canon Muratori, containing the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of Paul (except Hebrews), the First Epistle of Peter, the First Epistle of John, and the Revelation. Papias (102 A. D.), Justin Martyr (140 A. D.), and the Gnostic Marcion (150 A. D.) sup­ply testimony in abundance that these books were everywhere regarded as inspired, and the works of those whose names they bear, carrying with them the authority of God.

Why Some Books Were Not Everywhere Looked Upon as Authentic The remaining writings, however, were not from the beginning every­where accorded canonical authority. The reasons are various. The last two Epistles of John are very short and of a personal character. This may have given rise to the thought that they were not intended for the public. The Second Epistle of Peter and that of Jude, and also that of James and that to the Hebrews, were designed for particular occasions and for particular places. This may have prevented their readers from ex­changing and circulating them. But, though these letters were not universally known, doubt as to their authenticity or canonicity was never for a moment entertained by the con­gregations to which they were origi­nally written. However, since they had not till the end of the First Cen­tury for lack of information concern­ing them gained universal accepta­tion in the church, it happened that for a time following they were not by all reckoned as belonging to the canon. The councils of Hippo Rhegius (393 A. D.) and Carthage (397 A. D.) finally provided a definite solu­tion of this matter. They did not decree the canonicity of the writings in question—that had long before been a matter of firm belief of the churches to which they had been sent —but merely declared that, being such books, they had a claim to a place in the canon, and should from that time everywhere be regarded as authoritative and binding. The Apocrypha of the New Testament

There are Apocrypha not only of the Old Testament but also of the New. The reason why the church has always rejected and does still reject them from the canon are similar to those brought to bear against the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. Not one of them belonged to the original canon. Not one of them was written by an apostle, or a direct attendant of an apostle under his supervision. Not one of them was acknowledged or quoted as of any authority by the early Christian fathers. In fact, most of them were written at a late age and had no existence until the middle of the Third Century. This explains why they were nei­ther attacked nor cited by the earliest enemies of the church, Marcion, Cel- sus, Lucian; which would certainly have been done had they been extant and generally received by Christians. Moreover, these apocryphal writ­ings not only contain many flagrant anachronisms, things being men­tioned which occurred later than the time in which the books profess to have been composed; but they also contradict, in many points, the doc­trine and practice of Christ and the apostles. In addition, they teem with statements which are ludicrous, ab­surd, and even profane, and their style is exceedingly diverse from that of the canonical writings and inferior to it. Though some of them are good to read they have no claim to a place between the covers of our Bible. In Conclusion The New Testament as it is re­ceived by the Greek Church, the La­tin, the Roman Catholic, and the Pro­testant, contains only such books as could be proved to have been written either by the apostles themselves, or, in the case of Mark and Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, by their attend­ants under their inspection. We may rest assured, therefore, when reading the sacred volume, that we are brought face to face with the glorious gospel which Christ commissioned His disciples to preach to the whole world. There is abundant reason for us to “continue in the things which we have learned and have been as­sured of, knowing of whom we have learned them” (2 Timothy 3:14-15).