By Lenet H. Read

Gifts of Sacrifice and Love

Lenet H. Read, “How the Bible Came to Be: Part 1, A Testament Is Established,” Ensign, Jan. 1982, 36
A certain Christian man laboring in India offered to give interested natives a copy of the Bible. After hearing of its message, many eagerly responded. One old man, looking upon the Bible with reverence, asked, “How long has this book been in the world?” When he learned it had existed for centuries, he sorrowfully shook his head. “I am an old man. All my friends have died hopeless. … And all this time the book was here and nobody brought it to me.” 1 How quickly he sensed the worth of his new possession: a record of God’s dealings with man from the time of the Creation.

The Bible is indeed a book of immense consequence. Book of Mormon prophets who in visions saw it come forth testified of its great value. For Lehi, the word of God was the physical reality behind the iron rod that led unwaveringly to the tree of life. (See 1 Ne. 15:23-24.) For Nephi, the Jewish record was the “book of the Lamb of God” (1 Ne. 13:28), not fully whole nor pure, but nevertheless of great worth. Indeed, the record was so vital that Lehi was commanded to take a copy of one record as then compiled—the brass plates—with him to the promised land, in spite of jeopardy to his sons’ lives and the ultimate cost of Laban’s.

But we also learn from the Book of Mormon how generally unappreciated the biblical record is. In his prophecies about the future, Nephi speaks of lack of gratitude to the Jews for their great sacrifices in bringing forth their books: “What thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them? … Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles? … Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?” (2 Ne. 29:4, 6.)

Surely the sacrifices the Jews have made in bringing forth and preserving precious records through many centuries of trials and tribulations are immense. Yet that is only a part of the story. The whole history of the formation of the Bible, Old Testament and New, and of the efforts to preserve it and to place it in the tongues of common men is a fascinating story both of special blessing by God and of utmost sacrifice by man.

We begin here several articles about the formation, step by step, of the Bible. The stories to be told contain the best elements of storytelling: conflict, pathos, tragedy, irony, humor, awe—even intrigue. We should learn much. But hopefully we will gain most of all a deep appreciation for the heavy cost—in self-denial and in lives—by which we have obtained these holy messages.

Precisely how and when did the “record of the Jews” begin? Most scholars say we don’t know, that the stories were passed down orally, that “other than oral” communication began with hieroglyphics and evolved into writing. They say that the records we have of the Creation and the first patriarch came from several unknown sources at much later dates and were somehow untidily interwoven into the Genesis account.

But Latter-day Saints have a different understanding. By revealing to the Prophet Joseph Smith the writings of Moses, the Lord revealed anew to mankind when and how the record began.

“And a book of remembrance was kept … in the language of Adam, for it was given unto as many as called upon God to write by the spirit of inspiration.”

“And by them their children were taught to read and write, having a language which was pure and undefiled. …

“And this was the book of the generations of Adam, saying: In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him.” (Moses 6:5, 6, 8.)

Thus we learn through revelation that after man’s creation, he was not left ignorant of his origins. From the beginning he was given a knowledge of writing and thereafter recorded his origins and all things that happened to him. (See Moses 6:5-6.) The “record of the Jews,” then, has it roots not in an accident or an afterthought, but in a gift of love from a wise and loving Creator.

In view of current scholarly opinions, these are bold assertations. Nevertheless, with the uncovering today of more and more ancient writings, there is a small but growing list of external evidences that the book of Moses’ account of the beginning of written history is correct. Dr. Hugh Nibley has detailed the kinds of findings now uncovered. Of particular interest because it highlights the value of the ancient texts is a statement found in the writing of a pharaoh who lived long before Christ in the Thirteenth Dynasty: “My heart yearned to behold the most ancient books of Atum [Adam]. Open them before me for diligent searching, that I may know god as he really is!” 2 Early Jewish apocryphal texts also equate Adam with writing, and ancient cultures have left evidence of a belief that writing came not through man, but was a gift handed down from heaven. 3

In addition, a leather scroll which may be the oldest book yet found has surprised scholars with its remarkably well-developed teachings of a “council in heaven, the creation of the world, the fall of man, and the means by which he may achieve resurrection and be reinstated in his primal glory.” 4

But the most important aspect of all this evidence is the excitement it should give us to recognize anew what a treasure we have. Dr. Nibley builds upon a suggestion that the semitic alphabet almost seems to have been devised for the very purpose of recording scriptures: “Whoever reads the standard works today has before him the words of God to men from the beginning, in witness of which the very letters on the page are but slightly conventionalized forms of the original symbols in which the message was conveyed. … As members of the human race we are bound to approach the scriptures with new feelings of reverence and respect.” 5 What a difference it makes to know that the Bible did not begin in uncertain origin or with uncertain authority, but was given to man from the beginning as an essential tool to prepare him for salvation!

Latter-day revelation has also shown that the pattern of record-keeping established by Adam was continued by succeeding patriarchs who added accounts of their own days. Enoch speaks of the record of his fathers:

“And death hath come upon our fathers; nevertheless we know them, and cannot deny, and even the first of all we know, even Adam.

“For a book of remembrance we have written among us.” (Moses 6:45, 46.)

Abraham testified that the process of adding to the record continued after the flood and included his own additions:

“But the records of the fathers, even the patriarchs … the Lord my God preserved in mine own hands; therefore a knowledge of the beginning of the creation, and also of the planets, and of the stars, as they were made known unto the fathers, have I kept even unto this day, and I shall endeavor to write some of these things upon this record, for the benefit of my posterity that shall come after me.” (Abr. 1:31.)

Part of the calling of the patriarch/prophet was to make a record of his days. Thus, in relay form records from earlier patriarchs were handed down, and later prophets synthesized them, incorporated their own records, and passed them on again to yet future generations.

Although Latter-day Saint scriptures for over a hundred and fifty years have described this process, non-LDS clues are only now being found by scholars of the world. Among some of the most interesting manuscript finds of recent years are works bearing the names of ancient patriarchs. We must remember that these manuscripts are generally not the original writings, but they form a tradition that witnesses that original documents once existed.

These recent finds are of keen interest to Latter-day Saints because in spite of their corruptions they all contain a basic pattern which coincides with the experiences of the prophets whose records came into the hands of Joseph Smith. To summarize this pattern, each prophet separately testifies that he, deeply distressed by the sinfulness of his day, and desiring to serve God, was moved to seek the Lord earnestly. Each was subsequently given a vision in which he beheld God and portions of His glory. As part of this vision, he is taught a plan of salvation, beholds many worlds besides this one, and is shown the history of the earth. Then he is authorized and admonished to preach repentance unto his people. Sometimes there is a brief interlude between a first and second vision in which the prophet is confronted by Satan, who seeks to thwart God’s work through temptation and fear. 6

The repetitiveness of this basic pattern can add much to our understanding of the fuller record upon which the biblical account draws. The Pearl of Great Price tells us why the Bible is missing the fuller story: “And now of this thing Moses bore record; but because of wickedness [lack of belief?] it is not had among the children of men.” (Moses 1:23.)

