Scripture

SCRIPTURE

Or SCRIPTURES, the writings, that is, by eminence; the inspired writings, comprising the Old and New Testaments. See BIBLE.

Fuente: American Tract Society Bible Dictionary

Scripture

1. Terms.-The general designation for Scripture is or plur. , the former occurring some 30 times in the NT (Gospels 14, Acts 3, Paul 9, Catholic Epistles 5), the latter about 20 times (Gospels 10, Acts 4, Paul 5, Catholic Epistles 2). The terms are almost invariably preceded by the definite article, the only exceptions being in Joh 19:37, 2Ti 3:16, where the article before is replaced by and respectively, 1Pe 2:6, 2Pe 1:20, where has become a real proper name, and Rom 1:2; Rom 16:26, where the Scriptures are more explicitly characterized as and , holy Scriptures and prophetic Scriptures. In one text, 2Ti 3:15, another designation is used, viz. , sacred writings (a direct translation of the Hebrew phrase ), which we find also in Philo and Josephus.

2. Connotation of terms.-Both and are derived from the verb , draw, inscribe, or write, and thus suggest writing in the most general sense. Classical Greek shows the transition in each case from the rudimentary conception of written characters, or the art of alphabetic writing, to the higher thought of real literature. In the NT alone shows any such variety of meaning. Here the word is applied, not merely to the letter of the Law as contrasted with the living, life-giving spirit (Rom 2:27 ff., 2Co 3:6 f.), but in its plural form to the elements of penmanship (Gal 6:11), literature as a subject of study (Joh 7:15, Act 26:24), and documents of various kinds, such as the debtors bills reduced by the unjust steward (Luk 16:6 f.), letters of commendation or the reverse (Act 28:21), the writings of Moses (Joh 5:47), as well as the Sacred Scriptures (in the phrase cited from 2Ti 3:15). The parallel term is used only in the last sense. The question has been widely canvassed whether the singular applies to the Scriptures as a unified whole, or to some single section or passage of Scripture. In his famous note on Gal 3:22 Lightfoot lays down the principle that the singular in the NT always means a particular passage of Scripture, though in a subsequent comment on Rom 4:3, while insisting that St. Pauls practice is absolute and uniform, he admits a doubt as to St. Johns usage. On the other hand, Warfield maintains that the prevailing classical application of to entire documents, carrying with it a general implication of completeness, extends also to the NT,-that in its more common reference the term designates the OT, to which it is applied in its completeness as a unitary whole (Dict. of Christ and the Gospels ii. 586). In the present writers judgment the former contention vindicates itself, even in the Fourth Gospel and in the crucial text Gal 3:22 (the Apostle having in mind the passages of Scripture adduced either in Gal 2:16, Gal 3:10 or in the longer argument of Rom 3:9 ff.). The only clear instances of applied to the Scriptures as a whole appear to be found in 1Pe 2:6 and 2Pe 1:20, where the word is already a proper name, the full development of the personifying tendency observable in Gal 3:8. As regards the significance of the plural there is general agreement. Where the term is qualified by the adjectives and (cf. above), the reference is to the character, not the scope, of the Scriptures. In 2Pe 3:16 are most probably to be understood of apostolic writings. But the technical phrase undoubtedly denotes the body of Scriptural writings as an organic unity, with a spirit and character of its own.

3. Authority of Scripture.-The peculiar quality of the Scriptures is indicated by the three defining adjectives, , , and , the notions of holiness and sacredness bringing the Books into direct relationship with God, and that of prophecy leading forward to the revelation of the mystery of God in Christ. The high Jewish theory of the inspiration of Scripture is fully accepted in the NT. The term , God-inspired (cf. Heb. ), applied to Scripture in all its parts ( ), is found indeed only in 2Ti 3:16; but the theory underlies the whole attitude of the NT writers to the older revelation. No prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit (2Pe 1:21). Thus the words of Moses, David, Isaiah, and the other prophets may be attributed directly to God (Rom 9:25, Heb 1:5 ff; Heb 5:5 f.), or the Holy Spirit (Act 1:16, Heb 3:7 ff; Heb 10:15 ff.), or God speaking through the Holy Spirit (Act 4:25 f., Heb 4:3 ff; Heb 8:8 ff.), or even the Messiah (Heb 2:12 f., 10:5ff.), As the living oracles of God, then, the Scriptures are the final norm alike of faith and of conduct. The true servant of God believes all things which are according to the law, and which are written in the prophets (Act 24:14), and sets an example to others not, even in their estimate of the apostles, to go beyond the things which are written (1Co 4:6). The appeal to what is written ( or , the Christian rendering of the Rabbinic formula or ) is decisive, not merely in clinching a theological argument (esp. in Romans and Galatians), but in interpreting the mission and person of Christ, and the significance of His death, resurrection, and ascension (Act 2:25 ff., 1Co 15:4, Heb 2:6 ff.), with the subsequent outpouring of the Spirit, the persecution of the Church, the rejection of the Jews and mission to the Gentiles, the resurrection of the body, and the final salvation (Act 1:16 ff., Rom 2:24; Rom 8:36; Rom 9:25 ff., 1Co 1:18 f., 1Co 15:45 ff., etc.), and equally as the authoritative guide to Christian conduct (cf. Act 23:5, Rom 12:19, 1Co 9:9, 2Co 4:13; 2Co 6:17 f., 2Co 8:15, Eph 6:2 f., 1Pe 1:16; 1Pe 3:10 ff.); for whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that through patience and through comfort of the scriptures we might have hope (Rom 15:4), while the very quality of their inspiration is tested by their helpfulness for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for discipline which is in righteousness (2Ti 3:16). It must be admitted, however, that the new spirit of Christianity can move freely within the limits of the older Scriptures only by a frequent straining, and even wresting, of their natural sense (see article Old Testament).

4. Extent of Scripture.-The canon of the NT writers was that inherited from the Jewish Church, and thus corresponded to our OT. There is frequent reference to the canonical groups of the Law and the Prophets. Of the Hagiographa, the Books of Psalms, Proverbs, and Job (in 1Co 3:19) are explicitly cited as Scripture, while a phrase front Ecc 7:20 is introduced in the remarkable conflate of OT texts in Rom 3:10 ff., with the formula . Though the remaining books are passed over in silence, there is no real reason to doubt that the writers knew and recognized the full Jewish canon. In the NT, too, there is no such sense of the inferiority of the Hagiographa as haunted the Jewish Rabbis. The whole book is of God, and bears witness to Him and His salvation. In addition to OT texts there are numerous allusions to apocryphal literature, such as the Wisdom of Ben Sira, the Wisdom of Solomon, 1 and 2 Maccabees, the Book of Enoch, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and the Assumption of Moses (see article Quotations). It is remarkable, however, that the usual formula of Scriptural quotation is nowhere attached to apocryphal texts, the only approach to such canonical recognition being found in the prophesying of Enoch in Jud 1:14. Though the NT writers follow the Septuagint , they apparently regard the Palestinian canon as alone authoritative in the full sense of the term. Naturally their own writings have not yet attained to the dignity of Scripture; but a true feeling for the spiritual value of apostolic letters is already evident in 2Pe 3:15 f., and the application to these writings of the technical term shows how easy and inevitable was the extension of the Canon to cover both the OT and the NT.

Literature.-On the usage and significance of the terms, cf. the NT Dictionaries and Commentaries, esp. J. B. Lightfoot, Galatians, 1890, p. 147 f.; F. J. A. Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter, I. 1-II. 17, 1898, p. 114 ff.; B. F. Westcott, Hebrews, 1889, p. 474 ff.; also D. M. Turpie, The New Testament View of the Old, 1872; G. A. Deissmann, Bible Studies, Eng. translation , 1901, pp. 112 ff., 249 f.; B. B. Warfield, article Scripture, in Dict. of Christ and the Gospels ii. 584 ff., with literature. On the formation of the Canon see F. Buhl, Kanon und Text des AT [Note: T Altes Testament.] , 1891 (Eng. translation , 1892); G. Wildebcer, Het outstaan van den Kanon des Ouden Verbonds4, 1908 (Germ. translation , 1891, Eng. translation , 1895); H. E. Ryle, The Canon of the OT, 1892; K. Budde, article Canon (OT), in Encyclopaedia Biblica ; F. H. Woods, article OT Canon, in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) . On Jewish theories of Inspiration, cf. F. Weber, Jd. Theologie, 1897, p. 80 ff., and E. Schrer, GJV [Note: JV Geschichte des jdischen Volkes (Schrer).] 4 ii. [1907] 363 ff. (HJP [Note: JP History of the Jewish People (Eng. tr. of GJV).] II. i. [1885] 306 ff.).

A. R. Gordon.

Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church

SCRIPTURE

Is a word derived from the Latin scriptura, and in its original sense is of the same import with writing, signifying “any thing written.” It is, however, commonly used to denote the writings of the Old and New Testaments, which are called sometimes the Scriptures, sometimes the sacred or holy Scriptures, and sometimes canonical Scriptures. These books are called the Scriptures by way of eminence, as they are the most important of all writings.

They are said to be holy or sacred on account of the sacred doctrines which they teach; and they are termed canonical, because, when their number and authenticity were ascertained, their names were inserted in ecclesiastical canons, to distinguish them from other books, which, being of no authority, were kept out of sight, and therefore styled apocryphal.

See APOCRYPHA. Among other arguments for the divine authority of the Scriptures, the following may be considered as worthy of our attention: “

1. The sacred penmen, the prophets and apostles, were holy, excellent men, and would not artless, illiterate men, and therefore could not, lay the horrible scheme of deluding mankind. The hope of gain did not influence them, for they were self-denying men, that left all to follow a Master who had not where to lay his head; and whose grand initiating maxim was, Except a man forsake all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

They were so disinterested, that they secured nothing on earth but hunger and nakedness, stocks and prisons, racks and tortures; which, indeed, was all that they could or did expect, in consequence of Christ’s express declarations. Neither was a desire of honour the motive of their actions; for their Lord himself was treated with the utmost contempt, and had more than once assured them that they should certainly share the same fate: above working as mechanics for a coarse maintenance; and so little desirous of human regard, that they exposed to the world the meanness of their birth and occupations, their great ignorance and scandalous falls. Add to this that they were so many, and lived at such distance of time and place from each other, that, had they been impostors, it would have been impracticable for them to contrive and carry on a forgery without being detected. And, as they neither would nor could deceive the world, so they either could nor would be deceived themselves; for they were days, months, and years, eye and ear-witnesses of the things which they relate; and, when they had not the fullest evidence of important facts, they insisted upon new proofs, and even upon sensible demonstrations; as, for instance, Thomas, in the matter of our Lord’s resurrection, Joh 20:25; and to leave us no room to question their sincerity, most of them joyfully sealed the truth of their doctrines with their own blood. Did so many and such marks of veracity ever meet in any other authors? “

2. But even while they lived, they confirmed their testimony by a variety of miracles wrought in divers places, and for a number of years, sometimes before thousands of their enemies, as the miracles of Christ and his disciples; sometimes before hundreds of thousands, as those of Moses. (

See MIRACLE.) “

3. Reason itself dictates, that nothing but the plainest matter of fact could induce so many thousands of prejudiced and persecuting Jews to embrace the humbling self-denying doctrine of the cross, which they so much despised and abhorred. Nothing but the clearest evidence arising from undoubted truth could make multitudes of lawless, luxurious heathens receive, follow, and transmit to posterity, the doctrine and writings of the apostles; expecially at a time when the vanity of their pretensions to miracles and the gift of tongues, could be so easily discovered, had they been impostors; and when the profession of Christianity exposed persons of all ranks to the greatest contempt and most imminent danger. “

4. When the authenticity of the miracles was attested by thousands of living witnesses, religious rites were instituted and performed by hundreds of thousands, agreeable to Scripture injunctions, in order to perpetuate that authenticity: and these solemn ceremonies have ever since been kept up in all parts of the world; the Passover by the Jews, in remembrance of Moses’s miracles in Egypt; and the Eucharist by Christians, as a memorial of Christ’s death, and the miracles that accompanied it, some of which are recorded by Phlegon the Trallian, an heathen historian. “

5. The Scriptures have not only the external sanction of miracles, but the eternal stamp of the omniscient God by a variety of prophecies, some of which have already been most exactly confirmed by the event predicted. (

See PROPHECY.) “

6. The scattered, despised people, the Jews, the irreconcileable enemies of the Christians, keep with amazing care the Old Testament, full of the prophetic history of Jesus Christ, and by that means afford the world a striking proof that the New Testament is true; and Christians, in their turn, show that the Old Testament is abundantly confirmed and explained by the New. (

See JEWS, &4) “

7. To say nothing of the harmony, venerable antiquity, and wonderful preservation of those books, some of which are by far the most ancient in the world; to pass over the inimitable simplicity and true sublimity of their style; the testimony of the fathers and the primitive Christians; they carry with them such characters of truth, as command the respect of every unprejudiced reader. “They open to us the mystery of the creation; the nature of God, angels, and man; the immortality of the soul; the end for which we were made; the origin and connexion of moral and natural evil; the vanity of this world, and the glory of the next. There we see inspired shepherds, tradesmen, and fishermen, surpassing as much the greatest philosophers, as these did the herd of mankind, both in meekness of wisdom and sublimity of doctrine.

