The Care with Which the Books of the Old Testament Were Preserved, and Their Canonical Authority
rns care with which the books of the old testament were frkserved their canonical authority the sancnon given to
these books by the saviour and hi3 apostles and the method
of ascertaining what books were in the canon at the time of
Christ’s advent.
It would be reasonable to conclude, even if nothing had been said, that a book written by divine inspiration would, by all pious persons, be carefully pre* served. But we are expressly informed, that when Moses had finishei writing the law he “commam’ ifiO EVIDENCES OF CIIRISI. ANITT
fid the Levites which boro the ark of tho covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the law and put it in the side of the ark of the covenatit of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.”*
Here, in the most sacred part of the sanctuary, the Pentateuch was preserved as a sacred deposite. On one occasion, indeed, it seems to have been displaced, and its integrity endangered, when in the reigns of Manasseh and Amon idolatry so prevailed, that the true worship of God was suspended. During this period of darkness, the law was cast out among the rubbish, where it was found in the reign of the pious Josiah.t But while the autograph of Moses was laid up by the side of the ark, we are not to suppose that there were no authentic copies of this sacred book among the people. Josephus relates, that every tribe, by the command of Moses, was furnished with a copy. And as it contained the liturgy for the public worship of God, the rites of which were ver’” numerous, and the regulations very minute, the priests md Levites must have been supplied with copies, to enable them rightly to conduct the public service This book also contained the law of the land, anu prescribed the duties of kings and rulers; on which account it was expressly commanded, that when there should be a king, “He shall write him a copy of this law in a book, out of that which is before the priests, the Levites.”J
It would, however, be unreasonable to expect tha the autograph of Moses could last until this period of the world. What became of it is not known. The probability is, that it perished with the ark, in the destruction of the temple by Nebuchadivezzar, And this fact probably occasioned the tradition whicl: was prevalent among (he Jews, that the sacred Scriptures were utterly lost in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans; and thot they were restored by Ezra, by divine inspiration. Now it is probable
Dent. xxxi. 25, 2G. t Deut. xv i, 18.
: 2 Kings xjcii. 9, 10, 11
EVIDENCES OF CHRlsri ANITY. 2.11
that the autoiaphs were lost, and that Eiia the scribe, who was an inspired man, collecicd the scattered copies of the sacred books, corrected their errors, and thus restored the Scriptures to their original integrity. On account of this important and pious labour, the constitution of the canon of the Old Testament is by the Jews ascribed to Ezra; and they join with him, as assistants, “tho men of the g jal synagogue,” some of whom were prophets, by whoso aid the sacred volume was prepared, and copies circulated among the people. In such a work, he would need many coadjutors; and no more holy or important work could have occupied the time and attention of inspired men. It is reasonable to believe, therefore, that all who were qualified to render effectual aid in this service, would be ready to assist Ezra in correcting and preparing the Holy Scriptures, for general use.
That all the copies of the law were not lost, is as evident as any thing can be; for Daniel in the captivity had possession of the prophecies of Jeremiah. And Ezra himself was a “ready scribe in the law;” and “n the sixth chapter of Ezra we read, that the functions of the priests were regulated after the second temple was finished, “as it is written in the book of Moses;” and this was many years before Ezra came to Jerusalem. And in the eighth chapter of Nehemiah it is said, that Ezra “brought the law before the congregation, and read therein from morning until mid-day.”
In regard to the other books, little is said. We read, however, that the writings of Joshua were annexed to the law, and of course deposited with il by the sid(i of the ark; and we ma take it for granted, as a matter of course, than when any prophet oi inspired man had finished a writing intended foi general use, it was added to the volume of the law, and preserved with it.
How carefully the writings of JNToses were read and accuratel) remembered, appears from the frequent reference made to the facts there recorded by i^2 EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIAMTF.
the writers who came after Moses; especially, by tnt holy men who composed the book of Psalms. And that this knowledge was commonly possessed by men not inspired, will appear from the full and accurate recapitulation of the history recorded in the law, in the complete and eloquent answer given by Jepthah to the king of the Ammonites.* The writings of the prophets also abound in references to facts recordec in the law of Moses.
On what material the Scriptures were written, ir. what character or alphabet, whether bound up in? single volume or in several; whether preserved in rolls, as in the synagogues now, or in the common form of our books, are inquiries which are worthy the attention of the biblical student, but no way necessary to our purpose, at present.
