panions, were the main souree of the Church's
knowledge of Christ's deeds and teachings. Nev-
ertheless, Justin held no strict theory as to the
canonicity of the four Gospels. The progress of
thought in this respect was such that Irenaeus,
fort}- years later, speaks of the four Gospels as
the "four foundation pillars of the Church, de-
claring that the four creatures in Revelation
iv. 7 s™ibolized the same Gospels. In Irenseus
we also find the conception that the Gospels,
though four in number, were of one Spirit, In
writers between Justin and Irenseus we see the
same general iiigh estimation of the Gospels and
familiarity with their contents. In reference to
the Epistles, especially those of Paul, we find that
not only many collections were in existence,
but that they were coordinated with the Gos-
pels as a second and essential element in the doc-
uments of the Xew Dispensation, which were
now being placed alongside of the Old Testament
as belonging to the Church's authoritative Scrip-
tures. The conllict with heresy simply acceler-
ated and sharpened the thought of the Church in
these respects. At the outset both heretics and
orthodox appealed to the same early documents
and traditions. But when heresy began to ma-
nipulate these Uocuments, or to forge others as of
equal value, or to explain them by fanciful inter-
pretations, such men as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and
Hippolytus protested, insisting that only those
writings which the Church had always used and
received as of Apostolic origin were to be ac-
cepted as standard and authoritative. By a.d,
225, tlie principle of a New Testament alongside
of the Old was pretty firmly established and
generally adopted throughout the Church, The
two great divisions of this New Testament were
designated by the terms, almost universally used,
'the Gospel' and 'the Apostle,' corresponding to
the Law and the Prophets; and each division was
considered inspired. The main elements in 'the
Apostle' part were the Epistles of Paul, I, Peter,
and I. John, These were practically universally
Used. The Acta and the Apocalypse were also
quite generally used. In respect to the other
New-Testament books, though they belonged to
the collection in some localities, their use had
not yet become universal. On the other hand,
in some localities, certain early Christian books,
such as I. Clement. Ep. Barnabas, and the Di-
dache, were accorded canonical rank. In Rome,
the principle of Apostolic origin was rigorously
applied; in Alexandria, the spirit was mor^ lib-
eral.
(4) Period from a.d. 3i5(>9i. — All that now
remained was for the Church to come to some
agreement as to the difleren'-es between the col-
lections in use. As to Alexandria, the writings of
Clement and Origen show that doubts as to II.
Peter and II. and III. .Tohn were freely expressed,
while .lames and .lude were, apparently, not used.
A later Alexandrian bishop, Ilionysius (c.250
A.D.), rejected the Apociilypse. There was much
discussion, also, as to the authorship of He-
brews. Finally, however, Athanasius, the great
Bishop of Alexandria, in a.d. 3f)7, decreed that
the canon consisted of the 27 books now included
in the New Testament. In the West, the question
of the disputed books, which there were Hebrews,
James, Jude, and II. Petert' was finally settled
by the Council of Carthage in a.d. .31)7, which ac-
cepted them as canonical. Usage in Rome and
Alexandria and Carthage thus became uniform.
In the East, dominated by AntiOeh and Constan-
tinople, it was long before the question was set-
tled. Eusebius, about a.d. 325, had pointed out
that seven books were 'Antilegomena,' i.e. spoken
against (by some). Of these, Hebrews and
.Tames were generally used in the East. The
others. II. Peter, II. and III. John, Jude, and
Revelation, were often either unknown or unac-
knowledged. These were also probably wanting in
the earlier Syriac Bibles. Gradually the practice
in the East became conformed to that in the
West, until at the Council of a.d. (i9I, though not
without some inconsistency, the canon of the
West — i.e. our present New-Testament canon —
was recognized. The controversies of the Refor-
mation times left the New-Testament canon un-
touclied.
IV, THE VEBSIONS OF THE BIBLE.
(A) Versions in Ancient Languages. L Greek. — (I) According to Aristobulus, the jiseudo-HecatEeus, and pseudo-Aristeas, who prob- ably all flourished at the beginning of the First Century a.d,, there existed long before Ptolemy II, Philadelphus (b,c. 285-247), a translation of the .Jewish Law, with which the great legislators and philosophers of Greece became acquainted. While the general character of these writings and the evident desire to magnify Moses threw doubt upon the assertion, it may reflect the confused memory of some translation supplanted by the officially recognized version. If so, it is lost, ex- cept as it may have been incorporated in the latter.
( 2 ) The origin of the most important Greek version is minutely described in the letter of Aristeas to his brother, Philacrates. This docu- ment relates how Ptolemy II. Philadelphus was persuaded by his librarian, Demetrius of Pha- leron, to send an embassy to the high-priest, Ele- azar, with a request for a copy of the Jewish Law and six men from each tribe to translate it. Sev- enty-two men were dispatched to Alexandria with a copy written in golden letters. They were led to the island of Pharos, where, in 72 days, they produced a work that greatly delighted Phila- delphus as well as the Jews,
The spurious character of this epistle was al- ready recognized by John Louis Vives (1522), Joseph Scaliger ('10091, and Richard Simon (1G78), and fully demonstrated by Humphry Hody (l(iS4). The author professes to be a Greek, while he manifestly is a Jew. He claims to be employed at the Court of Ptolemy Phila- delphus, while his ignorance of the King's reign and his familinvity with later conditions render it probable that he lived in the days of Augustus or of Tiberius. His official documents are forger- ies: his story is based on mythical and legendary motives, and while it throws light on the Ptole- maic dynasty and the beginning of Roman rule, it can give no aid in determining the origin and date of the version. The name derived from this legend (Septuaginta et duo, Septuagint, LXXIL, LXX.) is most misleading, being generally ap- plied to the Si.vtine edition, and it i.s, therefore, avoided by accurate scholars.
The earliest external evidence is probably found in Eupolenius. This writer seems to have used a translation of Chronicles. He apparently wrote his Ilistorif of the Kliif/.i in .lud<rn not long before Alexander Polyhistor, who died in B.C. 40. Demetrius, who likewise lived some