There we admire the purest morality in the world, agreeable to the dictates of sound reason, confirmed by the witness which God has placed for himself in our breast, and exemplified in the lives of men of like passions with ourselves.

There we discover a vein of ecclesiastical history and theological truth consistently running through a collection of sixty-six different books, wtitten by various authors, in different languages, during the space of above 1500 years.

There we find, as in a deep and pure spring, all the genuine drops and streams of spiritual knowledge which can possibly be met within the largest libraries.

There the workings of the human heart are described in a manner that demonstrate the inspiration of the Searcher of hearts.

There we have a particular account of all our spiritual maladies, with their various symptoms, and the method of a certain cure; a cure that has been witnessed by multitudes of martyrs and departed saints, and is now enjoyed by thousands of good men, who would account it an honour to seal the truth of the Scriptures with their own blood.

There you meet with the noblest strains of penitential and joyous devotion, adapted to the dispositions and states of all travellers to Sion.

And there you read those awful threatenings and cheering promises which are daily fulfilled in the consciences of men, to the admiration of believers, and the astonishment of attentive infidels. “8. The wonderful efficacy of the Scriptures is another proof that they are of God. When they are faithfully opened by his ministers, and powerfully applied by his Spirit, they wound and heal, they kill and make alive; they alarm the careless, direct the lost, support the tempted, strengthen the weak, comfort mourners, and nourish pious souls. “

9. To conclude: It is exceedingly remarkable, that the more humble and holy people are, the more they read, admire, and value the Scriptures: and, on the contrary, the more self-conceited, worldly- minded, and wicked, the more they neglect, despise, and asperse them. “As for the objections which are raised against their perspicuity and consistency, those who are both pious and learned, know that they are generally founded on prepossession, and the want of understanding in spiritual things; or on our ignorance of several customs, idioms, and circumstances, which were perfectly known when those books were written.

Frequently, also, the immaterial error arises merely from a wrong punctuation, or a mistake of copiers, printers, or translators; as the daily discoveries of pious critics, of ingenious confessions of unprejudiced enquirers, abundantly prove.” To understand the Scriptures, says Dr. Campbell, we should,

1. Get acquainted with each writer’s style.

2. Inquire carefully into the character, the situation, and the office of the writer; the time, the place, the occasion of his writing; and the people for whose immediate use he originally intended his work.

3. Consider the principal scope of the book, and the particulars chiefly observable in the method by which the writer has purposed to execute his design.

4. Where the phrase is obscure, the context must be consulted. This, however, will not always answer.

5. If it do not, consider whether the phrase be any of the writer’s peculiarities: if so, it must be inquired what is the acceptation in which he employs it in other places.

6. If this be not sufficient, recourse should be had to the parallel passages, if there be any such, in the other sacred writers.

7. If this throws no light, consult the New Testament and the Septuagint, where the word may be used.

8. If the term be only once used in Scripture, then recur to the ordinary acceptation of the term in classical authors.

9. Sometimes reference may be had to the fathers.

10. The ancient versions, as well as modern scholiasts, annotators, and translators, may be consulted.

11. The analogy of faith, and the etymology of the word, must be used with caution. Above all, let the reader unite prayer with his endeavours, that his understanding may be illuminated, and his heart impressed with the great truths which the sacred Scriptures contain. As to the public reading of the Scriptures, it may be remarked, that this is a very laudable and necessary practice. “One circumstance, ” as a writer observes, “why this should be attended to in congregations is, that numbers of the hearers, in many places, cannot read them themselves, and not a few of them never hear them read in the families where they reside. It is strange that this has not long ago struck every person of the least reflection in all our churches, and especially the ministers, as a most conclusive and irresistible argument for the adoption of this practice. “

It surely would be better to abridge the preaching and singing, and even the prayers, to one half of their length or more, than to neglect the public reading of the Scriptures. Let these things, therefore, be daly considered, together with the following reasons and observations, and let the reader judge and determine the case, or the matter, for himself. “Remember that God no sooner caused any part of his will, or word, to be written, than he also commanded the same to be read, not only in the family, but also in the congregation, and that even when all Israel were assembled together (the men, women, and children, and even the strangers that were within their gates;) and the end was, that they might hear, and that they might learn, and fear the Lord their God, and observe to do all the words of his law, Deu 31:12. “Afterward, when synagogues were erected in the land of Israel, that the people might every Sabbath meet to worship God, it is well known that the public reading of the Scripture was a main part of the service there performed: so much so, that no less than three-fourths of the time ws generally employed, it seems, in reading and expounding the Scriptures. Even the prayers and songs used on those occasions appear to have been all subservient to that particular and principal employment or service, the reading of the law. “This work, or practice, of reading the Scripture in the congregation, is warranted, and recommended in the New Testament, as well as in the Old. As Christians, it is fit and necessary that we should first of all look unto Jesus, who is the author and finisher of our faith. His example, as well as his precepts, is full of precious and most important instruction; and it is a remarkable circumstance, which ought never to be forgotten, that he began his public ministry, in the synagogue of Nazareth, by reading a portion of Scripture out of the book of the prophet Isaiah; Luk 4:15; Luk 4:19.

This alone, one would think, might be deemed quite sufficient to justify the practice among his disciples through all succeeding ages, and even inspire them with zeal for its constant observance. “The apostle Paul, in pointing out to Timothy his ministerial duties, particularly mentions reading, 1Ti 4:13. Give attendance (says he) to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine, evidently distinguishing reading as one of the public duties incumbent upon Timothy. there can be no reason for separating these three, as if the former was only a private duty, and the others public ones; the most natural and consistent idea is, that they were all three public duties; and that the reading here spoken of, was no other than the reading of the Scriptures in those Christian assemblies where Timothy was concerned, and which the apostle would have him by no means to neglect. If the public reading of the Scriptures was so necessary and important in those religious assemblies which had Timothy for their minister, how much more must it be in our assemblies, and even in those which enjoy the labours of our most able and eminent ministers!”

On the subject of the Scriptures, we must refer the reader to the articles BIBLE, CANON, INSPIRATION, PROPHECY, and REVELATION.

See also Brown’s Introduction to his Bible; Dr. Campbell’s Preliminary Dissertations to his Transl. of the Gospels; Fletcher’s Appeal; Simon’s Critical History of the Old and New Test.; Ostervald’s Arguments of the Books and Characters of the Old and New Test.; Cosins’s Scholastic Hist. of the Canon of Scrip.; Warden’s System of Revealed Religion; Wells’s Geography of the Old and New Test.; The Use of Sacred History, especially as illustrating and confirming the Doctrine of Revelation, by Dr. Jamieson; Dick on Inspiration; Blackwell’s Sacred Classics; Michael’s Introduction to the New Test.; Melmoth’s Sublime and Beautiful of the Scriptures; Dwight’s Dissertation on the Poetry, History, and Eloquence of the Bible; Edwards on the Authority, Style, and Perfection of Scripture; Stackhouse’s History of the Bible; Kennicott’s State of the Hebrew Text.; Jones on the figurative Language of Scripture; and books under articles BIBLE, COMMENTARY, CHRISTIANITY, and REVELATION.

Fuente: Theological Dictionary

Scripture

Sacred Scripture is one of the several names denoting the inspired writings which make up the Old and New Testament.

I. USE OF THE WORD

The corresponding Latin word scriptura occurs in some passages of the Vulgate in the general sense of “writing”; e.g., Ex., xxxii, 16: “the writing also of God was graven in the tables”; again, II Par., xxxvi, 22: “who [Cyrus] commanded it to be proclaimed through all his kingdom, and by writing also”. In other passages of the Vulgate the word denotes a private (Tob., viii, 24) or public (Ezra 2:62; Nehemiah 7:64) written document, a catalogue or index (Ps. lxxxvi, 6), or finally portions of Scripture, such as the canticle of Ezechias (Isaiah 38:5), and the sayings of the wise men (Ecclus., xliv, 5). The writer of II Par., xxx, 5, 18, refers to prescriptions of the Law by the formula “as it is written”, which is rendered by the Septuagint translators kata ten graphen; para ten graphen, “according to Scripture”. The same expression is found in I Esdr., iii, 4, and II Esdr., viii, 15; here we have the beginning of the later form of appeal to the authority of the inspired books gegraptai (Matthew 4:4, 6, 10; 21:13; etc.), or kathos gegraptai (Romans 1:11; 2:24, etc.), “it is written”, “as it is written”.

As the verb graphein was thus employed to denote passages of the sacred writings, so the corresponding noun he graphe gradually came to signify what is pre-eminently the writing, or the inspired writing. This use of the word may be seen in John, vii, 38; x, 35; Acts, viii, 32; Rom., iv, 3; ix, 17; Gal., iii, 8; iv, 30; II Tim., iii, 16; James, ii, 8; I Pet., ii, 6; II Pet., i, 20; the plural form of the noun, ai graphai, is used in the same sense in Matt., xxi, 42; xxii, 29; xxvi, 54; Mark, xii, 24; xiv, 49; Luke, xxiv, 27, 45; John, v, 39; Acts, xvii, 2, 17; xviii, 24, 28; I Cor., xv, 3, 4. In a similar sense are employed the expressions graphai hagiai (Romans 1:2), ai graphai ton propheton (Matthew 26:56), graphai prophetikai (Romans 16:26). The word has a somewhat modified sense in Christ’s question, “and have you not read this scripture” (Mark 12:10). In the language of Christ and the Apostles the expression “scripture” or “scriptures” denotes the sacred books of the Jews. The New Testament uses the expressions in this sense about fifty times; but they occur more frequently in the Fourth Gospel and the Epistles than in the synoptic Gospels. At times, the contents of Scripture are indicated more accurately as comprising the Law and the Prophets (Romans 3:21; Acts 28:23), or the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms (Luke 24:44). The Apostle St. Peter extends the designation Scripture also to tas loipas graphas (2 Peter 3:16), denoting the Pauline Epistles; St. Paul (1 Timothy 5:18) seems to refer by the same expression to both Deut., xxv, 4, and Luke, x, 7.

It is disputed whether the word graphe in the singular is ever used of the Old Testament as a whole. Lightfoot (Galatians 3:22) expresses the opinion that the singular graphe in the New Testament always means a particular passage of Scripture. But in Rom., iv, 3, he modifies his view, appealing to Dr. Vaughan’s statement of the case. He believes that the usage of St. John may admit a doubt, though he does not think so, personally; but St. Paul’s practice is absolute and uniform. Mr. Hort says (1 Peter 2:6) that in St. John and St. Paul he graphe is capable of being understood as approximating to the collective sense (cf. Westcott. “Hebr.”, pp. 474 sqq.; Deissmann, “Bibelstudien”, pp. 108 sqq., Eng. tr., pp. 112 sqq., Warfield, “Pres. and Reform. Review”, X, July, 1899, pp. 472 sqq.). Here arises the question whether the expression of St. Peter (II, Pet., iii, 16) tas loipas graphas refers to a collection of St. Paul’s Epistles. Spitta contends that the term graphai is used in a general non-technical meaning, denoting only writings of St. Paul’s associates (Spitta, “Der zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas”, 1885, p. 294). Zahn refers the term to writings of a religious character which could claim respect in Christian circles either on account of their authors or on account of their use in public worship (Einleitung, pp. 98 sqq., 108). But Mr. F.H. Chase adheres to the principle that the phrase ai graphai used absolutely points to a definite and recognized collection of writings, i.e., Scriptures. The accompanying words, kai, tas loipas, and the verb streblousin in the context confirm Mr. Chase in his conviction (cf. Dict. of the Bible, III, p. 810b).

II. NATURE OF SCRIPTURE

A. According to the Jews

Whether the terms graphe, graphai, and their synonymous expressions to biblion (Nehemiah 8:8), ta biblia (Dan., ix, 2), kephalis bibliou (Psalm 39:8), he iera biblos (2 Maccabees 8:23), ta biblia ta hagia (1 Maccabees 12:9), ta iera grammata (2 Timothy 3:15) refer to particular writings or to a collection of books, they at least show the existence of a number of written documents the authority of which was generally accepted as supreme. The nature of this authority may be inferred from a number of other passages. According to Deut., xxxi, 9-13, Moses wrote the Book of the Law (of the Lord), and delivered it to the priests that they might keep it and read it to the people; see also Ex., xvii, 14; Deut., xvii, 18-19; xxvii, 1; xxviii, 1; 58-61; xxix, 20; xxx, 10; xxxi, 26; I Kings, x, 25; III Kings, ii, 3; IV Kings, xxii, 8. It is clear from IV Kings, xxiii, 1-3, that towards the end of the Jewish kingdom the Book of the Law of the Lord was held in the highest honour as containing the precepts of the Lord Himself. That this was also the case after the Captivity, may be inferred from II Esdr., viii, 1-9, 13,14, 18; the book here mentioned contained the injuctions concerning the Feast of Tabernacles found in Lev., xxiii, 34 sq.; Deut., xvi, 13 sq., and is therefore identical with the pre-Exilic Sacred Books. According to I Mach., i, 57-59, Antiochus commanded the Books of the Law of the Lord to be burned and their retainers to slain. We learn from II Mach., ii, 13, that at the time of Nehemias there existed a collection of books containing historical, prophetical, and psalmodic writings; since the collection is represented as unifrom, and since the portions were considered as certainly of Divine authority, we may infer that this characteristic was ascribed to all, at least in some degree. Coming down to the time of Christ, we find that Flavius Josephus attributes to the twenty-two protocanonical books of the Old Testament Divine authority, maintaining that they had been written under Divine inspiration and that they contain God’s teachings (Contra Appion., I, vi-viii). The Hellenist Philo too is acquainted with the three parts of the sacred Jewish books to which he ascribes an irrefragable authority, because they contain God’s oracles expressed through the instrumentality of the sacred writers (“De vit. Mosis”, pp. 469, 658 sq.; “De monarchia”, p. 564).