Man’s scientific pursuit of knowledge of his origins surely will eventually lead him to some truths. But in the meantime, he is susceptible to many false conclusions. For example, discovered in ruins of Israel’s neighboring cultures are stories similar to those in Genesis—such as the Creation and the Flood. Their discovery made it popular for a time to suggest that Israel had borrowed its “history” from myths of surrounding cultures. However, as time has brought new discoveries, the older, clearer, and much more believable records fall back into Israel’s line. 7 And it is now more accepted among scholars that it was Israel’s history which gave rise to or was borrowed by others. With the fragments of truth which they borrowed or inherited, other ancient cultures built wild fantasies as they separated themselves further from the doctrines sustaining the stories. In the case of the Egyptians, their records became a grab bag full of unsorted and unclear beliefs and ideas. While their collection contained fragments of truth, those fragments were lost in a maze of confusion.

Another striking distinction separating Israel’s earliest records from those of her neighbors is the hope underlying Israel’s record. The prophets showed that meaning, purpose, and order control man’s existence; if to Israel God did not always appear merciful, he at least operated with reasoned justice, and there was always the promise of God’s prophesied redemption.

Thus while neighboring cultures had bits and pieces of truth, their records and therefore their understanding were corrupted. On the other hand, fuller records of truth were meticulously kept, and the patriarchs took pains to see that the truths were passed on to other generations in as uncorrupted a form as possible. Thus, in spite of errors that have crept into them over the centuries, these records have come to us as an essential part of our true and priceless heritage.

Moses’ Hand upon the Record

Although Adam and succeeding patriarchs left records, the first five books of the Old Testament are identified as “the writings of Moses.” How did Moses come to receive credit for these essential books?

One theory holds that such credit is misleading. A number of Christian scholars point to evidence suggesting that several persons, probably none of them Moses, wrote these books. They point out that Moses’ death is a part of the record and show how the books are written in differing styles and points of view.

Without further elaboration upon this theory, which has become widely accepted in scholarship, let’s examine what the Pearl of Great Price tells us: “The Lord spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I reveal unto you concerning this heaven, and this earth; write the words which I speak. … In the beginning I created the heaven.” (Moses 2:1; italics added.)

We see that Moses did make a record and that he was instructed to begin with the Creation.

But what about the changes in writing style? The continuing discovery of ancient records contradicts the theory that style changes in the Pentateuch (Moses’ five books) indicate multiple authorship. As other manuscripts of that general age and area are carefully studied, it is seen that ancient peoples commonly used a variety of styles in one composition. Therefore some scholars think now that archaeological discoveries have rendered unsound the trend to find many unknown sources behind each book of the Bible.

Still, it is not necessary to argue that Moses’ hand was the only one that touched the papyrus. Joseph Smith and other prophets used scribes to assist them, and we know that Moses understood the principle of delegation. With the major responsibilities that were his, it is likely that he assigned scribes to carry out, under his direction, part of the actual work of record-keeping, including the scribe who completed the record after Moses’ death.

Furthermore, as we learn from the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price, some prophets were instructed to edit and abridge the records as they passed them along. So in addition to writing down his own revelations, Moses may have edited previous writings. And his writings may have been edited later by others. The point remains that as long as Moses was the motivating force behind the compilation of the Pentateuch and was its principal author or reviewer, it justifiably bears his name.

The Book—Lost and Found

The law given through Moses differs from written law possessed by other ancient cultures during the same time period: instead of dealing with possessions only, Israel’s law reflected the value of importance of the people. These important laws, covenants, and commandments came with a built-in warning:

“And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:

“And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. …

“And they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.” (Deut. 6:6-8.)

The purpose of this warning? That they might never be forgotten.

And yet, they were forgotten.

Much of Israel’s story revolves around the people’s failure to remember their beginnings and the message of the Law and to adhere to its recorded covenants—even though the Law had been written and placed in the most sacred of all places, the ark of the covenant. There were a few faithful who remembered: Samuel “let none of [God’s] words fall to the ground.” (1 Sam. 3:19.) But the obedience of the people generally was not nearly so great. Not only did they forget the words of the book, but they also forgot the book itself, which had been transferred to the temple along with the ark of the covenant.

The Babylonian captivity cut the Israelites off even further from the book by cutting them off from their temple and its sacred instruments. When some of them returned many years later, among the foremost happenings associated with their freedom was the reading of the sacred words. Ezra, the scribe, was asked to read to them again that which had become only dim memory. The story is very touching: the people gathered “as one man” to hear; the reading was “from the morning until midday,” and “the ears of all the people were attentive.” They wept, they worshipped, and they rejoiced. (See Neh. 8:1-12.)

So significant was this rereading of the Law that Israel’s faith became known thereafter as “the religion of the Book.”

These stories of books lost then found probably have symbolic significance. Dr. Nibley asserts:

“The idea of the holy book that is taken away from the earth and restored from time to time, or is handed down secretly from father to son for generations, or hidden up in the earth, preserved by ingenious methods of storage with precious imperishable materials to be brought forth in a later and more righteous generation (e.g., Moses 1:41) is becoming increasingly familiar with the discovery and publication of ever more ancient apocryphal works.” 8

In other words, the lost-then-found status of the Israelites’ ancient records is part of a historical pattern and has a close relationship to the righteousness of the generations to which the records are given.

The Completion of the Old Testament Records

Ezra’s reading is believed to have been the first time interpreters were needed to turn the writings into the spoken language of the people: the book was written in Hebrew, but after the captivity the people spoke Aramaic. Some also believed it was Ezra who began a collection of official Hebrew scriptures after the Babylonian captivity and during the time of Nehemiah. (Latter-day Saints know there was at least one such collection—the brass plates—which Lehi took with him prior to the captivity). Evidently Ezra’s work was to begin to gather some of the records of his people. It was an extremely important and demanding task to collect, sort, rewrite, and finally compile many records into one.

The exact procedure by which some of the many Israelite writings became scripture is too uncertain and too complex to cover here, but scholars agree upon three basic steps. The foundation, of course, was the Pentateuch, historically first and always considered the first in importance. Its words were the first to be read in the synagogues. Next to be added, and therefore next in importance, were works and stories of the prophets, including the historical books written by prophets and books considered prophetic.

But it would be a great mistake to think it was easy for the works of all the prophets to win a place in the Hebrew’s hearts as scriptures. One scholar claims, “At first the validity of the teaching of prophets like Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel was recognized only by the faithful disciples who learned from them and transmitted the traditions of what they had said and done.” 9 These writings did not receive wide public acknowledgement until during and after the exile. What caused this change in status? Very simply, these prophets had prophesied of the fall of Jerusalem and of the Babylonian captivity. After the fact, when the people had seen that their words had come to pass, they accepted them in remorse and repentance as true prophets whose words were worthy to be placed among the sacred scriptures.

An example of the rejection the prophets and their writings experienced before the captivity is seen in the life of Jeremiah. In the year before the coming of Babylon, the Lord commanded Jeremiah to write the prophecies he had been speaking. So Jeremiah dictated to his scribe, Baruch, his witness “against Israel, and against Judah.” Because Jeremiah had been forbidden to preach any more at the temple, Baruch took the roll and read it at the temple on a special day when many were assembled. News of the scroll reached King Jehoiakim, who asked for a reading—but not with willing ears. As the words were read, he cut the scroll with a knife and disdainfully cast it into the fire.

