EVIDENCE FROM VERSIONS.

It is self-evident that every book must be as old as any translation of it into another language, and that so far back as we can find a translation of the New Testament books, we trace their existence by this fact to the same date. Moreover, a book is seldom translated until it has acquired such a reputation in its original tongue as to create a demand for it in some other country where a different tongue is spoken. The period necessary for this was comparatively long in ancient times, when literary intercourse between nations of different languages was not so free as in this age of travel, of newspapers and of printed books. The New Testament books, therefore, must have been in existence for a considerable period previous to the earliest translation of them. As we have already traced their existence by evidence indisputable into the second century, we need not start with this new evidence at a later period, but we shall begin with it where the other terminated.

We have already given evidence in Part First,1 that in the last quarter of the second century two versions were made into the two dialects of the Coptic language, the dialects of Lower and of Upper Egypt, and that both of these versions contained the whole of our present New Testament. This shows that all of these books had existed long enough in the original Greek to become known throughout the land of Egypt, and that they had such a reputation as created a demand for their translation into the native tongues of that country. It should be remembered, too, that Greek was the prevailing language in Alexandria, the literary and political center of the country, and that consequently the demand for a vernacular version in Egypt was not so prompt as it otherwise might have been. When made, the version contained the same books which were used, as we have seen, by the two famous Greek teachers at Alexandria, Clement and Origen, who continued their labors after these versions had gone into use. Is it credible that these books were of recent origin, and that the scholars and churches of Egypt were deceived in thinking that they had been in use from the days of the Apostles?

The Peshito Syriac version carries the evidence to a still earlier date. It was made, as we have seen in Part First, about the middle of the second century, and it contained all the books of the New Testament but five, viz.: II. Peter, II. and III. John, Jude and Revelation.2 It was made for the people of Syria, of which Antioch was the principal city. Its existence implies the Conversion to Christ of so many persons in that country who could read only the Syriac tongue, that a translation of their sacred books was demanded. The fact that the Greek language was prevalent in Syria among the educated classes, would naturally retard the rise of such a demand, yet it existed and was supplied within fifty years of the death of the last apostle. Among the persons for whose use the version was made were many whose fathers, or whose aged friends, had been baptized by Apostles and their fellow-laborers. They believed these books to have been written by those men, and to have been handed down to themselves by their own fathers. It must be conceded that they could not have thus believed if the books were recent forgeries which their fathers had never seen. It seems scarcely possible to doubt that this evidence alone traces the books contained in this version to the apostolic age.

Almost simultaneously with the Peshito Syriac in Syria appeared the Old Latin Version in Africa. By some scholars its date is fixed a little earlier; by others a little later; but the very latest date that can be assigned it is the year 170.3 It was not made in Italy, as one would naturally suppose, but in the Roman province of Africa, of which Carthage was the principal city, and where Latin was the prevalent language. The church in Rome itself continued thus far to use Greek literature.4 As Greek was but little known in Africa, a translation of the Greek scriptures became indispensable as soon as the disciples became numerous. This accounts for the fact that although Africa was among the latest of the Roman provinces to be evangelized,5 it was among the first to possess a translation of the Christian scriptures. The publication of this translation so soon after the conversion of the people, makes it probable that they received the translation from the same persons who brought them the gospel. But these persons lived at a period early enough to know what books had come from the apostolic age, and books of recent origin could not have been palmed off on them as apostolic. The version included all of our present New Testament books except Hebrews, James and II. Peter. But Hebrews and James were both in the Peshito Syriac, and all the books absent from that except II. Peter were present in this. Consequently we find the existence of every book of the New Testament except II. Peter attested by translations as early as the middle of the second century. They were translated because they were the authoritative books of the churches, and they were authoritative because the churches believed them to have come from apostolic hands. Is it possible that these churches could have been totally mistaken about such facts when the interval had been so short?

When we remember that the gospel was preached and the churches were established before the close of the second century in all the nations of the Roman empire, we are led to inquire why so few translations of the Christian scriptures were then made. But the small number should excite no surprise. In the first place, the Greek language was the universal language of literature, known and read by educated persons throughout the world except in Africa. In the second place, most of the nations not closely connected with Greece or with Rome were as yet without an alphabet. Even in Egypt the Christian translators were compelled, as we have stated, to enlarge and otherwise change the native alphabet, and in Armenia as well as among the Goths, an alphabet had to be invented.6 Moreover, in all countries the masses of the people were unable to read, and were dependent for knowledge of books on the public and private readings of their teachers. The latter could translate as they read, and thus the demand for written translations was delayed. This universal spread of the Greek language, which had resulted from the conquests of Alexander and the dominion of his successors, served three important purposes of divine providence: it facilitated thepreaching of the gospel and the intercourse of remote Christian communities with one another; it obviated for some generations the necessity of translating the scripture into the vernacular tongues; and it led to the composition of the New Testament Scriptures in the language best adapted of all that had been spoken among men to the expression of the nicer distinctions in religious thought.

1 See p. 35.

2 See p. 34.

3 See p. 35, where the evidences are given.

4 "At first it seemed natural to look to Italy as the center of the Latin literature of Christianity, and the original source of that Latin version of the Holy Scriptures which, in a later form, has become identified with the Church of Rome. Yet however plausible such a belief may be, it finds no support in history. Rome itself, under the Emperors, is well described as a Greek city, and Greek was its second language. As far as we can learn, the mass of the poorer population--to which the great bulk of the early Christians belonged--was Greek either in descent or in speech. Among the names of the fifteen bishops of Rome, up to the close of the second century, four only are Latin, though in the next century the proportion is nearly reversed. When St. Paul wrote to the Roman Church, he wrote in Greek, and in the long list of salutations to its members, with which the epistle is concluded, only four genuine Latin names occur. Shortly afterward Clement wrote to the Corinthian Church, in Greek, in the name of the Church of Rome: and, at a later period, we find the Bishop of Corinth writing in Greek to Soter, the ninth in succession from Clement. . . . The apologies to the Roman emperors were in Greek. . . . The first sermons that were preached at Rome were in Greek. . . . Meanwhile, however, though Greek continued to be the natural, if not the sole language of the Roman Church, the seeds of Latin Christianity were rapidly developing in Africa. . . . Carthage, the second Rome,escaped the Grecism of the first. In Africa Greek was no longer a current dialect." Westcott, Canon of New Testament, 244-247.  

5 " Nothing is known in detail of the origin of the African churches. The Donatists classed them among 'those last which shall be first'; and Augustine in his reply merely affirms that 'some barbarian nations embraced Christianity after Africa, so that it is certain that Africa was not the last to believe.' The concession implies that Africa was late in being evangelized. Tertullian adds that it received the gospel from Rome." Westcott, Canon of New Testament, 246.

6 See page 37.