B. According to Christian Living This concept of Scripture is fully upheld by the Christian teaching. Jesus Christ Himself appeals to the authority of Scripture, “Search the scriptures” (John 5:39); He maintains that “one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled” (Matthew 5:18); He regards it as a principle that “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35); He presents the word of Scripture as the word of the eternal Father (John 5:33-41), as the word of a writer inspired by the Holy Ghost (Matthew 22:43), as the word of God (Matthew 19:4-5; 22:31); He declares that “all things must needs be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me (Luke 24:44). The Apostles knew that “prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:21); they regarded “all scripture, inspired of God” as “profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice” (2 Timothy 3:16). They considered the words of Scripture as the words of God speaking in the inspired writer or by the mouth of the inspired writer (Hebrews 4:7; Acts 1:15-16; 4:25). Finally, they appealed to Scripture as to an irresistible authority (Rom., passim), they supposed that parts of Scripture have a typical sense such as only God can employ (John 19:36; Hebrews 1:5; 7:3 sqq.), and they derived most important conclusions even from a few words or certain grammatical forms of Scripture (Galatians 3:16; Hebrews 12:26-27). It is not surprising, then, that the earliest Christian writers speak in the same strain of the Scriptures. St. Clement of Rome (I Cor., xlv) tells his readers to search the Scriptures for the truthful expressions of the Holy Ghost. St. Irenaeus (Adv. haer., II, xxxviii, 2) considers the Scriptures as uttered by the Word of God and His Spirit. Origen testifies that it is granted by both Jews and Christians that the Bible was written under (the influence of) the Holy Ghost (Contra Cels., V, x); again, he considers it as proven by Christ’s dwelling in the flesh that the Law and the Prophets were written by a heavenly charisma, and that the writings believed to be the words of God are not men’s work (De princ., iv, vi). St. Clement of Alexandria receives the voice of God who has given the Scriptures, as a reliable proof (Strom., ii).

C. According to Ecclesiastical Documents

Not to multiply patristic testimony for the Divine authority of Scripture, we may add the official doctrine of the Church on the nature of Sacred Scripture. The fifth ecumenical council condemned Theodore of Mopsuestia for his opposition against the Divine authority of the books of Solomon, the Book of Job, and the Canticle of Canticles. Since the fourth century the teaching of the Church concerning the nature of the Bible is practically summed up in the dogmatic formula that God is the author of Sacred Scripture. According to the first chapter of the Council of Carthage (A.D. 398), bishops before being consecrated must express their belief in this formula, and this profession of faith is exacted of them even today. In the thirteenth century, Innocent III imposed this formula on the Waldensians; Clement IV exacted its acceptance from Michael Palaeologus, and the emperor actually accepted it in his letter to the Second Council of Lyons (1272). The same formula was repeated in the fifteenth century by Eugenius IV in his Decree for the Jacobites, in the sixteenth century by the Council of Trent (Sess. IV, decr. de can. Script.), and in the nineteenth century by the Vatican Council. What is implied in this Divine authorship of Sacred Scripture, and how it is to be explained, has been set forth in the article INSPIRATION.

III. COLLECTION OF SACRED BOOKS

What has been said implies that Scripture does not refer to any single book, but comprises a number of books written at different times and by different writers working under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Hence the question, how could such a collection be made, and how was it made in point of fact?

A. Question of Right

The main difficulty as to the first question (quoestio juris) arises from the fact that a book must be Divinely inspired in order to lay claim to the dignity of being regarded as Scripture. Various methods have been suggested for ascertaining the fact of inspiration. It has been claimed that so-called internal criteria are sufficient to lead us to the knowledge of this fact. But on closer investigation they prove inadequate. Miracles and prophecies require a Divine intervention in order that they may happen, not in order that they may be recorded; hence a work relating miracles or prophecies is not necessarily inspired. The so-called ethico-aesthetic criterium is inadequate. It fails to establish that certain portions of Scripture are inspired writings, e.g., the genealogical tables, and the summary accounts of the kings of Juda, while it favours the inspiration of several post-Apostolic works, e.g., of the “Imitation of Christ”, and of the “Epistles” of St. Ignatius Martyr. The same must be said of the psychological criterium, or the effect which the perusal of Scripture produces in the heart of the reader. Such emotions are subjective, and vary in different readers. The Epistle of St. James appeared strawlike to Luther, divine to Calvin. These internal criteria are inadequate even if they be taken collectively. Wrong keys are unable to open a lock whether they be used singly or collectively. Other students of this subject have endeavored to establish Apostolic authorship as a criterium of inspiration. But this answer does not give us a criterium for the inspiration of the Old Testament books, nor does it touch the inspiration of the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke, neither of whom was an Apostle. Besides, the Apostles were endowed with the gift of infallibility in their teaching, and in their writing as far as it formed part of their teaching; but infallibility in writing does not imply inspiration. Certain writings of the Roman pontiff may be infallible, but they are not inspired; God is not their author. Nor can the criterium of inspiration be placed in the testimony of history. For inspiration is a supernatural fact, known only to God and probably to the inspired writer. Hence human testimony concerning inspiration is based, at best, on the testimony of one person who is, naturally speaking, an interested party in the matter concerning which he testifies. The history of the false prophets of former times as well as of our own day teaches us the futility of such testimony. It is true that miracles and prophecy may, at times, confirm such human testimony as to the inspiration of a work. But, in the first place, not all inspired writers have been prophets or workers of miracles; in the second place, in order that prophecies or miracles may serve as proof of inspiration, it must be clear that the miracles were performed, and the prophecies were uttered, to establish the fact in question; in the third place, if this condition be verified, the testimony for inspiration is no longer merely human, but it has become Divine. No one will doubt the sufficiency of Divine testimony to establish the fact of inspiration; on the other hand, no one can deny the need of such testimony in order that we may distinguish with certainty between an inspired and a non-inspired book.

B. Question of Fact

It is a rather difficult problem to state with certainty, how and when the several books of the Old and the New Testament were received as sacred by the religious community. Deut., xxxi, 9, 24 sqq., informs us that Moses delivered the Book of the Law to the Levites and the ancients of Israel to be deposited “in the side of the ark of the covenant”; according to Deut., xvii, 18, the king had to procure for himself a copy of at least a part of the book, so as to “read it all the days of his life”. Josue (xxiv, 26) added his portion to the law-book of Israel, and this may be regarded as the second step in the collection of the Old Testament writings. According to Is., xxxiv, 16, and Jer., xxxvi, 4, the prophets Isaias and Jeremias collected their respective prophetic utterances. The words of II Par., xxix, 30, lead us to suppose that in the days of King Ezechias there either existed or originated a collection of the Psalms of David and of Asaph. From Prov., xxv, 1, one may infer that about the same time there was made a collection of the Solomonic writings, which may have been added to the collection of psalms. In the second century B.C. the Minor Prophets had been collected into one work (Ecclus., xlix, 12) which is cited in Acts, vii, 42, as “the books of the prophets”. The expressions found in Dan., ix, 2, and I Mach., xii, 9, suggest that even these smaller collections had been gathered into a larger body of sacred books. Such a larger collection is certainly implied in the words II Mach., ii, 13, and the prologue of Ecclesiasticus. Since these two passages mention the main divisions of the Old-Testament canon, this latter must have been completed, at least with regard to the earlier books, during the course of the second century B.C.

It is generally granted that the Jews in the time of Jesus Christ acknowledged as canonical or included in their collection of sacred writings all the so-called protocanonical books of the Old Testament. Christ and the Apostles endorsed this faith of the Jews, so that we have Divine authority for their Scriptural character. As there are solid reasons for maintaining that some of the New-Testament writers made use of the Septuagint version which contained the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, these latter too are in so far attested as part of Sacred Scripture. Again, II Pet., iii, 15-16, ranks all the Epistles of St. Paul with the “other scriptures”, and I Tim., v, 18, seems to quote Luke, x, 7, and to place it on a level with Deut., xxv, 4. But these arguments for the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, of the Pauline Epistles, and of the Gospel of St. Luke do not exclude all reasonable doubt. Only the Church, the infallible bearer of tradition, can furnish us invincible certainty as to the number of the Divinely inspired books of both the Old and the New Testament. See CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.

IV. DIVISION OF SCRIPTURE

A. Old and New Testaments

As the two dispensations of grace separated from each other by the advent of Jesus are called the Old and the New Testament (Matthew 26:28; 2 Corinthians 3:14), so were the inspired writings belonging to either economy of grace from the earliest times called books of the Old or of the New Testament, or simply the Old or the New Testament. This name of the two great divisions of the inspired writings has been practically common among Latin Christians from the time of Tertullian, though Tertullian himself frequently employs the name “Instrumentum” or legally authentic document; Cassiodorus uses the title “Sacred Pandects”, or sacred digest of law.

B. Protocanonical and Deuterocanonical

The word “canon” denoted at first the material rule, or instrument, employed in various trades; in a metaphorical sense it signified the form of perfection that had to be attained in the various arts or trades. In this metaphorical sense some of the early Fathers urged the canon of truth, the canon of tradition, the canon of faith, the canon of the Church against the erroneous tenets of the early heretics (St. Clem., “I Cor.”, vii; Clem. of Alex., “Strom.”, xvi; Orig., “De princip.”, IV, ix; etc.). St. Irenaeus employed another metaphor, calling the Fourth Gospel the canon of truth (Adv. haer., III, xi); St. Isidore of Pelusium applies the name to all the inspired writings (Epist., iv, 14). About the time of St. Augustine (Contra Crescent., II, xxxix) and St. Jerome (Prolog. gal.), the word “canon” began to denote the collection of Sacred Scriptures; among later writers it is used practically in the sense of catalogue of inspired books. In the sixteenth century, Sixtus Senensis, O.P., distinguished between protocanonical and deuterocanonical books. This distinction does not indicate a difference of authority, but only a difference of time at which the books were recognized by the whole Church as Divinely inspired. Deuterocanonical, therefore, are those books concerning the inspiration of which some Churches doubted more or less seriously for a time, but which were accepted by the whole Church as really inspired, after the question had been thoroughly investigated. As to the Old Testament, the Books of Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, I, II, Machabees, and alos Esther, x, 4- xvi, 24, Daniel, iii, 24-90, xiii, 1-xiv, 42, are in this sense deuterocanonical; the same must be said of the following New- Testament books and portions: Hebrews, James, II Peter, II, III John, Jude, Apocalypse, Mark, xiii, 9-20, Luke, xxii, 43-44, John, vii, 53-viii, 11. Protestant writers often call the deuterocanonical Books of the Old Testament the Apocrypha.

C. Tripartite Division of Testaments The prologue of Ecclesiasticus shows that the Old-Testament books were divided into three parts, the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (the Hagiographa). The same division is mentioned in Luke, xxiv, 44, and has been kept by the later Jews. The Law or the Torah comprises only the Pentateuch. The second part contains two sections: the former Prophets (Josue, Judges, Samuel, and Kings), and the latter Prophets (Isaias, Jeremias, Ezechiel, and the Minor Prophets, called the Twelve, and counted as one book). The third division embraces three kinds of books: first poetical books (Psalms, Proverbs, Job); secondly, the five Megilloth or Rolls (Canticle of Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther); thirdly, the three remaining books (Daniel, Esdras, Paralipomenon). Hence, adding the five books of the first division to the eight of the second, and the eleven of the third, the entire Canon of the Jewish Scriptures embraces twenty-four books. Another arrangement connects Ruth with the Book of Judges, and Lamentations with Jeremias, and thus reduces the number of the books in the Canon to twenty-two. The division of the New-Testament books into the Gospel and the Apostle (Evangelium et Apostolus, Evangelia et Apostoli, Evangelica et Apostolica) began in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers (St. Ignatius, “Ad Philad.”, v; “Epist. ad Diogn., xi) and was commonly adopted about the end of the second century (St. Iren., “Adv. haer.”, I, iii; Tert., “De praescr.”, xxxiv; St. Clem. of Alex., “Strom.”, VII, iii; etc.); but the more recent Fathers did not adhere to it. It has been found more convenient to divide both the Old Testament and the New into four, or still better into three parts. The four parts distinguish between legal, historical, didactic or doctrinal, and prophetic books, while the tripartite division adds the legal books (the Pentateuch and the Gospels) to the historical, and retains the other two classes, i.e., the didactic and the prophetic books.