Although the king also sought to harm Jeremiah and Baruch, they escaped and were commanded by God to write a second roll containing all the words of the first and more. It is believed that we have obtained our Book of Jeremiah from this writing. (See Jer. 36.)

Behind the writings of all the prophets were similar trials, sufferings, and accusations. Most were rejected, mocked, scorned. Jeremiah was for a time cast into a deep dungeon where he lay in mire and was given only bread to eat.

For the most part, those who forewarned the people of impending captivity and exile did not escape that fate themselves but experienced the same sufferings as their people. But out of that suffering they prophesied and wrote of the days when God’s people would again be released and redeemed.

Just as the prophetic utterances of these prophets were only belatedly recognized, by 200 B.C. the people began to believe that all prophecy had ceased. Consequently, there was little “prophecy” added to the sacred collection. There is now evidence that there continued to be prophets, but most of the people, never comprehending their true needs, believed they had all of the scriptures they needed, and rejected the thought of more.

Last to win a place among the sacred collection were the “Writings,” works such as Psalms, Proverbs, Job, and Esther. Although accepted into the collection, the “writings” never equalled the first two sections in importance in the eyes of Jewish leaders. Of this group, only the Psalms were used in worship, although many of the “Writings” came to be traditionally read at various religious festivals.

The order in which the books appear in our present Old Testament is not the order in which they were written, nor the exact order in which they were accepted as canon. The current arrangement follows that of the Septuagint (which we’ll speak of later), which uses a pattern based on subject matter: Law, History, Poetry, Prophecy. This system is claimed to be educational, since it traces the progress of revelation. First it relates events of the past (Law and History); then the poetic books speak of things pertaining to their own time; finally the books of prophecy, although delivering a contemporary message, are perceived as speaking to the future.

Of course there were many writings that for some reason did not make it at all into the completed canon. We know there were others because the writers of our books refer as resources to the books of Jasher, of Samuel the Seer, of Nathan the prophet, of Jehu, and of the Kings of Israel. The reasons each was excluded are unknown.

Thus, the works and words of Israel’s prophets gradually were shaped into a record. But the birth process was scarcely painless. Jeremiah most poignantly recorded the great burden of being mouthpiece for the Lord. “Oh Lord, … I am in derision daily, every one mocketh me. For since I spake, I cried out, I cried violence and spoil: … the word of the Lord was made a reproach unto me, and a derision, daily. Then I said, I will not make mention of him, nor speak any more in his name. But his word was in mine heart as a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I was weary with forbearing, and I could not stay.” (Jer. 20:7-9.)

End of Part 1. To be continued next month.

Gospel topics: Bible, scriptures

[illustrations] Illustrated by Robert Barrett

By Lenet H. Read

Gifts of Sacrifice and Love

Ancient Methods of Keeping Records

Lenet H. Read, “How the Bible Came to Be: Part 2, The Word Is Preserved,” Ensign, Feb. 1982, 32
There were several ways to record and preserve records anciently—none of them easy. The most common was to use papyrus, made from pith scraped from the papyrus plant, then wetted and pressed together. Scribes could write on both the front and back. (See Ezek. 2:10.) For more space, additional scrolls could be pasted at the bottom, the whole being rolled around rods. Some rolls may have reached as long as thirty-five feet, though such length would obviously become very clumsy and unwieldy.

Clay tablets were also written upon and then baked in the sun or in kilns. More durable than papyrus, clay tablets are more commonly discovered in ancient ruins.

Records were also made upon writing-boards—flat boards of wood or ivory cut out in such a way that an inlay of wax could be written upon. The boards were hinged together to become a folding book. Perhaps this is the kind of record Ezekiel is referring to when he speaks of the sticks of Judah and Ephraim being joined into one stick. (See Ezek. 37:16-17.)

Animal skin (leather) was also used by the Hebrews. And for very significant religious records, metals were used. (Laban’s brass plates are an example.)

While we can mention all these methods quite easily in passing, we do the ancient scribes injustice if we do not at least acknowledge the great hand labor required to prepare these writing materials before even one letter could ever be set down upon them. The process of writing is tedious and immensely challenging even under the best of conditions. To expend all the energies necessary to write in those days with what we would consider inadequate light, awkward writing instruments, difficult writing materials, and uncomfortable surroundings would incur sacrifices which we can only vaguely imagine.

The preservation of records was of great concern to the Hebrews. From the first, scriptures were treated with the utmost care: Moses’ writings were preserved in the ark of the covenant. The scriptures record the names of those who were called to be state scribes, for this was considered an office of very great importance. Senior scribes were even given their own rooms in the palaces and temples. Ancient writings remained only in the hands of priests and were read only by scribes. Each scroll had to be copied directly from another scroll, and until the destruction of the temple, official copies were taken directly from the master copy in the temple. The official scrolls were the most holy objects in the synagogue and were treated in every way like treasures.

New scribes were carefully instructed about the sacredness of their task: “My son, be careful in thy work, for it is heavenly work, lest thou err in omitting or in adding one jot [the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet] and so cause the destruction of the whole world.” 1

Style and Form

The scriptures are far more than just history: they are the word of the Lord. As such, they deserve to be put in the most beautiful setting possible. And, for the most part, they were, even though each writer spoke out of his own time and culture, and in spite of human weaknesses. The record is not merely prose: it is rhythmic prose, and often even poetry. In fact, several of the prophetic books are in part or almost wholly poetic, although we may not recognize this at first since Hebrew poetry differs from English poetry. Rather than using a repetition of sounds for effectiveness, Hebrew poetry achieves its impact through a rhythmic repetition and balance of ideas, either similar or contrasting. This style carries truth to the ear in a more powerful, more pleasing, more memorable way. Imagine, to be prophet and poet both!

But surely poetic gifts did not come readily. We can only imagine the many additional hours, the greater mental fatigue, the greater patience required to work and rework, to write and rewrite the scriptures until the form was rhythmic and the imagery and language poetic.

This quality of the Hebrew scriptures augments another unique quality: history saturated with similitudes and prophecies of Christ, the ultimate Suffering Servant. Some of the Hebrew authors not only wrote about, but also experienced their prophecies. One was asked to offer a son as sacrifice; another struggled through a wilderness as savior to a rebellious and bondaged people. It is only when we realize that their ultimate gift to the word of God was the lives they led that we can fully grasp just how much they really gave for the sake of truth.