That which is of the utmost importance is, to know that the Lord Jesus Christ and his inspired apostles, gave their unqualified sanction to the Scriptures which were in use and read in the synagogues, in their time. Christ severely censures the Scribes and Pharisees and Lawyers for neglecting to obey the Scriptures, and for misrepresenting them and rendering the law of God void by their vain traditions: but he never hints that they had corrupted the sacred text. On the contrary, he refers to the Scriptures, then extant among the Jews, as an infallible standard. “Search the Scriptures,” said he; “for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me.”t Again, “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures. “J He proves his doctrine by the Scriptures, “which cannot be broken,”§ and it is asserted repeatedly, that certain things came to pass, “that the Scriptures might be fulfilled.”|| Yea, Christ himself declares “they must be fulfilled.^H Ajid Paul says, “All Scripture is given by inspiritiou •jf God.“** They are also by this apostle called “the
Ju.lgos xi. II Mark xiv. 49.
+ John V. 39. H Matt. xxvi. 54.
Matt. xxii. 29. 2 Tim. iii. 16.
§ John X. 35.
EVIDENCES OF ClIRISTIAMTY. 853
OKAtLEs OF God,* the word of GoD.“t And Peter says,” the prophecy came not in old time by the wil” of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.“J And James speaks of the Scriptures with equal confidence and respect “And receive with meekness,” says he, “the ingrafted word, which is able to save your souls”§ — “And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith,” &.c.||
Thus it appears, that we have the best possible evidence that the scriptures which were in use v.- hen Christ was upon eartji, were entire and uncorrupted, and we’-e an infallilDle rule; and that men erred from not knowing or understanding them. Whether these scriptures were included in one book or in several, is of no consequence. In one place, our Lord refers to the Scriptures of the Old Testament under the name of Moses and the Prophets.IT They seem, however, to have been divided mto three parts, called by our Saviour, “the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms.”** This exactly corresponds with the ancient division of the Jews, into the Law, Prophets, and Hagiographa, which is mentioned by Josephus. But whether there were three separate volumes, or only one, is a matter of no manner of consequence, any moie than it is now, whether Ihe canonical Scriptures are included in one or two volumes.
The only difficulty which remains is, to ascertain what books were actually extant, at that time, under the name of scriptures. If we can settle this point satisfactorily, the proof of the canon of the Old Testament will be complete.
In the first place, then, it may be observed, that the most important parts of the Old Testament are expressly quoted. We have seen that our Lord mentions the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms j
* Romans iii, 2. Heb. v. 12.
t Rom. ix. 6. X. 17. 1 Cor. xiv. 36. 2 Cor ii. 17. Ephes vi. 17 Col. i. 25. 1 Thess ii, 13. 1 Tim. ii. 9. t 2 Peter i. 21.
§ James i. 21. 22 T Luke xvi. 29, 31.
II James iv 5 Luke x.=v. 44.
and several of the prophets are named, ar.d citations are made from others. Now, as far as th’s evidence goes, it is complete; but it must be acknowledged that several books now in the canon of the Old Testament, are not named nor quoted. In regard to these we must resort to other evidence.
The next proof is derived from the copies of the Hebrew Bible in the hands of the Jews. If our canon is not the same as the one in use in the time of Christ, the alteration must have been made by the Christians, either by adding or taking away some books. But if this had been done, the fraud could easily have been detected by referring to the Jewish Scriptures; for no one can suppose that they would join in collusion with Christians, to mar or adulterate their own sacred volume. Such has been the hostility between the Jews and Christians from the beginning, that they have been mutually safeguards of the inspired books, to preserve them from alteration by one party or the other. All that is necessary, there fore, is to compare our copies of the Hebrew Scriptures with those found among the Jews. The result of this comparison is, that in regard to this point, there is a perfect agreement between the Jews and Protestant Christians. We claim a place for no book m the canon which they do not acknowledge to be uispired; and they bring no accusation against Protestants for having hiutilated the sacred volume by abstracting from it any book or chapter.
But again, we are able to approach very near to direct and full proof of the point in hand, from a most unsuspected quarter. Josephus, who was contemporary with the apostle Paul, and himself not only a learned man, but a priest, has left on record a testimony which every impartial man will consider satisfactory. “We have,” says he, “only two and twenty books which are to be believed as of divine authority. Of which, five are the books of Moses. From the death of JNIoses to the reign of Artaxerxes, the son of Xerxes, king of Persia, the prophets, who vere th successors of M ses, have written in tuir-EVIPEXCEl? OF CHRISTIANITT 2.55
TEEN books. The remaining four 1)ooIcs co iiuin hymns to God. and instrnctions of life for the use ol men.” Here the number and the descri))tiou of the books, considered of divine authority, furnish satisfactory testimony, that the canon of the Jews in the time of our Saviour corresponds entirely with ours.
At first view it might seem, that we had many more than two and twenty books in the vohune of the Old Testament; but this difficulty will be easily removed, when it is considered, that the Jews always reckoned the twelve minor prophets as one book; and the book of Ruth they considered an appendage fo Judges, and the Lamentations of Jeremiah an appendage to his prophecy. Thus the number will be reduced exactly to twenty-two.