D. Arrangement of Books

The catalogue of the Council of Trent arranges the inspired books partly in a topological, partly in a chronological order. In the Old Testament, we have first all the historical books, excepting the two books of the Machabees which were supposed to have been written last of all. These historical books are arranged according to the order of time of which they treat; the books of Tobias, Judith, and Ester, however, occupy the last place because they relate personal history. The body of didactic works occupies the second place in the Canon, being arranged in the order of time at which the writers are supposed to have lived. The third place is assigned to the Prophets, first the four Major and then the twelve Minor Prophets, according to their respective chronological order. The Council follows a similar method in the arrangement of the New- Testament books. The first place is given to the historical books, i.e., the Gospels and the Book of Acts; the Gospels follow the order of their reputed composition. The second place is occupied by the didactic books, the Pauline Epistles preceding the Catholic. The former are enumerated according to the order of dignity of the addresses and according to the importance of the matter treated. Hence results the series: Romans; I, II Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians; Philippians; Colossians; I, II, Thessalonians; I, II Timothy; Titus; Philemon; the Epistle to the Hebrews occupies the last place on account of its late reception into the canon. In its disposition of the Catholic Epistles the Council follows the so- called western order: I, II Peter; I, II, III John; James; Jude; our Vulgate edition follows the oriental order (James; I, II, III, John; Jude) which seems to be based on Gal., ii, 9. The Apocalypse occupies in the New Testament the place corresponding to that of the Prophets in the Old Testament.

E. Liturgical Division

The needs of liturgy occasioned a division of the inspired books into smaller parts. At the time of the Apostles it was a received custom to read in the synagogue service of the sabbath-day a portion of the Pentateuch (Acts 15:21) and a part of the Prophets (Luke 4:16; Acts 13:15, 27). Hence the Pentateuch has been divided into fifty-four “parashas” according to the number of sabbaths in the intercalary lunar year. To each parasha corresponds a division of the prophetic writings, called haphtara. The Talmud speaks of more minute divisions, pesukim, which almost resemble our verses. The Church transferred to the Christian Sunday the Jewish custom of reading part of the Scriptures in the assemblies of the faithful, but soon added to, or replaced, the Jewish lessons by parts of the New Testament (St. Just., “I Apol.”, lxvii; Tert., “De praescr.”, xxxvi, etc.). Since the particular churches differed in the selection of the Sunday readings, this custom did not occasion any generally received division in the books of the New Testament. Besides, from the end of the fifth century, these Sunday lessons were no longer taken in order, but the sections were chosen as they fitted in with the ecclesiastical feasts and seasons.

F. Divisions to facilitate reference

For the convenience of readers and students the text had to be divided more uniformly than we have hitherto seen. Such divisions are traced back to Tatian, in the second century. Ammonius, in the third, divided the Gospel text into 1162 kephalaia in order to facilitate a Gospel harmony. Eusebius, Euthalius, and others carried on this work of division in the following centuries, so that in the fifth or sixth the Gospels were divided into 318 parts (tituli), the Epistles into 254 (capitula), and the Apocalypse into 96 (24 sermones, 72 capitula). Cassiodorus relates that the Old Testament text was divided into various parts (De inst. div. lit., I, ii). But all these various partitions were too imperfect and too uneven for practical use, especially when in the thirteenth century concordances (see CONCORDANCES) began to be constructed. About this time, Card. Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, who died 1228, divided all the books of Scripture uniformly into chapters, a division which found its way almost immediately into the codices of the Vulgate version and even into some codices of the original texts, and passed into all the printed editions after the invention of printing. As the chapters were too long for ready reference, Cardinal Hugh of St. Cher divided them into smaller sections which he indicated by the capital letters A, B, etc. Robert Stephens, probably imitating R. Nathan (1437) divided the chapters into verses, and published his complete division into chapters and verses first in the Vulgate text (1548), and later on also in the Greek original of the New Testament (1551).

V. SCRIPTURE

Since Scripture is the written word of God, its contents are Divinely guaranteed truths, revealed either in the strict or the wider sense of the word. Again, since the inspiration of a writing cannot be known without Divine testimony, God must have revealed which are the books that constitute Sacred Scripture. Moreover, theologians teach that Christian Revelation was complete in the Apostles, and that its deposit was entrusted to the Apostles to guard and to promulgate. Hence the apostolic deposit of Revelation contained no merely Sacred Scripture in the abstract, but also the knowledge as to its constituent books. Scripture, then, is an Apostolic deposit entrusted to the Church, and to the Church belongs its lawful administration. This position of Sacred Scripture in the Church implies the following consequences:

(1) The Apostles promulgated both the Old and New Testament as a document received from God. It is antecedently probable that God should not cast his written Word upon men as a mere windfall, coming from no known authority, but that he should entrust its publication to the care of those whom he was sending to preach the Gospel to all nations, and with whom he had promised to be for all days, even to the consummation of the world. In conformity woth this principle, St. Jerome (De script. eccl.) says of the Gospel of St. Mark: “When Peter had heard it, he both approved of it and ordered it to be read in the churches”. The Fathers testify to the promulgation of Scripture by the Apostles where they treat of the transmission of the inspired writings.

(2) The transmission of the inspired writings consists in the delivery of Scripture by the Apostles to their successors with the right, the duty, and the power to continue its promulgation, to preserve its integrity and identity, to explain its meaning, to use it in proving and illustrating Catholic teaching, to oppose and condemn any attack upon its doctrine, or any abuse of its meaning. We may infer all this from the character of the inspired writings and the nature of the Apostolate; but it is also attested by some of the weightiest writers of the early Church. St. Irenaeus insists upon these points against the Gnostics, who appealed to Scripture as to private historical documents. He excludes this Gnostic view, first by insisting on the mission of the Apostles and upon the succession in the Apostolate, especially as seen in the Church of Rome (Haer., III, 3-4); secondly, by showing that the preaching of the Apostles continued by their successors contains a supernatural guarantee of infallibility through the indwelling of the Holy Ghost (Haer., III, 24); thirdly, by combining the Apostolic succession and the supernatural guarantee of the Holy Ghost (Haer., IV, 26). It seems plain that, if Scripture cannot be regarded as a private historical document on account of the official mission of the Apostles, on account of the official succession in the Apostolate of their successors, on account of the assistance of the Holy Ghost promised to the Apostles and their successors, the promulgation of Scripture, the preservation of its integrity and identity, and the explanation of its meaning must belong to the Apostles and their legitimate successors. The same principles are advocated by the great Alexandrian doctor, Origen (De princ., Praef.). “That alone”, he says, “is to be believed to be the truth which in nothing differs from the ecclesiastical and and Apostolical tradition”. In another passage (in Matth. tr. XXIX, n. 46-47), he rejects the contention urged by the heretics “as often as they bring forward canonical Scriptures in which every Christian agrees and believes”, that “in the houses is the word of truth”; “for from it (the Church) alone the sound hath gone forth into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world”. That the African Church agrees with the Alexandrian, is clear from the words of Tertullian (De praescript., nn, 15, 19). He protests against the admission of heretics “to any discussion whatever touching the Scriptures”. “This question should be first proposed, which is now the only one to be discussed, `To whom belongs the faith itself: whose are the Scriptures’?. . .For the true Scriptures and the true expositions and all the true Christian traditions will be wherever both the true Christian rule and faith shall be shown to be”. St. Augustine endorses the same position when he says: “I should not believe the Gospel except on the authority of the Catholic Church” (Con. epist. Manichaei, fundam., n. 6).

(3) By virtue of its official and permanent promulgation, Scripture is a public document, the Divine authority of which is evident to all the members of the Church.

(4) The Church necessarily possesses a text of Scripture, which is internally authentic, or substantially identical with the original. Any form or version of the text, the internal authenticity of which the Church has approved either by its universal and constant use, or by a formal declaration, enjoys the character of external or public authenticity, i.e., its conformity with the original must not merely be presumed juridically, but must be admitted as certain on account of the infallibility of the Church.

(5) The authentic text, legitimately promulgated, is a source and rule of faith, though it remains only a means or instrument in the hands of the teaching body of the Church, which alone has the right of authoritatively interpreting Scripture.

(6) The administration and custody of Scripture is not entrusted directly to the whole Church, but to its teaching body, though Scripture itself is the common property of the members of the whole Church. While the private handling of Scripture is opposed to the fact that it is common property, its administrators are bound to communicate its contents to all the members of the Church.

(7) Though Scripture is the property of the Church alone, those outside her pale may use it as a means of discovering or entering the Church. But Tertullian shows that they have no right to apply Scripture to their own purposes or to turn it against the Church. He also teaches Catholics how to contest the right of heretics to appeal to Scripture at all (by a kind of demurrer), before arguing with them on single points of Scriptural doctrine.

(8) The rights of the teaching body of the Church include also that of issuing and enforcing decrees for promoting the right use, or preventing the abuse of Scripture. Not to mention the definition of the Canon (see CANON), the Council of Trent issued two decrees concerning the Vulgate (see VULGATE), and a decree concerning the interpretation of Scripture (see EXEGESIS, HERMENEUTICS), and this last enactment was repeated in a more stringent form by the Vatican Council (sess. III, Conc. Trid., sess. IV). The various decisions of the Biblical Commission derive their binding force from this same right of the teaching body of the Church. (Cf. Stapleton, Princ. Fid. Demonstr., X-XI; Wilhelm and Scannell, “Manual of Catholic Theology”, London, 1890, I, 61 sqq.; Scheeben, “Handbuch der katholischen Dogmatik”, Freiburg, 1873, I, 126 sqq.).

VI. ATTITUDE OF THE CHURCH TOWARDS THE READING OF THE BIBLE IN THE VERNACULAR

The attitude of the Church as to the reading of the Bible in the vernacular may be inferred from the Church’s practice and legislation. It has been the practice of the Church to provide newly-converted nations, as soon as possible, with vernacular versions of the Scriptures; hence the early Latin and oriental translations, the versions existing among the Armenians, the Slavonians, the Goths, the Italians, the French, and the partial renderings into English. As to the legislation of the Church on this subject, we may divide its history into three large periods:

(1) During the course of the first millennium of her existence, the Church did not promulgate any law concerning the reading of Scripture in the vernacular. The faithful were rather encouraged to read the Sacred Books according to their spiritual needs (cf. St. Irenaeus, “Adv. haer.”, III, iv).

(2) The next five hundred years show only local regulations concerning the use of the Bible in the vernacular. On 2 January, 1080, Gregory VII wrote to the Duke of Bohemia that he could not allow the publication of the Scriptures in the language of the country. The letter was written chiefly to refuse the petition of the Bohemians for permission to conduct Divine service in the Slavic language. The pontiff feared that the reading of the Bible in the vernacular would lead to irreverence and wrong interpretation of the inspired text (St. Gregory VII, “Epist.”, vii, xi). The second document belongs to the time of the Waldensian and Albigensian heresies. The Bishop of Metz had written to Innocent III that there existed in his diocese a perfect frenzy for the Bible in the vernacular. In 1199 the pope replied that in general the desire to read the Scriptures was praiseworthy, but that the practice was dangerous for the simple and unlearned (“Epist., II, cxli; Hurter, “Gesch. des. Papstes Innocent III”, Hamburg, 1842, IV, 501 sqq.). After the death of Innocent III, the Synod of Toulouse directed in 1229 its fourteenth canon against the misuse of Sacred Scripture on the part of the Cathari: “prohibemus, ne libros Veteris et Novi Testamenti laicis permittatur habere” (Hefele, “Concilgesch”, Freiburg, 1863, V, 875). In 1233 the Synod of Tarragona issued a similar prohibition in its second canon, but both these laws are intended only for the countries subject to the jurisdiction of the respective synods (Hefele, ibid., 918). The Third Synod of Oxford, in 1408, owing to the disorders of the Lollards, who in addition to their crimes of violence and anarchy had introduced virulent interpolations into the vernacular sacred text, issued a law in virtue of which only the versions approved by the local ordinary or the provincial council were allowed to be read by the laity (Hefele, op. cit., VI, 817).

