03-05-2004, 07:01 AM
Part 4 of Section IV entitled 'How we may know whether books which are said to be the Word of God, are so or not."
Dr. Westcott gives at p. 241, the following information from Dr. William Wright, Professor of Arabic in Cambridge University, one of the best informed persons on this subject. He says, "Of the Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum, the earliest of the N. T. which is dated, is A. D. 768." It does not contain the five books last written. "An earlier copy of the 5th or 6th century gives the same books in a different order......The earliest manuscript in which the disputed Epistles occur is dated A. D. 823."
Dr. Westcott gives, under letter D, in his appendix, "The chief catalogues of the Books of the Bible during the first eight centuries." Sixteen out of thirty-two of them are those of the Eastern Churches. No. IV., by Chrysostom, cent. IV., has only "three catholic Epistles," James, 1 Peter, and 1 John. He omits the five books absent from the Peshito. No. VII. is a list by Hebedjesu, about 1318 A. D., from Asseman's Bibliotheca, Vol. iii. Hebedjesu omits the five books above mentioned. He says, "Matthew wrote in Hebrew in Palestine." He describes the three Epistles, that of James, 1 Peter, and 1 John, as "The three letters which have, written in them, writing by the Apostles in every copy and language, namely, those of James, Peter, and John; and which are called catholic." The statement that these three Epistles were issued by the Apostles in various languages, and authenticated in all of them by the handwriting of the Apostles, is of special importance. In No. XVIII., the list of Leontius, about A. D. 590, seven letters are called catholic, i.e., universal, namely, that of James, 1 and 2 of Peter, 1, 2 and 3 of John, and that of Jude, and the reason given for this name is, "Because they were not written for one nation, as those of Paul were; but universally for all nations;" he means probably for the Hebrew Christians dispersed throughout all nations. The above lists all represent the Eastern Churches.
The Churches which have used the Peshito-Syriac text have borne witness as uniformly to its "Apostolic origin" and authority, as the Churches which have used the Greek text have declared its Divine authority. Too little attention has been given to this admitted fact; and besides this, many modern critics who have treated the Greek text as the only text which has testimony to its Apostolic authority, have rejected the general testimony of those very Churches which have used the Greek text. These critics have slighted the readings best approved by the mass and long line of those assemblies; and have adopted as chief guides two copies which have no record whatever of having been generally approved by those Churches; they have also done this in spite of internal evidence in these two Greek copies, that they have been carelessly written. Special attention needs to be given to these facts. Even Canon Westcott, who insists so strongly, in his work on the Canon, p. 12, that we must depend for proof of what "the written Rule of Christendom" is, on the "general confession" of Christian bodies, has adopted in connection with Dr. Hort, and with view to settle the Greek text upon a sure basis, "a system" which, as Dr. Scrivener says, (Introduction, p. 537), is itself "entirely destitute of historical foundation."
Dr. Westcott gives at p. 241, the following information from Dr. William Wright, Professor of Arabic in Cambridge University, one of the best informed persons on this subject. He says, "Of the Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum, the earliest of the N. T. which is dated, is A. D. 768." It does not contain the five books last written. "An earlier copy of the 5th or 6th century gives the same books in a different order......The earliest manuscript in which the disputed Epistles occur is dated A. D. 823."
Dr. Westcott gives, under letter D, in his appendix, "The chief catalogues of the Books of the Bible during the first eight centuries." Sixteen out of thirty-two of them are those of the Eastern Churches. No. IV., by Chrysostom, cent. IV., has only "three catholic Epistles," James, 1 Peter, and 1 John. He omits the five books absent from the Peshito. No. VII. is a list by Hebedjesu, about 1318 A. D., from Asseman's Bibliotheca, Vol. iii. Hebedjesu omits the five books above mentioned. He says, "Matthew wrote in Hebrew in Palestine." He describes the three Epistles, that of James, 1 Peter, and 1 John, as "The three letters which have, written in them, writing by the Apostles in every copy and language, namely, those of James, Peter, and John; and which are called catholic." The statement that these three Epistles were issued by the Apostles in various languages, and authenticated in all of them by the handwriting of the Apostles, is of special importance. In No. XVIII., the list of Leontius, about A. D. 590, seven letters are called catholic, i.e., universal, namely, that of James, 1 and 2 of Peter, 1, 2 and 3 of John, and that of Jude, and the reason given for this name is, "Because they were not written for one nation, as those of Paul were; but universally for all nations;" he means probably for the Hebrew Christians dispersed throughout all nations. The above lists all represent the Eastern Churches.
The Churches which have used the Peshito-Syriac text have borne witness as uniformly to its "Apostolic origin" and authority, as the Churches which have used the Greek text have declared its Divine authority. Too little attention has been given to this admitted fact; and besides this, many modern critics who have treated the Greek text as the only text which has testimony to its Apostolic authority, have rejected the general testimony of those very Churches which have used the Greek text. These critics have slighted the readings best approved by the mass and long line of those assemblies; and have adopted as chief guides two copies which have no record whatever of having been generally approved by those Churches; they have also done this in spite of internal evidence in these two Greek copies, that they have been carelessly written. Special attention needs to be given to these facts. Even Canon Westcott, who insists so strongly, in his work on the Canon, p. 12, that we must depend for proof of what "the written Rule of Christendom" is, on the "general confession" of Christian bodies, has adopted in connection with Dr. Hort, and with view to settle the Greek text upon a sure basis, "a system" which, as Dr. Scrivener says, (Introduction, p. 537), is itself "entirely destitute of historical foundation."