The Challenges of Translation

Aramaic is generally thought to have been the general tongue of the Hebrews after their Babylonian captivity. Since it was also the language used in trade and diplomatic relations over a wide area, it became entrenched as the everyday speech of the inhabitants of Judah. Therefore, from the fourth century B.C., the Hebrew scriptures were an enigma for most Jews unless translated for them. Yet at that point, according to Jewish tradition, written translations were forbidden, as if the language and the concepts were inseparable. Oral translations were permitted, but only by official synagogue translators. Even then, the translation had to be done verse by verse in the Torah and at least after every third verse in the “Prophets.” 2

The oral translations, or Targums, were more than just translations. They were interpretation and explanation, sometimes even extending into sermons. The religious leaders found these methods actually useful in overcoming what they felt were easily misunderstood passages. An example used by one scholar of explanatory translation is that given for Exodus 24:10 [Ex. 24:10] which states, “And they saw the God of Israel.” In Aramaic it would be translated and interpreted, “And they saw the glory of the God of Israel.” 3 It is particularly interesting that the passages indicating an anthropomorphic (physical) God were the ones most often explained away. It is not surprising, then, that when One arrived a few centuries later claiming to be the Son of God, his claim was met with hostility: the rejection of a God with a body of flesh and bones had begun long before.

Eventually, written Targums were also allowed, but the translations had to be written between the lines of the Hebrew on the scrolls. Translation into Aramaic became quite extensive: remnants of Targums of almost all the books of the Old Testament have been discovered.

But there was a need for other translations as well. With the conquest of Palestine by Alexander the Great in 333 B.C., there was another dispersion of Jews, this time to Egypt. Again, many who adapted themselves to living in other lands never returned. Now there were two major centers of the Diaspora (scattering): Babylon and Alexandria. Alexander’s conquests had spread the use of Greek throughout a very wide area, and Greek became the language used in commercial and literary enterprises. Most Jews living in lands other than Judah became Greek-speaking.

And so around 250 B.C. a translation was made of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek. How it came about is highly debatable. One ancient account, popular among early Christians but viewed as legend by scholars today, is contained in a narrative called the “Letter of Aristeas.” According to this story, King Ptolemy of Egypt heard of the excellent Jewish records and desired a copy in Greek for his growing library. To obtain them, he sent a group, including Aristeas, to the high priest in Jerusalem, loaded with presents. The Jews agreed to his offer and sent scholars back to Egypt to carry out the translative work. According to the legend, each of these seventy-two elders worked upon the translations separately, but when they compared the results of their progress, their renderings were identical. The work was accomplished within a period of seventy-two days. Because of these elements of seventy—seventy-two elders and seventy-two days—the work came to be known as the Septuagint, Latin for seventy. 4

Modern scholars obviously have doubts about the authenticity of such a legend. Generally, they do agree that the translation probably occurred in Alexandria and that it was probably done by Jewish translators from Jerusalem. Regardless of its exact origins, the Septuagint was well accepted by the Jews of Alexandria, and, as we will see later, became a powerful influence in later years.

The Old Testament during the Time of Christ

What became the record of the Jews, though sparse in parts, had been built step by step from the time of Adam. It had grown to a collection of many sacred writings and had been translated into the changing common languages of the people. But now its very Author, the One from whom it had all originally sprung, appeared upon the scene. The scriptures themselves relate this wondrous happening:

“In the beginning was the Word, … and the Word was God. … And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” (John 1:1, 14.)

He who from the beginning had uttered the words which prophets had written and man had studied and vocalized and repeated—he of whom all the scriptures had borne witness—came among his people. Although they possessed his words, they understood them not, and he rebuked them, saying, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures.” (Matt. 22:29.)

And although they possessed his words, they did them not, and he rebuked them, saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.” (Matt. 23:2-3.)

While in the flesh, he repeated his word in awesome irony: “Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?” (Matt. 21:42.)

And finally, he fulfilled his word before their very eyes and even at their doing. His atonement, crucifixion, and resurrection were the fulfillment of all that the prophets had spoken.

After his resurrection, he showed his disciples how the Old Testament had borne witness of all the events which had just come to pass. On the road to Emmaus those who walked with him exclaimed, “Did not our heart burn within us … while he opened to us the scriptures?” (Luke 24:32.)

And then he departed, and his disciples were left to take the joyful news that the old word—the laws, prophecies, and covenants—had been fulfilled through Christ’s life and death.

The basic scripture of the earliest Christians was the Septuagint, the Hebrew record translated into Greek. But the record was used in a new way—as a witness of Christ. It was in this role that the Septuagint began to play a very important part. When the Christian message began to spread outside the borders of Palestine, the Septuagint became the main instrument of teaching and conversion. Already in the international tongue of Greek, it allowed a rapid spreading of the gospel to many nations. (And interestingly, its name, Septuagint, takes on new meaning: it became a missionary—a seventy—to all the nations.)

Several incidents in the New Testament detail conversions occurring through the use of the Old Testament. One missionary, Apollos, “mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the scriptures [the Old Testament] that Jesus was Christ.” (Acts 18:28.)

The Hebrew records, then, were not abandoned by the first Christians. Rather, they were studied even more diligently, but with new eyes. Unlike the unconverted Jews, who believed these records contained all, Christians (both Jewish and gentile) were taught that they contained but the first step—testaments which would lead to new life through the Savior.

Just as there emerged vast differences in the way Jew and Christian interpreted the ancient writings, so there were some differences in the actual manuscripts they used. There are differences in the wording found in Greek and Hebrew scrolls. The Septuagint’s “a virgin shall conceive” was “a young woman” in the later Masoretic version. Exactly how and at what point such differences emerged is uncertain. 5

In addition, early Christian Apostles made reference to teachings found in writings attributed to Moses and Enoch but which are not found in scriptures possessed by traditional Judaism. Various manuscripts discovered in modern times claim that after his resurrection Christ himself gave his Apostles certain ancient writings the Jews didn’t possess. 6

After the Time of Christ

The fact that the Septuagint was being utilized so extensively by Christ’s followers was greatly disturbing to rabbinic Jews. Disavowing the Septuagint, they prepared translations of the Greek that were more acceptable to them, making references to an anthropomorphic God less obvious. 7

Many events at this time had devastating impact upon the Jews: the rise of Christianity, which, to them, was a major apostasy; Christianity’s misappropriation of their scriptures; the fall of Jerusalem; and the second destruction of the temple. These events caused them to reexamine the status of their records. Since the temple, their central place of worship, had again been destroyed, they became even more “the religion of the book,” for the book was the only religious thing of a physical nature left to them. 8

Sometime during the first century the Jews made a final determination of what constituted authoritative Jewish scriptures. There is evidence that the Council of Jamnia in A.D. 90 may have been the culmination of this effort, for the council debated the authority of certain books and established a fixed canon of Judaic writings. 9 Among books not included were some accepted by the Christians. Apocalyptic writings, in particular, were the ones most consistently discriminated against and have survived (except for Daniel and parts of Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Zechariah) only in non-canonical works. 10

To ensure thereafter that the canon would be preserved uniformally, all future Hebrew manuscripts were made to conform to a certain pattern, and variant texts were destroyed or suppressed. 11

Much of the work of preserving the Hebrew scriptures through the centuries after Christ was accomplished by the Masoretes, traditional Jewish scholars who worked in Palestine and Babylon between the sixth and tenth centuries A.D. The Hebrew manuscript with which they dealt was a solid mass of consonants: there were no written vowels, no word separations, no punctuations. The tedious work of transcribing and the lack of space had led Hebrew scribes to utilize this shorthand system. Regarding the text as sacred, the Masoretes were reluctant to insert vowels, but they developed a system of using dots and dashes which stood for certain vowels. In essence, they were filling out the words without changing the consonantal text. 12