(3) It is only in the beginning of the last five hundred years that we meet with a general law of the Church concerning the reading of the Bible in the vernacular. On 24 March, 1564, Pius IV promulgated in his Constitution, “Dominici gregis”, the Index of Prohibited Books. According to the third rule, the Old Testament may be read in the vernacular by pious and learned men, according to the judgment of the bishop, as a help to the better understanding of the Vulgate. The fourth rule places in the hands of the bishop or the inquisitor the power of allowing the reading of the New Testament in the vernacular to laymen who according to the judgment of their confessor or their pastor can profit by this practice. Sixtus V reserved this power to himself or the Sacred Congregation of the Index, and Clement VIII added this restriction to the fourth rule of the Index, by way of appendix. Benedict XIV required that the vernacular version read by laymen should be either approved by the Holy See or provided with notes taken from the writings of the Fathers or of learned and pious authors. It then became an open question whether this order of Benedict XIV was intended to supersede the former legislation or to further restrict it. This doubt was not removed by the next three documents: the condemnation of certain errors of the Jansenist Quesnel as to the necessity of reading the Bible, by the Bull “Unigenitus” issued by Clement XI on 8 Sept., 1713 (cf. Denzinger, “Enchir.”, nn. 1294-1300); the condemnation of the same teaching maintained in the Synod of Pistoia, by the Bull “Auctorem fidei” issued on 28 Aug., 1794, by Pius VI; the warning against allowing the laity indiscriminately to read the Scriptures in the vernacular, addressed to the Bishop of Mohileff by Pius VII, on 3 Sept., 1816. But the Decree issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Index on 7 Jan., 1836, seems to render it clear that henceforth the laity may read vernacular versions of the Scriptures, if they be either approved by the Holy See, or provided with notes taken from the writings of the Fathers or of learned Catholic authors. The same regulation was repeated by Gregory XVI in his Encyclical of 8 May, 1844. In general, the Church has always allowed the reading of the Bible in the vernacular, if it was desirable for the spiritual needs of her children; she has forbidden it only when it was almost certain to cause serious spiritual harm.

VII. OTHER SCRIPTURAL QUESTIONS

The history of the preservation and the propagation of the Scripture-text is told in the articles MANUSCRIPTS OF THE BIBLE; CODEX ALEXANDRINUS (etc.); VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE; EDITIONS OF THE BIBLE; CRITICISM (TEXTUAL); the interpretation of Scripture is dealt with in the articles HERMENEUTICS; EXEGESIS; COMMENTARIES ON THE BIBLE; and CRITICISM (BIBLICAL). Additional information on the foregoing questions is contained in the articles INTRODUCTION; TESTAMENT, THE OLD; TESTAMENT, THE NEW. The history of our English Version is treated in the article VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE.

———————————–

A list of Catholic literature on Scriptural subjects has been published in the American Ecclesiastical Review, xxxi (August, 1904), 194-201; this list is fairly complete up to the date of its publication. See also the works cited throughout the course of this article. Most of the questions connected with Scripture are treated in special articles throughout the course of the ENCYCLOPEDIA, for instance, in addition to those mentioned above, JEROME; CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES; CONCORDANCES OF THE BIBLE; INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE; TESTAMENT, etc. Each of these articles has an abundant literary guide to its own special aspect of the Scriptures.

A.J. MAAS Transcribed by Robert B. Olson Offered to Almighty God for Timothy and Kris Gray, and for a holy love and understanding of Sacred Scripture for all members of Our Blessed Lord’s Church.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIIICopyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, February 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, D.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia

Scripture

(, kethtab, Dan 10:21, writing, as elsewhere rendered; in the New Test. , of the same signification, but always rendered “Scripture”). The chief facts relating to the books to which, individually and collectively, this title has been applied, will be found under SEE BIBLE; SEE CANON; and SEE SCRIPTURES, HOLY. It will fall within the scope of this article to trace the history of the word, and to determine its exact meaning in the language of the Old and New Tests., with whatever elucidation modern researches and speculations have thrown upon the subject.

1. It is not till the return from the Captivity that the word meets us with any distinctive force. In the earlier books we read of the law, the book of the law. In Exo 32:16, the commandments written on the tables of testimony are said to be the writing of God” ( ), but there is no special sense in the word taken by itself. In the passage from Dan 10:21 ( , Sept. ), where the A.V. has “the Scripture of truth,” the words do not probably mean more than “a true writing.” The thought of the Scripture as a whole is hardly to be found there: the statement there given was certainly not a quotation from any Biblical book. The allusion doubtless is to the divine purposes, which are figuratively represented as a book of destiny (comp. Psa 139:16; Rev 5:1). SEE BOOK.

This first appears in 2Ch 30:5; 2Ch 30:18 (, Sept. , A. V. “as it was written”), and is probably connected with the profound reverence for the sacred books which led the earlier scribes to confine their own teaching to oral tradition, and gave therefore to “the writing” a distinctive pre-eminence. See attunes. The same feeling showed itself in the constant formula of quotation, “It is written,” often without the addition of any words defining the passage quoted (Mat 4:4; Mat 4:6; Mat 21:13; Mat 26:24). The Greek word, as will be seen, kept its ground in this sense. A slight change passed over that of the Hebrew, and led to the substitution of another. The (kethublm =writings), in the Jewish arrangement of the Old Test., was used for a part, and not the whole, of the Old Test. (the Hagiographa [q.v.]), while another form of the same root (kethib) came to have a technical significance as applied to the text, which, though written in the MSS. of the Hebrew Scriptures, might or might not be recognised as keri, the right intelligible reading to be read in the congregation. Another word was therefore wanted, and it was found in the Mikra ( Neh 8:8). or “reading,” the thing read or recited, recitation. (The same root, it may be noticed, is found in the title of the sacred book of Islam [Koran=recitation].) This, accordingly, we find as the equivalent for the collective . The boy at the age of five begins the study of the Mikra, at ten passes on to the Mishna (Pirke Aboth, v, 24). The old word has not, however, disappeared, and , ‘” the writing,” is used with the same connotation (ibid. iii, 10).

2. With this meaning the word passed into the language of the New Test. Used in the singular, it is applied chiefly to this or that passage quoted from the Old Test. (Mar 12:10; Joh 7:38; Joh 13:18; Joh 19:37; Luk 4:21; Rom 9:17; Gal 3:8, et al.). In Act 8:32 ( ) it takes a somewhat larger extension, as denoting the writing of Isaiah; but in Act 8:35 the more limited meaning reappears. In two passages of some difficulty, some have seen the wider, some the narrower, sense.

(1.) (2Ti 3:16) has been translated in the A. V. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” as if , though without the article, were taken as equivalent to the Old Test. as a whole (comp. , Eph 2:21; , Mat 2:3), and , the predicate asserted of it. This is doubtless the correct construction. Even if we should retain the narrower meaning, however, we might still take as the predicate. “Every Scripture sc. every separate portion is divinely inspired.” It has been urged, however, that this assertion of a truth, which both Paul and Timothy held in common, would be less suitable to the context than the assigning of that truth as a ground for the further inference drawn from it; and so there is a large amount of authority in favor of the rendering, “Every , being inspired, is also profitable…” (comp. Meyer, Alford, Wordsworth, Ellicott, Wiesinger, ad loc.). But this renders the latter clause unbalanced, and the rag is evidently intended as a copulative, and not as :a mere expletive adverb. There does not seem any ground for making the meaning of dependent on the adjective (” every inspired writing”), as if we recognised a not inspired. The usus loquendi of the New Test. is uniform in this respect, and the word is never used of any common or secular writing.

(2.) The meaning of the genitive in (2Pe 1:20) seems at first sight, anarthrous though it be, distinctly collective. “Every prophecy of (i.e. contained in) the Old-Test. Scripture.” A closer examination of the passage will perhaps lead to a different conclusion. The apostle, after speaking of the vision on the holy mount, goes on, “We have as something yet firmer, the prophetic word” (here, probably, including the utterances of New Test. , as well as the writings of the Old Test.). So is used by Philo of the words of Moses (Leg. Al-leg. iii, 14; i, 95, ed, Mango. He, of course, could recognise no prophets but those of the Old Test. Clement of Rome (2:11) uses it of a prophecy not included in the canons. Men did well to give heed to that word, They needed one caution in dealing with it. They were to remember that no , no such prophetic utterance starting from, resting on, a , came from the , the individual power of interpretation of the speaker, but was, like the itself, inspired. It was the law of , of the later as well as the earlier, that men of God spake “borne along by the Holy Spirit.” So in the only other instance in which the genitive is found (Rom 15:4), is the counsel, admonition, drawn from the Scriptures. appears in Act 13:15 as the received term for such an address, the sermon of the Synagogue. itself was so closely allied with (comp. Barnabas = = ) that the expressions of the two apostles may, be regarded as substantially identical.

3. In the plural, as might be expected, the collective meaning is prominent. Sometimes we have simply (Mat 21:42; Mat 22:29; Joh 5:39; Act 17:11; 1Co 15:3). Sometimes (Luk 24:27). The epithets gigtat (Rom 1:2), (Rom 16:26), are sometimes joined with it. In 2Pe 3:16 we find an extension of the term to the epistles of Paul; but it remains uncertain whether at are the Scriptures of the Old. Test. exclusively, or include other writings then extant dealing with the same topics. There seems little doubt that such writings did exist. A comparison of Rom 16:26 with Eph 3:5 might even suggest the conclusion that in both there is the same assertion that what had not been revealed before was now manifested by the Spirit to the apostles and prophets of the Church, and so that the “prophetic writings” to which Paul refers are, like the spoken words of New-Test. prophets, those that reveal things not made known before, the knowledge of the mystery of Christ.

It is noticeable that in the 2d Epistle of Clement of Rome (ch. 11) we have a long citation of this nature, not from the Old Test., quoted as (comp. 2Pe 1:19),and that in the 1st Epistle (ch. 23) the same is quoted as . Looking to the special fulness of the prophetic gifts in the Church of Corinth (1Co 1:5; 1Co 14:1), it is obviously probable that some of the spoken prophecies would be committed to writing; and it is a striking coincidence that both the apostolic and the post-apostolic references are connected, first with that Church, and next with that of Rome, which was so largely influenced by it.

4. In one passage, (2Ti 3:15) answers to “The Holy Scriptures” of the A.V. Taken by itself, the word might, as in Joh 7:15; Act 26:24, have a wider range, including the whole circle of Rabbinic education. As determined, however, by the use of other Hellenistic writers, Philo (Leg. ad Caium, ii, 574, ed. Mang.), Josephus (Ant. Proem. 3, 10:10, 4; Cont. Apion. i, 26), there can be no doubt that it is accurately translated with this special meaning.

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

Scripture

invariably in the New Testament denotes that definite collection of sacred books, regarded as given by inspiration of God, which we usually call the Old Testament (2 Tim. 3:15, 16; John 20:9; Gal. 3:22; 2 Pet. 1:20). It was God’s purpose thus to perpetuate his revealed will. From time to time he raised up men to commit to writing in an infallible record the revelation he gave. The “Scripture,” or collection of sacred writings, was thus enlarged from time to time as God saw necessary. We have now a completed “Scripture,” consisting of the Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament canon in the time of our Lord was precisely the same as that which we now possess under that name. He placed the seal of his own authority on this collection of writings, as all equally given by inspiration (Matt. 5:17; 7:12; 22:40; Luke 16:29, 31). (See BIBLE; CANON)

Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary

Scripture

SCRIPTURE.The scope of this article does not permit the discussion in it of the employment of Scripture, or of the estimate put upon Scripture, by either our Lord or the Evangelists. It is strictly limited to the use of the term Scripture in the NT, particularly in the Gospels: and to the immediate implications of that use.

1. The use of this term in the NT was an inheritance, not an invention. The idea of a canon of Sacred Scriptures (and with the idea the thing) was handed down to Christianity from Judaism. The Jews possessed a body of writings, consisting of Law, Prophets, and (other) Scriptures (Kethbhm), though they were often called, for brevitys sake, merely the Law and the Prophets or simply the Law. These Sacred Scriptures, or this Scripture () as it was frequently called, or these Books, or simply this Book (), they looked upon as originating in Divine inspiration, and as therefore possessed everywhere of Divine authority. Whatever stood written in these Scriptures was a word of God, and was therefore referred to indifferently as something which Scripture says ( , or , or ), or the All-Merciful says ( ), or even simply He says ( or merely ); that God is the Speaker in the Scriptural word being too fully understood to require explicit expression. Every precept or dogma was supposed to be grounded in Scriptural teaching, and possessed authority only as buttressed by a Scripture passage, introduced commonly by one or the other of the formulas for it is said () or as it is written ( or ), though, of course, a great variety of more or less frequently occurring formulas of adduction are found. Greek-speaking Jews naturally tended merely to reproduce in their new language the designations and forms of adduction of their sacred books current among their people. This process was no doubt facilitated by the existence among the Greeks of a pregnant legislative use of , , , by which these terms were freighted with an implication of authority. But it is very easy to make too much of this. In Josephus, and even more plainly in the LXX Septuagint , the influence of the Greek usage may be traced; but in a writer like Philo, Jewish habits of thought appear to be absolutely determinative. The fact of importance is that there was nothing left for Christianity to invent here. It merely took over in their entirety the established usages of the Synagogue, and the NT evinces itself in this matter at least a thoroughly Jewish book. The several terms it employs are made use of, to be sure, with some sensitiveness to their inherent implications as Greek words, and the Greek legislative use of some of them gave them, no doubt, peculiar fitness for the service asked of them. But the application made of them by the NT writers had its roots set in Jewish thought, and from it they derive a fuller and deeper meaning than the most pregnant classical usage could impart to them.