We have, besides, the direct testimony of early Christian writers. Melito, bishop of Sardis, who Uved in the second century, took the trouble of making a journey into Judea, to inquire into this matter; and although his own work has not come down to us, Eusebius lias preserved his catalogue of the books of the Old Testament: from which it appears that the sacred canon contained then the very same books which are now included in it.
To Melito we may add the testimony of Origen, who spent much of his time in a place near to Judea, and who was skilled in the Hebrew tongue. This learned man has left a catalogue of the books of the Old Testament, which perfectly corresponds with our canon, except that he has omitted the twelve minor prophets; which book, however, he recognizes in other places as a part of the sacred volume.
Besides having catalogues by many other of the fathers, we have the testimony of two councils; that of Laodicea, and of Carthage; both of which made out catalogues of the books of the Old Testament, which are in perfect accordance with the canon as now constituted.
If other proof were needed, it might be found in the Samaritan Pentateuch, as far as the law is ^t3ncerned; and in the Septuagint eision, which con-
256 EVIDENCES vF CHIUSTIANITV.
tains al. .ne hooks which are now in the Old Testament, in the Hebrew Bibles. This version was made nearly three centuries before the birth of Christ, and had long been in general and familiar use, even in the land of Judea. It is true, that this version, as il has come down to us, while it comprehends all the books now in the canon, includes what is called the apocrypha; therefore, while it furnishes full proof that nothing has been taken away, we cannot refer to it for proof that nothing has been added. But the inquiry respecting the apocryphal books, which claim a place in the canon, will be taken up in the next chapter.
Further proof of the canon of the Old Testament might be derived from the early versions made soon after the commencement of the Christian era; particularly the Syriac, and Latin Vulgate; as also from the quotations of the early Christian writers; from the Targums, which contain a paraphrase of all the books of the Old Testament in Chaldee. And abundant evidence of the same thing might be drawn from the Talmud, which contains the oral law of the Jews. But as what has already been adduced is sufficient, we deem it unnecessary to multiply proofs in a matter so evident.
Having shown that our canon of the Old Testament is the same as that which existed in the time of our Saviour, to which he gave his full and emphatic approbation, it follows of course, that none of the books which ever made a part of the sacred volume have been lost. But here we are met with an objee* tion derived from the Old Testament itself, where several books are spoken of and referred to, which ?.annot now be found. For example, it is said of Solomon, “that he spake three thousand proverbs, and his songs were a thousand and five. And he spake of the trees, from the cedar in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth oi t of the a’all; he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, f.nd of creepiig things, and of the fishes.”*
1 Kings iv. 32, 33
EVIDENCES OF CH KIS’J lAMTY. 257
. We read also of “the book of Samue. the seer,” and “the book of Nathan the prophet;” and ‘’ the book of Gad the seer.“* Mention is also made of the book of “Jashcr;” and of the book of “the wars of the Lord,” &c.t
In answer to this objection it will be sufficient to remark, that there is no evidence that these compositions of Solomon were ever written, as the text only says, that he spake these things; but supposing them to have been written, there is no evidence that they were ever intended to be a part of the sacred canon; or that these compositions were inspired: for it is not necessary to suppose that either prophets or apostles had inspiration to direct them in all matters of common life, or in writing on subjects of natural science.
But in regard to the books of certain prophets and seers, it is highly probable, that those men assisted in writing the historical books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles.
And as to the book of .Tasher, and the book of the wars of the Lord, too little is known about them to authorize us to think that they formed a part of the ancient canon; unless we adopt the opinion, that we still possess them under other names. Here it may with propriety be observed, that the Hebrew word for booh, is used to signify any list or genealogy; and, accordingly, it is the opinion of judicious commentators, that the “book of the wars of the Lord,” was nothing but a muster-roll of the army. And the book of “Jasher” (rectitude) may have been a compend of moral rules derived from the Scriptures; or a manual (not inspired,) composed by the wise for the conduct of life. The mere mention of a book, or citation of a sentence from it, oy no means gives it a place in the canon.
There is no probability that any of the canonical books could have been lost from the Old Testament, when we consider with what religious, and even superstitious care, they have been kef)t ar.c trinsoribed by the Jewish scribes.
1 Chron. xxix. 29 30. t 1 Sam. 18. Num. xii. U.
The Rabbis among the Jews view this mattei af we do: they never complain, nor even hint, that the sacred vohime had been mutilated.
And the unqualified testimony in favour of the Old Testament scriptures by Christ and his apostles, already referred to, ought to be decisive on this point, if all other evidence was wanting.