New-York tribune., 1891-05-24

a,,nsa ar olso missing The apocryphal Ist BOON OF
Esdras precedes our Book OF Ezra, whlcn y "'A' =,
with Nehemiah. formerly the lid BOOK OF hsu..s ~
! is evident that when this manuscripts was "rio'0 "
Canon of Scripture accepted by Pr0testants wac '. "
| force Another old aud valuable manuscript - ~0
sinaitc manuscript which contains the New Eiess~
ment including two books not In our BipieS, nano',
the EpIstie of Barr1bas and portion OF t''e o1ep
| Of Hermas and twenty-five books OF tie VI" Ao'e
ment II contains many copyists' blunders' so,e y,
,v,,scb annear TO be Intentional The AieAshofo"
pble Is another old manuscript probably OF the nun
century, It contains most Of the Apocryphai ooohs'
ard n number Of others In addition 10 the ooohs 10"
regarded rs canonical, as for example, an hps'7 ',
Athanasius 10 Marcelenus two Epistes OF Ciemea'e
10 the Corinthians and eight Psalms OF solomon lhero
Is nothing to dferentiae these books from the ots'
and the inference is almost inevitable that az ee as
when this manuscript was written they were resaue"
| as a part Of the Sacred Scriptures
"a easy to see how the different readings IN these
manuscripts arose. Let the most careiui niah ,"
down and copy book. and he VIII ine'itaor msAo
mistakes Moreover, the words were all run Vose'nei
| in these manuscripts and copylso hhsne o"'N,
| err In his division Of them. III tfle Eheno' 49, ~.
"in fancy, were written together, they migho easy
bo mistaken for the word Infancy" and II the latter
word happened to make sense the blundcr would %
| perpetuated Again. copyists were In the haoio Vi
| mabiug changes where the meaning did hot seem
to be clear and they sometimes added brlef eApaho's
notes which In time were incorporated IN the NNt
II is only fair to say that few Of these variations
i'm the New Testament manuscripts are OF mucn iii
portance and the only interpretations OF importance
discovered by critics are the concluding verses OF
Marks GOSPEL the account Of The angel at the pooi
of bethesda and OF the woman taken In adusry
And these passages were probably taken from VIII
ings touching the life Of Jesus now lost or they may
have been part Of the oral Gospel already reiereu
TO- But the fact that such variations and inerpoa-
tu fhn pnne
Of Biblical criticism. For it is only by such meuou
that we can arrive at any rational conclusion con-
cernIng the text and contents Of the BiDle. lne
traditional views of the Bible rest on the taclt sup
poston that at some period in the past God inspired
certain men to write the Bible, that the book WHICH
they thus wrote mracuously preserved through
the ages that those who desire to do so may inspect
# today that the King James version is inallibe
and inerrant translation Of that Bible, and that,
therefore, those who question, or even investigate any
part OF that book committing oeady Sill
What we have said shows how entirely VIDE Oh tle
mark that conception is. There Is no miraculousy
preserved autograph the Bible In every age falible
men have been called to their reason In deciding
on the text and contents Of the Bible. In every age
there have been differences Of opinion as to the read
ings and as to the books which should be considered
a part Of the Bible. And as to all OF these questions
tho Biblical critics of the present day are quite as
competent to form true judgment as were the men
OF the third, Iourtn ana IuIH ceHturi0o wiz" -'S
Canon Of Scripture gradually evolved.
We come now to the question of the Canon. How did
the books which have to-day in the Bible come
to be selected and Others that thought to
be equally Inspired rejectedl The Canon Is an au-
thoritave list of books and until recently the pop
| ular Protestant view that IL was made by the
writer OF the Book of the Revelation. The argument
was exceedingly simple. All the other books
that are in our Bibles written and
| thar hat
God inspired John to write the Revelation
and add it as the last Look of the inspired record with
these solemn words: For testify unto every man
that heareth the words Of the prophecy OF this book
If any man shall add unto them, God shall add unto
him the plaques which are written in this work; and
il any man should take away from the words OF this
prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree
of life and out of the holy city, which written In
| this book" But such argument Is grotesquey
puee Though the Apocalypse happens to be the last
book in our Bibles, it was not the last OF the New
| Testament books to be written. Even those books
that were written not collected together They
were simply scattered writings Of Apostolic men, writ
fen TO meet special eMgencies, and included many
writings that were finally left out Of the Canon. 1t Is
all but certain that the writer OF the Apocalypse Iad
never seen many of these writings: and being devout
lew II would never enter his head that these writings
or indeed his own, could be equal In authority TO the
| Hebrew Scriptures. But granting that he had the
Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian writings In nina
when he penned these words of warning, then it must
| applv to the ApOcryphal books which the Jews ana
Christians then generally recognized as part OF the
old Testament, and to Christian writings then iecog
nized by Christians, which were afterward aropped
| from the Canon. SO that Protestants who now re
iect these books are themselves condemned by the
very statement which they regard settling the canon
The trth of course, IS that the Bible nowhere pro-
nounces on its own canonClty There Is not line IN
IT, from Genesis TO the Revelation, which Will euue Us
in deciding whether, for example, the BOOKS Oh the
Meccabees or the Epstles of Clement are or are hot
IN he REGARDED part of the Bible In decluhs "hdO
the Bible is. fallble men were obliged to use their
caason and 10 weigh probable evidence Just as the
R,flcal critics of to-day doing. These are lacts
| which cannot be denied or ignored
Ezra becan the formation Of the Jewish canon by
Gathering together the Pentateuch and perhaps tne
| hook of Joshua. Nehimah continued the work py
collecting and editing the Prophets Who collected thc
Writings or Hagiographa we do not know; but IL was
nrobaby done about 45o B. c. and was therefore done
| hv men who are not known to have been inspired
FINALLY the septuagint collection was made. when III
cnded the so-called Apocphal books, and as we hso
seen that was the collection in use during the time OF
| orr Lord And all the old manuscripts OF the blole
which we possess contain these Apocyphal books inter-
! mingled with the books Of our canon. There are
in fact, numerous passages in the New IesVa
| ment which clearly show that the Apostles ana
| Fvangelsts were familiar with these books, as
matter Of fact the Canon Of the Old Testament was no
6xed until sixty years after Lords DEATH seVera
of rs books were in dispute during the whole Apostolic
/ age Among them the books of Ezekiel Ecciesias'eS'
Cantclcs Esther and Proverbs and these are the very
| hooks which are not referred to in the New Ies'@
ment. "These later books,' says wrlter' hn'o
I been delivered us they have their use ana value
| which is to be ascertained by frank ana eVereh'
sndy of the texts themselves but those who insist on
placing them on the same footing OF undiSpu'eu
authority with the Law the Prophets and the PSALMS
TO which our Lord bears direct testimony ana so maze
the whole doctrine of the Canon depend ON its weaeS'
part sacrifice the true strength Of the evidence OH
which the Old Testament is received by CHRISTIANS
In "Smth,s Bible Dictionary Wescott gives tao4e
OF citations from the apocryphai books, by fifteen
Greek fathers and eight Latin fathers OF the