2. To the NT writers, as to other Jews, the sacred books of what was now called by them the old covenant (2Co 3:14), described according to their contents as the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms (Luk 24:44), or more briefly as the Law and the Prophets (Mat 7:12, Luk 16:16; cf. Act 28:23, Luk 16:29; Luk 16:31), or merely as the Law (Joh 10:34, 1Co 14:21), or even, perhaps, the Prophets (Mat 2:23; Mat 11:13; Mat 26:56, Luk 1:70; Luk 18:31; Luk 24:25; Luk 24:27, Act 3:24; Act 13:27, Rom 1:2; Rom 16:26), were, when thought of according to their nature, a body of sacred scriptures (Rom 1:2, 2Ti 3:16), or, with the omission of the unnecessary, because well-understood adjective, simply by way of eminence, the Scriptures, Scripture. For employment in this designation either of the substantives or offered itself, although, of course, each brought with it its own suggestions arising from the implication of the form and the general usage of the word. The more usual of the two in this application, in Philo and Josephus, is , or more exactly ; for, although it is sometimes so employed in the singular (but apparently only late, e.g. Callimachus, Epigr. xxiv. 4, and the Church Fathers, passim), it is in the plural that this form more properly denotes that congeries of alphabetical signs which constitutes a book. In the NT, on the other hand, this form is rare. The complete phrase , found also both in Josephus and in Philo, occurs in 2Ti 3:15 as the current title of the sacred books, freighted with all its implications as such. Elsewhere in the NT, however, is scarcely used as a designation of Scripture (cf. Joh 5:47; Joh 7:15). Practically, therefore, , in its varied uses, remains the sole form employed in the NT in the sense of Scripture, Scriptures.

3. This term occurs in the NT about fifty times (Gospels 23, Acts 7, Catholic Epistles 6, Paul 14); and in every case it bears that technical sense in which it designates the Scriptures by way of eminence, the Scriptures of the OT. It is true there are a few instances in which passages adduced as are not easily identified in the OT text; but there is no reason to doubt that OT passages were intended (cf. Hhn, Die alttest. Citate, 270; and Mayor on Jam 4:5, Lightfoot on 1Co 2:9, Westcott on Joh 7:38, and Godet on Luk 11:49). We need to note in modification of the broad statement, therefore, only that it is apparent from 2Pe 3:16 (cf. 1Ti 5:18) that the NT writers were well aware that the category Scripture, in the high sense, included also the writings they were producing, as along with the books of the OT constituting the complete Scripture or authoritative Word of God. In 20 out of the 50 instances in which occurs in the NT, it is the plural form which is used, and in all but two of these cases the article is present , the well-known Scriptures of the Jewish people; and the two exceptions are exceptions only in appearance, since adjectival definitions are present ( , Rom 1:2, here first in extant literature; , Rom 16:26). The singular form occurs some 30 times, all but four of which have the article; and here again the exceptions are only apparent, the term being definite in every case (Joh 19:37 another Scripture; 1Pe 2:6, 2Pe 1:20, 2Ti 3:16, used as a proper name). The distribution of the singular and plural forms is perhaps worth noting. In Acts the singular (3 times) and plural (4) occur almost equally frequently: the plural prevails in the Synoptics (Mt. plural only; Mk. two to one; Lk. three to one), and the singular in the rest of the NT (John 11-1, James 3 to 0, Peter 2 to 1, Paul 2 to 5). In the Gospels the plural form occurs exclusively in Mt., prevailingly in Mk. and Lk., and rarely in Jn., of which the singular is characteristic. No distinction seems to be traceable between the usage of the Evangelists in their own persons and that of our Lord as reported by them. Mt. and Mk. do not on their own account use the term at all; in Lk. and Jn., on the other hand, it occurs not only in reports of our Lords sayings and of the sayings of others, but also in the narrative itself. To our Lord is ascribed the use indifferently of the plural (Mat 21:42; Mat 22:44; Mat 26:54; Mat 26:56, Mar 12:24; Mar 14:9, Joh 5:39) and the singular (Mar 12:10, Luk 4:21, Joh 7:38; Joh 7:42; Joh 10:35; Joh 13:18; Joh 17:12).

4. The history of , , as applied to literary documents, does not seem to have been exactly the same as that of its congener , . The latter appears to have been current first as the appropriate appellation of an alphabetical character, and to have grown gradually upward from that lowly employment to designate documents of less or greater extent, as ultimately made up of alphabetical characters. Although, therefore, the singular is used of any written thing, it is apparently, when applied to writings, most naturally employed of brief pieces like short inseriptions or proverbs, or of the shorter portions of documents such as clausesthough it is also used of those larger sections of works which are more commonly designated as books. It is rather the plural, , which seems to have suggested itself not only for extended treatises, but indeed for documents of all kinds. When so employed, the plural form is not to be pressed. Such a phrase as Moses (Joh 5:47), for example, probably ascribes to Moses only a single bookwhat we call the Pentateuch; and such a phrase as (2Ti 3:15) does not suggest to us a Divine library, but brings the OT before us as a unitary whole. On the other hand, , in its application to literary products, seems to have sprung lightly across the intermediate steps to designate which is most appropriately used, and to have been carried over at once from the writing in the sense of the script to the writing in the sense of the Scripture. Kindred with as it is, its true synonymy in its literary application is rather with such words as () and , in common with which it most naturally designates a complete literary piece, whether treatise or book. Where thought of from the material point of view as so much paper, so to speak, a literary work was apt to be called a (); when thought of as a rational product, thought presented in words, it was apt to be spoken of as a : intermediate between the two stood (), which was apt to come to the lips when the web of words itself was in mind. In a word, () was the most exact word for the book, () for the document inscribed in the book, for the treatise which the document records; while as between and , , preserving the stronger material flavour, gravitates somewhat towards (), and looks upward somewhat toward . When, in the development of the publishers trade, the system of making books in great rolls gave way to the small-roll system, and long works came to be broken up into books, each of which was inscribed in a volume, these separate books attached to themselves this whole series of designations, each with its appropriate implication. Smaller sections were properly called , , , (the last of which is the proper term for clauses), but very seldom, if ever, in classical Greek, .

5. The current senses of these several terms are, of course, more or less reflected in their NT use. But we are struck at once with the fact that occurs in the NT solely in its pregnant technical usage as a designation of the Sacred Scriptures. There seems no intrinsic reason why it should not, like , be freely used for non-sacred writings. In point of fact, however, throughout the NT is ever something which the Holy Ghost has spoken through the mouth of its human authors (Act 1:16), and which is therefore of indefectible, because Divine, authority. It is perhaps even more remarkable that even on this high plane of technical reference it never occurs, in accordance with its most natural, and in the classics its most frequent, sense of treatise, as a term to describe the several books of which the OT is composed. It is tempting, no doubt, to seek to give it such a sense in some of the passages where, occurring in the singular, it yet does not seem to designate the Scriptures in their entirety, and Dr. Hort appears for a moment almost inclined to yield to the temptation (on 1Pe 2:6, note the probable). It is more tempting still to assume that behind the common use of the plural to designate the Scriptures as a whole, there lies a previous current usage by which each book which enters into the composition of these Scriptures was designated by the singular . But in no single passage where occurs does it seem possible to give it a reference to the treatise to which the appeal is made; and the common employment in profane Greek of (in the plural) for a single document, discourages the assumption that (like ) when applied to the Scriptures it has reference to their composite character. The truth seems to be that whether the plural or the singular is employed, the application of the term to the OT writings by the writers of the NT is based upon the conception of these OT writings as a unitary whole, and designates this body of writings in their entirety as the one well-known authoritative documentation of the Divine word. This is the fundamental fact with respect to the use of these terms in the NT from which all the other facts of their usage flow.

6. It is true that in one unique passage, 2Pe 3:16 (on the meaning of which see Bigg, in loc.), does occur with a plural signification. But the units of which this plural is made up, as the grammatical construction suggests, appear to be not treatises (Huther, Khl), but passages (de Wette). Peter seems to say that the unlearned and unstable of course wrested the hard sayings of Pauls letters as they were accustomed to wrest , i.e. the other Scripture statements (cf. Eurip. Hipp. 1311; Philo, de Praem. et Paen. 11 near end)the implication being that no part of Scripture was safe in their hands. This is a sufficiently remarkable use of the plural, no other example of which occurs in the NT; but it is an entirely legitimate one for the NT, and in its context a perfectly natural one. In the Church Fathers the plural is formed freely upon both in the sense of book of Scripture and in the sense of passage of Scripture. But in the NT, apart from the present passage, there is in no instance of the use of the slightest hint of a series whether of treatises or of passages underlying it. Even a passage like Luk 24:27 forms no exception; for if is employed in a singular sense of a single document, then remains just the whole of that document, and is the exact equivalent of , or (if ) has acquired standing as a quasi-proper name) as (2Ti 3:16). Similarly (Mat 26:56), (Rom 16:26) appear to refer not to particular passages deemed prophetic, or to the special section of the OT called the Prophets, but to the entire OT conceived as prophetic in character (cf. 2Pe 1:20, Act 2:30, 2Pe 3:16).

7. In 2Pe 3:16, however, we have already been brought face to face with what is probably the most remarkable fact about the usage of in the NT. This is its occasional employment to refer not merely, as from its form and previous history was to be expected, to the Scripture as a whole, or even, as also would have been only a continuation of its profane usage, to the several treatises which make up that whole, but to the individual passages of Scripture. This employment finds little support from the classics, in which rather than is the current form for the adduction of clauses or fragmentary portions of documents (cf. e.g. Plato, Parmen. 128 AD, Ephesians 3 [317 B]; Thucyd. v. 29; Philo, de Congr. Erud. Grat. 12, Quod Deus immut. 2). It has been customary, accordingly, to represent it as a peculiarity of NT and Patristic Greek. It seems to be found, however, though rarely, in Philo (Quis rerum div. hr. 53, de Praem. ct Paen. 11; cf. Euripides, Hipp. 1311), and is probably an extreme outgrowth of the habit of looking upon the Scriptures as a unitary book of Divine oracles, every portion and passage of which is clothedwith the Divine authority which belongs to the whole and is therefore manifested in all its parts. When the entirety of Scripture is Scripture to us, each passage may readily be adduced as Scripture, because Scripture is conceived as speaking through and in each passage. The transition is easy from saying, The Scripture says, namely, in this or that passage, to saying, of this and that passage, severally, This Scripture says, and Another Scripture says; and a step so inviting was sure sooner or later to be taken. The employment of in the NT to denote a particular passage of Scripture does not appear then to be a continuation of a classical usage, but a new development on Jewish or Judaeo-Christian ground from the pregnant use of for the Sacred Scriptures, every clause of which is conceived as clothed with the authority of the whole. So far from throwing in doubt the usage of pregnantly of Scripture as a whole, therefore, it rather presupposes this usage and is a result of it. So it will not surprise us to find the two usages standing side by side in the NT.

9. It is an outgrowth of this conception of the OT that it is habitually adduced for the ordinary purposes of instruction or debate by such simple formulas as it is said, it is written, with the implication that what is thus said or written is of Divine and final authority. Both of these usages are illustrated in a variety of forms, and with all possible high implications, not only in the NT at large, but also in the Gospels,and not only in the comments of the Evangelists, but also in the reported sayings of our Lord. We are concerned here only with the formula, It is written, in which the consciousness of the written formthe documentary characterof the authority appealed to finds expression. In its most common form, this formula is the simple , used either absolutely, or, with none of its authoritative implication thereby evacuated, with more or less clear intimation of the place where the cited words are to be found written. By its side occurs also the resolved formula (peculiar to Jn.; cf. Plummer on Luk 4:17), or some similar formula, with the same implications. These modes of expression have analogies in profane Greek, especially in legislative usages; but their use with reference to the Divine Scriptures, as it involves the adduction of an authority which rises immeasurably above all legislative authority, is also freighted with a significance to which the profane usage affords no key. In the Gospels, occurs exclusively in Mt. and Mk., and predominately in Lk., but only once in Jn.; most commonly in reports of our Lords sayings. In the latter part of Lk., on the other hand, the authoritative citation of the OT is accomplished by the use of the participle , while in Jn. the place of (8:17 only) is definitely taken by the resolved formula . The significance of these formulas is perhaps most manifest where they stand alone as the bare adduction of authority without indication of any kind whence the citation is derived (so , Mat 4:4; Mat 4:6-7; Mat 4:10, [Mat 11:10], Mat 21:13, [Mat 26:24], Mat 26:31, Mar 7:6; Mar 9:12-13; Mar 11:17; Mar 14:21; Mar 14:27, Luk 4:4; Luk 4:8; Luk 4:10; Luk 7:27; Luk 19:46; Luk 20:17; Luk 22:37; , Joh 2:17; Joh 6:31; Joh 12:14, [16]). The adjunction of an indication of the place where the citation may be found does not, however, really affect the authoritativeness of its adduction. This adjunction is rare in Mt. and Mk. (Mat 2:5, Mar 1:2 only), more frequent in Lk. (Luk 2:23; Luk 3:4; Luk 10:26; Luk 18:31; Luk 24:44; Luk 24:46) and Jn. (Joh 6:45; Joh 8:17; Joh 10:34; Joh 15:25); and by its infrequency it emphasizes the absence of all necessity for such identification. When a NT writer says, It is written, there can arise no doubt where what he thus adduces as possessing absolute authority over the thought and consciences of men is to be found written. The simple adduction in this solemn and decisive manner of a written authority, carries with it the implication that the appeal is made to the indefectible authority of the Scriptures of God, which in all their parts and in every one of their declarations are clothed with the authority of God Himself.