The copying methods of the Masoretes were strictly prescribed by Talmudic law. Among the rules were the following: (1) A synagogue roll had to be written on skins of clean animals prepared specifically by a synagogue Jew. (2) Only authentic copies were to be recopied, and scribes were not to deviate in the least. (3) Nothing must be written from memory. 13

For years, scholars searching for original copies of our scriptures were unable to find any Old Testament copies in Hebrew older than the ninth century A.D. Part of the reason for this is that as new copies were made, the old were burned or buried. 14 Though parts of some manuscripts eventually turned up, the real breakthrough came in the 1940s when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. Among the scrolls were one of Isaiah and portions of other Old Testament books. Although they agree generally with later copies, there are also important points of divergence, enough to arouse some belief that variant pristine texts once existed. 15

Although the Old Testament has been canonized and theoretically completed, scholars today still search for its sources and for its original texts.

Regardless of its failings, the Old Testament as preserved by the Jews deserves high tribute. It is praised by scholars of many faiths. Some point out that unlike the tales of other Near Eastern cultures, archaeological evidence shows that Israel’s story is true history and deserves praise for its respect for fact—particularly since respect for fact did not generally prevail during the time of its writing. Others point out that while neighboring cultures had records of beliefs and ways of life, these beliefs died and are known now only because of excavations centuries later.

But the Jewish history and record of beliefs, far from dying and being buried, “has provided a continuing tradition and a source of constant study; people have read it, re-examined it and lived by it.” 16

Thus, from the beginning, the word went forth from God. Men received it and sought to hold on to it. Though some was lost, much was saved. Our eighth article of faith recognizes this fact, and yet it affirms the record’s divine origin, and that it must be read with an ear tuned to the voice of the Spirit. Although we look forward to the time when the records will be whole, that which we now have is reverenced and appreciated.

It is a good foundation upon which many things have been and will yet be built.

End of Part 2. To be continued. Gospel topics: Bible, scriptures

[illustration] Scribes took their work very seriously and were carefully instructed about the sacredness of their task. (Illustrated by Robert Barrett.)

[illustration] Illustrated by Gustave Dore

[illustration] Illustrated by Robert Barrett

By Lenet H. Read

Gifts of Sacrifice and Love

Lenet H. Read, “How the Bible Came to Be: Part 3, A New Word Is Added to the Old,” Ensign, Mar. 1982, 15
Because of the Jews, the Christian era from its beginning possessed a body of scriptures as a unique heritage. But unlike orthodox Jews, who believed the collection to be a completed scripture, Christ’s disciples knew there was now a richer portion. They didn’t abandon the Old Word, for new understanding had made it more precious than ever. But they now had the teachings of the Savior as remembered by the Gospel writers and later augmented by the writings of his Apostles and other early church leaders.

For Bible scholars, there is major uncertainty in our day about what constituted the “New Word” for the early Christians. How accurate, how complete is our modern-day version of it?

The truth is, the records we have—though accepted as scripture and priceless in what they give us—are not totally satisfactory as a complete record. While the four testimonies that bear witness of Christ’s life do so with much power, there are many details of his life that are missing. In Mark’s story, for example, only thirty-one days are accounted for. Furthermore, it has been pointed out that all of the sayings attributed directly to Jesus in the New Testament can be read in just one-half hour. When one considers the numerous occasions on which he taught, and external evidences of the length of his sermons, it becomes obvious that we have only a very small portion of his teachings.

But perhaps the most conspicuous gap in the New Testament accounts is the period after the Lord’s resurrection. We know that at that time he spent forty days with his Apostles—forty days in which his word was expanded upon. How vital these teachings and instructions must have been! Yet they are almost totally missing from our current New Testament.

In spite of these challenges, the New Testament text is still priceless among the written works preserved for mankind. Although not always accurate as translated (see A of F 1:8), this record alone, among the records we have, has the honor of detailing the mortal life and mission of Jesus Christ.

Interestingly, there is a growing body of evidence that the New Testament began as a record of the sayings of Jesus. This, of course, would come as no great surprise to Latter-day Saints, for in the Book of Mormon, the Lord personally instructed the Nephites more than once to “write these sayings after I am gone.” (3 Ne. 16:4; also 3 Ne. 23:4.) Many scholars think that the writers of the first three Gospels in some way used such a record, or at least part of it, as a source for their accounts of Christ’s life.

One scholar, for example, shows that some passages of the first three Gospels dealing with direct quotations are so similar that they present strong evidence of dependence upon the same written source. 1 Furthermore, the similarities exist in such “minute and parenthetical identities of language” that these and other considerations make strong the contention that some written document of Christ’s sayings must have been used. 2

Substantiating evidence comes from a second century bishop, Papias, who claimed it was Matthew who composed this “Logia” (Christ’s oral utterances) in the Hebrew, and that subsequent writers of Gospels translated their work from it. 3 It is more than interesting that some of the most important recent textual discoveries are writings which claim to be “sayings” of the Savior. Particularly exciting are discoveries of teachings claiming to come from the Lord during that forty-day period after his resurrection—an indication that his teachings may have been recorded then but are yet to be found in their fulness and purity. 4

But though there may once have existed a separate record containing the sayings of Jesus, the fact remains that we do not have it. What we do have are four Gospels, or testimonies, each a witness of some of the sayings and events that are associated with Christ.

We know only a little about the stories behind the writing of these Gospels. But we do know enough to know that they derived their authority from the Twelve Apostles. Matthew and John were, of course, among the original Twelve Apostles. (See Luke 6:14-15.) Mark, who was so close to Peter that Peter called him his “son” in the faith (1 Pet. 5:13), may have made his record under Peter’s guidance and authority. 5 The Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were both written by Luke, a close companion of Paul (Acts 16:10; Acts 20:6; 2 Tim. 4:11), and therefore bear Paul’s influence. But the authority behind Luke’s account is also derived from Luke’s claim to be a messenger of the Savior and to have sought original sources—the witness of the original Apostles themselves and other eye-witnesses. (See JST, Luke 1:1-4.) The first and best texts of the New Testament, then, like those of the Old, came from the prophets, either by their own hands or by the hands of very close assistants.

But while we must offer high praise to the writers of the four Gospels, who labored greatly in a period of severe persecution to preserve for us these precious accounts, we must also recognize the greater gift behind them—from the Savior himself. His gift, his incredible life, was the “raw material” to which they gave written shape. He was the Word. He was the Old Word being fulfilled, and he was the New Word being lived. This “greatest story ever told” did not spring out of someone’s imagination; rather, its impact and power are inescapably bound to its reality—and more so because it was deliberately lived, even to its utmost bitterness in Gethsemane and on Golgotha.