Literature.Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. et Talm. [Note: Talmud.] (ed. Pitman) xi, xii; Schttgen, Hor. Heb. et Talm. [Note: Talmud.] 1732; Surenhusius, sive , 1713 (pp. 136); Dpke, Hermeneutik d. NT Schriften, 1829 (i. pp. 6069); Edersheim, LT [Note: T Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah [Edersheim].] i. 187, n. [Note: note.] 2; Weber, Jd. Theol.2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] (1897) 20; H. J. Holtzmann, NT Theol., Index; Weiss, Theol. of NT, 74a, n. [Note: note.] 3, 136b, n. [Note: note.] 5, 152b, n. [Note: note.] 4; Sepp, De Leer des NT over de HS des OV, 1849; Tholuck, Ueber die Citate der AT [Note: T Altes Testament.] im NT6 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] ; Turpie, The NT View of the Old, 1872; Bhl, Die alttest. Citate in NT, 1878; Toy, Quotations in NT, 1884; Dittmar, VT in Novo, i. 1899; Hhn, Die alttest. Citate im NT, 1900; Anger, Ratio qua loci VT in Evang. Mat. laudantur, 1801; E. Haupt, Die alttest. Citate in d. 4. Evangg. 1871; Clemen, Der Gebrauch d. AT [Note: T Altes Testament.] im NTund speciell in den Reden Jesu, 18911893, Der Gebrauch der AT [Note: T Altes Testament.] in den NT Schriften, 1895 (full literature, p. 19); Massebieau, Examen des Citations de lAncien Test. dans lEvang. selon S. Matthieu, 1885; Swete, Gospel acc. to Mark, pp. lxxlxxiv; Franke, Das AT [Note: T Altes Testament.] bei Johannes, 1885 (pp. 4688, 225281); Lechler, Das AT [Note: T Altes Testament.] in den Reden Jesu (TSK [Note: SK Theol. Studien und Kritiken.] , 1854, 4); Grau, Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu, iv. 1887; Barth, Die Hauptprobleme des Lebens Jesu, ii. 1899 [2nd ed. 1903]; Kautzsch, de VT locis in Paulo, 1809; Monnet, Les citations de S. Paul, 1874; Vollmer, Die alttest. Citate Paulus, 1895.

B. B. Warfield.

Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels

Scripture

SCRIPTURE.1. The word Scripture (Lat. scriptura, a writing, something written) is used for the Bible as a whole, more often in the plural form Scriptures, and also more properly for a passage of the Bible. It appears as tr. [Note: translate or translation.] of the Greek graph, which is used in the singular for a portion of the OT (e.g. Mar 12:10), and also for the whole OT (Gal 3:22), and more frequently in the plural (haigraphai). The specific idea of Scripture contains an element of sanctity and authority. Thus it becomes usual to refer to Holy Scripture, or the Holy Scriptures (en graphais hagiais, Rom 1:2).

2. This specific conception of Scripture as distinguished from ordinary writing is due to the reception of it as a record of the word of God, and is therefore associated with inspiration. The earliest reference to any such record is in the narrative of the finding of the Book of the Law by Hilkiah the scribe in the time of Josiah (2Ki 22:3 ff.). Since this book is now known to have been Deuteronomy or part of it, we must reckon that this was the first book treated as Scripture. Still greater sanctity was given to the enlarged and more developed Law in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, and from that time the whole Pentateuch, regarded as the Law given by God to Moses, is treated as especially sacred and authoritative. The special function of the scribes in guarding and teaching the Law rested on this Scriptural character attached to it, and in turn rendered it the more venerable as Scripture. Later the reception of the Hagiographa and the Prophets into the Canon led to those collections being regarded also as Scripture, though never with quite the authority attached to the Law.

The Rabbis cherished great veneration for Scripture, and ascribed to it a mechanical inspiration which extended to every word and letter. Philo also accepted plenary inspiration, finding his freedom from the bondage of the letter in allegorical interpretations.

Unlike the Jerusalem Rabbis, in this respect followed by most of the NT writers, who quote the various OT authors by name, Philo quotes Scripture as the immediate word of God, and in so doing is followed by the author of Hebrews. Thus, while St. Mark says, as it is written in Isaiah, the prophet (Mar 1:2), and St. Paul David saith (Rom 11:9), in Hebrews we read, He (i.e. God) saith (Heb 1:7), the Holy Ghost saith (Heb 3:7), or, more indefinitely, it is said (Heb 3:15), which is quite in the manner of Philo. Still, the technical expression It is written (gegraptai) is very common both in the Gospels and in St. Pauls Epistles. As a Greek perfect, it has the peculiar force of a present state resulting from a past action. Thus it always conveys the thought that Scripture, although it was written long ago, does not belong to the past, but is in existence to-day, and its inherent present authority is thus emphasized as that of a law now in force. The impersonal character of the passive verb also adds dignity to the citation thus introduced, as something weighty on its own account.

3. No NT writings during the Apostolic age are treated as Scripturea title, with its associated authority, always reserved by the Apostles for the OT. There is an apparent exception in 2Pe 3:15-16, where the Epistles of our beloved brother Paul are associated with the other scriptures; but this is a strong argument in favour of assigning 2Peter to a late period in the second century. Apart from this, we first meet with the technical phrase It is written attached to a NT passage in Barn. iv. 4; but here it is a Gospel citation of a saying of Christ: As it is written. Many are called but few chosen. Thus the authority of Christs words leads to the record of them being cited as Scripture. In Polycarp (Phil. xii. 1) we have the title Scripture applied to the source of a NT quotation, but only in the Latin tr. [Note: translate or translation.] (his scripturis). In 2 Clem. ii. 4 a saying of Christ is cited as Scripture. But, apart from these rare instances, no writer previous to the second half of the second century appeals to the NT as technically Scripture. Clement of Rome, Barnahas (with the one exception referred to), Hermas, and even Justin Martyr use the title for the OT only. Theophilus of Antioch (c [Note: circa, about.] . 180) cites passages from St. Paul as the Divine word (ad Autol. iii. 14). Irenus (180), on the other hand, constantly treats NT passages as the word of God and authoritative Scripture. For an explanation of this remarkable development, see Canon of NT.

W. F. Adeney.

Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible

Scripture

skriptur ( , he graphe, plural , hai grapha): The word means writing. In the Old Testament it occurs in the King James Version only once, the scripture of truth, in Dan 10:21, where it is more correctly rendered in the Revised Version (British and American), the writing of truth. The reference is not to Holy Scripture, but to the book in which are inscribed God’s purposes. In the New Testament, scripture and scriptures stand regularly for the Old Testament sacred books regarded as inspired (2Ti 3:16), the oracles of God (Rom 3:2). Compare on this usage Mat 21:42; Mat 22:29; Mar 12:10; Luk 4:21; Luk 24:27, Luk 24:32, Luk 24:45; Joh 5:39; Joh 10:35; Act 8:32; Act 17:2, Act 17:11; Rom 15:4; Rom 16:26, etc.; in Rom 1:2, holy scriptures. See BIBLE. The expression holy scriptures in 2Ti 3:15 the King James Version represents different words (hiera grammata) and is properly rendered in the Revised Version (British and American) sacred writings. In 2Pe 3:16, the term scriptures is extended to the Eppistle of Paul. In Jam 4:5, the words occur: Think ye that the scripture speaketh in vain? Doth the spirit which he made to dwell in us long unto envying? The passage is probably rather a summary of Scripture teaching than intended as a direct quotation. Others (e.g. Westcott) think the word is used in a wide sense of a Christian hymn.

Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

Scripture

Scripture (Holy), or Scriptures (Holy), the term generally applied in the Christian Church since the second century, to denote the collective writings of the Old and New Testaments.

Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature

Scripture

This word occurs but once in the Old Testament, where an angel speaks of ‘the scripture of truth.’ Dan 10:21. In the New Testament the various parts of the Old Testament are referred to as ‘the scriptures’; they are the ‘holy scriptures,’ 2Ti 3:15; they must needs be fulfilled; they cannot be broken. Joh 10:35; Act 17:2; Act 17:11. Some erred because they did not know the scriptures. Mat 22:29. And ‘all scripture’ is God-inspired, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, or complete, fully fitted to every good work. 2Ti 3:16-17. It is in short a God-inspired and infallible revelation to man, and especially to those who are by grace in relationship with Him. As in a nation ‘the records’ are referred to as authority, so in the church, it is ‘the scriptures’ that bind the conscience, and should be an end of all controversy. To understand them the teaching of the Holy Spirit is needed, for “the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life.”

Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary

Scripture

Scripture, writing, and Scriptures, writings. The name given in the Bible to portions of the recorded will of God; called also “Holy Scriptures,” Rom 1:2; 2Ti 3:16, and once “the Scripture of truth.” Dan 10:21. The more common title in the Bible is “Law,” and “Law of Moses.” Christ refers frequently to passages in the Old Testament in this way, and once designates the entire collection by the three divisions known to the Jews, “the Law of Moses, and the Prophets, and the Psalms.” Luk 24:44. The term Scripture occurs 52 times in the A. V., only once in the Old Testament; but compare 2Ki 22:13; Psa 40:7, and Psa 119:1-176. “Law,” “Law of Moses,” occur 426 times, and “Gospel” in the New Testament only 101 times. The prophets frequently used the phrase, “the word of the Lord.” Isa 1:10; Jer 2:4; Eze 12:17; Dan 9:2; Hos 1:1; Joe 1:1. Scripture is called in the New Testament “the word of God,” “oracles of God,” and “God’s words.” Act 4:31; Act 6:7; Act 12:24; Rom 3:2; and Joh 8:47. In the New Testament Paul’s epistles are classed with the Old Testament as “Scripture.” 2Pe 3:16. The term Bible comes from the Latin Biblia, and Greek Biblos or Biblion, meaning book. It was used by Josephus70-100 a.d., and Philo, to designate single books of the Old Testament; and later by Chrysostom350-407 a.d.for the whole collection. “The Jews have the booksbiblia “… “Provide yourselves with books,… at least procure the new, the Apostolos, the Acts, the Gospels.” Hom. 2 and 9. He also called them “the divine books.” It was applied to the Holy Scriptures by Chaucer1400, and Wyckliffe1384, and used as a title by Coverdale1535. Since then the “Holy Bible” has become the common English title for the collection of 66 sacred books, accepted by all Christians as the authoritative word of God. The Bible is divided into the Old and the New Testaments, a name based upon 2Co 3:14; testament referring there to the old covenant. Thus we read of the “book of the Covenant,” Exo 24:7; 2Ki 23:2, a phrase which was transferred in time to the entire Hebrew Sacred Scriptures, and the New Testament or Covenant to the Christian. There are 39 separate books in the Old Testament, and 27 in the New Testament, making 66 books in the Bible. They are called “holy” or “sacred” because they are the written revelations of God. “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of men; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 2Pe 1:21 A. V., or in R. V., “for no prophecy ever came by the will of man; but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Ghost.” Comp. 2Ti 3:16, and 2Pe 3:16. The Jews, besides dividing the Old Testament into the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, or the writings, as before noted, made other divisions in toe text of separate books for convenience in reading in public worship. For example, they divided the “Law, the five books of Moses, into 54 portions, and these were subdivided into smaller sections. From these grew the modern division of the Old Testament into chapters and verses. The New Testament was divided into chapters and verses by Stephens in 1551, and likewise first appeared in the Genevan English Bible in 1557-1560. The chronological dates were first inserted by Lloyd in 1701, and are from Ussher. The marginal references to facilitate finding texts on the same or similar topics, were greatly improved by Drs. Paris and Blayney, 1762, 1769. The italics in the English versions do not indicate emphatic words, but are inserted by the translators to complete the sense and to show that there are no words in the original Hebrew or Greek to correspond with these English words in italics. The original text of the Old Testament is Hebrew (except a small portion in Chaldaic); the New Testament was written in Greek. The text of the Hebrew Bible has been carefully preserved by the labors of men who regarded it with great reverence. The Massoretic text of today is the work of a body of scholars living at Tiberias, in Galilee, and at Sora in the Euphrates valley, who added the vowel points. The oldest extant Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts date from the tenth century. The entire Hebrew Bible was first printed in 1488. Besides the Jewish Massoretes, able Hebrew scholars have carefully and conscientiously compared various Hebrew copies with the old Greek translations, to give us a more accurate Hebrew text than could be gained from a single ancient manuscript. The New Testament Greek text has received greater critical study than even the Old Testament text. Copies of the gospels and epistles were early multiplied in great numbers. These manuscripts are of two classesuncials, written in capitals and with no division of words or sentences and very few marks of punctuation, and cursives, written in running band. The former are the older, dating from the fourth to the tenth century. The material used, the style of writing, and other peculiarities, enable experts to tell very nearly to what century any given manuscript belongs. The first printed New Testament text that was published was that of Erasmus in 1516. What is called the Received Text (Greek) is that of the Elzevir Edition, 1633. The toils of a long succession of scholars have sufficed to furnish a text that satisfactorily represents the original. Chief among these scholars were Beza, Mill, Bengel, and Bentley in the centuries that followed the Reformation. They were followed by Griesbach1754-1812, Lachmann1793-1851, Tischendorf1815-1874, Tregelles1813-1875, Westcott, and Hort, and through their labors we have a satisfactory and pure text of the Greek Testament.

Order of the Books. The order of the various books differs in Hebrew manuscripts, according as they are Talmudic or Massoretic. The Talmudic order is: the Law, or five books of Moses; the Prophets, viz., Joshua, Jdg 1:1-36 and 2Sa 1:1-27 and 2 Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, the twelve minor Prophets; the Writings, viz., Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Daniel, Esther, Ezra with Neh 1:1-11 and 2 Chronicles. The Massoretes order is: the Law, the earlier Prophets, then Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel; and the kthubim or Writings are thus arranged: Psalms, Proverbs, Job, the five megilloth, viz., Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, then Daniel, Ezra with Neh 1:1-11 and 2 Chronicles. The order in the Septuagint varies considerably from that of the Hebrew. The books of the New Testament may Declassed as historical, doctrinal, and prophetical. The historical, viz., the four Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles, always stand first. Of the doctrinal class, some leading manuscriptsincluding the Alexandrine and Vaticanmake the catholic epistles precede those of Paul; the Hebrews following 2 Thessalonians. The Western church has generally placed the Pauline epistles first, namely, those to churches, then those to individuals, with the Hebrews last, the author being, according to many, uncertain. The prophetical book, Revelation, always closes the sacred volume. See Rice’s Our Sixty-six Sacred Books for further account of the text, versions, etc.

Ancient Translations. 1. The oldest translation of the Old Testament is the Greek, made about two centuries before Christ. It is called the Septuaginti.e., seventy, a round number for the more exact seventy-twofrom a tradition that the work was executed by 72 Jewish scholars. It was in universal use among the Jews in Christ’s day, and is continually quoted by the New Testament writers. This translation instead of the Hebrew was translated into Latin by the early Christian fathers, and is the authority in the Greek Church today. The Jews, however, abandoned it, and returned to the study and use of the original Hebrew. 2. A translation into Syriac was made by Christians, direct from the Hebrew, called the Peshitt (simple), because it was literal, and not paraphrastic, was in common use in the fourth century. 3. Of Latin translations are the Itala, made from the Septuagint, and the translation by Jerome, the most learned Christian of his day, directly from the Hebrew, a.d. 385-405, which is called the Vulgate. All Roman Catholic versions must be conformed to it.

Modern Translations.Only a few leading modern versions can be noticed: 1. German, by Luther, New Testament, in 1522, and Bible, 1534; revised version, 1892. 2. French, by Le Fevre, at Antwerp, 1530; Olivetan, 1535, and Segonds, 1880. 3. Dutch, synod of Dort, 1637, Staats Bibel. 4. Italian, Diodati, 1607. 5. Spanish, by Valero, and by San Miguel, 1602, 1794. 6. Arabic, by E. Smith and Van Dyck, 1866. Many translations have been made by missionaries.

English Translations. Translations of portions of the Bible were made into Anglo-Saxon in the eighth century and into early English in the thirteenth or earlier. The chief translations are: Wyckliffe’s New Testament, from the Latin in 1380, and his followers also translated the Old Testament; these were written. Tyndale’s, from the Greek, first English New Testament, printed 1526. Coverdale’s Bible, 1535, chiefly from the Latin. This was the first entire Bible printed in English, and probably at Zurich. Matthews’ Bible, a fusion of the translations by Tyndale and Coverdale, and made by John Rogers, the martyr, under the name of Matthews. 1537. It was published with the English king’s license, and hence was the first authorized version in English. Taverner’s Bible was a revision of Matthews’ issued in 1589. Cranmer’s, or the Great Bible, was simply a new edition of Matthews’, issued under the sanction of and with a preface by, Cranmer, also in 1539. The Genevan New Testament, 1557, and Genevan Bible, 1560, were made by English refugees at Geneva, during the persecution under the English queen, Mary, who was a Roman Catholic. It was the first complete English translation from the original Hebrew and Greek texts, and the first English Bible divided into modern chapters and verses. The Bishops’ Bible, 1568-1572, a revision of the Great Bible, made by 15 scholars, eight of whom were bishops. The Rheims, New Testament, 1609, and Douai Bible, 1610, made by Roman Catholic scholars at Douai. The King James’, or so-called Authorized Version, made from the Hebrew and Greek by 47 scholars, under sanction of James II., king of England, 1611. The Anglo-American revised Bible, New Testament, 1881, Old Testament, 1885. This is a revision of the so-called A. V. made by a company of 67 British and 34 American scholars appointed by a Committee of the Church of England, through the Convocation of Canterbury, in 1870.

Evidences of Scripture.Concerning the evidences, external and internal, of the truth of Scripture, it may briefly be said that no books have been subjected to such severe critical examination into every statement, and clause, and particular, as the Bible, and never have the arguments for its integrity and authority been as strong as they are today. The fulfillment of prophecy, the minute accuracy of descriptions, formerly supposed to be inaccurate, but which later and more thorough researches have found to be true, sustain the historic verity of the Scriptures. For instance, a searching examination of Paul’s shipwreck has proved it to be minutely accurate. The explorations made of late years in Nineveh and Babylon, Egypt and Palestine, have tended to confirm the credibility of Scripture in many hitherto disputed points. It is true that we must receive the evidence so produced with care. Inscriptions and monumental records are more likely to exaggerate the successes than to chronicle the disasters of the people by whom they were made. We could not reasonably expect to find in Egyptian monuments any detail of the judgments which forced the release of Israel. Neither was it likely that Sennacherib would record the fatal overthrow of his vast army at Jerusalem. But much information has been obtained by incidental notices. Thus it had been questioned whether such a king as Nebuchadnezzar ever reigned. His name, it was said, did not appear in Herodotus: and objectors, if they did not deny the existence of the conqueror, at least insinuated that a petty satrap had been magnified into a great king. But now bricks in abundance have been found inscribed with Nebuchadnezzar’s name, proving that he had built and adorned a magnificent capital. Dan 4:30. Yet more serious doubt was expressed in regard to Belshazzar; and consequently the narrative of his feast and the awful sign which interrupted it was pronounced a fable. But it is now distinctly proved by the discovery of unquestionable records that a sovereign of that name was associated in power with his father during the last days of Babylon’s independence. These instances could be multiplied many times, from the discoveries at Tanis, Lachish, Nineveh, Memphis, and from the recovery of inscriptions and letters, and from the mummies of the Pharaohs, of priests, and princes, almost without number. The results of Christianity, its effects on individuals, families, nations; its wonderful missions, are an unanswerable proof of the verity of this one Book, the Bible. The Scriptures are the only written revelation of God, and the only authoritative record of his plan of salvation. The Old Testament was given specially at first to the Jews, and the New Testament to the disciples of Christ. The Old Testament is fulfilled in the New. There are not less than 265 direct quotations from the Old Testament in the New, and 350 further allusions in the New Testament to the Old Testament, which imply that the latter was the word of God. Again and again Christ and his apostles cited and approved of the Old Testament as the truth of God, and the New Testament expressly declares: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” 2Ti 3:16-17, A. V. (The E. V. modifies, but on the whole rather strengthens this, as a proof text on the subject.) God’s word is not to be diminished, or added to, see Deu 4:2; Deu 12:32; Rev 22:19; nor is God’s plan of salvation to be modified: “If any man preach any other gospel unto you… let him be accursed.” Gat 1:9. The Scriptures from the beginning to their end point to and reveal the living “Word made flesh,” even the Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal life in him. Joh 1:1-14; Col 1:12-20; Heb 1:1-3. From the Mosaic book of Deuteronomy in the Old Testament Jesus quoted texts to withstand the awful conflict in the temptations of the devil. Mat 4:4. It was from the Old Testament books that Jesus talked on the way to Emmaus with two disciples, “beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” Luk 24:27. These scriptures are sufficient to guide and persuade any who will be reasonably persuaded to salvation. When the rich man in torment plead with Abraham for his five brethren, saying: “If one went unto them from the dead, they will repent,” the answer was, “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” Luk 16:30-31. They make a fatal mistake who do not so study the Bible as to find Christ in it from beginning to end, a personal Saviour through whom comes eternal, spiritual life.

Circulation of the Bible.The following statements are from Rice’s Our Sixty-six Sacred Books: The Bible and portions of the Scriptures are printed in 367 versions and 287 dialects, according to the American Bible Society reports (founded 1816). The reports of the British and Foreign Bible Society (founded 1804) show that over 60 new versions of the Bible were added to its list in eleven years, and that the Scriptures are now published in 510 versions in upwards of 300 languages. A conservative estimate is that the Bible, or portions, are now issued in 450 languages and dialects by the Bible and mission societies and private publishers of the world. It is computed that 60,000 copies of the gospels were circulated among Christians before the end of the second century after Christ. Over 100,000 copies of Luther’s German version were sold within 40 years of its issue. Between 1524 and 1611 not less than 278 editions of English Bibles and Testaments wore printed. In the first 15 years of 18th century private publishers in America issued 131 editions of the Bible and 65 of the New Testament. Not less than 1000 editions, some having a very large circulation, were issued in the first 65 years of 19th century in America alone. The total circulation of the Scriptures and portions, for the nineteenth century, is placed at 300,000,000 copies. Never was the annual circulation greater than now. Bible and mission societies of the world circulate yearly about 6,500,000 copies, and private publishers swell tills number to more than 10,000,000 annually, The copies of the Scriptures circulated in heathen lands, in this century, are believed to exceed in number all that there were in the world from Moses to Martin Luther. “This word of God has held a thousand nations for thrice a thousand years spell-bound,” says F. W. Robertson, “held them by an abiding power, even the universality of its truth.” “Blessed are” they.. “who walk in the law of the Lord.” Psa 119:1. Rice, Our 66 Sacred Books.

Fuente: People’s Dictionary of the Bible

Scripture

Scripture. See Bible.

Fuente: Smith’s Bible Dictionary

Scripture

akin to grapho, “to write” (Eng., “graph,” “graphic,” etc.), primarily denotes “a drawing, painting;” then “a writing,” (a) of the OT Scriptures, (1) in the plural, the whole, e.g., Mat 21:42; Mat 22:29; Joh 5:39; Act 17:11; Act 18:24; Rom 1:2, where “the prophets” comprises the OT writers in general; Rom 15:4; Rom 16:26, lit., “prophetic writings,” expressing the character of all the Scriptures; (2) in the singular in reference to a particular passage, e.g., Mar 12:10; Luk 4:21; Joh 2:22; Joh 10:35 (though applicable to all); Joh 19:24, Joh 19:28, Joh 19:36-37; Joh 20:9; Act 1:16; Act 8:32, Act 8:35; Rom 4:3; Rom 9:17; Rom 10:11; Rom 11:2; Gal 3:8, Gal 3:22; Gal 4:30; 1Ti 5:18, where the 2nd quotation is from Luk 10:7, from which it may be inferred that the Apostle included Luke’s Gospel as “Scripture” alike with Deuteronomy, from which the first quotation is taken; in reference to the whole, e.g., Jam 4:5 (see RV, a separate rhetorical question from the one which follows); in 2Pe 1:20, “no prophecy of Scripture,” a description of all, with special application to the OT in the next verse; (b) of the OT Scriptures (those accepted by the Jews as canonical) and all those of the NT which were to be accepted by Christians as authoritative, 2Ti 3:16; these latter were to be discriminated from the many forged epistles and other religious “writings” already produced and circulated in Timothy’s time. Such discrimination would be directed by the fact that “every Scripture,” characterized by inspiration of God, would be profitable for the purposes mentioned; so the RV. The AV states truth concerning the completed Canon of Scripture, but that was not complete when the Apostle wrote to Timothy.

The Scriptures are frequently personified by the NT writers (as by the Jews, Joh 7:42), (a) as speaking with Divine authority, e.g., Joh 19:37; Rom 4:3; Rom 9:17, where the Scripture is said to speak to Pharaoh, giving the message actually sent previously by God to him through Moses; Jam 4:5 (see above); (b) as possessed of the sentient quality of foresight, and the active power of preaching. Gal 3:8, where the Scripture mentioned was written more than four centuries after the words were spoken. The Scripture, in such a case, stands for its Divine Author with an intimation that it remains perpetually characterized as the living voice of God. This Divine agency is again illustrated in Gal 3:22 (cp. Gal 3:10; Mat 11:13).

“a letter of the alphabet,” etc. is used of the Holy Scriptures in 2Ti 3:15. For the various uses of this word see LETTER.

Fuente: Vine’s Dictionary of New Testament Words

Scripture

a term most commonly used to denote the writings of the Old and New Testament, which are sometimes called The Scriptures, sometimes the sacred or holy writings, and sometimes canonical scripture. See BIBLE.

Fuente: Biblical and Theological Dictionary