There are some special values in having four different accounts of Christ’s life. While there are some dissimilarities in them (and numerous theories as to why these dissimilarities exist), we must remember that there is much more unity than disunity. And as A. R. Faussett has pointed out, “Reconcilable diversity is a confirmation of truth, because it disproves collusion, and shews the witnesses to be independent. Sameness in all four gospels would make all but the first mere copies.” 6

The fact is, each gospel contributes its own unique insights and emphasis. Matthew’s special emphasis was on Christ’s teachings, and he also showed special sensitivity to the Lord’s fulfillment of specific Old Testament prophecy. Mark’s emphasis was upon the acts of Christ, as he portrayed the Savior with energy and power. Luke’s emphasis was on the universal nature of Christ’s mission; his account is also the only source for many stories about Christ and teaching he gave that we would otherwise miss. John’s special emphasis was on the divinity of Christ, reminding us always of his true origins. It was John who, by being sensitive to the symbolic meanings of the Savior’s teachings, recorded for us Christ’s teachings that He was the Lamb who would be slain for us, the Bread from Heaven who would nourish us, the Light which would enlighten us, the Vine from which we could draw strength and through which we might bear fruit.

Thus each separate writer of the Gospels adds his gift of enrichment and helps us see the Messiah from many different perspectives.

As we know, after the Gospels and Luke’s account of the Acts of the Apostles, much of the New Testament consists of letters. Having so much of the New Testament in letter form has proved both a strength and a problem for Christianity. The strengths are pointed out by Richard L. Anderson, who shows that beyond their value for spiritual uplift, the letters help verify the accuracy of the history and doctrine expressed in the Gospels. 7

On the other hand, in much of the Christian world the letters have been made to assume a role for which it appears they were never fully intended. The Gospels as we have them focus primarily on the life of Christ, on those teachings that bear witness that he was and is the Christ, and on his teachings about how man ought to live. They do not contain a complete presentation of the full range of gospel doctrines and principles. Generally, therefore, Christian sects have obtained many of their doctrines from the epistles. But the epistles themselves, though they contain doctrine, do so in patches and pieces. Most of them were written in response to specific needs and questions arising in specific geographical areas of the early Church.

Furthermore, they often contained many items of unequal weight and importance, making it difficult at times to determine which passages are statements of doctrine and which are counsel on temporary, immediate problems the Saints faced. The biggest problem is that in the process of answering specific questions, a great deal of information necessary for full understanding was left out, apparently because those to whom the letters were directed were already familiar with the basic principles involved. Thus, many things were only alluded to, such as baptism for the dead and the roles of the various priesthood leaders. It is this “partial explanation only” that has caused confusion for later readers. In fact, it could be argued that this unfortunate lack of clarity of doctrine in what remained as part of the canonized scripture is partially responsible for many of the later divisions of belief among Christian sects.

But though we grieve for that which was lost, we can still rejoice in that which we have in the New Testament record. Even fragments of the Gospels are precious. They are precious for what they contain—and for how we receive them. Almost always, behind every piece of sacred literature, there is a fascinating story. And with the knowledge that revelation never comes easily, the stories behind the formation of scripture surely would prove to be very fascinating.

Unfortunately, in most cases we know little of the specific influences which pressed upon each New Testament writer and brought from his pen God’s word. But we know that the things Christ prophesied to them would come to the minds of his servants. We know that on the eve of his death he warned that they would be hated, they would be persecuted, they would be cast out of their own synagogues, and they would be slain. And they would suffer these things for the witness they would bear.

Because we possess a more prolific and personal set of writings from Paul, we can learn through his experiences a little of what all must have endured. Paul’s insights and writings were spawned by experience. He could write, then, of the miracle of Christ’s grace because he had personally experienced it. He had set himself upon a course of crushing the seeds of Christianity, and afterward bore a keen awareness that only the direct intervention of the Lord had prevented his pursuit of that disastrous course. The weight of that indebtedness was one reason he accepted so readily his appointed missions to unknown lands and people, everywhere preaching and writing of the salvation which comes through Christ.

But the strengths of Paul’s writings come from other influences as well. As the book of Acts and most of his letters indicate, in his labors he experienced stonings, scourgings, mockings, illness, and accusations. He faced death many times, and his escapes were narrow. His traveling for the Word was constant. He was shipwrecked. He knew loneliness. Like Christ, he was deserted by friends. He was accused, chained, imprisoned with imprisonments as long as two years. He was tried again and again, finally condemned, and at last martyred.

Out of all these experiences, came his letters. He wrote when he suffered “trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds” (2 Tim. 2:9); nevertheless he could rise up and say, “But I determined this with myself, that I would not come again to you in heaviness” (2 Cor. 2:1). And he wrote, “We were pressed out of measure, above strength, insomuch that we despaired even of life.” (2 Cor. 1:8.) And finally he wrote, “For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.” (2 Tim. 4:6.)

While in prison, he pleaded for his scriptures: “The cloke that I left … when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.” (2 Tim. 4:13.)

He loved the scriptures, and in his loving, wrote scripture: “And … from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

“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.” (2 Tim. 3:15-17.)

As Paul spoke of the writings he so greatly loved, so in time have his writings come to be greatly loved, as are the writings of all his companions who bore witness through the pen of their faith in Jesus Christ. Though we know more of Paul’s trials, he surely spoke for all who used the pen to spread the gospel when he said, “For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote unto you with many tears.” (2 Cor. 2:4.)

The book of Revelation, written by John, was also written in sorrow—from the lonely circumstance of exile: “I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation … was in the isle that is called Patmos.” (Rev. 1:9.) But perhaps even more powerful than the physical separation and loneliness John felt as he wrote was the spiritual isolation he suffered. We can sense it as we read his words, for John did not write in a time of success, but of gloom. The young, struggling gospel kingdom was beset upon from all sides. The Saints were hunted, persecuted, slain. But more distressingly, the Church was being ravished from within by false teachings. Undoubtedly the loneliness and sorrows John felt as he beheld the struggles of the beleaguered Church contributed strongly to the passion in his words as he wrote what he saw. Then, trying to communicate the scenes viewed in revelation, John wrote of the trials and glories of the earth’s future in powerful and starkly beautiful terms.

Although the Revelation is placed at the end of our collection of New Testament scriptures, it was not the last book written. The last written, however, was by John, the distinction of finality for that dispensation going to his epistles. 8

As the testaments of those ancient prophets who bore witness of Christ’s eventual coming had ceased, eventually to be compiled into a book, so the testaments of those who knew Christ in the flesh also ceased, to be later compiled into a scriptural record. Another dispensation had ended. For a time the heavens were shut up, to await another day when the love of God for his needy children would again fling them open.

End of Part 3. To be continued.

Gospel topics: Bible, scriptures [illustration] St. Matthew, by Guido Reni [illustration] Church Receiving Letters, by Arthur Becher

By Lenet H. Read

Gifts of Sacrifice and Love

Early Christian Usage of the Scriptures

Lenet H. Read, “How the Bible Came to Be: Part 4, The Canon Becomes an Unread Relic,” Ensign, Apr. 1982, 43
It should be obvious that all the writings which now make up the New Testament did not jump from men’s pens into leather-bound books. As with the Old Testament, the process was slow and piecemeal. Each part was written separately, and those who were fortunate enough to privately possess any scriptures probably, like Paul, would have had separate parchments or scrolls.

Precisely what was accepted as authoritative scriptures by the early Christians A.D. is uncertain. Just as the early Christians A.D. accepted as authoritative far more Hebrew records than appear in our current Old Testament, so these church members drew upon a body of Christian literature far more extensive than that contained in our current New Testament. 1 The processes by which these manuscripts were sifted, with only some receiving recognition as “canon,” occurred at a much later date. 2

Furthermore, the scriptures they did have were made good use of. Just as the Christians inherited their scriptures from the Jews, so also did they inherit their methods of study and learning from the Jews. As in the synagogue, so in the early Christian meetings was the reading of scriptures a primary part of learning and of worship. In both places, the scriptures held a chief place of honor. To hear them read was a major purpose for attending services. 3 The fact that many members were not literate and could not read them for themselves, and the fact that copies of the scriptures were not readily available to all the members, contributed to this need for central reading. 4

By the end of the second century A.D., most Christians accepted a list of certain books as authoritative, called them the New Testament, and read them in services along with the Septuagint (the Old Testament translated into Greek). Furthermore, they began to appear in codex form (book-like collections of manuscript sheets) rather than on papyrus rolls. 5

But study and reading also went on in private, where possible. In fact, scripture reading was a central part of a devoted Christian’s life. The literate read to the illiterate in the privacy of their homes. Sometimes slaves read to illiterate masters. And some members attributed their conversions to the gospel to such scripture readings. 6

There is also little doubt that as time passed, the scriptures themselves produced incentive for illiterate Christians to become literate. Indeed, as in Jewish families, scripture study was the basis of a family’s education, with study begun when children were yet small. From the earliest time, scripture study had been encouraged by church leaders. Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 120 to 220) wrote, “Let a man take refuge in the Church. Let him be educated in her bosom and be nourished from the Holy Scriptures. … Eat ye from every Scripture of the Lord.” 7

The scriptures were memorized as well. Eusebius spoke of a blind man who “possessed whole books of the Holy Scriptures not on tables of stone, … nor on skins of beasts or on papyrus … but … in his heart, so that, as from a rich literary treasure, he could, ever as he wished, repeat now passages from the Law and the Prophets, now from the historical books, now from the Gospels and the Apostolic epistles.” 8

Just as Christians from the outset had recognized that the scriptures were germane to the spiritual well-being of the Church, so also did their enemies. As opponents saw the rapid-fire spread of this new religion, they realized that its books were a key to its destruction. Therefore, as they persecuted and slew the leaders, they also sought to destroy their scriptures. 9

Thus, intermittent waves of persecution, with their accompanying destruction of books, continued through the third century after Christ. 10

During this time, many scriptures were sought out for destruction, particularly the community caches in the churches. For protection, the churches appointed certain individuals as custodians of their scriptural treasures. Betrayal of this responsibility was regarded as a serious transgression, with excommunication its result. While there were those who were unfaithful to their charge and under pressure betrayed their trust, so were there the faithful. Some caches of the scriptures were even buried during periods of danger, so that they might be preserved. 11

But those eternal forces which seek to thwart the Lord’s work, when hedged up in one way, always seek other avenues of destruction. Thus, while at least some of the scriptures survived the onslaughts of persecution and burning, they suffered at the hands of another threat—a change in interpretation.

It is generally conceded that Christ, his Apostles, and the earliest Christian fathers interpreted the Old Testament as continual prophecy of the coming and mission of the Messiah. 12 One scholar admits, begrudgingly, that “the writings of early church fathers … differ little from that of New Testament authors, in that the Old Testament was regarded as a prediction of the New Testament and Christ as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy.” 13 This writer goes on to explain that the early church fathers saw the Old Testament as “Christian literature,” as “parabolic throughout,” truly understood only by Christians because “everything in the Old Testament was a prototype of Christ.” 14 Among the writers who used this method of interpretation were Clement of Rome (A.D. 100), Justin Martyr (ca. A.D. 155), and Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 200). 15

Nevertheless, as time passed there were changes in the methods of interpretation. One individual who exerted a great influence in changing the interpretation of scripture was the Christian scholar Origen (A.D. 185-254). While Christ and his Apostles had opened the eyes of the Christians to the concept that Old Testament events were “types” or foreshadowings of Him, they never placed in question the basic realities of these events. But Origen, heavily influenced by Greek thought, came to feel that many Old Testament events were totally figurative, that there was no reality behind them. Moreover, he vastly broadened the scope of symbolic interpretation. Rather than seeing Old Testament events as types which taught specifically of Christ, he falsely saw them as more generalized “allegories” with a wide-ranging potential for interpretation. Tragically, this made it easy to read almost anything one wished into the scriptures. 16

Furthermore, he, like many during his time, rejected the anthropomorphisms in the Bible, asserting that any belief that Moses really saw God must “fall into the absurdity of asserting that God is corporeal.” 17 He interpreted scriptural references to immortality as meaning a “spiritual continuity” rather than a “resurrection of the physical body.” 18

However, in addition to these strong and misdirected changes in methods of interpretation, Origen exerted some sound influences upon scriptural studies. He saw a necessity to seek for truly accurate original texts. Beginning a work which took him more than twenty years, called the Hexapla because of its six parts, he made comparisons of the Hebrew, Septuagint, and other Old Testament translations. However, after his death, careless scribes did not include many symbols which kept his procedure clear, and the undertaking, mammoth as it was, in the long run caused as much confusion as clarification. 19

It is fundamental to know that Origen’s broadened method of interpretation and his research are generally praised by most scholars of today. They see his new interpretations as having a “lasting, liberating influence” upon biblical studies. 20 Sadly, these scholars have often tended to ignore the basic realities of the events. Thus, Origen’s attempt to locate original sources was a step forward in scriptural studies, but in general his work produced a great step backward. The change of interpretation had the unfortunate result of encouraging a wide-ranging allegorical interpretation that eventually was used to discourage lay Bible reading. Consequently, in Origen’s time grew the erroneous idea that only the learned could understand the scriptures. And eventually, because “allegory” came to be the major way to interpret the scriptures, church leaders felt that only they could understand them. 21 We will discover later how tragic was the movement in this direction.

By the fourth century A.D., many changes had occurred. On the one hand, outward appearances might indicate that the scriptures had triumphed. Under the influence of Constantine, the religious traditions of so-called Christianity and its holy scriptures seemed to prosper. In A.D. 332, the emperor Constantine ordered fifty sets of scripture made on vellum (animal skin), asking that they be “easy to read and conveniently portable” and stated as their purpose: “for the instruction of the church.” 22

But there are also clues that these open displays of success were deceiving, and that many things were amiss. For one thing, education in general had declined in the third century, and Bible study had dwindled because church members found it boring. It wasn’t that collections of scriptural writings weren’t being made or sold; in fact, merchandising of scripture increased, and they even became popular sellers. But the purposes of possession had changed. The wealthy sought very fine and elegant copies—not to be read, but for display. In fact, some church leaders found it necessary to reprove the rich for not reading their expensive copies and to remind them that in comparison many of the poor showed more faithfulness by sharing and reading the few scriptures they’d been able to copy for themselves by hand. 23

But in addition, for growing numbers of Christians the biblical records began to take on an aura of abnormal sanctity, becoming an object of superstition and even being used as a magic charm. The “lazy-minded found it easier to revere its pages than to try to understand them.” 24

The political upheavals of the fifth century, such as the invasions by the Goths and Vandals, also apparently contributed to declining scriptural usage. One fifth-century theologian in Antioch commented on the situation in his time: “Of other scriptures, most men know nothing. But the Psalms are repeated … by those who know them by heart, and feel the soothing power of their divine melodies.” 25

For most persons, the Psalms alone became the scriptures.

It was by the fourth century that what precisely was “official scripture” was finally decided. Athanasius (A.D. 293-373), the bishop of Alexandria, publicly listed as authoritative scripture the same twenty-seven books we have in our present New Testament. Some books whose authority scholars like Origen had questioned were included on this list—among them the books of James, Hebrews, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John. Other books that had been held dear by some early Christians were not on the list, including the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, 1 Clement, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the Shepherd of Hermas. 26

The list which Athanasius drew up was also accepted as canonical (though not without debate), by the majority of those church leaders present at the councils of Laodicea (A.D. 363), Hippo (A.D. 393), and Carthage (A.D. 397). The latter council, after much disagreement on certain books, did ratify as New Testament canon these same twenty-seven books and decreed that none besides these should be read in the churches as divine scripture. 27

It should be pointed out that the questions of canonicity taken up in these councils (in particular the councils at Hippo and Carthage) pertained to Old Testament scriptures as well as New. Some scriptures of the Old Testament period which were not in the Hebrew Bible but were in the Greek Septuagint were accepted as canon by these councils, although there had also been prior disagreements about their respective worth. These became the Apocrypha, which were reaffirmed by Catholicism at the Council of Trent in 1546 and are still today a part of the Catholic scriptural body. 28

But in addition to these writings which were passed on as the Apocrypha, there were others that were not passed on. In particular, apocalyptic or prophetic writings were those most often cast aside—such works as the book of Enoch, for example. Dr. Hugh Nibley points out the irony that these writings, which had been rejected as canon by Pharisaic Judaism but accepted as precious by the first Christians, were in time also rejected by later Christians. 29

Jerome and the Vulgate

Obviously, any message that is to be taken to the whole world must go forth in the languages of the world. As we recall, the first set of scriptures taken abroad was the Greek Septuagint, and when the New Testament scriptures began to multiply, for the most part they were also in the Greek language. But at length the need arose to take the scriptures into Latin-speaking areas, such as northern Africa; therefore, Latin translations were made. However, these translations were not closely controlled, and before long, church leaders became concerned about the many corruptions and variances in the separate texts.

To meet this problem, Pope Damasus in A.D. 384 commissioned his secretary, Jerome, a very able scholar in Greek and Latin, to produce an acceptable version.

Jerome was extremely reluctant to undertake such a task, correctly anticipating that such a work would stir up bitter opposition. But because it was the pope who asked, he also hesitated to say no. In a response to this request, he expressed his inner turmoil:

“You have urged me to make a new work out of an old, and to sit in judgment, as it were, on the copies of the scriptures which are now scattered throughout the whole world; and, inasmuch as they differ from one another, you would have me decide which of them agree with the Greek original. This is a labor of piety, but at the same time one of dangerous presumption; for in judging others, I will myself be judged by all; and how dare I change the language of the world’s old age and carry it back to the days of its childhood? Who is there, whether learned or unlearned, who, when he takes up the volume in his hands and discovers that what he reads therein does not agree with what he is accustomed to, will not break out at once in a loud voice and call me a sacrilegious forger, for daring to add something to the ancient books, to make changes and corrections in them?

“On the other hand, there are two considerations which console me: in the first place, the order comes from you, who are the supreme pontiff; secondly, even those who speak against us have to admit that divergent readings cannot [all] be right. For if we are to pin our faith to the Latin copies, our opponents must tell us which; for there are almost as many forms of texts as there are copies. If, on the other hand, we are to search out the truth by a comparison of many, why not go back to the original Greek and correct the mistakes introduced either by inaccurate translators or by the blundering emendations of self-confident but ignorant critics, or the additions and changes made by copyists who were only half-awake?” 30

And so Jerome accepted the challenge. His initial work was on the Psalms and the New Testament. As he himself said in his work, he “restrained his pen,” correcting only passages that seemed to change the meaning from their original intent and leaving the rest as they were.

The opposition that Jerome expected did arise, and indeed pursued him most of his life. Unfortunately his protector, the pope, died the year the project began, but Jerome continued the work anyway.

After his work on the New Testament was completed (a labor of five years), Jerome journeyed to Bethlehem with the intent of revising the Old Testament as well. He settled and lived there the rest of his life. One of his purposes in going to Bethlehem was to learn as much about Hebrew as he possibly could to aid him in his translation. Because of the great antipathy between Jew and Christian at that time, there was resentment from both sides toward this purpose. There were elements among the Jews who felt that any assistance toward a Christian (and gentile) Bible was traitorous, and there were already some restrictions against Jews teaching Christians. Consequently, one of those who taught him Hebrew dared not be seen with him by day and visited him only in the dark of night. 31

With the help of such Jews, Jerome continued to perfect his Hebrew and to learn Aramaic and study Jewish traditions and scriptural interpretations—all those things which he felt might be helpful in producing the most correct Latin versions of the Old Testament. His work on the Old Testament was completed by A.D. 405. It was a forceful translation which relied upon his understanding of the meaning or sense of the original rather than upon the literal word-by-word translation.

From the Christian side, he was attacked very fiercely by those who felt he betrayed Christianity by seeking knowledge from the Jews and by going to the Hebrew Old Testament text for help rather than relying solely on the Greek Septuagint, which they considered of higher spiritual value. But Jerome argued (by letter and book) that Christianity’s ignorance of Hebrew was an impediment to their understanding, bred prejudice, and was even dangerous as far as establishing correct theology. His advocacy of Hebrew studies to other Christians, however, was very unsuccessful. He wrote of the fierceness of the attacks against himself, “I beg you to confront with the shields of your prayers the mad dogs who bark and rage against me and go about the city and in this think themselves learned if they disparage others.” 32

Jerome saw the value of his work in these terms, making reference to the ancient Israelite wilderness tabernacle which was made both with fine and expensive materials as well as with common ones:

“I beg you, my reader, not to suppose that my labors are in any sense intended to disparage the ancient translators. For in the service of the tabernacle of God each one offers what he can: some gold and silver and precious stones, others linen and blue and scarlet; we shall do well if we offer skins and goat’s hair. And yet the Apostle [Paul] pronounces our more contemptible parts the more necessary. Accordingly, the beauty of the whole tabernacle and of its various parts … was covered with skins and goats’ hair cloths, and so the heat of the sun and the injuriou